While I haven't compared weights, it's interesting to note that if one model is slightly smaller, or thinner, psychologically, it will feel heavier, even if they both weigh EXACTLY the same. (Not saying they do!).
Definitely, it could be denser, so it would seem very heavy for its size, even if it's the same weight. If the device is thinner mostly because it uses thinner chips, then it could be slightly lighter but seem more hefty.
Another thing that struck me about the new iPods is the iTunes it requires. Not so much that it needs an upgrade, but that the iPod doesn't come with iTunes. We're on dial-up at the moment, so it took an age and a half to download the required iTunes (of which the programme was only half of the installer?!).
A CD wasn't included... fair enough, but they could have put the installers on the iPod itself as it still comes up as an external disk even if you can't use it as an iPod.
Man, every time I read the phrase "Flash RAM", my blood pressure goes up and I die a little inside.
By an overwhelming margin, the consensus by participants within the technical industry is to call it Flash ROM.
This is for various reasons, mainly due to NOR Flash's heritage as an evolutionary descendant of traditional ROM which, while readable in the same random-access fashion as traditional RAM, truly was read-only.
NOR Flash, at least, truly does have a random-access read interface. But the higher-capacity NAND Flash uses an internal structure that really is more akin to a hard-drive than RAM.
Both NAND and NOR Flash must be written in "sectors" or "pages" spanning many bytes, which is a fundamental deviation from the symmetrical read/write mechanism found in "real" RAM.
Apple is giving those people who want exactly what the Classic delivers, what they are asking for.
I'm willing to state that it will be the most popular HDD digital player made.
It's not for you, and that's fine.
EVER made?
There goes your credibility.
Yeah, music junkies may think they want their whole collection and get this thing. But anyone that's used Coverflow on this dog knows it's an awkward experience and slow. Unless Apple fixes this via software, don't count on its sales exceeding anything superlative.
From what I've read, the interface isn't exactly sluggesh. What happens is the if you move through the album art too quickly, some of the covers can come up grey briefly, while the cpu updates, but the search continues at full speed.
Why don't you go to a store and check it out for yourself. this is all very personal. What one person thinks is unacceptable, another may think is fine.
You really need first hand experience with this interface to make this statement. Not only is it sluggish, but poorly suited for the iPod in this manifestation. Read Chris Breen's review on PlayList.
Yeah, music junkies may think they want their whole collection and get this thing. But anyone that's used Coverflow on this dog knows it's an awkward experience and slow. Unless Apple fixes this via software, don't count on its sales exceeding anything superlative.
Huh? What hard drive player sold in higher quantities than Apple's hard drive players?
The reports are that this week's update improved CoverFlow. I can't vouch for it though, I'm only going on reports that it was bad and later, that it was improved.
Huh? What hard drive player sold in higher quantities than Apple's hard drive players?
The reports are that this week's update improved CoverFlow. I can't vouch for it though, I'm only going on reports that it was bad and later, that it was improved.
Given that the Classic has just been released, it hasn't outsold anyone yet.
I would bet the new Classic won't reach the sales level of the 5G or 5.5G video iPod, because the market has been saturated with iPods of this ilk.
Yeah, it WAS the most successful design. But if you aren't improving the design any with this Classic and the UI has worsened - don't expect much.
Given that the Classic has just been released, it hasn't outsold anyone yet.
I would bet the new Classic won't reach the sales level of the 5G or 5.5G video iPod, because the market has been saturated with iPods of this ilk.
Yeah, it WAS the most successful design. But if you aren't improving the design any with this Classic and the UI has worsened - don't expect much.
So, you really agree, but that you are misinterpreting what Melgross said. I'm pretty sure that Melgross meant that the entire line of standard HDD iPods is the most popular of the HDD players.
You cut out and didn't properly respond to the fact that there was an update that did improve the UI fluidity. Already, an article written last week might be obsolete.
Yeah, music junkies may think they want their whole collection and get this thing. But anyone that's used Coverflow on this dog knows it's an awkward experience and slow. Unless Apple fixes this via software, don't count on its sales exceeding anything superlative.
Yes. Ever made. What HDD players do you think was more popular than this one will be?
And, as Jeff said, I do mean the line. didn't notice this until after I posted.
Apple has sold iPod HD jogging accessories for years. So according to your assessment, Apple wasn't thinking clearly.
In the latest generation---DUE TO THE SMALLER AND MORE FRAGILE NEW 1.7" HD--the iPod can no longer due "heavy lifting" This is a change in the functionality of the product and should be stated up front. That is the reason for full disclosure in the consumer driven market that Apple courts.
The large capacity iPods went from road warriers to beautiful fragile Faberge eggs that must be looked at from afar.
