Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kanguru Releases First FireWire Flash Drive

Posted by timothy on from the and-firewire-is-like-a-hot-wire dept.

hajmola points out this Mac Observer article, which starts "At long last, after years of USB having a corner on the flash drive market, Kanguru has announced its Fire Flash FireWire flash drive line. With capacities ranging from 128MB to 1GB, the Fire Flash is the perfect way to carry your data with you, and since they uses FireWire, you won't be waiting around for the transfer to finish.""

6 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. USB 2.0 is faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Uh, isn't USB 2.0 faster than firewire?

    1. Re:USB 2.0 is faster by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Technically, but not really. USB 2.0 is 480Mbps, Firewire (IEEE1394.a) is 400, but due to latency and protocol issues, Firewire is almost always faster, often _much_ faster than USB 2.0.

      That doesn't even include IEEE1394.b, which is 800Mbps. Unfortunately, these devices aren't of the newer flavour of FireWire.

      You will also certainly find major speed differences in different sets of USB & FireWire chips & drivers, so you'd have to benchmark the things to find out for sure.

    2. Re:USB 2.0 is faster by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True (though it uses a different, backwards compatible, 9 pin connector). Alas, the flash drive's specifications list its maximum speed as 400mbps.

    3. Re:USB 2.0 is faster by mewyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not only that, but take a look at your CPU usage during bulk transfers. On my 1.25GHz PowerBook, I see 25% CPU usage on bulk transfers with USB 2.0 while i see < 5% CPU usage with FireWire. This is on the same drive, same hardware.

      Also, I have noticed that transfers take about 25% more time when I use USB over FireWire.

      Now, about this little device, I myself, being a heavy FireWire advocate do not see a major use for it. In a flash drive, I want the ability to use it everywhere, and many machines I am around have no FireWire (grr!). Although, I would get one if all the machines I'm exposed to had FireWire.

    4. Re:USB 2.0 is faster by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh, you really don't know?

      Your points are not the parent AC's points. His was "USB2 is faster than Firewire" and your points are "USB2 is more ubiquitous and fast enough."

      If you use the parent AC's belief that USB2 is faster than Firewire and purchase accordingly, you will be disappointed because in fact Firewire is faster.

      If you buy using your points, that USB2 is more ubiquitous and fast enough then of course you won't be disappointed because it's true.

      I've enjoyed a nice healthy 16mb/s from my iPod, a good 3.5mb/s from my camcorder, and 35mb/s from my external firewire drive for two years+ now. Yes, each device IS more expensive than what USB would have cost, but at the time I bought the camcorder there was no real alternative, when I bought my Firewire drive we only had external USB1 drives, and when I bought my iPod we only had USB1 Nomads as the competition, so if I paid a premium it was because there was no USB2 to drive prices down.

      If you like, you can also see it as Firewire driving the USB backers to release a faster spec to stay competitive, but in the end all consumers win with choice, price competition, and variety.

      --

      GPL Deconstructed
  2. Re:The Catch by jeif1k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Still, neat to see. Now if we could just lose the 4 pin FW ports. The connectors are bad enough on their own. Redesign it, and and power to it.

    FW is spec'ed to supply much more power to devices than USB. That's probably the reason why designers don't like to put powered FW ports on laptops in the first place, and that's only going to get worse as laptops get lighter and more power efficient.