iPod No Firewire Support Leaves Many Mac Users Behind

[Quartz Extreme]

Once again "superior" loses to "good enough."

Yeah. It's really too bad...

 

[killuminati]

I have a question.

If I keep the firewire cable and firewire AC adapter from my iPod mini when I sell it, will I be able to use it with my new 5th gen, iPod?

 

[clayj]

I have a question.

If I keep the firewire cable and firewire AC adapter from my iPod mini when I sell it, will I be able to use it with my new 5th gen, iPod?

Only to charge it, apparently.

Looks like any iPod, nano or later, will not support data transfers via FireWire.

 

[matticus008]

I have a question.

If I keep the firewire cable and firewire AC adapter from my iPod mini when I sell it, will I be able to use it with my new 5th gen, iPod?

Probably, but if your mini came with those things, the buyer will probably want them. But as a technical matter, the FW power adapter would probably make a suitable spare, yes, assuming it has a standard Dock connector.

 

[killuminati]

Probably, but if your mini came with those things, the buyer will probably want them. But as a technical matter, the FW power adapter would probably make a suitable spare, yes, assuming it has a standard Dock connector.

The buyer is my dad, so I guess we will just share the AC adapter until I decide to get a new one. I don't understand though why it would work to charge it but not to transfer data?

 

[clayj]

The buyer is my dad, so I guess we will just share the AC adapter until I decide to get a new one. I don't understand though why it would work to charge it but not to transfer data?

Because the hardware for power transfer is the same either way... but the hardware for data transfer is DIFFERENT between USB and FireWire, and the new iPods (nano, the new ones released yesterday) lack the FireWire data transfer circuitry. So they can still CHARGE via FireWire, but data transfer is not possible.

 

[killuminati]

Because the hardware for power transfer is the same either way... but the hardware for data transfer is DIFFERENT between USB and FireWire, and the new iPods (nano, the new ones released yesterday) lack the FireWire data transfer circuitry. So they can still CHARGE via FireWire, but data transfer is not possible.

ah, thanks for explaining that to me. At least I'll still be able to charge it though.

 

[Tommyg117]

This is such a noobs question, but I have no idea whether my computer has USB 2.0. I remember trying to hook my current, 3G 40 gig ipod into the computer and it wouldn't work. I have a 1.5ghz G4 Powerbook that I bought new in the summer of 2004. help please???

 

[matticus008]

This is such a noobs question, but I have no idea whether my computer has USB 2.0. I remember trying to hook my current, 3G 40 gig ipod into the computer and it wouldn't work. I have a 1.5ghz G4 Powerbook that I bought new in the summer of 2004. help please???

Yeah, you've got USB 2.0.

 

[asherman13]

For charging, you need to use a powered USB port (some computers and many monitors offer only unpowered ports). As long as it's a powered port, which might be really hard to determine, it should charge. I could be mistaken, though, so someone else will have to answer that question definitively. As for the transfer time, I tried using a Cruzer mini USB drive on a 1.1 system (an older notebook) and rarely broke 1MB/sec. It took some 40 minutes to transfer a 53MB file over. Assuming that the nano is the same (it may be faster, but I don't have access to 1.1 to test it), you're looking at 20*40 or about 13 hours to put 2 gigs of data on a nano. I think USB 2.0 does it in somewhere around 26 minutes.

that's odd; a friend of mine uploaded quite a few gig's onto his iPod 20gig in around 25 minutes via USB 1.1 (or so he says). would his processor speed or RAM have anything to do with that? also, does the late-2001 iBook have powered USB ports? i think it does, but applehistory.com isnt' working for me....

 

[Over Achiever]

Well if we just assume 1 MB/s for USB 1.1 (I think actual rates are around 1.2 MB/s), 4 GB would transfer in (4000 MB/s)/(60s) or about an hour.

 

[Billicus]

The shuffle isn't really indicative of iPod write speeds. Flash memory vs. hard drives creates a totally new dimension in transfers. Apple still supports Firewire for mass storage and audio equipment and the like, but USB makes more sense from a market perspective and also if you consider that the iPod is more of a peripheral than a mass storage device. With its high capacity, iPod crosses into Firewire's boat (because when it was designed, USB 2.0 hadn't caught on and no Macs supported it) because of its clear superiority over USB 1.1. Its capacity also makes it a very good mass storage device for many users, but that's not the primary function.

