PDA

View Full Version : 5G iPod firewire solution?...maybe




jsado
Nov 30, 2005, 12:36 PM
Here is my proposed solution. Tell me if it will or will not work.

5G iPod has to be in hard disk mode. My external Maxtor 250 gb hard drive has both firewire and USB 2.0 connections. Connected to iMac G4 by firewire. It has a free usb 2 port. I copy my entire music library and whatever movies onto the maxtor via the firewire connection. Then, with the ipod in disk mode, I copy the songs/movies onto my ipod via the usb2 port? Hmmm, I already see the flaw here. I need iTunes right?....So, do I need a working copy of os x on my external drive and boot from there?

Obviously I'll need an adapter to change the plug on the usb to accomodate the iPods usb cable....

Feel free to weigh in here at any time. Surely I can't be the only one disappointed by the disappearance of firewire.



grapes911
Nov 30, 2005, 12:45 PM
You have soooo lost me on this one. I'm exactly not sure what you are trying to do, but I'm 99.99% sure it won't work. You're going to have to use USB ports on the computer or on a hub connected to the computer. You cannot connect the ipod to a hard drive. Even if you could, it would still be connected via USB.

Firewire was removed to make the iPod smaller. The Firewire controller is bigger than the USB one, thus it made the iPod smaller than the reverse. Plus, removing the USB and leaving the firewire would cut out a larger percentage of the iPod market. Everyone has USB, everyone does not have Firewire. That is just a smart business decision.

buryyourbrideau
Nov 30, 2005, 12:47 PM
You have soooo lost me on this one. I'm not sure what you are trying to do, but I'm 99.99% sure it won't work. You're going to have to use USB ports on the computer or on a hub connected to the computer.

Firewire was removed to make the iPod smaller. The Firewire controller is bigger than the USB one, thus it made the iPod smaller than the reverse. Plus, removing the USB and leaving the firewire would cut out a larger percentage of the iPod market. Everyone has USB, everyone does not have Firewire. That is just a smart business decision.

He was saying that he would transfer the files to a USB HD and then connect the iPod to a firewire connction on the external HD and then drag the files onto the iPod which was in disk mode.

Pretty sure you cant do that

puckhead193
Nov 30, 2005, 12:48 PM
You lost me too

Itunes puts the music into your ipod into a hidden folder so you cannot drag and drops songs from computer to computer... itunes is program to put the songs in a certain hidden folder.
Also if your music is on an internal drive on your computer, you first have to transfer your music to the external then transfer it to your ipod. I think that would take much longer then to just deal with it and use USB

grapes911
Nov 30, 2005, 12:50 PM
He was saying that he would transfer the files to a USB HD and then connect the iPod to a firewire connction on the external HD and then drag the files onto the iPod which was in disk mode.

Pretty sure you cant do that
Yeah, I reread the post and edited my post a little.

jsado
Nov 30, 2005, 02:05 PM
OK. My external HD will be connected via firewire, with a working copy of os x installed on it. I'll boot from the external HD and run OFF of the external HD. With a duplicate of iTunes, along with all of it's contents (music for example), I will then sync my iPod via the unused USB 2.0 port.

The port transfers data in both directions, so all I'll need is an adapter to convert the port into a regular USB 2.0 port. I'm pretty damn sure I'm onto something here people. I just transferred 137 songs via USB 1 on my trusty ol' iMac G4, and it took almost a half hour. I need a solution, and this so far, seems like it might actually work.

Feedback appreciated!!!! I'll keep you posted!!!

mrichmon
Nov 30, 2005, 02:22 PM
OK. My external HD will be connected via firewire, with a working copy of os x installed on it. I'll boot from the external HD and run OFF of the external HD. With a duplicate of iTunes, along with all of it's contents (music for example), I will then sync my iPod via the unused USB 2.0 port.

The port transfers data in both directions, so all I'll need is an adapter to convert the port into a regular USB 2.0 port. I'm pretty damn sure I'm onto something here people. I just transferred 137 songs via USB 1 on my trusty ol' iMac G4, and it took almost a half hour. I need a solution, and this so far, seems like it might actually work.

Feedback appreciated!!!! I'll keep you posted!!!

If the external HD is connected to the computer via a firewire cable then the computer has no knowledge of the USB port that also happens to exist on the external HD.

If the external drive is connected to the computer via USB and happens to have a second USB connector on the external drive then you can plug the ipod into the second USB connector and have the computer access the ipod. In this case, the external drive actually contains a small USB hub in addition to the HD interface. This is very unusal. In any case, if the computer USB port is only USB v1 compliant then all connected USB devices will only operate at USB v1 speeds.

You seem to be suggesting that the external hard drive will have the smarts to transfer from the external hard drive directly to the ipod without the computer being involved. :eek: And somehow you expect the external drive to also bridge between USB and firewire. :eek: Neither of these expectations are valid nor will they work the way you are describing.

