PDA

View Full Version : I think I'm in love... with a THING




funkychunkz
Sep 7, 2005, 02:46 PM
I really want to buy the iPod nano. Ever since I've considered an Ipod, I've been stuck between shuffle and the mini. I didn't want to pay more for space, and I wanted a screen. The nano is perfect AND with photo capabilities etc. Is there a downside that I'm blind to? This all seems to good to be true! Would the price go down the day after I buy it? Should I go for 2 or 4 GB?



diddy
Sep 7, 2005, 02:55 PM
The downside? I think that USB 2.0 is a downside. I <3 firewire.

Will the price go down? Not for a while.

2 or 4gb? I say 4. Even if you think you only need 2, the day will come when you'll be glad those extra 2gbs are there.

Just my 2 cents.

clayj
Sep 7, 2005, 02:58 PM
The 4 GB is a no-brainer over the 2 GB. Just from a cost perspective:

4 GB = $249 = $62.25 per GB
2 GB = $199 = $99.50 per GB

Better to have 2 GB too much, for only an extra $50, than 1 byte too little.

furryrabidbunny
Sep 7, 2005, 03:21 PM
hmm... isn't the nano, i dont know, a ripoff. Couldn't you buy a mini yesterday with 4 gigs for 199?? o yeah, no color screen :rolleyes:

dan-o-mac
Sep 7, 2005, 06:22 PM
hmm... isn't the nano, i dont know, a ripoff. Couldn't you buy a mini yesterday with 4 gigs for 199?? o yeah, no color screen :rolleyes:

A ripoff of what? it's a different product? Mini's are still for sale everywhere.

mrgreen4242
Sep 7, 2005, 06:48 PM
hmm... isn't the nano, i dont know, a ripoff. Couldn't you buy a mini yesterday with 4 gigs for 199?? o yeah, no color screen :rolleyes:

Nope, it's a smaller, lighter device with an entirely different storage technology and, yes, a color screen and (admittedly limited) photo capabilities.

If you think of it as more a hybrid of the shuffle and mini, which are both very successful and well designed products, it becomes much clearer why this product will also successful.

maya
Sep 7, 2005, 06:54 PM
Don't think the Nano is something to go crazy over. Sure it looks exciting since its NEW.

Downside no FireWire. :P

USB 2.0 cannot booth a computer. :P

Plus no BlueTooth, when is Apple going to implement this sweet feature. I want to use a BT headphone set and a mic. Wake up Apple. :rolleyes:

Yet another products that turn me off, since it has only USB 2.0 and still nothing worth upgrading worthwhile.

Thinner, smaller...sounds like the mobile phone motto. :rolleyes:

Also seems that the PowerBooks will go Black Plastic. While the Consumer line will remain White Plastic. Add a colour protective skin on the new PoweBook or whatever and you have instant colour. :)

maya
Sep 7, 2005, 06:57 PM
Nope, it's a smaller, lighter device with an entirely different storage technology and, yes, a color screen and (admittedly limited) photo capabilities.

If you think of it as more a hybrid of the shuffle and mini, which are both very successful and well designed products, it becomes much clearer why this product will also successful.

Don't see this as a hugh improvement on the line other than a bigger sibling to the Shuffle.

Shuffled lacked many things, the Nano is just implementing those features loosed in the transition. :)

clayj
Sep 7, 2005, 07:04 PM
Plus no BlueTooth, when is Apple going to implement this sweet feature. I want to use a BT headphone set and a mic. Wake up Apple. :rolleyes:Bluetooth will appear in the full-size iPod line before it appears in anything smaller... it's simply a matter of available volume and power. The iPod Photo has plenty more of both.

harveypooka
Sep 7, 2005, 07:15 PM
There aren't many bluetooth headphones on the market are there?

taytho
Sep 7, 2005, 10:56 PM
Don't think the Nano is something to go crazy over. Sure it looks exciting since its NEW.

Downside no FireWire. :P

USB 2.0 cannot booth a computer. :P

Plus no BlueTooth, when is Apple going to implement this sweet feature. I want to use a BT headphone set and a mic. Wake up Apple. :rolleyes:

Yet another products that turn me off, since it has only USB 2.0 and still nothing worth upgrading worthwhile.

Thinner, smaller...sounds like the mobile phone motto. :rolleyes:

Also seems that the PowerBooks will go Black Plastic. While the Consumer line will remain White Plastic. Add a colour protective skin on the new PoweBook or whatever and you have instant colour. :)

i have a 60 gig color and it didnt even come with a firewire cable.... only USB

mrgreen4242
Sep 7, 2005, 11:13 PM
USB 2.0 cannot booth a computer. :P

Don't see this as a hugh improvement on the line other than a bigger sibling to the Shuffle.

Shuffled lacked many things, the Nano is just implementing those features loosed in the transition.


