Re: USB vs Firewire vs Parallel port.
From: Mistoffolees (mistyfac01_at_danang.rvn)
Date: 07/03/04
- Next message: Darrell: "Restoring Backup with XP when performed on 98"
- Previous message: CWatters: "Re: Using XP Pro, Application programs will run for 5 to 90 seconds"
- In reply to: XS11E: "Re: USB vs Firewire vs Parallel port."
- Next in thread: Jim Macklin: "Re: USB vs Firewire vs Parallel port."
- Reply: Jim Macklin: "Re: USB vs Firewire vs Parallel port."
- Reply: XS11E: "Re: USB vs Firewire vs Parallel port."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 11:15:56 -0700
XS11E wrote:
> Mistoffolees <mistyfac01@danang.rvn> wrote in
> news:OH8xFZSYEHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>
>
> Question, isn't the USB 2.0 faster than Firewire? In which case maybe
> putting the scanner on the Firewire port and the external HD on the USB
> 2.0 port could give a small increase in speed?
>
Have not noticed any difference in speed between the
USB 2.0 or Firewire ports for the same external HD's.
Our Mac users swear by Firewire for high-speed use,
incl. multi-media production, and use USB only for
routine functions, e.g., scanning, CD recording, etc.
Their reasoning is that the Firewire connector has
more conductors running through the wire and is better
shielded than that for USB. YMMV.
- Next message: Darrell: "Restoring Backup with XP when performed on 98"
- Previous message: CWatters: "Re: Using XP Pro, Application programs will run for 5 to 90 seconds"
- In reply to: XS11E: "Re: USB vs Firewire vs Parallel port."
- Next in thread: Jim Macklin: "Re: USB vs Firewire vs Parallel port."
- Reply: Jim Macklin: "Re: USB vs Firewire vs Parallel port."
- Reply: XS11E: "Re: USB vs Firewire vs Parallel port."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|