Hard Drive. Help Requested, Newbie enquiry |
|
|
|
 |
Replies
|
|
Wed 15 Feb 2006, 18:44
|

Rookie

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 21-Jan 05
From: East Lansing - US
Member No.: 58,914

|
You are right, looking at specs, mixfisto, firewire should be slower (400 mbps compared to USB2's 480mbps). But there are some other issues at play. In the firewire architecture both the device and the computer work to find a solution to comon file transfer problems (packet loss, other hickups etc.). Each device (your computer and external harddrive) works co-opperatively. BUT USB works as a master-slave relationship. The PC does all the error handling and processing of bandwith issues. This is not the only reasons but just one of the reasons that USB hits the CPU alot harder than Firewire. Take a look at this link for some real world test data: http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
Foxyphil Hard Drive. Help Requested Tue 14 Feb 2006, 21:30 mixfisto Foxy, as far as the size of the hard drive is conc... Tue 14 Feb 2006, 22:50 Foxyphil Thx for that Mix. Valuable feedback.
Cheers man.... Wed 15 Feb 2006, 01:32 lepetitmartien If the final use is to be 44.1, keep at 44.1 or 88... Wed 15 Feb 2006, 12:50 bcatcho lepetitmartien, thats the laziest defrag process e... Wed 15 Feb 2006, 17:43 mixfisto bcathco, firewire is actually "slower" t... Wed 15 Feb 2006, 18:08 lepetitmartien USB2 is faster on paper, but is a mess like other ... Thu 16 Feb 2006, 01:19 Mac Daddy lepetitmartien
I become smarter each time you tra... Thu 16 Feb 2006, 16:07 cornutt Hmm, did the Mac OSX drive format incorporate the ... Fri 17 Feb 2006, 06:09 lepetitmartien Standard drive format is HFS+ which is not BSD at ... Fri 17 Feb 2006, 12:38
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|
|