<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_30_0245238</id>
	<title>USB 3.0 the Real Deal, SATA 6GB Not Yet</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256893200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MojoKid writes <i>"HotHardware has posted a sneak peek at a new motherboard Asus has coming down the pipe with USB 3.0 and SATA 6G support.  The Asus P7P55D-E Premium has a PLX PCI Express Gen 2 switch implementation that connects to NEC USB 3.0 and Marvell SATA 6G controller chips. With a USB 3.0 enabled external hard drive connected to a USB 2.0 port and then to the board's USB 3.0 port, there were <a href="http://hothardware.com/News/USB-30-and-SATA-6G-Performance-Preview/">some rather impressive gains to observe</a>.  When connected to a USB 3.0 port, the external hard drive was about 5 &mdash; 6x faster versus connecting over USB 2.0, with total throughput in excess of 130MB/sec. On the other hand, benchmarks with Seagate's new Barracuda XT SATA 6G drive show little performance difference but a burst rate that is off the charts.  According to ATTO, there are slight overall performance benefits to be had connecting the drive to the SATA 6G controller, but the deltas were quite small; somewhere in the neighborhood of 5MB/s  or so."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid writes " HotHardware has posted a sneak peek at a new motherboard Asus has coming down the pipe with USB 3.0 and SATA 6G support .
The Asus P7P55D-E Premium has a PLX PCI Express Gen 2 switch implementation that connects to NEC USB 3.0 and Marvell SATA 6G controller chips .
With a USB 3.0 enabled external hard drive connected to a USB 2.0 port and then to the board 's USB 3.0 port , there were some rather impressive gains to observe .
When connected to a USB 3.0 port , the external hard drive was about 5    6x faster versus connecting over USB 2.0 , with total throughput in excess of 130MB/sec .
On the other hand , benchmarks with Seagate 's new Barracuda XT SATA 6G drive show little performance difference but a burst rate that is off the charts .
According to ATTO , there are slight overall performance benefits to be had connecting the drive to the SATA 6G controller , but the deltas were quite small ; somewhere in the neighborhood of 5MB/s or so .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid writes "HotHardware has posted a sneak peek at a new motherboard Asus has coming down the pipe with USB 3.0 and SATA 6G support.
The Asus P7P55D-E Premium has a PLX PCI Express Gen 2 switch implementation that connects to NEC USB 3.0 and Marvell SATA 6G controller chips.
With a USB 3.0 enabled external hard drive connected to a USB 2.0 port and then to the board's USB 3.0 port, there were some rather impressive gains to observe.
When connected to a USB 3.0 port, the external hard drive was about 5 — 6x faster versus connecting over USB 2.0, with total throughput in excess of 130MB/sec.
On the other hand, benchmarks with Seagate's new Barracuda XT SATA 6G drive show little performance difference but a burst rate that is off the charts.
According to ATTO, there are slight overall performance benefits to be had connecting the drive to the SATA 6G controller, but the deltas were quite small; somewhere in the neighborhood of 5MB/s  or so.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921635</id>
	<title>5x-6x times faster?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256897040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh this sounds too good to be true</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh this sounds too good to be true</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh this sounds too good to be true</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922297</id>
	<title>Re:"off the charts"??</title>
	<author>AniVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1256907780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Rather, use a logarithmic scale. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather , use a logarithmic scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Rather, use a logarithmic scale. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922097</id>
	<title>Is it **better** as opposed to faster ?</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1256905020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My issues with USB 2.0 are not so much about speed:</p><p>1- there's that ridiculous fudging about hi-speed, full-speed... is USB 3.0 **ALWAYS** USB 3.0, at last ?</p><p>2- I've got a bunch of 2.0 stuff (whichever 2.0 that was) that only works if I set my PC's USB ports as 1.0 only.</p><p>3- Even 2.0 stuff that kinda works has a way to make any non-intel-chipset PC freezy-jerky</p><p>4- I very rarely got anywhere near the supposed speed of 2.0 anyway.</p><p>In the end, I'd rather have a reliable, compatible, no PC freezes connection, than a "if everything works well" (read: rarely if ever) 10x faster one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My issues with USB 2.0 are not so much about speed : 1- there 's that ridiculous fudging about hi-speed , full-speed... is USB 3.0 * * ALWAYS * * USB 3.0 , at last ? 2- I 've got a bunch of 2.0 stuff ( whichever 2.0 that was ) that only works if I set my PC 's USB ports as 1.0 only.3- Even 2.0 stuff that kinda works has a way to make any non-intel-chipset PC freezy-jerky4- I very rarely got anywhere near the supposed speed of 2.0 anyway.In the end , I 'd rather have a reliable , compatible , no PC freezes connection , than a " if everything works well " ( read : rarely if ever ) 10x faster one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My issues with USB 2.0 are not so much about speed:1- there's that ridiculous fudging about hi-speed, full-speed... is USB 3.0 **ALWAYS** USB 3.0, at last ?2- I've got a bunch of 2.0 stuff (whichever 2.0 that was) that only works if I set my PC's USB ports as 1.0 only.3- Even 2.0 stuff that kinda works has a way to make any non-intel-chipset PC freezy-jerky4- I very rarely got anywhere near the supposed speed of 2.0 anyway.In the end, I'd rather have a reliable, compatible, no PC freezes connection, than a "if everything works well" (read: rarely if ever) 10x faster one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921969</id>
	<title>Re:moral?</title>
	<author>sosume</author>
	<datestamp>1256902980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So "SATA 6GB" is working fine, but this disk is just too slow to take advantage of its speed increase.</p><p>You are forgetting that lots of people are switching to SSD disks with amazing throughputs.. so there is an actual benefit for SATA 6GB. I for one welcome the new SATA 6GB overlord.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So " SATA 6GB " is working fine , but this disk is just too slow to take advantage of its speed increase.You are forgetting that lots of people are switching to SSD disks with amazing throughputs.. so there is an actual benefit for SATA 6GB .
I for one welcome the new SATA 6GB overlord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So "SATA 6GB" is working fine, but this disk is just too slow to take advantage of its speed increase.You are forgetting that lots of people are switching to SSD disks with amazing throughputs.. so there is an actual benefit for SATA 6GB.
I for one welcome the new SATA 6GB overlord.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923733</id>
	<title>Marvell's bug-ridden 88SE9123 controller</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256917440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this the exact same controller which was determined as bug-ridden and had to be removed?</p><p>- <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/07/14/1851220/Faulty-Marvell-Chips-Delay-SATA-6G-Launch?from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Faulty Marvell Chips Delay SATA 6G Launch</a> [slashdot.org]<br>- <a href="http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=7470" title="pcper.com" rel="nofollow">SATA 6G launch delayed to do tech issues on nearly all P55 boards</a> [pcper.com]<br>- <a href="http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=465339" title="pcper.com" rel="nofollow">PC Perspective forum &mdash; SATA 6G delayed due to controller issues</a> [pcper.com]<br>- <a href="http://koitsu.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/marvells-faulty-88se9123-sata-6g-controller/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">Marvell&rsquo;s faulty 88SE9123 (SATA 6G) controller</a> [wordpress.com]</p><p>Yup, that's the one.  Buyer beware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the exact same controller which was determined as bug-ridden and had to be removed ? - Faulty Marvell Chips Delay SATA 6G Launch [ slashdot.org ] - SATA 6G launch delayed to do tech issues on nearly all P55 boards [ pcper.com ] - PC Perspective forum    SATA 6G delayed due to controller issues [ pcper.com ] - Marvell    s faulty 88SE9123 ( SATA 6G ) controller [ wordpress.com ] Yup , that 's the one .
Buyer beware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the exact same controller which was determined as bug-ridden and had to be removed?- Faulty Marvell Chips Delay SATA 6G Launch [slashdot.org]- SATA 6G launch delayed to do tech issues on nearly all P55 boards [pcper.com]- PC Perspective forum — SATA 6G delayed due to controller issues [pcper.com]- Marvell’s faulty 88SE9123 (SATA 6G) controller [wordpress.com]Yup, that's the one.
Buyer beware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925139</id>
	<title>Re:Is it **better** as opposed to faster ?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1256922960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1- there's that ridiculous fudging about hi-speed, full-speed... is USB 3.0 **ALWAYS** USB 3.0, at last ?</p></div><p>Naming the higher speed of USB 1.1 "full speed" was a mistake. But on newer devices, look for the "superspeed" to find devices designed for the full burst speed of USB 3.0.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I've got a bunch of 2.0 stuff (whichever 2.0 that was) that only works if I set my PC's USB ports as 1.0 only.</p></div><p>I've got a few devices that work only through a hub and others that work only not through a hub.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1- there 's that ridiculous fudging about hi-speed , full-speed... is USB 3.0 * * ALWAYS * * USB 3.0 , at last ? Naming the higher speed of USB 1.1 " full speed " was a mistake .
But on newer devices , look for the " superspeed " to find devices designed for the full burst speed of USB 3.0.I 've got a bunch of 2.0 stuff ( whichever 2.0 that was ) that only works if I set my PC 's USB ports as 1.0 only.I 've got a few devices that work only through a hub and others that work only not through a hub .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1- there's that ridiculous fudging about hi-speed, full-speed... is USB 3.0 **ALWAYS** USB 3.0, at last ?Naming the higher speed of USB 1.1 "full speed" was a mistake.
But on newer devices, look for the "superspeed" to find devices designed for the full burst speed of USB 3.0.I've got a bunch of 2.0 stuff (whichever 2.0 that was) that only works if I set my PC's USB ports as 1.0 only.I've got a few devices that work only through a hub and others that work only not through a hub.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922487</id>
	<title>USB 3.0 provides more juice</title>
	<author>cyclocommuter</author>
	<datestamp>1256910180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>USB 3.0 provides <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB\_3.0#Power" title="wikipedia.org">more juice</a> [wikipedia.org] compared to 2.0. You could probably plug and power up a 3.5" desktop drive (assuming the enclosure has the circuitry to use power over USB) and it will run it without the need for brick adapters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>USB 3.0 provides more juice [ wikipedia.org ] compared to 2.0 .
You could probably plug and power up a 3.5 " desktop drive ( assuming the enclosure has the circuitry to use power over USB ) and it will run it without the need for brick adapters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USB 3.0 provides more juice [wikipedia.org] compared to 2.0.
