I agree that FW 800 on iPods would be complete overkill, but with the new dock and dock connector adding FW800 would be as easy as releaseing a new cable and a slightly updated iTunes.
well, it took me forever to copy 14 GBs of music on to my iPod, and i just wish it would be faster
First off 14GBs of music is a serious amount and you won't be doing that often. The first time is always the slower time.
Secondly, as a couple others mentioned, the iPod doesn't even eat up a huge amount of FW400s bandwidth. The bottleneck is the harddrives. They aren't insanely fast drives. When you copied that 14GBs worth of data, that is the fastest it would ever get with THAT drive. In awhile, when tiny drives get faster than you will see faster syncing, even with that we would still have a lot of room for growth without even going to FW800 because we haven't even fully utilized FW400.
I agree that FW 800 on iPods would be complete overkill, but with the new dock and dock connector adding FW800 would be as easy as releaseing a new cable and a slightly updated iTunes.
either way its a waste of money.
They would also have to update the FW controller in the iPod. It is a little more work than they need to be doing, considering the hard drive wouldn't even care. It wouldn't be able to handle the amount of data that FW800 would be pushing.
Not only is FW still a bit faster, but it uses quite a bit less processor too. Every time a USB port is utilized on your computer, it takes up a percentage of your processors available speed, FW uses almost no processing power, and therefore is still, IMO, the best option.
Comments
BTW, I saw 10 gig iPods on sale at Best Buy today for US $249 dollars...that oughta confuse customers when considering the mini...\
either way its a waste of money.
Originally posted by mattjohndrow
well, it took me forever to copy 14 GBs of music on to my iPod, and i just wish it would be faster
First off 14GBs of music is a serious amount and you won't be doing that often. The first time is always the slower time.
Secondly, as a couple others mentioned, the iPod doesn't even eat up a huge amount of FW400s bandwidth. The bottleneck is the harddrives. They aren't insanely fast drives. When you copied that 14GBs worth of data, that is the fastest it would ever get with THAT drive. In awhile, when tiny drives get faster than you will see faster syncing, even with that we would still have a lot of room for growth without even going to FW800 because we haven't even fully utilized FW400.
Just be happy you aren't doing it over USB 1.1
Originally posted by Cosmo
I agree that FW 800 on iPods would be complete overkill, but with the new dock and dock connector adding FW800 would be as easy as releaseing a new cable and a slightly updated iTunes.
either way its a waste of money.
They would also have to update the FW controller in the iPod. It is a little more work than they need to be doing, considering the hard drive wouldn't even care. It wouldn't be able to handle the amount of data that FW800 would be pushing.
Originally posted by foad
Just be happy you aren't doing it over USB 1.1
Originally posted by k squared
O.K. here's a question. Since the transfer speed is limited by the HD, is there much of a difference in using FW 400 compared to USB 2.0?
Not much, but I would say that on average FW is still faster.
Originally posted by k squared
O.K. here's a question. Since the transfer speed is limited by the HD, is there much of a difference in using FW 400 compared to USB 2.0?
It's not enough that you would notice.