Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Faster syncs come to mind.

The difference is negligible. I've done some timings using my Lacie and WD external drives which both have dual interfaces. Your looking at maybe a 1% difference.

The big difference for firewire is sustained transfers and streaming (multi track audio, huge multi GB files). Not something that's desparately needed for an iPod.

edit: USB is much better at being hot-plugged too.

edit2: 15GB of music files. 1:45 for firewire400, 1:48 for USB2.
 
How in the heck can Samsung announcing a 120GB drive get a negative rating? Do people just hit the negative button for everything?
I guess some people look at the world as a glass half full. ;)

But I must admit, I am amazed at how many threads have negative votes. It looks like some folks don't like change or improvements.
 
For fun, get yourself an external HD that has USB2 and FW.

Then load about 80GBs of information using USB2. Then do it via FW.

Now tell me they are the same speed.

There might be a difference if you are comparing hi-speed external hard-drives. But here's a hint: HD in the iPod is not a hi-speed HD. It's a slow HD in order to maximize battery-life. USB2 has more than enough bandwidth to feed that HD. Even if the connection might be a bottleneck on proper hi-speed external HD's, it is NOT an issue with the iPod. FireWire made sense when USB2 was not widely available. If you want to do proper comparison, at least compare similar things. iPod and external HD are NOT similar.

So why do you want FireWire again?
 
On top of the reasons already mentioned...having USB support only makes lots more sense, since the majority of computers out there are simply not equipped with Firewire, and most users will not care for that extra cable in the box.
 
To everybody who thinks 120GB is TOO MUCH for music alone!

I am here to tell you that I NEED 120GB for music alone! I have a 60GB iPod with nothing but music on there and it's constantly full. I probably have another 100GB of music (especially tons of live concerts and podcasts) that I cannot fit on my iPod. I'd also like to mention that many people probably would like to use more lossless encoding of their music rather than default 128kbps AAC and that requires FAR more storage. So even without videos or photos or anything else, 120GB still may be NOT ENOUGH space for one's entire music collection. In any case, it's a step in the right direction. Apple is taking WAY to long to update the full-sized iPod and they're falling behind their competitors. The current iPod design is what 3 years old now?!?

And as people have mentioned, video takes up MUCH more space and HD video will require significantly MORE space than current generation video files for iPods. So if anything, Apple should be increasing their iPod capacity as fast as possible. I could easily see using 500GB of space on an iPod if it were available to use. At that point, I would actually try to put photos and video on it. Did I mention that the digital photos I've taken since 2001 are about 120GB themselves now?

All that being said, I think that sadly they will wait until the iPhone has been out for several months before introducing the touch screen iPod HD. So my guess is maybe September. I'm really annoyed at having to wait and wait and wait though.
 
Am I the only person who has no interest in VIDEO on ipod?

If I want to watch video, I want to see it on a nice big screen. In HDTV. Or in theatres.
 
Am I the only person who has no interest in VIDEO on ipod?

If I want to watch video, I want to see it on a nice big screen. In HDTV. Or in theatres.

I don't care about it either. The battery doesn't last long enough.

If Apple released a 5 3/4G iPod that was 120GB, I'd definitely buy it. I don't want a iPod that has a full screen touch control like the iPhone. That doesn't seem like an iPod. I love the current iPod interface and I hope they keep it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.