iPod Definitely Takes forever to transfer songs to new iPod

Viking Quest

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 28, 2006
49
0
All of my songs have artwork and I have around 7,000 songs, but it took me literally around 12 hours to get all my music on my new 80gb ipod. That's using automatic update/sync..... It took FOREVER

just warning you...
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
What kind of Mac do you have? Is the iPod plugged into a USB 1 or 2 port? Inquiring minds want to know!
 

mufflon

macrumors 6502
Sep 15, 2006
264
2
I suppose you don't have usb 2 then?

I don't anyhow and I had a likewise sounding experience, just calm down and check your specs - if you were using usb2 then there's something wrong - usb2 is not as fast as firewire for continous data streams (if I remember it correctly), but should still do better than 12 h :eek:
 

Viking Quest

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 28, 2006
49
0
iMeowbot said:
What kind of Mac do you have? Is the iPod plugged into a USB 1 or 2 port? Inquiring minds want to know!

Well all my USB ports are taken up so I have it plugged into one of those mult-port expanders (you know the thing where it makes one USB port into 4)

I will try plugging it straight into the USB port on my Powerbook G4....
 

840quadra

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,096
3,405
Twin Cities Minnesota
Viking Quest said:
All of my songs have artwork and I have around 7,000 songs, but it took me literally around 12 hours to get all my music on my new 80gb ipod. That's using automatic update/sync..... It took FOREVER

just warning you...
This topic (and subsequent warning) is worthless without a description of a few things..

1. Operating system you are using.
2. The hardware said operating system is running on.
3. How much memory or disk space this system has.
3. What other applications are running.

I have 4 computers that I use to sync with my ipod(s), some are slower than others, it depends on many things.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
Viking Quest said:
Well all my USB ports are taken up so I have it plugged into one of those mult-port expanders (you know the thing where it makes one USB port into 4)
Oh yeah, that could be the culprit. The system profiler should give you some hints about the port speeds you are getting through that.
I will try plugging it straight into the USB port on my Powerbook G4....
I suspect that will make a ton of difference!
 

Ubuntu

macrumors 68000
Jul 3, 2005
1,785
105
UK/US
A few of my friends have mentioned that the new nano is significantly slower than the previous nano/iPod video/iPod Photo to sync, on USB 2, so it might be a problem for the new iPods.
 

Viking Quest

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 28, 2006
49
0
OK its definitely going faster, not as fast as firewire was though :(

I miss firewire, why did they take it away??
 

Viking Quest

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 28, 2006
49
0
840quadra said:
This topic (and subsequent warning) is worthless without a description of a few things..

1. Operating system you are using.
2. The hardware said operating system is running on.
3. How much memory or disk space this system has.
3. What other applications are running.

I have 4 computers that I use to sync with my ipod(s), some are slower than others, it depends on many things.

OS X 10.4.7
iTunes 7
1 GB of RAM, about 10 GB of HD space left
Running Safari and iTunes
Powerbook G4 1.5ghz
 

Viking Quest

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 28, 2006
49
0
It's definitely going a lot faster now, thanks guys....

Damn Targus 3rd party stuff......
 

crazzyeddie

macrumors 68030
Dec 7, 2002
2,790
0
Florida, USA
Viking Quest said:
OK its definitely going faster, not as fast as firewire was though :(

I miss firewire, why did they take it away??
Because the Firewire chip took up alot of room in the iPod. Less chips mean smaller iPod and lower costs, which consumers generally care about more. Unfortunately for PPC Mac users, USB2 is significantly slower than Firewire. But thats not the case on the Intels... time to upgrade? :p
 

Warbrain

macrumors 603
Jun 28, 2004
5,701
287
Chicago, IL
crazzyeddie said:
Because the Firewire chip took up alot of room in the iPod. Less chips mean smaller iPod and lower costs, which consumers generally care about more. Unfortunately for PPC Mac users, USB2 is significantly slower than Firewire. But thats not the case on the Intels... time to upgrade? :p
USB2 is slower than Firewire on any computer, doesn't matter if it's Intel or PPC based. It's a got a slower bus speed.
 

mufflon

macrumors 6502
Sep 15, 2006
264
2
Warbrain said:
USB2 is slower than Firewire on any computer, doesn't matter if it's Intel or PPC based. It's a got a slower bus speed.

I believe usb2 got higher peak speed, but not a continous signal even close to this - whereas the firewire got more continous speed.

*starts looking through the web to find some kind of proof*
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
mufflon said:
I believe usb2 got higher peak speed, but not a continous signal even close to this - whereas the firewire got more continous speed.

*starts looking through the web to find some kind of proof*
That's correct. Peak USB2 is 480MBPS, peak FW400 is 400MBPS. But the firewire burst speed is relatively close to the peak speed (because it was designed with video feeds in mind), whereas the USB is much lower.

But if you think about it, even at 100 megabits per second, it should only take 80 seconds per gigabyte... which means that even a full 80 GB iPod should transfer in less than two hours.

I've never used a USB2 iPod, but I think the most likely explanation is that the USB was falling back to USB1.x because of that device the OP mentioned.....