I'm looking to buy an external firewire hard drive to back up my 3 year old
iMac Spec. Ed. with OS 9.0 - 128mb sdram - 13.6 gig HD which has been
serving me very well. I've read that it's just a matter of time for a HD
destruct and I'd like to have the safety of a second drive. I also would use
it for imovie editing which I do for friends and relatives. Could use
suggestions as to brand, type, etc. Any info would be appreciated.

(am old,not too tech. savvy.)

TIA

Leo May

In article <KOUYa.5368$BC2.4638[at]newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Leo May" <idylone[at]earthlink.net> wrote:

> I'm looking to buy an external firewire hard drive to back up my 3 year old
> iMac Spec. Ed. with OS 9.0 - 128mb sdram - 13.6 gig HD which has been
> serving me very well. I've read that it's just a matter of time for a HD
> destruct and I'd like to have the safety of a second drive. I also would use
> it for imovie editing which I do for friends and relatives. Could use
> suggestions as to brand, type, etc. Any info would be appreciated.
>
> (am old,not too tech. savvy.)
>
> TIA
>
> Leo May

I bought a Que M3 drive. Plug it into FW and go. I run OS 9 and OS X
from that drive w/no problems.

Hi,
Isn't FW slower than USB?
Tony

Tartar wrote:
> In article <KOUYa.5368$BC2.4638[at]newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Leo May" <idylone[at]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm looking to buy an external firewire hard drive to back up my 3 year old
>>iMac Spec. Ed. with OS 9.0 - 128mb sdram - 13.6 gig HD which has been
>>serving me very well. I've read that it's just a matter of time for a HD
>>destruct and I'd like to have the safety of a second drive. I also would use
>>it for imovie editing which I do for friends and relatives. Could use
>>suggestions as to brand, type, etc. Any info would be appreciated.
>>
>>(am old,not too tech. savvy.)
>>
>>TIA
>>
>>Leo May
>
>
> I bought a Que M3 drive. Plug it into FW and go. I run OS 9 and OS X
> from that drive w/no problems.

In article <mj0Za.708615$Vi5.16234691[at]news1.calgary.shaw.ca>, Tony
Hwang <dragon40[at]shaw.ca> wrote:

> Hi,
> Isn't FW slower than USB?

No, Firewire is about 300 times *faster* than USB.

--
Garner R. Miller
Manchester, CT =USA=

Thank you all. I have a Sony 12X Firewire burner and have been very happy
with the speed. That's why I inquired about using Firewire for the Ext. hard
drive. I'll give a look at the Que. Thanks again.

----------
In article <3F352A08.101[at]jmcghee.com>, Jim McGhee <jim[at]jmcghee.com> wrote:


>
>
> usb 2.0 is slightly faster than firewire, but usb 1.x is much much
> slower than firewire.
>
> Jim
>
> Garner Miller wrote:
>> In article <mj0Za.708615$Vi5.16234691[at]news1.calgary.shaw.ca>, Tony
>> Hwang <dragon40[at]shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>Isn't FW slower than USB?
>>
>>
>> No, Firewire is about 300 times *faster* than USB.
>>
>
>
> --
> Give your problems to God.
> Might as well... He's going to be up all night anyway.
>

In article <3F352A08.101[at]jmcghee.com>, Jim McGhee <jim[at]jmcghee.com>
wrote:

> usb 2.0 is slightly faster than firewire, but usb 1.x is much much
> slower than firewire.
>
> Jim
>
You're correct that USB 2.0 is spec'd to be faster, but in practice F/W
is usually faster.

Do a google search on "Firewire versus USB 2.0" and read some of the
benchmark comparisons.

I got this from http://www.centrillium-it.com/Bus/ieee_1394_versus_usb_20.htm

> There's a big reason that Intel is the first one to promote USB, that
> USB performance depends 100% on the CPU performance since USB is implemented
> in a client/host fashion. The overload of data communication is
> always on the CPU. Meaning that you have to have more CPU power to
> achieve maximum performance from your USB. More CPU power more Intel
> sales, an easy logic!!!
>
> This has also benefits for consumers and hardware vendors though. Because
> shifting the workload to CPU leaves less to do to the device itself.
> As a result the electronics required for USB devices is much more
> simpler than peer to peer buses. Less electronics means less cost for
> the vendors and cheaper products for the consumers. Nowadays, you can
> implement USB with a single chip on your device, with an additional cost
> about half a cent!
>
> In contradiction to USB, IEEE 1394 supports peer to peer communication
> which shares the process load between the device and the CPU. Although this
> increases the complexity of the electronics on the device (and the
> price), it is quite suitable for the devices that produce a lot of
> data to process like DVD players, digital cameras etc. This way
> before the data is transferred to the computer it can be processed on the
> device and sent when the device thinks it's necessary. You can also
> connect to 1394 devices to each other but you cannot do the same
> thing on USB, you always need a host to manage the communication.

Hi,
I just bought an ext. case with built-in dual interface; FW and USB 2.
And installed 120GB HD in it myself. Works well on either interface.
Tony

Leo May wrote:
> Thank you all. I have a Sony 12X Firewire burner and have been very happy
> with the speed. That's why I inquired about using Firewire for the Ext. hard
> drive. I'll give a look at the Que. Thanks again.
>
> ----------
> In article <3F352A08.101[at]jmcghee.com>, Jim McGhee <jim[at]jmcghee.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>usb 2.0 is slightly faster than firewire, but usb 1.x is much much
>>slower than firewire.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>Garner Miller wrote:
>>
>>>In article <mj0Za.708615$Vi5.16234691[at]news1.calgary.shaw.ca>, Tony
>>>Hwang <dragon40[at]shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>Isn't FW slower than USB?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, Firewire is about 300 times *faster* than USB.
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Give your problems to God.
>>Might as well... He's going to be up all night anyway.
>>