[drainyoo]

Anyone know what the deal is? Why Apple has removed Firewire connection? I just bought my second iPod, first one was the very first iPod released by Apple, and this transferring over USB is lame in my opinion. Extremely slow. I have over 1000 songs and its taking hours to copy over.

Why the hell would Apple replace Firewire with USB?

[Kevin]

Yeah very lame. I wont buy another iPod till

1. They adopt Firewire again.
2. USB gets lots faster.

[hickey]

i think it was to slim down the size of the pod. I could be wrong, but I believe the FW chipset takes up more room than the USB one.

[drainyoo]

Originally Posted by hickey

i think it was to slim down the size of the pod. I could be wrong, but I believe the FW chipset takes up more room than the USB one.

Personally I love how slim the new iPods are but I'd give up the thickness for Firewire connectivity. USB is too slow for this. I mean, how long is it going to take to copy over a movie or something really big?

[hickey]

oh i wasnt saying i enjoy not having firewire, Im with you on needing FW. USB hurts me sometimes.

[drainyoo]

Originally Posted by hickey

oh i wasnt saying i enjoy not having firewire, Im with you on needing FW. USB hurts me sometimes.

Oh no I know you weren't saying that, Im just saying that I shocked that Apple would choose form over function. Well, maybe Im not so shocked.

[mduell]

For an iPod, USB2 is faster and cheaper than Firewire.

[drainyoo]

Originally Posted by mduell

For an iPod, USB2 is faster and cheaper than Firewire.

USB 2 is faster? How so?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by drainyoo

USB 2 is faster? How so?

The chipset they're using in the iPods is rather pokey (probably for low-power/heat) and USB2 comes out on top for transfer rates.

Here are some excepts from CNet's reviews of the final generation of bilingual (FW&USB) iPods:
iPod Photo, 60GB: 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.
iPod mini, 4GB: Over FireWire, our songs transferred at 2.6MB per second; over USB 2.0, they synced at a brisker 3.18MB per second.
iPod mini, 6GB: Over FireWire, our songs transferred at 2.5MB per second; over USB 2.0, they synced at a much brisker 6.3MB per second.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mduell

For an iPod, USB2 is faster and cheaper than Firewire.

No, USB 2.0 is overall SLOWER than Firewire

This has been gone over so many times.

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

BTW I am curious as to what hardware they used (Computer wise)

[drainyoo]

Originally Posted by mduell

The chipset they're using in the iPods is rather pokey (probably for low-power/heat) and USB2 comes out on top for transfer rates.

Here are some excepts from CNet's reviews of the final generation of bilingual (FW&USB) iPods:
iPod Photo, 60GB: 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.
iPod mini, 4GB: Over FireWire, our songs transferred at 2.6MB per second; over USB 2.0, they synced at a brisker 3.18MB per second.
iPod mini, 6GB: Over FireWire, our songs transferred at 2.5MB per second; over USB 2.0, they synced at a much brisker 6.3MB per second.

I dont see how this is possible. I just witnessed it myself. 1000 songs over Firewire would transfer over in minutes. I just did it over USB and it took hours.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, USB 2.0 is overall SLOWER than Firewire

This has been gone over so many times.

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

It "has been gone over" too many times; but some people still don't get it.
That barefeats comparison has nothing to do with iPods.
The chipset is more important than the bus. The chipset in the iPods is faster for USB2 than FW.

Originally Posted by drainyoo

I dont see how this is possible. I just witnessed it myself. 1000 songs over Firewire would transfer over in minutes. I just did it over USB and it took hours.

1000 songs (assuming ~4MB/song) should take about 9 minutes over USB2 (based the benchmarks from CNet). Are you using USB1? USB1 would take ~1.5-2 hours.

[drainyoo]

Originally Posted by mduell

1000 songs (assuming ~4MB/song) should take about 9 minutes over USB2 (based the benchmarks from CNet). Are you using USB1? USB1 would take ~1.5-2 hours.

