Re: Re: Re: Finally!
yeah, 196 usually does the trick for me, though i would use 256 if iTunes let me.
yeah, 196 usually does the trick for me, though i would use 256 if iTunes let me.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
40GB Toshiba Hard Drives
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Originally posted by MacKid
Do you mean the Noise Cancellers? If so, there's no effect on battery life, and I don't see why there would be.
ah, don't be condescending. i think you are right that they don't kill battery any more, but it would sure make sense if they did. that's where you are wrong. i mean, think about it, they are playing music like every other headphone set, plus they are cancelling outside noise. this is not a passive task that is automatic (at least, not on the ones i used 2 years ago). they have to monitor the noise in the environment and emit a frequency pattern that cancels the local frequency. this is actually a pretty complex process, which is why they are so expensive. it is only intuitive that this would take more power, much like adding a firewire drive to my laptop would. but that's not conclusive. i don't know any statistics on how much power they actually use, compared to, say, earbud speakers, or if you prefer, circum-aural ones like my Sennheiser HD 590s.
Most noise-cancelling headphones (not sure about this particular model) have their own set of batteries driving the noise-cancellation circuitry.
Given the rather lax headphone-output spec, I'd be surprised if anyone tried to drive circuitry more complex than a headphone speaker off the current coming out of a headphones jack. Might work on one device, but the next device would likely not work. Not a general-purpose solution.
oh. yeah, i forgot, there was a battery pack. i just tried them on a plane on the way to munich my sophomore year... almost 3 years ago, actually. thanks for the heads up.
"That would mean that you would have to buy a new Mac to use the iPod -"
exactly, typical Apple style.
but seriously, I like this giant drive in a iPod thing couse it makes for an extremely compact back up and/or portable drive!
as for the remark about Apple should be working with Toshiba to ready for the drives, you can be sure Apple knows all about what Toshiba has in the pipeline, it is all a matter of marketing as to when a new one comes out (compared to the arrival of new technology).
exactly, typical Apple style.
but seriously, I like this giant drive in a iPod thing couse it makes for an extremely compact back up and/or portable drive!
as for the remark about Apple should be working with Toshiba to ready for the drives, you can be sure Apple knows all about what Toshiba has in the pipeline, it is all a matter of marketing as to when a new one comes out (compared to the arrival of new technology).
is FW 800 not backwards compatible? heck that'd put a damper on that technology for me... guess it makes sense though, otherwise they would only have FW800 ports on the new macs, right?
and that makes me question somethign else. what's with this year? airport extreme is new macs only too. blah, this is all strange.
FW 800 is backwards compatable, but unlike USB 2 the connectors are different. That means you need an adapter to hook up an older firewire device. Also, everything on that bus will run at the older firewire speed and you will not gain the advantage.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
well that's not so bad. wouldn't that mean apple would have a FW800 cable and a FW400 cable in the new iPod? i mean, they would lose their windows market if it weren't back compatible. no one is that stupid. but the ipod seems like a device that could also benefit from FW800. at the least, they wouldn't want to have mac users with new macs plugging it into their FW800 series only to have it slow all the devices down.
Compatibility
Yes, FireWire 2 is compatible with FireWire 1 through adaptor cables (which have not hit the market yet). The only reason Apple would use FireWire 2 for the next iPod is that maybe the battery could be recharged faster than the current implementation. Other than that, hard-drive speed would not be affected.
Yes, FireWire 2 is compatible with FireWire 1 through adaptor cables (which have not hit the market yet). The only reason Apple would use FireWire 2 for the next iPod is that maybe the battery could be recharged faster than the current implementation. Other than that, hard-drive speed would not be affected.
Re: Compatibility
but does FW1 on an FW2 series force the entire series to FW1 speed? that would be another reason, i think. ATA is like that, i know. i wonder if USB is.
but does FW1 on an FW2 series force the entire series to FW1 speed? that would be another reason, i think. ATA is like that, i know. i wonder if USB is.
Re: Re: Compatibility
If firewire is on firewire 800 then all devices will run at firewire speed. I don't know if usb is like this, but I would imagine it would be.
I think FireWire 800 would be good with an Oxford 911 bridge and a 10,000 to 15,000 rpm drive. That to me, would be a good combo. Anyone else?
not quite following what you're saying here buddy.
If firewire is on firewire 800 then all devices will run at firewire speed. I don't know if usb is like this, but I would imagine it would be.
I think FireWire 800 would be good with an Oxford 911 bridge and a 10,000 to 15,000 rpm drive. That to me, would be a good combo. Anyone else?
Re: Re: Re: Compatibility
i am saying that, as you say (and i said, and someone before me) that having an FW device in a FW2 series-- like, you have your iPod and said 15000 rpm drive daisy chained, say--that forces both devices to be FW, and not get any benefit from FW2, even though you have an FW2 port and your 15000 rpm hard drive is FW2. apple would want to make the new iPods FW2 not because it helps the iPod, but to keep the iPod from hurting other devices on an FW2 series. does that make sense?
i am saying that, as you say (and i said, and someone before me) that having an FW device in a FW2 series-- like, you have your iPod and said 15000 rpm drive daisy chained, say--that forces both devices to be FW, and not get any benefit from FW2, even though you have an FW2 port and your 15000 rpm hard drive is FW2. apple would want to make the new iPods FW2 not because it helps the iPod, but to keep the iPod from hurting other devices on an FW2 series. does that make sense?
