Your Thoughts on the iPod Shuffle

[ucfgrad93]

Looks interesting to me, although the play options are fairly limited.

www.apple.com/ipodshuffle

http://images.apple.com/ipodshuffle/images/specstop20050111.jpg

[LanMan]

Well, I just bought my wife an iPod Mini for Christmas, and I think I made the right move. I think that she would want a screen to see her music lists. Plus I'm pretty sure that she would lose that cap thing.

[zackepceo]

My grandmother who is an inspector at an automotive company will be buying one. She always admires my iPod, but says that it's just more than she need.

[TheBigBradWolf]

well, I think it's ugly...It's really not more featured than other mp3 players in it's price range...although it's with the top for storage capacity many other mp3 players in the price range have screens, directories and playlist or album playback and while APPLE did make it and that makes it special...it seems below par for them...plus I have a jumpdrive with a cap like that and I'm always loosing it...(somehow it always finds its way home though.)

[Bionic Antboy]

No display makes it's pants in my books... If you're looking for a particular track, the visual display updates a lot faster than the sound on most mini MP3 players.

For the same price, there are 512 Mb MP3 solutions about the same size, with more features AND a display...

I think this one is for Apple fetishists and those with curiously stained Steve Jobs pictures hidden under their mattress... not much more than that... ;)

[Joel]

The iPod shuffle is designed as its name says... it shuffles songs. You only have two options, play an album in order or shuffle. That's how it is. :) If I were to use this, it will be used when I'm walking, running, in a workout, or whatever similar -- a screen is simply not essential. As for the storage, music and file storage is definable too via preferences.

The iPod shuffle is going to be a hit. Just wait and see. ;)

[jmg_NX21]

I doubted the Ipod mini, I am pretty sure this will be a hit... does not REPLACE on ipod but seems in addition to one...

[winexprt]

HOW TO: Hack iPod & turn it into iPod Shuffle.

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/howto_ipodshuffle.jpg

Now erase all but 240 of your songs. :p


.

[winexprt]

This looks like the pregnancy test strip my GF & I used last year. LOL :D

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/shuffleporn_top.jpg

[SamuraiCatJB]

This looks like the pregnancy test strip my GF & I used last year. LOL :D

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/shuffleporn_top.jpg

you and her used it? did you get different results from each person?

[winexprt]

Well...let's just say I lent moral support. :D

[ucfgrad93]

The iPod shuffle is going to be a hit. Just wait and see. ;)

I agree. It will be a huge success.

[Reggie]

To add, some might be wondering how can Apple sell a 1GB audio device with rechargeable batteries at $150 only -- well, I guess, this time, Apple is aiming the masses (actually everyone) and earn more from iTunes.

Previously, Apple sort of profited from iPods but lost from iTunes. I think the iPod Shuffle is to balance things out -- profit from devices and from iTunes.

[winexprt]

Because some people seem to check the rational part of their brains at the door, and will mindlessly consume whatever Apple throws at them:

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif

:D

[JackAxe]

Shame on you Winexprt for spreading mass ignorance. :p

Oh no, there's a curse word in that thar image, I can't have that. My po lil eyes can't take the drama. :eek: :)

<]=)

[winexprt]

Shame on you Winexprt for spreading mass ignorance. :p

Oh no, there's a curse word in that thar image, I can't have that. My po lil eyes can't take the drama. :eek: :)

<]=)

LOL :D

I just now caught them too. Oh well...this probably won't be allowed to stay up long.
:(

[JackAxe]

This works as a thumb drive, correct? I'm assuming so since all iPods have been mass storage devices.

Anyways I've been thinking about getting one for small flle transfers when at my clients, since my iPod is formated Mac. I wouldn't mind having an even smaller iPod always with me.

<]=)

[JackAxe]

LOL :D

I just now caught them too. Oh well...this probably won't be allowed to stay up long.
:(

Serves you right, if that happens for trying to stir things up. :p :p :p :D

<]=)

[Joel]

Because some people seem to check the rational part of their brains at the door, and will mindlessly consume whatever Apple throws at them

:D
I'm proud to say that... I don't mind. I don't mind at all! ;)

[winexprt]

I must say...I personally believe the MacOS to be superior to anything MS puts out...both in terms of aesthetics and performance.

You know this Joel, I told you before...when I have the moola to spare...I'm a goin' Mac all the way baby!! :D

p.s. This new Mac-Mini is a stroke of BRILLIANCE! A low cost Mac is what the masses have been clamoring for for years. One word on Apple stock: BUY!!

[SamuraiCatJB]

This works as a thumb drive, correct? I'm assuming so since all iPods have been mass storage devices.

Anyways I've been thinking about getting one for small flle transfers when at my clients, since my iPod is formated Mac. I wouldn't mind having an even smaller iPod always with me.

<]=)

I am suddenly thinking George Carlin....

"Sometimes you leave your house to go on vacation. And you gotta take some of your stuff with you. Gotta take about two big suitcases full of stuff, when you go on vacation. You gotta take a smaller version of your house. It's the second version of your stuff. And you're gonna fly all the way to Honolulu. Gonna go across the continent, across half an ocean to Honolulu. You get down to the hotel room in Honolulu and you open up your suitcase and you put away all your stuff. "Here's a place here, put a little bit of stuff there, put some stuff here, put some stuff--you put your stuff there, I'll put some stuff--here's another place for stuff, look at this, I'll put some stuff here..." And even though you're far away from home, you start to get used to it, you start to feel okay, because after all, you do have some of your stuff with you. That's when your friend calls up from Maui, and says, "Hey, why don'tchya come over to Maui for the weekend and spend a couple of nights over here."

Oh, no! Now what do I pack? Right, you've gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The third version of your house. Just enough stuff to take to Maui for a coupla days. You get over to Maui--I mean you're really getting extended now, when you think about it. You got stuff ALL the way back on the mainland, you got stuff on another island, you got stuff on this island. I mean, supply lines are getting longer and harder to maintain. You get over to your friend's house on Maui and he gives you a little place to sleep, a little bed right next to his windowsill or something. You put some of your stuff up there. You put your stuff up there."

[SamuraiCatJB]

"Your life in a small plastic case"


but where else can I buy an iLife? I have an iMaid now. Still waiting on the iElectrician and iPlumber to make iRepairs, but iHey, that's iLife. :) Got the iTV coming, and the iHeadphones, iSnowshoes, iBuddha, iWireless, and already got in all my iIncense, though iNeed to iBuy more iMatches. :p

Got to dump the iEntertainmentCenter (or is that a job for the iMatches or the iSledgeHammer?) and add more iDVDShelves.

[JackAxe]

Hey, I'm not that bad. I only cary a portable office with me when I'm out on meetings or working on site. :)

I suppose I could reformat my iPod PC and purchase a USB2.0 cable, but I don't want to comprimise that part for my clients. I figured a thumb drive that's also compatible with iTunes would be great.

<]=)

[JackAxe]

but where else can I buy an iLife? I have an iMaid now. Still waiting on the iElectrician and iPlumber to make iRepairs, but iHey, that's iLife. :) Got the iTV coming, and the iHeadphones, iSnowshoes, iBuddha, iWireless, and already got in all my iIncense, though iNeed to iBuy more iMatches. :p

Got to dump the iEntertainmentCenter (or is that a job for the iMatches or the iSledgeHammer?) and add more iDVDShelves.

