iPod No Firewire Support Leaves Many Mac Users Behind

[matticus008]

Apple may be going with smaller form to attract buyers, but don't forget...firewire 400 is nearly twice as fast as USB2.0. Firewire 800 even more so.

FW800 has zero application and zero advantages on the iPod front, so we'll just throw that away outright. Yes, it's much faster, but no, it doesn't matter when the hard drive is slow.

Now, from your own link at Barefeats (a dubious source of benchmarking, to put it mildly), comes this part:
"The Windows PC implementation of USB 2.0 puts the Mac to shame. Today we tested the same USB 2.0 drive/enclosure on a Windows PC (3GHz Pentium 4) with built-in USB 2.0 on the motherboard, similar to Apple's approach. We measured 33MB/s READ and 27MB/s WRITE."

That is in line with the 35/30MB per second transfers of FW400 (in other words, within the same performance margin). Apple's apparent crippling of USB 2.0 is not likely to have been the case after Tiger's release, but if you can provide a benchmark performed in 2005 comparing speeds that suggests anything more than a 10-15% difference, then you might have a valid point, but that's not the case.

EDIT:
Just to clarify, the key issue isn't whether USB or Firewire is intrinsically faster (because it's already known that Firewire can sustain high transfer speeds better than USB), but that when you're copying thousands of files, you aren't using a sustained connection, so Firewire loses most of its transfer-rate edge. Also, if you've got a few Firewire devices connected, you get sketchy performance when the FW bus fills up. Isochronous transfers are better until you saturate the bus, where the whole FW bus falls to its knees and stops recognizing drives and transferring data.
There are plenty of more accurate reports easily accessible online, including this one, which I've found to be accurate:

File copying
Transfering 1GB in 1 file vs. 9226 files

Direct ATA: 43.8 sec vs. 1m 15.4 sec
USB 2.0: 1m 20 sec vs. 1m 30 sec
FireWire: 48.9 sec vs. 1m 18.4 sec

(source: http://www.digit-life.com/articles/usb20vsfirewire/)

Other places where USB 2.0 and FW are compared realistically:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr04/articles/pcnotes.htm
http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm

 

[crazytom]

Dude something's wrong with your Mac, I've had FW devices daisy-chained together and I've had several operating on the same computer—DV camera, DVD burner, HD—and the stars aligned without so much as a shudder or a quick voodoo ritual. And that's one more than one machine.
USB 2.0 isn't a bad technology, but it's not a consistent 480mbs and I've had it drop down to 200mbs at times. In comparison FW is 400mbs all the time.

I'm banking that your DV cam is not a Canon. One combination I absolutely can't use is my Canon DV capturing to a FW HD, though using a Sony works perfectly...

 

[Cfg5]

Will my iPod charge better over usb 2 than usb 1?

 

[clcnyc]

Just called the Apple Store...

To ask them about Firewire connectivity with the new iPod. The guy said it can transfer (I verified he said transfer) files to the iPod with Firewire, but not charge.....I would have to use USB for that.

Is this guy wrong, or should I take his word for it?

 

[matticus008]

To ask them about Firewire connectivity with the new iPod. The guy said it can transfer (I verified he said transfer) files to the iPod with Firewire, but not charge.....I would have to use USB for that.

Is this guy wrong, or should I take his word for it?

He's wrong. It will charge, but not sync (transfer).

 

[clcnyc]

He's wrong. It will charge, but not sync (transfer).

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[csubear]

Does anyone have a new ipod that can confirm the its non-firewire-ness?

 

[Lacero]

See here.

 

[Over Achiever]

See here.

Thanks for the link.

 

[dmcelroy]

mixed messages

The arguments for USB 2 are simply meaningless to the Mac user. It is a proven fact in any speed test I've seen that USB 2 on the Mac is in second place compared to Firewire. The only argument I've seen here talk about overloading the firewire bus. Who in the world is typically running multiple firewire items on the firewire bus when they are syncing their ipod. I always pull the plug on my firewire hard drive, firewire CD/DVD lightscribe burner, etc.

