Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPod

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 13, 2009, 02:48 AM   #1
puma1552
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
iPod Classic--120 or 160 gig?

After a year and a half, I finally like the silver iPod classic enough to add it to my collection, and though not needed (I have six or seven iPods) I would like to replace my old beat up 5th gen in my car and make the new classic my car whore iPod.

Speaking of my collection, in the form factor of the classic iPods, I already have both a black 5th gen and a white 5.5 gen iPod, both 30 gigs.

Living in rural Japan, where technology advances and reaches the shores slowly, I can still purchase either a 160 gig classic or a 120 gig classic, brand new. Regardless, I don't need even 50 gigs of harddrive space, as my collection of music is maybe 15 gigs (I don't just copy every album to my computer, only songs I actually like).

I kind of want the 160 gig just because already having two 30 gig ipods, sizewise the 120 would feel much the same but I think the fatness of the 160 would be more comfortable to me, but of course it is more expensive.

Keeping in mind I don't *need* either (but can justify it), which would you get and why? I ask because I hear people speaking about the 160 gig being old technology and more prone to failure, curious if this is true that one is more reliable than the other. I also am aware that new iPods are around the corner, but that doesn't bother me.
puma1552 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2009, 02:52 AM   #2
mac88
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston, MA.
I'd go with a refurbished 160GB (save yourself some money). You can never have too much space. Why Apple dropped down to 120GB and not increased capacity I'll never know.
__________________
Aluminum MacBook 2.0GHz 500GB HD 8GB RAM, 24" Apple Cinema Display, iPad 2 16GB, iPod Touch 4G 32GB, iPod Video 5G 80GB
mac88 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2009, 03:38 AM   #3
miles01110
macrumors 604
 
miles01110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
I'd get a new one. They're thinner than the 160s.
__________________
Got a problem? Check here first.
miles01110 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2009, 05:20 AM   #4
JMP
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
I've had the 160Go for a year and a half and I'm very happy with it.
The new ones are not better, they are just a bit thinner. The new 120Go are as thin as the previous gen 80Go.
I sometimes use it as a hard drive while on the move and need to copy some stuff. I don't always leave the house with a HDD in my pocket... But with my 160Go iPod Classic. So more capacity is important to me. I just love it.

If you do decide to go for the 160Go, buy a refurb and save some money.

Hope this helps.
__________________
MB Intel Core 2 Duo/2.2Ghz/500Go/6Go. Ext Kbd, 24" Samsung,
Mac Pro/3.2Ghz/4To/32Go, 2x26" Samsung.
160Go iPod, 16Go iPhone v1, 8Go iPhone 3G, 32Go iPhone 4
JMP is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2009, 10:11 AM   #5
puma1552
Thread Starter
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
I ended up going with a silver 120, and am happy with it, though the drive lags a bit when trying to start music and zip through menus right away but I expect that to remedy itself when I use it a bit and the iPod caches some stuff.

Now I just need to bring myself to set it on a hard surface and spin it like a top to scuff the piss out of the back and stop caring about it and use it as the car beater I bought it to be...
puma1552 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2009, 09:45 PM   #6
gvdv
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac88 View Post
I'd go with a refurbished 160GB (save yourself some money). You can never have too much space. Why Apple dropped down to 120GB and not increased capacity I'll never know.
Yes, I had just decided to buy the 160, and then they go down to 120, which I don't think is big enough for my use.

Any guesses why they did this?
__________________
"If The Beatles or the '60s had a message, it was 'Learn To Swim'. And once you've learnt - swim".
John Lennon.
gvdv is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2009, 10:30 PM   #7
bozz2006
macrumors 68030
 
bozz2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Minnesota
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvdv View Post
Yes, I had just decided to buy the 160, and then they go down to 120, which I don't think is big enough for my use.

Any guesses why they did this?
single layer HDD, making the 120GB model the same form factor as the 80GB classic.

I'm currently trying to talk myself (and my wife!) into convincing myself to buy an ipod classic. I have a 30GB 5G ipod, and have only about 2 GBs of space left on it. I will need more room, and I'd like to put some videos on my ipod too. just having a really hard time pulling the trigger. There's so much stuff I want to spend my money on right now... RAM and HDD upgrade for my macbook, Velociraptor HDD for my mac pro, a garmin navi... Money burning a hole in my pocket! though that $209 refurb ipod classic is looking pretty good. I think, aside from capacity, the reason I want it so much is the genius function.