Newer PCs are starting to have boot from USB mass storage device options. Never tried it with my Mac, but I will take your word for it. I will bet that Mactels will boot from USB, though.

Well, I guess we differ on it being an improvement. For me, the shuffle was great because I could put it in my breast pocket at work and no one knew it was there. I could also put it in my change pocket (as Steve did today) when I was in jeans. It was perfectly sized for me to carry it everywhere, which is what I want.

I have a mini now, and while I view it as an improvement due the much larger capacity and the screen, I lost one of the features that I REALLY liked about the shuffle. Now I can have both. :)

Lastly, I am a big fan of solid state, no moving parts machines. Aside from the clicking part of the click wheel, the nano has no moving parts. I TRY to be careful with my gadgets, but as they say, ***** happens. That much less chance of it failing is an improvement in my book.

Dr. Dastardly
Sep 7, 2005, 11:14 PM
There aren't many bluetooth headphones on the market are there?
Yes but only a handful and none are in the earbud form.

savar
Sep 8, 2005, 01:33 AM
Bluetooth will appear in the full-size iPod line before it appears in anything smaller... it's simply a matter of available volume and power. The iPod Photo has plenty more of both.

BlueTooth will appear when battery technology finally makes its "Great Leap Forward"...battery technology is so woefully behind the rest of the industry. It is still the greatest bottleneck to almost any mobile device. Luckily, I think Toshiba is getting close. A few more years and hopefully we'll start to see batteries that charge in 10 minutes and run a Pentium M for 24 hours.

For now, BT would killl the already oh-so-limited battery life to much less.

nomad01
Sep 8, 2005, 06:18 AM
Also seems that the PowerBooks will go Black Plastic. While the Consumer line will remain White Plastic. Add a colour protective skin on the new PoweBook or whatever and you have instant colour. :)

It could just be an ipod nano feature but if it does make it to the Macs, I think we're more likely to see Intel iBooks in white or black rather than a black powerbook.

Who knows though.

cube
Sep 8, 2005, 06:42 AM
Downside is that it will be slow because it uses flash memory instead of a hard disk.

AmigoMac
Sep 8, 2005, 07:48 AM
Downside is that it will be slow because it uses flash memory instead of a hard disk.

You won't notice this... it's a matter of ms...

d00kie
Sep 8, 2005, 11:48 AM
I'm really interested in getting one, but does anyone know if I can use it to store files? Sorry, only Apple thing I ever had was a G4 iBook.

therevolution
Sep 8, 2005, 12:18 PM
I'm really interested in getting one, but does anyone know if I can use it to store files? Sorry, only Apple thing I ever had was a G4 iBook.
Of course. You can store files on any iPod, even the Shuffle.

d00kie
Sep 8, 2005, 12:41 PM
Of course. You can store files on any iPod, even the Shuffle.

I see, just to confirms things- it's possible on a Windows XP machine right? Put my entire documents in there and take it to another location. My 128MB thumbdrive is not capable of doing that in one trip :(

harveypooka
Sep 8, 2005, 12:42 PM
Yeah, for sure. It's a mass storage device too! Just make sure you buy the right sized iPod...

cubist
Sep 8, 2005, 12:58 PM
Downside is that it will be slow because it uses flash memory instead of a hard disk.

Huh?! Flash is tremendously faster than any hard disk. Plus battery life will be incredible.

As for Bluetooth, there are only a few stereo bluetooth headsets out; it's early-adopter territory.

This is the iPod I've been wanting Apple to make from the beginning. Now it's very, very tempting...

And BTW, notice how beautiful it looks compared to the ROKR... :cool:

strydr
Sep 8, 2005, 01:00 PM
[QUOTE=maya]

USB 2.0 cannot booth a computer. :P

-- Intel has supported boot from USB for almost a year now- one of the good things about EFI. I imagine, with the MacTel switch, boot from USB will be supported.

Plus no BlueTooth, when is Apple going to implement this sweet feature. I want to use a BT headphone set and a mic. Wake up Apple. :rolleyes:

-- Bluetooth is GREAT- I have a BT phone, and I love all the fun stuff it does- the bad part, it kills my battery life. I mean really kills it. With BT off, my phone runs for several days (3-4), with BT on, I have to charge my phone every day.

Yet another products that turn me off, since it has only USB 2.0 and still nothing worth upgrading worthwhile.

-- I hear you can get a Firewire adapter for it..

funkychunkz
Sep 8, 2005, 02:05 PM
Couldn't I buy as usb - firewire converter cable, then use it as a boot disk?
Does anyone here boot off of ipods? If so tell me some about it.

Linkjeniero
Sep 8, 2005, 02:43 PM
Huh?! Flash is tremendously faster than any hard disk. Plus battery life will be incredible.

