[inkhead]

no, he's pushing usb2 because it's flat out a better technology for small portable devices, and has lower power consumtion, and the connectors are cheeper to buy (EVEN though apple owns firewire!), and are more standard everywhere.

He's doing the right thing, you think the engineers, DID NOT think through every painful detail of the ipod? You think they just were like "oops forgot to write firewire on the board..." No it was A DELIBERATE, DEBATED, WELL THOUGHT OUT DECISION to leave it out. How long have you thought about it 20 minutes? I'm sure Apple spent a lot more time than you did on this, and had you have been pre-vie to the discussions you would have made the same choice for "your" next generation ipod

Originally Posted by IFLY2HIGH

The one your listing is the COMBO version, the one I'm talking about is the origional version, but from the feedback on the Apple Store and other sources, this will do what the people without USB 2.0 want to do over firewire. I'll fire off an e-mail to Sendstation about the capabilities of the little device. One guy below says it works with his 4g pod so I don't see why it won't work with the new 5g pods.

Here is the real Product Website Dr Bott is just reselling them as a distributor...

Link 1
Apple Store Link

"Screw USB. Jobs spent all those years selling us on FireWire. Now he's pushing USB 2.0 for the Windoze folks. Try unloading a lot of video with USB 2.0 and you'll know, for one of several reasons, why FW is the best joice."

"I'll keep the USB 2.0 cable and AC adaptor as a back up. Firewire is my preferred method of updating my 4G iPod and the PocketDock allows the choice to be able to do that."

[inkhead]

Why not buy a mac mini to hold you over? If your lucky you get a 1.5ghz mac mini for $450 online. Rather than a $350 ipod.

Originally Posted by cenutrio

My case.....

I have a Cube and a TiPB rev A. Old stuff I know but still works great. I know I won't buy a new PB until Intel is on board. The iMac is very, very tempting to replace my cube, however this is another history.

I also have a iPod 10 GB rev B, mac-only.

I would buy a 60GB iPod right now (and give the old one to my little sister as a present). I love that little machine. However, my computers lack USB 2.

I guess I'm screwed and a bit frustrated too.

[IFLY2HIGH]

Well shoot, bummer and what not, got email back from Send Station...

---
Will your pocket docks allow iTunes Syncing with the latest 5g iPod via Firewire?

Eric,

the Video iPod can be charged via FireWire, but can not be synced via FireWire. Syncing requires USB. According to our tests however, FireWire charging is faster than USB charging.

Best regards,
---

okay blows so much for you laptop guys, sorry...

[inkhead]

your a very misinformed person, if people really are this uninformed, and stick stuff into their usb 1.0 ports I don't want them having access to ANY firewire ports, they'll fry the computer quickly.

Firewire is NOT faster, absolutely 100% not faster for these type of operations which ARE LIMITED by the DRIVE or flash. If the magical "fairy" in your head tells you that it's faster, then you've been brainwashed by apple propganda from the late 90's... (it's great for camcorders, but usb is superior for the ipod"

If you had to put 1 connector on the ipod (Apple loves to simplify things) you would choose USB. I'm more likely to find a USB port in my travels than a firewire one, also firewire has higher power consuption.

Why didn't they include both connectors? It's a cost /size issue, no firewire chips needed inside. I'm so glad they didn't, that way my ipod is as slim as can be without the extra chips needed to support your old outdated computer, buy a new computer, not an ipod.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

Really in the end USB 2.0 is just as fast as Firewire.

In the speed tests I've seen, USB 2.0 (on a Mac, at least) is only half the speed of Firewire 400. Most people will end up plugging into their 1.1 port anyway because there aren't any 2.0 ports on the keyboard.

What's with all the crippled products yesterday? iPods that have no Firewire, a remote and software that don't work with existing Macs, overpriced DRMed TV shows that are too low-quality to play full-screen (I'll stick to Bit-torrent, thanks).

I'm sure glad I got my 4G iPod three weeks ago and didn't wait for the video model.