Metatron
Nov 30, 2005, 02:33 PM
Don't listen to them man...just try it.

jsado
Nov 30, 2005, 02:35 PM
Thanks for throwing the monkey wrench into my gears of creative solutions pal. DAMNIT MAN. What can I do? I found a converting cable online that converts firewire to usb. It costs 100 bucks and it's intended for DV transfer. But it's all data correct? Think that will work?

unfaded
Nov 30, 2005, 02:36 PM
Given that the 5G iPod cannot transfer over FireWire in any circumstance as it is lacking the computer chip to do so, I would give up quickly.

Your only chance would be a converting cable like you suggested, if it even works.

jsado
Nov 30, 2005, 02:39 PM
Metatron, I will. I'm just waiting for Tiger to arrive on my doorstep Friday. In the meantime, I'll keep picking peoples brains and hope for a solution other than develop an abundance of patience.

grapes911
Nov 30, 2005, 02:40 PM
Thanks for throwing the monkey wrench into my gears of creative solutions pal. DAMNIT MAN. What can I do? I found a converting cable online that converts firewire to usb. It costs 100 bucks and it's intended for DV transfer. But it's all data correct? Think that will work?
Won't work. That cable is specifically designed for certain DV cameras. There is no possible way you can get this to work. You are stuck with USB.


Metatron, I will. I'm just waiting for Tiger to arrive on my doorstep Friday. In the meantime, I'll keep picking peoples brains and hope for a solution other than develop an abundance of patience.
Oh come on. After the initial big transfer, the other syncs should be pretty quick. If it bothers you that much, sell it and get a 4th Gen.

seamuskrat
Nov 30, 2005, 02:50 PM
It does not work. Tried it.

I have an old Quicksilver, with an external drive with USB and FW ports.

I plugged a nano into the external drive just because it was easy to reach and available. It charged fine. But iTunes would not see it. So, the iPod got power from the firewire cable to the drive (it is self powered from the FW cable) so that was cool, but it would not bridge.

On an aside, I have had poor luck at best when connecting the 5gen or nano via any sort of hub. Even a straight USB 2.0 hub iTunes will often fail to see the iPod.

What you are looking for is a FW to USB2 bridge. I am sure they exist, but are probably prohibitively expensive. Another option, get a PCI USB 2.0 card. In my case, a $9.99 USB 2.0 card did the trick. Be warned, 3 of 5 times, iTunes still does not see the iPod. In my case, I have to mount a memory stick using the 2.0 and the iPod using 1.x, eject them both and switch to make sure the PCI card sees it. But I am using a generic POS card. Your results will be better with a Mac certified card I am sure.

jsado
Nov 30, 2005, 07:17 PM
I would love to just swap out my usb card. Problem is, I have an iMac G4 800. Unless you guys know of a way for me to swap the usb card. I'd love to do it but I bet that suckers soldered right in there.

I'm not sure if you caught this earlier, but you do know that I intend on installing os x on my external HD. Will this or will this not make a difference? As I sit here and think about it, I guess I am asking the external HD to act as a bridge....and it won't do that right?

I know after initial transfer, the sync times won't be so bad. However, what if I sync a video. A dvd would probably still take an hour to transfer after it's been reformatted....

I don't know, now I'm down
I'll post and let you know my results after I try a few experiments

mrichmon
Nov 30, 2005, 07:48 PM
I would love to just swap out my usb card. Problem is, I have an iMac G4 800. Unless you guys know of a way for me to swap the usb card. I'd love to do it but I bet that suckers soldered right in there.

I'm not sure if you caught this earlier, but you do know that I intend on installing os x on my external HD. Will this or will this not make a difference? As I sit here and think about it, I guess I am asking the external HD to act as a bridge....and it won't do that right?

I know after initial transfer, the sync times won't be so bad. However, what if I sync a video. A dvd would probably still take an hour to transfer after it's been reformatted....

I don't know, now I'm down
I'll post and let you know my results after I try a few experiments

It is irrelevant which drive OS X is installed onto. The hardware in the external enclosure cannot not act as a bridge between firewire and usb. The external HD hardware only acts as a bridge between firewire and IDE (hard drive connector) or between USB and IDE (hard drive connector).

Ultimately, a firewire to usb bridge would require large hardware buffers to cope with the differences in sustained speeds between firewire and usb. This kind of hardware is not necessary to interface a hard drive via usb or firewire so is not built into external hard drives.

Orge
Dec 1, 2005, 10:05 AM
Oh come on. After the initial big transfer, the other syncs should be pretty quick. If it bothers you that much, sell it and get a 4th Gen.

That's a bit harsh...