Not sure. How do I check and If I was using USB 1 how would I upgrade to 2?

[Uisce]

I thought the speed leapfrogging went USB<FW400<USB2<FW800?

At any rate, if I were you drainyoo I'd buy a USB2 PCI and install it in your Mac to make song transfers livable again. I'm not sure, but I think you can buy the iPod FW cable for $20 for transfers, although it will not recharge the new iPods (nan & video) and may not work at all...

Personally, Apple's move from FW locked me out of buying another iPod for the same reasons you have. I'm sticking w/ my FW iPod.

Not sure. How do I check and If I was using USB 1 how would I upgrade to 2?

What computer are you using? (year, etc)

[drainyoo]

Originally Posted by Uisce

I thought the speed leapfrogging went USB<FW400<USB2<FW800?

At any rate, if I were you drainyoo I'd buy a USB2 PCI and install it in your Mac to make song transfers livable again. I'm not sure, but I think you can buy the iPod FW cable for $20 for transfers, although it will not recharge the new iPods (nan & video) and may not work at all...

Personally, Apple's move from FW locked me out of buying another iPod for the same reasons you have. I'm sticking w/ my FW iPod.



What computer are you using? (year, etc)

Actually I have a 17inch PowerBook (the very first one that was released) and a new video iPod. Does the PB have USB 2.0 already in it? And Im assuming the new iPods are already 2.0 compatible. How do I check if Im all set up? I know Im definitely not getting USB 2.0 transfer speed.

[Uisce]

Originally Posted by drainyoo

Actually I have a 17inch PowerBook (the very first one that was released) and a new video iPod. Does the PB have USB 2.0 already in it? And Im assuming the new iPods are already 2.0 compatible. How do I check if Im all set up? I know Im definitely not getting USB 2.0 transfer speed.

That computer has PCMCIA slots correct? I think the easiest thing would be a USB2 card that you slide in - http://www.usbfirewire.com/Parts/rr-usb-usb2cb.html

Can someone back me up?

[drainyoo]

Originally Posted by Uisce

That computer has PCMCIA slots correct? I think the easiest thing would be a USB2 card that you slide in - http://www.usbfirewire.com/Parts/rr-usb-usb2cb.html

Can someone back me up?

Yeah it does. I this the only option? How can this laptop not have USB 2? Was Apple sleeping again?

Would suck to have this ugly thing sticking out the site of my machine.

[dreamryche]

AFAIK, Apple added USB 2.0 on the Rev B 17".

[dreamryche]

Originally Posted by Uisce

I thought the speed leapfrogging went USB<FW400<USB2<FW800?

In terms of maximum rated speed, that's true. (12Mbps/400/480/800) In practice, however, FW400 beats USB2 because USB gets most of its speed in bursts, whereas FW can maintain a higher sustained transfer rate.

With regards to the iPod, it's a wash. In my experience, USB2 and FW transfer rates have been almost indistinguishable.

[NYCFarmboy]

dumb question:

is there a plug & play USB2 connector/adaptor that would plug into the Firewire port?

so i can use a faster port than my old USB1 on my old G4 with a new Nano?

[F*ckDell]

I'd have to agree with dreamryche, FW is a constant transfer rate. Which is why FW and iLink is used for digital movies. I think Apple should incorporate a 1394 connection. Wouldn't that resolve the problem we are facing?

[ghporter]

Firewire lacks the fine grained device power control that USB has. It further has not been developed in "smaller, lighter, cooler" chipsets the way USB has; you can get a single, tiny chip that handles everything about a USB client for pennies, while most Firewire implementations still take more than one chip, and those chips are comparitively larger and more expensive than USB implementations.

It is NOT some conspiracy on Apple's part, unless you think that providing smaller, lighter devices that run longer on their batteries is a conspiracy.

[hickey]

Originally Posted by ghporter

It is NOT some conspiracy on Apple's part, unless you think that providing smaller, lighter devices that run longer on their batteries is a conspiracy.