[IFLY2HIGH]

Originally Posted by inkhead

no, he's pushing usb2 because it's flat out a better technology for small portable devices, and has lower power consumtion, and the connectors are cheeper to buy (EVEN though apple owns firewire!), and are more standard everywhere.

He's doing the right thing, you think the engineers, DID NOT think through every painful detail of the ipod? You think they just were like "oops forgot to write firewire on the board..." No it was A DELIBERATE, DEBATED, WELL THOUGHT OUT DECISION to leave it out. How long have you thought about it 20 minutes? I'm sure Apple spent a lot more time than you did on this, and had you have been pre-vie to the discussions you would have made the same choice for "your" next generation ipod

I'm assuming that is pointed out to me and if you read my earlier responses to this thread you would have already seen that I have said it's smarter to stick with USB since it's available on both platforms from the get go now, I agree with Steve Jobs in doing this as it keeps the cost down, and keeps things less needed to make a smaller sleeker, thinner pod.

All the latest ramblings from me were for those people with only USB 1.1 and firewire enabled mac laptops looking for a faster connectivity solution, but wait you read every post and missed something along the way. I could care less as my QS has a USB 2.0 card so I'm all set, no big deal to me, trying to help out the other fellows without the USB 2.0 connectivity. Yes I would still like firewire myself even if the Pocket Dock did work like we were hoping, but I'm just fine with my setup.

[icruise]

I really don't think people are being unreasonable to expect a 2 year old computer to still work with the iPod. It's silly to blame the consumer, when in fact Apple is the one at fault (don't forget that Macs in general are expected to have longer useful lives).

I have one of the newer PowerBooks with USB 2, so I'm not personally affected by this, but it's still annoying.

[IFLY2HIGH]

Wonder what it would take for a company to make a simple converter box much like the Pocket Dock, but with a Firewire to USB conversion, that would probbly sell very well since the dock connector looks like it'll be around for sometime with iPod. Put some firewire chip and usb chipset in it and power it off the bus.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by inkhead

Yes your computer is outdated. A smarter consumer wouldn't have bought a computer that he needs to last so long. Look if $3299 is a commit of 5 years to you then you probably shouldn't be spending that much money, without realizing that "hey, my computer won't work with the new stuff 2 years down the road, maybe given that $3299, is too much for you to buy a new computer every year or so, then you should have bought a more affordable machine"

I can afford the machines I want, but I still budget about $10,000k yearly for computer hardware. Why do I do this? Because then I can afford a new laptop once a year, and updated desktop machine.

If you can't afford something like this, then make a smaller budget maybe $1200 a year (so you get a 15' instead of a 17' powerbook that you really couldn't afford, I WON'T even get started on the idiots who buy computers on Apple loan." That's just stupid.

Only buy what you can afford, and if you were stupid enough to buy something that your going to be stuck with for 3 years (THIS IS FOREVER IN THE CYCLE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY) then don't be annoying enough to complain when new stuff drops support for your outdated crapola...

So everyone is supposed to be able to afford a new computer every year?! Are you insane?! Maybe you are rich enough for that, but for many other people (especially college students, who are often steeped in student loans and debt), even a frigging iBook is a huge investment. Even 2-3 years is unreasonable. For many people, a new computer has to be able to last 4 or 5 years at least. Put down the caviar and step out of your yacht, and quit assuming everyone else is a millionaire!

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by inkhead

your a very misinformed person, if people really are this uninformed, and stick stuff into their usb 1.0 ports I don't want them having access to ANY firewire ports, they'll fry the computer quickly.

Firewire is NOT faster, absolutely 100% not faster for these type of operations which ARE LIMITED by the DRIVE or flash. If the magical "fairy" in your head tells you that it's faster, then you've been brainwashed by apple propganda from the late 90's... (it's great for camcorders, but usb is superior for the ipod"

No, what he said was 100% correct. Apple's implementation of USB 2.0 is buggered to the point that it runs about half as fast as FireWire 400, at least, as of the date of this article's publication:

http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html

Note that the article in question compared USB 2.0 and FireWire performance with the same drive. FireWire is faster on Apple machines. Now, of course, if the iPod's FireWire implementation is buggered in a similar way as the Mac's USB 2.0 implementation, then that would balance this out, but still, his basic statement that FireWire is faster on the Mac was absolutely correct.