Nobody is disputing whether it was 'right' to drop firewire. However, it was a bit inconsiderate when you bear in mind the length of time they held out before installing USB 2 on their entire product range. This is a particular problem for those with fairly recent iMac/iBook/Powerbook's, which have no/limited options for upgrading.

Under the circumstances, you would have hoped that Apple might have offered a solution to an issue affecting such a large number of their users...?

J

Chundles
Dec 1, 2005, 10:28 AM
To the OP,

There is nothing you can do. Your iMac will not now or in the future be able to support USB 2.0. You can't use firewire with any of the current iPods and I doubt Apple will ever bring the feature back no matter how many people ask them to.

RHMMMM
Dec 1, 2005, 11:33 AM
You can:

1. Wait a long time for stuff to copy.

2. Get a new Mac.

grapes911
Dec 1, 2005, 11:58 AM
However, it was a bit inconsiderate when you bear in mind the length of time they held out before installing USB 2 on their entire product range.

Under the circumstances, you would have hoped that Apple might have offered a solution to an issue affecting such a large number of their users...?

They did offer a solution, they allowed USB transfers. They would leave many more users in the dark if they dropped USB and only allowed firewire. Everyone can use USB, not all users have Firewire. To me it sounds like they were being considerate.

Orge
Dec 1, 2005, 12:50 PM
They did offer a solution, they allowed USB transfers. They would leave many more users in the dark if they dropped USB and only allowed firewire. Everyone can use USB, not all users have Firewire. To me it sounds like they were being considerate.

I think you missed the point... Up until as little as 3 years ago Apple backed Firewire over USB 2.0 and (pigheadedly) was very slow to introduce it to their hardware. This was despite the fact that it would have incurred negligible extra cost to upgrade to the 2.0 standard, at this point.

By dropping firewire from the ipod, without offering any sort of optional extra, it's effectively dumped a lot of users as a result of a shortsighted decision it made several years ago. I can see the size/price motivations for what they have done, but equally it should be possible to offer some kind of bridge cable for those users with older systems. What's the point in buying a music player with GB's of space if it takes hours to fill?

J

seamuskrat
Dec 1, 2005, 01:19 PM
As a Mac user who owns many older Macs, I must say I was dissappointed to see FW dropped from the new iPods.

It made the most sense as a business. Most iPods end up connected to a PC> For the past 4 to 6 years the high majority of PCs have had USB 2.0. So if they had to make a decision based on size/weight/cost going with USB 2.0 makes sense.

However, it leaves me, an owner of a 2 Quicksilver, 2 Sawtooth, both with upgraded GPU, CPU, RAM out in the dust. Machines that are between 4 and 5 years old are effectively obsoleted for iPod use. Normally, I would say that with advances in computer technology you should buy a new one in that time, but I can say that all of my older towers have had CPU upgrades and ram, etc so that they are competitive with newer models. More importantly, they are used for mission critical purposes and have a proven reliability. Now they cannot use a new iPod.

Solution. Well, in the case of my towers I added third party USB 2.0 PCI cards. I had the slots available. Problem is that it only sometimes recognizes the iPod. If Apple provided better third party USB support then I would take less issue.

For owners of iMacs, and iBooks, and powerbooks, they are left with no options.

I looked up FW to USB bridges and they seem very pricey. Probably artificially so, but I am sure if Apple were to release a bridging dock, it would cost well over $150.00 as that is HALF what a PCI FW to USB bridge costs now. At what point do I say "time to buy a Mactel".

I think it is regrettable that Apple dumped FW from the iPods, but the sheer size of the controller chip of USB 2 vs FW is significant, and the economics of it make sense. Plus, you know we all want to go out and buy the new media center Mactel come January anyhow.

grapes911
Dec 1, 2005, 01:27 PM
I think you missed the point... Up until as little as 3 years ago Apple backed Firewire over USB 2.0 and (pigheadedly) was very slow to introduce it to their hardware. This was despite the fact that it would have incurred negligible extra cost to upgrade to the 2.0 standard, at this point.

By dropping firewire from the ipod, without offering any sort of optional extra, it's effectively dumped a lot of users as a result of a shortsighted decision it made several years ago. I can see the size/price motivations for what they have done, but equally it should be possible to offer some kind of bridge cable for those users with older systems. What's the point in buying a music player with GB's of space if it takes hours to fill?

J
I didn't miss your point at all. I understand your frustration. I just can't agree with you. Apple had to make a decision and they made the correct one. No one can argue that. There are not many users who cannot use the new ipods, so they didn't drop anyone.

Apple is not dropping firewire support at all. They are just reevaluation when to use it and for what products. Firewire is a great technology is will be here to stay for a long time in both the Mac world and the PC world.

That is not possible to bridge the 2 totally incompatible technologies without using a device that has a CPU and memory (basically a small computer).