Don't forget the Sam "iAm." :p

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

Hey, I'm not that bad. I only cary a portable office with me when I'm out on meetings or working on site. :)

I suppose I could reformat my iPod PC and purchase a USB2.0 cable, but I don't want to comprimise that part for my clients. I figured a thumb drive that's also compatible with iTunes would be great.

<]=)

I guess that is why I will miss the clie's. My TH55 is my iPod Shuffle. I have the iPod4g for my mass music. And only my favorites on the Clie. If I don't want to take the iPod everywere, I always have the favorites. The concept does work, I am not sure I would buy an iShuffle specifically for that iPurpose though.... I've got usb sticks and mini-usb-drives in every pocket almost....

[JackAxe]

One thing that bothers me about memory sticks, is that they're not mass storage devices. :rolleyes: Why???? :confused:

I would gladly use my Clié for simple transfers if I had a USB to doc cable and if it could utilize MSPro. I'm only on a NR, so remember I'm limited to a pathetic 128megs :rolleyes: (See what Sony does to me.) So its not even at the Shuffle level. :rolleyes: (There it is again.)

I was going to buy a thumb drive, because I always use my clients, so this is just a good choice for me. :)

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

I have a 2.5gig mini drive as well as the other usb devices.

[JackAxe]

I have a 1gig mini drive in my PPC, :) but it requires a driver to use. :rolleyes:

I just ran an extensive hardware test and one(maybe 2) of my 1gig chips came up with an error. So now I'm testing the other RAM just to make sure, then I'll run the test two more times swaping out 1 chip at a time until I know which of the 2 is bad, if not both. *Grumbles.*

Each test takes well over an hour. :rolleyes:

<]=)

[21stcenturymac]

Don't forget the Sam "iAm."

<]=)

"iThink, Therefore iAm" . . .iCannot resist - the Apple "i" that originated with the first iMac was an industry enigma turned into a promotional "iCon" that has become a market symbol of Apple products. The power of that moniker has given Apple a marketplace for things that mirror other products and yet preside over the competition without contest from their followers. While I am a steadfast fan, the iPod Shuffle is a depressingly low-end product for Apple and, I agree, an attempt to boost sales for iTunes. It will, however, still see a reduced lifetime due to it's limitations over similar capacity players and may, instead, further the alienation of PC users to the Mac platform.

I believe this to be an immature entrance into the flash memory market by Apple and, "iRonically," will see limited retail sales followed by the usual cult collection of the product.

The LATE Apple Consumer Product Division suffered a similar fate.

[Joel]

I bought an iPod shuffle because I also need a USB drive. If it's a choice between a 1GB flash drive and an iPod shuffle, the iPod shuffle wins for me. Space, music playing capability, design... is a great combination.

I also like the fact that storage space is definable:

[Gizmo]

Right now I'm torn between the Shuffle and a Creative Muvo.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/916710/muvotxfm512mb.jpg

For a mere $30 more I would get an FM tuner, a screen and a replaceable battery. It would actually be smaller using it as a mass storage device because the battery compartment is removeable.

But I do like the looks of the Shuffle. I will probably wait until the reviews start comming in from actual users.

I don't need anything fancy. I had an iRiver player that had way more features than I actuall use but i recently lost it (or it was stolen). :mad: I only listen during working out at the Y. I could care less what order songs play in.

[TheBigBradWolf]

I bought an iPod shuffle because I also need a USB drive. If it's a choice between a 1GB flash drive and an iPod shuffle, the iPod shuffle wins for me. Space, music playing capability, design... is a great combination.

I also like the fact that storage space is definable:

eh, the muvo stores music as files and plays everything on the drive...

[JackAxe]

Dam your iRiver for getting lost. :mad:

I see that Creative finaly gained an ounce of intelligence and made their devices mass storage. :) I personally don't trust Creative's quality(Haven't since the late ninties, but I was always for them prior.), nor do I like their horrid attempts at interface software, or any of their software now days. I stopped using them for sound cards becasue of all the forced advertising they shoved down my throat whenenver I wanted to play a CD on my old PC. I also made the mistake of using them for a video card. (it was much cheaper then the other GF2Us at the time.)

I'm personally going wth the Shuffle, since Creative has cut quality corners with all of their devices in the past to reduce cost. The Nomad is a perfect example. :)

<]=)

[JackAxe]

eh, the muvo stores music as files and plays everything on the drive...

It's all promises. ;)

<]=)

[Gizmo]

Dam your iRiver for getting lost. :mad:

I'm personally going wth the Shuffle, since Creative has cut quality corners with all of their devices in the past to reduce cost. The Nomad is a perfect example. :)

<]=)

If it's good enough for Jack, it's good enough for me. :)

[JackAxe]

Cool. :) When are you getting one? :D

I'm going to buy one after finishing a current project later this month.

<]=)

[Gizmo]

My birthday is next month. I'll be asking the wife for one. Unless I can's wait. :) I do miss the music working out.

[Gizmo]

BTW: I don't want to buy songs from the iTunes store. I just want to play music from my own cd's. What is the best quality format to use that is supported by the Shuffle? Thanks.

Edit - BTW: I use a pc.

[JackAxe]

No worries, I've been using iTunes since before it was considered only an on-line music store. It will let you convert your CDs into MP3, AAC, AIF, and WAV. I only buy CDs, this way I can choose which format I want.

It depends on the music. AAC is better then MP3, so 192k is excellent for most peeps. Even 128k sounds great for most rock songs. The music I listen too or the screaming banshees as me weef calls them, such as Enya and Loreena McKennitt, or even LOTR only sound good at 320 or higher. I choose only lossless though. :) Subtle nuances can get lost with compression and that type of music generally has lots of it.

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

If it's good enough for Jack, it's good enough for me. :)

yeah... we are all trying to catch up with Jack. ;) :p

[JackAxe]

Until then, you don't know jack. :p

<]=)

[21stcenturymac]

I bought an iPod shuffle because I also need a USB drive. If it's a choice between a 1GB flash drive and an iPod shuffle, the iPod shuffle wins for me. Space, music playing capability, design... is a great combination.

I also like the fact that storage space is definable:

You piqued my curiosity with this angle: A high-end flash drive vs a low-end audio player. I use a Lexar Media JumpDrive Trio with a Sandisk 1gb MS Pro to compliment my Clie NX80V. The JumpDrive is driverlessly compatible with Mac OS 8.6-OS10.3x and Windows ME/2k/XP, and with Win98 via supplied driver installs. I require all of these as my JumpDrive is also a service disk for multi platforms.

Now: The specs for the iShuffle indicate compatibility with Mac OS 10.2.8 and above plus Windows 2KSP4 and Win XPSP2 only. I wonder if that refers to the Audio Player function only and not the flash drive ability. Can you tell me if the flash drive function of the device is compatible beyond that?

My interest is such: My main entertainment use of my Clie is for video (thanks to this forum) and though I carry a few MP3's with it and use PocketTunes to stream Shoutcast audio, I prefer a separate audiplayer, and one compatible with Macs, since I store my main audio library on one. The full-size iPods are more than I require and the thought of a combo audio player/ flash drive is appealing.

If the iShuffle can meet the same specs as my JumpDrive with regards to flash drive function, I am interested.