The argument really becomes moot when you consider the huge vast majority of Mac users don't have access to USB 2. There simply aren't many devices out there in USB 2 format that I need. My external hardware is faster on firewire. Are other USB devices such as keyboards, mice, printers, etc. setup to take advantage of USB 2? No.

The bottom line - firewire to an ipod is still faster than on USB 2 (except for the windows users described in this forum...and that still is questionable).
The bottom line 2 - USB 2 isn't available to the vast majority of Mac users

Therefore, the new ipod is still an item that has a home in the Windows world and is a poor step child in the Mac environment. We've lost out on the important features firewire gave us that made the ipod more cost friendly.

 

[matticus008]

The bottom line - firewire to an ipod is still faster than on USB 2 (except for the windows users described in this forum...and that still is questionable).
The bottom line 2 - USB 2 isn't available to the vast majority of Mac users.

First of all, no. The majority of Mac users do indeed have USB 2, and many of those who don't have no interest in an iPod. If you look at Apple's sales over 2003, 2004, and 2005 compared to sales in 2001 and 2002, you can see that that's the case. Anyone with a computer not made in at least 2000 probably has zero interest in an iPod because they don't care to keep up with technology. The majority of those 2000-2001 computers would be connected to an older iPod. A new iPod doesn't make much sense when you've got a computer that is slow and outdated (perfectly functional, sure, but the new iPod is also perfectly functional with that platform--just slow, again).

Even assuming that an iPod is 10% slower over USB 2.0 across the board (not true, but let's assume), it's still quick. The small speed gain is not worthing giving up 90% of the market. That last 1% of the market that has USB 1.1 CAN STILL USE THE iPOD. If it were the other way (FW), the vast majority of computer users could not use it at all. It's not a complicated issue.

Firewire doesn't make any sense for the shuffle or the nano, and for consistency, then, doesn't make very much more sense for the full-size, either.

 

[dmcelroy]

First of all, no. The majority of Mac users do indeed have USB 2, and many of those who don't have no interest in an iPod. If you look at Apple's sales over 2003, 2004, and 2005 compared to sales in 2001 and 2002, you can see that that's the case.

You are making a very big and wrong assumption here. I'm a developer that uses a 2 year old powerbook that does not have USB 2.0. Does that make me a person with no interest in keeping up with technology? I'm an early adopter of most technologies and make wise upgrade decisions. The 2003 iBook also did not have USB 2.0. Keeping these points in mind and the very real fact that Apple's principle sales were in laptops your point about the majority of Mac users having USB 2.0 simply has no merit to it. The vast majority of Mac users have historically held on to their Macs much longer than Windows users. That is because the machines do their job well over a longer period of time.

Don't make generalizations about a population of users without the facts. Much of Apple's sales of desktops have been in the education market in recent years...not home sales. Therefore, you can probably make the assumption that these will not be machines connected to iPods.

The final line is that Apple is leaving behind those users that have bought machines as recently as 2 years ago.

 

[Sol]

The ugly side of all-in-one

The final line is that Apple is leaving behind those users that have bought machines as recently as 2 years ago.

I agree. What is even worse for those users is that for most Macs except PowerMacs and the bigger PowerBooks it is not possible to add a PCI card with USB 2 ports. They are stuck with USB 1 and FireWire 400, unless of course they buy a new Mac.

 

[iEric]

I don't really mind if there's no firewire support. I mean, if it makes the iPod unit smaller, than take it away.

Yes, if you don't have USB 2.0 it might be a bit slow and you might want to buy a PCI card for USB 2.0 but it's only like 10-20 bucks on eBay.

And this is just the same way that people in the Windows world thought about the iPod when they first came out - they only had firewire support and there are A LOT more Windows PCs that didn't have Firewire ports.

 

[maya]

Unless Apple supplies an external bridge with the iPod so they can reduce the overall thickness of the iPod line, I don't believe I will be buying iPod down the road. Without FireWire it seems useless. "Home on iPod" will only necessitate this requirement down the road, if it does become a reality.

Removing FireWire is a bad move on Apple's part, IMHO.

