Who Wants FireWire Again?

[Techguy172]

I was thinking back to the 4th gen and Mini Days and I wish Firewire was back transferring is so sloow now it's terrible why don't they bring it back.

What do you think?

[forafireescape]

I AGREE...sometimes it's the only connector I can find but it won't work :(

[TEG]

I miss Firewire. Firewire is so much superrior to USB for file transfers. Firewire doesn't require the use of the CPU do its work, it does use direct memory access.

TEG

[Beric]

A firewire connection would require the current iPods to be much larger than they are now. I like the size that fits nicely in my pocket. No change wanted.

[szark]

I definitely miss it. You'd think they would be able to reduce the footprint of the Firewire chipset enough to allow them to use it.

[PlaceofDis]

A firewire connection would require the current iPods to be much larger than they are now. I like the size that fits nicely in my pocket. No change wanted.

much larger? no.
but it would require another chip on the ipod, making it more costly, yes.

[Techguy172]

Ya see this is the way it goes. You get your brand new 160GB iPod Classic you think to your self "Now this is going to be great, I can carry all my content." So you open up the beautiful apple packaging and it's wonderful looks great.

Now you Plug it into your computer Register it and get it all going. You got all your wonderful content from the iTunes store. "beep" Your iPod is ready to sync with iTunes, you think alright i'll just sync it and get our of here. As your watching the top menu bar 1... 2.... 3..... of 10 673 songs to go " SOB Now i'll never be able to go on the fishing trip with my iPod." That right there kinda killed the whole experience.

Apple has the Software and content right, The Hardware is good but the Connection between the two or the Syncing process if you will, is Crap. Fix that and the whole package will be exquisite. That's the only thing holding the iPod back.

[PlaceofDis]

even it they only added it to the 80+ gig ones it'd make more sense, they're larger already

[Techguy172]

even it they only added it to the 80+ gig ones it'd make more sense, they're larger already

Exactly what I was thinking. Here's what they could do come september. iPod Touch 32GB iPod Classic get FireWire and I'd be happy that's all they have to do. That could be there one more thing...

[slu]

Two Words: Pipe Dream

[Techguy172]

Yeah but I'm guessing you had wished you had it when syncing your 160GB Classic.

[Squonk]

I miss the days of the speedy firewire transfers as well. The syncing speed on my iPhone was an eye opener! I still have a 60GB iPod Photo and a 6GB Mini - both the end of the line for FireWire. I want a 160GB Classic, but I may trim down the collection and just keep what I have for now...

[aross99]

I know it will never come back, but I miss it too. Much better way to sync if you have ALOT to sync...

[acfusion29]

Hmm... why would anyone want firewire, it's slower than USB...

USB 2.0 480MBit/s

vs

Firewire 400MBit/s

:rolleyes:

Unless you put in Firewire 800 into the iPod, then of course it would be faster, but only if you have a Mac (or PC) with FW 800.

[Techguy172]

It's a lot faster than USB, USB does not even go near 480 MBits it's much lower and it cannot sustain it's speed over long transfers where as FireWire can FireWire also runs much closer to it's top speed.

[acfusion29]

It's a lot faster than USB, USB does not even go near 480 MBits it's much lower and it cannot sustain it's speed over long transfers where as FireWire can FireWire also runs much closer to it's top speed.

So at what speed does USB actually go at then?

[PlaceofDis]

Hmm... why would anyone want firewire, it's slower than USB...

USB 2.0 480MBit/s

vs

Firewire 400MBit/s

:rolleyes:

Unless you put in Firewire 800 into the iPod, then of course it would be faster, but only if you have a Mac (or PC) with FW 800.

no its not. its much faster for big transfers due to the way the two work.

USB has a theoretical speed of 480 that it almost never reaches and uses a burst transmission rate and needs to use your processing power to transfer as well.

FW400 is slow on the start up, so for small files it doesn't shine, but on long transfers it will reach 400MBit/s and stay there for the whole transfer, a constant steady rate, and doesn't need to use your processor since there is a chip on each end.

[Techguy172]

So at what speed does USB actually go at then?