You could probably plug and power up a 3.5" desktop drive (assuming the enclosure has the circuitry to use power over USB) and it will run it without the need for brick adapters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922273</id>
	<title>Wow ... no, I meant YAWN ...</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1256907360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... When connected to a USB 3.0 port, the external hard drive was about 5 -- 6x faster versus connecting over USB 2.0, with total throughput in excess of 130MB/sec. On the other hand, benchmarks with Seagate's new Barracuda XT SATA 6G drive show little performance difference but a burst rate that is off the charts.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>So, the USB 3 will be attractive to consumers, with big, impressive numbers written large on boxes in stores everywhere, and the SATA 6G will be attractive to content creators (high end video production, etc). USB 3 will be cheap, and SATA 6G will be not-so-cheap.</p><p>About 99 out of 100 moderately clued in techies could have guessed the outcome of this one.</p><p>[Fudges around in toy box under desk<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... pulls out crystal ball<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... can barely discern "hippy type art school grad" reading AmandTech article dated Feb 2010<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...]</p><p>"Yeah, but wait<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it says here that if you load up the USB 3 with more than one device, they both really slow down, but my film lab's SATA 3G just keeps on truckin' when you daisy-chain them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Yawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... When connected to a USB 3.0 port , the external hard drive was about 5 -- 6x faster versus connecting over USB 2.0 , with total throughput in excess of 130MB/sec .
On the other hand , benchmarks with Seagate 's new Barracuda XT SATA 6G drive show little performance difference but a burst rate that is off the charts .
... " So , the USB 3 will be attractive to consumers , with big , impressive numbers written large on boxes in stores everywhere , and the SATA 6G will be attractive to content creators ( high end video production , etc ) .
USB 3 will be cheap , and SATA 6G will be not-so-cheap.About 99 out of 100 moderately clued in techies could have guessed the outcome of this one .
[ Fudges around in toy box under desk ... pulls out crystal ball ... can barely discern " hippy type art school grad " reading AmandTech article dated Feb 2010 ... ] " Yeah , but wait ... it says here that if you load up the USB 3 with more than one device , they both really slow down , but my film lab 's SATA 3G just keeps on truckin ' when you daisy-chain them ... " Yawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ... When connected to a USB 3.0 port, the external hard drive was about 5 -- 6x faster versus connecting over USB 2.0, with total throughput in excess of 130MB/sec.
On the other hand, benchmarks with Seagate's new Barracuda XT SATA 6G drive show little performance difference but a burst rate that is off the charts.
..."So, the USB 3 will be attractive to consumers, with big, impressive numbers written large on boxes in stores everywhere, and the SATA 6G will be attractive to content creators (high end video production, etc).
USB 3 will be cheap, and SATA 6G will be not-so-cheap.About 99 out of 100 moderately clued in techies could have guessed the outcome of this one.
[Fudges around in toy box under desk ... pulls out crystal ball ... can barely discern "hippy type art school grad" reading AmandTech article dated Feb 2010 ...]"Yeah, but wait ... it says here that if you load up the USB 3 with more than one device, they both really slow down, but my film lab's SATA 3G just keeps on truckin' when you daisy-chain them ..."Yawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923999</id>
	<title>Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1256918520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I ordered a new system based on an Intel CORE i5 750 2.66GHZ CPU running on the Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium w/8 GB DDR3 1333 Mhz ram two days ago, and have been monitoring the net for signs of this mobo to actually hit the shelves. I will be running this with an unremarkable 64 GB Patriot SDD as the boot drive, until the new SATA 6 Gbps SSDs come out - which could take a awhile I imagine. I expect blazing speed from this platform, and can hardly wait for it. The only unknown is when will the mobo arrive. If it drags on and on, at least there is the option of an add on card that will convert one of the other ASUS X58 boards to USB 3 &amp; SATA 6. I just hope I haven't made a mistake with the decision to wait. The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $29.</p><p>Here are a host of links I collected on it this morning...</p><p> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/processors/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221300024" title="informationweek.com">Asus Unveils USB 3.0 Motherboard</a> [informationweek.com] <br>
Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium<br>
The motherboard, unveiled Wednesday [October 28 2009], is 4.8 inches by 3 inches and is scheduled to be available next month for $299.</p><p>October 30th, 2009<br>
<a href="http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=809" title="pcper.com">USB 3.0 and SATA 6G Performance Preview - ASUS brings the goods</a> [pcper.com] <br>
the P55-Express based P7P55D-E Premium is very close to hitting the market.</p><p>October 29th, 2009<br>
<a href="http://hothardware.com/News/USB-30-and-SATA-6G-Performance-Preview/" title="hothardware.com">USB 3.0 and SATA 6G Performance Preview</a> [hothardware.com] </p><p>October 29th, 2009<br>
<a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/this-is-the-first-usb-3-0-motherboard/" title="gizmodo.com.au">This Is The First USB 3.0 Motherboard</a> [gizmodo.com.au] </p><p>October 28th, 2009<br>
<a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=6014" title="zdnet.com">ASUS debuts USB 3.0 motherboard and add-on card</a> [zdnet.com] <br>
The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $29. Both will be available November.</p><p>October 28th, 2009<br>
<a href="http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/Review/159184,asus-p7p55d-e-premium.aspx" title="atomicmpc.com.au">ASUS brings the first mobo with SATA 3 and USB 3</a> [atomicmpc.com.au] </p><p>October 28th, 2009<br>
<a href="http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=8609&amp;Itemid=47" title="benchmarkreviews.com">ASUS P7P55D-E Motherboard Offers USB 3.0 and SATA-III 6G Performance</a> [benchmarkreviews.com] <br>
North American Availability<br>
The P7P55D-E Premium and U3S6 expansion cards will be available at ASUS authorized retailers early November at $299 and $29 respectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ordered a new system based on an Intel CORE i5 750 2.66GHZ CPU running on the Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium w/8 GB DDR3 1333 Mhz ram two days ago , and have been monitoring the net for signs of this mobo to actually hit the shelves .
I will be running this with an unremarkable 64 GB Patriot SDD as the boot drive , until the new SATA 6 Gbps SSDs come out - which could take a awhile I imagine .
I expect blazing speed from this platform , and can hardly wait for it .
The only unknown is when will the mobo arrive .
If it drags on and on , at least there is the option of an add on card that will convert one of the other ASUS X58 boards to USB 3 &amp; SATA 6 .
I just hope I have n't made a mistake with the decision to wait .
The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $ 299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $ 29.Here are a host of links I collected on it this morning... Asus Unveils USB 3.0 Motherboard [ informationweek.com ] Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium The motherboard , unveiled Wednesday [ October 28 2009 ] , is 4.8 inches by 3 inches and is scheduled to be available next month for $ 299.October 30th , 2009 USB 3.0 and SATA 6G Performance Preview - ASUS brings the goods [ pcper.com ] the P55-Express based P7P55D-E Premium is very close to hitting the market.October 29th , 2009 USB 3.0 and SATA 6G Performance Preview [ hothardware.com ] October 29th , 2009 This Is The First USB 3.0 Motherboard [ gizmodo.com.au ] October 28th , 2009 ASUS debuts USB 3.0 motherboard and add-on card [ zdnet.com ] The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $ 299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $ 29 .
Both will be available November.October 28th , 2009 ASUS brings the first mobo with SATA 3 and USB 3 [ atomicmpc.com.au ] October 28th , 2009 ASUS P7P55D-E Motherboard Offers USB 3.0 and SATA-III 6G Performance [ benchmarkreviews.com ] North American Availability The P7P55D-E Premium and U3S6 expansion cards will be available at ASUS authorized retailers early November at $ 299 and $ 29 respectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ordered a new system based on an Intel CORE i5 750 2.66GHZ CPU running on the Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium w/8 GB DDR3 1333 Mhz ram two days ago, and have been monitoring the net for signs of this mobo to actually hit the shelves.
I will be running this with an unremarkable 64 GB Patriot SDD as the boot drive, until the new SATA 6 Gbps SSDs come out - which could take a awhile I imagine.
I expect blazing speed from this platform, and can hardly wait for it.
The only unknown is when will the mobo arrive.
If it drags on and on, at least there is the option of an add on card that will convert one of the other ASUS X58 boards to USB 3 &amp; SATA 6.
I just hope I haven't made a mistake with the decision to wait.
The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $29.Here are a host of links I collected on it this morning... Asus Unveils USB 3.0 Motherboard [informationweek.com] 
Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium
The motherboard, unveiled Wednesday [October 28 2009], is 4.8 inches by 3 inches and is scheduled to be available next month for $299.October 30th, 2009
USB 3.0 and SATA 6G Performance Preview - ASUS brings the goods [pcper.com] 
the P55-Express based P7P55D-E Premium is very close to hitting the market.October 29th, 2009
USB 3.0 and SATA 6G Performance Preview [hothardware.com] October 29th, 2009
This Is The First USB 3.0 Motherboard [gizmodo.com.au] October 28th, 2009
ASUS debuts USB 3.0 motherboard and add-on card [zdnet.com] 
The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $29.
Both will be available November.October 28th, 2009
ASUS brings the first mobo with SATA 3 and USB 3 [atomicmpc.com.au] October 28th, 2009
ASUS P7P55D-E Motherboard Offers USB 3.0 and SATA-III 6G Performance [benchmarkreviews.com] 
North American Availability
The P7P55D-E Premium and U3S6 expansion cards will be available at ASUS authorized retailers early November at $299 and $29 respectively.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925489</id>
	<title>Re:PIO or DMA?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256924280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as they do it better than FireWire.  A lot of deployed FireWire controllers allow remote devices to initiate DMA transfers to and from arbitrary points in physical memory without requiring the driver to approve the addresses.  This was done intentionally to allow dumb devices to have their memory accessed, but the same controller chips made it into computers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they do it better than FireWire .
A lot of deployed FireWire controllers allow remote devices to initiate DMA transfers to and from arbitrary points in physical memory without requiring the driver to approve the addresses .
This was done intentionally to allow dumb devices to have their memory accessed , but the same controller chips made it into computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they do it better than FireWire.
A lot of deployed FireWire controllers allow remote devices to initiate DMA transfers to and from arbitrary points in physical memory without requiring the driver to approve the addresses.
