Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

eddiecatflap · May 30, 2006, 06:31 AM

what's the best way to go for an external hd ?

my imacs rapidly running out of space and i need something soon !

k-dub · May 30, 2006, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

what's the best way to go for an external hd ?

my imacs rapidly running out of space and i need something soon !

Definitely FW, much faster than USB2.

Dr. DDS · May 30, 2006, 08:16 AM

i bought an external enclosure with FW (400) and USB 2.0. I haven't bought the HD yet but i will post my thoughts ASAP.. I think FW is faster.

SpaceMonkey · May 30, 2006, 08:19 AM

Firewire is not "much faster" than USB 2.0--on average, they are about the same. If you are on a PowerPC Mac, Firewire does have the advantage of allowing you to boot from your external hard drive (I am not sure if this functionality has been added to USB 2.0 on the Intel Macs).

k-dub · 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Firewire is not "much faster" than USB 2.0--on average, they are about the same. If you are on a PowerPC Mac, Firewire does have the advantage of allowing you to boot from your external hard drive (I am not sure if this functionality has been added to USB 2.0 on the Intel Macs).

Have a look here http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html

I use both FW and USB2 disks and find the FW disks "much" faster. (I haven't timed them though)

Edit, the test at the link above says fw irl is twice as fast but when having a quick look at Maxtor and Lacie sites they say fw400 is 25% faster than usb2.

ghporter · May 30, 2006, 09:09 AM

Oh no, not this @#$% again!!!

There are pros and cons to each connection. USB has better power and device management, and a somewhat higher burst transfer rate, but (it's burst after all) its sustained transfer rate is somewhat lower than firewire. Firewire has faster sustained transfer rates (depending on what you're doing it can be somewhat faster to quite a bit faster), but has fewer means to manage both the connection and the device. On top of that, USB devices seem to be more available and less expensive, because the market has driven the cost of USB interface controller chips WAY down, while the market has pigeonholed firewire as something you use for audio-video transfers, not general purpose data transfers.

It's up to YOU whether one works better for you because as far as I'm concerned the pros and cons seem to balance out all the way up to the cost factor.

eddiecatflap · May 30, 2006, 02:49 PM

sorry , mod

i'm thinking of going for a smartdisk usb + firewire model

best of both worlds ? plus a degree of future proofing

Dr.Michael · May 30, 2006, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

sorry , mod

i'm thinking of going for a smartdisk usb + firewire model

best of both worlds ? plus a degree of future proofing

Best choice!
Don't want to step on your feet, Glenn, but, also in my experience with harddrives as a backup medium, firewire is MUCH faster.

Velocity211 · May 30, 2006, 04:26 PM

Firewire is much faster if you're using a hard drive. Much faster...

ghporter · May 30, 2006, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

sorry , mod

i'm thinking of going for a smartdisk usb + firewire model

best of both worlds ? plus a degree of future proofing

Good choice. There aren't enough dual USB/Firewire enclosures out there for my tastes, because it usually is the best compromise for portability and flexibility.

Do note that there are differences in the way the two interfaces are implemented on different platforms; Windows drivers favor USB performance, while Mac drivers dont' do USB as well but do Firewire better than Windows drivers do. So if you use this enclosure on just a Mac, you'll probably see faster transfers through Firewire no matter what, but if you use it on a Windows machine (Boot Camp, anyone?) you may see the SAME DRIVE perform better through a USB connection.

Macola · May 30, 2006, 10:06 PM

Another difference that is dependent on the chipset/enclosure: I had problems with a disk today that kept unmounting after waking my MacBook from sleep, when connected via USB. This was not only annoying, but could potentially corrupt the data on the disk. I connected it using FireWire and everything was fine.

FWIW, I've always had problems with the Prolific chipset (which was the one in this enclosure). Oxford-based enclosures seem more reliable, but that's just my experience.

mduell · May 30, 2006, 10:41 PM

The chipset is a very important consideration when you buy an enclosure. One of the iPod generations had a chipset that was 200% faster with USB2 than FW400 (~2.5MBps vs 7.5).

asodamiac · May 30, 2006, 11:40 PM

I just picked up a Lacie d2 extreme external hd, and it is fw800, fw400, and usb 2.0 ready. On cnet's review site, they mentioned that the usb 2.0 averaged around 10.4 mbps, the fw400, 11.4 mbps or so, and the fw800 12 mbps.

I've already purchased the external hd, but on paper, it doesnt seem like its THAT MUCH faster. I'll have to see when amazon ships out the hd. Maybe those 2 mbps make a huge difference.

SMacSteve · Jun 14, 2006, 07:52 PM

The FW will be faster in most cases, but not by a huge margin. It will also depend on which Mac you have. If you have a Intel Mac the USB 2.0 will have an advantage due to the chipset used on the mainboard. If it's a G4 or G5 then you'll be better off with a FW400. I would really suggest you get one that has both as you'll have better flexability between computers.

tooki · Jun 14, 2006, 11:03 PM

The USB chipsets on Macs have traditionally been the same ones as on PCs. It's the USB and FireWire drivers in the OS that make the difference in performance, as can be borne out by using the same USB card on a PC and Mac.

tooki

wataru · Jun 16, 2006, 01:05 AM

I've noticed on my iBook that copying over USB(2) takes a lot more CPU than copying over Firewire.

analogika · Jun 16, 2006, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

It's up to YOU whether one works better for you because as far as I'm concerned the pros and cons seem to balance out all the way up to the cost factor.

for HOME use, yes.

Exceptions:

1.) media use.
Sustained transfer rate is VITAL in audio and visual media (a single drop-out between bursts of data means a ruined production), so even if the *average* were lower, Firewire would STILL be the better option.

2.) Tight CPU situations (generally applies to media use also).
USB controllers are "stupid" in comparison to the Firewire protocol, and require a lot more management involvement from the CPU. In situations where you're near the performance limit of the machine, the higher overhead of USB *can* break your neck.