[JackAxe]

It's a mass storage device. I asked earlier, but nobody answered. :( :)

http://features.engadget.com/entry/1234000177027029/

The above article states you can adjust a slider to split the space between the storage and music.

I will have one of these, I will. It will be handy when I'm at my clients that only have PCs.

<]=)

[JackAxe]

Something I would've liked, is a Firewire version. All my clients have a FW mini port, so it would've been better for transfer then the slow-in-comparison USB 2.0. But hey, if it sells to more Windows peeps.

<]=)

[Gizmo]

I choose only lossless though. :) Subtle nuances can get lost with compression and that type of music generally has lots of it.

<]=)
What format is "lossless?" :confused:

[zackepceo]

Apple Lossless is dynamically adjusted AAC. By dynamically adjusted, it means that it won't encode at a quality higher than the source. It sounds exactly like the source.

[JackAxe]

It rocks. :) It's not a good format for limited space though, since the encoded song is usually larger then 25 megs.

320 AAC is the next best thing. But if your headphones are blah, then the nuances will get lost anyways.

<]=)

[Gizmo]

Apple Lossless is dynamically adjusted AAC. By dynamically adjusted, it means that it won't encode at a quality higher than the source. It sounds exactly like the source.
Can I convert my cd's to this format (Apple Lossless) on my pc?

If I get the 1 gig Shuffle, a 25 meg per song conversion rate wouldn't be a problem for me since I only listen to music for about an hour at a time.

[treffmeister]

FLAC - best lossless by far
MPC - best high bitrate lossy
OGG - best lossy
iAudio M3 - plays all of these with flair

None of this Apple crap for me thank you very much!

[Joel]

Basically, it all boils down to user needs. What is crap for some is a work of art for others. For me, this 1GB iPod shuffle I'm using is perfect. No matter how I glorify it, the iPod shuffle simply will only be appreciated by those who share my views.

I have just tried it with WinXP. The iPod shuffle shows up as an external device. I've copied some files, ejected, and plugged in the iPod into the Powerbook. No loss of files. It is "just" the USB drive I've wanted it to be.

For those who want to try it but really don't know if they'll like the iPod shuffle or not, I suggest getting the $99 512MB version. Play around it with and if it does not live to your expectations, eBay it. The iPod shuffle is extremely easy to sell :)

And a final note, Apple should do something about some of the Apple Store employees. There are some who are just too proud and have an attitude problem!!! To be fair, there are incredibly helpful people but a few rotten apples just ruins the Apple Store experience.

[SamuraiCatJB]

I agree on the store, I think they run about 30% ego problems at the Pasedena store.

I like my iPod for a similar reason you like the Shuffle. I wanted to share the storage space with images. Since I was thinking 50/50 split, that meant 40 gig. then I can take all the pictures I want as often as I want. :) I love sharing use of things.

[Gizmo]

Can I convert my cd's to this format (Apple Lossless) on my pc?

Does anybody know? Thanks.

[21stcenturymac]

Apple should do something about some of the Apple Store employees. There are some who are just too proud and have an attitude problem!!! To be fair, there are incredibly helpful people but a few rotten apples just ruins the Apple Store experience.

True somewhat here in Orlando as well. Mac fans are, well . . .fanatics, with a passionate cult-loyalty and working in the Apple Store is their dream.

It is also still only an hourly-wage retail store job in the mall.

[JackAxe]

Does anybody know? Thanks.

Yep, it does. You don't need an iPod or iShuffle to download and use iTunes.

http://www.apple.com/itunes/

It might be a good idea to download it and try it out since it's the primary interface for the player. Just go up to preferences and the "importing" tab. From there you can select Apple Lossless and any of the other compression formats. You can then use iTunes to play all the different formats, your cds and even internet radio. Oh and there's that store thing.

The Apple store south of me is like that, where as most employees are kind of up on themselves, but the store just north has been great everytime. I haven't been there for a few, so hopefully it's still the same.

<]=)

[Gizmo]

Yep, it does. You don't need an iPod or iShuffle to download and use iTunes.
http://www.apple.com/itunes/
<]=)
Thank you Jack. I don't think I'll be waiting for my birthday to get one now. :)

[SUCHY]

Has anyone seen the new Maxim magazine, in it they have these crazy Ipod gizmos, such as CD player for the Ipod...

[SamuraiCatJB]

Has anyone seen the new Maxim magazine, in it they have these crazy Ipod gizmos, such as CD player for the Ipod...

an excuse to get Maxim? :) I can handle that....

[JackAxe]

Thank you Jack. I don't think I'll be waiting for my birthday to get one now. :)

ArRRR. Ye be doing the right pirate thing. :) Go figure, a monkey with an iShuffle, ye could hang it from yar tail.

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

Thank you Jack. I don't think I'll be waiting for my birthday to get one now. :)

save the animatronic monkey head for your birthday. :p

[Gizmo]

save the animatronic monkey head for your birthday. :p
Scary!

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/9/0,1311,i=95507,00.jpg

Edit - To stay on topic, I just called the local Best Buy. The guy on the phone didn't even know what it was. :rolleyes: Guess I'll have to order it.

[JackAxe]

That's very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very creepy.

<]=)

[Gizmo]

Guess I won't be getting anytime soon. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6839799/) :(

[Vishalca]

So, has anyone received theirs yet? I am still unclear on what do: buy a 512MB card and keep buying batteries for my lil' RCA Lyra 64MB (!) Player, or go with the shuffle. I haven't read as many reviews as I would've liked to have read before making a decision, so if anyone has received theirs, please post a review of it for me, so I can clarify my head. Also, what do I do with my Lyra? Keep it and expand, or go with the shuffle?

NOTE: My Lyra has very poor battery life, and I rarely look at the screen, however it still works perfectly.

Thanks to all for reading and/or replying!

[artaddict]

To Winexprt: can I download that mock Apple Ad?

[Gizmo]

Has anyone experienced this problem (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6854309/site/newsweek/) and will share their thoughts? Thanks.

[zackepceo]

I don't really think it's a problem..

[Gizmo]

I'm hoping not. Just curious, though as I go through the selection process to replace my iRiver.

[SamuraiCatJB]

Has anyone experienced this problem (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6854309/site/newsweek/) and will share their thoughts? Thanks.

I haven't noticed that my iPod has a "fondness" for anything.... however with only 1100 songs, it seems to want to ignore and avoid my two Madonna albums... so there you have it.... iPods like Steely Dan, they hate Madonna. I haven't had a problem with that so far... do you? ;) :p

[JackAxe]

Think about the source. MSNBC. ;) You don't think they're trying to spread "propaganda" to create the slightest bit of doubt with new consumers eying the Shuffle. :)

I've never heard of this and I know lots of peeps with iPods. :)

<]=)

[Gizmo]

Thanks, Jack. Your right. I had never heard of it either until this article.

"Consider the source" :)

[Gizmo]

I haven't noticed that my iPod has a "fondness" for anything.... however with only 1100 songs, it seems to want to ignore and avoid my two Madonna albums... so there you have it.... iPods like Steely Dan, they hate Madonna. I haven't had a problem with that so far... do you? ;) :p
No problem here. :) I wonder if my Shuffle will like Herman's Hermits? :D

Edit - Dang spelling!