This was done intentionally to allow dumb devices to have their memory accessed, but the same controller chips made it into computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925457</id>
	<title>Re:Shoddy Method</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1256924100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And anyway - wouldn't it benefit everyone if they merged the interfaces into one, SATA and USB merged into one single unified interface.</p><p>They do overlap in functionality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And anyway - would n't it benefit everyone if they merged the interfaces into one , SATA and USB merged into one single unified interface.They do overlap in functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And anyway - wouldn't it benefit everyone if they merged the interfaces into one, SATA and USB merged into one single unified interface.They do overlap in functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922889</id>
	<title>Laptop PCs have an I/O bottle neck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256912880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The speed of the USB connection will make NO difference in practice.  Laptop machines have serious I/O bottle necks that typically don't allow the *sustained* I/O speed to exceed about 32 Megabytes per second.  We started to call that the Galactic I/O Speed Barrier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The speed of the USB connection will make NO difference in practice .
Laptop machines have serious I/O bottle necks that typically do n't allow the * sustained * I/O speed to exceed about 32 Megabytes per second .
We started to call that the Galactic I/O Speed Barrier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The speed of the USB connection will make NO difference in practice.
Laptop machines have serious I/O bottle necks that typically don't allow the *sustained* I/O speed to exceed about 32 Megabytes per second.
We started to call that the Galactic I/O Speed Barrier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923937</id>
	<title>Re:SATA 3 is for SSDs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> SATA 3 should release the proverbial floodgates for sequential reads.</p></div><p>Actually you miss one of the points of SSD, there really isn't any difference between sequential and random on them. With rotating media, there is because sequential operations happen in tune with the disk's spinning, while randoms do not. With SSDs memory addresses get load-balanced and moved anyway, so there isn't really a difference (even physically) between random and sequential reads.</p><p>This is why SSD drive don't need to be/shouldn't be defragmented, there isn't any performance loss in having things in random locations and the extra writes wear out the drive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SATA 3 should release the proverbial floodgates for sequential reads.Actually you miss one of the points of SSD , there really is n't any difference between sequential and random on them .
With rotating media , there is because sequential operations happen in tune with the disk 's spinning , while randoms do not .
With SSDs memory addresses get load-balanced and moved anyway , so there is n't really a difference ( even physically ) between random and sequential reads.This is why SSD drive do n't need to be/should n't be defragmented , there is n't any performance loss in having things in random locations and the extra writes wear out the drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> SATA 3 should release the proverbial floodgates for sequential reads.Actually you miss one of the points of SSD, there really isn't any difference between sequential and random on them.
With rotating media, there is because sequential operations happen in tune with the disk's spinning, while randoms do not.
With SSDs memory addresses get load-balanced and moved anyway, so there isn't really a difference (even physically) between random and sequential reads.This is why SSD drive don't need to be/shouldn't be defragmented, there isn't any performance loss in having things in random locations and the extra writes wear out the drive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29940357</id>
	<title>Re:USB3 superior to FW?</title>
	<author>countach</author>
	<datestamp>1257070200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The nice thing about Firewire is you can chain devices without a hub. That's why most machines have one firewire port, and any number of USB ports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The nice thing about Firewire is you can chain devices without a hub .
That 's why most machines have one firewire port , and any number of USB ports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nice thing about Firewire is you can chain devices without a hub.
That's why most machines have one firewire port, and any number of USB ports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922095</id>
	<title>Re:moral?</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1256905020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So the moral seems to be: USB 2 sucks for disks"</p><p>I can't be the only one that miss-parsed that is USB 2 sucks dicks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So the moral seems to be : USB 2 sucks for disks " I ca n't be the only one that miss-parsed that is USB 2 sucks dicks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So the moral seems to be: USB 2 sucks for disks"I can't be the only one that miss-parsed that is USB 2 sucks dicks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924977</id>
	<title>Re:IEEE1394</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256922360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>USB 2.0 support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>USB 2.0 support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USB 2.0 support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924733</id>
	<title>Re:Firewire owners</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1256921460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that BetaMax never really died? Almost every TV station in the US used it. The same thing could happen to Firewire, it could move directly to a professional only adoption. The VERY high end SLRs have Firewire. They even sell Firewire SD and CF card readers.</p><p>These are the people that care more about what Firewire offers that USB doesn't than anything else.</p><p>Firewire 3200 has the SAME connector as Firewire 800. The only problem with the Firewire 400 connector is it wasn't made non-symmetrical enough and if you were fumbling around on a cheap external drive you could easily plug your iPod in backwards... (not fun). If you mean that Firewire 3200 also supports Cat6 cable and Fiber, then I guess they aren't the same.</p><p>Why in God's name would you want or need a mouse or keyboard on USB3, or even USB2 for that matter. Can you daisy chain eSata? Firewire supports up to 63 devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that BetaMax never really died ?
Almost every TV station in the US used it .
The same thing could happen to Firewire , it could move directly to a professional only adoption .
The VERY high end SLRs have Firewire .
They even sell Firewire SD and CF card readers.These are the people that care more about what Firewire offers that USB does n't than anything else.Firewire 3200 has the SAME connector as Firewire 800 .
The only problem with the Firewire 400 connector is it was n't made non-symmetrical enough and if you were fumbling around on a cheap external drive you could easily plug your iPod in backwards... ( not fun ) .
If you mean that Firewire 3200 also supports Cat6 cable and Fiber , then I guess they are n't the same.Why in God 's name would you want or need a mouse or keyboard on USB3 , or even USB2 for that matter .
Can you daisy chain eSata ?
Firewire supports up to 63 devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that BetaMax never really died?
Almost every TV station in the US used it.
The same thing could happen to Firewire, it could move directly to a professional only adoption.
The VERY high end SLRs have Firewire.
They even sell Firewire SD and CF card readers.These are the people that care more about what Firewire offers that USB doesn't than anything else.Firewire 3200 has the SAME connector as Firewire 800.
The only problem with the Firewire 400 connector is it wasn't made non-symmetrical enough and if you were fumbling around on a cheap external drive you could easily plug your iPod in backwards... (not fun).
If you mean that Firewire 3200 also supports Cat6 cable and Fiber, then I guess they aren't the same.Why in God's name would you want or need a mouse or keyboard on USB3, or even USB2 for that matter.
Can you daisy chain eSata?
Firewire supports up to 63 devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923557</id>
	<title>Light Peak</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1256916660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if even Intel's heart is in USB any more. USB 3 sounds considerably more complex than previous versions, not just for the chipsets but in terms of the cost of cabling etc. I wonder if the tech is going to see serious adoption. Intel are already talking up Light Peak which has a potential for insane transfer rates. I expect USB will be around for a long time yet, but I wonder if USB 3 will have time to become established before something much better appears.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if even Intel 's heart is in USB any more .
USB 3 sounds considerably more complex than previous versions , not just for the chipsets but in terms of the cost of cabling etc .
I wonder if the tech is going to see serious adoption .
Intel are already talking up Light Peak which has a potential for insane transfer rates .
I expect USB will be around for a long time yet , but I wonder if USB 3 will have time to become established before something much better appears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if even Intel's heart is in USB any more.
USB 3 sounds considerably more complex than previous versions, not just for the chipsets but in terms of the cost of cabling etc.
I wonder if the tech is going to see serious adoption.
Intel are already talking up Light Peak which has a potential for insane transfer rates.
I expect USB will be around for a long time yet, but I wonder if USB 3 will have time to become established before something much better appears.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29932947</id>
	<title>Re:Wow ... no, I meant YAWN ...</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1256982960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I'm less impressed by your ability to see the future than your ability to somehow daisy-chain SATA-drives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'm less impressed by your ability to see the future than your ability to somehow daisy-chain SATA-drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'm less impressed by your ability to see the future than your ability to somehow daisy-chain SATA-drives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923337</id>
	<title>PIO or DMA?</title>
	<author>etnoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256915580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure you can yank up the bandwidth of USB3, but as long as you're stuck with PIO that isn't much of a gain. I would rather have USB3 have a DMA extension for really fast transfers instead of having to have the CPU wake up for every little I/O operation. On a related note, does anybody know any laptop brand that sells computers *with eSata*? That would be awesome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure you can yank up the bandwidth of USB3 , but as long as you 're stuck with PIO that is n't much of a gain .
I would rather have USB3 have a DMA extension for really fast transfers instead of having to have the CPU wake up for every little I/O operation .
On a related note , does anybody know any laptop brand that sells computers * with eSata * ?
That would be awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure you can yank up the bandwidth of USB3, but as long as you're stuck with PIO that isn't much of a gain.
I would rather have USB3 have a DMA extension for really fast transfers instead of having to have the CPU wake up for every little I/O operation.
On a related note, does anybody know any laptop brand that sells computers *with eSata*?
That would be awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922513</id>
	<title>"down the pipe"</title>
	<author>jpwilkin</author>
	<datestamp>1256910300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, uh, sewage comes "down the pipe."  "Down the pike," please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , uh , sewage comes " down the pipe .
" " Down the pike , " please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, uh, sewage comes "down the pipe.
"  "Down the pike," please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921679</id>
	<title>Shoddy Method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256897760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Barracuda XT is a spinning platter HDD and so should not be expected to benefit significantly from the new SATA revision. SSDs on the other hand have already maxed out the transfer rate SATA 3Gbps. I suspect they would have seen the difference if they used a top of the line SSD.</p><p>This is good news all around, it's great to see things getting faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Barracuda XT is a spinning platter HDD and so should not be expected to benefit significantly from the new SATA revision .
SSDs on the other hand have already maxed out the transfer rate SATA 3Gbps .
I suspect they would have seen the difference if they used a top of the line SSD.This is good news all around , it 's great to see things getting faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Barracuda XT is a spinning platter HDD and so should not be expected to benefit significantly from the new SATA revision.
SSDs on the other hand have already maxed out the transfer rate SATA 3Gbps.
I suspect they would have seen the difference if they used a top of the line SSD.This is good news all around, it's great to see things getting faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923641</id>
	<title>Re:moral?</title>
	<author>TeamSPAM</author>
	<datestamp>1256917080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does, though I'm a firewire loving Apple fanboy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>At one point the two standards were close in price. These days firewire case are getting rare and more expensive while usb case are pretty cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does , though I 'm a firewire loving Apple fanboy .
: ) At one point the two standards were close in price .
These days firewire case are getting rare and more expensive while usb case are pretty cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does, though I'm a firewire loving Apple fanboy.
:)At one point the two standards were close in price.