The previous full-size iPods used a 1.8" HD IIRC...was there a new size introduced? And if so, is it that much different than before? I assumed the Classic is simply using larger versions of same size drive-
EDIT- They seem to be the same format drive as before according to iFixit, just a bit thinner (which has always been the trend)-
You really need first hand experience with this interface to make this statement. Not only is it sluggish, but poorly suited for the iPod in this manifestation. Read Chris Breen's review on PlayList.
I've played with it. It depends on how sensitive you are to it, and Apple seems to have been able to speed some parts of it up. I haven't seen it since then.
Plus they do give you a choice. You don't have to use cover flow if you don't like it. Unless you just want to complain about it.
Nice try, but Apple has touted this as a premiere feature. Therefore, if even a minority buy it with Cover Flow in mind, they not only have the right to return it, but Apple might have opened themselves up to a legitimate class action lawsuit. Cover Flow on this device and the Nano are just that bad. The update cannot fix the problem because it is a hardware problem rather than software. It is like a ten year old PC trying to run Vista. No amount of software tinkering will do the trick. We need to face the fact that Apple released a couple of crummy products out the door for the Christmas buying season. They will pay for this mistake with many unhappy returns. This will hurt the iPod brand. And that is a shame as I love the new UI. It just has the little problem of not working. Sigh... Even Apple lays an egg from time to time. Let's just hope they sell more iPT and phones than nanos and classics.
Nice try, but Apple has touted this as a premiere feature. Therefore, if even a minority buy it with Cover Flow in mind, they not only have the right to return it, but Apple might have opened themselves up to a legitimate class action lawsuit. Cover Flow on this device and the Nano are just that bad. The update cannot fix the problem because it is a hardware problem rather than software. It is like a ten year old PC trying to run Vista. No amount of software tinkering will do the trick. We need to face the fact that Apple released a couple of crummy products out the door for the Christmas buying season. They will pay for this mistake with many unhappy returns. This will hurt the iPod brand. And that is a shame as I love the new UI. It just has the little problem of not working. Sigh... Even Apple lays an egg from time to time. Let's just hope they sell more iPT and phones than nanos and classics.
I think you are overplaying it by... a lot. I'm not sure why a class action lawsuit would mean anything or why it would be legitimate, anyone not satisfied should just return it rather than resort to a pointless and self deprecating lawsuit.
I played with CoverFlow on the new nano and classic at the Apple store today and I really didn't see any problem with it other than the fact that it's kind of a gimmicky feature anyway. It seemed to behave just like the same feature on iTunes.
I really don't plan to buy either so I can't really torture test it. Maybe that's where the problem lies.
Cover Flow on this device and the Nano are just that bad. They will pay for this mistake with many unhappy returns.
Looking around I don't see a big uproar about cover flow. Primarily the iPod is for media play back, that is what most everyone will be concerned about. Cover flow is just one way of sorting through that media. I agree with Jeff mostly its a shiny gimmick. People do love shiny gimmicks though. Its not that big of a deal.
You really need first hand experience with this interface to make this statement. Not only is it sluggish, but poorly suited for the iPod in this manifestation. Read Chris Breen's review on PlayList.
For what it's worth, the 9/19/2007 episode of Macworld Podcast, Chris Breen did say that the new 1.0.1 firmware improved the UI considerably.
I bought an iPod Classic to replace my 80gb 5.5 gen. I sent it back. There are some very annoying 'features', including the appalling screensaver (which kicks in only after a few minutes), the half screen menus, and the inability to play any games you may have bought for your previous iPod.
For what it's worth, the 9/19/2007 episode of Macworld Podcast, Chris Breen did say that the new 1.0.1 firmware improved the UI considerably.
The update does nothing for Cover Flow. Also, Cover Flow would not be such a big deal if SJ had not made it such a Big deal. Frankly, the feature is all but unusable. I owned the nano and have played with the classic for a good long time. As for class action, I despise them. But Apple making CF a feature and selling the things based, in part, on that feature is like selling a 24" screen where 2" are unlit and unusable.
I, too, have not seen the amount of press on this issue as I expected, but that does not make it any less of an issue. With the tilted screen, it may be that people have bigger issues with these devices. The Apple store I shop at has already taken a boat load of returns on this product and acknowledged the issue right away as something that cannot be repaired. Trust me, It is a well known issue, and one that cannot be fixed with a software update. The classic is even worse. I love Apple and I love iPods. But Apple laid an egg this time and they are going to pay for it big time.
I agree with anything can fail at anytime. It could have been a Macbook Pro, and it still could have failed.