[wilsonng]

$10,000k?

You sound charitable enough to lend some one-year old computers to the rest of us with your buying strategy. Or maybe you work in the IT industry where buying computers every year is normal?

There are not many people interested in buying a computer every year. That's like buying a car every year to upgrade or buying the newest high definition TV every time a new one gets released.

Your strategy works best for you and not so great for someone else.

[teney7]

I don't think I could spend 10K a year on computer junk.. 1 PM and 1 PB plus an iPod and a ACD will not cost 10K unless you max out the BTO specs on each.

Send me some of the $$ you have. Student loans suck.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by inkhead

Firewire is NOT faster, absolutely 100% not faster for these type of operations which ARE LIMITED by the DRIVE or flash. If the magical "fairy" in your head tells you that it's faster, then you've been brainwashed by apple propganda from the late 90's... (it's great for camcorders, but usb is superior for the ipod"

The speed of an iPod connected via FireWire is neither the disk nor the bus, but rather the communications chipset that the iPods use.

From CNets review:
Transfer times were excellent as well at a brisk 7.5MB per second over USB 2.0. For those interested, over FireWire (cable sold separately), the iPod Photo reached only 2.6MB per second.
The iPod mini had similar results, ~6.3MBps over USB2 and 2 or 3.mumble MBps over Firewire.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

No, what he said was 100% correct. Apple's implementation of USB 2.0 is buggered to the point that it runs about half as fast as FireWire 400, at least, as of the date of this article's publication:

http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html

Note that the article in question compared USB 2.0 and FireWire performance with the same drive. FireWire is faster on Apple machines. Now, of course, if the iPod's FireWire implementation is buggered in a similar way as the Mac's USB 2.0 implementation, then that would balance this out, but still, his basic statement that FireWire is faster on the Mac was absolutely correct.

You don't know if the barefeats results are from a poor USB2 implementation on the Mac or on the enclosure. It could very well be the latter instead of the former.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Icruise

I really don't think people are being unreasonable to expect a 2 year old computer to still work with the iPod. It's silly to blame the consumer, when in fact Apple is the one at fault (don't forget that Macs in general are expected to have longer useful lives).

If you count USB1.1, all of those computers work with the iPod. If you don't, the only ones that are incompatible are the consumer computers that were sold without any illusions of expandability. PowerMac owners can add a USB2 PCI card while PowerBook owners can add a USB2 PC card.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by mduell

The speed of an iPod connected via FireWire is neither the disk nor the bus, but rather the communications chipset that the iPods use.

From CNets review:
Transfer times were excellent as well at a brisk 7.5MB per second over USB 2.0. For those interested, over FireWire (cable sold separately), the iPod Photo reached only 2.6MB per second.
The iPod mini had similar results, ~6.3MBps over USB2 and 2 or 3.mumble MBps over Firewire.

But doesn't USB share bandwidth? IIRC, it does, which means additional USB devices can affect performance.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by lavar78

If you count USB1.1, all of those computers work with the iPod. If you don't, the only ones that are incompatible are the consumer computers that were sold without any illusions of expandability. PowerMac owners can add a USB2 PCI card while PowerBook owners can add a USB2 PC card.

Well obviously I'm not counting USB 1.1, as that's what this whole discussion is about.

It's annoying because Apple has long promoted firewire on their computers, and in fact only recently adopted USB 2 at all. So even people who bought computers "without illusions of expandability" could reasonably expect their computers to at least work well with the things Apple itself produced in subsequent years. It's not like this is one of these situations where an obsolete standard is being removed. Firewire is still very much a usable standard, and is superior to USB in many ways.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by lavar78

But doesn't USB share bandwidth? IIRC, it does, which means additional USB devices can affect performance.

With respect to sharing bandwidth, there is no difference between USB and Firewire.