Maybe 40 or 50 if your lucky

[roland.g]

The older iPods had both Firewire and USB. However, in Apple's desire to make them thinner, etc, they ditched Firewire. Not because the chipset was too thick. But because it would make the iPod too thick to have both in there. And they chose USB over Firewire because of the myth that 2.0 is just as fast, but mostly because they knew they were selling tons of iPods to Windows users, most of which don't have Firewire. So it was they easy way out. Added to which, most people will have a slow sync at first setup but then adding playlists won't take long because we're not talking the same volume of data usually. Though that definitely isn't the case for movies.

[cube]

New iPod is introduced. I think: "I'd like to buy that".

But I don't have USB 2.0, so no.

Repeat cycle.

[PlaceofDis]

The older iPods had both Firewire and USB. However, in Apple's desire to make them thinner, etc, they ditched Firewire. Not because the chipset was too thick. But because it would make the iPod too thick to have both in there. And they chose USB over Firewire because of the myth that 2.0 is just as fast, but mostly because they knew they were selling tons of iPods to Windows users, most of which don't have Firewire. So it was they easy way out. Added to which, most people will have a slow sync at first setup but then adding playlists won't take long because we're not talking the same volume of data usually. Though that definitely isn't the case for movies.

while i understand their reasons for doing so, and i know it won't come back, i can't believe it has more to do with thinness than price. its cheaper to not put fw on the boards. and like i said, they really only should have it on the larger ipods really, which are thicker already. the nanos don't need it they're small enough in size that a transfer won't kill hours.

[Techguy172]

The older iPods had both Firewire and USB. However, in Apple's desire to make them thinner, etc, they ditched Firewire. Not because the chipset was too thick. But because it would make the iPod too thick to have both in there. And they chose USB over Firewire because of the myth that 2.0 is just as fast, but mostly because they knew they were selling tons of iPods to Windows users, most of which don't have Firewire. So it was they easy way out. Added to which, most people will have a slow sync at first setup but then adding playlists won't take long because we're not talking the same volume of data usually. Though that definitely isn't the case for movies.

It's not because of thickness rather price and how many people were using it but I still think it's an essential to have on the larger Capacity Hard Drive models it's just too big to use USB it's not fast enough and takes forever. Or they could give you the option of an Apple Exclusive FireWire only iPod for users who desire to have it. It's not that much to change and I really think it would give a better experience.

[reubs]

I don't know anything about technology or hardware in terms of development, but why is it so much easier to make a USB with a dock connector end than a firewire cord with a dock connector on the other end? Is that just not possible, or is it more so that Apple just doesn't feel the need to create that?

[mkrishnan]

I don't know anything about technology or hardware in terms of development, but why is it so much easier to make a USB with a dock connector end than a firewire cord with a dock connector on the other end? Is that just not possible, or is it more so that Apple just doesn't feel the need to create that?

It has nothing to do with the cable... the iPod has to have a firewire controller to manage the transfer process, which means either another chip or a more costly / more complicated chip that does USB and FW. Apple originally used FW because they sold to their own (Mac users), and we all had firewire. But most PCs don't, and so Apple started supporting USB2, which is what allowed iPod sales to explode like they have. Of course, we have USB also, and so Apple could drop FW without making us lose basic functionality (although we lose the speed and other perks of FW).

It does make a difference. I just bought a used iPod Photo 30GB from another user here and filled it up. Granted I put a larger library than I could have fit on my iPod 3G / 15GB, but it was substantially slower. Not that I hopefully have to do this too often. But the practical difference for loading an iPod is like a factor of two to three times as much time with USB.

That being said, I too think that it is, sadly, a pipe dream. I don't see any real possibility of FW making a comeback.

[f1]

A large majority of iPod users are also PC users. A lot of modern PCs especially Windows Laptops do not even have a firewire port.

[roland.g]

I don't know anything about technology or hardware in terms of development, but why is it so much easier to make a USB with a dock connector end than a firewire cord with a dock connector on the other end? Is that just not possible, or is it more so that Apple just doesn't feel the need to create that?

They do. When the 1st dock connection iPods came out, they had FW and USB support and they came with a 6-pin FW plug on one end and dock connection on the other. They just took out the Firewire chipset controller inside the iPod to reduce the size and cost. I still have a 40GB iPod, pre-clickwheel that has the 4 touch sensitive button in a row above the wheel and they light up red. Either that or the first of the clickwheel iPods is the last generation to have Firewire.