 

[iEric]

How does the lack of a firewire support make the iPod USELESS? It's not meant to boot up a computer, to back up your files and such. While it's great if it can do that, it's marketed as a MUSIC player, a VIDEO player and a device to show pictures. While Apple has enabled the capability to mount this device on desktop, it is the USERS that choose to use it to boot up their computer, back up their files on it. Apple in no way markets this as a secondary storage device or a back up device.

And those with iMac G4s should have realized at the time of purchase that you cannot simply upgrade the components in the computer. That's the price you pay for buying an all-in-one computer. While it's compact and nice, it's not upgradable.
When I purchased my iMac G5, I realized that but I also thought that I probably wouldn't add any PCI cards or expand more of my Powermac if I bought a powermac.

Buy a PCI/PCMIA card! It's like 20 bucks on eBay. If you can afford a iPod, you can afford a $20 expansion card for your computer that will last for years to come. You can put it in your new computer when you get one too. So you have even more ports.

 

[maya]

How does the lack of a firewire support make the iPod USELESS? It's not meant to boot up a computer, to back up your files and such. While it's great if it can do that, it's marketed as a MUSIC player, a VIDEO player and a device to show pictures. While Apple has enabled the capability to mount this device on desktop, it is the USERS that choose to use it to boot up their computer, back up their files on it. Apple in no way markets this as a secondary storage device or a back up device.

And those with iMac G4s should have realized at the time of purchase that you cannot simply upgrade the components in the computer. That's the price you pay for buying an all-in-one computer. While it's compact and nice, it's not upgradable.
When I purchased my iMac G5, I realized that but I also thought that I probably wouldn't add any PCI cards or expand more of my Powermac if I bought a powermac.

Buy a PCI/PCMIA card! It's like 20 bucks on eBay. If you can afford a iPod, you can afford a $20 expansion card for your computer that will last for years to come. You can put it in your new computer when you get one too. So you have even more ports.

Sustained speed is much greater than USB 2.0. Plus at times its nice to have the option to have your home folder on the iPod or even boot a computer when that emergency call.

 

[Thanatoast]

And those with iMac G4s should have realized at the time of purchase that you cannot simply upgrade the components in the computer. That's the price you pay for buying an all-in-one computer. While it's compact and nice, it's not upgradable.
When I purchased my iMac G5, I realized that but I also thought that I probably wouldn't add any PCI cards or expand more of my Powermac if I bought a powermac.

Um, genius, when I bought my G4 iMac I knew it wasn't upgradeable, but all iPods at the time were firewire and I had no reason to believe that apple would switch to an inferior standard.

Since windows users have to replace their crappy boxes more often anyway, Apple should've used the opportunity to push their own standard. Since pc people are forced to upgrade anyway due to their crappy systems, firewire adoption would've come along much more quickly than for us Mac users with longer system lifetimes who are now left twisting in the wind.

 

[Sol]

iPod usage, size & Intel motherboards

How does the lack of a firewire support make the iPod USELESS?

It is not just that you can't boot up from the new iPods. The way we use these devices today is different from two years ago. Now we are constantly uploading new files into them; I subscribe to several podcasts and if I were using the 5G iPods I would also store large movie files on it too. USB 1.1 is so slow that I could not do that in a snap like I can with my FireWire iPod. Forcing older Mac users to use USB 1.1 changes the experience of using the iPod which is the main attraction to it in the first place.

I do not think Apple would lose any sales if the 5G iPods were a millimetre or two thicker. No other music player offers FireWire and for some users that was seen as an advantage.

As for PC users, don't all new Intel motherboards have FireWire now? The iPod was a great way to promote the technology to Windows users. Now they will regard it as being second-rate USB.

 

[iEric]

Sustained speed is much greater than USB 2.0. Plus at times its nice to have the option to have your home folder on the iPod or even boot a computer when that emergency call.

Yes, I agree that it's a nice option to have, but the lack of this option does not make the iPod useless.

Um, genius, when I bought my G4 iMac I knew it wasn't upgradeable, but all iPods at the time were firewire and I had no reason to believe that apple would switch to an inferior standard.