2nyRiggz
Dec 1, 2005, 01:50 PM
it doesnt sound like it will work man....sorry....gonna have to live with it.


Bless

jsado
Dec 1, 2005, 02:14 PM
How can people say that not everybody has firewire?...Every computer I look at in the store today has firewire! Even the things that cost $400. PC's seem now to be equipped with both. All of them! Take a look next time you go to a computer store, 98% have firewire.

So therefor, Apple could have alienated the minor population of PC users that don't have firewire. Instead the get rid of something that comes standard on EVERY Mac. EVERY MAC. Does Dell cater to Mac users? Does HP pull components out of their systems so that the unit is now compatable with AAAAAAAALLLLLLLL Macs and some PC's? No.

They could have eliminated USB 2, stuck with what they've been promoting, taken care of all their loyal Mac users, and STILL keep a giant share of their PC market! Every PC built today comes with firewire.

I'm pissed

wattage
Dec 1, 2005, 03:09 PM
As a hopeful Christmas 60gb 5G recipient, I too wish firewire was still in effect. I think the idea of using the iPod to boot your computer from is ultra cool.

grapes911
Dec 1, 2005, 04:11 PM
How can people say that not everybody has firewire?...Every computer I look at in the store today has firewire! Even the things that cost $400. PC's seem now to be equipped with both. All of them! Take a look next time you go to a computer store, 98% have firewire.

So therefor, Apple could have alienated the minor population of PC users that don't have firewire. Instead the get rid of something that comes standard on EVERY Mac. EVERY MAC. Does Dell cater to Mac users? Does HP pull components out of their systems so that the unit is now compatable with AAAAAAAALLLLLLLL Macs and some PC's? No.

They could have eliminated USB 2, stuck with what they've been promoting, taken care of all their loyal Mac users, and STILL keep a giant share of their PC market! Every PC built today comes with firewire.

I'm pissed

You may be pissed, but you are also misinformed. Most PCs built today do come with firewire, but this has just started happening in the last year. Most PCs in operation today do not have firewire. Not everyone updates their PC every year. I'd bet that less than 25% of all PCs in operation have firewire. (I have no data to back this up, but I can't imagine it any higher)

So you want Apple to be less customer friendly and say, "screw you, you damn PC users! HaHaHaHa! No iPod for You!!!!" Business just doesn't work that way. Apple would lose money and have less of the market share on music players. With less money, they would have to cut back R&D. The next iPod would frustrate users even more and the cycle would continue.

Laser47
Dec 1, 2005, 04:12 PM
Atlease they did not prevent you from using USB 1 on the ipod. Also i too think firewire is here to stay, its still the only medium of transferring DV from a camera to a computer. Its funny though, just as you see the PC market adopting firewire, it seams apple is moving away from it. Personally I believe firewire is an amazing peice of techlology, its been equipped in their computers since 1999 and is 6 years old, yet it is still faster than USB2.

ehayut
Dec 1, 2005, 04:18 PM
Every PC built today comes with firewire.

Dude, that's simply not true. I just purchased a new computer. I looked into many options. Most HP/Compaqs have Firewire. However, Dell computers often do not have firewire. Also, if you build a PC yourself, not all mobos have firewire support. In fact, I'd say a good 50% don't.

Laser47
Dec 1, 2005, 04:50 PM
Dell computers often do not have firewire.
Thats because Dell makes crappy computers.

aafuss1
Dec 1, 2005, 07:02 PM
No firewire means that there may no media card readers for the 5th gen iPod, unlike 3G/4G iPod. I asked Belkin, and they don't plan on making a card reader for the video iPod (they suggest 'USB Anywhere').

seenew
Dec 1, 2005, 08:11 PM
As well as being disappointed about the lack of FW support, I was sad to see that power port for accessories on the top of the iPod go as well. So my iTrip is completely useless now, and I have to pay $50 for the new one, whereas the old one was only $30.

Seems like Apple is screwing it's loyal userbase, to me.

jsado
Dec 2, 2005, 09:46 AM
Why not implement the technology you've been promoting with the peole that have BEEN buying your products for years. So only the last year or two, most PC's have just started adopting firewire. It's only the last three years that Apple started putting USB 2 in the Macs.

So the loyal user base that isn't fortunate enough to have a brand new mac, gets the shaft. And the PC people get catered to? Thanks Apple!

steve_hill4
Dec 2, 2005, 10:22 AM
How can people say that not everybody has firewire?...Every computer I look at in the store today has firewire! Even the things that cost $400. PC's seem now to be equipped with both. All of them! Take a look next time you go to a computer store, 98% have firewire.