A large majority of iPod users are also PC users. A lot of modern PCs especially Windows Laptops do not even have a firewire port.

And if they do they usually have a 4-pin FW port that doesn't supply power.

[Techguy172]

I wish apple made a Mac only Firewire Player.

[SactoGuy18]

Unless you copy BIG multimedia files to your iPod, I find having a IEEE-1394 port on the iPod to be not that useful. With my 3G iPod nano, I've been able to copy full TV episodes in the 400-500 MB size range to my player reasonably fast through the USB 2.0 port.

[Techguy172]

FireWire is still faster and doesn't need the CPU to transfer.

[aross99]

I wish apple made a Mac only Firewire Player.

LOL - that would be a 1st Gen iPod with a whopping 5G hard drive. You can even use a standard Firewire cable.

[xxstatic]

LOL - that would be a 1st Gen iPod with a whopping 5G hard drive. You can even use a standard Firewire cable.

Those aren't mac only anymore, with the updaters any ipod can be formatted for windows use and back again, I just was doing this to an original 5gb one yesterday.

[themanfromvlad]

For the record, what's the last iPod to have FireWire?

[TheMonarch]

Little known fact is that Firewire can charge iPods during transfer, whereas USB will actually drain iPods during transfers. The USB spec only allows for 2 watts of power, as opposed to firewire's 45 watts [Though Apple typically caps their laptops to 7-8 watts to save power].

Depending on the size of your iPod, its possible to use up a whole charge cycle, even have it die during USB transfers [Remember lithium batteries can only be charged a couple of hundred times before they stop holding a charge]


Just pointing out that speed isn't the only issue.

[LinuXtreme]

For the record, what's the last iPod to have FireWire?

The iPod with color was the last iPod to support syncing through firewire (you can still use firewire for charging though, and I have on occasion...).

[jaw04005]

Apple originally used FW because they sold to their own (Mac users), and we all had firewire.

Let's not forget that Apple refused to implement USB 2.0 until late 2003 across its lines. So, at the time of the original iPod introduction—USB 2.0 wasn't standard on the Mac platform.

It's funny. Apple all but saved USB 1.x by creating the original iMac in 1998. The iMac forced PC manufacturers to adopt USB 1.x at that time. USB had been available since 1995.

Yet, Apple refused to support USB 2.0 because they felt it would kill Firewire.

[motulist]

USB 3 will be here soon enough. 2010 is less than a couple of years away, as hard as that is to believe.


http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22usb+3%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Techguy172]

USB 3 will be here soon enough. 2010 is less than a couple of years away, as hard as that is to believe.


http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22usb+3%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

It won't be till 2012 till it gets fully supported by anything. I'd still rather have FireWire there is a new one coming too. FireWire 3200.

[motulist]

It won't be till 2012 till [usb 3] gets fully supported by anything. I'd still rather have FireWire there is a new one coming too. FireWire 3200.

Apple was the first manufacturer to really use USB on their hardware, and since Apple appears to no longer be pushing firewire technology then there's no reason to think that apple won't add USB 3 to their macs and ipods as soon as it's available.

[Techguy172]

Apple was the first manufacturer to really use USB on their hardware, and since Apple appears to no longer be pushing firewire technology then there's no reason to think that apple won't add USB 3 to their macs and ipods as soon as it's available.

Maybe they don't push it but they still put it on their Macs I wish they would at least fix the burst problem with USB. Then maybe it would be decent on long Transfers.

[a456]

Apple refused to support USB 2.0 because they felt it would kill Firewire.

Not far from the reality. The only reason I have opted for firewire hard drives over USB in the past is because I have a PB with USB 1.1, and the reason I will opt for it in the future is because: I have FW 800 on my iMac, which is faster than USB 2.0 (and the USB ports get used up so quick with printers and scanners, etc.)

While the FW is one step ahead on Macs it will continue to be useful (also it is useful for historical reasons if you are using one new and one older Mac), but USB peripherals will always be cheaper making the temptation for larger drives at lower prices hard to resist.

[OllyW]

Sending 20,000 tracks over to my 160GB classic was a bit of a drag :eek:
Fortunately, it's something you don't have to do that often.