These days firewire case are getting rare and more expensive while usb case are pretty cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921691</id>
	<title>Still too slow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256898360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're still trying to pass a gallon of water through the eye of a needle - the sea change will come when we use light to store information and using quntum mechanics we can imprint information on secondary memory systems without loss</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're still trying to pass a gallon of water through the eye of a needle - the sea change will come when we use light to store information and using quntum mechanics we can imprint information on secondary memory systems without loss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're still trying to pass a gallon of water through the eye of a needle - the sea change will come when we use light to store information and using quntum mechanics we can imprint information on secondary memory systems without loss</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924535</id>
	<title>Re:moral?</title>
	<author>kinnell</author>
	<datestamp>1256920620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://gizmodo.com/378314/a-fleshlight-turned-into-an-input-device-lets-you-control-your-computer-by-fucking-it" title="gizmodo.com">Who says it doesn't?</a> [gizmodo.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who says it does n't ?
[ gizmodo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who says it doesn't?
[gizmodo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921975</id>
	<title>Re:moral?</title>
	<author>VMaN</author>
	<datestamp>1256903040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'd probably say something more like:</p><p>"USB 1 sucks for disks, USB 2 is better and probably sufficient for a typical hard drive"</p><p>Your comment made me feel old you insensitive clod<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'd probably say something more like : " USB 1 sucks for disks , USB 2 is better and probably sufficient for a typical hard drive " Your comment made me feel old you insensitive clod : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'd probably say something more like:"USB 1 sucks for disks, USB 2 is better and probably sufficient for a typical hard drive"Your comment made me feel old you insensitive clod :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923911</id>
	<title>Re:Shoddy Method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256918220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>very few SDDs can saturate 3GB, even under a burst read.  Even if synthetic tests can drive past that point, real world applications other than extreme specialty apps utilizing massive IO thoughput can see differences.  Fact is, 3GB/s vs 6GB/s in terms of game loar times or PC operation are meaningless.  It is no longer a bottleneck the user can perceive in most cases.  And a $200 premium per disk, plus the cost of the controler?  no thanks.  Even 6GB SAS drives don't make much of a diffence, and you think SATA will?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>very few SDDs can saturate 3GB , even under a burst read .
Even if synthetic tests can drive past that point , real world applications other than extreme specialty apps utilizing massive IO thoughput can see differences .
Fact is , 3GB/s vs 6GB/s in terms of game loar times or PC operation are meaningless .
It is no longer a bottleneck the user can perceive in most cases .
And a $ 200 premium per disk , plus the cost of the controler ?
no thanks .
Even 6GB SAS drives do n't make much of a diffence , and you think SATA will ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very few SDDs can saturate 3GB, even under a burst read.
Even if synthetic tests can drive past that point, real world applications other than extreme specialty apps utilizing massive IO thoughput can see differences.
Fact is, 3GB/s vs 6GB/s in terms of game loar times or PC operation are meaningless.
It is no longer a bottleneck the user can perceive in most cases.
And a $200 premium per disk, plus the cost of the controler?
no thanks.
Even 6GB SAS drives don't make much of a diffence, and you think SATA will?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924081</id>
	<title>Car Analogy Regarding SATA 6G</title>
	<author>stilz2</author>
	<datestamp>1256918940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A 50MPH car isn't going any faster when put on a 100MPH highway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A 50MPH car is n't going any faster when put on a 100MPH highway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 50MPH car isn't going any faster when put on a 100MPH highway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922401</id>
	<title>Re:Is it **better** as opposed to faster ?</title>
	<author>sleeponthemic</author>
	<datestamp>1256909100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your issues seem much more about unreliable and noncompliant devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your issues seem much more about unreliable and noncompliant devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your issues seem much more about unreliable and noncompliant devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921965</id>
	<title>Re:IEEE1394</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256902980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's faster.  In their tests, they were getting 140MB/s transfers through USB3 to a single drive.  I have two (older, slower) drives that can, between them, saturate a FireWire 800 bus giving me a total throughput of a shade under 100MB/s.  One thing the tests didn't show was how well USB3 scales.  What happens when you plug two disks in to a single USB3 port?  What about four or five?  I can chain together FireWire 800 disks and see it scale almost linearly, but can I do the same with USB3 hubs?  In real-world usage, USB2 was much slower than FireWire 400 due to protocol overhead.  Has this been improved with USB3?  What happens if I run a USB1 keyboard on the same hub as my USB3 disk?  The FireWire standard goes up to 3200Mb/s, although I've never seen an implementation that goes over 800.  USB3, apparently, gives the same speed after protocol overhead, but how close to this can it get in the real world?  USB 2 had a very high CPU load compared to FireWire, has this been fixed with USB3?</p><p>
It seems that USB3 has fixed most of the things that made FireWire better than USB2, and FireWire 3200 isn't supported anywhere that I've seen, so USB3 probably has more long term future.  It's not clear that USB3 is better than FireWire 3200, but it does have one big advantage: it's actually being deployed.  It is clearly superior to FireWire 800, which is the fastest FireWire you'll find on existing systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's faster .
In their tests , they were getting 140MB/s transfers through USB3 to a single drive .
I have two ( older , slower ) drives that can , between them , saturate a FireWire 800 bus giving me a total throughput of a shade under 100MB/s .
One thing the tests did n't show was how well USB3 scales .
What happens when you plug two disks in to a single USB3 port ?
What about four or five ?
I can chain together FireWire 800 disks and see it scale almost linearly , but can I do the same with USB3 hubs ?
In real-world usage , USB2 was much slower than FireWire 400 due to protocol overhead .
Has this been improved with USB3 ?
What happens if I run a USB1 keyboard on the same hub as my USB3 disk ?
The FireWire standard goes up to 3200Mb/s , although I 've never seen an implementation that goes over 800 .
USB3 , apparently , gives the same speed after protocol overhead , but how close to this can it get in the real world ?
USB 2 had a very high CPU load compared to FireWire , has this been fixed with USB3 ?
It seems that USB3 has fixed most of the things that made FireWire better than USB2 , and FireWire 3200 is n't supported anywhere that I 've seen , so USB3 probably has more long term future .
It 's not clear that USB3 is better than FireWire 3200 , but it does have one big advantage : it 's actually being deployed .
It is clearly superior to FireWire 800 , which is the fastest FireWire you 'll find on existing systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's faster.
In their tests, they were getting 140MB/s transfers through USB3 to a single drive.
I have two (older, slower) drives that can, between them, saturate a FireWire 800 bus giving me a total throughput of a shade under 100MB/s.
One thing the tests didn't show was how well USB3 scales.
What happens when you plug two disks in to a single USB3 port?
What about four or five?
I can chain together FireWire 800 disks and see it scale almost linearly, but can I do the same with USB3 hubs?
In real-world usage, USB2 was much slower than FireWire 400 due to protocol overhead.
Has this been improved with USB3?
What happens if I run a USB1 keyboard on the same hub as my USB3 disk?
The FireWire standard goes up to 3200Mb/s, although I've never seen an implementation that goes over 800.
USB3, apparently, gives the same speed after protocol overhead, but how close to this can it get in the real world?
USB 2 had a very high CPU load compared to FireWire, has this been fixed with USB3?
It seems that USB3 has fixed most of the things that made FireWire better than USB2, and FireWire 3200 isn't supported anywhere that I've seen, so USB3 probably has more long term future.
It's not clear that USB3 is better than FireWire 3200, but it does have one big advantage: it's actually being deployed.
It is clearly superior to FireWire 800, which is the fastest FireWire you'll find on existing systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925163</id>
	<title>Re:IEEE1394</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256923080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, you could have made the same post about Pro Audio and NuBus cards back in 1993. You're fucked pal, so bend over and spread em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , you could have made the same post about Pro Audio and NuBus cards back in 1993 .
You 're fucked pal , so bend over and spread em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, you could have made the same post about Pro Audio and NuBus cards back in 1993.
You're fucked pal, so bend over and spread em.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922731</id>
	<title>Re:USB3 superior to FW?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256911800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FireWire devices are not allowed to draw (or provide) more than 40W if they want to stick within the spec.  Unfortunately, that's not particularly useful.  40W would be enough to power my external disks, but my MacBook Pro does not have enough power for this.  The peer to peer nature of FireWire is the problem here.  There is no client-server relationship between devices, and so there is no provider-consumer model intrinsic in a FireWire chain when it comes to power.  This means that you can't design devices with the assumption that any power will be available over the port.  Many computers come with 4-pin FireWire ports, and if you plug things into these you won't even have the power pins connected.  In contrast, every USB device can guarantee that it can get the power that it requests, either from the computer or the hub.  </p><p>
And it's not just 40\% faster.  One drive was 40\% faster.  I assume USB can scale to at least 2 devices, so that would make it 280\% faster.  Compared to FireWire 800, of course.  FireWire 3200 has been promised for almost a decade, but still isn't shipping.  The big advantage FireWire had, apart from speed, was the ability to do isochronous transfers, which USB added.  The peer to peer model is nice on paper, but the only time I've used it was to connect two computers together so that one that was connected to a wired ethernet link could share its network connection with the other.  Being able to print directly from a camera sounds nice, but cameras and printers are both shipping with USB and not FireWire, and it turned out that just putting a USB host controller on the camera worked just as well and was cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FireWire devices are not allowed to draw ( or provide ) more than 40W if they want to stick within the spec .
Unfortunately , that 's not particularly useful .
40W would be enough to power my external disks , but my MacBook Pro does not have enough power for this .
The peer to peer nature of FireWire is the problem here .
There is no client-server relationship between devices , and so there is no provider-consumer model intrinsic in a FireWire chain when it comes to power .
This means that you ca n't design devices with the assumption that any power will be available over the port .
Many computers come with 4-pin FireWire ports , and if you plug things into these you wo n't even have the power pins connected .
In contrast , every USB device can guarantee that it can get the power that it requests , either from the computer or the hub .
And it 's not just 40 \ % faster .
One drive was 40 \ % faster .
I assume USB can scale to at least 2 devices , so that would make it 280 \ % faster .
Compared to FireWire 800 , of course .
FireWire 3200 has been promised for almost a decade , but still is n't shipping .
The big advantage FireWire had , apart from speed , was the ability to do isochronous transfers , which USB added .
The peer to peer model is nice on paper , but the only time I 've used it was to connect two computers together so that one that was connected to a wired ethernet link could share its network connection with the other .
Being able to print directly from a camera sounds nice , but cameras and printers are both shipping with USB and not FireWire , and it turned out that just putting a USB host controller on the camera worked just as well and was cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FireWire devices are not allowed to draw (or provide) more than 40W if they want to stick within the spec.
