Notice: iPod Updater (2006-01-10)

Amie said:
Ah ... I see! Well, that explains it, then. Though I'm not sure that I fullly understand the difference between connecting an iPod via USB port and connecting it via FW port. Sure, I know they're different ports, but what's the functional difference? I do iPod-syncing, adding songs, removing songs, etc. via USB. Doesn't FW basically do the same thing?
Click to expand...
Read my post at the bottom of page 1. It has to do with how much power can be sent with the USB vs FireWire connection.
 
Amie said:
Ah ... I see! Well, that explains it, then. Though I'm not sure that I fullly understand the difference between connecting an iPod via USB port and connecting it via FW port. Sure, I know they're different ports, but what's the functional difference? I do iPod-syncing, adding songs, removing songs, etc. via USB. Doesn't FW basically do the same thing?
Click to expand...

I personally prefer firewire because it uploads music quicker. Besides that, it does the same functions.
 
kainjow said:
Read my post at the bottom of page 1. It has to do with how much power can be sent with the USB vs FireWire connection.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. That's very odd.
 
Flomac said:
I personally prefer firewire because it uploads music quicker. Besides that, it does the same functions.
Click to expand...
Ahhh ... thank you! I *thought* FW was faster than USB, but I wasn't entirely sure. Thanks.

I can't imagine anything being much faster than my USB connection; it takes no time at all to sync my iPod.
 
Technically, USB 2.0 has a faster theoretical throughput than FireWire 400 does: 480Mbps (megabits per second... roughly 60MB/sec) vs. 400Mbps (roughly 50MB/sec). However, USB 2.0 is more processor-intensive than FireWire...

If it helps to think of it this way, FireWire is a "cleaner" protocol, since most of the processing is done on the FireWire chip. USB 2.0 uses the main processor for its actions more than FireWire does.

I prefer FireWire, even if it is a tad slower. There ain't a hard drive in an iPod that can reach either of those transfer rates, though (50MB ~ 60MB), so both should be pretty close to each other in terms of transfer times.
 
Although technically true that USB IS faster, Ive always experienced faster speeds with firewire. Both with my iPod and my external hard drive. So take that as you may.
 
My understanding was that USB could peak at 480 Mbps, but that Firewire could manage a sustained 400 Mbps, and therefore was usually faster in the long run. Or is my memory incorrect?
 
Have any iPod video owners had problems? At other forums people were talking about 'serious problems' with the 60GB version after update.

I see what they mean. My iPod 60GB with video is now a paperweight. It actually died. Before the update I was getting 19 hours - 21 hours battery. After the update I was getting 10, then 2, then 0.

Just a warning, I guess.
 
Why do people keep saying that USB is slow??? It's NOT slow! LOL I use it all the time with my iPod and flash drives. It's super-fast!
 
Amie said:
Why do people keep saying that USB is slow??? It's NOT slow! LOL I use it all the time with my iPod and flash drives. It's super-fast!
Click to expand...

We've just been saying that it's slower. But since Ive been using firewire, USB 2.0 doesnt even come close to being super fast for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top