<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Re-solidified (?)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mexicomedstudent.com/2007/11/700/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mexicomedstudent.com/2007/11/700</link>
	<description>Every journey has a pitstop.  Welcome to mine.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:12:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremiah</title>
		<link>http://www.mexicomedstudent.com/2007/11/700/comment-page-1#comment-69834</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremiah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mexicomedstudent.com/2007/11/700#comment-69834</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve always been more fond of firewire myself.  Sometimes I wish USB 2.0 wasn&#039;t so successful lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve always been more fond of firewire myself.  Sometimes I wish USB 2.0 wasn&#8217;t so successful lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: enrico</title>
		<link>http://www.mexicomedstudent.com/2007/11/700/comment-page-1#comment-69792</link>
		<dc:creator>enrico</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mexicomedstudent.com/2007/11/700#comment-69792</guid>
		<description>Honestly, a lot of `fsck&#039; in single-user mode, having to specify alternate superblock information.  I had both DiskWarrior and Data Rescue II (thanks BK) take a stab at the drive as well (booting from the CDs).  DRII didn&#039;t get to do it&#039;s full job because it was taking too long. Even the documentation tells you that having it run for days is not uncommon.  Sorry, can&#039;t wait...

Firewire, even FW400 is vastly superior to USB2.  USB2 approaches FW400 in raw total data, but it is nowhere near as robust or flexible. I can pull the FW cable from the drive in the middle of a copy, wait 5 seconds, and put it back, and the copy continues.  That&#039;s impressive. There&#039;s a reason video cameras, for example, don&#039;t xfer video over USB2. Start talking FW800, and you&#039;re not even in the same league anymore, performance-wise.  USB2 is cheaper, but it&#039;s cheaper mainly because of sheer supply, not because FW is inherently more expensive.  For general home and consumer needs, USB2 is more than adequate, but if you have the option for FW, you&#039;ll notice the difference.

It all goes back to the very foundations of the technology.  FW was designed to be an easier, more flexible replacement for early SCSI devices (high-throughput data transfer w/o having to assign device IDs, hotswappable, etc.); USB was a replacement for serial communications (input devices).  Not even the same class.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Honestly, a lot of `fsck&#8217; in single-user mode, having to specify alternate superblock information.  I had both DiskWarrior and Data Rescue II (thanks BK) take a stab at the drive as well (booting from the CDs).  DRII didn&#8217;t get to do it&#8217;s full job because it was taking too long. Even the documentation tells you that having it run for days is not uncommon.  Sorry, can&#8217;t wait&#8230;</p>
<p>Firewire, even FW400 is vastly superior to USB2.  USB2 approaches FW400 in raw total data, but it is nowhere near as robust or flexible. I can pull the FW cable from the drive in the middle of a copy, wait 5 seconds, and put it back, and the copy continues.  That&#8217;s impressive. There&#8217;s a reason video cameras, for example, don&#8217;t xfer video over USB2. Start talking FW800, and you&#8217;re not even in the same league anymore, performance-wise.  USB2 is cheaper, but it&#8217;s cheaper mainly because of sheer supply, not because FW is inherently more expensive.  For general home and consumer needs, USB2 is more than adequate, but if you have the option for FW, you&#8217;ll notice the difference.</p>
<p>It all goes back to the very foundations of the technology.  FW was designed to be an easier, more flexible replacement for early SCSI devices (high-throughput data transfer w/o having to assign device IDs, hotswappable, etc.); USB was a replacement for serial communications (input devices).  Not even the same class.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremiah</title>
		<link>http://www.mexicomedstudent.com/2007/11/700/comment-page-1#comment-69679</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremiah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mexicomedstudent.com/2007/11/700#comment-69679</guid>
		<description>What utilities did you use? and do you perfer Firewire or USB 2.0</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What utilities did you use? and do you perfer Firewire or USB 2.0</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

