Macbook with Ipod Nano

Rooky007 · 30 Jan 2007 at 20:05

This is the final question to make me decide.

I currently have a Ipod nano and a sony laptop getting music off the cd to the laptop takes a bit longer than I think it should. Spec is 1.75ghz centrino with 521 memory

Do getting a Macbook make the music transfer faster or does it not make a different

Will_3rd · 30 Jan 2007 at 22:07

Rookies said:
This is the final question to make me decide.

I currently have a iPod nano and a Sony laptop getting music off the cd to the laptop takes a bit longer than I think it should. Spec is 1.75ghz centrino with 512 memory

Do getting a Macbook make the music transfer faster or does it not make a different

The Macbook is much higher speced then the laptop you have currently with the Apple machine having a Core2Duo and all, but it depends mainly on the speed of the drive, I think the current Macbooks have 24x cd read speed. What does your Sony have?

Energize · 30 Jan 2007 at 22:18

Rookies said:
Do getting a Macbook make the music transfer faster or does it not make a different

The speed of the drive is what affects the transfer rate, not the operating system, chances are there won't be any difference if the macbooks are 24x, I doubt your laptops will be slower than that.

Rooky007 · 30 Jan 2007 at 23:24

I think my sony got 24x speed. So really dont think I see much different then if I upgraded to a mac. any comments

Will_3rd · 30 Jan 2007 at 23:28

Rookies said:
I think my Sony has 24x speed. So I really don't think I will see much difference if I upgraded to a mac. any comments

The difference in the speed of the processor would be noticeable, but it all depends on personal preference.

Energize · 30 Jan 2007 at 23:42

Cpu speed isn't really going to be a factor here though, the drive is what is bottlenecking the transfer speeds, the cpu will easily be able to encode at a 24x cd speed. Assuming he is actually ripping them.

FrankJH · 31 Jan 2007 at 07:16

I personally would have thought it was a combination of the ripping capabilities of the cpu and relatively little RAM (potential for virtual memory to be used slowing things down)

IMO a C2D macbook with 1Gb would be a great deal better

Wile E. Coyote · 31 Jan 2007 at 07:33

My old desktop was faster at ripping CD's than my new laptop. The desktop had a 3000 winnie clocked to 2.0ghz with 1gig ram and 48x speed. The laptop is a c2d 1.66ghz with also 1gig ram but only a 24x speed. It has to be the speed of the drive.

Rooky007 · 31 Jan 2007 at 08:19

God making it hard for me to decide ha ha..

Wondering now whether to go for a new PC Laptop instead with Due Cor and a Faster Cdrom/dvdrom

Energize · 31 Jan 2007 at 13:54

Don't know wether you will be a able to get much faster drives with laptops, the best desktop ones are 56x. So assuming a full 700mb cd.

1x = 150KB/s = 78mins
24x = 3600KB/s = 3mins 12secs
32x = 4800KB/s = 2mins 25secs
40x = 6000KB/s = 1min 58secs
48x = 7200KB/s = 1min 37secs
56x = 8400KB/s = 1min 23secs

As you can see after 24x there isn't much difference.

Rooky007 · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:00

Energize said:
Don't know wether you will be a able to get much faster drives with laptops, the best desktop ones are 56x.

1x = 150KB/s
24x = 3600KB/s
32x = 4800KB/s
40x = 6000KB/s
48x = 7200KB/s
56x = 8400KB/s

Are you ripping the cds to another format, or simply extracting the pcm files, or just copying some mp3 files from the cd to the hard drive?

All I know is when i put my cd into my laptop itune auto import them to my itune libary

Energize · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:06

Guess it's converting them then. Anyway I have edited my above post now and it shows that there isn't much you can do to speed things up really even with a faster drive there won't be much of a difference.

FrankJH · 31 Jan 2007 at 15:32

Wile E. Coyote said:
My old desktop was faster at ripping CD's than my new laptop. The desktop had a 3000 winnie clocked to 2.0ghz with 1gig ram and 48x speed. The laptop is a c2d 1.66ghz with also 1gig ram but only a 24x speed. It has to be the speed of the drive.

Interesting but this is how I would look at it:

Due to ripping a CD being relatively light work for present generation (winnie is really same generation as X2, just single core) of cpu's I would suggest that the winnie desktop gains more due to it having 300Mhz or so more cpu power (20% of the c2d cpu power)

Now I know the c2d is generally faster (and newer generation) but on such a small task as ripping, I would think the MHZ rating would be the biggest factor (given everything else is equal ...or up for the task you are comparing)

Maybe I am wrong in this view, but I think this is a fair way to look at it.

Obviously the C2d also "loses out" due to ripping only requiring one core anyway - so the winnie is utilizing more % of the cpu, and the c2d is being lazier

Wile E. Coyote · 31 Jan 2007 at 16:14

FrankJH said:
and the c2d is being lazier

I bought a lazy processor OMG its getting sent back