«

"Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
>
> I'd advise getting a faster card reader too. With a USB 1.1 reader it takes me
> about 18 minutes to download 900+ MB, but with a USB 2 reader it drops to 3:30.
> Firewire should be a little bit faster still.


Actually, Firewire is 400 MB/S and USB2 is 480 MB/S.
--
Judson McClendon (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

In article <20031125141027.813$>, Judson
McClendon <> wrote:

> "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
> >
> > I'd advise getting a faster card reader too. With a USB 1.1 reader it
> > takes me
> > about 18 minutes to download 900+ MB, but with a USB 2 reader it drops to
> > 3:30.
> > Firewire should be a little bit faster still.
>
>
> Actually, Firewire is 400 MB/S and USB2 is 480 MB/S.

Those are thoeoretical maximum speeds.
Real devices don't get those speeds.

Check the benchmarks on Rob Galbraith's site.

Chris

Chris Cox wrote:

> In article <20031125141027.813$>, Judson
> McClendon <> wrote:
>
>
>>"Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
>>
>>>I'd advise getting a faster card reader too. With a USB 1.1 reader it
>>>takes me
>>>about 18 minutes to download 900+ MB, but with a USB 2 reader it drops to
>>>3:30.
>>> Firewire should be a little bit faster still.
>>
>>
>>Actually, Firewire is 400 MB/S and USB2 is 480 MB/S.
>
>
> Those are thoeoretical maximum speeds.
> Real devices don't get those speeds.
>
> Check the benchmarks on Rob Galbraith's site.
>
> Chris

There are two versions of Firewire, at 400 and 800 megabits/second, and
USB 2.0 at 480 Megabits/second. No devices connected to these
interfaces will, currently, get anywhere NEAR the maximum rates.

"Chris Cox" <> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <> wrote:
>
> > "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd advise getting a faster card reader too. With a USB 1.1 reader it
> > > takes me
> > > about 18 minutes to download 900+ MB, but with a USB 2 reader it drops to
> > > 3:30.
> > > Firewire should be a little bit faster still.
> >
> > Actually, Firewire is 400 MB/S and USB2 is 480 MB/S.
>
> Those are thoeoretical maximum speeds.
> Real devices don't get those speeds.
>
> Check the benchmarks on Rob Galbraith's site.


Actually, they're not even theoretical maximum speeds at all. They're
raw data transfer rates, not the same thing. But I was replying to the
statement "Firewire should be a little bit faster still." You will find
that, apart from the raw data transfer speed, such interfaces are bound
by primarily two things: the efficiency of the interface protocols, and
the efficiency of the implantation of said protocols, in hardware and
software. The former is generally fixed, but the latter is often subject
to significant improvement over time as hardware and software are
progressively optimized. An interface protocol would be inefficient
indeed to squander a 20% advantage in raw data transfer speed.
--
Judson McClendon (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon wrote:

> "Chris Cox" <> wrote:
>
>>Judson McClendon <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'd advise getting a faster card reader too. With a USB 1.1 reader it
>>>>takes me
>>>>about 18 minutes to download 900+ MB, but with a USB 2 reader it drops to
>>>>3:30.
>>>> Firewire should be a little bit faster still.
>>>
>>>Actually, Firewire is 400 MB/S and USB2 is 480 MB/S.
>>
>>Those are thoeoretical maximum speeds.
>>Real devices don't get those speeds.
>>
>>Check the benchmarks on Rob Galbraith's site.
>
>
>
> Actually, they're not even theoretical maximum speeds at all. They're
> raw data transfer rates, not the same thing. But I was replying to the
> statement "Firewire should be a little bit faster still." You will find
> that, apart from the raw data transfer speed, such interfaces are bound
> by primarily two things: the efficiency of the interface protocols, and
> the efficiency of the implantation of said protocols, in hardware and
> software. The former is generally fixed, but the latter is often subject
> to significant improvement over time as hardware and software are
> progressively optimized. An interface protocol would be inefficient
> indeed to squander a 20% advantage in raw data transfer speed.

Current implementations of USB 2.0 work at more like 20% of their
theoretical max...