I updated some of the music on my old 60GB photo over FireWire a few weeks ago, it was way,way faster than the classic :(

[nsbio]

Firewire also charges the iPod when the computer is sleeping. Good luck with USB. To be fair, FW will charge newer iPods too. Also, older computers do not have USB2 - good luck with newer iPods. There are many places one could imagine sticking their cables into, but sadly, the USB1 port is not one of them.

[Mord]

firewire>*

I think apple ditched it for simplicity's sake, every computer has usb these days but allot of pc's don't have firewire.

[Raid]

I love the fact that my 3rd Gen iPod has firewire, and I'd love to see it back. However with the PC industry not really supporting the true capabilities, and Apple wanting to sell iPods to a much broader market meant USB was the way to go. Too bad really, I'd like to see at least FW400 capability when I get my iPhone / iPod Touch.

[rockthecasbah]

I do not have a firewire port on my computer so I don't miss it. USB 2.0 is quite fast but I don't object to bringing the functionality back as long as I don't have to pay extra or compromise features for it.

[ribbonthecat]

I don't understand what the big fuss is about. It's not like every time you plug in an iPod, it updates every one of your gazillion songs. You do that at first, but after the transfer is never so large.

Plus, why anybody absolutely needs so many songs on an iPod is a bit of a mystery. My library is about 80 gigs, but I'm perfectly content with an 8-gig Touch, that is usually only half-full. That's still several days worth of music.

Sure, Firewire on my 3G was quite nice, and it would be great if it were included, but if removing it cuts down size and cost, I'm happy to wait a bit.

What Wifi enabled iPods should really have is Wifi syncing.

[Cassie]

Any of you ever tried transferring 25 GB of music/videos/pictures to an iPod over USB 1.1?

Not fun. Definiely not fun.

[johnnyjibbs]

I still use Firewire to sync my 4G iPod - it's great. Of course, back in the day that iPod was invented, Apple was promoting its own FireWire over USB and Firewire easily trumps USB 1.1.

Brief history

1) USB 1.1 invented and slow by today's standards but faster than anything before it.
2) Firewire invented partly by Apple and much faster.
3) iPod invented so naturally uses Firewire
4) However, most PCs don't have Firewire so Apple has to use USB2.0 for iPod also.
5) Having stubbornly refused to put USB2.0 in its computers because of the threat to Firewire, Apple finally gives in in September 2003, just when I bought my original computer.
6) Gradually, Apple realises it can make more profit per iPod by dropping one of the connectors. But which one?
7) Firewire is obviously better in terms of sustained rate and Apple would obviously prefer to keep it, but most PCs still don't have it as standard so they drop Firewire off the iPod.

I sometimes wonder if Apple has given up on Firewire, as even now iMovie doesn't require a Firewire camcorder. And I'm sure we'll soon see iChat opened up to USB cameras. And most people now have USB2.0 Macs.

But I still choose Firewire wherever I can - I love my Firewire external HD and, like I said before, I still use it on my iPod b/w... :)

[Techguy172]

I want to buy a 60GB 4th Gen iPod This one does have FireWire doesn't it?

[LinuXtreme]

I want to buy a 60GB 4th Gen iPod This one does have FireWire doesn't it?

According to this page (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/consumer_electronics/stats/ipod_photo.html), the 60GB 4G iPod you're looking at should support firewire for syncing/charging. Just make sure that the model number matches before you buy it. The above site also has information on all other iPods, it's pretty cool stuff.

[Techguy172]

Yeah that one looks nice but the problem is it just doesn't have all the features the new ones do.

[TEG]

I want to buy a 60GB 4th Gen iPod This one does have FireWire doesn't it?

Firewire Support was dropped with the 5G and the nano. All 4G and photos have Firewire support.

TEG

[motulist]

Here's the minimum requirements chart for all ipods of all time. So you can see exactly which models did and did not support firewire syncing.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60971

[Techguy172]

Here's the minimum requirements chart for all ipods of all time. So you can see exactly which models did and did not support firewire syncing.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60971

Thanks that was pretty helpful, but actually it seems that apple supported it for quite a while and while they don't do syncing now they still charge. But it couldn't be that hard to allow it sync could it they must just have to add an additional chip.

[motulist]

Thanks that was pretty helpful

You're welcome. :)

But it couldn't be that hard to allow it sync could it they must just have to add an additional chip.