Unfortunately, that's not particularly useful.
40W would be enough to power my external disks, but my MacBook Pro does not have enough power for this.
The peer to peer nature of FireWire is the problem here.
There is no client-server relationship between devices, and so there is no provider-consumer model intrinsic in a FireWire chain when it comes to power.
This means that you can't design devices with the assumption that any power will be available over the port.
Many computers come with 4-pin FireWire ports, and if you plug things into these you won't even have the power pins connected.
In contrast, every USB device can guarantee that it can get the power that it requests, either from the computer or the hub.
And it's not just 40\% faster.
One drive was 40\% faster.
I assume USB can scale to at least 2 devices, so that would make it 280\% faster.
Compared to FireWire 800, of course.
FireWire 3200 has been promised for almost a decade, but still isn't shipping.
The big advantage FireWire had, apart from speed, was the ability to do isochronous transfers, which USB added.
The peer to peer model is nice on paper, but the only time I've used it was to connect two computers together so that one that was connected to a wired ethernet link could share its network connection with the other.
Being able to print directly from a camera sounds nice, but cameras and printers are both shipping with USB and not FireWire, and it turned out that just putting a USB host controller on the camera worked just as well and was cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29926693</id>
	<title>Intelligent Switching?</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1256929860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can the fabric between these different IO endpoints be set by an application running on the CPU to move data between endpoints, say USB and SATA, or perhaps even network and SATA or USB, then <i>get out of the loop</i>? Configure the switch to move data between endpoint devices, without the CPU required to process the data at all until the transaction ends, or if an exception is thrown?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can the fabric between these different IO endpoints be set by an application running on the CPU to move data between endpoints , say USB and SATA , or perhaps even network and SATA or USB , then get out of the loop ?
Configure the switch to move data between endpoint devices , without the CPU required to process the data at all until the transaction ends , or if an exception is thrown ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can the fabric between these different IO endpoints be set by an application running on the CPU to move data between endpoints, say USB and SATA, or perhaps even network and SATA or USB, then get out of the loop?
Configure the switch to move data between endpoint devices, without the CPU required to process the data at all until the transaction ends, or if an exception is thrown?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924307</id>
	<title>Re:PIO or DMA?</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1256919840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are several, i think some of HPs pavilions have them.  Try browsing newegg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several , i think some of HPs pavilions have them .
Try browsing newegg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several, i think some of HPs pavilions have them.
Try browsing newegg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922317</id>
	<title>give it up for the unbelievable smoke&amp;mirrors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256908200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they couldn't do it without US.</p><p>"But in the end, none of that really matters, because God gave us the Earth to burn, chop, consume, pollute as much as we damn well please. Have you heard? To hell with reverence and integrity and treading lightly. He supplied us with all these bountiful riches because He wanted us to gobble it all up as fast as possible. I mean, obviously.</p><p>You have but to ask any high-ranking Republican -- like, say, effeminate sea slug Lindsay Graham from South Carolina, who, when asked about energy policy, will tell you flat out, "We must use the coal God gave us."</p><p>Isn't that touching? Make you proud to be a human? It's still the mindset of millions. Do not cherish or conserve or sit in humble awe. Instead merely drill, nuke and devour. Hey, it's what Jesus wanted. Unless it wasn't. Didn't you already suspect as much?"</p><p>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/10/28/notes102809.DTL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they could n't do it without US .
" But in the end , none of that really matters , because God gave us the Earth to burn , chop , consume , pollute as much as we damn well please .
Have you heard ?
To hell with reverence and integrity and treading lightly .
He supplied us with all these bountiful riches because He wanted us to gobble it all up as fast as possible .
I mean , obviously.You have but to ask any high-ranking Republican -- like , say , effeminate sea slug Lindsay Graham from South Carolina , who , when asked about energy policy , will tell you flat out , " We must use the coal God gave us .
" Is n't that touching ?
Make you proud to be a human ?
It 's still the mindset of millions .
Do not cherish or conserve or sit in humble awe .
Instead merely drill , nuke and devour .
Hey , it 's what Jesus wanted .
Unless it was n't .
Did n't you already suspect as much ?
" http : //www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi ? f = /g/a/2009/10/28/notes102809.DTL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they couldn't do it without US.
"But in the end, none of that really matters, because God gave us the Earth to burn, chop, consume, pollute as much as we damn well please.
Have you heard?
To hell with reverence and integrity and treading lightly.
He supplied us with all these bountiful riches because He wanted us to gobble it all up as fast as possible.
I mean, obviously.You have but to ask any high-ranking Republican -- like, say, effeminate sea slug Lindsay Graham from South Carolina, who, when asked about energy policy, will tell you flat out, "We must use the coal God gave us.
"Isn't that touching?
Make you proud to be a human?
It's still the mindset of millions.
Do not cherish or conserve or sit in humble awe.
Instead merely drill, nuke and devour.
Hey, it's what Jesus wanted.
Unless it wasn't.
Didn't you already suspect as much?
"http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/10/28/notes102809.DTL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922161</id>
	<title>misleading</title>
	<author>SkunkPussy</author>
	<datestamp>1256905980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>article title is misleading, it should be "usb 3 sucks, sata6 is amazing"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>article title is misleading , it should be " usb 3 sucks , sata6 is amazing "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>article title is misleading, it should be "usb 3 sucks, sata6 is amazing"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921839</id>
	<title>Re:"off the charts"??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256901120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then it <i> MUST </i> be over 9000 <br> <br> Sorry. I couldn't resist</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then it MUST be over 9000 Sorry .
I could n't resist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then it  MUST  be over 9000   Sorry.
I couldn't resist</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921743</id>
	<title>SATA 3 is for SSDs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256899380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>SATA 2 is already a bottleneck for many SSDs as <a href="http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/storage/Intel/TRIM/sequentialread.png" title="anandtech.com">this</a> [anandtech.com] chart shows them hitting a wall at approximately 260MB/s. SATA 3 should release the proverbial floodgates for sequential reads.<br> <br>On a tangent, Samsung just started mass production of a 64MB, 60nm phase-change RAM in September. Initially they are going to use them in mobile phones. The chips read, write and erase approximately 7 times faster than Flash memory, and also use less power. Sooner rather than later Samsung or the other PRAM producer Numonyx will put the chips in SSDs that can read and write at around 1GB per second.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SATA 2 is already a bottleneck for many SSDs as this [ anandtech.com ] chart shows them hitting a wall at approximately 260MB/s .
SATA 3 should release the proverbial floodgates for sequential reads .
On a tangent , Samsung just started mass production of a 64MB , 60nm phase-change RAM in September .
Initially they are going to use them in mobile phones .
The chips read , write and erase approximately 7 times faster than Flash memory , and also use less power .
Sooner rather than later Samsung or the other PRAM producer Numonyx will put the chips in SSDs that can read and write at around 1GB per second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SATA 2 is already a bottleneck for many SSDs as this [anandtech.com] chart shows them hitting a wall at approximately 260MB/s.
SATA 3 should release the proverbial floodgates for sequential reads.
On a tangent, Samsung just started mass production of a 64MB, 60nm phase-change RAM in September.
Initially they are going to use them in mobile phones.
The chips read, write and erase approximately 7 times faster than Flash memory, and also use less power.
Sooner rather than later Samsung or the other PRAM producer Numonyx will put the chips in SSDs that can read and write at around 1GB per second.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921973</id>
	<title>Price of USB 3.0</title>
	<author>TorKlingberg</author>
	<datestamp>1256903040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big question with USB 3.0 is the price. That is the big advantage of USB over competitors like FireWire. Cables, host controllers, devices, hubs, everything is cheap. USB 3.0 looks a lot more complicated. The cables are much thicker with more wires and shielding. A USB 3.0 hub has to contain everything a USB 2.0 hub does, plus the new SuperSpeed part which is no longer just a dumb hub but more like a switch or router.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big question with USB 3.0 is the price .
That is the big advantage of USB over competitors like FireWire .
Cables , host controllers , devices , hubs , everything is cheap .
USB 3.0 looks a lot more complicated .
The cables are much thicker with more wires and shielding .
A USB 3.0 hub has to contain everything a USB 2.0 hub does , plus the new SuperSpeed part which is no longer just a dumb hub but more like a switch or router .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big question with USB 3.0 is the price.
That is the big advantage of USB over competitors like FireWire.
Cables, host controllers, devices, hubs, everything is cheap.
USB 3.0 looks a lot more complicated.
The cables are much thicker with more wires and shielding.
A USB 3.0 hub has to contain everything a USB 2.0 hub does, plus the new SuperSpeed part which is no longer just a dumb hub but more like a switch or router.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922763</id>
	<title>Re:Firewire owners</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256912100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like FireWire, but I think at this point it's dead.  I have a couple of external FireWire 800 disks, but every other peripheral that I own is now USB.  With USB 3, FireWire 800 is now much slower, so if I buy another disk it will be USB 3, not FireWire 800.  The next laptop that I buy will have several USB 3 ports and I will be able to plug anything into them, from mice up to disk arrays.  FireWire 3200 has been promised for years, but still isn't shipping, while USB 3 and eSATA both are.  eSATA is a better choice if you just want disks, USB 3 is a better choice if you want flexibility (there are a lot more USB devices than FireWire devices, and FireWire 400, 800, and 3200 all have different connectors).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like FireWire , but I think at this point it 's dead .
I have a couple of external FireWire 800 disks , but every other peripheral that I own is now USB .
With USB 3 , FireWire 800 is now much slower , so if I buy another disk it will be USB 3 , not FireWire 800 .
The next laptop that I buy will have several USB 3 ports and I will be able to plug anything into them , from mice up to disk arrays .
FireWire 3200 has been promised for years , but still is n't shipping , while USB 3 and eSATA both are .
eSATA is a better choice if you just want disks , USB 3 is a better choice if you want flexibility ( there are a lot more USB devices than FireWire devices , and FireWire 400 , 800 , and 3200 all have different connectors ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like FireWire, but I think at this point it's dead.
I have a couple of external FireWire 800 disks, but every other peripheral that I own is now USB.
With USB 3, FireWire 800 is now much slower, so if I buy another disk it will be USB 3, not FireWire 800.
The next laptop that I buy will have several USB 3 ports and I will be able to plug anything into them, from mice up to disk arrays.
