USB versus Firewire
I am kind of annoyed by this Macworld UK article: USB 2.0 hard drives The author, Rosemary Haworth, says of Firewire support: "You’ll pay more for this feature, and many people won’t need it, given the advantages of USB 2.0 over the dreadfully slow USB 1.1 standard.". I think you've done some people a disservice Rosemary, by not telling them about the advantages of Firewire, which are more subtle than just bus speed. When reading or writing to a Firewire drive you'll find that the CPU is very lightly loaded compared with USB. This is because the CPU is heavily involved in USB data transfers, but with Firewire it is different. The Firewire disks can directly transfer data into memory without CPU supervision (the CPU asks for the data transfer and then is free to do other work while the Firewire hardware takes care of the transfer - at the end of the transfer the CPU is notified). Who cares you might ask ? Well, here's an example of where Firewire is important: Yo