[mike p]

to qoute the add slamin the rio forge


rio has a tiny screen

[treffmeister]

Soz to troll but I couldn't help but notice this obvious, glaring disinformation (quoted below). In fact, USB2 can be much faster than F/W. I refer you to the review of the iAudio M3 - my DAP - on cnet.com - somewhere in that review is a graphic of its file xfr speeds using usb2, compared to the ipod using FW and usb2. The iAudio is the clear winner.


Something I would've liked, is a Firewire version. All my clients have a FW mini port, so it would've been better for transfer then the slow-in-comparison USB 2.0. But hey, if it sells to more Windows peeps.

<]=)

[JackAxe]

Soz to troll but I couldn't help but notice this obvious, glaring disinformation (quoted below). In fact, USB2 can be much faster than F/W. I refer you to the review of the iAudio M3 - my DAP - on cnet.com - somewhere in that review is a graphic of its file xfr speeds using usb2, compared to the ipod using FW and usb2. The iAudio is the clear winner.

Ahhh, someone is speaking out of ignorance and didn't do the research before making the above statement. :p Now you've gone and got me rambling about Firewire. Let me educate you on the B.S. that is USB 2.0 and it's "theoretical" peformance of 480 mbits, which in fact is a complete falacy on Intel's part. (Actually it's only about 280 mbits.) I shall now present you with real world tests which in fact have proven that FW 400 is up to 70% faster then USB 2.0 when transfering large files. For small files, it doesn't matter since even USB 1.0 does fine there. But since digital audio, especially lossless can be of moderate size and playlists can easily take up hundreds, if not gigabytes of info, FW400 absolutely womps USB 2.0.

First of all, unlike Firewire which was designed from the ground up for speed using a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture, USB 2.0 was an update or an afterthought of USB 1.0, which was not designed for high speed transfer and there for relies on a slower and archaic "Master-Slave" architecture.

I just decided to grab a few of many links which you could've easilly located yourself with a simple search. If you would've done this in the first place, then you would know that what you have stated is completely incorrect;

http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm

Read Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0
Write Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0


(The same info as above, but I'm just showing that it's not isolated to one site.)
http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-vs-usb.htm

http://www.g4techtv.com/freshgear/features/39129/USB_20_Versus_FireWire_pg3.html

http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html

The only way a USB 2.0 device, could possibly beat out a FW 400 device, is if the USB 2.0 device had a much faster HD. For example transfering from a 7200 to another 7200 rpm drive vs. the FW transfering from only a 4200 to a 4200 RPM drive, but even then the USB 2.0 would still probably loose. :p The test you mentioned was probably something of that sort, if not just a steaming pile of B.S.

If you read through the above links and still believe USB 2.0 to be faster, then you can no longer be categorized as ignorant and in that case, I'm sorry. :rolleyes: After all, Intel does have a very large marketing budget, so you're not the first person to fall victim to their lies. Afterall, it is printed all over the place. ;)

Why do you think FW is still the dominate choice for high-end video, it's because FW is da King! Oh and of course there's FW 800 which obliterates USB 2.0. Until Intel changes to an architecture similar to FW, USB will always be slower.

<]=)

[JackAxe]

I remember you, you're the Ipods are suck dude. :p Man, you're living in denial. Wake Up!!! :p

<]=)

[jjesusfreak01]

JackAxe, you dont need to be that mean. W/O any research, anyone could believe that usb 2.0 was faster.

Anyway, thats besides the point. Right now, firewire is a better deal, because I believe there are more computers in circulation right now with firewire ports than with usb 2.0 ports. Most newer laptops have firewire ports, and only the very newest laptops have firewire. My warning is that everyone should be sure they have an actual 2.0 port before dumping money on a product because it has usb 2.0

Also, IINM (If Im not mistaken), FW 800 is a mac only product, which is why we are nice and dont compare it to usb. Not that you did.

[JackAxe]

Ahhhh, I was just being sarcastic. :o Tis the same peep that states "iPods suck" under his name and dropped the "iPod are suck" comment. :)

See, Intel lies and they mislead, well they all do. I mentioned that in my post and that is why I only refered to treffmeister as being ignorant.

You can in fact purchase FW 800 for PCs.

For laptops;
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10482

For PCI slots;
http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/proddetail.html?sess=no&language=English+US&prodkey=AFW-8300&cat=%2fTechnology%2fFireWire-1394%2fFireWire-1394+Adapters

And here's even a motherboard
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/roundupmobo/gigabyte-k8nnxp-940-nforce3pro150.html

FW 800 was actually ready at the same time as FW 400, but Apple sat on it for a rainy day and that day was when Intel released USB 2.0, with it's misleading poo.

<]=)

[jjesusfreak01]

You're right, you can get Firewire 800, it just rarely comes standard on consumer pcs like regular Firewire, something it is unlikely Intel will change. Maybe when USB 3.0 comes out, they may feel its nice to bump up the PC Firewire standard.

[JackAxe]

For only $55 you can add a PCI card to your system and that mobo, even though stated as being a pro is actually only a consumer board. But it wll probably be a few more months before Dell and Gateway start shipping it in their sytesms. Dell does currently sell the PC card though and several external drives. ;)

For the most part FW 800 is still high-end. But it has only been available for a couple of years now, so like 400, which took over 2 years, it will take a while to become widespread.

Intel is going to need to completely redesign USB in order to make it as fast as FW, so I'm wondering if they'll drop backwards compatibilty to do so.

<]=)

[JackAxe]

Behold... An iPod Shuffle RAID array. :D

Too bad he was limited to the mediocrity that is USB 2.0.

http://www.wrightthisway.com/Articles/000154.html

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

Redundant Array of Insignificant Disks. ;) :p :p ;)

you asked for it. :D

[JackAxe]

If anything, it's interesting. :) If it were Firewire, I would consider something liket hat for a swap drive when using my Powerbook. :)

<]=)

[treffmeister]

USB2 is quicker than FireWire. On my iAudio at least - it outstrips ipod using usb2 OR fw. To see proof go to the c|net review of the iAudio M3.
http://reviews.cnet.com/JetAudio_iAudio_M3__silver__20GB__with_cradle_/4505-6490_7-30842848-5.html?tag=top

[Gizmo]

"The man doth protest too much methinks."

Hamlet - act 3, scene 2

[zackepceo]

You don't miss a chance to tout an advantage over the iPod, do you?
:p
USB 2.0 is just not faster. Be it the controllers used, the specification, or maybe any other factor, Firewire 400 is faster in any case I have ever seen (although I'm sure it could be faster in.. something). Any way you put it, nothing outperforms Firewire 800.

[JackAxe]

The only thing that is faster then FW 400 is 800. Not buts about it it. USB 2.0 like Centrino, just a load of Bull from everybody's favorite chip maker Intel.

All that benchmark shows, is that the iAudio has a faster HD or they were fluffing their benchmarks. Notice that the USB 2.0 transfer on the iPod is slower then it's FW counterpart. If it were faster, which it is not, then FW would've scored slower in that instance.

The only way, like I mentioned that USB 2.0 can possibly outperform FW, is if both the recipient and host drives are of a higher RPM then the iPod's 4200 RPM HD. Then it's not because it's a faster, but because it's not being bottlenecked. Which is probably the case for the iAudio.