It takes one
Since iPods only have one FireWire port they would not be daisy chained to any other devices.
I understand what you are saying about FireWire 1 peripherals slowing down a FireWire 2 chain. USB 2.0 does this when you plug USB 1.0 peripherals (maybe this is the reason Apple does not support 2.0), Airport Extreme does it when vanilla Airport devices are part of its network, and ATA devices do it when slower IDE devices are part of its chain (this is why SuperDrives are not on the same bus as the hard drives in PowerMac systems). Considering that SCSI also did this, it is safe to assume the FireWire 2 functions in the same way.
Personally, the biggest draw to FireWire 2 is its networking potential. Apparently Cat 5 cable can carry FireWire 2 signals to at least 100 meters. I could network two Macs with FireWire and use the ethernet port for my ADSL modem.
Since iPods only have one FireWire port they would not be daisy chained to any other devices.
I understand what you are saying about FireWire 1 peripherals slowing down a FireWire 2 chain. USB 2.0 does this when you plug USB 1.0 peripherals (maybe this is the reason Apple does not support 2.0), Airport Extreme does it when vanilla Airport devices are part of its network, and ATA devices do it when slower IDE devices are part of its chain (this is why SuperDrives are not on the same bus as the hard drives in PowerMac systems). Considering that SCSI also did this, it is safe to assume the FireWire 2 functions in the same way.
Personally, the biggest draw to FireWire 2 is its networking potential. Apparently Cat 5 cable can carry FireWire 2 signals to at least 100 meters. I could network two Macs with FireWire and use the ethernet port for my ADSL modem.
Re: It takes one
yes, but you can plug it into the end of a series of FW2 devices, namely HDDs, that can be daisy chained. so it is still an issue.
that's awesome. i didn't know they could use cat5. how does that work?
yes, but you can plug it into the end of a series of FW2 devices, namely HDDs, that can be daisy chained. so it is still an issue.
that's awesome. i didn't know they could use cat5. how does that work?
you're right about the niche market. i know very few people with 40GB of mp3s, but they are fanatic about it, and would buy up a 40 GB in minutes. and personally, i think that would be a great tool for me too, even though i just have 7.2 GB of mp3s. i mean, it'd be nice to put all my apps on an iPod and take them places too.
of course, as it is, i take my 60 GB tiBook around, so i wouldn't spend another 500$ or more to get a 40 GB... but still.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Compatibility
I feel you, but its not really an issue. As far as I know, all new units that feature FW800 have seperate ports for 400 & 800. So you could start your own chains for each standard. Now, unless some bootlegged lack of tech has both of the ports connected on the MB, then you could run both on your NEW comps and not have that problem.
-Hertz
I feel you, but its not really an issue. As far as I know, all new units that feature FW800 have seperate ports for 400 & 800. So you could start your own chains for each standard. Now, unless some bootlegged lack of tech has both of the ports connected on the MB, then you could run both on your NEW comps and not have that problem.
-Hertz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Compatibility
you're right about the separate FW and FW2 things. i forgot.
you know what would be funny though: a 1.8 inch 15000 rpm ipod. dang, that would be a hell of a marketing pitch. transfer your entire library in under 5 minutes or something.
then you'd have all these reports of people burning themselves by keeping their iPods in their pockets.
they'd have to put those airline warning signs from "OK, Computer" on the back of the thing--you know, the fire on board things...
yeah, anyways.
you're right about the separate FW and FW2 things. i forgot.
you know what would be funny though: a 1.8 inch 15000 rpm ipod. dang, that would be a hell of a marketing pitch. transfer your entire library in under 5 minutes or something.
then you'd have all these reports of people burning themselves by keeping their iPods in their pockets.
they'd have to put those airline warning signs from "OK, Computer" on the back of the thing--you know, the fire on board things...
yeah, anyways.
faster HDD
I don't think Apple should implement 15,000-rpm drives in the iPods. First of all, the faster it is, the noisier it is. Also, the reason that current HDDs are limited to their current specs is because if their speed is bumped up even more, their outer edges would break the sound barrier at maximum speed (I read this somewhere, pretty sure it's accurate). So, it would follow that the faster the hard drive, the more prone it is to bumps and shakes. Also, do you really NEED to backup your entire HDD in under 5 minutes? I mean, do you do that between classes, thrice per coffee break? Personally, I think it'd be useless. iPods are fine the way they are.
P.S. - though I'm still waiting for SOME kind of update before buying one
I don't think Apple should implement 15,000-rpm drives in the iPods. First of all, the faster it is, the noisier it is. Also, the reason that current HDDs are limited to their current specs is because if their speed is bumped up even more, their outer edges would break the sound barrier at maximum speed (I read this somewhere, pretty sure it's accurate). So, it would follow that the faster the hard drive, the more prone it is to bumps and shakes. Also, do you really NEED to backup your entire HDD in under 5 minutes? I mean, do you do that between classes, thrice per coffee break? Personally, I think it'd be useless. iPods are fine the way they are.
P.S. - though I'm still waiting for SOME kind of update before buying one