External Hard Drives

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 14:33:44 +0100, "James"
wrote:

Hi,

I'm looking for an external hard drive for my laptop, which doesn't have
USB
2, anyone have any suggestions about models and where to buy etc? I'm in
the UK.

Thanks!


Does the laptop have firewire (1394)?
That is the preferred interface, it is faster than USB2 in use.

Can you cite a reference for that assertion?

If you also needed another USB2 port, then USB might be a good
compromise solution, but if the only real need is the external
drive, get a firewire card and enclosure... keeping in mind that
you'd also need firewire on a desktop (if drive is to be moved
around), which some have but others don't.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:01:46 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:


Does the laptop have firewire (1394)?
That is the preferred interface, it is faster than USB2 in use.

Can you cite a reference for that assertion?

Sorry but I didn't collect links. You can find benchmarks the
same way I did, Google search.


USB2 isn't a lot slower in some cases, perhaps even faster in a
few, but overall it is slower than the better USB2 chipsets, let
alone the poor ones like Via's first attempt.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:01:46 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:


Does the laptop have firewire (1394)?
That is the preferred interface, it is faster than USB2 in use.

Can you cite a reference for that assertion?

Sorry but I didn't collect links. You can find benchmarks the
same way I did, Google search.


USB2 isn't a lot slower in some cases, perhaps even faster in a
few, but overall it is slower than the better USB2 chipsets, let
alone the poor ones like Via's first attempt.

That sounds like an overall nothing. Recent USB2 just just as well as
Firewire performance wise.

In article ,
Ron Reaugh wrote:
Does the laptop have firewire (1394)?
That is the preferred interface, it is faster than USB2 in use.

Can you cite a reference for that assertion?

I don't know about the OP, but I've found that USB2 seems a bit shonky
when compared to FW. Occasional hangs in apps, that sort of thing. Possibly
it's just bad drivers of the fact that there's both USB1.1 and USB2 devices
on the same bus while Firewire tends to only have storage attached.
been avoiding FW these days.

--
I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs
of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All
these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-'
Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:00:28 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:


USB2 isn't a lot slower in some cases, perhaps even faster in a
few, but overall it is slower than the better USB2 chipsets, let
alone the poor ones like Via's first attempt.

That sounds like an overall nothing. Recent USB2 just just as well as
Firewire performance wise.


My above post was a mess.
Reworded it should've read:

USB2 isn't a lot slower in some cases, perhaps even faster in a
few, but overall it (even the better USB2 chipsets, let
alone the poor ones like Via's first attempt) is slower.

------------------------------------

The newest USB2 chipsets, when combined with a decent enclosure
chip, can be near the same speed as firewire, but still firewire
has an edge. Unless the USB2 chipsets are known to be the
faster ones it could be a lot slower than firewire. If you have
a list of products proven to bench at higher performance than
average that might be useful info for the OP, but otherwise just
buying something with no detail beyond "USB2" is certainly not
any assurance it will be nearly as fast as firewire.

kony wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:01:46 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:


Does the laptop have firewire (1394)?
That is the preferred interface, it is faster than USB2 in use.

Can you cite a reference for that assertion?

Sorry but I didn't collect links. You can find benchmarks the
same way I did, Google search.


USB2 isn't a lot slower in some cases, perhaps even faster in a
few, but overall it is slower than the better USB2 chipsets, let
alone the poor ones like Via's first attempt.

FireWire vs USB2 is like DSL vs cable. With FireWire/DSL - you have a
constant speed as the bus/line isn't being shared with anyone/thing else.
USB2, OTOH, shares the bus with everything - so if you have 12 devices, then
the speed may not be any faster than USB1.1. Like cable. If you're the only
one logged on, then, yes, it's quicker than DSL. If the entire street
decides to log on simultaneously, then the speed could slow to almost
dial-up.

So, if you have only one device, go USB2. Many? FireWire. Unfortunately,
motherboards are shipped with more USB ports than FireWire (I have 12 USB2
ports on mine - but only four FireWire (one on the board, on on a plug-in
port 'card' that came with the board (and is accessed via a 'trapdoor' in
the top of the case) and two on my soundcard (one on the card itself, and
one on the front-case control panel)

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:

FireWire vs USB2 is like DSL vs cable. With FireWire/DSL - you have a
constant speed as the bus/line isn't being shared with anyone/thing else.
USB2, OTOH, shares the bus with everything - so if you have 12 devices, then
the speed may not be any faster than USB1.1.

Well, the important thing is that USB is host controlled and FireWire is
multi master.

Bandwidth wise it makes little difference. FireWire and USB hubs share
bandwidth - multiple controllers can mean non shared bandwidth for both.

As with cable or DSL the result is determined by implementation. If your
DSL provider has too little bandwidth to the DSLAM, you will notice
neighbours's traffic. Likewise if your cable co sells 20 people 1.5 Mbit
each from 30 Mbit available on a channel, you're not really going to notice.

Having an extra bottleneck is something extra to manage, but does not
imply lower performance. But on USB, I do not even see where that
bottleneck would be. The root hub?


Thomas