FireWire 3200 has been promised for years, but still isn't shipping, while USB 3 and eSATA both are.
eSATA is a better choice if you just want disks, USB 3 is a better choice if you want flexibility (there are a lot more USB devices than FireWire devices, and FireWire 400, 800, and 3200 all have different connectors).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921807</id>
	<title>Time for some SSDs!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256900640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's relatively straightforward to add more parallel channels to an SSD drive and increase bandwidth.  In the long run, there isn't even much of a cost difference to make the same capacity SSD drive fast enough to max out SATA 6.  (the main cost driver of SSDs appears to be the cost of the flash chips themselves)</p><p>So bring on the new drives that can max out SATA 6!  Right now, you can get comparable performance if you put two or four high end SSDs into a RAID 0 array.  However, there's a lot of problems with doing this : you have to fuss with software drivers, certain SSD features aren't supported very well (like Trim), and there are bottlenecks in motherboard RAID chipsets because spinning disks were never this quick.  Dedicated hardware RAID cards cost $300-$1000, making the cost rather steep for most users.  Finally, while SSDs probably are inherently more reliable in the long run than hard disks, it's not a good idea to build a system that depends on 2-4 separate drives, a motherboard chipset, and potentially buggy drivers or else your data is hosed.</p><p>So I'm very much looking forward to upcoming SSDs like the Vertex 2 that should be able to max out a SATA 6 link.  That is, once the SATA 6 motherboards become relatively common.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's relatively straightforward to add more parallel channels to an SSD drive and increase bandwidth .
In the long run , there is n't even much of a cost difference to make the same capacity SSD drive fast enough to max out SATA 6 .
( the main cost driver of SSDs appears to be the cost of the flash chips themselves ) So bring on the new drives that can max out SATA 6 !
Right now , you can get comparable performance if you put two or four high end SSDs into a RAID 0 array .
However , there 's a lot of problems with doing this : you have to fuss with software drivers , certain SSD features are n't supported very well ( like Trim ) , and there are bottlenecks in motherboard RAID chipsets because spinning disks were never this quick .
Dedicated hardware RAID cards cost $ 300- $ 1000 , making the cost rather steep for most users .
Finally , while SSDs probably are inherently more reliable in the long run than hard disks , it 's not a good idea to build a system that depends on 2-4 separate drives , a motherboard chipset , and potentially buggy drivers or else your data is hosed.So I 'm very much looking forward to upcoming SSDs like the Vertex 2 that should be able to max out a SATA 6 link .
That is , once the SATA 6 motherboards become relatively common .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's relatively straightforward to add more parallel channels to an SSD drive and increase bandwidth.
In the long run, there isn't even much of a cost difference to make the same capacity SSD drive fast enough to max out SATA 6.
(the main cost driver of SSDs appears to be the cost of the flash chips themselves)So bring on the new drives that can max out SATA 6!
Right now, you can get comparable performance if you put two or four high end SSDs into a RAID 0 array.
However, there's a lot of problems with doing this : you have to fuss with software drivers, certain SSD features aren't supported very well (like Trim), and there are bottlenecks in motherboard RAID chipsets because spinning disks were never this quick.
Dedicated hardware RAID cards cost $300-$1000, making the cost rather steep for most users.
Finally, while SSDs probably are inherently more reliable in the long run than hard disks, it's not a good idea to build a system that depends on 2-4 separate drives, a motherboard chipset, and potentially buggy drivers or else your data is hosed.So I'm very much looking forward to upcoming SSDs like the Vertex 2 that should be able to max out a SATA 6 link.
That is, once the SATA 6 motherboards become relatively common.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921803</id>
	<title>what real deal?</title>
	<author>razvan784</author>
	<datestamp>1256900640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I can see in the graphs the USB3 HDD is indeed faster than on USB2 because of the bandwith; the SATA HDD is about the same on SATA 2 and 3, but also pretty near USB3. The title is implying superiority of USB over SATA when clearly the HDD is the limiting factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I can see in the graphs the USB3 HDD is indeed faster than on USB2 because of the bandwith ; the SATA HDD is about the same on SATA 2 and 3 , but also pretty near USB3 .
The title is implying superiority of USB over SATA when clearly the HDD is the limiting factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I can see in the graphs the USB3 HDD is indeed faster than on USB2 because of the bandwith; the SATA HDD is about the same on SATA 2 and 3, but also pretty near USB3.
The title is implying superiority of USB over SATA when clearly the HDD is the limiting factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29926669</id>
	<title>Re:Time for some SSDs!</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1256929740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This makes me wonder if SATA 6G is a smart idea. It doesn't provide any significant benefit to magnetic drives, and upon release it will already be a bottleneck for SSDs. They needed to jump right to 12G, even if that meant extra delays and higher initial costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes me wonder if SATA 6G is a smart idea .
It does n't provide any significant benefit to magnetic drives , and upon release it will already be a bottleneck for SSDs .
They needed to jump right to 12G , even if that meant extra delays and higher initial costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This makes me wonder if SATA 6G is a smart idea.
It doesn't provide any significant benefit to magnetic drives, and upon release it will already be a bottleneck for SSDs.
They needed to jump right to 12G, even if that meant extra delays and higher initial costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922193</id>
	<title>USB 3.0 is not fast enough</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1256906340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The inevitable 10 Gbit Ethernet dongles will be limited by USB speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The inevitable 10 Gbit Ethernet dongles will be limited by USB speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The inevitable 10 Gbit Ethernet dongles will be limited by USB speed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921661</id>
	<title>IEEE1394</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256897460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what is there in usb 3.0 that we did not already have with firewire?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is there in usb 3.0 that we did not already have with firewire ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is there in usb 3.0 that we did not already have with firewire?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923567</id>
	<title>Re:Firewire owners</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1256916720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;When FW1600/3200 gets out of door, it will be same endless saga again since they will beat USB 3 too</p><p>I'm sure you're right. Unfortunately it's Betamax vs VHS all over again and it doesn't look like changing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; When FW1600/3200 gets out of door , it will be same endless saga again since they will beat USB 3 tooI 'm sure you 're right .
Unfortunately it 's Betamax vs VHS all over again and it does n't look like changing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;When FW1600/3200 gets out of door, it will be same endless saga again since they will beat USB 3 tooI'm sure you're right.
Unfortunately it's Betamax vs VHS all over again and it doesn't look like changing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921729</id>
	<title>moral?</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1256899080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This all sounds like exactly what you'd expect.
</p><p>The old SATA standard was more than sufficient for the hard disk's max sustained transfer rate, so only burst performance (when everything is presumably coming from the disk's RAM cache) changed with the new SATA.  So "SATA 6GB" is working fine, but this disk is just too slow to take advantage of its speed increase.
</p><p>With USB on the other hand, USB 2 is simply far too slow to handle even the drive's sustained transfer rate, whereas USB 3 is fast enough to handle it.
</p><p>So the moral seems to be:  USB 2 sucks for disks, USB 3 is better and probably sufficient for a typical hard drive, and SATA's still probably better than either (it's not really possible to tell from this article, since the sustained transfer rates are limited by the drive, and they curiously omitted the burst rates for USB).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This all sounds like exactly what you 'd expect .
The old SATA standard was more than sufficient for the hard disk 's max sustained transfer rate , so only burst performance ( when everything is presumably coming from the disk 's RAM cache ) changed with the new SATA .
So " SATA 6GB " is working fine , but this disk is just too slow to take advantage of its speed increase .
With USB on the other hand , USB 2 is simply far too slow to handle even the drive 's sustained transfer rate , whereas USB 3 is fast enough to handle it .
So the moral seems to be : USB 2 sucks for disks , USB 3 is better and probably sufficient for a typical hard drive , and SATA 's still probably better than either ( it 's not really possible to tell from this article , since the sustained transfer rates are limited by the drive , and they curiously omitted the burst rates for USB ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This all sounds like exactly what you'd expect.
The old SATA standard was more than sufficient for the hard disk's max sustained transfer rate, so only burst performance (when everything is presumably coming from the disk's RAM cache) changed with the new SATA.
So "SATA 6GB" is working fine, but this disk is just too slow to take advantage of its speed increase.
With USB on the other hand, USB 2 is simply far too slow to handle even the drive's sustained transfer rate, whereas USB 3 is fast enough to handle it.
So the moral seems to be:  USB 2 sucks for disks, USB 3 is better and probably sufficient for a typical hard drive, and SATA's still probably better than either (it's not really possible to tell from this article, since the sustained transfer rates are limited by the drive, and they curiously omitted the burst rates for USB).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921813</id>
	<title>Re:IEEE1394</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256900760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firewire 800 has been a bottleneck for even consumer storage for years, and nobody has been too interested in fixing it. I just don't get the appeal, it sucks compared to eSata for storage and it sucks compared to USB2 for everything else.</p><p>Now even Apple is dropping Firewire from their most popular models. If faster versions of 1394 don't leave the vaporware stage before USB3 is rolled-out, you can safely forget about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firewire 800 has been a bottleneck for even consumer storage for years , and nobody has been too interested in fixing it .
I just do n't get the appeal , it sucks compared to eSata for storage and it sucks compared to USB2 for everything else.Now even Apple is dropping Firewire from their most popular models .
If faster versions of 1394 do n't leave the vaporware stage before USB3 is rolled-out , you can safely forget about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firewire 800 has been a bottleneck for even consumer storage for years, and nobody has been too interested in fixing it.
I just don't get the appeal, it sucks compared to eSata for storage and it sucks compared to USB2 for everything else.Now even Apple is dropping Firewire from their most popular models.
If faster versions of 1394 don't leave the vaporware stage before USB3 is rolled-out, you can safely forget about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29930751</id>
	<title>Well, there isn't much of a comparison.</title>
	<author>m.dillon</author>
	<datestamp>1256908980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having written an AHCI driver and worked endlessly on USB driver code there's no real point comparing the two.  SATA is far, far, FAR more reliable.  End of discussion.  The USB chipset specs are horrid and the chipset implementations are even worse.  Most chipsets barely pass through standard I/O operations properly and rarely deal with things like disk synchronization or even proper serial number reporting (for the USB bridge chips).  USB has far higher cpu processing overheads and the DMA specs or so bad the driver often has to create bounce buffers.  Command queueing overhead for a USB chipset is ridiculously huge compared to SATA chipsets.</p><p>USB is fine for a portable drive but only a complete fool uses USB if they need reliable mass storage.</p><p>E-SATA has its issues but they are nothing compared to the mess you get when you connect a drive up through USB.  Frankly the only time one hits the 300 MByte/sec limit with today's SATA/E-SATA in a way that actually negatively impacts a production system is when one is talking to multiple targets over a port multiplier, on a single SATA port.  The real need for 6GBit E-SATA is to better support port multipliers and not so much for SSDs.</p><p>While it is true that an SSD can hit the current 300 MByte/sec limit over SATA, there aren't really any realistic production loads against single drives (verses port multipliers) where an improvement in the bandwidth would actually improve the machine's ability to handle its workload.</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having written an AHCI driver and worked endlessly on USB driver code there 's no real point comparing the two .
