Your preference. Even if i do carry 160Gb worth of music, i'll go nuts trying to listen to all of them in one single day. That is why you have iTunes to organize which songs goes to where and when. This way, i can easily organize, and nominate the songs i want to hear one one particular day, into one particular playlist, and only sync that song in. You dont need 160gb or 80gb Classic for that matter to do this. 16Gb Touch is plenty fine.

It's called "Classic" for one other reason too IMO. It's the last in the line, and dying of short breath. With numerous problems with Coverflow, and general lagginess when accessing Coverflow on the Classics, i wouldnt touch it with a 10 foot pole.

To each his own, which is why i wrote "your preference" in my first post. I can live without listening to a particular song when mood strikes me, or if i need to, i'd stream it off Wifi using the Touch from Seeqpod or my own server back home. Some may need to salvage their sanity with immediate listening to a particular song, other have higher tolerance or can wait until they get back home for their music fix. To each his own.

Consensus says....... what again?

I was initially considering the Classic due to the roomier storage space, but the whole lag issue with Coverflow was the killjoy im not really wanting to face. My music rarely gets bloated more than over 30Gb, so my old iPod Video of the last gen marked at 30Gb more than covers it. Had the entire Harry Potter 1-7 audiobooks , all Dan Brown audiobooks plus all my tunes , and still have 7Gb to spare. I guess i rotate my songs more often, to the point where i dont stick and keep the old ones and having to carry them with me. Sure, i have oldies and favourites, but i'd like to keep my music contemporary. I have no qualms whatsoever to those who wants to keep all your songs with you, it is just that my principles is that i keep only what i plan to listen to, so then capacity i need most definitely wont even be more than the 30Gb. Heck, take a good look at your iTunes and see how it takes to listen to all the songs if you so. 400+ songs already take 1.1 days! Im not really planning to listen to them while im working, in the toilet doing my business , or while im sleeping......unless it helps with getting deep REM sleep i need.

Again, to each their own.

Then again, i'd think that if you are really hardcore with your music, you wouldnt be picking iPods as your primary DAP, you'd be splooging over the Creative Zens or even the older iRivers, with better bitrates, and audio reproductions.

You are forgetting an important factor that comes into play when you decide to use your iPod for watching video:Battery endurance.

Let's review.

New iPod Nano 8Gb - 5hrs
New iPod Classic 160Gb - 7hrs
iPod Touch 16Gb - 5hrs
iPhone 8Gb - 7hrs

Im not pulling these figures out of my a$$, these are Apple's figures from their tech specs. So even if you have almost limitless 160Gb worth of storage space, you are theoretically still constrained to how long you can watch your video without the need to recharging it back again. So your iPod Classic advantages are nullified by these figures themselves.

The advantage of having all your music with you, hence "Hold Everything" tag on the iPod Classic still carry meaning, since you can technically hold everything and choose from all your selection, but on video, you are tethered on its battery endurance limitation.

If you say you are lazy, then that is not a good excuse. You are industrious enough to convert and arrange your movies to be transferred into your iPod Classic, and you may even had to withstand several video conversions to put those movies in. What's stopping you from segregating your videos into what you wanna watch on the road today, and the next day?

7 hours of video, unless you lug the charger around.

When was it that im forcing anything down anyone's throat? I myself had a 30Gb and an 80Gb at one time in my iPod owning life, but sold it off because im not inclined to have or listen to all my music whenever mood or fancy strikes. Do you feel intimidated by the realities that i posted, or did my post struck a nerve that compels you to put the shields up and call the defense brigade?

If you dont have the luxury to stick to your comp all the time, and mind you when it comes to travel, I KNOW IT BY HEART , DUDE....it is my profession, you get more than several days' worth of music on your iPod Touch, even on that supposedly paltry 16GB! One thing i myself notice is that when you are lugging around a massive capacity iPods around, some of your songs get neglected, because you have the "luxury" of having it with you, but you dont utilise it by playing it while you are around. You have this thing at the back of your mind that "oh i have it with me, i can listen to it anytime i want" but dare i ask have you been listening to ALL your songs you have in your iPod when you have them in your precious 80/160Gb iPods? Plug that thing into iTunes and see the playcounts, buddy.....you'll see what i mean.

By my average count, i'll get 450 songs worth a days worth in my iPod. If i could be dilligent and rotate the songs fairly among each other and listen to them at least once, and if you do listent to them 24 hours a day, you get 450 songs with 1 playcount each. What about your other thousands of songs which stays in there with no play at all? You say play the next day? Then i can still have 10 days worth of songs MINIMUM before i ran out of song choices on the iPod Touch, and start thinking of other songs i left behind on my computer hard drive back home. You travel much, leaving your home more than 10 days? If that is so, then by most account, a 10 days worth of days leaving the house would either be a vacation or you moving to a new location for either semi-or-permanent period of time. If it is the former, it's a vacation, you should not be listening to your iPods while enjoying your vacation. You can listen to your songs of course, but you paid thousands to be somewhere else, and you still want to concentrate your days on listening to Jolin Tsai crooning on the headphones? If it is the latter....guess what!? You are moving, and by this fact alone, your comp would be moving with you anyway! Agree?

Believe me, i made tons of lousy excuses which wouldnt hold water now , if i tell them to my friends who sports Nanos and Shuffles. I used to laugh at them and brag about the superiority of my iPod and its capacity. Then i realized that some of my songs are left rotting inside the superior-and-roomier iPods and not getting its deserved playcount. That's when i realise that smart management of your tunes inside your iPods is what made listening to the iPods worthwhile.

So chill, see it from my perspectives. The points i brought up are the realities in real-world performace of these iPods and sadly, the battery endurance cant keep up with the capacity that kept on ballooning. And like i said, that advantage of tens of thousands of songs is moot, nullified by the fact that you can only play 7 hours of videos and 24 hours of songs (if you are lucky) without a recharge. That's 450 songs worth in 24 hours, before your iPod shuts down. How do you intend to play the rest of the tens of thousands of songs on a dead iPod?

This post has been edited by stringfellow: Oct 8 2007, 12:37 PM

If everybody's rich, this question posted on this thread title wont even come up, everybody would be happy. It is when people gotta choose is when they get a little defensive on their purchases.

Which includes how long you can use the respective iPods without the need to tether it to a power cord, right?

Again, do not put words in my mouth, or in this case, typed responses at the assumption on my part.

Nobody called anything stupid on the creation of these iPod options, it simply caters to different types of groups. My posts merely suggest alternatives to lugging around your musics without trying organization or managements of your songs. Hell, if you have tried that and still cannot live without those tunes you left behind, or if you are plain lazy, then by all means, spend that RM1400++ on that iPod Classic.

The usual notion that people buy into when it comes to DAP like these are its capacity. Im merely providing a different facet to this notion by stating that large capacity means jack $hit if it cant even play them with its standalone battery capacity. Capishe?

Funny how people like tend to take my post as a "be all, end all" reference kinda response to what people should or should not do or buy when it comes to their iPods. You do think so right, otherwise you wouldnt have be so riled up in such a state that you are right now? My posts were meant as another take to the ever-evolving issue of "Which iPod is for me?" which is what the topic we are talking about here. You sir, came here with all your assumptions and conclusions without scrutinising what im trying to convey here.

P/S: If ego is the question at hand here, then i would definitely be backing the iPod Classic and hailing its massive cavernous innards as Second Coming, woudnt it? After all, i was that finicky a$$hole who vaunted such claims when i had my once humongous 80Gb iPod Video a while back.

Reading comprehension helps in cases like this.

Who's stubborn now? You seemed to have made your mind when it comes to which iPod suits you. Good for you then. But dont feel infinestimally defensive when others here chose the option you are not enamored with.

This post has been edited by stringfellow: Oct 8 2007, 04:35 PM

It is not a counter, it is another look at its supposed large capacity advantage and how battery endurance affects this advantage.

You said it before, yes? You'd prefer it to have its pros and cons laid out infront of you then let the others decide, no? Well, that little tidbit about battery endurance vs storage capacity i laid out here is part of that plan of laying down the pros and cons. So , with everything laid out, decide then. If after all these pros and cons had been laid out and you still prefer the Classic, then by all means , get it. Your hard earned cash, not mine. All im doing here is bringing up that battery endurance thing into light, so that others can weigh their options better.

In the end, nobody's right or wrong, because all options are right. And they are right for different sets of people, and other options are wrong for these folks too, since they have their own preferences. It is when posters like carlsuen here starts putting words in my mouth, or insinuating things that i didnt mean , is when i put my foot down.

Are we on the same page here?

---

Added on October 8, 2007, 3:43 pmYou know, instead of damning this thread into endless bickering of sorts, why not another poster come up here and provides the advantages of the opposing choice and see if it fits the bill of the threadstarter. I have presented my angle on this based on my every day usage, why not another user come here with their angle on their chosen iPod? Rather than each and everyone of use tearing each other's posts apart.....

This post has been edited by stringfellow: Oct 8 2007, 03:43 PM

No ill will towards you too Fyonne, but if i came off like that, then i hope i made myself clear of what i mean when i posted those statements.

Maybe i came in a bit strong on conferring my opinions on these two products, but i assure it was meant as part of pros and cons of choosing between these two. I was hoping that someone else comes in here with their own strong views on why they chose iPod Classics (other than "im lazy, or i want storage") over the iPod Touch, but in that process, it sounded and looked like i was downplaying the Classic over the Touch. If it came off like that, then i guess i better back off and look at this objectively.

Well, to nitpick, the differences are virtually negligible. The only way to see how it differs is via the TV-Out, but that defeats the purpose as a portable media player. Other bugs such as the inclusion of podcasts and movie trailers in Coverflow mode is also on the iPhone, but should be ironed out in later firmware updates. The very first time i got my iPod Touch out, iTunes already prompted an update, so im pleased with Apple's proactiveness on improving the iPod Touch.

Yup, no emails and no editing of Calendar/Contact as well, but the boys rumormongering on Apple have reported that Calendar/Contact editing will come soon through another update. Shame on the email thing though....

No, the one's missing from iPod Touch is Push Mail, ala Outlook on your PC. You can still access your Gmail account via web interface on Safari.

With Push Mail, you needed have to keep logging into your email account every single time you want to check your mailbox. Incoming emails will be sent to your Push Mail mailbox inside your device automatically without prompting, or you logging in with your username/password. Generally, it's automated versus the need to log in automatically via the Safari or any web interface.

The setup is dead simple as well, Google Mail and Yahoo Mail is already preset in the Mail client inside my iPhone , all you need to do is supply the username and password.

This post has been edited by stringfellow: Oct 8 2007, 04:44 PM

An iFat?

Nice. Offers the olive branch of peace, then stabs the guy back in face. Peace back to you too, buddy. *finger*

Funny how you can be LAZY in syncing your contents into your iPod but you're pretty much productive enough to convert EVERYTHING TO BE SYNCED into the iPod. Sounds like productivity applied to the wrong place to me. And oh, i come in peace. Dont get worked up with this 3097430898th posts you read here.

This post has been edited by stringfellow: Oct 8 2007, 08:31 PM

Read the post again. Where was it that it is stated that it is wrong to do so? Read my other post too. Carlsuen understands that my post was to illuminate the different ways you can go about this, thus opening up your options rather than tunnel-visioning on just one product. That was the intention. While he understands it, you however got post-menstrual-syndrome on this over fiddly matters. Funny how you were the one cynically asking for not getting worked up over fiddly matter........and look who's worked up now?

I suggest some calming tunes of Symphony no. 9 and some Mozart to calm your raw nerves. After all, you have all your music , all you can carry in your iPod Classic right, being lazy or productive be damned and all?

And as always, i come in peace . "Cheers"



This post has been edited by stringfellow: Oct 8 2007, 09:21 PM

From what i gather here, here is the summary of the types of people who would go for each of these iPod variations:-

Person A would go for the iPod Classic if his lifestyle reflects these qualities:-

1 - He wants all his music and video on the go with him all the time. No exceptions.
2 - He's the on-the-go type of person who had not the time to create playlists of his music collection, but instead wants the entire collection with him, which also means he gets to choose rather than restricted to songs on playlists. (read: lazy)
3 - He wants the freedom of handling the iPod one-handed, without the need to look at the control interface, since he has grown comfortable using the Click-wheel interface without looking. But to do this, he either have to grow comfortable with listening to one particular album, and navigating within that album, or listening to a particular playlist and navigating within that playlist. But...but...but.....the task of creating playlists involves a tidy sum of work, somewhat negating the fact that he is lazy! Does not compute!!! *head explode*
4 - He is simply more comfortable with the Click-Wheel than a virtual interface.
5 - He places more priority on the songs he wants to hear, and the choice of songs made available to him , rather than supplementary features like on the iPod Touch. Simply put, he is a music aficionado first, everything else second.
6 - He is assured with himself with the fact that he can listen to whatever he wants to , whenever he wants to since he carries ALL his music and videos with him.

Person B would go for the iPod Touch if his lifestyle reflects these qualities:-

1 - He manages his music according to what he wants to hear on that particular moment, carrying only what he needs to listen to that day, not having the need to carry all of his music with him.
2 - He wants other supplementary features like mobile surfing on Safari, Youtube and iTunes Wifi Store
3 - He is comfortable with the fact that he can stream his music off his always-on music server back home, and he can access this content via streaming on wifi at wifi hotspots. Or by navigating to www.seeqpod.com for millions of songs on Seeqpod library, arranged by their metadatas. But...but...but....this is only available if he can access wifi hotspots, which are not readily available at all places! *head explodes*
4 - He is simply more eager to explore new features introduced in the new iPod interface.
5 - He places equal balance on the connectivity-related activities he can do (web surfing and connectivity related activities), to supplement his casual listening on his iPod. Simply put, he wants to stay connected, while he does his work and chilling out on his carefully selected tunes. OR he could simply pop into iTunes Wifi Store and buy more tunes if the need arises.
6 - He is assured of the fact he only needs to listen when he feels like, because he feels that he dont need to listen to every song in his collection 24/7, and does not mind if the mood strikes to listen to a particular song, that he does not have the song with him at that moment. This reflects back on his characteristcs on point #5.

DISCLAIMER: This post merely attempts to summarise what qualities an individual have to ease his choice on deciding which iPod is the right iPod for him, Classic or Touch. It is not meant to "get others worked up", "anger other individuals" or illiciting angry responses out of readers who may not agree with these points. Feel free to post your own version of this post, if you do feel that you have differing opinions on what characteristics of an individual is better suited for these two iPods. Thank you. I come in peace.

OR, unless you have anything useful to add, without adding fuel to the fire, you dont have to post.

This post has been edited by stringfellow: Oct 9 2007, 11:45 AM