You can have multiple USB ports on a single channel, just as you can have multiple Firewire ports on a single channel.
You can have multiple USB channels in a computer, just as you can have multiple Firewire channels.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Icruise

It's annoying because Apple has long promoted firewire on their computers, and in fact only recently adopted USB 2 at all. So even people who bought computers "without illusions of expandability" could reasonably expect their computers to at least work well with the things Apple itself produced in subsequent years. It's not like this is one of these situations where an obsolete standard is being removed. Firewire is still very much a usable standard, and is superior to USB in many ways.

For the iPod, Firewire has been obsoleted by USB2 in terms of performance and compatability. "Obsolete" doesn't mean that the old solution doesn't work.
For the limited number of customers without USB2 and without the ability to add a USB2 card, USB1 still works, and the performance isn't that bad (initial sync will take overnight). I did the math the other day and it's about 6 minutes to copy a 200MB TV show.

[wilsonng]

yeah, Apple promoted Firewire for the longest time. Now it's positioning FW400 and FW800 for higher end devices like DV cameras and fast hard drives.

The iPod was once considered high-end and is now repositioned as a mass-market consumer device.

Sometimes it's not the best technology that wins but the most popular.

The iPod is beaten in a technological standpoint by the Creative Zen Vision and Sony PSP. But it is still the more popular choice and best overall user experience thanks to the iTunes store.

Same with McDonald's. McDonald's has spread throughout the world not because it's the greatest quality food, but because McDonald's was the first to streamline the consumer experience. McDonald's revolutionized the fast food experience in the same way the iPod revolutionized the portable music player experience and Apple looks ready to do it once again with the portable video experience.

Same thing has happened with USB2. It's just more popular than FW400. We're starting to see DV cameras with USB2.0 connections as well as FW400.

Despite being blown out by the Sony PSP and Creative Zen Vision for functionality, I'm still loving my iPod experience.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Icruise

It's annoying because Apple has long promoted firewire on their computers, and in fact only recently adopted USB 2 at all.

I agree that it's annoying if you don't have USB2.

So even people who bought computers "without illusions of expandability" could reasonably expect their computers to at least work well with the things Apple itself produced in subsequent years.

I can't agree with this at all. Change is always a possibility—especially in the fast-paced world of technology. Assuming Apple (or any manufacturer) will always support your computer is assuming too much.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by wilsonng

Despite being blown out by the Sony PSP and Creative Zen Vision for functionality, I'm still loving my iPod experience.

I don't understand these comparisons between the PSP and the iPod. They're not even in the same product category. It's like saying that your DVD player totally blows away your clock radio in terms of functionality. Until 3 days ago, the only thing the PSP and the iPod had in common was the ability to play MP3s and display photographs. But any PDA, computer, DVD player, etc can also do that.

The differences are more significant, in my mind. First is the size difference. Are there really a lot of people using the PSP as their main MP3 player? Photos maybe, but I don't think all that many adults are carrying around PSPs to show pictures of their kids. It's just too big. Second, and more significant, is the issue of storage space. The biggest memory stick duo is 2GB. That doesn't fit very many MP3s and hardly any video.

Don't get me wrong. I love my PSP as a gaming machine, but its size and lack of internal storage make it impossible to compare directly to the iPod.

I've never even seen a Zen vision in person, so I can't really say much about it except to say that the reviews I've read imply that it is good but not great. Video apparently doesn't play back entirely smoothly, and the screen has a poor viewing angle.

So unless you judge things entirely on screen size, I think it's questionable to conclude that these products are superior to the iPod. Until we see just how well video works on the new models, at least.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by lavar78

I can't agree with this at all. Change is always a possibility—especially in the fast-paced world of technology. Assuming Apple (or any manufacturer) will always support your computer is assuming too much.

I agree. But who said anything about "always" supporting your computer? We aren't talking about someone installing Tiger on a Bondi blue iMac here. We're talking about computers that were sold 1 or 2 years ago. I think it's reasonable to expect that they will still work.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Icruise

The differences are more significant, in my mind. First is the size difference. Are there really a lot of people using the PSP as their main MP3 player? Photos maybe, but I don't think all that many adults are carrying around PSPs to show pictures of their kids. It's just too big. Second, and more significant, is the issue of storage space. The biggest memory stick duo is 2GB. That doesn't fit very many MP3s and hardly any video.