So therefor, Apple could have alienated the minor population of PC users that don't have firewire. Instead the get rid of something that comes standard on EVERY Mac. EVERY MAC. Does Dell cater to Mac users? Does HP pull components out of their systems so that the unit is now compatable with AAAAAAAALLLLLLLL Macs and some PC's? No.

They could have eliminated USB 2, stuck with what they've been promoting, taken care of all their loyal Mac users, and STILL keep a giant share of their PC market! Every PC built today comes with firewire.

I'm pissed
No, because it has only been the last couple of years that most PCs have started shipping with firewire as standard. Same as Macs and USB 2.0, if not a shorter time.

From a business point of view, a lot of people who will want to buy an iPod will perhaps have a PC running XP, with USB 2.0, but due to it's age, no Firewire. I know this because I am currently working in retail and end up talking to lots of people in similar situations every day. Lots have USB 2.0, but not firewire. Few have Macs with Firewire and USB 1.1. It's bad enough with some who have Windows 98 and their kids want an iPod, because you have to tell them the half truth that it won't work with it. They may have had their machine for 7 years and a 400 upgrade won't break the bank, but if it currently does everything else it needs to do, 400 on top of 139 for a nano is steep as a Christmas gift.

Out of Windows users who want current iPods, (assuming only those with 2000 or XP), I would say anything up to 75% have USB 2.0, but no Firewire. MAc users currently wanting the new models, that have Firewire, but no USB 2.0, I would say closer to about 25%. Since most buyers now are currently windows users, (assuming at least 5 to 1), it all makes the numbers add up in USB 2.0's favour. I don't like it, but it makes business sense.

I also wouldn't agree with rewarding Mac users who have had Firewire for years. If you want Apple's sales to sink faster than the Titanic because they want to punish Windows users for their manufacturers not supporting Apple's format, then it will have a knock on effect in Mac sales, profits, R&D into other Apple products and so much more that would affect you more than you will admit to. It would have been nice to reward those with Firewire, but they didn't.

Orge
Dec 2, 2005, 12:21 PM
That is not possible to bridge the 2 totally incompatible technologies without using a device that has a CPU and memory (basically a small computer).

I wasn't arguing whether the decision made commerical/ergonomic sense. However, I think that it's fairly **** that Apple hasn't provided some kind of optional solution. It is perfectly feasible to connect these 2 technologies togther, although not necessarily cheap. This example goes the reverse direction:

http://www.usbfirewire.com/Parts/rr-527950.html

Surely with access to both usb 2.0 and firewire chips at competitive prices, Apple would be able to offer a solution which was better priced than this - either way its cheaper than buying a new mac. It would at least demonstrate some consideration for the loyal fan base. I understand business economics, but its also not good business practice to alienate a very large percentage of your customer base.

J

grapes911
Dec 2, 2005, 03:01 PM
I wasn't arguing whether the decision made commerical/ergonomic sense. However, I think that it's fairly **** that Apple hasn't provided some kind of optional solution. It is perfectly feasible to connect these 2 technologies togther, although not necessarily cheap. This example goes the reverse direction:

http://www.usbfirewire.com/Parts/rr-527950.htmlThat cable is for a specific function of transfering data from a DV camera with firewire to usb. It will not work for any other data transfers. The only way to connect these two technologies is to connect them though a computer. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Surely with access to both usb 2.0 and firewire chips at competitive prices, Apple would be able to offer a solution which was better priced than this - either way its cheaper than buying a new mac. USB is cheaper and smaller than Firewire so the chips are not competitive in price.

It would at least demonstrate some consideration for the loyal fan base. I understand business economics, but its also not good business practice to alienate a very large percentage of your customer base.75% of all iPod users connect their iPod to Windows.

mrichmon
Dec 2, 2005, 03:12 PM
That cable is for a specific function of transfering data from a DV camera with firewire to usb. It will not work for any other data transfers. The only way to connect these two technologies is to connect them though a computer. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

USB is cheaper and smaller than Firewire so the chips are not competitive in price.

75% of all iPod users connect their iPod to Windows.

Not to mention that a 5G iPod does work with a USB v1 connection. It may not be as fast as you would like it to work but it does work without any problem.

The lack of firewire on 5G iPods has been well advertised so other than consumers making assumptions there is little reason for any complaints the lack of firewire on the 5G iPods. The switch away from firewire is disappointing, but it is far from a "fault" in the new iPods.

/rant=off

Counterfit
Dec 2, 2005, 03:54 PM
As well as being disappointed about the lack of FW support, I was sad to see that power port for accessories on the top of the iPod go as well. So my iTrip is completely useless now, and I have to pay $50 for the new one, whereas the old one was only $30.

