Dude! Blee*ing Google it, dude... Salim se, naravno! O svemocni Google, sta nam ti kazes o razlici FireWire vs USB?
-------------------------------
"I've got the USB version of the Audiophile and my brother has the Firewire. They both work fine and neither of us has problems with latency. I think they're great cards."
http://sound-on-sound2.infopop...mp;f=351097254&m=620109192
-------------------------------
"In general use, I only saw a slight difference in performance when using Naturally Speaking voice recognition, which uses drive and CPU resources heavily. Otherwise, I saw no actually affect on real-life use. However, because I did see a decrease, I ran some simple hard disk benchmarks and found a considerable decrease in the read/write speed of the internal hard disk when an external USB2.0 was connected. So, either something very specific is simultaneously affecting my two very different systems, or, because the decrease is not so apparent in daily use, most users are not aware of the load USB2.0 is placing on their systems."
http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/5/185441001/ShowPost.aspx
-------------------------------
"In general, firewire devices appear to be accompanied with better drivers and better hardware, whereas usb2.0 devices appear to have much worse drivers and lower end hardware.
Combo devices appear to follow the firewire standard of higher end hardware/software, but often their usb controllers will be worse, resulting in worse performance for usb 2.0.
In a perfect world, on a combo device that has good drivers/controllers for both firewire and usb2.0, using usb2.0 might outperform using firewire, if all underlying hardware and software supports the faster speeds. However, since most devices will not give you anywhere near 400mbs access, let alone 480mbs access, in a perfect world, you would not see a difference between them." (isto)
----------------------------------
"I can tell you that I've recorded dozens of multitrack sessions with what amounted to literally hundreds of overdubs using M-Audio's Audiophile USB external soundcard and I didn't have a latency problem (or any other issues) with it...
I'm not going to get into the USB vs. Firewire "debate" (I do believe that, unless the USB protocol regarding the use of CPU cycles is addressed in version USB3--or whatever the next version is--that Firewire will become the "standard" in prosumer audio within complex systems)...However, as things stand today, USB devices can perform in a more than satisfactory manner if they are properly configured with the proper system "tweaks"..."
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=780235&mpage=1򿻏
----------------------------------
Konacnu rec dajemo Wikipediji:
USB was originally seen as a complement to FireWire, which was designed as a high-speed serial bus which could efficiently interconnect peripherals such as hard disks, audio interfaces, and video equipment. USB originally operated at a far lower data rate and used much simpler hardware, and was suitable for small peripherals such as keyboards and mice.
However, FireWire ports were more costly to implement than USB ports, in part due to their per-port license fee (between 75 cents and $1.50 in bulk licenses(disputed—see talk page) ), and the more complex circuitry the controller required. As a result, they were rarely provided as standard equipment on computers other than Apple's Macintoshes (Apple owns rights to the FireWire standard), and peripheral manufacturers offered many more USB devices. The introduction of USB 2.0 Hi-Speed, with its widely advertised 480 Mbit/s signaling rate, convinced many consumers that FireWire was outdated (although this was not necessarily the case; see "USB 2.0 Hi-Speed vs FireWire" below).
Today, USB Hi-Speed is rapidly replacing FireWire in consumer products. FireWire retains its popularity in many professional settings, where it is used for audio and video transfer, and data storage.
[edit]
Technical differences
The most significant technical differences between FireWire and USB include the following:
* USB networks use a tiered-star topology, while FireWire networks use a repeater-based topology.
* USB uses a "speak-when-spoken-to" protocol; peripherals cannot communicate with the host unless the host specifically requests communication. A FireWire device can communicate with any other node at any time, subject to network conditions.
* A USB network relies on a single host at the top of the tree to control the network. In a FireWire network, any capable node can control the network.
These and other differences reflect the differing design goals of the two busses: USB was designed for simplicity and low cost, while FireWire was designed for high performance, particularly in time-sensitive applications such as audio and video.
[edit]
USB 2.0 Hi-Speed vs FireWire
The signalling rate of USB 2.0 Hi-Speed mode is 480 megabits per second, while the signalling rate of FireWire 400 (IEEE 1394a) is 393.216 Mbit/s [4]. USB requires more host processing power than Firewire due to the need for the host to provide the arbitration and scheduling of transactions. USB transfer rates are theoretically higher than Firewire due to the need for Firewire devices to arbitrate for bus access. A single Firewire device may achieve a transfer rate for Firewire 400 as high as 41 MB/s. While for USB 2.0 the rate can theoretically be 55 MB/s (for a single device). In a multi device environment Firewire rapidly loses ground to USB: Firewire's mixed speed networks and long connection chains dramatically affect its performance.
The peer to peer nature of Firewire requires devices to arbitrate, which means a FireWire bus must wait until a given signal has propagated to all devices on the bus. The more devices on the bus the lower the peak performance. Conversely, for USB the maximum timing model is fixed and is limited only by the host-device branch (not the entire network). Furthermore, the host-centric nature of USB allows the host to allocate more bandwidth to high priority devices instead of forcing them to compete for bandwidth as in Firewire.
Despite all this and despite USB's theoretically higher speed, in real life benchmarks the actual speed of firewire hard drives nearly always beats USB 2 hard drives by a significant margin. In addition to this some operating systems take a conservative approach to scheduling transactions and limit the number of transfers per frame, reducing the maximum transfers from, say, the theoretical 13 per frame to 10 or 9. Therefore if high speed transfer is what you need you should match this with a good host controller and operating system.
In 2003, FireWire was updated with the IEEE 1394b specification. This provides a new mode called S800, which operates at 786.432 Mbit/s. S800 requires a new physical layer, but S800 nodes can be connected to existing FireWire 1394a ports, just as USB Hi-Speed nodes will operate with older full-speed hosts. However unlike USB Hi-Speed systems which can change the speeds on each branch a 1394a device on a 1394b system requires all devices to fall to 1394a speeds. IEEE 1394b also provides rates up to approximately 3.2 Gbit/s; however, the higher rates use special physical layers which are incompatible with 1394a devices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb#USB_2.0_Hi-Speed_vs_FireWire
"Goin' down where Southern cross' the Dog"