Prev: Strange new iTunes playback problems.
Next: A 25 watt hour battery!!!!!
From: nospam on 20 Mar 2010 22:54
In article <slrnhqave1.1voi.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> I wish they'd never moved the iPods off Firewire. My 30GB Firewire ipod
> >> syncs 20GB of songs much faster than my 40GB USB2 iPod syncs the same
> >> 20GB of songs.
>
> > write speed of flash is the bottleneck, not firewire/usb.
>
> Both my ipods are HD based.`

1.8" drives are not very fast either. the bottleneck is *not* usb/fw.

here's a 40 gig toshiba 1.8" hd, probably the same one in your ipod:

<http://sdd.toshiba.com/main.aspx?Path=StorageSolutions/1.8-inchHardDisk
Drives/MK4009GAL/MK4009GALSpecifications>

the maximum transfer speed is 100 mb/sec, not even close to usb or
firewire speeds.

> >> Yeah yeah, I know they did it for the windoze lusers, but I don't have
> >> to *like* it.
>
> > no, they did it because pixo dropped firewire from their chipset in the
> > older ipods and apple would have had to add it back and there was not a
> > good reason to bother. usb is everywhere and is just as good (in this
> > case).
>
> If by 'just as good' you mean 'significantly slower'

something else caused the slowdown. are you sure it was usb 2.0 and not
1.1?
From: KDT on 20 Mar 2010 23:11
On Mar 20, 6:21 pm, "OP" <Otto.Phil...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> "sbt" <dogbre...(a)chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:200320101508101764%dogbreath(a)chaseabone.com.invalid...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <kqbpn.43237$sx5.6...(a)newsfe16.iad>, OP
> > <Otto.Phil...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I guess Steve Jobs thinks USB is better today.
>
> > Probably for the things it is meant to support...
>
> > Firewire is preferable for tape-driven video cameras (not an input
> > device for the iPad because it's not meant for editing video), for
> > external hard-drives (also not an iPad accessory), and external DVD
> > burners (also not an iPad need).
>
> > Why include another port at an additional cost in space and power
> > consumption that won't be useful?
>
> Not even for something "magical" and "revolutionary"?  The only thing we see
> are the features it lacks, and nothing "revolutionary". And it has a 25 watt
> hour battery!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So where can I buy all of these Linux tablets *now*? Can I least pre-
order one?
From: Fa-groon on 21 Mar 2010 02:20
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:58:02 -0700, nospam wrote
(in article <200320101658024580%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>):

> In article <slrnhqant1.1g29.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> I wish they'd never moved the iPods off Firewire. My 30GB Firewire ipod
>> syncs 20GB of songs much faster than my 40GB USB2 iPod syncs the same
>> 20GB of songs.
>
> write speed of flash is the bottleneck, not firewire/usb.
>
>> Yeah yeah, I know they did it for the windoze lusers, but I don't have
>> to *like* it.
>
> no, they did it because pixo dropped firewire from their chipset in the
> older ipods and apple would have had to add it back and there was not a
> good reason to bother. usb is everywhere and is just as good (in this
> case).

In what way does "slower" = "just as good"?

From: Fa-groon on 21 Mar 2010 02:20
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:00:33 -0700, Lewis wrote
(in article <slrnhqave1.1voi.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>):

> In message <200320101658024580%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>
> nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnhqant1.1g29.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis
>> <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>> I wish they'd never moved the iPods off Firewire. My 30GB Firewire ipod
>>> syncs 20GB of songs much faster than my 40GB USB2 iPod syncs the same
>>> 20GB of songs.
>
>> write speed of flash is the bottleneck, not firewire/usb.
>
> Both my ipods are HD based.`
>
>>> Yeah yeah, I know they did it for the windoze lusers, but I don't have
>>> to *like* it.
>
>> no, they did it because pixo dropped firewire from their chipset in the
>> older ipods and apple would have had to add it back and there was not a
>> good reason to bother. usb is everywhere and is just as good (in this
>> case).
>
> If by 'just as good' you mean 'significantly slower'
>
>
>

Exactly!

From: Fa-groon on 21 Mar 2010 02:21
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:54:42 -0700, nospam wrote
(in article <200320101954420594%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>):

> In article <slrnhqave1.1voi.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>> I wish they'd never moved the iPods off Firewire. My 30GB Firewire ipod
>>>> syncs 20GB of songs much faster than my 40GB USB2 iPod syncs the same
>>>> 20GB of songs.
>>
>>> write speed of flash is the bottleneck, not firewire/usb.
>>
>> Both my ipods are HD based.`
>
> 1.8" drives are not very fast either. the bottleneck is *not* usb/fw.
>
> here's a 40 gig toshiba 1.8" hd, probably the same one in your ipod:
>
> <http://sdd.toshiba.com/main.aspx?Path=StorageSolutions/1.8-inchHardDisk
> Drives/MK4009GAL/MK4009GALSpecifications>
>
> the maximum transfer speed is 100 mb/sec, not even close to usb or
> firewire speeds.
>
>>>> Yeah yeah, I know they did it for the windoze lusers, but I don't have
>>>> to *like* it.
>>
>>> no, they did it because pixo dropped firewire from their chipset in the
>>> older ipods and apple would have had to add it back and there was not a
>>> good reason to bother. usb is everywhere and is just as good (in this
>>> case).
>>
>> If by 'just as good' you mean 'significantly slower'
>
> something else caused the slowdown. are you sure it was usb 2.0 and not
> 1.1?

I sure am.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Strange new iTunes playback problems.
Next: A 25 watt hour battery!!!!!