Stick with FW for your heavy transfers and you'll be fine, but for little things, like lite printing or transfering ogg files, USB 2.0 is great. ;)

<]=)

[Gizmo]

My wife just suprised me with a Shuffle!!!! :D :D :D

Unbelievable! My birthday is still two weeks away but she knew that I had been looking around for an mp3 player to replace the iRiver that I "lost" while working out. I had to go into the office for a little bit this morning and when I got back she said she had a surprise for me. Then she handed me the Shuffle!

It's charging right now. I'm going to be running out to Target soon to see if they have a set of the Sennheiser PX 60's. (I don't care for the ear buds it came with.) Then I'm going to the Y for a work out, and to give the Shuffle one too ;)

[Vishalca]

Wow, congrats Gizmo! You are a lucky guy!

When you have had a chance to play around with it, could you post a little user review? That would be great. In Canada, we are not expecting them in major retailers until.......March 7th. Ouch.

[JackAxe]

Awesome. :D Valentine's gift? :)

I forgot to ask my friend which model he had, so just called and left a message. :o

<]=)

[Gizmo]

Awesome. :D Valentine's gift? :)

I forgot to ask my friend which model he had, so just called and left a message. :o

<]=)
You seem to have a lot of these so called "friends". :D

Yes, the Shuffle ended up being a Valentines/Birthday gift. And I love it! The first thing I noticed was how good it sounded with the included ear buds compared to the iRiver that I had before. I still want to get a better pair of earphones that clip on because I don't care for the ear bud style. Pretty sure I'm going with the Sennheiser PX60's.

This model of ipod is perfect for me. I only listen to music on a portable device when I'm working out and I really don't care what order the songs play in. This is the perfect size and weight. I really like the fact that I can use it as a mass storage device. I only need an hour or so of songs loaded on at a time so I have a lot of room for other files ( I have the 1 gig model). I think I'll be getting the arm band though. The included lanyard that goes around the neck gets a little sweaty at times.

The only thing I don't like so far is the thumb slide that is used to turn it on and chage to shuffle or continuous. The thing is dang slippery and it's very difficult to slide it back and forth. Especially if you want to stop it in the middle (at least for me it is).

All in all, I am very pleased. :) Now I need to re-rip all my cd's to AAC. ;)

[JackAxe]

He's a good friend, I've seen him twice since asking and have yet to get that info. :D I just called again since you reminded me.

I really want one. It's sooo small that I could always carry it with me. Would it fit on a keychain?

Just a tip, if you don't like how iTunes mangages playlists, you can turn it to manual under preferences/general.

<]=)

[Gizmo]

He's a good friend, I've seen him twice since asking and have yet to get that info. :D I just called again since you reminded me.

I really want one. It's sooo small that I could always carry it with me. Would it fit on a keychain?

Just a tip, if you don't like how iTunes mangages playlists, you can turn it to manual under preferences/general.

<]=)
Thanks for the tip. I'm still learning the "Apple Way". :)

[JackAxe]

Take it in, it will warm your sole like a tasty bowl of soup. :)

I must get one. I'm going to pick one up next time we order software from Apple.

<]=)

[SeaShadow]

Greetings, I was reading the article and noticed how you seem to have the wrong ideas about the interfaces. As a hardware type of person I figured I would enlighten you. USB 2.0 is in fact faster than 1394a (firewire 400), and 1394b (firewire 800) is faster than either of the two previous. The transfer rate for the 3 in order of lowest to highest is:
1394a (firewire 400) at 400 Megabits/s
USB 2.0 at 480 Megabits/s
1394b (firewire800) at 800 Megabits/s

I don't really care what your prefrence to audio player is as it is just that, your prefrence. But I figured I would straighten out the misconception about the transfer rates. What probably has led to the confusion is that a device will only transfer at those rates if it is capable of such. Say a device is "USB 2.0 Compatible" it means that it transfers faster than the USB 1.0 or 1.1 bus can handle (rediculously slow) and so it could be anywhere in between there and the max of 480. Same goes for devices that support the other specifications. So even if something is firewire 800 or USB 2.0 it can make use of the bandwidth only if the data bus chips in the device can shuttle the data around fast enough.

[JackAxe]

Greetings, I was reading the article and noticed how you seem to have the wrong ideas about the interfaces. As a hardware type of person I figured I would enlighten you. USB 2.0 is in fact faster than 1394a (firewire 400), and 1394b (firewire 800) is faster than either of the two previous. The transfer rate for the 3 in order of lowest to highest is:
1394a (firewire 400) at 400 Megabits/s
USB 2.0 at 480 Megabits/s
1394b (firewire800) at 800 Megabits/s

I don't really care what your prefrence to audio player is as it is just that, your prefrence. But I figured I would straighten out the misconception about the transfer rates. What probably has led to the confusion is that a device will only transfer at those rates if it is capable of such. Say a device is "USB 2.0 Compatible" it means that it transfers faster than the USB 1.0 or 1.1 bus can handle (rediculously slow) and so it could be anywhere in between there and the max of 480. Same goes for devices that support the other specifications. So even if something is firewire 800 or USB 2.0 it can make use of the bandwidth only if the data bus chips in the device can shuttle the data around fast enough.


Errrrr, the 480Mbits is only theoretical. USB 2.0 in reality only achieves about 280 Mbits. Firewire 400 in ALL real world tests is up to 70% faster then USB 2.0 when transfering large files, the ones that count. We were already discussing the fact that HD can limit transfer rate and that's the only way a USB 2.0 device could possibly outperform FW 400.

USB 2.0 falls into the same category as Centrino, mostly a whole load of B.S. via Intel's marketing, but if it makes the sells great. :)

If you click here (http://www.1src.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77894&page=5&pp=15) and scroll down towards the bottom, you'll see a long winded post by me with a few links showing that FW is faster.

This is from my earlier post:
Read Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0
Write Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0

Just for your info and so you can save some money; A USB 1.0 and 2.0 cable are exactly the same when it comes down to it.

<]=)

[SeaShadow]

Actually there is a slight difference in cables, but that is only if you get a high quality one (and the diff is just some shielding). But most people don't need to worry about that.

Also regarding your links, funny how 3 of them had the exact same results and used the same category of devices, seems kind of odd to me. And did you ever ponder if the bottleneck is at the USB to IDE controller? As far as I have seen nearly all of the enclosures have the same chip.

Also you mentioned using a PCI card for firewire 800, good luck with that as the PCI bus is shared among all of the slots. 133 MB/s can be used up by a single IDE HDD controller. So unless you only hook up 1 device at a time through the addon card, you wont actually be running at 800.

PS: USB isn't BS through Intel, USB is a standard set by the IEEE Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, (ever wonder why the technical name of firewire is IEEE 1394?) apple brought firewire to IEEE to make it a standard and Compaq, IBM, Microsoft, NEC, Intel, DEC, and Northern Telecom brought USB to IEEE. They specificially specify if something can use that. Just take a look at the USB standard and you will see that you don't HAVE to use up all of the bandwidth USB 2.0 provides. The bandwidth isn't theoretical it is there, it is just that very few products conform to the specs.

[JackAxe]

Actually there is a slight difference in cables, but that is only if you get a high quality one (and the diff is just some shielding). But most people don't need to worry about that.

That's a given. ;) This is why I stated when it comes down to it.