IT IS!

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yeah very lame. I wont buy another iPod till

1. They adopt Firewire again.
2. USB gets lots faster.

1. unlikely, unfortunately
2. USB is already much faster than the drive inside the iPod

Any speed differences between USB 2 and FireWire copying speeds on an iPod are strictly due to the driver implementations of the operating system, since USB 2 and FireWire both substantially exceed the maximum transfer rate of the drive. Macs tend to have better FireWire drivers, and PCs tend to have better USB 2 drivers (as far as raw throughput), but that could change.

USB 2 gained an "isochronous" transfer mode for continuous data streams just like FireWire always had. This isn't the reason for speed differences -- the only thing I know of that uses isochronous transfers is video. Communication with hard disks (including iPods) is still regular old asynchronous. The reason FireWire 400 is actually natively faster than USB 2 is that USB 2 has much higher overhead. The speeds listed (400Mbps for FW, 480Mbps for USB 2) are the raw data speeds. From that, overhead must be deducted, and it happens that FireWire has appreciably less overhead.

tooki

[dreamryche]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

dumb question:

is there a plug & play USB2 connector/adaptor that would plug into the Firewire port?

so i can use a faster port than my old USB1 on my old G4 with a new Nano?

1. No.
2. If the G4 in question is a Power Mac, you can add a USB2 card. If it's a PB, you can use a USB2 PC card.

[volcano]

Originally Posted by drainyoo

Yeah it does. I this the only option? How can this laptop not have USB 2? Was Apple sleeping again?

Would suck to have this ugly thing sticking out the site of my machine.

Ironically enough - Apple was quite reluctant to add USB 2.0 to all of their computers, because they were pushing the use of FireWire so much. The iMac G4 machines didn't see USB 2.0 integrated until September 2003, when the 1.0/1.25Ghz models were released. The iBook? It didn't see USB 2.0 until the G4 models were released in October 2003.

I've checked every site that I can think of (apple-history.com, lowendmac.com, everymac.com) and not a single one has information on whether or not your Rev. A 17" Powerbook has USB 2.0 or not. Judging by the speeds you are receiving, I'm going to guess that it's USB 1.1. The first website (apple-history.com) does state that the Rev. B 17" model does have USB 2.0, though. Is there any information in the System Profiler that might help?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dreamryche

In terms of maximum rated speed, that's true. (12Mbps/400/480/800) In practice, however, FW400 beats USB2 because USB gets most of its speed in bursts, whereas FW can maintain a higher sustained transfer rate.

With regards to the iPod, it's a wash. In my experience, USB2 and FW transfer rates have been almost indistinguishable.

Same here, but being firewire is faster over-all.

Which goes against bare-feats test. The Firewire wasn't THAT much faster, but still faster over-all. And I trust it more than the hack known as USB 2.0

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tooki

2. USB is already much faster than the drive inside the iPod

So is firewire, which is why I find it laughable that someone says USB is faster. What they mean is on the computer being tested, their USB 2.0 setup was better than their firewire one.

Any speed differences between USB 2 and FireWire copying speeds on an iPod are strictly due to the driver implementations of the operating system, since USB 2 and FireWire both substantially exceed the maximum transfer rate of the drive.

I agree. In my Mac, the Firewire port is faster. In Barefeats test, I am betting the USB port was faster.

Macs tend to have better FireWire drivers, and PCs tend to have better USB 2 drivers (as far as raw throughput), but that could change.

Indeed. Again, that explains how barefeats got different results than Mac users.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by volcano

I've checked every site that I can think of (apple-history.com, lowendmac.com, everymac.com) and not a single one has information on whether or not your Rev. A 17" Powerbook has USB 2.0 or not. Judging by the speeds you are receiving, I'm going to guess that it's USB 1.1. The first website (apple-history.com) does state that the Rev. B 17" model does have USB 2.0, though. Is there any information in the System Profiler that might help?

