matticus008 said:
I hear what you are saying but i have a usb 2.0 drive and i am also positive that it is taking me half an hour at LEAST to fill my 1 gig shuffle.
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.
iPod No Firewire Support Leaves Many Mac Users Behind
- Thread starter Over Achiever
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hear what you are saying but i have a usb 2.0 drive and i am also positive that it is taking me half an hour at LEAST to fill my 1 gig shuffle.
I wish it supported fw. On a side note, anyone that has a Power Mac without USB 2 could grab a USB 2 PCI card and it should work fine. As for the people with 'books and no USB 2, you're screwed. Like mine, no USB 2, but luckily all of my music is on my Power Mac now.
iDM said:
The reason for the iPod shuffle being so slow to load has nothing to do with the comparable speeds between USB and Firewire and everything to do with the write speed of the flash memory which on the shuffle is an older generation and therefore takes a while to load data onto. You don't have a faulty USB port.
The nano is much faster because the write speed to the new version of the flash memory in it is vastly improved.
The USB data transfer speed is now comparable to firewire when writing to a HDD so I wouldn't worry about it taking that long to sync all your music and photos. The main time waster in this equation is getting all your photos into an iPod-friendly form.
So take a deep breath and click on that "order" button. You won't regret it.
I think that maybe we are missing an important point here. The new ipod is about video and from what I have read, video content must be converted to .m4V to be playable on the ipod. Now unless you download all your videos from the itunes store this means converting your video files using the latest version of Quicktime Pro. For the sake of testing I have just exported 30 seconds of home movie footage, into M4v with Quicktime Pro on my 800mhz imac, it took a full 27 mins!! Call that 1 minute for 1 second of Video, so and hour long video is going to take 60 hrs or 2 and a half days to convert! This makes the hour that it is going to take to load it on to your ipod look a bit insignificant. I shall do some more tests with different video formats to see what difference it makes, but basically, you are going to need a Mac with some serious power to get the conversion down to sensible times. It is therefore going to be new-ish computer and have USB 2.0. For interest sake original mpeg file size 86mb M4v size 13.1mb
Sly said:
Bit of a mix up here. Just so you know, the .m4v format is the DRM'd version that the iTMS uses for it's content. The iPod supports, and I quote ".m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats" as long as they comply with the size and bit rate conditions.
Handbrake can do this for free and it takes much less time (my 1.2GHz iBook knocks over a 30min show in H.264 .mp4 in 1.25 hours. If I did it in MPEG-4 it would be about 35mins.
Ok that make sense, thanks. Question though: why have the option to export to m4v in Quicktime if it is just for DRM, and why does it take so darn long?
matticus008 said:Sorry dude. Now you know what it's like to be a member of the Green party! Sort of unfortunate from your perspective, but no company really cares about maintaining backwards compatibility beyond 2-3 years average.
but ive had my PB for 2 years and a couple of months. i wouldnt consider that old or outdated, though apparently it is!!! which is horrible because it still runs perfectly well and is nice and speedy! (even faster than my brother's mini, but he only has 256mb of memory) i just think it sucks that my computer still preformes just as well as any computer today but im just lacking one small piece of technology on it.
and as for the people that say "buy a 4th gen it will last a long time" yes, i agree the 4th gen iPods are great and i think the last true iPod. . . the b/w screens kept with the simplicity and functionality of the original iPod. which is part of the reason i want a NEW iPod b/c the new ones do video and have advanced since the 1st gen significantly, not just in style. so i guess ill just stick with my 4th gen iPod until i get a new computer, which wont be for AT LEAST another year. (a 3 y.o. mac is old computer to wintel machines, but come on, macs last much longer than 3 years, i bet i can get 5 useable years out of this PB until it cant keep up with the new OS that will be kicking around then. im hopeing i can scrounge up an old PM somewhere for cheap (like much less than a mac mini) then drop a USB2 card in it and THEN i could get an iPod video (after saving more money)!! oh well its the way of new technology isnt it!!!
No 5G for me!