Seems like Apple is screwing it's loyal userbase, to me.
I too am completely perplexed by the lack of the remote port. It couldn't possibly have contributed much to the thickness, could it? :confused:

DCBass
Dec 2, 2005, 04:19 PM
I too am completely perplexed by the lack of the remote port. It couldn't possibly have contributed much to the thickness, could it? :confused:

It probably would add a decent amount of thickness. the 5g has a noticably smaller margin between the screen and the top edge.

Also, now all manufacturers will standardize on the one port, simplifying the accessory market. Also, someone left a post in one of these threads about apple now making a big profit from the made for ipod thing and "licensing" use of this port.

+'s and -'s in my opinion.

seenew
Dec 2, 2005, 09:03 PM
Yeah, but now my iTrip can't be plugged in the same time as my car charger or wall charger, and that pisses me off.

DCBass
Dec 2, 2005, 11:18 PM
Yeah, but now my iTrip can't be plugged in the same time as my car charger or wall charger, and that pisses me off.

Well, you do still have a cuouple of options. I'm sure you could sell your old itrip for a decent price.

The new iTrip has a mini-usb port on the bottom of the unit, so you could plug it in and charge via sub that way.

Also the Airplay2 has a full ipod dock passthru port on the bottom of it.

Good Luck.

Orge
Dec 5, 2005, 10:10 AM
That cable is for a specific function of transfering data from a DV camera with firewire to usb. It will not work for any other data transfers. The only way to connect these two technologies is to connect them though a computer. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

I'm sorry, but this is absolute rubbish. Whatever it's function, this cable is simply a bridge between Firewire and USB. If it's possible to build a cable which accomplishes this, then it's perfectly feasible to create one that does the same for the ipod. Tecnology is NOT the obstacle.

The problem is almost certainly market forces. I'm pretty certain that Apple could build a cost effective solution - and even make money out of it. However, they would rather people upgrade their machines. I'm guessing that they've done the sums and it suits them better to leave this situation as it is.

USB is cheaper and smaller than Firewire so the chips are not competitive in price.

What I meant was that Apple would have access to the necessary chips (to build a bridging cable) at much lower costs than the manufacturers of the cable above. As it is, these chips cost pennies anyway.

75% of all iPod users connect their iPod to Windows.

And 100% of Apple owners connect their ipod to a Mac. This isn't about ipod maths, this about the millions of Apple computer owners who cannot use the latest generation of ipods without compromising on speed. This is despite the fact that there is the possibility to provide technology which could resolve this situation.

grapes911
Dec 5, 2005, 10:40 AM
I'm sorry, but this is absolute rubbish. Whatever it's function, this cable is simply a bridge between Firewire and USB. If it's possible to build a cable which accomplishes this, then it's perfectly feasible to create one that does the same for the ipod. Tecnology is NOT the obstacle. No, it is not. The cable requires certain drivers that are only available for Windows. The cable does a very specific function. It only transfers raw DV to a computer in a 1394 to USB conversion. The technology is too different to make a general adapter. Maybe you should do some research before spouting off?

The problem is almost certainly market forces. I'm pretty certain that Apple could build a cost effective solution - and even make money out of it. However, they would rather people upgrade their machines. I'm guessing that they've done the sums and it suits them better to leave this situation as it is.Let's say it was possible, but not beneficial to Apple. Wouldn't another company make one? By the way, I'm pretty certain they can't:

"Q Is USB and Firewire the same thing?
A No. Although they provide similar performance, they operate completely differently and are not compatible.
Q Is there an adapter to convert Firewire to USB so I can plug a Firewire device into my USB port?
A No. As mentioned above, they are not compatible and conversion devices are not (as far as we are currently aware) available."
link (http://www.mrusb.co.uk/catalog/faq.php)

"Q: Can I convert Firewire to USB?
A: NO!!!! If you wish to connect a Firewire device you will need Firewire Ports on your computer."
link (http://www.cableuniverse.co.uk/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=22)

"There is no such thing, because FireWire and USB are completely different standards; you can't convert the flow of data of one of them into a flow of data for the other."
link (http://www.pcbuyerbeware.co.uk/USB.htm)

"The two technologies are not integrated, and it is not possible to connect a USB device to a Firewire port either directly or through the use of a Firewire to USB adapter."
link (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-firewire-to-usb-adapter.htm)



What I meant was that Apple would have access to the necessary chips (to build a bridging cable) at much lower costs than the manufacturers of the cable above. As it is, these chips cost pennies anyway. You are probably correct. Apple probably could get the chips for less than this company. I don't think they are only pennies though. But the point is moot because at this point in time, it is not possible to do.



And 100% of Apple owners connect their ipod to a Mac. This isn't about ipod maths, this about the millions of Apple computer owners who cannot use the latest generation of ipods without compromising on speed.You can't please everyone. You have to select the majority. More people have USB 2.0 (almost everyone has USB 1.1) and relatively very few have 1394.
This is despite the fact that there is the possibility to provide technology which could resolve this situation.Again, you are misinformed because this is not possible with our currently level of technology.

mrichmon
Dec 5, 2005, 11:02 AM
No, it is not. The cable requires certain drivers that are only available for Windows. The cable does a very specific function. It only transfers raw DV to a computer in a 1394 to USB conversion. The technology is too different to make a general adapter.