Those sites all don't mention USB 2 because the first 17" PB doesn't have USB 2. The Power Mac G5 was the first Mac with USB 2, and all new and updated models after that were given USB 2 as well.

In System Profiler, a USB 2 Mac will show a "USB High-Speed Bus" plus a bunch of "USB Bus" items. A USB 1.1 Mac will not have the high-speed one.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So is firewire, which is why I find it laughable that someone says USB is faster. What they mean is on the computer being tested, their USB 2.0 setup was better than their firewire one.

I agree. In my Mac, the Firewire port is faster. In Barefeats test, I am betting the USB port was faster.

Indeed. Again, that explains how barefeats got different results than Mac users.

Right. Um, yeah. That was the whole point of my post.

The fact is, though, that the Barefeats results are relevant, in that most iPod users are using them on Windows, and on Windows, you'll get better performance using USB 2, and the speed penalty on Macs for using USB 2 isn't a deal-breaker, IMHO.

tooki

[ghporter]

The different platforms implement both firewire and USB slightly differently. It looks like some sort of priority thing in traffic handling on both. Firewire seems slower on Windows than on a Mac, even when the Windows machine is much faster overall than the Mac (an AMD Athlon XP 2400+ with 1GB of RAM vs an 800MHz iBook G4 with 640MB of RAM -- SAME firewire device: a JVC digital video camera). On the other hand, (again using the same USB 2.0 hard drive) USB seemed about neck and neck on both systems.

You have to tell the chips what to do and when to do it, and that's something that's intimately tied into the OS...

[TheSpaz]

I have had no complaints with USB on my iPod. As far as I'm concerned... music and videos are copied over in a timely manner and I have over 6,000 songs and it did NOT take hours to copy my entire library. It took 10 minutes max... where are people getting that it takes hours? I also copied over a 500MB video and it only took a minute or 2... seriously guys... what is going on with your iPods?

[explosivpotato]

im with the spaz here, but i do wish that firewire was still supported mainly because im running out of usb ports. i only have 2 to deal with my mouse, ipod, and printer. Kinda gets annoying cuz im too cheap to buy a usb hub.

[drainyoo]

Originally Posted by TheSpaz

I have had no complaints with USB on my iPod. As far as I'm concerned... music and videos are copied over in a timely manner and I have over 6,000 songs and it did NOT take hours to copy my entire library. It took 10 minutes max... where are people getting that it takes hours? I also copied over a 500MB video and it only took a minute or 2... seriously guys... what is going on with your iPods?

Then you obviously have USB 2.0. I don't and it took a few hours for me to copy over 1000 songs.

[volcano]

Originally Posted by explosivpotato

im with the spaz here, but i do wish that firewire was still supported mainly because im running out of usb ports. i only have 2 to deal with my mouse, ipod, and printer. Kinda gets annoying cuz im too cheap to buy a usb hub.

Same here. I have 3 on my iMac G5, and it's pretty crowded with my Mighty Mouse, iPod, printer, and flash drive. l have to un-plug my USB cable whenever I need to update my flash drive... which is definitely annoying.

[iPod Master]

Check out this new charger that might help out. You can use both the firewall cables and the USB cables. Since some iPods use Firewall and some use USB, you won't have to waste money trying to buy both and if you have two iPods (one that uses firewall and one that uses USB, you can charge both at the same time. I think it is a sweet deal. It is really portable too, plus it is a good price. Check it out at: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...uct_id=4662217.

The iPod Master

[sledsbehave]

just buy a firewire cable for the powerbook, easy enough

i personally like firewire transfer, because my usb ports are taken up by my printer and keyboard already...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by iPod Master

Check out this new charger that might help out. You can use both the firewall cables and the USB cables. Since some iPods use Firewall and some use USB, you won't have to waste money trying to buy both and if you have two iPods (one that uses firewall and one that uses USB, you can charge both at the same time. I think it is a sweet deal. It is really portable too, plus it is a good price. Check it out at: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...uct_id=4662217.

