Why is the nano so much more responsive?

Discussion in 'iPod' started by runninmac, Sep 9, 2005.

  1. runninmac macrumors 65816

    runninmac

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Location:
    Rockford MI
    #1
    I got my nano today and Im amazed at how much more repsonsive it is compared to my 30Gig photo when changing menus, volume ,songs, and just about everything else. Is the prosesser faster in these or did apple just make some changes to the iPod "OS"?
     
  2. Vader macrumors 65816

    Vader

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #2
    It is because it uses flash memory instead of a harddrive.
     
  3. runninmac thread starter macrumors 65816

    runninmac

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Location:
    Rockford MI
    #3
    Well I knew that but if thats the reason I feel really stupid right now :eek:
     
  4. Vader macrumors 65816

    Vader

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
    I am just guessing, but I think that is the most likely reason.
    Maybe it accesses the OS faster on Flash?
    Not exactly sure.
     
  5. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #5
    I'll put money on it coming down to the fact they're flash-based. :)
     
  6. fyzle macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    #6
    Then I guess you feel really stupid right now.
     
  7. Vader macrumors 65816

    Vader

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #7
    Don't feel stupid, you should feel very happy, because you have an iPod and a nano!
     
  8. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #8
    I think it's the firmware, and faster processor. My old 2G 20GB iPod takes forever to change menus. It's actually quite pathetic. When I got the mini, I noticed the menus were much faster. Apple improves the speed every revision.
     
  9. ScottDodson macrumors 6502

    ScottDodson

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago
    #9
    i'm with the rest of the people here, It's most likely from it being flash based, newer firmware, and possibly a smaller HD size? How "packed" is your 30 gigger? Smaller Nano, less files, easier to navigate...
     
  10. Voidness macrumors 6502a

    Voidness

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Location:
    Null
    #10
    I don't think it's the flash memory. Since the iPod OS is probably loaded to the internal RAM when you're using it. It's most likely optimizations to the menu framework.
     
  11. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #11
    I'm would have to agree with that. I'm wondering why people are thinking the flash memory is responsible for this? I also wonder where all the people who are crying that 'but teh flash memory are teh slow3st evAr' are?
     
  12. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #12
    But doesn't RAM constantly require power? Wouldn't it lose the OS every time it lost power?
     
  13. Capt Underpants macrumors 68030

    Capt Underpants

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #13
    It could be loaded into RAM from the flash memory. Flash memory doesn't always require power. But moving the OS into RAM while the unit was on would speed things up. I don't know if this is the case, though.
     
  14. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    if your ipod gets slow just format it, then it's good as new.
     
  15. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
  16. dongmin macrumors 68000

    dongmin

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    #16
    ah, but wouldn't the ipod have to read the drive in order to display the directories???
     
  17. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #17
    I think this is the reason why, when you leave an iPod off for an extended time, the boot process (when you get the Apple logo on the screen) is substantially longer than the "instant on" when you leave it asleep for a short period of time -- the re-loading of the "OS" into memory.

    Anyway, there seems to be some indication the controller is different, since it doesn't seem to support FW. Maybe it got faster in the process too? Hopefully they roll whatever portion of speed gains are due to the processor and OS back to the rest of the line. :)
     
  18. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #18
    The iPod doesn't store music in logical directories. Each song is copied over to the same root directory and is named/tagged with a code. iTunes creates a small database file that has this code as an index and all the song data as fields. This database is likely stored in RAM with the OS and is used to create the directory listing.

    I would agree about the boot times for different levels of sleep. It would require almost no power at all to keep RAM active for a couple hours, when it was likely and desirable to be turned back on again and to go into a deeper sleep and unloading the RAM after a couple hours.

    The iPods all have 32mb of RAM and everymac.com says that 2mb of ROM is used initially for the firmware. The claim a 25min buffer from that 32mb of RAM, which could mean that 7mb of RAM is reserved for the 2mb OS and up to a 5mb database file.

    As for why the nano is faster, it's likely just optimizations in the OS. Haven't the iPod CPUs been getting slower as time goes on? Dual ARM7 90mhz in the 1st gen and dual ARM7 80mhz CPUs in the photos, for example?
     
  19. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #19
    The PP5021, like the PP5022 in the second generation mini, is simply a faster processor (and lower power) than the 5020 found in the "big" iPods.
     

Share This Page