What is Digg?183 Comments
- Whosawhatsis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I prefer firewire too, it's clearly superior both for file transfer and charging, but the "My desktop doesn't have USB 2.0" argument seems kinda lame. If your computer is old enough not to have USB 2.0 and you are worried that it won't work with your shiny new 5th gen iPod with video capability, perhaps you need to reconsider your priorities.
- dna42fan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"...go do something else? 9 times out of 10 i'm loading my iPod on the way out the door..."
Than Push "update iPod" just a little sooner than you normally do. - Seaton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The bottom line is money. Users whine about Apple deleting Firewire compatibility from the iPod but the same users also want Apple to be successful as a business.
When 98% of iPod owners use USB 2.0 to transfer files, why should Apple spend the extra money to support the remaining 2% who want to use Firewire. I have a PC with both USB 2.0 and Firewire ports and I only use the supplied USB 2.0 cable. The Firewire cable required me to plug one cable into my computer and the other cable into the wall charger. It just wasn't worth the extra effort. One cable, one plug, done.
Not supporting Firewire was purely a financial decision, it's nothing personal. - Billdozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Does Intel have anything against Firewire?"
I doubt Intel has anything to do with it. Dell ships their XPS systems with FireWire built in, but myabe I'm just talking outta my ass. - Snyder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Also whatever happen to Firewire 2.0? That promise speeds that are twice as fast as usb 2.0."
You mean Firewire800? The one that has been in Powerbooks and PowerPC's for a long long while. Twice the speed of standard Firewire400. - bedouin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Big deal. The bulk of what's on my iPod was transfered to it the first time I plugged it in. All updates after that are minor, and USB 2.0 would be more than adequate. You can't wait an extra 10 seconds to move a handful of 4mb MP3s to your iPod?
When iPods were first released USB 1.1 was the standard, and totally inadequate for transferring large amounts of data. USB 2.0 has come and the gap isn't as wide, not to mention most iPod users are running Windows. Firewire isn't going anywhere as long one of Apple's main markets is film, where firewire is the *only* option.
And I'm saying this as a Mac user with three machines stuck at USB 1.1, too. - seven5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2go do something else? 9 times out of 10 i'm loading my iPod on the way out the door. Good thing i just picked up a photo in the spring and have my firewire speed.
- tastypastry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Quit whining Apple fanboys, just buy a damn USB 2.0 pci card. Only 5 bucks on NewEgg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16815201206 - Flyinace2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Playing a DV video is a little more power needy than playing h.264 320x240
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Firewire is better than USB because:
-It actually performs at it's rated speed, whereas USB2 generally does not.
-USB2 has all sorts of compatibility issues, and has a nasty tendancy to fall back to USB1.1 speeds when the drivers get flaky. Firewire doesn't have a lower speed.
-Firewire charges an iPod *much* faster because it can pump out 12VDC at 1A, while USB2 maxes out with 5VDC at 500mA.
-USB2's charging capability requires the device to talk to the computer and convince the computer to output more power to that port. This is part of the way USB works, a device much request the higher power output. With firewire, the thing is always putting out 12VDC at 1A, so even if communication fails due to driver issues, the thing will still charge, and charge fast.
-Firewire is a peer to peer type of connection. You can connect a couple computers with firewire together directly and have a "network" going on between them to transfer files and such. USB is a master/slave type of connection, it completely lacks a computer to computer connection capability.
And so on.. USB sucks, Firewire doesn't. Simple as that, really.
And firewire is built onto nearly all good PC mobo's these days, just like USB2. The firewire, however, usually works, whereas the USB usually works in USB 1.1 mode. - Friedle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I suppose Apple should apologize to you since you can't keep your tech current?
- vinko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What is everyone's problem.
Firewire (aka i-Link, aka IEEE-1394) are industry standards and will be with the Mac as far as I can see and even other Wintel machines, whose manufacture are willing to included it like Apple has for many years.
The need for Firewire on the iPod is not critical as another reader had point out.
We are not talking about large quantity of data. The videos we are transferring are small these are not the motion picture DVDs. At least not at the moment.
USB 2.0 is not slower than Firewire 400.
By removing the support of Firewire Apple is able to maintain the price point and bring its consumers more features and better design.
The same goes for removing the AC Adapter.
These USB2.0 iPod are backward compatible with USB 1.1 ports on computers (whether it is the pre 1999 Macs or the old Wintel computers).
The concerns are not just and I don't really see an issue here. If you disagree please help me understand. - DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Just buy a PC man. They are cheaper than Macs and you get more speed. I like what you said about OS X runs faster on a PC anyway though. People are now going to start arguing with me on the Mac vs. PC on speed issue."
