Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DeadlyBreakfast

macrumors regular
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: iPod? Bah!

Originally posted by Ervino
quote:
Beside all this, I use a Mac from 1990 and I started my career in 1993 writing about Apple Newton (*THE* Pda still now!), so I can hardly be defined a "PC Troll"... :)

Cheers
Ervino

A PC troll? Maybe not. But a troll none the less. This was a thread about the iPod and you just *had* to throw in a post that is totally off subject . On top of that you had to know that it would start some bad feelings. That is why you are considered a troll. Go away.
 

Ofir

macrumors newbie
Sep 28, 2002
1
0
Archos experience

I am too a computer journalist. I was also fooled by the Archos spec and bought one of their jukeboxes about 18 months ago. My brother and a friend also bought one at roughly the same time. We have between us 3 different models, 6GB, 20GB and 6GB with recording. We also use different computers, a desktop G4, a Powerbook and a Compaq PC.

Here's our collective conclusion:

First and most important! The sound quality is poor when compared to a Sony MiniDisc and an iPod. The bass end is soft and blurry, the top end is lacking. Don't tell me about EQ - I used to be a sound engineer, I know how to use an EQ. It doesn't help! The Archos boxes sound cloudy and muffled.

They are all unreliable, they switch off for no reason while playing. The longest I had mine running without stopping was less than 2 hours. Most times it would switch off within 20 minutes.

They are very slow, the interface is terrible and finding a song you want to listen to is tedious.

The batteries are terrible lasting less than an hour after a few months of use.

The build quality is poor. The shiny controls start peeling off within a few weeks of use, revealing a cheap grey plastic.

They are simply too big for their purpose. Using a larger 2.5" drive is also the reason they are cheaper.

USB 1.1 is not a practical solution for 20GB in my opinion. I know they say that Firewire and USB2 option will be available, but my Archos experience with drivers has been poor too.

Their support in my experience was useless.

They took ages to support OS X and the drivers for 9 were unreliable, disconnecting from my Mac when copying many files.

There's a happy end to this story - we all own iPods now. :)
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
Originally posted by Chisholm
Bonghits, your request has been submitted.

Reminds me of Farenheit 451's "shell." Can't wait to see the tv walls that were the counterpart...

-cheers!

(Alabama game start in 2 hours and 24, rather 23 minutes...)

Was it "shell" or "bullet"? (I'm too lazy to find my copy and look it up...)


Lethal
 

redAPPLE

macrumors 68030
May 7, 2002
2,677
5
2 Much Infinite Loops
Re: Re: iPod? Bah!

Originally posted by Gelfin


Hey, you try sending 20GB of data over USB 1.1 and see how you feel about that being the default. In the best case, assuming nothing else on your USB, it'll take you almost four hours to sync. Firewire, seven minutes. So as not to bore you, the other reasons I wouldn't have an Archos JukeBox are:



attention! i might be hijacking this thread. look away now.

question: i will honestly say, i do not have an ipod. which is really sad. i would love one, but i got to save some cash first :)

so back to my question. "syncing" music between ipod and mac is basically the same as "copying" files right?

good. a 20 gb ipod can sync within 7-8 minutes? is that a fact?

i got a firewire harddrive and i was copying a 12 gb video and it took me 40 minutes.

what gives? is there a way, a software/firmware upgrade, which needs to be done?

comments please. and sorry for the hijacking. and now back to your regularly scheduled program.
 

redAPPLE

macrumors 68030
May 7, 2002
2,677
5
2 Much Infinite Loops
Re: bluetooth?

Originally posted by a_kim
Pure speculation follows...

What about a bluetooth-enabled ipod which allowed you to sync wirelessly to the mac and possibly fileshare with macs and other ipods (not the music though... unless you hacked it!). Also, then you could have bluetooth headphones (already available for cell phones). I think it'd be pretty amazing to have wireless headphones on while the ipod sits in my bookbag or pocket. Less wires would be a good thing.

As for the dock, I don't think I'd use it.

-Alex

for a fact, i know that syncing with bluetooth would be really slow.
 

peterjhill

macrumors 65816
Apr 25, 2002
1,095
0
Seattle, WA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: iPod? Bah!

Originally posted by Ervino
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ervino

"I'm a computer journalist"

"And it work as a charm, I can assure you!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wonderful! You quoted my words totally out of contest! You work for PR, right? :p

BTW: FYI, I'm Italian and work in Italian, so I can miss some third person "s"

Just so you know, it is "context" not "contest" stick with writing in italian magazines
 

peterjhill

macrumors 65816
Apr 25, 2002
1,095
0
Seattle, WA
Originally posted by beatle888


well, i've already thought of a couple ways to make this possible. and
im not even working at apple. so i believe if they wanted to they would
be able to THINK of something.

I have also thought of ways to do it, and they all involve connecting something to the top of the iPod. With the new firewire port protectors, you will have to hold it out of the way when inserting the iPod into the dock. The entire thing is not very ergonomic, and thus I doubt that apple will make a dock for the existing iPod. Apple can think of hundreds of ways to do it, but Mr. Ives will most likely have input into what is chosen, as he created the original design. If the dock compromises the simplicity of the design, I doubt that he will accept it.
 

Gelfin

macrumors 68020
Sep 18, 2001
2,165
5
Denver, CO
Re: Re: Re: iPod? Bah!

Originally posted by redAPPLE

good. a 20 gb ipod can sync within 7-8 minutes? is that a fact?

Not likely, but neither is the Jukebox likely to achieve four hours. I should have been more clear that this is the theoretical maximum based on the maximum throughput of the respective port hardware:

USB: 12mbit/sec is 1.5MB/sec. 20,000MB at 1.5MB/sec is about 3.7 hours.