SATA is far , far , FAR more reliable .
End of discussion .
The USB chipset specs are horrid and the chipset implementations are even worse .
Most chipsets barely pass through standard I/O operations properly and rarely deal with things like disk synchronization or even proper serial number reporting ( for the USB bridge chips ) .
USB has far higher cpu processing overheads and the DMA specs or so bad the driver often has to create bounce buffers .
Command queueing overhead for a USB chipset is ridiculously huge compared to SATA chipsets.USB is fine for a portable drive but only a complete fool uses USB if they need reliable mass storage.E-SATA has its issues but they are nothing compared to the mess you get when you connect a drive up through USB .
Frankly the only time one hits the 300 MByte/sec limit with today 's SATA/E-SATA in a way that actually negatively impacts a production system is when one is talking to multiple targets over a port multiplier , on a single SATA port .
The real need for 6GBit E-SATA is to better support port multipliers and not so much for SSDs.While it is true that an SSD can hit the current 300 MByte/sec limit over SATA , there are n't really any realistic production loads against single drives ( verses port multipliers ) where an improvement in the bandwidth would actually improve the machine 's ability to handle its workload.-Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having written an AHCI driver and worked endlessly on USB driver code there's no real point comparing the two.
SATA is far, far, FAR more reliable.
End of discussion.
The USB chipset specs are horrid and the chipset implementations are even worse.
Most chipsets barely pass through standard I/O operations properly and rarely deal with things like disk synchronization or even proper serial number reporting (for the USB bridge chips).
USB has far higher cpu processing overheads and the DMA specs or so bad the driver often has to create bounce buffers.
Command queueing overhead for a USB chipset is ridiculously huge compared to SATA chipsets.USB is fine for a portable drive but only a complete fool uses USB if they need reliable mass storage.E-SATA has its issues but they are nothing compared to the mess you get when you connect a drive up through USB.
Frankly the only time one hits the 300 MByte/sec limit with today's SATA/E-SATA in a way that actually negatively impacts a production system is when one is talking to multiple targets over a port multiplier, on a single SATA port.
The real need for 6GBit E-SATA is to better support port multipliers and not so much for SSDs.While it is true that an SSD can hit the current 300 MByte/sec limit over SATA, there aren't really any realistic production loads against single drives (verses port multipliers) where an improvement in the bandwidth would actually improve the machine's ability to handle its workload.-Matt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922421</id>
	<title>esata</title>
	<author>orange47</author>
	<datestamp>1256909400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>but USB3 is probably *slower* than eSATA when used with external SATA HDD..
and most of motherboards already have that connector.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but USB3 is probably * slower * than eSATA when used with external SATA HDD. . and most of motherboards already have that connector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but USB3 is probably *slower* than eSATA when used with external SATA HDD..
and most of motherboards already have that connector.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924611</id>
	<title>Your gloating is premature</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1256920980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There probably won't be FW1600/3200 at all. It'll be abandoned for USB.</p><p>Sure there may be a device or two created by some not so bright producers but the reality is they'll fade away and be forgotten.</p><p>It doesn't make a blind bit of difference how good something is, it only matters that average punter will buy it. USB will be everywhere, firewire will not. I stopped giving a shit about competing standards years ago.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There probably wo n't be FW1600/3200 at all .
It 'll be abandoned for USB.Sure there may be a device or two created by some not so bright producers but the reality is they 'll fade away and be forgotten.It does n't make a blind bit of difference how good something is , it only matters that average punter will buy it .
USB will be everywhere , firewire will not .
I stopped giving a shit about competing standards years ago .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There probably won't be FW1600/3200 at all.
It'll be abandoned for USB.Sure there may be a device or two created by some not so bright producers but the reality is they'll fade away and be forgotten.It doesn't make a blind bit of difference how good something is, it only matters that average punter will buy it.
USB will be everywhere, firewire will not.
I stopped giving a shit about competing standards years ago.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922257</id>
	<title>Re:Is it **better** as opposed to faster ?</title>
	<author>sdiz</author>
	<datestamp>1256907120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My issues with USB 2.0 are not so much about speed:</p><p>1- there's that ridiculous fudging about hi-speed, full-speed... is USB 3.0 **ALWAYS** USB 3.0, at last ?</p></div><p>USB 3.0 is USB 3.0 <b>SuperSpeed</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My issues with USB 2.0 are not so much about speed : 1- there 's that ridiculous fudging about hi-speed , full-speed... is USB 3.0 * * ALWAYS * * USB 3.0 , at last ? USB 3.0 is USB 3.0 SuperSpeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My issues with USB 2.0 are not so much about speed:1- there's that ridiculous fudging about hi-speed, full-speed... is USB 3.0 **ALWAYS** USB 3.0, at last ?USB 3.0 is USB 3.0 SuperSpeed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922169</id>
	<title>USB3 superior to FW?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256906100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's faster. In their tests, they were getting 140MB/s transfers through USB3 to a single drive. I have two (older, slower) drives that can, between them, saturate a FireWire 800 bus giving me a total throughput of a shade under 100MB/s.[...] It is clearly superior to FireWire 800, which is the fastest FireWire you'll find on existing systems.</p></div><p>Well, it's 40\% faster over the bus, but beyond that, is there anything inherit in the standard that's better?</p><p>Future ubiquity will certainly help, but if USB3's CPU overhead is as bad as USB2, it will mean the 3 out of 4 cores will be used by transferring at top speed.</p><p>Another possible advantage of FW is that it can provide a lot more bus power. USB can deliver 2.5W at 5V; FW can deliver 10 to 20W on average, but can hit 60W with a 30V rail. If you design your external device correctly, it means you don't need to connect a power supply when attached via FW.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's faster .
In their tests , they were getting 140MB/s transfers through USB3 to a single drive .
I have two ( older , slower ) drives that can , between them , saturate a FireWire 800 bus giving me a total throughput of a shade under 100MB/s. [ .. .
] It is clearly superior to FireWire 800 , which is the fastest FireWire you 'll find on existing systems.Well , it 's 40 \ % faster over the bus , but beyond that , is there anything inherit in the standard that 's better ? Future ubiquity will certainly help , but if USB3 's CPU overhead is as bad as USB2 , it will mean the 3 out of 4 cores will be used by transferring at top speed.Another possible advantage of FW is that it can provide a lot more bus power .
USB can deliver 2.5W at 5V ; FW can deliver 10 to 20W on average , but can hit 60W with a 30V rail .
If you design your external device correctly , it means you do n't need to connect a power supply when attached via FW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's faster.
In their tests, they were getting 140MB/s transfers through USB3 to a single drive.
I have two (older, slower) drives that can, between them, saturate a FireWire 800 bus giving me a total throughput of a shade under 100MB/s.[...
] It is clearly superior to FireWire 800, which is the fastest FireWire you'll find on existing systems.Well, it's 40\% faster over the bus, but beyond that, is there anything inherit in the standard that's better?Future ubiquity will certainly help, but if USB3's CPU overhead is as bad as USB2, it will mean the 3 out of 4 cores will be used by transferring at top speed.Another possible advantage of FW is that it can provide a lot more bus power.
USB can deliver 2.5W at 5V; FW can deliver 10 to 20W on average, but can hit 60W with a 30V rail.
If you design your external device correctly, it means you don't need to connect a power supply when attached via FW.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922635</id>
	<title>Re:IEEE1394</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1256911260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now even Apple is dropping Firewire from their most popular models.</p></div></blockquote><p>Somebody ought to tell the pro audio manufacturers.  I just got the Musicians Friend Christmas Catalog, and there are a host of new Firewire interfaces, including the Focusrite Saffire series (I bought the Saffire DSP 24 and it's one of the nicest portable DAW interfaces I've used, and goes for $399! (DSP! for 399!).  Companies from Apogee to M-Audio to RME to MOTU to Avid, Prosonus, Edirol, and I could go on, are all bringing out new Firewire interfaces.  Some of them, like the slick-looking Apogee models, with their phenomenal AD/DA converters, are <i>Mac only</i>.</p><p>Look, I don't think Firewire is the end-all.  Personally, I don't mind opening up my computer's case and putting in a card, so I wish more of the companies were coming out with really good PCI-E DAW interfaces or something.  But I think that unless Apple is ready to cede their strong portion of the pro audio market, they won't kill Firewire any time soon.  USB 2.0 has been somewhat underwhelming for audio performance (at least most of the USB 2.0 audio interfaces that have come out have been underwhelming, which is not the same thing).</p><p>That is, I don't see Apple giving up on FW unless they start coming out with Macs that you can open up and install your own hardware that don't cost $3k.  Or if USB 3.0 is so great and all the pro audio manufacturers start coming out with USB 3.0 gear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now even Apple is dropping Firewire from their most popular models.Somebody ought to tell the pro audio manufacturers .
I just got the Musicians Friend Christmas Catalog , and there are a host of new Firewire interfaces , including the Focusrite Saffire series ( I bought the Saffire DSP 24 and it 's one of the nicest portable DAW interfaces I 've used , and goes for $ 399 !
( DSP ! for 399 ! ) .
Companies from Apogee to M-Audio to RME to MOTU to Avid , Prosonus , Edirol , and I could go on , are all bringing out new Firewire interfaces .
Some of them , like the slick-looking Apogee models , with their phenomenal AD/DA converters , are Mac only.Look , I do n't think Firewire is the end-all .
Personally , I do n't mind opening up my computer 's case and putting in a card , so I wish more of the companies were coming out with really good PCI-E DAW interfaces or something .
But I think that unless Apple is ready to cede their strong portion of the pro audio market , they wo n't kill Firewire any time soon .
USB 2.0 has been somewhat underwhelming for audio performance ( at least most of the USB 2.0 audio interfaces that have come out have been underwhelming , which is not the same thing ) .That is , I do n't see Apple giving up on FW unless they start coming out with Macs that you can open up and install your own hardware that do n't cost $ 3k .