The 5G iPod is not so perfect after all. I just found out about the lack of FireWire support and it is a disappointment. I do not want a new Mac because my QuickSilver PowerMac works just fine for most things, except for a USB 2 card that is recognised by OS X 10.4 as having USB 1.1 ports. My 4G iPod has been good to me but the temptation was there to buy a new one for the portable video functionality. That thought is now gone. I would be forced to buy a new Mac to use the new iPod.
The 5G iPod is not so perfect after all. I just found out about the lack of FireWire support and it is a disappointment. I do not want a new Mac because my QuickSilver PowerMac works just fine for most things, except for a USB 2 card that is recognised by OS X 10.4 as having USB 1.1 ports. My 4G iPod has been good to me but the temptation was there to buy a new one for the portable video functionality. That thought is now gone. I would be forced to buy a new Mac to use the new iPod.
Does anybody know if a 1.25Ghz 15" Powerbook has USB 2? I'v looked around, I just don't know where to look.
killuminati said:
if that's the computer you have, go to the menu bar on top, click on the apple icon, go to about this mac, click 'more info' (takes you to apple system profiler), and click on 'USB' in the right-hand column; it should tell you if you have usb 1.1 or 2. if it doesn't tell you, look at the speed, it should be much bigger than 12Mb/s, as that's usb 1.1.
if it's not your computer, i'd try www.applehistory.com
Noooooooo. I just checked and it says max speeds of 12Mb/sec. Damnit, that really sucks, I didn't think this affected me at all but now I'm really pissed.
I won't be surprised if Apple kills Firewire400 in the MacTels and just has USB2 and Firewire800 ports. USB2 is a pc standard that everyone uses, so it is just cost-effective. I got screwed--my Pismo has Firewire400 but only USB 1.1, and I wanted a nano. Sucks. But what can you expect when you have a 5 year-old computer? What peecee could you be using happily 5 years out? My 60GB iPod photo hooks up just fine, and I'm planning to get a new PB next month and be in USB2 land. Only thing that sucks is that USB2 doesn't even outperform Firewire400 most of the time, let alone live to its 480 benchmark. I'd take Firewire over it any day. I wish you could get Firewire flash drives, 'cause boy does it suck transferring files to/from my 2GB flash drive over USB 1.1!!
fklehman said:
don't we all???? anyways, if you're going for a nano and you don't plan to listen to music for a night, it just requires time to do an initial sync. since you're using the photo for most of you're music, i'm guessing that the nano is for portablity, thus, you wouldn't be addding huge chunks of music to it all the time. if you are frequently changing the music on your nano, do it before you go to bed. that's what i'm gonna do...
matticus008 said:
I'm totally confused on this, on another board someone mentioned that after calling Apple they found out the iPod could communicate via Firewire, and I don't understand any reason why it shouldn't. Isn't that the advantage of the dock connector? It can accept anything on the other end?
I know technology must move forward, but USB 2.0 isn't substantially better than Firewire 400 and has no advantages over Firewire 800. So, why abandon Firewire completely? I can't imagine that that extra chip makes the iPod that much thicker and I can certaintly see the disadvantages of getting rid of such support.
If it's just to make the PC drones happy, why can't we have both like the 3G and 4G. Buying the cable ticks me off, but not having any kind of support really pisses me off.
hulugu said:
as mentioned before, the firewire chipset which allows the ipod to communicate with the computer via firewire has been removed, allowing the ipod and nano to sync with computers ONLY via usb, and to charge via both usb and firewire. the chipset has nothing to do with firewire battery charging (i think), and was removed in order to make the ipod and nano thinner than ever before (not to burst your bubble, but just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean its true, sadly enough
) . usb, as i'm pretty sure i've read, doesn't need a big chipset like firewire does; or maybe it just connects to the flash memory/hard drive more directly than firewire...i know, it sucks. matticus008 is right in my opinion; unless you're willing to deal with the slow transfer speed of usb1.1, dont' buy a new ipod or nano unless you have usb2 EDIT another advantage of the dock connector is to, in my opinoin a) keep in thin b) allow for accessories for the nano and new ipod (airplay^2, i think) and c) connect to the dock
. with regards to firewire 800, it was obvious that pc users didn't like having to use firewire, so apple began including usb2 (hence the dock connector). firewire 800 is barely on mac computers as it is (powerbooks, i think powermacs too, but not sure), let alone non-BTO pc's. digital video cameras had firewire400 support as well, so it wasn't just the ipod with firewire. as far as i know of, there aren't many mainstream electronics that use firewire800 to a sizable degree, but feel free to go ahead and prove me wrong.