Had the iPod been delayed just one year and released as Mac + Windows, it probably would have been USB 2.0 the entire time.

That's true... hadn't thought of that. I also realized that my 2G iPod is also formatted in HFS+, and perhaps that increase the write speed just marginally?

That brings up another question: Is it impossible on Nanos and Video iPods to format the drives as HFS+ and retain the ability to play music on the iPods? I heard that the shuffles at least (like I have) will quit playing music if they're not formatted FAT32.

 

[matticus008]

Well if we just assume 1 MB/s for USB 1.1 (I think actual rates are around 1.2 MB/s), 4 GB would transfer in (4000 MB/s)/(60s) or about an hour.

Yes, yes you're right! My calculator app was performing an extra multiplication (the error was probably between the keyboard and the chair). Let me go back to the other post and fix it.

 

[asherman13]

Well if we just assume 1 MB/s for USB 1.1 (I think actual rates are around 1.2 MB/s), 4 GB would transfer in (4000 MB/s)/(60s) or about an hour.

could you explain why my system profiler says my USB gives me 12 Mb/s?

and is it powered? how can i tell?

(not to be nitpicky, but 1) the nano holds a max of 3.7 gig's and 2) 1024 mb => 1gb, i think)

 

[Over Achiever]

could you explain why my system profiler says my USB gives me 12 Mb/s?

and is it powered? how can i tell?

(not to be nitpicky, but 1) the nano holds a max of 3.7 gig's and 2) 1024 mb => 1gb, i think)

8 Mb = 1 MB. (8 bits = 1 byte). 12 Mb/s is the theoretical high, or 1.5 MB/s, so I always assume real transfer rates are slower.

 

[matticus008]

could you explain why my system profiler says my USB gives me 12 Mb/s?

and is it powered? how can i tell?

(not to be nitpicky, but 1) the nano holds a max of 3.7 gig's and 2) 1024 mb => 1gb, i think)

Ah, you've fallen into the complex system of computer numbers.

Mb = megabit (8 bits) vs. MB = megabyte (10^6 bytes or 1024KB) vs. MiB = mebibyte (1024^2 bytes specifically).

So, USB 1.1 is 12Mb/sec. Divide by 8 to get a theoretical maximum value of 1.5 megabytes per second, but breaking 1 megabyte per second can be tough because USB uses a lot of its own bandwidth just in defining the communication (this is the famous "USB overhead").

As for your nano's capacity, there are two factors - whether a megabyte is one million or 1024^2 bytes, which means that the computer would report 3.91 GB instead of 4GB (GiB). Then you lose about 200 MB to the iPod OS and filesystem overhead, leaving you with 3.7GB available for your use.

And THEN there's the block allocation method of file systems. NTFS, for example, can only assign disk space in 4KB or larger chunks. Therefore, if you have a 2KB file, it still takes 4KB of space, and if you have a 5KB file, it takes up 8KB. This shaves off a tiny bit of storage capacity for almost every file on the disk/volume, but it can add up over time.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Outside of Mac users, I don't think many PC users give a rat's ass for FireWire. Sad, but true. Ninety-five percent of those 6 million odd iPods sold last quarter were probably to PC users. Again, sad but true.

Very good point. FW seems to still be very much an option on PC's. Add to that with High Speed USB 2.0, the differences shrink.

That being said Apple could have driven new sales of Mac's if they could have offered FW400/800 compatibility. As I understand it with FW800 they transfer speeds would just be awesome.

 

[matticus008]

That being said Apple could have driven new sales of Mac's if they could have offered FW400/800 compatibility. As I understand it with FW800 they transfer speeds would just be awesome.

They'd be the same, roughly, because the hard drives in the iPods and the disk controllers can't saturate the bandwidth of even FW400, so going to an even LESS common connection wouldn't have made any sense at all, for zero benefit.

 

[asherman13]

Ah, you've fallen into the complex system of computer numbers.

Mb = megabit (8 bits) vs. MB = megabyte (10^6 bytes or 1024KB) vs. MiB = mebibyte (10^6 bytes specifically).

So, USB 1.1 is 12Mb/sec. Divide by 8 to get a theoretical maximum value of 1.5 megabytes per second, but breaking 1 megabyte per second can be tough.

As for your nano's capacity, there are two factors - whether a megabyte is one million or 1024^2 bytes, which means that the computer would report 3.91 GB instead of 4GB (GiB). Then you lose about 200 MB to the iPod OS and filesystem overhead, leaving you with 3.7GB available for your use.

