IpodStatus page still up-to-date for 5.5Gen iPod?

[saratoga]

Non-optimal disk-writing code shouldn't effect normal playback operation, since that only occurs when saving a playlist or config file.

What about occasional freezes on the 5/5.5g.  Has anyone encountered these?  This happened all the time on my iPod Photo.

I think that issue was fixed last week on the photo when frequency scaling was updated.  Unless you were running a no scaling build?

[lsiden]

Don't know.  That Photo is bricked b/c something happened to the mainboard.  I probably damaged it from opening it so many times.  (Once to replace battery, again to replace hard drive, and again to reconnect HD.  Big fiasco.  

[mamboman]

what's wrong with the hdd in the 5.5G 80GB ipods? just concerned as i am thinking of getting another one

[GodEater]

There's nothing "wrong" with it per se - it just doesn't work the same as any other hard disk in the DAPS that Rockbox supports.

If you search on the wiki you'll find an absolete page that says why it took so long for Rockbox to support it in a reasonable amount of detail.

The only downside to using the 80GB for Rockbox concerns when Rockbox itself writes to the disk - which as pointed out above, only happens when you save a playlist, or a config file. And even then, the "downside" is that it takes four times as long as it does with any other Hard disk based DAP - and you probably STILL won't notice that, since playlists and config files tend to rather small.

Perhaps if you create a playlist with every song on your DAP in it it'd be noticeable - but even so - it doesn't bother me much. I don't do it enough for the performance hit to matter to me.

[wesderby]

I've been using Rockbox on a 60gb 5g for more than a year now with practically no problems. At this point, skipping is never an issue, the way I use it. (Same goes for a 30gb 5.5g I borrowed for a few months.)

Battery life IS kinda a problem for me though; however, if you're cool with ~10hrs then I suppose you'll be fine.

(I also bought it solely because of Rockbox.)

Wow...You're getting 10 hours or so?  Nice.  I have a 30 GB iPod Video, and I'm lucky if I get four or five hours out of the thing with Rockbox.  I keep most of my MP3's at 128KBPS so I can fit more of them on the unit.  Been meaning to request posting permissions to the wiki so I can include my stats on the battery life form, but haven't had a chance to try the IRC channel to see if it works with a screenreader.  Should I have certain settings enabled, or disabled, for the optimum battery life?

[mamboman]

There's nothing "wrong" with it per se - it just doesn't work the same as any other hard disk in the DAPS that Rockbox supports.

If you search on the wiki you'll find an absolete page that says why it took so long for Rockbox to support it in a reasonable amount of detail.

The only downside to using the 80GB for Rockbox concerns when Rockbox itself writes to the disk - which as pointed out above, only happens when you save a playlist, or a config file. And even then, the "downside" is that it takes four times as long as it does with any other Hard disk based DAP - and you probably STILL won't notice that, since playlists and config files tend to rather small.

Perhaps if you create a playlist with every song on your DAP in it it'd be noticeable - but even so - it doesn't bother me much. I don't do it enough for the performance hit to matter to me.

ahh.... that explains it... my committing to database each time I start Rockbox sometimes can take up to 10 minutes.... sigh.... hopefully someone figures out how to make it better

[GodEater]

ahh.... that explains it... my committing to database each time I start Rockbox sometimes can take up to 10 minutes.... sigh.... hopefully someone figures out how to make it better

You could always not use the database

In all seriousness though - making it work more efficiently at writing is probably not a trivial thing to acheive. Amiconn or LinusN are probably in the best position to comment on that though as they're the people who looked into making the disk in the 80GB work in the first place. LinusN wanted an approache where the larger sectors were handled in both the FAT and ATA drivers, which would have been a very much more complex solution - but probably would have improved the speed - whilst amiconn's approach was just to handle them in the ATA driver - which was much faster to implement - but as a result is not as elegant or efficient perhaps.

[mamboman]

ahh.... that explains it... my committing to database each time I start Rockbox sometimes can take up to 10 minutes.... sigh.... hopefully someone figures out how to make it better

You could always not use the database

In all seriousness though - making it work more efficiently at writing is probably not a trivial thing to acheive. Amiconn or LinusN are probably in the best position to comment on that though as they're the people who looked into making the disk in the 80GB work in the first place. LinusN wanted an approache where the larger sectors were handled in both the FAT and ATA drivers, which would have been a very much more complex solution - but probably would have improved the speed - whilst amiconn's approach was just to handle them in the ATA driver - which was much faster to implement - but as a result is not as elegant or efficient perhaps.

it's quite useless without the database, perhaps when someone finds the time to perhaps generate the database on the PC then copy in the files, it'd be much faster i reckon

[GodEater]

it's quite useless without the database, perhaps when someone finds the time to perhaps generate the database on the PC then copy in the files, it'd be much faster i reckon

Useless is a strong word - I don't use the database and I find it very useful indeed - it's all about how you choose to use the firmware. I suspect you're still using iTunes to transfer your music over - so not using the database would be extremely painful - I however do not, and therefore do not require the database.

I believe I saw someone recently who said they were going to start on writing an app to generate the rockbox database files on the PC. I'm not sure if they're actually going to make good on this or not - but it'll probably be a quicker option than someone cleaning up the core rockbox ATA/FAT drivers.

[melancholydm]

I actually only used the database once since it tends to make my experience really slow while using it. the way i set up my file tree is music - genre - artist:album... so i stick to using the File browser which is for me far better.

[pixelma]

Wow...You're getting 10 hours or so?  Nice.  I have a 30 GB iPod Video, and I'm lucky if I get four or five hours out of the thing with Rockbox.  I keep most of my MP3's at 128KBPS so I can fit more of them on the unit. [..]

I remember you are using voice. It was discovered last week that with voice enabled and voice file present, rockbox lets the processor stay boosted (running at full frequency) all the time during playback even when it doesn't have to talk and independent from the used format. This means it will need more power than without voice and it could explain a great deal of the difference (not sure if this is the only reason in your case though). They discussed the issue and possible fixes last week in IRC, I hope this bug will be sorted out soon!