What? Did you just made that up or something? Flash is much slower than hard drives (this could change in the future though, but that's how it is right now). Even worse, flash is way slower at writing than at reading, and in an iPod we need the writing speed more, to put the music in (for listening the reading speed is more than enough).

EGT
Sep 8, 2005, 04:39 PM
What? Did you just made that up or something? Flash is much slower than hard drives (this could change in the future though, but that's how it is right now). Even worse, flash is way slower at writing than at reading, and in an iPod we need the writing speed more, to put the music in (for listening the reading speed is more than enough).

I remember reading something about the possibility of implementing 40-60GB flash H/drives within the next few years. No moving parts would be great, much more rugged. Pricey though?

Linkjeniero
Sep 9, 2005, 01:28 AM
I remember reading something about the possibility of implementing 40-60GB flash H/drives within the next few years. No moving parts would be great, much more rugged. Pricey though?

I heard that too. If I'm not mistaken, it was Samsung that (according to them) had achieved transfer rates high enough to make a flash drive. And it'll be VERY pricey, only for hight end laptops at first... but those would be fantastic for ultra portables (just imagine the thinness of such a drive!). Add the fact that Intel (I don't know about the others) is aggressively optimizing its laptop processors, reducing the amount of heat they dissipate, I think in some years we'll be seeing laptops with no moving parts at all (well, other than the lid and keyboard :P), and absolutely silent... I can't wait to get one of those! :o

mrgreen4242
Sep 9, 2005, 10:08 AM
Ok, there is a lot of FUD about flash media going around at the moment, so I am going to have to spend a little time digging around the net for real solid information... however, when it comes to data storage, there are several things to consider concerning speed, and also lots of things to think about other than speed.

First, as it's on everyone tongues, we'll do speed. The newest flash media has sustained read and write times that are GETTING CLOSE to, but not as fast as traditional IDE based harddrives. Here is the first set of tests (http://www.barefeats.com/jump.html) that I have found, from barefeats. Here we see that copying a 115mb file to and from various devices, including FW HDD shows decent resuts with some of the fasted flash media, but pretty poor from the 'cheap stuff'. So sctually getting the data off the media is significantly (currently at least) faster with traditional HDDs.

Ok, but what about other measures of speed? A HDDs seek time is just as important as it's throughput, perhaps moreso in many cases. HDD seek times (how long it takes to find what you want to read out, or the place to write a file to) is measured in milliseconds, typically around 6-9ms now-a-days. The fastest flash media has seek time measured in nanoseconds. So, finding the data you want is exponentially faster than with a harddrive. So for accessing lots of small files randomly, flash is going to be a good choice, but for moving large amounts of data around you will run into a speed barrier. It's tough to find tests on this, but here is an example of a product press release (http://www.eepn.com/Locator/Products/ArticleID/28625/28625.html) with some manufacturer specs.

I predict that 2.5" and 3.5" standard sized drives will eventually become self contained flash based disk arrays. Using several seperate flash disks (say 8 8gb modules to start), each with relatively low data throughput, but all with near instant access times. By striping the accross the flashchips (each with their own control module and a single unifying RAID controller) you can combine all of the relatively slow data streams into a single very fast one. Add that to the extremely low/fast seek times of each device and you could have an incredibly fast data storage system, albeit a very expensive one at todays prices.

The other issues to consider with data storage is data density, heat, capacity, cost, and relability. Flash generates very little heat and uses very little energy so it's an excellent choice for either portable machines or compact server situations. The reliability factor is a double edged sword. No moving parts give flash media a very low failure rate compared to traditional HDDs, but the life span of flash blocks is limited to a fixed number of write cycles. This has improved as of late with better manufacturing techniques and also with better control logic that does a good job of balancing write operations.

The advantage with flash is that you can easily predict when it is going to 'fail' and when it does, you can still read the data, just not write more. Harddrives tend to fail more spectacularly, by doing it at random and locking all your data up entirely. Combined with an array method like I described above you could easily design a system with hotswapable replacable modules, which would also lead to easy upgradability (buy a 3.5" drive shell with the raid controller in it which has slots for, say, up to 24 8gb modules. Start with 8 in there and add more as you need them).

Finally, regarding the nano; I suspect they are using some high grade flash media in these, and that the speeds will be respectable; close to pushing the limits of realistic USB2 throughput. I could be wrong, we will have to see what some benchmarking has to say over the coming weeks/months.

fyzle
Sep 9, 2005, 11:32 PM
The downside? I think that USB 2.0 is a downside. I <3 firewire.

Will the price go down? Not for a while.

2 or 4gb? I say 4. Even if you think you only need 2, the day will come when you'll be glad those extra 2gbs are there.

Just my 2 cents.

Both USB2 and FW are overkill for a flash-based storage unit.