Exactly. AFAIC, the iPod beats the PSP in every single way that matters.

I agree. But who said anything about "always" supporting your computer? We aren't talking about someone installing Tiger on a Bondi blue iMac here. We're talking about computers that were sold 1 or 2 years ago. I think it's reasonable to expect that they will still work.

I don't know. I just think that, when you buy a consumer Mac, you run the risk of being left behind at any point in the future. It'd be nice if everything were backward compatible, but, for better or for worse, it doesn't work that way. Most PC users had to buy Firewire cards back when the iPod debuted in 2001. Sadly, now it seems some older Mac users who want the latest iPods are victims of the iPod's success.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by lavar78

Most PC users had to buy Firewire cards back when the iPod debuted in 2001. Sadly, now it seems some older Mac users who want the latest iPods are victims of the iPod's success.

Well, when the iPod debuted it was Mac only. I can't recall if there was a generation of iPods that was Windows compatible but firewire only. But they added USB 2 pretty soon after adding Windows compatibility, as I recall.

[mduell]

Perhaps this is what the iPod halo effect is all about: Getting users with older Macs to buy new Macs.

Originally Posted by Icruise

I don't understand these comparisons between the PSP and the iPod. They're not even in the same product category. It's like saying that your DVD player totally blows away your clock radio in terms of functionality. Until 3 days ago, the only thing the PSP and the iPod had in common was the ability to play MP3s and display photographs. But any PDA, computer, DVD player, etc can also do that.

Small, portable, battery powered devices that play music and videos and display pictures on a low resolution color screen.
Perfect substiutes? Not quite, but a reasonable comparison to make.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by mduell

You don't know if the barefeats results are from a poor USB2 implementation on the Mac or on the enclosure. It could very well be the latter instead of the former.

Obviously you didn't read the article I linked to. It also listed the speeds with the same disk connected via USB 2 to a Windows machine, and the results were way more comparable to the FireWire 400 results on the Mac than the USB 2 results on the Mac were. It's Apple's implementation.

They give us a crappy implementation of USB 2 to encourage us to use FireWire instead, and then they don't let us use FIreWire.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Obviously you didn't read the article I linked to. It also listed the speeds with the same disk connected via USB 2 to a Windows machine, and the results were way more comparable to the FireWire 400 results on the Mac than the USB 2 results on the Mac were. It's Apple's implementation.

Bbbbbut they didn't put them in a pretty graph!

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Icruise

Well, when the iPod debuted it was Mac only. I can't recall if there was a generation of iPods that was Windows compatible but firewire only. But they added USB 2 pretty soon after adding Windows compatibility, as I recall.

When the iPod debuted, it was the best player on the market. It was incompatible with Windows out of the box, but users who really wanted it made it work. Likewise, people who really want to use the brand new iPods (instead of the perfectly usable older iPods) will make it work.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by mduell

Small, portable, battery powered devices that play music and videos and display pictures on a low resolution color screen.
Perfect substiutes? Not quite, but a reasonable comparison to make.

There are many things I'd call the PSP (beautiful, expensive, etc.), but "small" is definitely not one of them.

[mduell]

PSP: 170 mm x 74 mm x 23 mm
iPod: 104 mm x 61 mm x 14 mm
The PSPs screen is 160% larger with 70% more pixels.

Maybe they're not so comparable after all.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by mduell

Maybe they're not so comparable after all.

That's what I said. One fits in my pocket and one doesn't.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by mduell

PSP: 170 mm x 74 mm x 23 mm
iPod: 104 mm x 61 mm x 14 mm
The PSPs screen is 160% larger with 70% more pixels.

Maybe they're not so comparable after all.

Yeah, well my HD monitor is 20 times larger than the iPod screen, but it doesn't fit in my pocket either...

Of course the iPod screen could be bigger. I was hoping that it would take up the whole front of the device, but that will probably have to wait until they make a video-centric device. But saying that the PSP is better just because it has a bigger screen... doesn't make a lot of sense.

