anyway to get just the enclosure? I got a 160GB sata drive laying around just waiting to become a Time Machine disk
anyway to get just the enclosure? I got a 160GB sata drive laying around just waiting to become a Time Machine disk
anyway to get just the enclosure? I got a 160GB sata drive laying around just waiting to become a Time Machine disk
FW is more expensive probably because of the same reason the "mac version" is more expensive (even if it does not differ from USB.)
If the OP does not mind 10MB/s (which in practical settings its not a lot) USB is a better commitment since is cheaper and you got more compatibility with PC (some still does not have FW ports) if money no issue then FW is better choice.
all i can say is, if you cant see the difference between usb and fire wire, there is something wrong with you.
This isn't accurate. The difference between FW800 and USB is MUCH more than what you stated. FW800 is more than double the speed of USB 2.0. In practical application, transfers are noticeably faster to my FW800 7200 external drive. "FireWire 800 is substantially faster than Hi-Speed USB, both in theory and in practice."... if you are copying something that takes about 1 hour in FW, it will take 1 hour and 15 mins for USB. Since MOST people does not copy hundreds of GB each day it makes little sense to spend extra $30 bucks or such for avoiding 15mins of waiting once or twice, specially when often when you are copying large files you do so "unattended."....
The Lacie drives have both FW800 and USB, anyone got any good/bad experiences with them?
already got one, i managed to get one on clearance for like $21 USD and tax, so Its a good snag. I just wish it had FW400 or FW800 instead of just USB, but I'll live with it.
This isn't accurate. The difference between FW800 and USB is MUCH more than what you stated. FW800 is more than double the speed of USB 2.0. In practical application, transfers are noticeably faster to my FW800 7200 external drive. "FireWire 800 is substantially faster than Hi-Speed USB, both in theory and in practice."
As for most people not making large transfers daily, you forget about backups. I backup daily.... sometimes multiple times a day. Most of the time, these backups are not "unattended", so speed is very important to me. Paying roughly $40 extra for FW800 is worth every penny.
you are forgetting the fact ...
I'm not forgetting anything. You're assuming a bus-powered drive will be 5400rpm. There are plenty of bus-powered 7200 drives, such as those I recommended to the OP and the kind I own, with transfer rates around 100MB/sec via FW800.
I didn't exaggerate anything. Unlike USB, Firewire IS capable of approaching or reaching its theoretical limit, since it doesn't depend on CPU to support the transfer:...which is unprobable due to the fact thats the actual maximun "theoretical" bus speed, which is usually not achieved,...
As for hard drive speed:Typical USB PC-hosts rarely exceed sustained transfers of 280 Mbit/s, with 240 Mbit/s being more typical. This is likely due to USB's reliance on the host-processor to manage low-level USB protocol, whereas FireWire delegates the same tasks to the interface hardware (requiring less or no CPU usage). For example, the FireWire host interface supports memory-mapped devices, which allows high-level protocols to run without loading the host CPU with interrupts and buffer-copy operations.[5] Besides throughput, other differences are that it uses simpler bus networking, provides more power over the chain, more reliable data transfer, and uses fewer CPU resources.
I said nothing about prices, except to say that the $40 extra for FW800 is well worth the money. Personally, I think the prices are fine, but that's not what was being discussed. The bottom line is, FW800 is significantly faster than USB 2.0 and that difference can be realized with a bus-powered external drive.HOWEVER the price of the HDDs you suggested are extremely expensive, ...
Point taken. I did say if money is not issue FW is better option. However, the OP just need something to save his files + time machine (which probably means copy a few hundreds GBs once and then just actualize files every couple of days) its preferable to save the money. Its not like USB speeds are terrible anyways.I said nothing about prices, except to say that the $40 extra for FW800 is well worth the money.
Saying 100MB/s while one of the best drives (probably the best) can barely reach 90MB/s under ideal conditions (SATA, benchmark test, etc) I think is exactly the definition of exaggerating. 10% not big deal but I could not pass the opportunity of being sarcasticI didn't exaggerate anything.
Saying 100MB/s while one of the best drives (probably the best) can barely reach 90MB/s under ideal conditions (SATA, benchmark test, etc) I think is exactly the definition of exaggerating. 10% not big deal but I could not pass the opportunity of being sarcastic.
Tell it to the seller:
I only quoted what was stated.
You can keep splitting hairs and trying to argue all you want, but find someone else to play your games. I'm done! I made my point, which is that FW800 is, both in theory and practical application, significantly and noticeably faster than USB 2.0, and that benefit can be had in a bus-powered external drive for a mere $40 or so premium over the same drive with a USB connection.
The only difference is that I can warrant to the OP that a 5400rpm HDD will do about 30MB/s give or take depending on brand... Can you warrant to the OP any FW HDD that will do 100MB/s??????Tell it to the seller:
Attachment 196131
Anu External HDD can be formated to mac format. I use Maxtor 320.