<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">USB isn't as stable as FW.<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Paul Moortgat</DIV><DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On 28 Apr 2007, at 21:03, Robert A. (Bob) Hall wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <DIV>Will someone tell me why I should use FireWire for an external Backup drive instead of USB 2.0.</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>I accidentally purchased a USB 2.0 instead of the Combo drive as I had intended. I can still return it at some coast. A good priced Seagate's FreeAgent, a 5 year warrantee unit. I can use it on my primary desktop commuter (has both FireWire and USB 2.0) and my other computers (laptops) have only FireWire. I usually backup to my primary (Desktop), then back that computer up weekly.</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>I guess my real question what is the practice difference between FW and USB 2.0? The specs indicate transfer rates of USB 2.0 are faster than FireWire<FONT face="Lucida Grande" color="#000000"> [FireWire 400 - 400Mbps (or 50MB/sec)</FONT> and<FONT face="Lucida Grande" color="#000000"> USB 2.0 - 480Mbps (or 60MB/sec)]</FONT>. However, I seem to remember articles that indicated there were technical reasons why<FONT face="Lucida Grande" color="#000000"> FireWire</FONT> provided better actual throughput. I haven't been able to find such articles now.</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>Any advise would be appreciated.</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>Bob Hall</DIV> <DIV><A href="mailto:rahall@ptd.net">rahall@ptd.net</A></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>