Indeed, this is a one shot colour CCD thus making it a logical step for DSLR users. Not everyone can be bothered with using individual filters. It certainly increases the work load. I look at the high quantity output of others in the DS forum, such high volumes take a lot of work with a mono camera and filters. Where you might shoot two or three objects in one night with a one shot colour camera, you are likely to image one object over a course of a few nights with a mono camera as you take exposures through each individual filter to get the best S/N ratio possible. It is no exaggeration that the work load with a mono camera is three fold considering you also need to take flat fields through each individual filter to remove dust motes. There is no argument when it comes to quality - mono CCD chips all the way.
Filters do however offer incredible flexibility. Narrowband imaging from the light polluted suburbs or on full moon becomes reality. You can optionally take narrowband imaging up a notch by using dedicated continuum filters (aka companion filters) at each narrowband wavelength (Ha,SII,OIII) and subtract the two. The subtracted image is void of all stars and other features leaving only the gaseous densities of each wavelength. This is what I'd consider the purist form of narrowband imaging. An example of this type of work can be seen here -
http://www.rc-astro.com/photo/id1170.html
You also have the flexibility of blending conventional RGB data with narrowband data to give richer colour. Another benefit of individual filters maximising object location based on filter. For example if the object is low, I typically image with the red filter, then as the object gets higher in the sky I change to blue and green. This minimises the effect of atmospheric dispersion or scattering of blue light. Possibilities are endless. Buying a CCD camera today, I'd still head down the mono path despite the additional work loads.
Quoted from SBIG regarding USB1.1 vs. 2.0;
"Many people have asked this question and while we don't have a specific answer we can give you some information. A lot of people ask this because they think that USB 2 cameras must be faster than USB 1.1 cameras. In theory that could be true but often times in practice you'll find out it's not the case. Our USB 1.1 based cameras download pixels at approximately 400,000 pixels per second. If you ask the other manufacturers how fast their cameras are you'll find many USB 2 based cameras that are slower than that. So it's not just USB 1.1 vs USB 2 that's important but the actual download rate. Also, remember that in Astronomy you tend to take long exposures, typically 20 minutes to an hour so what do you really care if after an hour you image downloads in 20 seconds? Where you like fast download rates is in focus mode where our software use binning or partial frames to speed up the image throughput.
Finally, we have implemented USB 2 on our ST-402ME camera and with our design we achieved download rates of 1,100,000 pixels per second. While we plan on upgrading our other cameras to USB 2 at some point in the future no specific time table has been set."