Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
knoppix on usb key
H_TeXMeX_H:
--- Quote from: Kintaro ---NEWSFLASH: Firewire is slower than USB 2.0.
--- End quote ---
Not really ... I'm pretty sure it's the opposite ... Firewire is 16 % to 70 % faster than USB 2.0 ;)
Articles: One , Two
Question: Which is faster Hi-Speed USB 2.0 or FireWire?
Answer: In sustained throughput FireWire is faster than USB 2.0.
Question: If Hi-Speed USB 2.0 is a 480 Mbps interface and FireWire is a 400 Mbps interface, how can FireWire be faster?
Answer: Differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the sustained throughput.
:D
hm_murdock:
FW is hardware-driven, using its own controllers for data maneuvering and DMA, while USB2 uses software and the main CPU for nearly everything. USB is also one of those Microsoft/Compaq/Intel alliance things from the mid 1990s... of course it's inferior.
Kintaro:
Interesting, you should follow the point that the majority of drives support better USB 2.0 compared to Firewire. Of course if your using it to link 2 machines its fucking badarse.
themacuser:
--- Quote from: Kintaro ---NEWSFLASH: Firewire is slower than USB 2.0.
--- End quote ---
Wrong. Firewire can transfer constantly at 400MBPS. USB 2 goes in bursts of 480.
Kintaro:
--- Quote from: themacuser ---Wrong. Firewire can transfer constantly at 400MBPS. USB 2 goes in bursts of 480.
--- End quote ---
Wow, your actually right after checking some things. I just read some quick specs and I got the wrong idea.
The problem with swapping to flash is that flash is not meant to have that many damn read/write operations.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version