Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!onodera-news!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.optus.net.au!optus!spool01.syd.optusnet.com.au!spool.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3EED9A0A.5040605@yahoo.com.au> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:20:58 +1000 From: Stephen Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop,alt.photography,comp.periphs.printers,fj.comp.dev.digital-camera,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm Subject: Re: USB2 faster than Firewire References: <4p4Ha.85950$hd6.2138@fed1read05> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 36 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.49.167.37 X-Trace: 1055758856 24424 210.49.167.37 Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.comp.dev.digital-camera:198 The other thing to take into account is that both of these technologies are serial, so devices share the available throughput. So, as an example, if you have a USB2 hub feeding 2 ports and use a cd writer on one the other port will have 480Mb/s less the number of Mb/s being sent through to the CD writer. Michael Frazier wrote: > I thought Firewire was much slower than USB 2.0 ??? > > Can a balanced (read non-Macaholic) please enlighten us all on this? > > > > > "SpaceGirl" > wrote in message > news:bcijis$jghfj$1@ID-129131.news.dfncis.de... > Firewire would be a better option > > "Eyron" > wrote in message > news:YP3Ha.116203$3Sm.44701@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... > > Is there a reason to go to USB2 with todays Compac flash cards? > > The fastest cards I think top out at 4mb/s??? > > Nowhere near the USB2,s nominal rate and about the same rate as > USB1.1. > > > > Whats the point? > > > > Eyron > > > > > > >