To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
USB is a horrible interface for external harddrives. IEEE1394 (Firewire) and eSATA are much better suited to these uses.
The main problem with USB is that is requires shuffling all data through the host CPU. Transferring data to an external harddrive can send your CPU usage spiking. Yet transfers between internal harddrives doesn't (as IDE/SATA/SCSI doesn't require the host CPU to be a traffic cop).
Use the right bus for the job. USB is good for devices without processing power (cameras, mice, keyboards, gidgets and gadgets, mp3 players, etc). For larger devices or devices that need fast transfers without bogging down the host system.
It is not THAT bad, please: it depends on what you're doing. If you're copying many not-that-big files, you'll have no problems. At least I didn't. Nothing really worth complaining.
But, if you need to move, for example, 10 GB of data to external drive (including, for example, 5 files that are close to 1 GB in size each), then it gives horrible experience on Windows 2003 server (Vista is handling this *MUCH* better).
So I started thinking of eSATA. It would solve freezing problems and it is faster too.







Member since:
2005-11-10
Most users don't need such a speed of a serial bus, neither hardware would utilize it.
The question is: what's that for?!
External (hard) drives, for example. I use them a lot and USB 3.0 definitely is something I'm looking forward to.