Serato/Rane/DJs do you need a faster connection then USB 2.0 for .MOV files on a PC using VideoSL? I'm running an External 7200rpm non-powered drive using USB 2.0 and it seems to be fine. I haven't tried with a 3.5USB Powered or a eSata ExpressCard setup.

people are recommending firewire over usb. fw400 should be fine, but fw800 usually isn't much more. usb can be used, but you may risk getting usb dropouts.

fw400 is working ok for folks? i havent tried going external yet. do they make a nonpowered fw400 or 800 portable hd?

I use a Firewire 800 (Western Digital Studio 1TB) and all my videos are on that drive. MacBook Pro. Works great, no dropouts.

FW800 is much faster than USB, and firewire don't load your CPU as USB do, FW have it's own processor.

en.wikipedia.org

this what I use.

totally bus powered firewire 800

Actually I just bought the enclose & put my own drive in it.
320gb

eshop.macsales.com

I just tried eSata (Laptop PCCard) by specs its suppose to be three times faster than USB2.0/Firewire. "The firewire 400 will top out around 50MBps where as the sata will be closer to 150MBps"

BUT folks... No performance advantages that I can see in VideoSL. Thanks for all the feedback.

Just as an FYI that you may already know via the following link: www.cwol.com

Question: USB 2.0 is faster than FireWire...right?
Answer: No, actually FireWire is faster than USB 2.0.

Question: Hold on...USB 2.0 is a 480 Mbps interface and FireWire is a 400 Mbps interface, how can FireWire be faster?
Answer: Raw throughput rating numbers alone don't tell the whole story, as explained below.

The throughput numbers would lead you to believe that USB 2.0 provides better performance. But, differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the actual sustained "real world" throughput. And for those seeking high-performance, sustained throughput is what it's all about (reading and writing files to an external hard drive for example).

Architecture - FireWire vs. USB 2.0
FireWire, built from the ground up for speed, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer

USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower, less-efficient data flow control)

Performance Comparison - FireWire vs. USB 2.0
Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and then USB 2.0 show:

Read Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0

Write Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0

FireWire - Still the Performance King!
As the performance comparison shown above confirms, FireWire remains the performance leader. And is the best choice for DV camcorders, digital audio and video devices, external hard drives, high-performance DVD burners and any other device that demands continuous high performance throughput.

i use firewire just to avoid any bandwidth hogging from my 57. the enclosure i have though is usb2/firewire, i only have 1 firewire port on my laptop but use 2 of these enclosures to do my backups.

Great point on sharing the USB. Every bit loss equals lost quality.

Uhm, say what?

Sorry not clear. Trying to highlight DJ 3pm's comments about not taking away from the USB bandwidth plus use a overall faster FireWire connection. Bit=bytes/frames - lost bits equal lost quality of video (e.g. stuttering of video). Better?