I've just seen a post here in MR, about a new form of Firewire running at 3 GB.
That got me thinking.
Why is Apple sticking with firewire (400-800 Mbs) when eSATA (3GB) exists
There may be reasons relating to bursts and theoretical limits but I'd love to put this one out there. I know for example, that firewire 800 still beats USB 2, even though they both have theoretically the same top speeds.
If firewire is 400-800, and eSATA is 3.2 GB, it's seems like a no-brainer for Apple to ditch firwire in favour for SATA. After all, Macs already use SATA internally for their HDs.
Interested to hear what MR readers think.
T
That got me thinking.
Why is Apple sticking with firewire (400-800 Mbs) when eSATA (3GB) exists
There may be reasons relating to bursts and theoretical limits but I'd love to put this one out there. I know for example, that firewire 800 still beats USB 2, even though they both have theoretically the same top speeds.
If firewire is 400-800, and eSATA is 3.2 GB, it's seems like a no-brainer for Apple to ditch firwire in favour for SATA. After all, Macs already use SATA internally for their HDs.
Interested to hear what MR readers think.
T