[TypeMRT]

Here's my 2 cents:
It's nice using my Powerbook's firewire port as my iPod port. I don't do video, and my scanner, mouse, external HD, and memory card reader are all USB. So unplugging one to make room for the new iPod just adds one more step to the process. It's much easier to have one iPod firewire cable for syncing with the computer and charging at night with the iPod firewire AC adapter (included with the 1st 60GB photo). Guess I'll be spending $29 for the USB AC adapter...

[icruise]

Originally Posted by TypeMRT

Here's my 2 cents:
It's nice using my Powerbook's firewire port as my iPod port. I don't do video, and my scanner, mouse, external HD, and memory card reader are all USB. So unplugging one to make room for the new iPod just adds one more step to the process. It's much easier to have one iPod firewire cable for syncing with the computer and charging at night with the iPod firewire AC adapter (included with the 1st 60GB photo). Guess I'll be spending $29 for the USB AC adapter...

Why not just get a USB 2 hub?

[CharlesS]

Another thing to note is that due to the fact that Macs are currently not bootable from USB 2.0, it will no longer be possible to use an iPod as an external boot disk. This means that I will no longer be able to use an iPod to test BootCD images.

Of course, I may end up getting one of these anyway, if the new iPods have uncrippled audio recording as is rumored...

[icruise]

Interesting editorial about the PSP and iPod here on a PSP site.

[TypeMRT]

Originally Posted by Icruise

Why not just get a USB 2 hub?

Besides the extra clutter (especially if it's powered), it would kinda suck to buy extra USB ports when I have a perfectly good unused firewire one. It's really more about the still functional AC adapter (firewire) that's already by my bed and the idea of spending another $29 to replace it with the USB version.
All in all a pretty minor inconvenience. I've been through my share of upgrades, and $29 is on the low end considering it's from Apple.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by TypeMRT

It's really more about the still functional AC adapter (firewire) that's already by my bed and the idea of spending another $29 to replace it with the USB version.

Why don't you just keep using the FW adapter?

[icruise]

Yes, for charging the FW AC adapter will still work fine with the new iPods. In fact, your firewire port on your computer will also work for charging. It's syncing that's the problem.

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Another thing to note is that due to the fact that Macs are currently not bootable from USB 2.0, it will no longer be possible to use an iPod as an external boot disk. This means that I will no longer be able to use an iPod to test BootCD images.

Of course, I may end up getting one of these anyway, if the new iPods have uncrippled audio recording as is rumored...

According to this old Apple Doc, USB booting has been supported since AGP PMs and Slot-loading iMacs!

Has anyone actually tried it?

[Big Mac]

It seems like very few have tried it. The only article I can find on the subject (aside from the reference you found) is this old one from 2000.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

According to this old Apple Doc, USB booting has been supported since AGP PMs and Slot-loading iMacs!

Has anyone actually tried it?

As far as I remember, it was possible to boot from USB 1.1, although it was really slow and thus not many people did it. When USB 2.0 came around, Apple didn't make their implementation of it bootable. Who knows, maybe they did this to encourage the use of FireWire instead. This possibility makes the removal of FireWire from the iPod really maddening.

[CreepDogg]

I'm one of those folks with a 2-year old USB 1.1 machine (1 GHz 17" iMac). Can't upgrade. All I can say on the new iPods is no FW, no sale.

Having to REALLY deal with it, I consider USB 1.1 syncing of 20-60GB of data unusable. Thankfully, I don't have much interest in or use for video right now - that may change if it's ever made easy to record TV content to the mac and sync to iPod. I'm sticking with my G4 iMac until I can get a Rev.B Intel replacement - and I guess sticking with my 40GB iPod photo until then as well - glad it's all I need right now...

Can you tell I'm bitter? I REALLY did try to hold out for a USB 2.0 machine, but Apple just dragged their a$$ too long...

[mduell]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg

I'm one of those folks with a 2-year old USB 1.1 machine (1 GHz 17" iMac). Can't upgrade. All I can say on the new iPods is no FW, no sale.