I have to agree everything grapes911 said in the previous post.

"There is no such thing, because FireWire and USB are completely different standards; you can't convert the flow of data of one of them into a flow of data for the other."
link (http://www.pcbuyerbeware.co.uk/USB.htm)

...

You are probably correct. Apple probably could get the chips for less than this company. I don't think they are only pennies though. But the point is moot because at this point in time, it is not possible to do.


Ultimately the problem is that USB and firewire protocols are structured differently so the "cable" would need to unpack the data transfered in the firewire packets and repack it into USB packets. A straight piece of wire or even dumb electrical components cannot do this. You need a cpu and some memory in the cable to buffer the data. (Don't forget some ROM to hold the software executed by the cpu and the USB and firewire interface chips. Plus probably some way of powering all this stuff.)

In addition, the transfer rates for USB and firewire are different. Even worse, for sustained transfers the ratio between transfers over the two technologies varies dramatically. This means that you would need even more memory to buffer the data that accumilates due to this difference in speed. How large a buffer do you need? This is an unanswerable question since the answer depends on how long you will transfer data. 5 seconds? 10 minutes? 20 hours? There is no limit in the firewire or USB standards for a maximum time you can perform transfers over the protocol so you cannot select an amount of memory for a buffer and be fully compliant.

Of course, if you settle on a certain buffer size you could build extra smarts into the software to rate limit the transfer so that data doesn't backup at the interface between USB and firewire. Ultimately such rate limiting would reduce transfer times to the slowest of the two protocols less some overhead for the bridge.

Given all the hardware required, the added costs for developing the solution and the relatively small market (especially since there are significant performance trade-offs) it is unlikely that such a device is commercially viable for *anyone* to develop. Development costs must be recouped by dividing the development costs by the likely number of units sold. For this sort of device the development costs per unit will be very high simply because there is a small market.

Given that there is a market for many other different bridges (most of which use drivers to package up the target protocol data and then wrap that as payload in the source protocol format and vice versa) if this were practical and viable a company would likely have already developed such a general purpose bridge. To date according to various google searches they have not.

Orge
Dec 5, 2005, 11:06 AM
No, it is not. The cable requires certain drivers that are only available for Windows. The cable does a very specific function. It only transfers raw DV to a computer in a 1394 to USB conversion. The technology is too different to make a general adapter. Maybe you should do some research before spouting off?

Well we fundamentally disagree on this one, so I can't see the point of continuing this discussion. Just think about all the other examples of bridging technologies though:

usb -> bluetooth
usb -> parallel/serial
usb -> ethernet
usb -> scsi (http://www.usbgear.com/USB-TO-SCSI.html)

That's just in consumer elctronics... I happen to work in a University lab where they do a lot of research into bus based achitectures, for industry, (CANbus etc) and I can't think of a single reason why this couldn't be developed. Getting technologies to interface and work with each other is almost ALWAYS possible, although it isn't always easy.

Chundles
Dec 5, 2005, 11:09 AM
Well we fundamentally disagree on this one, so I can't see the point of continuing this discussion. Just think about all the other examples of bridging technologies though:

usb -> bluetooth
usb -> parallel/serial
usb -> ethernet
usb -> scsi (http://www.usbgear.com/USB-TO-SCSI.html)

That's just in consumer elctronics... I happen to work in a University lab where they do a lot of research into bus based achitectures, for industry, (CANbus etc) and I can't think of a single reason why this couldn't be developed. Getting technologies to interface and work with each other is almost ALWAYS possible, although it isn't always easy.

So you've gone from "It exists, it works" to "I don't see why it couldn't work"?

Show us a link to a product - the one listed above is for DV only.

Orge
Dec 5, 2005, 11:10 AM
I have to agree everything grapes911 said in the previous post.

Ultimately the problem is that USB and firewire protocols are structured differently so the "cable" would need to unpack the data transfered in the firewire packets and repack it into USB packets. A straight piece of wire or even dumb electrical components cannot do this. You need a cpu and some memory in the cable to buffer the data. (Don't forget some ROM to hold the software executed by the cpu and the USB and firewire interface chips. Plus probably some way of powering all this stuff.)

Good technical points, however, I've already provided a link in this thread to a device which is pretty close to what's required...

Orge
Dec 5, 2005, 11:16 AM
So you've gone from "It exists, it works" to "I don't see why it couldn't work"?

Show us a link to a product - the one listed above is for DV only.