That's like saying to buy a Corvette because it's faster than a Mercedes. - geekologist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just know from my personal experiance that it takes me alot less time to transfer my music with USB 2.0 than with Firewire. It might just be me, but it matches what the specs say.
- diggity_dank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To all those who say "stop complaining get a USB 2 car, it supports USB1, etc..." :
Here's my situation: I have an ibook with Firewire and USB 1. So what do I do? USB 1 is too slow to be practical. If I get the new ipod I can't afford a new Mac and vice versa.
So what does someone in my position do smart guys? The answer is to not buy a new iPod which I was all but ready to do (I'm still using my trusty gen 1!). Therefore Apple has lost a sale. Therefore this is a bad decision on Apple's part. Therefore the whole point of this digg. Grow up and think about what you are saying before you post. - wolfpupmaui, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well...on the Firewire Vs. USB 2 debates....
USB
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,943246,00.asp
Firewire
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,943245,00.asp
For those of you that dont wanna read it...
"Don't feel sorry for FireWire. It may be rated 80 Mbps slower than USB 2.0 and built into far fewer PCs and peripherals, but it outperforms USB 2.0 slightly in many instances, especially with streaming audio and video. It's available in far more consumer electronics devices, too. And it can work without a PC." - DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll have speed test results for those of you who are interested in real world data tranfer rates as soon as my iPod gets done with this ***** horrible USB 1.0 transfer.
So far here are the results:
618 MB file transfer:
USB 2.0 1 minute on the dot.
Firewire 1 minute, 1 second.
USB 1.0 still chuggin', I'll let you know the results when it is done. - tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"how much faster is firewire than usb2.0"
Firewire- 400mbps
USB2 - 480mbps - kingofallchili, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1New iPods still use the Dock Connector. So Firewire will still work. They're just not supplying the cable. I use USB 2.0 and Firewire interchangeably on both Mac and PC with iPods - no problems!
- Flyinace2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I transfered a 1.19 gig file first via FW then USB2.0
FW400: 32 seconds
USB2.0: 68 seconds
Test equipment:
PC: P4 2.0 Ghz, USB2.0 (on MoBo), FW400 (on Audigy card), 1gig ram, windows XP
ext. hd: USB2.0/FW400 enclosure with a WD200gig 7200rpm/8mb drive. less than 50% used. NTFS formatted.
Enough said. My 4G b/w can last me till 6G comes out...by then they will have virtual reality built in to the iPod...or at least FM radio. - stereo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Same here geekologist. I just compared the two, and USB 2.0 transfered the songs faster than Firewire.
- geekologist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I transfered 10GBs of music to my 20GB 4th Gen iPod on both Firewire ams USB 2.0 and compared them. USB 2.0 is substantually faster. Stereo had the same experience.
- DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Quit whining Apple fanboys, just buy a damn USB 2.0 pci card. Only 5 bucks on NewEgg."
Won't work with any machine that doesn't have PCI slots douchebag, and that is a lot of machines. All iMac's, all iBooks (newer ones do have USB 2.0) etc, etc. Like I said in the earlier post, using an old machine as a media center is a great way to put an old machine to good use, and this causes a major problem for people who do so and don't have any way to get USB 2.0. - Thebigman1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Only thing with firewire as it has fried 5 G4s and G5s in our workplace.
- matperk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oh yeah...another reason that usb is slower is because each port is not it's own bus. each port usually shares data streams with at least 2 ports, sometimes 4.
- colddog15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0my my -- since firewire is a apple branding name I wonder what went into the debate behind closed doors. In the real world I don't think it will make a very large difference.
- matperk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol dude. I'm just saying you're wrong. don't get so pissed. :-D.
- seven5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Quit whining Apple fanboys, just buy a damn USB 2.0 pci card. Only 5 bucks on NewEgg."
ugh, listen up folks, the point is that usb is helaciously SLOWER and doesnt' provide the power that Firewire does... This equates to:
1. slower syncing and transferring. And i'm talking about 1/2 the speed, thats a lot when you're transferring 2 gig video files to your iPod for work.
2. slower recharge time.
get it yet? Hello.. knock knock knock.. do you get it? - DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Geekologist,
Well, I am not gonna argue about speed except when it comes to Altivec enabled apps, I seriously doubt that any PC running OSX86 will be able to stack up to a G5 when running Final Cut Pro for instance, which is why I bought the machine in the first place. Not that we have any way to test this yet, but as soon as the Intel machines come out, then I will be paying close attention and probably picking up the last in the line of the G5's so I can keep my productivity up. - seven5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"When come to computing, speed and performance is what matters most, not that mu computer is sleek and shiny."
Its hard to go fast when your corvette is in the shop all the time. - geekologist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you don't like it then don't buy a friggen iPod and stop complaining! USB 2.0 is faster and that's that. Live with it!
