«

Hello,

Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394 cable run
as fast, and transfer as fast,
as a "typical" internal HD ?

How about via a USB cable ?

Thanks,
Bob

Robert11 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394
> cable run as fast, and transfer as fast,
> as a "typical" internal HD ?
>
> How about via a USB cable ?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob

Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster than
your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed available via an
IDE cable. The one big variable which you've missed is how fast the
HD is......

"Kraftee" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:

>Robert11 wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394
>> cable run as fast, and transfer as fast,
>> as a "typical" internal HD ?
>>
>> How about via a USB cable ?

>Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster than
>your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed available via an
>IDE cable. The one big variable which you've missed is how fast the
>HD is......

Had a friend who transferred photos from his camera to the hard drive
with a Card Reader, USB2 (connect to camera) and Firewire. as a test,
there were a couple of gigs on the memory card.

Firewire was 10x faster, card reader the slowest. Firewire was so much
faster that It's the route I'll take given a chance.

Something like 20 mins to transfer using USB and 2 mins with firewire
- no contest.

As you mentioned, you can only go as fast as the Hard Drive can
receive data

--

Wings of death
http://www.floobster.com/play.php?vid=640

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:32:33 -0800, wrote:

> "Kraftee" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Robert11 wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394
>>> cable run as fast, and transfer as fast,
>>> as a "typical" internal HD ?
>>>
>>> How about via a USB cable ?
>
>>Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster than
>>your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed available via an
>>IDE cable. The one big variable which you've missed is how fast the
>>HD is......
>
> Had a friend who transferred photos from his camera to the hard drive
> with a Card Reader, USB2 (connect to camera) and Firewire. as a test,
> there were a couple of gigs on the memory card.
>
> Firewire was 10x faster, card reader the slowest. Firewire was so much
> faster that It's the route I'll take given a chance.
>
> Something like 20 mins to transfer using USB and 2 mins with firewire
> - no contest.
>
> As you mentioned, you can only go as fast as the Hard Drive can
> receive data

Using an external USB hard drive, I've never really seen anything
outstandlingly slow in response. Just like as if it were in the machine
itself.
I've downloaded from a camera before using usb and did not see that it was
that slow as you say.
But I would never wait until the card was that full either.

In article <>, Kraftee
<kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:

> Robert11 wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394
> > cable run as fast, and transfer as fast,
> > as a "typical" internal HD ?
> >
> > How about via a USB cable ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob
>
> Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster than
> your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed available via an
> IDE cable. The one big variable which you've missed is how fast the
> HD is......

USB is not faster than FireWire 400; it doesn't even come close to
FireWire 800 or eSATA.

USB is the slowest external storage available, not the fastest.

>> Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster than
>> your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed available via an
>> IDE cable. The one big variable which you've missed is how fast the
>> HD is......
>
> USB is not faster than FireWire 400; it doesn't even come close to
> FireWire 800 or eSATA.
>
> USB is the slowest external storage available, not the fastest.

In addition, USB uses your cpu bandwidth, firewire does not. All my
external hard drives are firewire for that reason.

In article <>, Robert11
<> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394 cable run
> as fast, and transfer as fast,
> as a "typical" internal HD ?
>
> How about via a USB cable ?

It sounds like you think the cable is what makes the difference; there
are a lot of protocols and support chips involved in these things, too.
The cable itself is almost incidental.

For instance, USB is managed by the main processor, and all data runs
through the main bus. So no matter what the nominal speed of USB is, it
is mitigated by any other activity of the computer. It will be very
slow when other transfer are going on or the processor is very busy.

FireWire manages itself, and can transfer directly from one device to
another. It also scales itself based on demand and activity.

If you are talking about archiving, backups, or copying from source
devices, you probably don't care about those differences -- they are
things you do at the beginning or end of a project, and you may not
have the computer doing much else then.
But if you are talking about using the external drive as a startup
drive, or to run apps from, or to use as scratch storage or VM, then
those factors matter a lot.

wrote:
> "Kraftee" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Robert11 wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394
>>> cable run as fast, and transfer as fast,
>>> as a "typical" internal HD ?
>>>
>>> How about via a USB cable ?
>
>> Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster
>> than your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed
>> available via an IDE cable. The one big variable which you've
>> missed is how fast the HD is......
>
> Had a friend who transferred photos from his camera to the hard
> drive with a Card Reader, USB2 (connect to camera) and Firewire. as
> a test, there were a couple of gigs on the memory card.
>
> Firewire was 10x faster, card reader the slowest. Firewire was so
> much faster that It's the route I'll take given a chance.
>
> Something like 20 mins to transfer using USB and 2 mins with
> firewire - no contest.

Maybe with USB1.1 but look up the specs for USB2, you may get a
suprise as theoretically it is supposed to be faster (by a largish
margin) than even Firewire

>
> As you mentioned, you can only go as fast as the Hard Drive can
> receive data

That's going to be the cavat

M.L. wrote:
>>> Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster
>>> than your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed
>>> available via an IDE cable. The one big variable which you've
>>> missed is how fast the HD is......
>>
>> USB is not faster than FireWire 400; it doesn't even come close to
>> FireWire 800 or eSATA.
>>
>> USB is the slowest external storage available, not the fastest.
>
> In addition, USB uses your cpu bandwidth, firewire does not. All my
> external hard drives are firewire for that reason.

Why o why don't you actually read what is written...

I never said USB was faster than Firewire I said that _USB2_ is faster
there is a world of difference between the performances of those.

Instead of this knee jerk reaction (mind you it is the norm I suppose)
how about checking the specs..

USB1.1 12Mbps
USB2 480Mbps
Firewire 400Mbps

Which one is the fastest now then.....

Kraftee wrote:

>> Something like 20 mins to transfer using USB and 2 mins with
>> firewire - no contest.
>
> Maybe with USB1.1 but look up the specs for USB2, you may get a
> suprise as theoretically it is supposed to be faster (by a largish
> margin) than even Firewire

The clincher is that USB2 is 480 mbs in bursts, as well as being CPU
intensive. It will crawl when doing "big things" on the host computer.

FireWire is 400mbs but that is *sustained*, not burst.

Use USB2 for small things or if it's the only interface you have.
Run FireWire if you can for big transfers.