 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Hardware / May 20075th Gen iPod Question
Hello, Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via firewire like the older 4th gen ? It seems like only usb will work. You can use the firewire to charge the ipod tho. thanks, peace > Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via > firewire like the older 4th gen ? <Horshack> oooh. oooh! I know, Mr. Kotter. </Horshack> No, it can't.  SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > oooh. oooh! I know, Mr. Kotter. Welcome back, Arnold. Signature<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts <http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers <http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift > <Horshack> > oooh. oooh! I know, Mr. Kotter. > </Horshack> Hehehehehe! <g> I then wonder how many readers are saying, "Huh?". ...late comers that they were. Signature:) JR >> <Horshack> >> oooh. oooh! I know, Mr. Kotter. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ...late comers that they were. Back in "the day" I had a huge afro (I'm Italian, so it was natural) and I was frequently addressed as "Mista Kot-TAIR". <sigh> SignatureJoey DoWop Dee Remember: It is To Laugh > Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via > firewire like the older 4th gen ? It seems like only usb will work. You > can use the firewire to charge the ipod tho. 5th Gen can charge with Firewire but cannot sync with Firewire. Can only sync with USB. SignatureAdrian 9600: > > Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via > > firewire like the older 4th gen ? It seems like only usb will work. You > > can use the firewire to charge the ipod tho. Adrian: > 5th Gen can charge with Firewire but cannot sync with Firewire. Can only > sync with USB. Another example of Mac users being held back by the PeeCee. We could have FW 800 on our iPods if Apple didn't have to cater to the PeeCee lemmings. Davoud Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com > 9600: > > > Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have FW 800 on our iPods if Apple didn't have to cater to the PeeCee > lemmings. I think it is more a case of cost, space and power saving. USB support in embedded chipsets is widely available, so it could be built directly into the CPU in the iPod. Firewire support requires additional hardware (an extra chip, or a custom chip which supports both USB and Firewire), as well as the additional software required to implement the protocols, which may require a larger flash memory for holding the iPod firmware. Combine that with USB2 support being availble on all Macs since around early 2004, and the need to save money, space and power outweighs the benefit of supporting old Macs. It also provides a slight incentive to older Mac users to upgrade to a newer model with USB2 if they want to buy a new iPod. As to Firewire 800: that would be even more expensive, and completely pointless. The hard drive in an iPod (or the flash memory in smaller models) is not able to transfer fast enough to saturate Firewire 400, so Firewire 800 would be a waste of money. In fact, this might also be another explanation as to why Firewire 400 was dropped - if USB2 is fast enough (in the real world) then Firewire 400's extra speed isn't going to gain anything. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > > Adrian: > > > 5th Gen can charge with Firewire but cannot sync with Firewire. Can only > > > sync with USB. Davoud: > > Another example of Mac users being held back by the PeeCee. We could > > have FW 800 on our iPods if Apple didn't have to cater to the PeeCee > > lemmings. David Empson: > I think it is more a case of cost, space and power saving. USB support > in embedded chipsets is widely available, so it could be built directly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > early 2004, and the need to save money, space and power outweighs the > benefit of supporting old Macs. ?? You /are/ aware that the first iPods had FireWire, right? And you /are/ aware that the latest Macs have FireWire 400 and FireWire 800, right? And you /are/ aware that FireWire disappeared when Apple opened the iPod to Windows, right? It is because Apple has to cater to Windows crippleware that we don't have FW 800 on iPods. Davoud Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com > David Empson: > > I think it is more a case of cost, space and power saving. USB support [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the iPod to Windows, right? It is because Apple has to cater to Windows > crippleware that we don't have FW 800 on iPods. fw800 on an ipod is silly since the hard drive or flash in the ipod can't even saturate a usb2 or fw400 connection. plus, there is a fw800 docking cable, so 3rd/4th gen ipods and ipod minis actually *do* support fw800. 