External HDD

[spikeh]

I've nearly filled my MacBook Pro's 120GB HDD, and am therefore in the market for a similarly sized external HDD. I'm assuming USB 2.0 is the way to go (I'm without FW800), so if you've got any brands or models that'd be dandy :) I'm not looking to spend an awful lot, but if there are significant reliability issues then I could be tempted to fork out a little extra cash.

TIA.

[NosferaDrew]

Why would you assume USB is the way to go?
Much more CPU overhead than FireWire.

Just grab a USB/FW400 enclosure + HD (size of your choosing.) For a little over $100, you can easily offload data and keep everything backed up.

[Ryan]

Actually, it'd be a better idea to go with a Firewire drive. USB 2.0 may have a higher speed in its specification, but I believe the general consensus is that Firewire 400 is still faster. IIRC, it has something to do with software vs. hardware controllers (of which Firewire uses the latter).

Anyways, I've found that Seagate makes the best drives, and the reviews on Newegg seem to back that up, from what I've seen. If you have a Fry's in your area and no plans for tomorrow, they're selling 500Gb external hard drives for $140. Perhaps you should try and get one.

Oops, forgot that you're in the UK. Never mind. :D

[spikeh]

I'm not too worried about the processor overheads, I just thought USB 2.0 would be faster than FW400?

I did have a quick glance at enclosures, I think I'll do that. Bright thinking, NosferaDrew! :D

[Ryan]

No, USB 2.0 is, in real-world applications, slower than Firewire 400.

Just get a Firewire enclosure and don't think twice. I like Macally enclosures personally. :)

[kretara]

I have both a USB 2 and FW 400 external enclosure, both running 250gb maxtor HD's. The FW 400 drive is much faster than the USB 2 drive. The USB 2 drive can burst pretty fast, but for moving large amounts of data the FW 400 leaves the USB 2 drive in the dust. Also, the processor overhead for USB 2 is pretty large.

[Maciej]

My Macally enclosure has both, thats what I suggest you go with.

[chucker]

There is not a single benchmark in which USB 2.0 is actually near as fast as FireWire 400, let alone faster. The theoretical data rate of 480 Mb/s, which would work out to 60 MB/s, is simply way above real-world speeds. FireWire 400's theoretical 400 Mb/s (strictly speaking 393.216 Mb/s) can't quite be reached either, but you do get much closer.

As Ryan said, this mostly has to do with the nature of FireWire: each device has its own fully-functional controller chip. The downside is increased cost, as each device needs its own hardware to actively control any connections. Compared to USB, however, where only the host device (typically, your computer) does active controlling (and typically through the CPU, rather than a dedicated chip), this means that FireWire can operate in a much more efficient manner, not to mention it's fully independent of the need of a PC (so you could, for instance, hook up a hard drive directly to a video camera).

[Maciej]

That was probably the best and most succinct comparison of the two I've ever read. Thanks chuck.

[defaultmike]

first off, you have 2 options

a) getting a 3.5" HD which should be a lot bigger, but not really portable

b) getting a 2.5" HD, which is small and portable, but has a higher gb/$ ration

I personally decided to go with option B) (I also have a MBP w/ a 120gb HD). I backed up all the data that I wont use regularly to DVDs, and all the stuff that I use regularly is in my 100gb external HD. Only left my mp3s, pics, and videos in my MBP.

[chucker]

That was probably the best and most succinct comparison of the two I've ever read. Thanks chuck.

Glad to be of service. :)