asherman13 said:
Actually I hadn't really thought about what to do with a nano, I just saw it and wanted it...mmmm, nano...
Little confused here...
I just don't get why people without USB 2.0 ports are claiming the new iPods are "incompatible" with their machines.
Granted, it will take longer to sync, but it STILL works.
Solutions...sync your iPod overnight...hook up, your iPod, go eat dinner...start the sync, go for a run outside...
Just because your computer doesn't have the latest ports does NOT MEAN YOU lose any functionality, just speed. Get over it. If you expect your system to ALWAYS be just as fast when connected to ALL the latest peripherals, get a new computer every year. It's a common issue with technology, something better/faster will ALWAYS be introduced...
I just don't get why people without USB 2.0 ports are claiming the new iPods are "incompatible" with their machines.
Granted, it will take longer to sync, but it STILL works.
Solutions...sync your iPod overnight...hook up, your iPod, go eat dinner...start the sync, go for a run outside...
Just because your computer doesn't have the latest ports does NOT MEAN YOU lose any functionality, just speed. Get over it. If you expect your system to ALWAYS be just as fast when connected to ALL the latest peripherals, get a new computer every year. It's a common issue with technology, something better/faster will ALWAYS be introduced...
appleretailguy said:
exactly. that's why i'm still loving my "pseudo-mac mini" setup (lcd with a broken-screen ibook g3) and am going to buy the nano or the new ipod, hopefully getting rid of my ipod mini. as the title fo the thread says, the lack of firewire support leaves us behind, but it doesn't mean we can't eventually get there. sure, it's faster to fly, but taking a car is still a solid medium of transportation (just hope that gas prices don't keep going up
), ya know?
asherman13 said:
No, you're right. FW800 hard drive enclosures are available, but not popular. Basically that's about the range of FW800 devices. Again, there are a few other products, but they're not selling too well. FW800 is a little ahead of its time for anything that's not a high-speed hard drive. Peripherals today have a hard time filling up FW400, iPod included.
Despite attempts, Firewire never achieved any sort of market penetration. Not because it wasn't good at what it did, but because it was complicated as a protocol and expensive as hardware. It's not so expensive anymore, but it's still complicated. USB had several years of development going for it, and a relatively natural extension from existing serial communications and from PCI, an already entrenched standard. USB had a speed limit, though, that was considered sufficient when it was developed but later proved to be inadequate when external hard drives and big file-size DV cameras took off. Firewire was there to meet that emerging market, but USB 2.0 popped up on the scene later.
It has many advantages over Firewire, but one key disadvantage: Firewire was designed for large file transfers and sustained speed, where USB 2.0 simple allowed for greater speed. But USB already had a huge market of peripherals, was backwards compatible, and used a proven and popular communications protocol. USB 2.0 wasn't a risky move like FW, so more manufacturers were willing to jump on board to cement its dominance. The Firewire people went back to the drawing boards to give FW a clear advantage and came up with FW800. It's great and very impressive, but almost nothing takes advantage of its faster speed, and its lack of backwards-compatible connectors mean it will probably never make it in the portable world (where USB ports are backwards compatible, FW800 requires a separate connector, taking up valuable space).
matticus008 said:
i'm assuming firewire800 also requires a physically sizable chipset (connector regardless), comparable to that of firewire400, thus making it un-thin (if you'll excuse my lack of using real words) enough for the new ipod and nano?