[morphsci]

I never said that USB could achieve the same rate as firewire it can't. That is why I use a firewire external CDRW and HD. However, unless you are going to constantly erase and put new songs onto your 5 MB ipod or 10 MB Terapin the transfer rate will not be that big a deal. So for the way I envision using it, the fact that it has USB is not that big a deal. Real world transfer rates are dependent on how you define the transfers being made. That is why I rarely worry about computer speed ratings for processors, busses or memory, they are so dependent on the methodology that they are essentially useless for determining system performance specs except in the grossest context.

 

[KR...]

Quote:

But with its ethernet connectivity and my home network I can easily get music (and video) to any room in my house or anywhere at work for that matter. But you're right it will not replace the nice Sony SACD I am listening to even as I write this. However, for background music on demand I can see some possibilities.

I suppose.

 

[Vertigo-1]

I'd have to agree with the transfer rate being not that important on HD players. If you want to argue about transfer speed you start to nullify the whole point of the HD MP3 player which is to hold, apparently with some people, ALL of your music in one bang, and not have to go back for more. Why should transfer speed matter after that first transfer after getting home with the shiny new toy? Beyond transferring the occasional new song or two, transfer speeds should mean dip.

Sure it took 6 hours or more to transfer 70 gigs of data over to another new 80 gig drive, but I just went and slept during the day and did other crap, knowing that I'd only be doing that transfer once.

 

[utdeep]

The versatility is pretty nice...
Even if I don't like USB, I can use it with my PC Card slot on my laptop or perhaps get a PCMCIA firewire card for it in the future! Or maybe a 100BT LAN transfer, wireless, or something else!
BUT this is not really meant to be a portable MP3 player... notice that they never mention battery life anywhere. I recall that there were some issues with that. Its nice that it has a video out for pics!!! This should be a pretty cool device!
Its not meant to be competition for the iPod.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Hmm... I guess some people don't know how to tweak their computers to maximize USB transfer rates. Damn you Mackies are so easy

LOL, maybe because our USB works properly out of the box?

j/k

Seriously, though, the maximum theoretical throughput of FireWire is way better than USB, and FireWire regularly achieves close to that throughput because it isn't processor-dependent, has its own controller, and supports peer-to-peer transfers. USB never achieves its theoretical speeds, because it *is* processor dependent, doesn't have its own controller, and doesn't support PTP transfers. In addition, the bandwidth management structure of USB is not optimized for bulk transfers. In fact, the USB standard was never designed for bulk data.

All that is a way to say that in day-to-day use, FireWire is *much* faster than USB for bulk data transfers

and when you're talking about a product specifically designed for storing large amounts of data, transfer speed seems to be a pretty major spec.


Quote:

Why should transfer speed matter after that first transfer after getting home with the shiny new toy?

Now you're getting into one of the huge advantages of the iPod over other HD-based players -- iTunes and the interaction between the iPod and the host computer. Every time you plug the iPod in, it charges and syncs. Other players are like a hard drive -- you manually transfer over songs and/or manage your collection. The iPod is like a PDA, and it reflects any changes you make on your desktop. While other players require you to think about what you want to transfer, the iPod automatically syncs with iTunes to replicate the content and organization you've defined on your desktop. Since this synching happens on a regular basis, bandwidth is vital.

 

[Xevion]

Uhh, MacDEF - the Terrapin has ethernet connection. While 10BT isn't as fast as firewire, it is more then 10x as fast as USB in most cases, so they are fine for speed on transfer. Twice the hard disk size, but larger, ethernet vs firewire, with USB too for quick transfers, apparently it can share files/download files from the net, it has a video out, that is a pretty damn impressive feature list. You pay for it though.

As far as what it does, the Terrapin is quite impressive in its own right. So is the iPod. But, neither of them are revolutionary devices or anything.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Uhh, MacDEF - the Terrapin has ethernet connection.

I know

We were just talking about USB vs. FireWire. But I agree 10bT is much better than USB -- at least it's designed to move data. Still not FireWire, but an improvement.

Quote:

that is a pretty damn impressive feature list. You pay for it though.

Yeah, I saw that price! But to be fair, the Terrapin is intended to *do* a lot more than the iPod or other MP3 players, as well. So maybe it's worth it.

Quote:

But, neither of them are revolutionary devices or anything.

I would disagree with you there, but that's another thread

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by Xevion Uhh, MacDEF - the Terrapin has ethernet connection. While 10BT isn't as fast as firewire, it is more then 10x as fast as USB in most cases,

Nope, try again. USB 1.1 tops out (under ideal lab conditions) at 12 Mbps. (That's mega bits, not bytes-- note the lowercase "b.") A "standard" ethernet port can (under ideal lab conditions) achieve 10 Mbps.

In real-world conditions, USB and ethernet achieve approximately the same rates. Of course my comments don't apply if that thing has a 100 base T ethernet port (rather than 10), but even then, it'll top out in real world conditions at around 15 Mbps -- faster than USB, to be sure, but still far slower than Firewire.

 

[chych]

Quote:

(That's mega bits, not bytes-- note the lowercase "b.")

Don't you mean... Mebibits, Mib

(http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html)

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by chych Don't you mean... Mebibits, Mib (http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html)

Yeah, I know about the discrepancy between Mib and Mb. I'm pretty sure USB, 10bT ethernet and Firewire are all commonly quoted in Mb, not Mib. Either way, the ratios are the same.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Someone PM'd me this question, but I figured others might be curious about it, so I'm responding here...
Quote:

Why would 100 base T top out at 15Mbps? You mean just this device? I'm confused......

Okay, I should have been more specific. About 2 years ago, I did some real-world testing of 100bT throughput, with what was (then) very high-end equipment -- industrial servers running dual or Quad Pentium II Xeon processors at 400 MHz, 1 GB ram each, high-performance network hardware, etc. The tests were done with Windows NT (which had the fastest transport stack of any Microsoft OS available at the time.) With the overhead of the operating system, filesharing software, and apps (not many, just the minimum necessary to do a test), I managed to get 18 Mbps actual throughput. Now, I'm willing to bet that the Terrapin (or whatever it's called) portable HD can't sustain anywhere near the kind of throughput that these servers did. But to be generous, I estimated 15 Mbps, IF it has a 100bT port.

Interestingly enough, G3 Macs running OS 8.6 or 9 (I can't remember which) could easily sustain 26 Mbps in the same tests at that time -- their transport stacks were much more efficient. A Cisco rep commented to me that with the (then new) Mac OS networking software, Macs easily provided the highest throughput in their own internal testing of network gear.

Now, before anyone gets all up in arms, let me say that Win2K and XP have improved transport layers, and I'm sure they can sustain higher throughputs, especially on the faster machines available today. But I haven't done any real-world testing with them, or with the new Macs available now.

With apologies for getting way off on a tangent...

 

[lextek]

I'd wait for the Windows software to make the iPod compatible with "those" machines. Too, big. Too, slow.

Bob

 

[danf]

This doesn't even come close to the iPod. Its dimensions in inches are 7.09 x 3.54 x 1.06.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Now, before anyone gets all up in arms, let me say that Win2K and XP have improved transport layers, and I'm sure they can sustain higher throughputs, especially on the faster machines available today. But I haven't done any real-world testing with them, or with the new Macs available now.

Let's just say that OS X's UNIX base allows it to smoke 2K and XP in networking speeds

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF Let's just say that OS X's UNIX base allows it to smoke 2K and XP in networking speeds

Actually, it's not simply Unix that's the reason. Specifically, BSD offers the best TCP/IP stack, even amongst various UNIX flavors. And OS X is based on BSD...