1st and 2nd gen ipods can simply use a 9-6 pin cable. <http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/dock800/> as for dropping firewire, portalplayer's chipset in early ipods supported firewire and later ones did not. for apple to support firewire using the later chipsets, apple would have to add back the missing firewire hardware that they got for free in earlier models. since every computer in the last 4 years or so, mac or pc, has usb2, there isn't a compelling reason to bother. further, usb2 can be added to most of the computers that don't already have it. the only macs which can't add usb2 are older imacs, ibooks and powerbook g4 12" (which is basically an aluminum ibook). apple *had* to support firewire in early ipods because usb1 was way too slow. > ?? You /are/ aware that the first iPods had FireWire, right? And you > /are/ aware that the latest Macs have FireWire 400 and FireWire 800, > right? And you /are/ aware that FireWire disappeared when Apple opened > the iPod to Windows, right? It is because Apple has to cater to Windows > crippleware that we don't have FW 800 on iPods. Ehhh - that's a stretch. I think it's more that USB is simply the common denominator. Tons of PC manufacturers include USB ports on their products - not so many Firewire. It only makes sense that Apple would want to use whatever is most common to both supported platforms. SignatureJR > > > Adrian: > > > > 5th Gen can charge with Firewire but cannot sync with Firewire. Can only [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > ?? You /are/ aware that the first iPods had FireWire, right? Yes. I have an iPod Photo (which has both Firewire and USB2), and an older Mac (without USB2), so I use Firewire with my iPod except on rare occasions. I don't see what this has to do with Apple's decision to remove Firewire support from recent iPod models. The point is that all _current_ computers that support the iPod have USB2, so the Firewire support in the iPod just adds more cost to it for little benefit _except_ for people with older Mac models. > And you /are/ aware that the latest Macs have FireWire 400 and FireWire > 800, right? FW800 is only on high end Mac models, but again, what is your point? > And you /are/ aware that FireWire disappeared when Apple > opened the iPod to Windows, right? No it didn't. It lasted a few generations after they added Windows support: my iPod came with both Mac and Windows documentation and software, and has both Firewire and USB2. Judging from MacTracker, Windows support was introduced along with the USB+Firewire support in the iPod with Dock Connector. This pattern continued with the iPod Mini, iPod Click Wheel, iPod Photo, iPod Mini (2nd generation) and iPod with Colour Display. In total, that is April 2003 through October 2005. It is only the iPod Shuffle, Nano and 5th Generation which dropped Firewire support. > It is because Apple has to cater to Windows crippleware that we don't have > FW 800 on iPods. It is because FW800 would be a complete waste of money on an iPod which would achieve nothing over FW400. The inclusion of FW400 was a cost vs benefit issue, and Apple decided it was easier to drop it than continue to include it. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > Combine that with USB2 support being availble on all Macs since > around early 2004, and the need to save money, space and power > outweighs the benefit of supporting old Macs. Huh? Every Mac since the late model G3 iMacs have had firewire, and many have firewire 800. The first few generations of iPod had only firewire, and no USB support at all. Apple started putting USB on the iPods when they chose to support their use with Windows. Apple invented firewire, so I'm sure that it wouldn't cost them all that much more to include it--sure, it would cost them more, but not that much more. Personally, I'm satisfied with the speed of USB2 for my iPod, so I don't care that they no longer have firewire on it. But please lets keep our facts straight. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > Combine that with USB2 support being availble on all Macs since > > around early 2004, and the need to save money, space and power > > outweighs the benefit of supporting old Macs. > > Huh? Every Mac since the late model G3 iMacs have had firewire, and > many have firewire 800. Yes, and the recent ones also have USB2. With a slow hard drive, Firewire on an iPod doesn't gain anything major over USB2, as long as the computer supports USB2. Firewire on an iPod is only a major benefit to people who have older Macs that only have USB1 (such as myself). > The first few generations of iPod had only firewire, and no USB support at > all. Apple started putting USB on the iPods when they chose to support [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > much more to include it--sure, it would cost them more, but not that > much more. Chips cost money and take extra space. How many new iPods are likely to be used on old Macs which doen't have USB2, as a percentage of the market share of all iPods? Just pulling numbers out of thin air, say that Apple sells 10 million iPods per year, and that retaining Firewire support in each iPod might cost them $1, but only 1% of those iPods are being sold for use with old Macs. That is almost $10M wasted expenditure, which is considerably more than the total profit from iPod sales to that small market of old Macs. I have no idea whether these numbers are even vaguely accurate, but I'm sure Apple did market research and came to the same basic conclusion. This doesn't even factor in the increase in space from having to add another chip to the iPod. > Personally, I'm satisfied with the speed of USB2 for my iPod, so I don't > care that they no longer have firewire on it. But please lets keep our > facts straight. I don't see any factual error in the paragaph of mine you quoted above. The only reason to continue supplying iPods with Firewire (to date) is to make them more usable on old Macs (for speed reasons). There is no speed benefit to having Firewire on current generation iPods, as long as the owner has a recent Mac model. That might change in future - if flash memory speeds keep increasing, we may find that USB2's sustained data rate is actually a bottleneck when trying to access an iPod. In that case, it might make sense to reintroduce FW400 on an iPod (and possibly even FW800 if they get fast enough). SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > > > Combine that with USB2 support being availble on all Macs since > > > around early 2004, and the need to save money, space and power [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > With a slow hard drive, Firewire on an iPod doesn't gain anything > major over USB2, as long as the computer supports USB2. I didn't deny that; I was simply correcting the implication that only old Macs have firewire. > Firewire on an iPod is only a major benefit to people who have older > Macs that only have USB1 (such as myself). And to people who have all their USB ports filled, but have an otherwise unused firewire port. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > With a slow hard drive, Firewire on an iPod doesn't gain anything major > over USB2, as long as the computer supports USB2. I'm sorry to tell you that uploads to my early generation 30GB iPod via FireWire are /much/ faster on my Macs than uploads to a 4th(?) generation 60GB iPod with video via USB2. This is true every time on every USB2 Mac I have -- two Dual G5's, a PowerBook G4, a Core 2 Duo 24" iMac, and a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro. It is impossible to not notice the speed difference because I upload all of my new iTunes audio files to both iPods in tandem: CD to iPod 1 via FW, CD to iPod 2 via USB2. FW wins every time. Davoud Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com > > With a slow hard drive, Firewire on an iPod doesn't gain anything major > > over USB2, as long as the computer supports USB2. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > every USB2 Mac I have -- two Dual G5's, a PowerBook G4, a Core 2 Duo > 24" iMac, and a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro. That is a legitimate cause for complaint, but Apple obviously decided that the loss in performance wasn't enough to justify the cost of ongoing support for Firewire. In my experiments with a full size hard drive, Firewire 400 is able to achieve at least 40 MB per second while USB 2 tends to be limited to around 17 MB per second (somewhat variable depending on the model). I haven't done a speed test on my iPod recently, but I've almost always used it with Firewire, and my recollection is that the transfer speed wasn't much better than 16 MB per second, so I wouldn't expect to see any difference (unless your USB bus has other devices, resulting in less bandwidth available for the iPod). My laptop's internal drive is slow enough that I might not notice very much difference between Firewire and USB 2 (I have a PC Card adapter for USB 2). Bugger - my iPod's hard drive might have just bit the bucket. It is making unhappy noises: repeated recalibration, causing iTunes (or anything else which attempts to access it) to hang when it is plugged in. Restting it didn't help. It still seems to work standalone, but it might just be a matter of time before it fails completely. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > > > With a slow hard drive, Firewire on an iPod doesn't gain anything major > > > over USB2, as long as the computer supports USB2. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > in. Restting it didn't help. It still seems to work standalone, but it > might just be a matter of time before it fails completely. Update: my iPod is working again. It turns out that the battery was so flat that the hard drive wasn't working reliably. I was able to fix it by connecting it to my AC adapter. Connecting it to the computer didn't work with the computer awake, as it was trying to access the iPod's drive, which was probably draining power as fast as it could charge the battery. This produced a noise which sounded just like a hard drive having constant read errors and retrying. I also had a "sad iPod" icon, which led me to suspect a dead hard drive. Seems to fine again now. That's a relief - I don't want to buy another iPod before the next generation gets released, and I've upgraded my laptop. Anyway, I've now done some speed tests: my iPod (40 GB iPod Photo) gets almost exactly the same disk performance with USB 2.0 or Firewire on my PowerBook G4 (using a PC Card to get USB 2.0): transfer rate is about 8 MB per second for writing over either interface. I can get better performance copying to my 250 GB Firewire hard drive, so my laptop's hard drive isn't the limiting factor. This means that for my iPod, its hard drive is slow enough that there is a negligible if any speed benefit to using Firewire rather than USB 2. I haven't tested iTunes performance sending music to the iPod over Firewire vs USB 2.0 as I don't particularly want to wipe everything on the iPod and reload it again. This might reveal a greater performance difference due to protocol overhead or latency issues. For a later model iPod, or one with a larger hard drive, the drive in the iPod may be faster and this speed increase may be sufficient to saturate the usable bandwidth of USB 2, in which case Firewire would be of benefit. USB 2 may also suffer from conflicts with other peripherals sharing the bus, which will reduce the available bus bandwidth for the iPod. I have nothing else connected to the same USB 2 bus. As for Davoud's comparison between a 30G iPod via Firewire and a 60G iPod via USB2 (which must be 5th generation if it does video): that isn't a conclusive test. Perhaps the 60G iPod's hard drive runs at a slower speed (to save battery power), so you can't necessarily blame USB 2 for the slower performance. To do a fair comparison, you would have to do a speed test between Firewire and USB 2 on the same iPod (the 30G one). This would prove whether USB 2 is slower than Firewire for that iPod. I suspect USB 2 will be exactly the same speed as Firewire (or very close) on your 30G iPod. (If it is the first generation with dock connector, it is possible that the USB 2 implementation on that model is worse than on later models, as it was the first one which supported USB.) As a matter of interest, what raw disk performance do you get with each iPod (via each supported interface)? A simple test is to wait for iTunes to finish updating the iPod, then copy a reasonably large file to it in Finder, e.g. something in the order of 100 MB should be big enough to get a reasonable estimate of the transfer rate in MB/sec using a stopwatch. Repeat the test a couple of times to ensure you are getting consistent results. If you are doing this with an older laptop model, make sure you aren't getting misleading results due to the limited speed of the laptop hard drive. This test won't necessarily give accurate results, as the performance of the iPod's hard drive may vary depending on how full it is, due to higher transfer rates near the outer edge of the disk than in the centre (i.e. it may be faster when the iPod is nearly empty than when it is nearly full). SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz David Empson: > > > With a slow hard drive, Firewire on an iPod doesn't gain anything major > > > over USB2, as long as the computer supports USB2. Davoud: > > I'm sorry to tell you that uploads to my early generation 30GB iPod via > > FireWire are /much/ faster on my Macs than uploads to a 4th(?) > > generation 60GB iPod with video via USB2. This is true every time on > > every USB2 Mac I have -- two Dual G5's, a PowerBook G4, a Core 2 Duo > > 24" iMac, and a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro. David Empson: > That is a legitimate cause for complaint, but Apple obviously decided > that the loss in performance wasn't enough to justify the cost of > ongoing support for Firewire. I don't characterize my observation as a complaint; more of a mild lament. I simply don't agree that Apple dropped FireWire to save costs. I am absolutely certain that they dropped FireWire because FireWire has so little support in the Windoze world, and Apple /had/ to sell iPods to Windoze users to get the iPod where it is today in market domination. I don't fault Apple for this. FireWire is just one more great feature that (most) people who are stuck in the Windoze-only world are missing. Davoud Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com > I don't characterize my observation as a complaint; more of a mild > lament. I simply don't agree that Apple dropped FireWire to save > costs. I am absolutely certain that they dropped FireWire because > FireWire has so little support in the Windoze world, and Apple /had/ > to sell iPods to Windoze users to get the iPod where it is today in > market domination. Yeah, but some models had both Firewire and USB, so that's not the reason they dropped Firewire. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> I don't characterize my observation as a complaint; more of a mild >> lament. I simply don't agree that Apple dropped FireWire to save [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yeah, but some models had both Firewire and USB, so that's not the > reason they dropped Firewire. Would it not be cheaper to go with USB, it being the common denominator? Seems to me it was both a choice of the common denominator *and* cost. SignatureJR Davoud: > >> I don't characterize my observation as a complaint; more of a mild > >> lament. I simply don't agree that Apple dropped FireWire to save > >> costs. I am absolutely certain that they dropped FireWire because > >> FireWire has so little support in the Windoze world, and Apple /had/ > >> to sell iPods to Windoze users to get the iPod where it is today in > >> market domination. Jolly Roger: > Would it not be cheaper to go with USB, it being the common > denominator? We're going in circles. It made no difference what was cheaper. If USB cost $800 more than FireWire, iPods would cost $800 more. Apple /had/ to make the iPod available for Windows, which meant that it /had/ to go to USB. A slight cripple for Mac users -- loss of FireWire -- wasn't going to kill the iPod, since Macs have USB2. But it is still a step down. If Apple had been able to serve Windows /and/ the Mac OS with FW the iPod would have FW instead of USB. In other words, Apple dropped FW because FW has so little support in the Windoze world. > Seems to me it was both a choice of the common denominator *and* cost. Thee is a saying among communicators: You send (morse code) for the slowest man on the net. Davoud Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com > I'm sorry to tell you that uploads to my early generation 30GB iPod via > FireWire are /much/ faster on my Macs than uploads to a 4th(?) > generation 60GB iPod with video via USB2. If it has video it's a 5th genertion iPod. SignatureAdrian > 9600: > > > Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have FW 800 on our iPods if Apple didn't have to cater to the PeeCee > lemmings. I doubt it. Peecee or not, FW800 costs a lot more and it takes a bigger power hit then USB 2. > Hello, > Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via > firewire like the older 4th gen ? It seems like only usb will work. You > can use the firewire to charge the ipod tho. You can charge a 5th gen ipod video via firewire, but that's it. You need USB 2 to do anything further with the newer ipods. This should all be spelled out on Apple's web site. > Hello, > Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thanks, > peace Can it be charged in Europe with out a voltage converter like a powerbook? I know you need to have a plug adapter. > > Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via > > firewire like the older 4th gen ? It seems like only usb will work. You > > can use the firewire to charge the ipod tho. Nope. Mine charges and sync via USB only. > Can it be charged in Europe with out a voltage converter like a > powerbook? I know you need to have a plug adapter. If you have a charger, yes. These kind of chargers are 110 - 250 V nowadays. But the iPod doesn't come with a charger at all, so you'd have to buy one separately. SignatureJohan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com > > > Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via > > > firewire like the older 4th gen ? It seems like only usb will work. You > > > can use the firewire to charge the ipod tho. > > Nope. Mine charges and sync via USB only. 5th gen ipods and ipod nanos will charge via usb or firewire. they'll sync only via usb. <http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html> > > > > > Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > <http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html> OK, but then you'd have to buy that separatly too. It doesn't come with anything but a USB connection cable. SignatureJohan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com Thanks for the info folks. We can close this thread now. peace > > > > > > > Does anybody know if a 5th gen ipod video can sync to itunes via [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > OK, but then you'd have to buy that separatly too. It doesn't come with > anything but a USB connection cable. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.