[DavisH]

Firewire is not supported! Here is a link to a Japanese site, which has dissected the new iPod nano. If you turn you attention to the screen it has message saying that firewire is not supported.

Link link

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Firewire will still charge the device.

[ghporter]

I haven't yet understood the hue and cry about Apple shipping iPods without Firewire cables in the first place. Firewire may be faster than USB 1.1, but Firewire 400 is about even with USB 2.0. Further, supporting both USB and Firewire connections takes more components, so they probably left Firewire out of the Nano to save space.

[bradoesch]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I haven't yet understood the hue and cry about Apple shipping iPods without Firewire cables in the first place. Firewire may be faster than USB 1.1, but Firewire 400 is about even with USB 2.0. Further, supporting both USB and Firewire connections takes more components, so they probably left Firewire out of the Nano to save space.

The FireWire cable was handy for using with the AC adaptor while using the USB cable for syncing. Or in my case I bought an extra FireWire to Dock cable to keep with the AC adaptor because I had to use FireWire with my iMac DV.

[Kenneth]

Well, I think I can live with the slow USB 1.1 speed on my DP PowerMac G4 1.25. At the same time, I'm looking for a USB 2.0 PCI card, which works best with Tiger, e.g. support deep sleep.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Nevermind, I Read the article.

[DigitalEl]

Wasn't Firewire a technology pushed hard by Apple in the first place? Why have they now abandoned it on their signature devices?

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by DigitalEl

Wasn't Firewire a technology pushed hard by Apple in the first place? Why have they now abandoned it on their signature devices?

gotta go where the money is. better to cater to the 95% of computer users who are far more likely to have USB than the portion of mac users who have older computers without USB 2 (And can't add a PCI card).

That said, I wish they'd supported firewire, too. sad to see it leaving the consumer market

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Kenneth

Well, I think I can live with the slow USB 1.1 speed on my DP PowerMac G4 1.25. At the same time, I'm looking for a USB 2.0 PCI card, which works best with Tiger, e.g. support deep sleep.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16815104306

doesnt suffer from that deep sleep problem, haven't had a problem with it yet in the year plus I had it.

[Jerome]

I can live with the slower USB 1.1, after the initial fill, I usually update just a few songs now and then. What I'd really want to know is if the charging time on USB 1.1 will be the same as with USB 2.0, anybody knows?

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by Jerome

I can live with the slower USB 1.1, after the initial fill, I usually update just a few songs now and then. What I'd really want to know is if the charging time on USB 1.1 will be the same as with USB 2.0, anybody knows?

The charging should be the same.

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16815104306

doesnt suffer from that deep sleep problem, haven't had a problem with it yet in the year plus I had it.

IoGear makes great products for the Mac. Right now, I ran out of USB ports on back of my PowerMac G4 and Studio Display. Can you tell me which chipset IoGear use on the USB 2.0 PCI card?

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by Kenneth

IoGear makes great products for the Mac. Right now, I ran out of USB ports on back of my PowerMac G4 and Studio Display. Can you tell me which chipset IoGear use on the USB 2.0 PCI card?

Is there a reason you don't want a hub?

[Simon]

No FireWire indeed.

[Drakino]

Guess this will finally kick me to replace my aging G4 Cube with a Mac Mini. All my music is on the Cube, then gets shared out to the network for playback on my Powerbook, one of 2 Airport Expresses, or the modded XBox.

Since I plan on getting a Nano, and don't want to deal with the awesomeness that is USB 1.1 transfers... *sigh*

I feel bad for the Mac owners who have a more recent desktop system, or even a pretty recent iBook that lacks USB2. Just seems like a horrible oversight, but also looking at Apple's history, seems about right to ignore anyone with a machine older then 2 years.

[moki]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I haven't yet understood the hue and cry about Apple shipping iPods without Firewire cables in the first place. Firewire may be faster than USB 1.1, but Firewire 400 is about even with USB 2.0. Further, supporting both USB and Firewire connections takes more components, so they probably left Firewire out of the Nano to save space.

