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. 
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.
Nano and firewire
- Thread starter uspcommuter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
Listen to DeSnousa, he knows what he's talking about.
Listen to DeSnousa, he knows what he's talking about.
mad jew said: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.
Listen to DeSnousa, he knows what he's talking about.
Damn, I was hoping you might have some big conspiracy theory about how FireWire is nothing more than rerouted USB 2.0 or something
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?
On a less significant thought: this brings to question whether one could boot from the thing in target mode?
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.
If, however, the next (big, i.e. hard-drive-based) iPod isn't compatible with FireWire, then you may panic.
True. FWIW, transfer times to the nano are pretty good. Substantially better then the Shuffle's.Yvan256 said: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.
Yvan256 said: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.
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
mrgreen4242 said:
Why? Those two pages seem to be showing exactly that: flash memory is slower and that USB2 is slower than FireWire...
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).
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
Noooooooooooooooo I only have usb1.1 on my mac....noooooooooo damn it...oh well :-D at least I will be getting a nano.
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.
I can cofirm that it charges via USB 1.1.
neocell said:
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.
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.
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.
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.