iPod Classic--120 or 160 gig?

Discussion in 'iPod' started by puma1552, Apr 12, 2009.

  1. macrumors 68040

    Nov 20, 2008
    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.
  2. macrumors 6502

    Aug 7, 2008
    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.
  3. macrumors Core


    Jul 24, 2006
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    I'd get a new one. They're thinner than the 160s.
  4. JMP
    macrumors member


    Oct 27, 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.:D

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

    Hope this helps.
  5. thread starter macrumors 68040

    Nov 20, 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...
  6. macrumors regular

    Feb 18, 2007
    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?
  7. macrumors 68030


    Aug 24, 2007
    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.
  8. macrumors member

    Jan 25, 2009
    I think the thinner/lighter 120 is much nicer.

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

  9. macrumors 68040

    Feb 17, 2008
    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.
  10. macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Dec 23, 2006
    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.
  11. macrumors regular

    Feb 18, 2007

    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.

  12. macrumors 65816

    Jul 11, 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.
  13. macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Dec 23, 2006
    In my imagination
    Same here, I am hoping for the return of the $350 iPod Classic. Maybe in a 240GB size.
  14. macrumors 6502

    Nov 9, 2007
    who cares.... people like you are why apple prefers looks over function
  15. Guest


    Jan 30, 2009
    Seeing that you only need around 50 gigs I would say go with the 120GB.
  16. macrumors 65816

    Jul 11, 2008
    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.
  17. macrumors regular

    Feb 18, 2007
    Interesting to know.
  18. macrumors regular

    Feb 18, 2007
    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.
  19. macrumors 65816

    Jul 11, 2008
    I like small too, however not at the price of function. Which is where apple has been heading.
  20. Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    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
  21. macrumors regular

    Feb 18, 2007
    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.

Share This Page