Firewire: 400mbit/sec is 50MB/sec. 20,000MB at 50MB/sec is about 6.7 minutes.

You won't get the maximum throughput with either technology, but the example illustrates the difference between the two. Your results with either will vary.
 

gopher

macrumors 65816
Mar 31, 2002
1,475
0
Maryland, USA
Originally posted by redAPPLE
does anyone know, how to achieve the best throughput?

Replace the hard drive with Smartcard or similar media of the same size. Hard disk spinning is the slowest part of the iPod and similar MP3 players. Of course that would make it prohibitively expensive if it had the same storage capacity.

128 MB Smartmedia down to $40
by that logic, it would cost $7000 to make an iPod based on solid state memory and has 20 GB capacity!
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,731
328
Re: Re: bluetooth?

Originally posted by redAPPLE


for a fact, i know that syncing with bluetooth would be really slow.

I don't have an iPod, but I would suspect that, aside from music additions on your Mac, "synching" would entail a few fairly low-bandwidth activities:

1) Update play info (ratings, how many times a track has been played, etc)

2) Copy new songs from Mac to iPod (yes, high-bandwidth)/ delete removed songs.

3) Update non-music information (address book, etc)

Other than the times when you are actually adding music, and assuming a reasonably smart iPod regarding updating play info (is this info encoded in MP3-Info tags in the MP3 itself, or in a database alongside the music files? If it is in the MP3 tags format, is the iPod smart enough to do this itself, or would it need to send the whole files across?) I think that this is completely in the realm of Bluetooth's bandwidth.

Also, if Apple were to allow single songs to be "zapped" across BlueTooth between players I don't think the RIAA would complain any more than usual (hardly a good way to mass-distribute music given 1 Mbps bandwidth theoretical), but would give fellow iPodders an easy way to "share" their favorite tune(s) with their friends.
 

Chisholm

macrumors regular
May 31, 2002
242
12
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Originally posted by LethalWolfe


Was it "shell" or "bullet"? (I'm too lazy to find my copy and look it up...)


Lethal

Well I read the book as a highschool freshman back in 1984 so I can't be sure...but it seems it was described as a shell. If I had the book I'd look it up.:(

cheers!
 

theranch

macrumors 6502
Jan 3, 2002
300
0
Atlantic City area
Re: iPod? Bah!

Originally posted by Ervino
Yawwwn! I can't belive that somebody is *still* wasting money & time with that lame iPod.
Please, get a look on a *real* little wonder:

Archos MULTIMEDIA JukeBox

http://www.archos.com/lang=en//products/prw_500281.html

And, please, not again the boring reply "but the iPod have FireWire by default"... ;-)))

Cheers
Ervino
Please....that's not even close to being portable like the iPod. <sarcasm>I'm sure those corners won't get caught up in your shorts or whatever pocket you try to put it in.</sarcasm> To each their own.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,402
11
toronto
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: iPod? Bah!

Originally posted by Ervino
quote: with way less money than Apple to spend in pumping they products, so they are, by definition, inferior, right? Why give their stuff a real look, when you can much more easily go with bias... :rolleyes:

Beside all this, I use a Mac from 1990 and I started my career in 1993 writing about Apple Newton (*THE* Pda still now!), so I can hardly be defined a "PC Troll"... :)

wow, you backpedal faster than i ride my bike.

a REAL journalist wouldn't have climbed so far out onto a limb.

yes, we're a little biased here. it's a friggin' APPLE rumor website.

should we assume apple refused your request to be paid off?
 

Ervino

macrumors newbie
Jun 5, 2000
18
0
Trieste, Italy
Re: Message for Ervino

Originally posted by mario
Va fan culo, stronzo! :)

Cheers!:) :)

Hi!

Almost right! The correct versions are "Vai a fare in culo" or "Vaffanculo"...:D

The same to all of you, buch of biased morons... :p

Cheers
Ervino;)
 

DeadlyBreakfast

macrumors regular
Re: Re: Message for Ervino

Originally posted by Ervino



The same to all of you, buch of biased morons... :p

Cheers
Ervino;)


Its an Apple site you big dumb boob!! Go to a Ford website and try posting about Chevy and see what happens. Odds are , the same thing. You're a journalist? You should hope your boss doesn't cruise this thread. Your lack of common sense would get you fired.
 

Gelfin

macrumors 68020
Sep 18, 2001
2,165
5
Denver, CO
Re: Re: Message for Ervino

Originally posted by Ervino

The same to all of you, buch of biased morons... :p

I reiterate, I looked at Archos products before there was an iPod to which I could be biased. In fact, now that I think about it, I looked at Archos products before I ever owned a Mac. Based on what I found at that time, I opted not to buy an MP3 player at all because none of the options available to me at the time (including those from Archos) were satisfactory to me.

Besides this, I have stated precisely why I prefer the iPod.

On the other hand, Erv, so far you have:
  • pointed at the website, assuming we'd all agree with you,
  • argued that somehow the correctness of your argument is related to the size of one's private parts,
  • alluded to product features that even Archos own web site contradicts,
  • accused everyone who disagrees with you of hating Archos because they're a European company,
  • called people who disagree with you biased morons

In short, you have ignored any relevant argument placed before you and presented little or no relevant argument of your own. Are you sure you're a computer journalist? By that do perhaps mean you put up your own website to host your opinions? I don't know what journalistic standards are like in Italy, but I can't imagine they would be so low that a professional journalist could think the case you presented here to support your position was in any way valid.
 

a_kim

macrumors member
Jun 28, 2002
48
0
DC
Re: Re: bluetooth?

Originally posted by redAPPLE


for a fact, i know that syncing with bluetooth would be really slow.

Sorry. I should have specified syncing the calendars and contacts. I agree... bluetooth is not for large file transfers.

-Alex
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.