Well you shouldn't have assumed that it would stay the same forever. Things change, technology changes. I mean, they did switch from the normal Firewire port (1G/2G) to the dock connector (3G+). Apple is crazy - they can do anything they have the MP3 sector in lock.

It is society that is facinated and yearning for smaller devices, and Apple has achieved that now...even if it does sacrifice Firewire support. There's an opportunity cost to everything.

Having to use USB 1.0/1.1 won't make a big difference. I mean, you only have to transfer all those pictures and video one time - you can leave it in overnight. And when you sync those new pictures, music and video, you can sync it at night before you go to sleep and then you can wake up to the new added music

I'm not saying that I'm happy with the lost of the Firewire connectory function, but I don't think there should be such a big fuss over it.

 

[maya]

...Intel motherboards have FireWire now? The iPod was a great way to promote the technology to Windows users. Now they will regard it as being second-rate USB.

It's sad that they would omit a great feature for some junk. Just to make it a few mm thinner.

A few mm thinner, serves more purpose than FireWire which has better sustained speed. Whatever


As mentioned before, no new iPod for me.

 

[maya]

Yes, I agree that it's a nice option to have, but the lack of this option does not make the iPod useless.


Well you shouldn't have assumed that it would stay the same forever. Things change, technology changes. I mean, they did switch from the normal Firewire port (1G/2G) to the dock connector (3G+). Apple is crazy - they can do anything they have the MP3 sector in lock.

It is society that is facinated and yearning for smaller devices, and Apple has achieved that now...even if it does sacrifice Firewire support. There's an opportunity cost to everything.

Having to use USB 1.0/1.1 won't make a big difference. I mean, you only have to transfer all those pictures and video one time - you can leave it in overnight. And when you sync those new pictures, music and video, you can sync it at night before you go to sleep and then you can wake up to the new added music

I'm not saying that I'm happy with the lost of the Firewire connectory function, but I don't think there should be such a big fuss over it.

The iPod's lack of FireWire being useless is perspective of the end-user.

I have quite a few old Mac's and they do not have USB 2.0, they do however have FW400 and USB 1.1. So this leaves me in the slow lane if I want to quickly transfer files from one system to the next or even when I am on the road.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Solutions

1) Get a cheap $200 dollar PC with USB 2.0 and place your itunes music library on it and sync to your iPod.

2) Buy a new Mac. >$499 or a used Mac Mini for even less.

3) Google for a Firewire --> USB 2.0 cable or some iPod hack to solve this problem.

4) Don't buy the new iPod. Find a good deal on a used one.

5) Transfer at slower USB 1.1 speeds

6) Hope Apple supports booting external drives using USB someday

7) Screw Apple

8) Complain

 

[maya]

6) Hope Apple supports booting external drives using USB someday

I believe its technically impossible to even boot via USB 2.0. Apple cannot do anything about this. This is due to the lack of sustainable speed.

Even if you look at USB 2.0 external HD, it will say on the box "cannot boot PC via USB 2.0 external drive."

 

[watcher2001]

Hook the new iPod up to your USB1 port, then clear your afternoon schedule and choose from anyone of the following rewarding activities:

Play poker with the methadone addicts at the local clinic.
Plant a tree.
Work on the platform for your mayoral campaign.
Write Haiku influenced by the photography of Ansel Adams.
Stare blankly into space; try to direct the drool out of the left corner of your mouth only.
Clean out your refrigerator and attempt to systematically categorize each species of green and white mold you find.
Make macaroni portraits of all the popes of the 15th and 16th centuries.
Take a shower. Wash, rinse, and repeat 9,276 times. Start over if you lose count.

How about clearing your evening schedule. Plug into 1.0, watch a little telly, then go to bed and sleep. I know for me that this is at least 7-8 hours. Then get up the next AM and go to school/work for one day sans iPod. By the time you get home from work/school it should be done. Yeah you have to sacrifice a day of iPod induced bliss but is that really such a high price to pay for a slimmer iPod with better battery life?