Also regarding your links, funny how 3 of them had the exact same results and used the same category of devices, seems kind of odd to me. And did you ever ponder if the bottleneck is at the USB to IDE controller? As far as I have seen nearly all of the enclosures have the same chip.

First of all, If you read my post I stated;"(The same info as above, but I'm just showing that it's not isolated to one site.)" above the second link. Secondly those are just a few of many links out there. Are you saying that because I listed a couple of redundent links, which I stated as being so, that the benchmarks from Barefeets and G4TechTV's results are somehow null?

And on this bottleneck thing you mention, yes USB.2.0 does suffer from it. :)



Also you mentioned using a PCI card for firewire 800, good luck with that as the PCI bus is shared among all of the slots. 133 MB/s can be used up by a single IDE HDD controller. So unless you only hook up 1 device at a time through the addon card, you wont actually be running at 800.

Errr, I only mentioned PCI as one of many option for jjesusfreak01, since that individual didn't know FW800 was available for the PC. Besides how does that relate to FW being faster then USB 2.0? Stating a limitation to PCI really has nothing to do with this. And for me at least, that limitation is not a factor, since my main comp uses PCI X. It also uses SATA and has 2 FW 800 ports. There's also Tyan(mobo) PC which I use for rendering in my office that has PCI-X.


PS: USB isn't BS through Intel, USB is a standard set by the IEEE Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, (ever wonder why the technical name of firewire is IEEE 1394?) apple brought firewire to IEEE to make it a standard and Compaq, IBM, Microsoft, NEC, Intel, DEC, and Northern Telecom brought USB to IEEE. They specificially specify if something can use that. Just take a look at the USB standard and you will see that you don't HAVE to use up all of the bandwidth USB 2.0 provides. The bandwidth isn't theoretical it is there, it is just that very few products conform to the specs.


Thanks for the lesson on IEEE, but what does that half to do with USB 2.0 being slower. :D And where can I find info about USB being an IEEE stadard? I've found reference to wifi, but not USB.

Until USB 2.0 can pump out 480 Mbits, or at least 90% of that, it's only B.S. There are no devices based on U2, not even the latest batch that perform even close to that "theorectical" number. And until that happens, that's all it will be.

At one time I thought USB 2.0 was faster, but TechTV(Before the merger of Doom.) had a segment on ScreenSavers about it vs. FW 400, this is where I was first enlightened by Intel's misleading propaganda. :)

And once again; Firewire was designed from the ground up for speed, USB 2.0 was an afterthought based on a tech that was never designed for the kind of transfer rate achieved by FW. Until Intel discards the "Master and Slave" architecture used by USB, it will never perform as stated.

<]=)

[SeaShadow]

First off, before I respond to this. If a mod happens to read this could he/she please split this off of the thread. I am enjoying this discussion, but it has gotten way off topic. I would greatly appreciate it if someone would be kind enough to put this discussion in the appropriate forum.

[SeaShadow]

First of all, If you read my post I stated....
I was simply saying that it seemed like only one site actually did a bench and the others were just pulling the results, not to mention they didn't try different devices that are actually capable of making good use of the bandwidth in USB 2.0

And on this bottleneck thing you mention, yes USB.2.0 does suffer from it. :)
What I am saying is, the slowdown in transfer is not a result of a lack of bandwidth through USB 2.0, it is a result of a bottleneck in the usb to IDE controller that is found in the enclosures. That is where the problem lies, I had the opportunity to go to CES and I saw quite a few devices that actually used the bandwidth. It is just alot easier and cheaper to build a device that only shuttles data along at a couple hundred Mb/s as opposed to 480 Mb/s

Errr, I only mentioned PCI as one of many option for jjesusfreak01, since that individual didn't know FW800 was available for the PC. Besides how does that relate to FW being faster then USB 2.0? Stating a limitation to PCI really has nothing to do with this. And for me at least, that limitation is not a factor, since my main comp uses PCI X. It also uses SATA and has 2 FW 800 ports. There's also Tyan(mobo) PC which I use for rendering in my office that has PCI-X.
I know you were pointing out the availability of it, but my point is that the user wouldn't be able to take full advantage of the bandwidth 1394b offers due to the bottleneck with the PCI bus (133MB/s split to all devices on bus), or PCMCIA bus (133 again but not split to so many devices). Yes they could have one 1394b port running at full speed, but if they try to run multiple devices at such speed they can't as the PCI bus supports a max of 133 MB/s. If they have any other peripherals that use the PCI bus then they will have to split the bandwidth even more. This makes the PCI bus bottleneck point valid.

I am not sure how Gigabyte handles the bandwidth (I belive it varies between chipsets as NF4 has PCI-E to offer), but that seems to be a very viable option for a PC user to take full advantage of the bandwidth.

And of course you have no problem with your machine, the 1394b data lines are handled directly by the chipset so it doesn't even matter what bandwidth your PCI bus is. Also even if a PC user had PCI-X in their machine it wouldn't do them any good if they didn't have a PCI-X 1394b card.

Out of curiosity... what the heck does SATA have to do with this conversation? That is like me going on about how my computer has SATA2 & SATA that supports RAID5. HDD and Optical drives don't really have much to do with this. Unless you want to bring SATA into the fray which supports 1.5Gb/s and SATA2 which supports a data transfer rate of 3Gb/s and hot swapping.

Thanks for the lesson on IEEE, but what does that half to do with USB 2.0 being slower. :D And where can I find info about USB being an IEEE stadard? I've found reference to wifi, but not USB.
Did some more research, turns out that it is a work in progress and I made a mistake earlier. As of right now it is standardized by USBIF, but I found something interesting the standard is defined by several hundred companies, so your blatant Intel remarks are untrue (also FYI Apple is part of USBIF).

Until USB 2.0 can pump out 480 Mbits, or at least 90% of that, it's only B.S. There are no devices based on U2, not even the latest batch that perform even close to that "theorectical" number. And until that happens, that's all it will be.
USB 2.0 Can pump out 480 Mb/s, very few devices actually make use of the bandwidth.

At one time I thought USB 2.0 was faster, but TechTV(Before the merger of Doom.) had a segment on ScreenSavers about it vs. FW 400, this is where I was first enlightened by Intel's misleading propaganda. :)
Now explain to me how it is Intel propoganda when there is an organization that controls the standard (USBIF) and Intel is just one of hundreds of companies represented INCLUDING APPLE. OT: Wasn't so much of a merger as it was a takeover, I miss TTV :(

And once again; Firewire was designed from the ground up for speed, USB 2.0 was an afterthought based on a tech that was never designed for the kind of transfer rate achieved by FW. Until Intel discards the "Master and Slave" architecture used by USB, it will never perform as stated.
Speeds of 100Mb/s 200Mb/s and 400Mb/s and recently 800MB/s. USB is just what its name stands for. A Universal Serial Bus, it was designed so that you could plug in any compatible device and use it immediately without having to shutdown the computer. It also was designed so that you could swap data between various devices with out a computer, ever see those digital cameras that can directly interface with a printer, or how about the new TI Calcs that interface to computers and each other through USB, or how about the iRiver which can direcly swap files with another iRiver or a computer via USB. USB isn't a master slave architecture, it is a tree style just as firewire is.

[JackAxe]

I brought up SATA, because you brought up ATA 133. :p

One of my printers is a Canon, it supports that camera link thing, but only with a Canon camera. I noticed my Nikon has an internal print option, but I've never tried it, so I'm not really sure what its requirements are.