Or if USB 3.0 is so great and all the pro audio manufacturers start coming out with USB 3.0 gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now even Apple is dropping Firewire from their most popular models.Somebody ought to tell the pro audio manufacturers.
I just got the Musicians Friend Christmas Catalog, and there are a host of new Firewire interfaces, including the Focusrite Saffire series (I bought the Saffire DSP 24 and it's one of the nicest portable DAW interfaces I've used, and goes for $399!
(DSP! for 399!).
Companies from Apogee to M-Audio to RME to MOTU to Avid, Prosonus, Edirol, and I could go on, are all bringing out new Firewire interfaces.
Some of them, like the slick-looking Apogee models, with their phenomenal AD/DA converters, are Mac only.Look, I don't think Firewire is the end-all.
Personally, I don't mind opening up my computer's case and putting in a card, so I wish more of the companies were coming out with really good PCI-E DAW interfaces or something.
But I think that unless Apple is ready to cede their strong portion of the pro audio market, they won't kill Firewire any time soon.
USB 2.0 has been somewhat underwhelming for audio performance (at least most of the USB 2.0 audio interfaces that have come out have been underwhelming, which is not the same thing).That is, I don't see Apple giving up on FW unless they start coming out with Macs that you can open up and install your own hardware that don't cost $3k.
Or if USB 3.0 is so great and all the pro audio manufacturers start coming out with USB 3.0 gear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924269</id>
	<title>Re:Is it **better** as opposed to faster ?</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1256919720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AFAIK Full-speed is USB1.1,  hi-speed is USB2.0, and i dont know what USB3.0 is.<br> <br>
Ludicrous speed?  Or is that USB4?</htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK Full-speed is USB1.1 , hi-speed is USB2.0 , and i dont know what USB3.0 is .
Ludicrous speed ?
Or is that USB4 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK Full-speed is USB1.1,  hi-speed is USB2.0, and i dont know what USB3.0 is.
Ludicrous speed?
Or is that USB4?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921727</id>
	<title>"off the charts"??</title>
	<author>astrowill</author>
	<datestamp>1256899020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Make the chart bigger!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Make the chart bigger !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make the chart bigger!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29926193</id>
	<title>Re:Firewire owners</title>
	<author>Cowclops</author>
	<datestamp>1256927820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You know that BetaMax never really died? Almost every TV station in the US used it."</p><p>Only the lowest budget TV stations would consider using Betamax. Betamax is a consumer format that, revisionist history aside, had only nitpicky benefits over VHS. Pretty similiar bandwidth/noise specs as VHS.</p><p>What you're thinking of Beta-CAM (And more accurately, Betacam SP) which is records high bandwidth analog component video. This is what TV stations use, and the only thing in common it had with Betamax is that the smaller of the two tape formats it supported was, if memory serves, the same cassette as consumer betamax.</p><p>TV stations would have upgraded directly from Umatic to Betacam because the consumer VHS/Betamax formats have too much loss from one generation to the next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You know that BetaMax never really died ?
Almost every TV station in the US used it .
" Only the lowest budget TV stations would consider using Betamax .
Betamax is a consumer format that , revisionist history aside , had only nitpicky benefits over VHS .
Pretty similiar bandwidth/noise specs as VHS.What you 're thinking of Beta-CAM ( And more accurately , Betacam SP ) which is records high bandwidth analog component video .
This is what TV stations use , and the only thing in common it had with Betamax is that the smaller of the two tape formats it supported was , if memory serves , the same cassette as consumer betamax.TV stations would have upgraded directly from Umatic to Betacam because the consumer VHS/Betamax formats have too much loss from one generation to the next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You know that BetaMax never really died?
Almost every TV station in the US used it.
"Only the lowest budget TV stations would consider using Betamax.
Betamax is a consumer format that, revisionist history aside, had only nitpicky benefits over VHS.
Pretty similiar bandwidth/noise specs as VHS.What you're thinking of Beta-CAM (And more accurately, Betacam SP) which is records high bandwidth analog component video.
This is what TV stations use, and the only thing in common it had with Betamax is that the smaller of the two tape formats it supported was, if memory serves, the same cassette as consumer betamax.TV stations would have upgraded directly from Umatic to Betacam because the consumer VHS/Betamax formats have too much loss from one generation to the next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29927913</id>
	<title>Re:Firewire owners</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1256935440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are features Firewire has that still don't exist in either USB or eSATA.  As a result, it will probably live on for quite some time in its niche markets because it does what its designed for very very well.  Dedicated bandwidth with sideband control data and no need for a host controller.</p><p>Firewire never was the right way to hook up a mouse and keyboard, but for transferring video from a camcorder to an editor, its the best way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are features Firewire has that still do n't exist in either USB or eSATA .
As a result , it will probably live on for quite some time in its niche markets because it does what its designed for very very well .
Dedicated bandwidth with sideband control data and no need for a host controller.Firewire never was the right way to hook up a mouse and keyboard , but for transferring video from a camcorder to an editor , its the best way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are features Firewire has that still don't exist in either USB or eSATA.
As a result, it will probably live on for quite some time in its niche markets because it does what its designed for very very well.
Dedicated bandwidth with sideband control data and no need for a host controller.Firewire never was the right way to hook up a mouse and keyboard, but for transferring video from a camcorder to an editor, its the best way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925319</id>
	<title>Re:Firewire owners</title>
	<author>Bluskale</author>
	<datestamp>1256923620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fyi, the firewire 3200 connector/cable is apparently the same as the current firewire 800 one.

I regularly daisy chain an old FW400 external hard drive through a newer FW800 one into my computer. This, to me, is pretty damn flexible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>fyi , the firewire 3200 connector/cable is apparently the same as the current firewire 800 one .
I regularly daisy chain an old FW400 external hard drive through a newer FW800 one into my computer .
This , to me , is pretty damn flexible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fyi, the firewire 3200 connector/cable is apparently the same as the current firewire 800 one.
I regularly daisy chain an old FW400 external hard drive through a newer FW800 one into my computer.
This, to me, is pretty damn flexible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924101</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop PCs have an I/O bottle neck</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1256919000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;don't allow the *sustained* I/O speed to exceed about 32 Megabytes per second.</p><p>What?</p><p>My esata port blows that away. Heck, I do imaging on a crappy laptop and do better than that a with plain-jane bottom of the barrel USB disk thats on its last legs.</p><p>I still cant think of where this limit would even come from. Laptops have the same chipsets as desktops. The only real limitation is the slower laptop drive, but that has nothing to do with the laptop per se. Connect a 3.5" or an SSD and it'll perform like a desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; do n't allow the * sustained * I/O speed to exceed about 32 Megabytes per second.What ? My esata port blows that away .
Heck , I do imaging on a crappy laptop and do better than that a with plain-jane bottom of the barrel USB disk thats on its last legs.I still cant think of where this limit would even come from .
Laptops have the same chipsets as desktops .
The only real limitation is the slower laptop drive , but that has nothing to do with the laptop per se .
Connect a 3.5 " or an SSD and it 'll perform like a desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;don't allow the *sustained* I/O speed to exceed about 32 Megabytes per second.What?My esata port blows that away.
Heck, I do imaging on a crappy laptop and do better than that a with plain-jane bottom of the barrel USB disk thats on its last legs.I still cant think of where this limit would even come from.
Laptops have the same chipsets as desktops.
The only real limitation is the slower laptop drive, but that has nothing to do with the laptop per se.
Connect a 3.5" or an SSD and it'll perform like a desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922139</id>
	<title>Better SATA 6G Article</title>
	<author>rsmith-mac</author>
	<datestamp>1256905680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know why the editors didn't include a link to it, but <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3668" title="anandtech.com">AnandTech has a <b>much</b> better review of the SATA 6G-equipped motherboard</a> [anandtech.com] and its performance; one that actually gets around to doing real-world tests and not just synthetic tests. It turns out that the 6G Marvell controller is slower than the standard Intel ICH10 controller in virtually all cases. Until someone integrates SATA 6G in to a proper motherboard chipset, it's not just performance limited, it's performance degrading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why the editors did n't include a link to it , but AnandTech has a much better review of the SATA 6G-equipped motherboard [ anandtech.com ] and its performance ; one that actually gets around to doing real-world tests and not just synthetic tests .
It turns out that the 6G Marvell controller is slower than the standard Intel ICH10 controller in virtually all cases .
Until someone integrates SATA 6G in to a proper motherboard chipset , it 's not just performance limited , it 's performance degrading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why the editors didn't include a link to it, but AnandTech has a much better review of the SATA 6G-equipped motherboard [anandtech.com] and its performance; one that actually gets around to doing real-world tests and not just synthetic tests.
It turns out that the 6G Marvell controller is slower than the standard Intel ICH10 controller in virtually all cases.
Until someone integrates SATA 6G in to a proper motherboard chipset, it's not just performance limited, it's performance degrading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925505</id>
	<title>Re:Firewire owners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256924340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. TV stations do not and did not use BetaMax. Stop posting this, you ignorant fatheaded downsies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
TV stations do not and did not use BetaMax .
Stop posting this , you ignorant fatheaded downsies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
TV stations do not and did not use BetaMax.
Stop posting this, you ignorant fatheaded downsies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922503</id>
	<title>Firewire owners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256910240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you owned a firewire 800 disk drive, you would be smiling like me now.</p><p>When FW1600/3200 gets out of door, it will be same endless saga again since they will beat USB 3 too. They should also check the load on host CPU while doing those USB 3 speeds. Intel's standard is still host (CPU) controlled. Surprised a bit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you owned a firewire 800 disk drive , you would be smiling like me now.When FW1600/3200 gets out of door , it will be same endless saga again since they will beat USB 3 too .
They should also check the load on host CPU while doing those USB 3 speeds .
Intel 's standard is still host ( CPU ) controlled .
Surprised a bit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you owned a firewire 800 disk drive, you would be smiling like me now.When FW1600/3200 gets out of door, it will be same endless saga again since they will beat USB 3 too.
They should also check the load on host CPU while doing those USB 3 speeds.
Intel's standard is still host (CPU) controlled.
Surprised a bit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921635</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29926669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29940357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29926193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29927913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29932947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0245238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922635
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922169
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922731
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29940357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29926669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923567
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922763
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924733
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29926193
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925505
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29927913
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29925319
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29926693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29921975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29924535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29923641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0245238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29922273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0245238.29932947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