Well yes, all it would mainly require is an additional chip, but you make it sound like there's no monetary or functional cost to doing that. Adding 1 extra firewire chip would raise the cost by a significant degree as firewire controller chips are reputed to be, as well as increase the size of the device since they are reportedly quite large relatively, and it might shorten battery life and increase heat output, and it would lead to more hardware failures that are inherently increased with any bit of extra complexity added, etc.

So adding just 1 firewire controller chip in addition to the existing USB controller chip would have significant downsides.

[LinuXtreme]

Here's the minimum requirements chart for all ipods of all time. So you can see exactly which models did and did not support firewire syncing.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60971

I was looking for this page yesterday (I remembered it from someplace and liked how it worked at a glance), but I gave up when I couldn't find it and ended up settling for comparing iPod specs individually on EveryMac.com

Thanks for posting it! I'll bookmark it this time...

[plasticparadox]

Well yes, all it would mainly require is an additional chip, but you make it sound like there's no monetary or functional cost to doing that. Adding 1 extra firewire chip would raise the cost by a significant degree as firewire controller chips are reputed to be, as well as increase the size of the device since they are reportedly quite large relatively, and it might shorten battery life and increase heat output, and it would lead to more hardware failures that are inherently increased with any bit of extra complexity added, etc.

So adding just 1 firewire controller chip in addition to the existing USB controller chip would have significant downsides.

I wish Apple could find a way to put the Firewire controller chips inside a iPod dock connector cable. That way if you want the Firewire connection, it's a simple upgrade while keeping costs down for the majority of iPod users.

[chedda]

Many people like to enable disk mode (me included) and use the ipod as a portable drive this is when daily large transfers shine in FW. Otherwise the ipod is also bootable and you can run your maintenance etc from it. Does Leopard now allow USB 2 drives as start up disks ? Anyhow i'm sure a lot of the PC users now have macs so it could be time to offer it as an option at least after all that was the idea of the halo effect ? WE ALL NEED SOME FIREWIRE GOODNESS

[Techguy172]

You're welcome. :)



Well yes, all it would mainly require is an additional chip, but you make it sound like there's no monetary or functional cost to doing that. Adding 1 extra firewire chip would raise the cost by a significant degree as firewire controller chips are reputed to be, as well as increase the size of the device since they are reportedly quite large relatively, and it might shorten battery life and increase heat output, and it would lead to more hardware failures that are inherently increased with any bit of extra complexity added, etc.

So adding just 1 firewire controller chip in addition to the existing USB controller chip would have significant downsides.

I realize there could be problems but was their lot's of problems with the 4th gen and FireWire issues? I wouldn't care if it was thicker or it shortened battery life I mean look at how thin the classic is now and look at how much battery life it gets. Even if it did take a hit it wouldn't matter as it already is fantastic in both areas. The Price also isn't a big deal to me either what if the 160GB got it?

The Thing is FireWire seems to be making more and more sense with all the digital content that the iTunes store is getting Movies TV shows HD Podcasts those are all large files movies being the largest at over 1GB. Some people say they don't mind waiting for one of two things but what happens when you decide to get a whole bunch? Then it becomes quite slow. Apple could well in the tech world if people knew it had FireWire.

[wh!plash]

Hmm... why would anyone want firewire, it's slower than USB...

USB 2.0 480MBit/s

vs

Firewire 400MBit/s

:rolleyes:

Unless you put in Firewire 800 into the iPod, then of course it would be faster, but only if you have a Mac (or PC) with FW 800.

Congrats on not actually having any idea what you're talking about. Hope that works out for you.

[killmoms]

I sometimes wonder if Apple has given up on Firewire, as even now iMovie doesn't require a Firewire camcorder. And I'm sure we'll soon see iChat opened up to USB cameras. And most people now have USB2.0 Macs.

iChat already supports USB cameras that conform to the UVC (USB Video Class) specification, like the Xbox 360 Live Vision camera.

[joeconvert]

Hmm... why would anyone want firewire, it's slower than USB...

USB 2.0 480MBit/s

vs

Firewire 400MBit/s

:rolleyes:

Unless you put in Firewire 800 into the iPod, then of course it would be faster, but only if you have a Mac (or PC) with FW 800.

