Nano and firewire

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by uspcommuter, Sep 11, 2005.

  1. uspcommuter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    #1
    I know almost 99% certain that the nano is compatible with ipod port accesories, now the question is, is it compatible with the port-> firewire adapter? Anybody tired that yet? b/c I really really really dont like usb. :)
     
  2. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #2
    Not sure if it'll work but I guess it would. Still, you do realise it's going through a USB port nonetheless, right? It won't go any faster and it may even be slower. :(
     
  3. DeSnousa macrumors 68000

    DeSnousa

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    #3
    I believe you can only charge over Firewire. Syncing will require the USB :(
     
  4. .:*Robot Boy*:. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #4
    Huh? How so :confused:
     
  5. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #5
    I think I misread it. I interpreted the firewire adaptor to be a firewire-to-USB adaptor which the USB-to-dock connector would plug into before plugging into the computer. My bad. :eek:

    Listen to DeSnousa, he knows what he's talking about. :)
     
  6. giveup macrumors member

    giveup

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Location:
    Canton
    #6
    there are some information around mac sits that confirms firewire charge Nano ONLY!
     
  7. .:*Robot Boy*:. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #7
    Damn, I was hoping you might have some big conspiracy theory about how FireWire is nothing more than rerouted USB 2.0 or something :p ;)
     
  8. micvog macrumors 6502

    micvog

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #8
    giveup and DeSnousa are correct... unfortunately. Apparently the nano uses a TI USB controller chip; no FW. See attached PIC.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #9
    Yep, and that confirms for me that I won't be getting a nano. Shame too. USB is silly... but then again it is Intel that made USB, and thus it sucks on the CPU's power.

    On a less significant thought: this brings to question whether one could boot from the thing in target mode?
     
  10. ph0rce macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
  11. Yvan256 macrumors 601

    Yvan256

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    #11
    While I agree that FireWire 400 is better than USB 2.0, you do have to remember one thing: the iPod nano uses flash memory. Even USB 2.0 will be more than what the flash memory will be able to handle. Putting FireWire on the iPod nano (or iPod shuffle, if it had a dock connector) would be a waste of better technology.

    If, however, the next (big, i.e. hard-drive-based) iPod isn't compatible with FireWire, then you may panic. ;)
     
  12. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #12
    True. FWIW, transfer times to the nano are pretty good. Substantially better then the Shuffle's.
     
  13. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #13
    Everyone who comments on the speed of flash memory should read these two pages.
    http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html
    http://www.barefeats.com/jump.html
     
  14. Yvan256 macrumors 601

    Yvan256

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    #14
    Thanks for the info, I was afraid the nano was as slow as the shuffle.

    I should get my iPod nano in about 6 to 10 days now. :)
     
  15. Yvan256 macrumors 601

    Yvan256

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    #15
    Why? Those two pages seem to be showing exactly that: flash memory is slower and that USB2 is slower than FireWire... :confused:

    In any case, FireWire on flash memory would be a waste, especially since the most important thing is write speed (put songs into the iPod).
     
  16. neocell macrumors 65816

    neocell

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Location:
    Great White North
    #16
    The thing is though, that Macs have had Firewire for a lot longer than USB2.0. So it kind of screws a lot of mac uses that have slightly older equipment, in regards to transfer speed. I know you could just plug it into the 1.1 and wait a while to download it all initially, then you probably wouldn't need to transfer too much stuff after that so it would only be bad initially. But can you charge through USB1.1?? I hope so. All in all it would have been nice to have firewire support since so many macs have it, but not USB2.0. Oh well I guess I'll have to buy a new mac before a nano
     
  17. XIII macrumors 68040

    XIII

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2004
    Location:
    England
    #17
    Why? Why can't you sync over FW?
     
  18. uspcommuter thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    #18
    Noooooooooooooooo I only have usb1.1 on my mac....noooooooooo damn it...oh well :-D at least I will be getting a nano.
     
  19. mkubal macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa
    #19
    There really needs to be a sticky on this info. I've seen these same questions asked repeatedly for the last few days. Although I don't blame people. It's pretty hard to believe that FW transfers aren't possible.

    I can cofirm that it charges via USB 1.1.
     
  20. iEdd macrumors 68000

    iEdd

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #20
    The electronic transfer controller chip...


    I hope the next gen of iPods support FW800... That would be sweet.. Only if the HDs were fast enough though I guess.
     
  21. Le Big Mac macrumors 68020

    Le Big Mac

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #21
    Yep. Disappointing, especially since Apple was slow to adopt USB 2.0. It's not like only the oldest macs have 1.1. 2.0 on Macs is less than two years old. Guess I'll stick with my 3g iPod for now.
     
  22. JeffTL macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    #22
    I think it's a margins issue -- the components in the nano aren't cheap, even when ordered in bulk. Nor is the in-house-design custom clickwheel. One more chip, even if they could make it fit, would probably necessitate jacking up the prices to maintain satisfactory profitability. Besides, if you really want FireWire sync, you can still get that on the full-size iPod.
     
  23. SummerBreeze macrumors 6502a

    SummerBreeze

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #23
    Although this does kinda suck, there are a few things that are important to think about:

    1) Most people still use Windows. The Nano comes pre-formatted for Windows. USB 2.0 comes more readily on Windows. Sure, I don't like this, it makes me sad inside, but it does make market sense.

    2) Not many songs can be put on the Nano. It would suck having to sink my 30gb iPod photo over USB (espeically 1.1), but about 1000 or so songs won't take too long.
     

Share This Page