- scbysnx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am really excited to see the benchmarks between current g5's and intel processors. I will be waiting till then atleast to buy an apple..
- geekologist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I say to Apple and the music industry SCREW YOU AND YOUR DRM." I'm with you brother. All of those people in the music industry are a bunch of asses that sit on the couch and dring beer saying: "Let's make Apple charge more for our music. If they don't we can not license our music to them."
- geekologist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"That's like saying to buy a Corvette because it's faster than a Mercedes." When come to computing, speed and performance is what matters most, not that mu computer is sleek and shiny. Yah Macs look awsome, but what they about Power PC chips being double the speed of a Pentium is just bull.
- DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd like to see if Altivec enabled apps run faster on a PC that cost the same to build as a Mac. I find it pretty unlikely.
- Phaedrus73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I suppose this really is the death knell of Firewire. I've always liked the fact that Apple's support has kept it alive. It's just so much faster that USB in Practice rather than theory. Since it never really took off on a PC, and Apple is going x86 it seems their support of the standard is pretty much done.
- LDawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0my usb2 transfers significantly faster than the firewire on my 4th gen ipod...
- geekologist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anyway, I gotta get to bed. It's like Midnight here and I got school tomorrow. I will check back here tomorrow to read the new posts. Check out my blog for my take on copy-protection. geekologist.blogspot.com
- MrCoke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0USB always ***** up my transferes and filesystem on my ipod, i always use firewire, it's about the same speed, i find it faster on firewire.
- DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mark_1581,
You are a douchebag, as are all Windoze fanbots who try to diss us Mac users, if you like Windoze fine, lots of people like Ford's too, I myself like Toyota's. I started out a Windoze user, as did many of us Mac users, and I ran both machines for a while, then since I have a life, I realize that keeping a Windoze machine around just to play games was a waste of my time. So it is gathering dust and hasn't been booted up in 3 years... I also have an old MP3 player, gathering dust, I prefer my iPod... - geekologist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Its hard to go fast when your corvette is in the shop all the time." I know Windows sucks, but if your like me and know alot about security and maintnence it is fine. I would like a Intel Powerbook as my next laptop though.
- DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I am really excited to see the benchmarks between current g5's and intel processors. I will be waiting till then atleast to buy an apple.."
I totally agree, I have a feeling I will be buying a G5 (or G6 if they make it that far) before they get rid of the last of them. - sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bastards! you know, the reason they did this was probably because of the amount of ppl who were using it to boot up pirate copies of Tiger from the ipod (those who didn't have access to a DVD burner)...
Otherwise it was probably to simplify things for windows users... don't want to overload their tiny brains... - DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I suppose this really is the death knell of Firewire. I've always liked the fact that Apple's support has kept it alive. It's just so much faster that USB in Practice rather than theory. Since it never really took off on a PC, and Apple is going x86 it seems their support of the standard is pretty much done."
Um, as long as people want to edit digital video, Firewire will be around, I would say that is going to be a very long time, at the very least they will have Firewire 800 in all the new machines and throw in adapters for Firewire 400. So in a nutshell, I think you are way off on that prediction. - exxon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0no firewire no go untill fixed
- Logal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0just because they are not promoting firewire any longer doesn't mean they don't still support it. Check it out. enough said.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71802/wo/pt6X0fKgLC7M3Hc1Ngi1eNxJ1z0/1.SLID?mco=49C83230&nplm=M9127G%2FA - DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"my usb2 transfers significantly faster than the firewire on my 4th gen ipod..."
How large were the files you were transferring, I am in the middle of a test and I used a 618 MB file, it took 1 minute for USB 2.0 and 1.1 minute for Firewire...
Results on USB 1.0 to follow in a bit, it is still chuggin' along. The machine estimated 17 minutes, which judging by how it is going was about right. FUUUUUUCCCCK... No video iPod for me I guess, Apple ***** up big this time... - DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0FILE TRANSFER TEST UPDATE:
Ok, it's done, it took almost exactly 17 minutes to transfer the 618 MB file using USB 1.0, now taking the fact that only my laptop has USB 2.0, that means there will absolutely be NO SALE on the 5G iPod for me, at least not until I have the bread for a new G5 or Intel based Mac, and even then, my dual 1.25 gHz MDD mac will likely be my media center until (crossing fingers) Apple comes out with a dedicated media center... - LDawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0DrMerle:
I transfered 123 mp3 files at 1,099mb. According to Anapod:
Transfer throughput:
- USB2.0 started at 70Mbit/s, was accelerating past 90Mbps toward the end of the transfer
- Firewire held at 50-52Mbit/s for entire transfer
Why all the complaining? - matperk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0well, if you just compared them, you probably didn't do much data. As I said before, usb is good for short burst transfers. so it will win for small sets of file transfers.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 182 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is