The iPod Master

Relevant only insofar as it's cheaper than the Apple power supply.

Apart from that

a) all new iPods WILL charge via Firewire (you just can't transfer data via Firewire).

b) all old iPods that might not charge via USB still came with a power adapter.

c) um...it's "Firewire", not "Firewall".

[analogika]

Originally Posted by sledsbehave

just buy a firewire cable for the powerbook, easy enough

i personally like firewire transfer, because my usb ports are taken up by my printer and keyboard already...

Which thread are you replying to?

Because you certainly haven't been reading this one...

THE NEW IPODS DO NOT HAVE FIREWIRE.
THEY DO NOT SPEAK FIREWIRE.
THEY DO NOT TRANSFER DATA VIA FIREWIRE.
They will only charge the battery via Firewire.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by drainyoo

Then you obviously have USB 2.0. I don't and it took a few hours for me to copy over 1000 songs.

Note that USB2 is one of the system requirements, as per the box.

Yeah, they will work with USB1.1 (as you obviously found out), but happy they will make you not.

[ricarin]

According to MacTracker:

PB 17" (1GHz): USB: 2 - 12MBit/s

PB 17" (1.33GHz): USB: 2 - 400MBit/s

None of my Macs have USB 2.0, but I love my iPod Video, and just live with the slow transfer. The rest of my household members can gloat over using FW, with their iPod Minis, and Shuffles, and older iPods. Once all the songs were loaded, the updates are not too bad. Loading full length videos takes a while, but I have time in my day when I can plug my iPod in, and go do something else.

Regards!

[24klogos]

usb is universal, firewire is not. usb though sometimes slower, adopts a greater marketshare and more devices, which equals more profit and will drop the other format. Firewire is meant to dissapear unless they adopt a much faster bus, i mean, significantly faster so usb3 wont even match it.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by 24klogos

usb is universal, firewire is not. usb though sometimes slower, adopts a greater marketshare and more devices, which equals more profit and will drop the other format. Firewire is meant to dissapear unless they adopt a much faster bus, i mean, significantly faster so usb3 wont even match it.

That is true. But nobody outside of Mac users use FireWire so it is really just to cut down on costs.

[ghporter]

Er hem. I use firewire for a number of things on both my Windows desktop and my Windows laptop. And I used it BEFORE I became a Mac user. "Nobody" is a pretty large group, you know.

It's just that firewire morphed into a niche medium outside the Mac world; it's the medium of choice for digital video, though there are some interesting non-Mac external drive solutions around.

[explosivpotato]

firewire is definately used in the windoze world. its just called IEEE1394, but its the same thing.

[24klogos]

Originally Posted by explosivpotato

firewire is definately used in the windoze world. its just called IEEE1394, but its the same thing.

it can be called iLink too by some devices, regardless of the name is not a universal bus by name or deffect. out of 10 devices, 6 are usb, 3 firewire and 1 supports both.

[production_coordinator]

Because USB is more popular.

END OF STORY

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by explosivpotato

firewire is definately used in the windoze world. its just called IEEE1394, but its the same thing.

Used... yes... more popular than USB, NO.

Everyone has USB... and it's nearly impossible to sell an iPod if you also must sell a firewire card (I know... I once sold computers).

[mad cow disease]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yeah very lame. I wont buy another iPod till

1. They adopt Firewire again.
2. USB gets lots faster.

Then you may just wait for a long, long time. And USB2's 480 mbit isn't fast enough for you?

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by mad cow disease

Then you may just wait for a long, long time. And USB2's 480 mbit isn't fast enough for you?

And my "a long, long time" I think you mean forever.

Sure, Firewire is faster than USB2 in sustainable throughput, but that doesn't magically make firewire more popular. It's a music player... for mass audiences... if they didn't go firewire, I don't think they would be #1 IMHO.