And THEN there's the block allocation method of file systems. NTFS, for example, can only assign disk space in 4KB or larger chunks. Therefore, if you have a 2KB file, it still takes 4KB of space, and if you have a 5KB file, it takes up 8KB. This shaves off a tiny bit of storage capacity for almost every file on the disk/volume, but it can add up over time.

and THATS why i'm a noob

so according to Over Achiever, it would take me about 35 minutes to upload my 2.25GB onto a nano over 1.1?

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

No FW means no connecting digital camcorders. If for nothing else Apple will keep FW on all their machines for that reason.


Lethal

OK, I understand what this means for past and current digital camcorders; but is it possible to have an USB 2.0 digital camcorder to transfer movies to a computer?

OT of sorts on digital camcorders. With the new Canon DC10 and DC20 DVDR camcorders are those of us with PB's, Mac mini's, and iMac's at a loss for importing videos?

 

[matticus008]

and THATS why i'm a noob

so according to Over Achiever, it would take me about 35 minutes to upload my 2.25GB onto a nano over 1.1?

Probably closer to an hour. USB 1.1 isn't great at sustaining a high rate, and it depends on how much free RAM you have for caching, etc. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, a 530MB file took about 40 minutes on an old computer (but it was one with little RAM to spare, and it was just copied one time, so it could have been a poor measure).

 

[asherman13]

Probably closer to an hour. USB 1.1 isn't great at sustaining a high rate, and it depends on how much free RAM you have for caching, etc. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, a 530MB file took about 40 minutes on an old computer (but it was one with little RAM to spare, and it was just copied one time, so it could have been a poor measure).

i got 384MB ram, 600mhz G3....i'd probably we willing to close everything but itunes for it to upload; it's only a one-time upload; i could do it overnight...

 

[matticus008]

i got 384MB ram, 600mhz G3....i'd probably we willing to close everything but itunes for it to upload; it's only a one-time upload; i could do it overnight...

That's similar to the specs of the laptop I tried. but that only amounted to about 11MB/minute, which is pathetically slow, now that I think about it. I think I remember it because it was so ridiculously slow. But that one file was greater than the total RAM, and used up about 1/16th of the total hard drive space at the time, so many small files should be far less taxing on the system.

You should be able to do it in less than an hour.

 

[iDM]

I think most people are only addressing the whole size vs. firewire and the USB 1 only compatibility of some older iPods.......how about we talk about speed people. It takes about 30 to 45 mins to upload my 1gig shuffle now and I have USB 2, how long is 30 gigs gonna take on my new iPod??? 900 minutes or more?????

I just read a thread that said someone could fill their 2 gig nano from usb 2 in 12 minutes.....um do i have a faulty USB port or something cause I am not exaggerating in saying 1 gig on my shuffle through usb 2 takes double that.

Edit: Oh wait I guess people have been addressing this, but are the masses with me in saying USB 2 is VASTLY slower then FW400. I have a feeling the first time i load it is going to take me between 2 to 3 hours to sync my photos and music, that's pretty piss poor IMHO

 

[matticus008]

I think most people are only addressing the whole size vs. firewire and the USB 1 only compatibility of some older iPods.......how about we talk about speed people. It takes about 30 to 45 mins to upload my 1gig shuffle now and I have USB 2, how long is 30 gigs gonna take on my new iPod??? 900 minutes or more?????

I just read a thread that said someone could fill their 2 gig nano from usb 2 in 12 minutes.....um do i have a faulty USB port or something cause I am not exaggerating in saying 1 gig on my shuffle through usb 2 takes double that.

Edit: Oh wait I guess people have been addressing this, but are the masses with me in saying USB 2 is VASTLY slower then FW400. I have a feeling the first time i load it is going to take me between 2 to 3 hours to sync my photos and music, that's pretty piss poor IMHO

All USB-capable iPods are USB 2.0 compliant. It's the computer that isn't, for some people. USB 2 is not "vastly" slower than FW400. If it took you 20 minutes with Firewire, it might take you 23 minutes now. A 2 gig nano in 12 minutes is about right. I have noticed that USB is picky, though, and you also have to remember that due to backwards compatibility, USB 2.0 will drop down to 1.1 speeds when there's not a compliant high speed device in the chain.