The same thing is true for professional photography. At least two bodies have to be brought to every job. Hopefully more than one needed lens as well. Several memory cards, a couple of rechargers, and several batteries.
Comments
While I haven't compared weights, it's interesting to note that if one model is slightly smaller, or thinner, psychologically, it will feel heavier, even if they both weigh EXACTLY the same. (Not saying they do!).
Definitely, it could be denser, so it would seem very heavy for its size, even if it's the same weight. If the device is thinner mostly because it uses thinner chips, then it could be slightly lighter but seem more hefty.
A CD wasn't included... fair enough, but they could have put the installers on the iPod itself as it still comes up as an external disk even if you can't use it as an iPod.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....358119#5358119
I am returning 160gb iPod Classic number two today as it is frozen solid and is rendered completely useless.
Flash RAM vs a Hard Drive
Man, every time I read the phrase "Flash RAM", my blood pressure goes up and I die a little inside.
By an overwhelming margin, the consensus by participants within the technical industry is to call it Flash ROM.
This is for various reasons, mainly due to NOR Flash's heritage as an evolutionary descendant of traditional ROM which, while readable in the same random-access fashion as traditional RAM, truly was read-only.
NOR Flash, at least, truly does have a random-access read interface. But the higher-capacity NAND Flash uses an internal structure that really is more akin to a hard-drive than RAM.
Both NAND and NOR Flash must be written in "sectors" or "pages" spanning many bytes, which is a fundamental deviation from the symmetrical read/write mechanism found in "real" RAM.
You are so out of it with this post.
Apple is giving those people who want exactly what the Classic delivers, what they are asking for.
I'm willing to state that it will be the most popular HDD digital player made.
It's not for you, and that's fine.
EVER made?
There goes your credibility.
Yeah, music junkies may think they want their whole collection and get this thing. But anyone that's used Coverflow on this dog knows it's an awkward experience and slow. Unless Apple fixes this via software, don't count on its sales exceeding anything superlative.
From what I've read, the interface isn't exactly sluggesh. What happens is the if you move through the album art too quickly, some of the covers can come up grey briefly, while the cpu updates, but the search continues at full speed.
Why don't you go to a store and check it out for yourself. this is all very personal. What one person thinks is unacceptable, another may think is fine.
You really need first hand experience with this interface to make this statement. Not only is it sluggish, but poorly suited for the iPod in this manifestation. Read Chris Breen's review on PlayList.
EVER made?
There goes your credibility.
Yeah, music junkies may think they want their whole collection and get this thing. But anyone that's used Coverflow on this dog knows it's an awkward experience and slow. Unless Apple fixes this via software, don't count on its sales exceeding anything superlative.
Huh? What hard drive player sold in higher quantities than Apple's hard drive players?
The reports are that this week's update improved CoverFlow. I can't vouch for it though, I'm only going on reports that it was bad and later, that it was improved.
Huh? What hard drive player sold in higher quantities than Apple's hard drive players?
The reports are that this week's update improved CoverFlow. I can't vouch for it though, I'm only going on reports that it was bad and later, that it was improved.
Given that the Classic has just been released, it hasn't outsold anyone yet.
I would bet the new Classic won't reach the sales level of the 5G or 5.5G video iPod, because the market has been saturated with iPods of this ilk.
Yeah, it WAS the most successful design. But if you aren't improving the design any with this Classic and the UI has worsened - don't expect much.
Given that the Classic has just been released, it hasn't outsold anyone yet.
I would bet the new Classic won't reach the sales level of the 5G or 5.5G video iPod, because the market has been saturated with iPods of this ilk.
Yeah, it WAS the most successful design. But if you aren't improving the design any with this Classic and the UI has worsened - don't expect much.
So, you really agree, but that you are misinterpreting what Melgross said. I'm pretty sure that Melgross meant that the entire line of standard HDD iPods is the most popular of the HDD players.
You cut out and didn't properly respond to the fact that there was an update that did improve the UI fluidity. Already, an article written last week might be obsolete.
EVER made?
There goes your credibility.
Yeah, music junkies may think they want their whole collection and get this thing. But anyone that's used Coverflow on this dog knows it's an awkward experience and slow. Unless Apple fixes this via software, don't count on its sales exceeding anything superlative.
Yes. Ever made. What HDD players do you think was more popular than this one will be?
And, as Jeff said, I do mean the line. didn't notice this until after I posted.
Apple has sold iPod HD jogging accessories for years. So according to your assessment, Apple wasn't thinking clearly.
In the latest generation---DUE TO THE SMALLER AND MORE FRAGILE NEW 1.7" HD--the iPod can no longer due "heavy lifting" This is a change in the functionality of the product and should be stated up front. That is the reason for full disclosure in the consumer driven market that Apple courts.
The large capacity iPods went from road warriers to beautiful fragile Faberge eggs that must be looked at from afar.
The previous full-size iPods used a 1.8" HD IIRC...was there a new size introduced? And if so, is it that much different than before? I assumed the Classic is simply using larger versions of same size drive-
EDIT- They seem to be the same format drive as before according to iFixit, just a bit thinner (which has always been the trend)-
http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iPod/iPod-Classic
You really need first hand experience with this interface to make this statement. Not only is it sluggish, but poorly suited for the iPod in this manifestation. Read Chris Breen's review on PlayList.
I've played with it. It depends on how sensitive you are to it, and Apple seems to have been able to speed some parts of it up. I haven't seen it since then.
Plus they do give you a choice. You don't have to use cover flow if you don't like it. Unless you just want to complain about it.
Nice try, but Apple has touted this as a premiere feature. Therefore, if even a minority buy it with Cover Flow in mind, they not only have the right to return it, but Apple might have opened themselves up to a legitimate class action lawsuit. Cover Flow on this device and the Nano are just that bad. The update cannot fix the problem because it is a hardware problem rather than software. It is like a ten year old PC trying to run Vista. No amount of software tinkering will do the trick. We need to face the fact that Apple released a couple of crummy products out the door for the Christmas buying season. They will pay for this mistake with many unhappy returns. This will hurt the iPod brand. And that is a shame as I love the new UI. It just has the little problem of not working. Sigh... Even Apple lays an egg from time to time. Let's just hope they sell more iPT and phones than nanos and classics.
Nice try, but Apple has touted this as a premiere feature. Therefore, if even a minority buy it with Cover Flow in mind, they not only have the right to return it, but Apple might have opened themselves up to a legitimate class action lawsuit. Cover Flow on this device and the Nano are just that bad. The update cannot fix the problem because it is a hardware problem rather than software. It is like a ten year old PC trying to run Vista. No amount of software tinkering will do the trick. We need to face the fact that Apple released a couple of crummy products out the door for the Christmas buying season. They will pay for this mistake with many unhappy returns. This will hurt the iPod brand. And that is a shame as I love the new UI. It just has the little problem of not working. Sigh... Even Apple lays an egg from time to time. Let's just hope they sell more iPT and phones than nanos and classics.
I think you are overplaying it by... a lot. I'm not sure why a class action lawsuit would mean anything or why it would be legitimate, anyone not satisfied should just return it rather than resort to a pointless and self deprecating lawsuit.
I played with CoverFlow on the new nano and classic at the Apple store today and I really didn't see any problem with it other than the fact that it's kind of a gimmicky feature anyway. It seemed to behave just like the same feature on iTunes.
I really don't plan to buy either so I can't really torture test it. Maybe that's where the problem lies.
Cover Flow on this device and the Nano are just that bad. They will pay for this mistake with many unhappy returns.
Looking around I don't see a big uproar about cover flow. Primarily the iPod is for media play back, that is what most everyone will be concerned about. Cover flow is just one way of sorting through that media. I agree with Jeff mostly its a shiny gimmick. People do love shiny gimmicks though. Its not that big of a deal.
You really need first hand experience with this interface to make this statement. Not only is it sluggish, but poorly suited for the iPod in this manifestation. Read Chris Breen's review on PlayList.
For what it's worth, the 9/19/2007 episode of Macworld Podcast, Chris Breen did say that the new 1.0.1 firmware improved the UI considerably.
Sticking with my old fave for now.
For what it's worth, the 9/19/2007 episode of Macworld Podcast, Chris Breen did say that the new 1.0.1 firmware improved the UI considerably.
The update does nothing for Cover Flow. Also, Cover Flow would not be such a big deal if SJ had not made it such a Big deal. Frankly, the feature is all but unusable. I owned the nano and have played with the classic for a good long time. As for class action, I despise them. But Apple making CF a feature and selling the things based, in part, on that feature is like selling a 24" screen where 2" are unlit and unusable.
I, too, have not seen the amount of press on this issue as I expected, but that does not make it any less of an issue. With the tilted screen, it may be that people have bigger issues with these devices. The Apple store I shop at has already taken a boat load of returns on this product and acknowledged the issue right away as something that cannot be repaired. Trust me, It is a well known issue, and one that cannot be fixed with a software update. The classic is even worse. I love Apple and I love iPods. But Apple laid an egg this time and they are going to pay for it big time.
The same thing is true for professional photography. At least two bodies have to be brought to every job. Hopefully more than one needed lens as well. Several memory cards, a couple of rechargers, and several batteries.
Something is always bound to fail somewhere.