I never said that you could use that product to hook up an ipod. If you read my posts, my angle is that it is dissapointing that Apple has left a very large portion of its computer consumer base with a difficult choice regarding its latest ipods. I undertand the reasons for the decisions that have lead to this situation (size/cost/end users), but I think it's pretty sad that they have not offered some kind of solution - via an adapter/cable whatever... This is DESPITE the fact that the technology is almost certainly feasible to develop - the technological challenges/difficulties are probably pretty similar to those for the device linked above.

mrichmon
Dec 5, 2005, 11:18 AM
Good technical points, however, I've already provided a link in this thread to a device which is pretty close to what's required...

No, you have given a link to a special purpose cable for a single task that also only works with certain DV cameras. You have not presented a general purpose product.

But please, if you believe it will work try the cable and let us know how it goes. You asked for opinions presumably since you are not an expert in this field. Others with some input have responded giving you detailed and accurate responses. You may not like the answers but that doesn't mean they are wrong. If you feel so strongly about this, please try out the cable and report back waht you find. It is possible that those of us speaking from theoretical knowledge have missed something that an actual experimental test will draw out.

grapes911
Dec 5, 2005, 11:19 AM
Well we fundamentally disagree on this one, so I can't see the point of continuing this discussion. Fundamentally disagree!!!? I don't think so. You are flat out wrong.

That's just in consumer elctronics... I happen to work in a University lab where they do a lot of research into bus based achitectures, for industry, (CANbus etc) and I can't think of a single reason why this couldn't be developed. Getting technologies to interface and work with each other is almost ALWAYS possible, although it isn't always easy.Then you probably don't do much of the research then. There are too many obstacles in the way. Anyone who does research on anything related to this would be able to see it.

grapes911
Dec 5, 2005, 11:21 AM
I never said that you could use that product to hook up an ipod.

I'm sorry, but this is absolute rubbish. Whatever it's function, this cable is simply a bridge between Firewire and USB. It is really is a simple bridge (which it is not) then this would be possible. So yes, you did imply this even if it was unintentional.

Orge
Dec 5, 2005, 11:29 AM
No, you have given a link to a special purpose cable for a single task that also only works with certain DV cameras. You have not presented a general purpose product.

Firstly, a cable designed for use with the ipod wouldn't have to be a "general purpose product". It could simply implement whatever aspects of the firewire/usb protocols were necessary to facilitate a single connection between a computer and an ipod. Secondly, whilst I doubt very much this product would work (at the least it requires windows based drivers), it is functionally equivalent to what is needed - it takes information travelling in one medium and passes it to another.

Orge
Dec 5, 2005, 11:58 AM
It is really is a simple bridge (which it is not) then this would be possible. So yes, you did imply this even if it was unintentional.

I see what you're getting at, but the reality is that this does take information travelling on one bus and transfer it to another. Even if it has been designed specifically for DV, it would be possible to design/builld a similar device for the ipod.

grapes911
Dec 5, 2005, 12:05 PM
I see what you're getting at, but the reality is that this does take information travelling on one bus and transfer it to another. Even if it has been designed specifically for DV, it would be possible to design/builld a similar device for the ipod. Someday, we may see it. Right now, we won't. You want Apple to just conjure something up. If you really work in anything research related, you know this is not how it works. An adapter would be great. Not just for the ipod, but for many devices. It has be tried before with less than acceptable results, so don't hold your breath. Our current level of technology does not make it feasible. It has nothing to do with apple wanting you to upgrade your computers or any other marketing scheme. So for now, deal with it.

Orge
Dec 5, 2005, 12:22 PM
Someday, we may see it. Right now, we won't. You want Apple to just conjure something up. If you really work in anything research related, you know this is not how it works. An adapter would be great. Not just for the ipod, but for many devices. It has be tried before with less than acceptable results, so don't hold your breath. Our current level of technology does not make it feasible. It has nothing to do with apple wanting you to upgrade your computers or any other marketing scheme. So for now, deal with it.

I think we've established that we disagree. It's not personal and it's not even important as to "who's right".

grapes911
Dec 5, 2005, 12:54 PM
I think we've established that we disagree. It's not personal and it's not even important as to "who's right".
I think it is very important. Readers of this thread are getting their hopes up because of you. Anytime someone misinforms people, it is very important who is right and wrong.

Orge
Dec 5, 2005, 01:27 PM
I think it is very important. Readers of this thread are getting their hopes up because of you. Anytime someone misinforms people, it is very important who is right and wrong.

There's nowhere on this thread that I have stated this problem will be solved by Apple or a 3rd party, I have merely pointed out that a product has been developed for a similar application. For the record, I think that it's unlikely that Apple, or a 3rd party, will develop a solution. We may disagree on the reasons why this isn't going to happen, but the bottom line is still the same.