Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica Vivisects A Video iPod
phaedo00 writes "The guys over at Ars Technica have put together another one of their infamous reviews. This time they tackle the video iPod and give it a proper review, complete with vivisection and a discussion of the guts." From the article: "It wouldn't be an Ars iPod review without a dissection (or in this case, a vivisection since the patient survived) and discussion. Talking about what changes were made on the exterior of the device is fine and well, but the real interesting stuff--to me anyways--is found within. As the old adage says, 'it's what's on the inside that counts.' With that, I'm dismantling this iPod in the name of science. All went well: I was able to put to back together and it's working fine." An interesting counter-point to previous coverage.
a vivisection since the patient survived
Vivisection means you cut on a living animal. Not that it survived the process.
Just sayin.
... it may be working now, but I think they may have invalidated the warranty (^^)
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Ever heard of this thing called a metaphor?
The iPod "survived" (literally meaning it still worked, not that it was ever a living creature), therefore they found it amusing to describe the process as a "vivisection." Get over it.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Actually, dissect is a synonym for "analyze," which in this case is appropriate; however, when we say dissect, we usually wish to evoke images of tissue and high school biology. The definition of dissect has no reference to anything dying. Vivisect, on the other hand, means "to cut a body open while still alive," which means that it has to be alive in the first place. Given that the video iPod was "dead" for a part of the procedure (can't run it while it isn't connected to battery, for example), dissect may be more appropriate. However, given that this is a gadget and not a living being, I would have chosen "disassembles" or "takes apart." Vivisect just sounds cool, though. That said, was anything learned that wasn't in apple's literature? Have we now any enjoyable hacks for the video iPod?
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
Since they knew they were slashdotting the hell out of it, the least they could have done was include in the summary whether the battery leads are soldered in place (as with the nano) or on a nice easy-to-swap pin connection. It's really just about the only thing I'm remotely curious about regarding the new iPod.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I think that the stress testing in Ars technica's iPod nano review should be done on the video iPod as well. I clicked that link expecting to see an ipod getting run over and all I get is it being pulled to pieces.
This is what I call a proper review.
I must've skimmed over that fact in all the previous video iPod announcements, so ignore this or mark redundant if you feel so inclined. Ars seems to attribute it to decreasing the amount of space needed for the FW chipset. I'm glad Apple's still working to decrease the size, and I KNOW it's not that vital... but losing firewire seems a little sad.
Yes I know there's no rational reason for that (and they had good reasons to move on), but hey, there it is. Maybe it stems directly from my original experience with the 2G iPod (my first one) where you could just jam any old cable into the huge built in FW port on the device.
http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review3298.html
These guys actually posted their last night, worth a read too.
Instead of fostering discussion about the Video iPod, in which I get to hear bitching that it doesn't play Xvid/Divx/Grand Ogg Tarkin, I get to hear semantics arguments about why the word "vivisection" is not appropriate. Boo.
For more information, click here.
You're making Dvorak cry!
Can't you write about, I don't know, tabs in IE7 or something? Who wants to hear about the multi-billion selling iPod? Isn't there another Windows vulnerability you can write about? Maybe another non-functioning "PlayForSure" device or removed Vista feature that already exists in OS X?
I knew it! You're clearly biased!
"Sufferin' succotash."
..... is the this Vivisection of an iPod complete with a cost breakdown of the components and an estimation of what Apple makes off of each iPod.
d f
https://jefferies.bluematrix.com/docs/pdf/31086.p
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
What?!? You have insufficient love for your Apple product! Buy it a present right now and hope Steve will forgive you!
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
"Just because the AC didn't know they were ramen doesn't make them any less dead."
:-P
There are the iPod, iPod nano and iPod shuffle. It just so happens that the biggest ones also play video.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
"iPods are people! They're people! Peeeeeeeeeeeee-ople!"
Apologies to Charlton Hest...hey, waitaminute, my bad - no apologies required.
Give a man a beer and he wastes an hour. Teach a man to brew and he wastes a lifetime.
The performance difference is significant (at least 10%, and often more), and it goes up with bigger files, like video
.ts file from a high-def 1080i capture), then I don't know, but I'd still think USB2 could handle that. You're still only talking a 19.8mb/sec streaming rate. My wireless internet connection can handle that without a hiccup, so a wired USB2 connection shouldn't have any problem with it. (USB2's theoretical transfer rate is 480mb/sec, although with overhead included, in reality it's much lower.)
You would think that a video iPod would be the place you would definitely want Firewire, at least as an option.
It would be nice to still have but you're making too big a deal out of it in this particular case.
The iPod's video files are native 320x240 mpeg-4 files. You can go up to something like 480x480, I guess, and if you compress them yourself you can make them relatively huge (not that you'd want to; it'd just be a waste of space), but the point is that in absolute terms, these are not large video files. You could easily stream them over USB2 with no hiccups whatsoever. You could probably stream a dozen of them at a time if the iPod supported such a thing.
But that's not the way the iPod works anyway. Now, I'm not 100% sure that the 5G iPod works the same as the 4G and previous models (I would assume it does), but you don't generally "stream" anything from the iPod to your PC. You *can*, depending on how you set up your sync preferences, but by default all of your iPod's contents will be greyed out because they're by definition just duplicated on the PC anyway. Probably 95% of iPod users have their systems set up this way, but the remaining 5% will have no trouble streaming video from the iPod over USB2.
Generally, though, the PC connection is just used for syncing. And you don't need to do that more than about once a week, unless you really collect huge amounts of music and movies on a daily basis. So you're not going to notice any speed difference between USB and Firewire there.
Now, if you just want to use the iPod as a mass-storage device for video (which you can also do), and store really high-res, high-def stuff on it (like a full-res
What Firewire is primarily used for in terms of video is uncompressed, full-res professional stuff. We use it where I work, for example, to store media on portable drives for transport. That's where the advantages of Firewire really make themselves apparent; USB2 never really gets near its theoretical speed limit and it'll hiccup more and more as you get closer to it, but Firewire stays nice and smooth right up to around 400mbps (assuming you're using Firewire 400, which is what older iPods supported).
But I can't see that anyone who uses the iPod as designed is going to have any problems with video. And nobody who really needs Firewire for video is going to be using an iPod in that capacity anyway; that video would be too important (and probably too big) to transport with anything but an industrial-strength full-size portable hard drive.
I'm glad I have a Firewire-capable 4G iPod only because I can use the included firewire cable and charger that came with my iPod without having to rely on my PC if I don't need to sync. But I could live without it if I didn't have it, and the video on the new iPod's really got no relevance to the issue.
I dunno...hey, come check out my basement!
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Except that most people are still getting 320x240 from their cable/satellite receiver over *coax* and don't seem to complain. As the reviewer mentioned, videophiles (like, evidentally, yourself) probably won't be satisfied, but for your average joe (like me), who likely doesn't even know what a composite cable is, it's probably sufficient.