Try again. FW 400 can sustain close to 400. USB 2.0 can only burst to 280 and sustains significantly less. Additionally, as other posters have pointed out the CPU impact of FW is drastically reduced compared to USB in general.

Might try knowing what you are talking about before rolling your eyes next time.

[techmonkey]

While Firewire may be superior, most people are not transferring large amounts of data on a regular basis. The first time you sync your iPod you may havce large amounts of data, which would benefit from Firewire, but on a daily basis you may be transferring an album or some podcast. Like it or not, USB is good enough for most people.

[Prof.]

A large majority of iPod users are also PC users. A lot of modern PCs especially Windows Laptops do not even have a firewire port.
That's why Apple switched to USB 2.0 in the first place.

[aross99]

While Firewire may be superior, most people are not transferring large amounts of data on a regular basis. The first time you sync your iPod you may havce large amounts of data, which would benefit from Firewire, but on a daily basis you may be transferring an album or some podcast. Like it or not, USB is good enough for most people.

You are if you are transferring Movies, Video podcasts, etc. All of these things benefit from firewire. Firewire ports are also more likely to be open on your mac too. Seems like there alot of other devices competing for the USB ports...

I can understand why they left firewire out for cost reasons, but it was a nice to have firewire available as an option...

[MattG]

Well if it didn't mean additional cost/bulk then I'd be for it, otherwise I don't really care. I don't add that much music onto my iPod at once, and USB is fast enough for me. The only times FireWire might be preferable for me is when I get a new iPod, or if I want to completely wipe out the iPod and retransfer all my music.

Firewire ports are also more likely to be open on your mac too. Seems like there alot of other devices competing for the USB ports...

I didn't think of that -- that's a very good point, and definitely true on my system. I regularly find myself juggling what's plugged into the USB ports.

[johnnyjibbs]

While Firewire may be superior, most people are not transferring large amounts of data on a regular basis. The first time you sync your iPod you may havce large amounts of data, which would benefit from Firewire, but on a daily basis you may be transferring an album or some podcast. Like it or not, USB is good enough for most people.
While this may be true, this reason is one of those "excuse justifications", i.e. saying it's ok by trying to show why it's not that bad, even though the current solution to Firewire is inferior in just about every way.

But the real reason is obviously due to USB's smaller footprint, cost, and the more universal adoption of USB 2.0 by PC manufacturers.

[eXan]

But the real reason is obviously due to USB's smaller footprint, cost, and the more universal adoption of USB 2.0 by PC manufacturers.

I think its the main reason for the lack of FW.

If every PC (like every Mac) had FW, Apple would have never introduced USB to iPods...

[todd2000]

And I'm sure we'll soon see iChat opened up to USB cameras.

Already happened in Tiger http://www.tuaw.com/2007/03/18/10-4-9-adds-usb-camera-support-for-ichat-xbox-camera-works/.

This thread is making me wonder if I should grab a Firewire cable on eBay for my iPod Color? But like people said already I basically transfer a few songs at a time, and USB 2 is fast enough for me.

[crimsoncircles]

Earlier in this thread it was noted that ipods would need to be thicker to house firewire. I am assuming this was only in relation to the first model ipod that had a dedicated direct firewire cable input.

All firewire ones previoulsy have had the dock connector, same input as usb etc, so I hardly see that was an issue.

I am currently debating what ipod to next get, as my 4th gen 20gb is no good for long term use and needs to be charged almost daily for regular use. I was surprised to learn that the 'classic' ones with their amount of space do not support FW anymore. Especially given that was the first key selling point Apple put out with why Ipods are revolutionary.

Kind of sucks. I don't think it's that difficult to imbed this. Sure you might want to only upload your music library once, but if you want to constantly change and upload movies, videos, televisions shows etc.... kind of a ****ing pain to wait so long.

Bring it back I say (knowing calls will likely go unanswered).

[Techguy172]

To me it just seems to make more sense to have it now it would be a nice option. Especially with apple selling movies I mean when you rent a movie you want it fast so you also want it fast on your iPod and it would be extremely beneficial to add FireWire.

[buffalo]

I would like firewire back just because it will save a USB port on my iMac. Between my keyboard, printer, external harddrive, iPod, and occasionally the camera, something always has to be unplugged. Not so with my firewire port. Nothing connected in it.