Is there a "BEST iPod" ?

[PkmnManiac]

You know a great way to thank us would be for one of us to get a free one payed by you. LOL

But yea, I think that IamMexican has a point. Apple always comes up w/new stuff every year or so. It's funny, so I say wait a bit. Which shouldn't be long.

 

[Articjedi]

If you want interesting, I'm going to need an itouch for class, and they're GIVING one to me for free. Turns out the drug information index is online and since pda's are supposed to be more expensive they're just giving us itouches instead.

 

[kwisdumb]

It all depends on what you want, really.

If you need a new phone as well as a mp3 player/portable device, go for the iPhone.

If you don't need a new phone, but DO need an mp3 player/portable device and want a touchscreen, internet access, games, apps, etc. go with the iTouch.

If you're purely looking for efficiency, though, I think they make a 90 or 160GB iPod classic. It can't do apps or internet access, but it's by far your best bet for *purely* an mp3 player, as far as cost:space ratio goes.

Good luck!

Oh, and, if you're not familiar with Apple products...before you buy anything from them, always check out www.macrumors.com. Their buyer's guide is an amazing resource. It lists rumors about new versions of the product coming out, how often the new product comes out, etc. There's nothing worse than not checking on their, buying a product, and then finding out a new/better version is coming out in a week or two. Macrumors is the best.

 

[Absol LVX]

iphone 3Gs im on it right now lol

 

[yoyofsho16]

Get a Zune. If you are thinking of getting one that ISN'T the touch for cost reasons, just go ahead and get a zune. They really are better than the non-touch ipods.

 

[cloud9]

I would buy a iPod Nano with a smaller memory. This way you are only listening to music and you wont have to much music.

I myself do not have an iPod, but i have a Creative Zen 8GB and its great! I have all my albums on it and still more place. I have about 650 songs and i listen to them all. I think it is stupid with a mp3 player with 100GB if you are only going to listen to music and you have like over 10,000 songs, you will probably only listen to 1 of the tracks in the whole lifetime of the player.

 

[waynegg]

remember- with the apple unix technology, 1GB= 6+ GB in dos besause of how the memory and compression are set up. I know with my "puny" 1 GB Mac, I can open 100+ web pages simultaneously and they will all be open and running within 1 minute. Try doing that with a dos based PC and see how many you get before it says TILT!!! and crashes (possibly even bad enough to require a pro fix).

the same technology is in the iPods. Every music file you put in is compressed and then zipped. you'll fit much more on a 1 GB iPod than on a comparable mp3 player with a dos operating system.

 

[drrty byl]

Ipod(r) uses both FAT32 (windows) and HFS+ (apple) file systems, depending on what operating system(s) you are using with it. Most flash drives come formatted with some form of FAT due to better cross-platform compatibility. Itunes is ipod(r)'s biggest downfall

when I'm at the grocery store I always buy Kleenex(r)

 

[Professor_Chris]

remember- with the apple unix technology, 1GB= 6+ GB in dos besause of how the memory and compression are set up. I know with my "puny" 1 GB Mac, I can open 100+ web pages simultaneously and they will all be open and running within 1 minute. Try doing that with a dos based PC and see how many you get before it says TILT!!! and crashes (possibly even bad enough to require a pro fix).

the same technology is in the iPods. Every music file you put in is compressed and then zipped. you'll fit much more on a 1 GB iPod than on a comparable mp3 player with a dos operating system.

I'm going to have to ask you to cite sources for those claims. I did a bit of searching, but couldn't find anything to confirm what you said. I also have not noticed any compression on my iPhone.

Additionally, it's insanely unlikely that attempting to open more web pages than you would ever need open would cause damage not fixable by a reboot. Also, a GB of ram should be more than adequate to open a measly 100+ webpages. After all, the memory footprint of each is most likely not that large. Your success is most likely more dependent on the application's ability to handle such an insane request more than the operating system.

Windows isn't DOS based anymore and hasn't been even partially DOS based since Windows Me. They're all based on the Windows NT architecture now.

 

[Kabutops141]

I would buy a iPod Nano with a smaller memory. This way you are only listening to music and you wont have to much music.

