USB 2.0 or Firewire

[vitualis]

I agree.

Firewire is the better system but it has less uptake and chipsets can be problematic. You will rarely get a problem (nowadays) with USB2 HDDs but the same cannot be said necessarily for Firewire.

Regards.

[waheed]

Use what works for you. Some people are satisfied with USB2 and some with Firewire. But you can always switch between the two.

[Soltaris]

Are the above assumptions agreed? What is left out?

Although many hard drive operations may be faster using firewire instead of USB2, my gut feeling is that the same doessn't necessarily hold true for DVD burners. I'd expect the benchmark characteristics would be completely different from one another including seek times, burst data rates, sustained read, various writing operations for various sized packets, the way buffer memory is utilized, etc

As an exaggerated parallel, I wouldn't expect a 1.44MB floppy drive to operate any faster on a 3GHz P4 than it did on an old 486.

[edDV]

but at 16x write (22MB/s) or sustained read it is looking like a hard drive.

[vitualis]

Agreed.

At high burn speeds, Firewire would perform better than USB2 (assuming you don't have a chipset compatibility problem).

Regards.

[dipstick]

Agreed.

The reason I posted my Benchmark tests is because I hate misinformation. They advertize that USB 2.0 is faster than Firewire, but in the real world it's the other way around. In my tests, Firwire is about 80% faster using the same HDD in the same enclosure, tested on the same Laptop.

I don't use external buners, so I can't say if it would make a difference.