And, OP, get the Zagg invisible shield for your ipod. that'll keep it looking pretty.
bozz2006 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2009, 05:02 PM   #8
stevod
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London
I think the thinner/lighter 120 is much nicer.

It also has the Genius function on board, which the first Classics do not.

S
__________________
Stephen
Residence Interior Design London
stevod is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2009, 05:15 PM   #9
nick9191
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Britain
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvdv View Post
Yes, I had just decided to buy the 160, and then they go down to 120, which I don't think is big enough for my use.

Any guesses why they did this?
Not enough people bought it would be my guess.

Very few people have that amount of music, making it not financially viable. In fact I bet if Apple could turn back time, they would have never released the 160gb in the first place.
nick9191 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2009, 05:34 PM   #10
Digital Skunk
macrumors 604
 
Digital Skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In my imagination
As an owner of the 160GB and an iPod whore myself I'd go for the 120. They don't differ much from each other, and what makes the 120 the choice is it's ability to work with the new in-line remotes on the earbuds and the genius playlist features.

Since you only have 15GB of music, and it's going in the car so no video, the go for the 120GB.
__________________
What do I have?, stuff that I actually use for work! Some old, some new, all effective.
Digital Skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2009, 06:36 PM   #11
gvdv
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozz2006 View Post
single layer HDD, making the 120GB model the same form factor as the 80GB classic.

I'm currently trying to talk myself (and my wife!) into convincing myself to buy an ipod classic. I have a 30GB 5G ipod, and have only about 2 GBs of space left on it. I will need more room, and I'd like to put some videos on my ipod too. just having a really hard time pulling the trigger. There's so much stuff I want to spend my money on right now... RAM and HDD upgrade for my macbook, Velociraptor HDD for my mac pro, a garmin navi... Money burning a hole in my pocket! though that $209 refurb ipod classic is looking pretty good. I think, aside from capacity, the reason I want it so much is the genius function.

And, OP, get the Zagg invisible shield for your ipod. that'll keep it looking pretty.

........
From Nick:
Not enough people bought it would be my guess.

Very few people have that amount of music, making it not financially viable. In fact I bet if Apple could turn back time, they would have never released the 160gb in the first place.

Hi bozz2006 and nick9191,
Thanks for your replies.

Nick, for me it's not an issue of how much music I have which would determine the capacity of the iPod; rather, the capacity is determined by the resolution at which I choose to rip my mp3's. I like good quality, so tend to to use the higher quality settings (although not the highest), which obviously take more space than those ripped a lower quality.

GVDV
__________________
"If The Beatles or the '60s had a message, it was 'Learn To Swim'. And once you've learnt - swim".
John Lennon.
gvdv is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2009, 09:53 AM   #12
iEvolution
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
I've heard several complaints about the 160gb skipping when it starts to reach full capacity. So I think it is a good thing you went with the 120gb.

160gb was eliminated because it wasn't selling well, believe it or not 160GB is A LOT MORE space than the average consumer would even think about using. The horders like us are few and far between. Plus the $350 price point isn't going to fancy very many people.

I sincerely hope there is a capacity update this year. Heck if it wasn't for microsoft we'd still be on 8gb nanos. So I'm really wondering if they'll do anything with the classic this year.
iEvolution is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2009, 11:37 AM   #13
Digital Skunk
macrumors 604
 
Digital Skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In my imagination
Quote:
Originally Posted by iEvolution View Post
I've heard several complaints about the 160gb skipping when it starts to reach full capacity. So I think it is a good thing you went with the 120gb.

160gb was eliminated because it wasn't selling well, believe it or not 160GB is A LOT MORE space than the average consumer would even think about using. The horders like us are few and far between. Plus the $350 price point isn't going to fancy very many people.