I myself do not have an iPod, but i have a Creative Zen 8GB and its great! I have all my albums on it and still more place. I have about 650 songs and i listen to them all. I think it is stupid with a mp3 player with 100GB if you are only going to listen to music and you have like over 10,000 songs, you will probably only listen to 1 of the tracks in the whole lifetime of the player.

There is no such thing as too much music. My 80GB is half way full of music, and I can ASSURE you I listen to more than one track. -__-

I'd say same goes for lots of other folks.

 

[waynegg]

I'm going to have to ask you to cite sources for those claims. I did a bit of searching, but couldn't find anything to confirm what you said. I also have not noticed any compression on my iPhone.

my source is my wife's iPod. everything on it is compressed and zipped in folders

Additionally, it's insanely unlikely that attempting to open more web pages than you would ever need open would cause damage not fixable by a reboot. Also, a GB of ram should be more than adequate to open a measly 100+ webpages. After all, the memory footprint of each is most likely not that large. Your success is most likely more dependent on the application's ability to handle such an insane request more than the operating system.

i didn't say it wasn't an insane request, i was simply pointing out that the Apple technology does a better job by far with how the system sorts, stores, and routes data. that's it, nothing more.

Windows isn't DOS based anymore and hasn't been even partially DOS based since Windows Me. They're all based on the Windows NT architecture now.

i didn't know that. but the PC itself is still DOS based, right? since i got my mac i haven't really cared to stay on top of the windows machines. other than the massive amount of software available for them, they in my opinion don't even come close to stacking up.

 

[PkmnManiac]

If you mean, DOS, as in we use the Command Prompt to do stuff, it's not that. We just run .exe programs and load programs and such.

 

[Professor_Chris]

my source is my wife's iPod. everything on it is compressed and zipped in folders

Well, I'll take your word for the way they're stored. However, I still doubt the 6x+ number unless the compression is actually a lossy audio compression which would reduce audio quality (which I believe is an option in iTunes?). Zipping rarely gains you much with audio and video since they're compressed to begin with.

i didn't say it wasn't an insane request, i was simply pointing out that the Apple technology does a better job by far with how the system sorts, stores, and routes data. that's it, nothing more.

Might be true; might not. I still think the example in question relies more on how well coded the application in question is. Windows has a tendency to believe that a program has deadlocked if it doesn't respond in a given amount of time.

i didn't know that. but the PC itself is still DOS based, right? since i got my mac i haven't really cared to stay on top of the windows machines. other than the massive amount of software available for them, they in my opinion don't even come close to stacking up.

These days, the only real difference between Macs and PCs is the OS since Apple switched to the Intel architecture. You can put OS X (Tiger and forward) on any new PC you buy (driver support may be non-existent) and Windows on any new Mac (with an Intel-based processor) you buy. This makes labels like Mac and PC worthless since they have the same architecture unlike in the past.

Unfortunately, last I checked, Apple locks OS X to hardware they sell meaning that putting OS X on a computer not sold by Apple means downloading a hacked copy of the OS or something much more legal and equally roundabout. Of course, there's no reason why OS X can't be put onto a PC without hassle other than that Apple just doesn't want you to. After all, they couldn't overcharge you for hardware if you could just put it on anything. This may no longer be the case, but I doubt it.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

If you mean, DOS, as in we use the Command Prompt to do stuff, it's not that. We just run .exe programs and load programs and such.

No, Windows was originally DOS-based which meant it was simply a graphical front end for DOS that faked being able to multitask. As time went on, Windows used less and less of the DOS kernel and introduced true multitasking and mostly used DOS as a boot-loader. With the advent of Windows NT (aside from Windows Me), Windows stopped being based off the DOS kernel altogether.

As a side note though, I use the command line all the time.

 

[waynegg]

snow leopard is fully windows integrated. i'm sorry i'm not tech savvy enough to explain go a format that would help you to understand, but if you have the time, Best Buy has many well trained mac specialists that would be happy to explain the differences. with everything you get, the mac really isn't overpriced. when i new OS is released for example, you can get it for 28 bucks as a direct download from their website. and their free tech support is unreal. i had many problems with support with other machines.