Having to REALLY deal with it, I consider USB 1.1 syncing of 20-60GB of data unusable. Thankfully, I don't have much interest in or use for video right now - that may change if it's ever made easy to record TV content to the mac and sync to iPod. I'm sticking with my G4 iMac until I can get a Rev.B Intel replacement - and I guess sticking with my 40GB iPod photo until then as well - glad it's all I need right now...

Can you tell I'm bitter? I REALLY did try to hold out for a USB 2.0 machine, but Apple just dragged their a$$ too long...

Is having to sync overnight the first time really that big of a deal that it will stop you from buying a new bigger/better iPod?

To load 40GB at USB1 speeds (assume half bandwidth) will take 15 hours. After that a 1GB update will take 23 minutes.

It's not great, but is it really a dealbreaker?

[CreepDogg]

For me, yes, it's a dealbreaker. I managed to accrue a large CD collection over the years and have been gradually ripping them. There are a lot of situations where I'll pull out a few and rip them and want to do a quick 'sync-n-go' to take them with me on the iPod. It syncs and is ready to go in at most a couple of minutes (not to mention the 20 min first-time sync).

I suppose I could be better about planning ahead - but I don't want to and shouldn't have to as a perfectly good solution is right in front of me. Slow sync of that much data doesn't meet my needs -- or expecations. Simple as that.

This is a little off-topic, but it's also probably influenced by the fact that I'm not all that excited about the video capability - I have no intention of or interest in paying $1.99 for a video or TV show I'll watch once. Maybe it would be useful if I could record my own content kind of like Tivo-to-go. So - I can stick with my current iPod until it's time to replace my iMac...

[wilsonng]

Maybe that's what Apple needs! A TiVO/Mac TV tuner that will automatically save to the iPod video format. That'll make Front Row and the iPod video even better!

Heck, Apple has been stepping into a lot of new territory..... Initial impressions show that Apple is breaking into the pro-photo editing business with Aperature. They've already killed Adobe Premiere with Final Cut Pro. They just entered into competition with the Windows Media Center with their new iMac/Front Row. Then there is the tenative steps in the mobile phone business with ROKR and now they are testing the waters with video and TV shows by giving us the iPod video and new iTunes store.

[volcano]

When I still had my Windows computer back in March/April (yuck) I charged and synched my then-new 6GB iPod mini via USB 1.1. Was it slow? Sort of. Was it annoying? Sometimes. Did it get the job done? Yes.

I'll admit it, though - I can't imagine syncing a 30GB or 60GB iPod over USB 1.1. That would be painful. It was bad enough with my mini.

Once I buy my 5G iPod, it looks like I'll be switching my cords around. Currently, I sync/charge via FireWire to my iMac G5, and when I need to give it a good charge in the shortest time, I've been using the USB 2.0 cord and power adapter. Luckily, I have a firewire power adapter as well.

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

According to this old Apple Doc, USB booting has been supported since AGP PMs and Slot-loading iMacs!

Has anyone actually tried it?

Confirmed this is only for OS9. Apparently, Apple has not gotten around to writing OSX USB boot drivers.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106474

[dragonbong]

From what I understand the dock connector for firewire will allow the video iPod to charge but not to sync. You'll have to use usb for syncing.

[flyingdutchee]

Maybe this is a solution for people with a powerbook that lacks usb2 but does have a pcmcia slot:

http://sewelldirect.com/usb2cardbus2..._search=search

it does say it's Mac OSX compatible. Might be worth the try. No idea if this will just act like a true USB2 port that will let you charge and sync your ipod at the same time. Anyone any experiences with a pcmcia card like this and a 5G ipod?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by flyingdutchee

Maybe this is a solution for people with a powerbook that lacks usb2 but does have a pcmcia slot:

http://sewelldirect.com/usb2cardbus2..._search=search

it does say it's Mac OSX compatible. Might be worth the try. No idea if this will just act like a true USB2 port that will let you charge and sync your ipod at the same time. Anyone any experiences with a pcmcia card like this and a 5G ipod?

There's also this one for less than half the price.