Nope, USB is a Master-Slave architecture. Firewire is Peer-to-Peer. :)

Until I see real world benchmarks showing USB outperforming FW, then I'm sticking with FW being the fastest for heavy loads and pretty much all the things I need it for, since all tests show that is the case. I don't care what USB 2.0 can "possibly" do, only what it is doing.

This is a good link, it explains everything i've been trying to ramble about and more. It also talks about Master Slave as many others being one of its limiting factors:
http://www.acomdata.com/hdp/harddrives-faqs-HDXXXU2E4-72.html

I posted this, just because it's from Apple: :D
http://developer.apple.com/devicedrivers/usb/index.html

I like USB, it really opened upt the doorway for cross platform peripherals. It took a few years for the flakiness to go away on both my Macs and PCs, but that's all in the past. I own only 3 FW devices and at least a dozen USB devices. I just don't use the USB for the big stuff.

I would like it if my FW devices actually came with FW cables though. They always throw in those USB 2.0 cables, I wouldn't mind if I had a need for them. *grumbles.*

I'm still looking for a device that can truly achieve 480(Or up there.). Once I see one, then I will be impressed. ;)

*I'm not an early bird, I was just up all night working.*I'm off to bed, I'll blabber some more later today. :eek:

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

I'm still looking for a device that can truly achieve 480(Or up there.). Once I see one, then I will be impressed. ;)



we max out SCSI Ultra 320 daily, if someone let me have a crack at it.... :p I have never met a limit I couldn't meet or exceed in hardware. :D After all, I also topped out the SCSI declaration limit of size of 2 terabytes. :D

[Gizmo]

Take it in, it will warm your sole like a tasty bowl of soup. :)
<]=)
Aye. But I'd rather it burn me inards like a mug 'o rum. :D

(Oops. Went into pirate mode for a moment there :o )

GET ONE. You'll love it!

[zackepceo]

USB is and will always be a master-slave architecture. My TG-50 has USB, but I can't plug it into my digital camera with an adapter. Want to know why? Because it only has a SLAVE chip in it. If you want to drag USB 2.0 into the fray with that, my USB drive doesn't work when I plug it into my calculator.
And it's a moot point to argue over theoretical speeds. If a 480mbps bus is only used at 240mbps, it's worthless if you need it at 480mbps. And you are wrong in your SATA speeds, too. It's 150mb/s and 300mb/s, respectively.
FURTHERMORE, your comment about Firewire 800 PCI cards is just frivelous. No user who needs the speed of Firewire 800 is going to be mad because they can't plug it into their 3 year old Gateway.

[SeaShadow]

USB is and will always be a master-slave architecture. My TG-50 has USB, but I can't plug it into my digital camera with an adapter. Want to know why? Because it only has a SLAVE chip in it. If you want to drag USB 2.0 into the fray with that, my USB drive doesn't work when I plug it into my calculator.
And it's a moot point to argue over theoretical speeds. If a 480mbps bus is only used at 240mbps, it's worthless if you need it at 480mbps. And you are wrong in your SATA speeds, too. It's 150mb/s and 300mb/s, respectively.
FURTHERMORE, your comment about Firewire 800 PCI cards is just frivelous. No user who needs the speed of Firewire 800 is going to be mad because they can't plug it into their 3 year old Gateway.


AHEM, for one a device needs to be designed to be able to swap data as I have explained. Try hooking up an iPod to a Cable Box, or to a Video Camera and it won't work either.

And about the S (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BRZ/is_11_22/ai_98977132) A (http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-946-x-x-x) TA (http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6352-0.html?forumID=80&threadID=126421&messageID=1666798) (sorry got tired of looking at urls lol)

It is just commonly referred to as 150MB/s and 300MB/s as they just use the prefix megabyte as 1,000,000 even though it is really 1,048,576. 8 bits to a byte, 1024 bytes in a kilobyte, and 1024 kilobytes in a MB (remember the magic numbers when working with computeres)

And what in the world are you talking about with the gateway/firewire thing? You didn't read my post close enough. The PCI bus is only capable of 133 MB/s across all of its channels. Firewire 800 is ~100 MB/s. So if you try to hook multiple devices up through a PCI firewire 800 card, you won't be actually transferring data at 800 on each connected device.

[JackAxe]

If your cable box or video camera have a FW port and support a mass storage devices, then plugging in an iPod will work. And just like USB, FW is also hot-swappable.

Here's a great read about the strengths and limitations of FW and also bit about USB:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20040402/

<]=)

[JackAxe]

we max out SCSI Ultra 320 daily, if someone let me have a crack at it.... :p I have never met a limit I couldn't meet or exceed in hardware. :D After all, I also topped out the SCSI declaration limit of size of 2 terabytes. :D

I only have about 1.2 terabytes in my office. :(

Call me when you exceed 16 Exabytes. :p :D

<]=)

[JackAxe]

Aye. But I'd rather it burn me inards like a mug 'o rum. :D

(Oops. Went into pirate mode for a moment there :o )

GET ONE. You'll love it!

ArrGhgGghh. Someday I'll have meself a ship, some rum, a parrot and a Shuffle. :)

I'm just waiting for a few jobs to pay, then I'll spring it on the laty. :D My friend just picked one up for he and his girlfriend and he's blown away by it. My excuse for getting it, is so that I can use it for quick transfers between me and one my clients PCs. I formanted my iPod Mac, so his system can't read it. I would leave the Shuffle NTSF. :) I supposed I could do the same for me iPod, on second thought naaa.

<]=)

[SeaShadow]

Never said it wasn't hot swappable, and speaking of mass storage. I was helping a friend with his iPod and found out how to rip the music back off the iPod onto any computer (still doesn't help ya with the keys and DRM stuff though)

[JackAxe]

I rip all of my music from CDs, so the DRM thing doesn't bother me. :) I'll be quite irratated if they stop selling CDs, or some type of comparable format in the future.

<]=)

[zackepceo]

AHEM, for one a device needs to be designed to be able to swap data as I have explained. Try hooking up an iPod to a Cable Box, or to a Video Camera and it won't work either.
That's because USB is not peer to peer. What you are referring to is USB-to-go, which is nothing but a combonation of master/slave.
And about the S (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BRZ/is_11_22/ai_98977132) A (http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-946-x-x-x) TA (http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6352-0.html?forumID=80&threadID=126421&messageID=1666798) (sorry got tired of looking at urls lol)

It is just commonly referred to as 150MB/s and 300MB/s as they just use the prefix megabyte as 1,000,000 even though it is really 1,048,576. 8 bits to a byte, 1024 bytes in a kilobyte, and 1024 kilobytes in a MB (remember the magic numbers when working with computeres)
I am aware of this, but 157286400 bytes still does not equal 1.5 gigabytes.
And what in the world are you talking about with the gateway/firewire thing? You didn't read my post close enough. The PCI bus is only capable of 133 MB/s across all of its channels. Firewire 800 is ~100 MB/s. So if you try to hook multiple devices up through a PCI firewire 800 card, you won't be actually transferring data at 800 on each connected device.
What I am talking about it that nobody who really needs Firewire 800 only has a computer with PCI. PCI-X or PCIe is required for realistic firewire 800 usage.