I sincerely hope there is a capacity update this year. Heck if it wasn't for microsoft we'd still be on 8gb nanos. So I'm really wondering if they'll do anything with the classic this year.
Same here, I am hoping for the return of the $350 iPod Classic. Maybe in a 240GB size.
__________________
What do I have?, stuff that I actually use for work! Some old, some new, all effective.
Digital Skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2009, 11:40 AM   #14
armoguy94
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by miles01110 View Post
I'd get a new one. They're thinner than the 160s.
who cares.... people like you are why apple prefers looks over function
armoguy94 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2009, 12:17 PM   #15
Benguitar
macrumors 65816
 
Benguitar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Seeing that you only need around 50 gigs I would say go with the 120GB.
__________________
"No plan survives first contact with the enemy." -M.R.
Benguitar is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2009, 10:35 PM   #16
iEvolution
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by armoguy94 View Post
who cares.... people like you are why apple prefers looks over function
I actually liked the thicker model better. More comfortable in the hand. Same with the nano, the 2G was the best design.

Apples idea smaller is better is getting beyond ridiculous. Look at the shuffle, less battery, moved all buttons to the earbuds all for the sake of size.
iEvolution is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2009, 11:17 PM   #17
gvdv
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by iEvolution View Post
I've heard several complaints about the 160gb skipping when it starts to reach full capacity. So I think it is a good thing you went with the 120gb.

160gb was eliminated because it wasn't selling well, believe it or not 160GB is A LOT MORE space than the average consumer would even think about using. The horders like us are few and far between. Plus the $350 price point isn't going to fancy very many people.

I sincerely hope there is a capacity update this year. Heck if it wasn't for microsoft we'd still be on 8gb nanos. So I'm really wondering if they'll do anything with the classic this year.
Interesting to know.
__________________
"If The Beatles or the '60s had a message, it was 'Learn To Swim'. And once you've learnt - swim".
John Lennon.
gvdv is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2009, 11:19 PM   #18
gvdv
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by iEvolution View Post
I actually liked the thicker model better. More comfortable in the hand. Same with the nano, the 2G was the best design.

Apples idea smaller is better is getting beyond ridiculous. Look at the shuffle, less battery, moved all buttons to the earbuds all for the sake of size.
I must admit that I do like small units.

I have a 20GB Archos Gmini XS202 (no longer made) which is about 3" square, very light and does not need any software to be recognized by either Mac or Windows. (I'm not into video on my mp3 players, so it was perfect for me).

Unfortunately, this product doesn't come with a bigger capacity hard drive, hence my consideration of the iPod classic.
__________________
"If The Beatles or the '60s had a message, it was 'Learn To Swim'. And once you've learnt - swim".
John Lennon.
gvdv is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2009, 02:11 AM   #19
iEvolution
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvdv View Post
I must admit that I do like small units.

I have a 20GB Archos Gmini XS202 (no longer made) which is about 3" square, very light and does not need any software to be recognized by either Mac or Windows. (I'm not into video on my mp3 players, so it was perfect for me).

Unfortunately, this product doesn't come with a bigger capacity hard drive, hence my consideration of the iPod classic.
I like small too, however not at the price of function. Which is where apple has been heading.
iEvolution is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2009, 07:56 AM   #20
Scepticalscribe
Contributor
 
Scepticalscribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kite flying
I recently - this April - bought a 120 GB classic, (and I also have a 80GB bought last September); both were to supplement my rapidly expiring 5 Gen 30 GB, and I love both the capacity and the battery power in these two iPods; I travel a lot, and love my music, so battery and capacity won hands down over over considerations. Personally, for my needs the 160 would be excessive, but I can see why it has such a devoted following.

Cheers and good luck
Scepticalscribe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2009, 10:42 AM   #21
gvdv
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by iEvolution View Post
I like small too, however not at the price of function. Which is where apple has been heading.
Hi iEvolution and Scepticalscribe,
iE, are you talking about ergonomics when you mention liking small units but not wanting to sacrifice function? I include in my 'function' definition being able to plug my Archos in to any computer (PC or Mac), and being able to upload and download without having to use any software, such as iTunes.
__________________
"If The Beatles or the '60s had a message, it was 'Learn To Swim'. And once you've learnt - swim".
John Lennon.
gvdv is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPod

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help with 160 GB iPod Classic mattbowers2013 iPod 3 Dec 17, 2013 04:53 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC