PDA

View Full Version : any chance for firewire ipod like in the old times?




Midgetinabikini
May 9, 2007, 08:58 AM
i really hate this usb cr*p, takes forever to sync it.

so...
there's any chance that the new ipod's will support firewire again?

spank you,
Omer Katzir

http://vereddagamba.com
http://omerkatzir.com



mrkramer
May 9, 2007, 09:02 AM
I don't think that they will. Why is this in the games forum?

Midgetinabikini
May 9, 2007, 09:05 AM
lost my way, sorry.


C&C rules!

epochblue
May 9, 2007, 09:05 AM
IIRC, they only ship USB cables with iPods now....I wouldn't expect them to about face.

hayduke
May 9, 2007, 09:10 AM
But aren't they all FW400 capable? I thought they just stopped shipping both cables, but they still support it. Anyone?

mrkramer
May 9, 2007, 09:13 AM
You can charge them over firewire, but they do not support syncing over firewire anymore.

McScooby
May 9, 2007, 10:17 AM
But aren't they all FW400 capable? I thought they just stopped shipping both cables, but they still support it. Anyone?

after the 3G model when the iPod line went on a diet, ie. slimmer.

This I believe, reading here, was due to FW requiring a chip both in the device ie. pod and computer whereas Usb only needs a chip in the computer and to take the pod slimmer FW had to be dropped. For the "perceived" loss of speed, it was felt better for the pod to be slimmer.

I, for one, wouldn't mind having FW back, if not only for Target Disk Booting!

Diatribe
May 9, 2007, 10:18 AM
How about eSATA. :p

kwood
May 9, 2007, 10:49 AM
The only reason why you would want FW400 if you were using USB 1.1. The new iPods use USB2.0 which is faster...why would you want to revert?

USB 1.1=12Mbps ***
USB 2.0=480Mbps
FW400=400Mbps

***this could be wrong I am going from memory

Diatribe
May 9, 2007, 11:02 AM
The only reason why you would want FW400 if you were using USB 1.1. The new iPods use USB2.0 which is faster...why would you want to revert?

USB 1.1=12Mbps ***
USB 2.0=480Mbps
FW400=400Mbps

***this could be wrong I am going from memory

Because we are talking about sustained transfer speed not peak transfer speed. ;)

Dunepilot
May 9, 2007, 11:03 AM
The only reason why you would want FW400 if you were using USB 1.1. The new iPods use USB2.0 which is faster...why would you want to revert?

USB 1.1=12Mbps ***
USB 2.0=480Mbps
FW400=400Mbps

***this could be wrong I am going from memory

Yes, those are the stated specifications, but real-world transfer rates are much faster in Firewire 400 than USB2. This is fact - see Barefeats.com etc.

I'd love to see Firewire come back into the iPod, but it's a concession for size (and the Windows market) that they've made, and it ain't coming back.

hayduke
May 9, 2007, 11:03 AM
The only reason why you would want FW400 if you were using USB 1.1. The new iPods use USB2.0 which is faster...why would you want to revert?

USB 1.1=12Mbps ***
USB 2.0=480Mbps
FW400=400Mbps

***this could be wrong I am going from memory

I think FW400 generally has better performance than USB2 because the *sustained* data trasfer speed is higher, even though the *peak* (as you reported) is higher for USB2. I think a lot of people would agree that FW is a better standard (as already stated, also don't need USB hubs because it is chainable, and *may* offer better power support for devices...not sure about that one).

robbieduncan
May 9, 2007, 11:46 AM
after the 3G model when the iPod line went on a diet, ie. slimmer.

Actually it was a bit later than that. I have an original 60Gb iPod Photo (4G) and it supports FireWire syncing just fine. It was the jump to 5G that killed it.

GreatDrok
May 9, 2007, 02:09 PM
The only reason why you would want FW400 if you were using USB 1.1. The new iPods use USB2.0 which is faster...why would you want to revert?

USB 1.1=12Mbps ***
USB 2.0=480Mbps
FW400=400Mbps

***this could be wrong I am going from memory

Theoretically yes. In reality USB 2 is about 4x slower from my experience. I've tested an external drive which offers both inputs and FW400 gets about 40MB/sec whereas USB2 can only manage about 11MB/sec. Certainly, my old 40GB 3G iPod syncs much more quickly than my 5.5G 80GB does so I sorely miss the FW400 interface.

juanster
May 9, 2007, 02:13 PM
ye si htink i woudl like fw to make it back into the ipod or at least make it an option...

kwood
May 9, 2007, 02:14 PM
I don't know how it goes for the iPod, but when transferring stuff to an external hard drive I found that USB 2.0 moved the same files faster then FW400.

I have heard Fire Wire was better because of the way it handles the information (I guess pre processing before the file gets moved) But I did not see it.

My unofficial test showed that USB 2.0 was quicker. Does anyone know what it is that is supposed to make FW400 faster? I know you said sustained data rate but I don't know what you mean by that. I just moved about 2Gb of music MP3s.

Spock
May 9, 2007, 02:48 PM
I don't know how it goes for the iPod, but when transferring stuff to an external hard drive I found that USB 2.0 moved the same files faster then FW400.

I have heard Fire Wire was better because of the way it handles the information (I guess pre processing before the file gets moved) But I did not see it.

My unofficial test showed that USB 2.0 was quicker. Does anyone know what it is that is supposed to make FW400 faster? I know you said sustained data rate but I don't know what you mean by that. I just moved about 2Gb of music MP3s.


My iPod seems to sync faster with USB 2.0 its a 4th gen.

mustard
May 9, 2007, 03:02 PM
I don't know how it goes for the iPod, but when transferring stuff to an external hard drive I found that USB 2.0 moved the same files faster then FW400.

I have heard Fire Wire was better because of the way it handles the information (I guess pre processing before the file gets moved) But I did not see it.

My unofficial test showed that USB 2.0 was quicker. Does anyone know what it is that is supposed to make FW400 faster? I know you said sustained data rate but I don't know what you mean by that. I just moved about 2Gb of music MP3s.

FW400 has constant transfer speed of 400Mbps where USB2 has a peak transfer speed of 480Mbps. USB2 will seem faster with small file transfers or large transfers consisting of many small files due to its bursts in speed. FW400 will blow the doors off of USB2 when trying to transfer larger files due to a constant speed.

Try this as a test - Copy a single file that is 1Gb or larger via USB2 & then FW400. FW400 will win hands down.

kwood
May 9, 2007, 03:14 PM
FW400 has constant transfer speed of 400Mbps where USB2 has a peak transfer speed of 480Mbps. USB2 will seem faster with small file transfers or large transfers consisting of many small files due to its bursts in speed. FW400 will blow the doors off of USB2 when trying to transfer larger files due to a constant speed.

Try this as a test - Copy a single file that is 1Gb or larger via USB2 & then FW400. FW400 will win hands down.

All right I will test that one out tonight. That makes sense to me.

nate13
May 9, 2007, 03:23 PM
Firewire 800 anyone? :)

Diatribe
May 9, 2007, 03:31 PM
Firewire 800 anyone? :)

As I said, eSATA would fill up these puppies in a flash. :D

ezekielrage_99
May 9, 2007, 07:24 PM
I like the Firewire connection much more than the USB2. USB2 doesn't seem to be as fast even though it's rated 80Mbps faster than firewire.

I'd like to see Firewire 800 in the iPods, but then again I only use it for rechargning and updating the occational music file...

iToaster
May 9, 2007, 08:43 PM
Perhaps a Mac exclusive iPod? One that could do firewire and maybe usb, but because I haven't seen many PCs with firewire (I know they exist), it would be nice to be Mac only, and maybe some Mac only features in it as well.

itsallinurhead
May 9, 2007, 08:45 PM
As I said, eSATA would fill up these puppies in a flash. :D

Too bad this won't be implemented any time soon because most people don't have the hardware to make use of an eSata connector. :mad:

kwood
May 9, 2007, 08:52 PM
Too bad this won't be implemented any time soon because most people don't have the hardware to make use of an eSata connector. :mad:

All the more reason to go out and upgrade. I know I am always looking for an excuse.

StealthRider
May 9, 2007, 08:53 PM
Plus, the drives in the iPod aren't (I believe) SATA in the first place...