[Vishalca]

Well,

Getting back on topic.....I got my shuffle yesterday. Wow is all I can say. It is a great device, and I am thoroughly enjoying it. Earbuds are a downside, mainly because they can't stay in my ear, however, I like this player.

(sorry, I got lost in the whole SATA convo)

[zackepceo]

I saw the Shuffle in Best Buy today. It's quite small. Really small.

[JackAxe]

Buy some Sennheisner PX100s for your new Shuffle. :D

<]=)

[SeaShadow]

but 157286400 bytes still does not equal 1.5 gigabytes

BYTES?!?!?

Bits my friend bits, 8 bits to a byte, here look at this, ripped right from the SATA standard .pdf
http://www.p42.org/Nighthawk/SATA.JPG
want to look at it yourself?
Right click save as (or just open if you feel like it (http://www.serialata.org/docs/serialata10a.pdf)

Back to the shuffle:
Etymotics are great if you can affoard them, they sound amazing and seal out almost all noise.

Edit: As a sidenote, when dealing with storage capacity, pay close attention to the capitalization of the letters xB= byte, xb= bit 8 bits to a byte (which probably is a source of some confusion in this discussion)

[SamuraiCatJB]

actually, not always 8 bits to a byte, with parity, error correction, and various other protocols that do data validation on the fly, many use the old modem 10 bits to a byte because it is easy to multiply, and the 2 extra bits offer valuable validation information to provide more accurate exchange of information. Not all do modem "type" validation on the byte level, but they do add similar bytes to the stream (not just block headers) as part of the validation process. :)

this often means that the megabyte is a division of 10 rather than division of 8 from the original megabit.

[zackepceo]

To complicate things, you can also have 12-bit, 48-bit, 64-bit, etc. bytes which are not the same as conventional bytes.

[knotnututhis]

HOW TO: Hack iPod & turn it into iPod Shuffle.

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/howto_ipodshuffle.jpg

Now erase all but 240 of your songs. :p


.


LMAO & your mod 2 create a Ipod shuffle!! :D

[zackepceo]

It's not nearly as good as the.. iMac Shuffle!
http://img146.exs.cx/img146/5020/imacshuffle0rz.th.jpg (http://img146.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img146&image=imacshuffle0rz.jpg)

[SamuraiCatJB]

I am sure the mac mini shuffle woudl take up less space though....

[Vishalca]

lol, the Mac mini is the Mac Shuffle; no displays on either!

[JAmerican]

Another failure by Apple. The whole iPod thing is a failure without a creating the ultimate multimedia device. Not just parts of one. They should have a speaker in an iPod for public listening and a color screen for viewing Vids.

JAmerican

[JackAxe]

Another failure by Apple. The whole iPod thing is a failure without a creating the ultimate multimedia device. Not just parts of one. They should have a speaker in an iPod for public listening and a color screen for viewing Vids.

JAmerican

*LOL* :D Over 90% of the market disagrees with you. :p

<]=)

[JAmerican]

Over 90% of the market are followers who get iPods just to get them or because their friends have them.

Anyway, 90% of the market should not sway what I believe. Even though, it might others.

JAmerican

[zackepceo]

Do you have any idea how horrendous that internal speaker would be? Apple has horrible, horrible, terrible, downright shameful internal speakers on Macs. It's a good thing their external speakers sound so good, or else they would totally be out.

[Gizmo]

Some rambling thoughts, now that I've had my Shuffle for a few weeks...

As I mentioned previously, I owned and "lost" an iRiver mp3 player before my wife surprised me with the Shuffle for my birthday. She knew I had been looking at one and decided to buy it for me. And I like it very much. The sound quality is fantastic. However....

I did not realize how much I would miss the screen and the ability to organize my music. In a previous post I stated that I did not care what order my songs played in, which is true. But I never thought about having the ability to change to a different TYPE of music ie. rock, blues, etc., which I now realize is more important to me than I thought. I REALLY miss that. There are times when I'm working out that I'm in the mood for a certain type of music. It would be much easier to be able to switch at will.

I realize that this is just a PERSONAL listening style and does not pertain to everyone. I just want to let others know that they must think about this before they purchase one.

BTW: I worked out a deal with my wife. Her birthday is comming up. I'm giving her a new 4GB iPod mini, which she will imediately trade to me for the Shuffle. :D :D :D

[SamuraiCatJB]

Indian Giver... :p ;)

glad you worked out so all are happy. :)

[JackAxe]

Moving up in the world. :)

<]=)

[LanMan]

I've been hearing that audiobooks may ship on Shuffles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the Shuffle have the ability to play songs/chapters in order? I didn't think that it did. :confused:

[SamuraiCatJB]

you'd have to ask someone that has one, but I would expect it may have play-list capability (even if hidden) such that you can pre-choose an order of play and upload it along with the sound files. This would allow the use of audio books. If I were the programmer that is what I would do. :)

[Burdie]

I've been hearing that audiobooks may ship on Shuffles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the Shuffle have the ability to play songs/chapters in order? I didn't think that it did. :confused:

LanMan:

Yes - you can either play things in order, or shuffle them. You can also manipulate things in the iTunes software to get them to load in the order you want.

FWIW - this is my first Apple product and I am really pleased with it. I agree with Gizmo's comments in an earlier post - I wish I could organize the music more, but I figured out a way to have the songs I wanted at the beginning of my list. The battery life seems good (still showing a strong charge even after being on for the better part of a transatlantic flight).

So - I'm a happy camper.

Burdie

[Gizmo]

Here is one more opinion on the Shuffle:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1778968,00.asp

Bill Machrone of PC Magazine thinks it's the best sounding iPod of them all.

I must say that I agree. :p :eek: :D

[JackAxe]

Of course you agree. :D

<]=)

[matrix42]

Hey anyone know if it is possible to use a Ipod Shuffle, or any other USB dirve for that matter as a storage medium for a PalmOne device like a T3 or T5 etc Kinda like what Softick does allowing the PDA to show up as a drive on the PC but the other way around have the USB drive (shuffle) show up as a SD card? Perhaps I am being daft but just for grins I thought I'd ask...

[Gizmo]

Some rambling thoughts, now that I've had my Shuffle for a few weeks...

As I mentioned previously, I owned and "lost" an iRiver mp3 player before my wife surprised me with the Shuffle for my birthday. She knew I had been looking at one and decided to buy it for me. And I like it very much. The sound quality is fantastic. However....

I did not realize how much I would miss the screen and the ability to organize my music. In a previous post I stated that I did not care what order my songs played in, which is true. But I never thought about having the ability to change to a different TYPE of music ie. rock, blues, etc., which I now realize is more important to me than I thought. I REALLY miss that. There are times when I'm working out that I'm in the mood for a certain type of music. It would be much easier to be able to switch at will.

I realize that this is just a PERSONAL listening style and does not pertain to everyone. I just want to let others know that they must think about this before they purchase one.

BTW: I worked out a deal with my wife. Her birthday is comming up. I'm giving her a new 4GB iPod mini, which she will imediately trade to me for the Shuffle. :D :D :D

Well.... I ended up getting my wife a Shuffle for her birthday. Turns out that I grew to really like my Shuffle and didn't want a Mini after all. And, my wife decided she really liked the size of the Shuffle better also. So, I bought her one.

And they lived happily ever after.... :D