In *theory* FireWire 400 and USB 2.0 are about even... in reality, the bassackwards nature of the USB protocol ensures that this isn't the case. FireWire is significantly faster. You can prove this to yourself by connecting the same iPod via both USB and FireWire, and then copying a large test file over.

I think it's unfortunate but understandable that the iPod Nano doesn't support FireWire. It's still an amazing little device, and a home-run for Apple.

[jdc45]

Firewire is far better than USB, my Mini updates faster with firewire than usb 2.0. I am sad apple didn't put it on the nano

[tooki]

Originally Posted by DigitalEl

Wasn't Firewire a technology pushed hard by Apple in the first place? Why have they now abandoned it on their signature devices?

Apple didn't just choose FireWire: Apple invented in in the early 1990s.

tooki

[robby818]

Originally Posted by moki

In *theory* FireWire 400 and USB 2.0 are about even... in reality, the bassackwards nature of the USB protocol ensures that this isn't the case. FireWire is significantly faster. You can prove this to yourself by connecting the same iPod via both USB and FireWire, and then copying a large test file over.

I think it's unfortunate but understandable that the iPod Nano doesn't support FireWire. It's still an amazing little device, and a home-run for Apple.

This is very true. I have heard firewire described as a more "robust" technology and that usb is hampered by overhead. in my experience I have found that moving large amounts of data (gigs) is far more reliable over firewire than usb.

Also, isnt the reason why firewire is not supported on the nano because the nano is flash memory based insted of hard drive based.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by robby818

This is very true. I have heard firewire described as a more "robust" technology and that usb is hampered by overhead. in my experience I have found that moving large amounts of data (gigs) is far more reliable over firewire than usb.

Also, isnt the reason why firewire is not supported on the nano because the nano is flash memory based insted of hard drive based.

Unfortunately that robustness comes with the penalty of extra hardware. More components are required to do all the error checking, etc. needed. Further, when you compare "real world" performance on the kind of files real users have, (those being a mixture of large and small files) you find that Firewire turns out to be only slightly faster overall. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but that USB 2.0 is a pretty good compromise.

[tooki]

In all honesty, whatever differences in speed exist between FireWire 400 and USB 2 on the hardware side are more than negated by software differences. Take any dual-interface hard disk drive: if you test it on a Mac, FireWire is faster than USB 2. If you test it on a PC, USB 2 is faster than FireWire.

tooki

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Unfortunately that robustness comes with the penalty of extra hardware. More components are required to do all the error checking, etc. needed. Further, when you compare "real world" performance on the kind of files real users have, (those being a mixture of large and small files) you find that Firewire turns out to be only slightly faster overall. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but that USB 2.0 is a pretty good compromise.

USB2 is certainly no bad compromise and I can live with the fact that Apple is just choosing a common denominator when it comes to the iPod's rather relaxed traffic volume. We're not talking about high end storage arrays after all.

But, just for the record, FW was designed to be a host independent DMA bus and it's spec'ed for higher sustained data throughput than USB2 (only USB's [rather theoretical] peak rate is higher). People sometimes forget this when they run tests under Windows and hardly see a difference between the two busses. However, this clearly points to bad FW drivers under Windows. We ran some pretty extensive tests a while ago using Scientific Linux (similar to what used to be RedHat) and FW400 consistently had higher sustained data rates and at the same time put less load on the main CPU than USB2. The results are similar to those you get from testing on Mac OS X. I could imagine that it comes from the fact that there was much less developer effort for FW drivers under Windows than on other platforms or for the very widely used USB.

In our lab we use very fast gated high-res CCD camera systems that have a high sustained output rate. The manufacturers of these systems use FW exclusively. They claim that at these data rates, USB2 is not reliable enough and also would require dedicated DAQ systems due to it's high CPU tax.

That said, I guess it's justified to look upon FW as the superior bus technology. However for an iPod I think USB2 is more than good enough.

[tooki]

Very interesting! Thanks for the extra info!

tooki