Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod How bad is the Classic's performance?
- Thread starter storage
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was in the Apple store on Saturday and I was surprised at how unresponsive the 80 gig model was. There were delays accessing menus and such. The delays for me were not just in coverflow. Because I have not used my iPod with touch wheel for a while so I have nothing to compare the 80 gig model with. I suggest that you try before you buy. I was going to get the 80 gig model but decided on nano because of the slow response.
I wonder what hard drive is in the iPod classic. Has anyone taken it apart yet?
Edit
Tried my iPod touch wheel and my wife's mini. Both are "snappy" compared to the iPod classic. Of course they don't have color screens.....
I wonder what hard drive is in the iPod classic. Has anyone taken it apart yet?
Edit
Tried my iPod touch wheel and my wife's mini. Both are "snappy" compared to the iPod classic. Of course they don't have color screens.....
I have noticed this also. My 5.5 gen 30 gig is very slow compared to my Mini. I can just tell by the seconds of delays the 5.5 gen has.
And yet people still complain that the Touch uses flash. Can't have it both ways, folks.
Compared to a flash play it's relatively sloooooooooow. Maybe it is just the 80gig because my apple store only had the 80gig so I couldn't test the performance of the 160gig model. Like others where saying menus where unresponsive at points coverflow is bad and I am afraid to say that the I pod nano is way faster loading wise.
Its not nearly as bad as people say.
Coverflow is the worst...but Ill never use it. When you choose "ALBUM" it takes a quick second to load up all the album covers...and when you try to go back to the main menu it also takes a quick second to load up the floating pictures.
I am sure this will be addressed via firmware soon enough. Until then I am perfectly happy with my Classic and am very glad I upgraded from my 5.5 gen!
Coverflow is the worst...but Ill never use it. When you choose "ALBUM" it takes a quick second to load up all the album covers...and when you try to go back to the main menu it also takes a quick second to load up the floating pictures.
I am sure this will be addressed via firmware soon enough. Until then I am perfectly happy with my Classic and am very glad I upgraded from my 5.5 gen!
I played with both a Classic and a nano and found both to have unresponsive click wheels compared to my 1G nano and 4G iPod. I played with maybe 5 different ones, and all seemed problematic. It struck me as a bad omen. I don't think HD or flash-based has that much to do with basic menu responsiveness... given that my iPods seem to work much better. I think the new interface is a huge drain on the CPU, perhaps. I'd hope a new update will cure them.
Cover FLow can lag. It's the name of the game really. No matter what iPod you have or what computer you are on Cover Flow can lag. It is a huge resource hog compared to the other file views. That said I think it not a good idea to think of the iPod as classic, even though thats what Apple named it. The "classic" gives the impression that it is out dated. Considering the HD size I think the iPod "classic" is a good buy.
Isn't the mini also hard drive-based, though?
Thanks, those were some encouraging words
. I'll probably use CoverFlow very little, too.Are the clickwheels unresponsive, or less sensitive than the older iPods? I actually find my current 5.5G a little bit too sensetive.
The mini had a simpler system with factors such as a lower, monochrome resolution in its favour.
Since this was a comparison between the nanos and the classic, I didn't feel it necessary to mention other factors since they're running the same OS, essentially. If I was comparing them to other models I would have mentioned the fact that I've noticed the menu transitions of my 4G running a lot smoother compared to the 5G.
The fact remains that there are inherent advantages to flash-based storage in terms of performance. For example, loading an image in the notes feature of the 5.5G seems to take an age, even accounting for time taken for image-resizing.
Regarding the unresponsive clickwheels...
I noticed when I first popped mine out of the box that the click wheel was a little different feel as far as responsiveness goes. After about 2 hours I've adjusted and now have no problems scrolling with the click wheel.
I noticed when I first popped mine out of the box that the click wheel was a little different feel as far as responsiveness goes. After about 2 hours I've adjusted and now have no problems scrolling with the click wheel.
The only time my classic pauses is for under a second when I hit a button and the hard drive has to spin up. I can feel it move and that's just the nature of hard drive-based storage. My 3g did the same thing.
About coverflow - when I scroll for 100+ albums or so they'll start appearing as the no cover art picture *briefly* until the pics catch up. But there hasn't been a delay in terms of me pushing a button and waiting for response.
About coverflow - when I scroll for 100+ albums or so they'll start appearing as the no cover art picture *briefly* until the pics catch up. But there hasn't been a delay in terms of me pushing a button and waiting for response.
Yeah.
But I don't think it's the storage format as much as coverflow needing to load up the images and cache them - I'm sure to run well it needs to get all images into memory at once instead of trying to load as them as the user scrolls to them. It's probably more of a memory issue than anything else, and can probably get optimized with firmware updates.
I can't believe anyone actually uses cover flow. ITunes only has a fraction of my album covers. In addition, sometimes it presents a new album cover for every track on an album, sometimes one album cover for the entire album, so scrolling through is incredibly irregular -- sometimes there are 20 pictures for each album, sometimes just one. It's absolutely pointless. Also, it lags on my dual 2.0 iMac.
When *doesn't* it lag is the question. Maybe the flash-based devices don't lag, but they still have all the other problems with coverflow. For me it's a completely worthless feature.
When *doesn't* it lag is the question. Maybe the flash-based devices don't lag, but they still have all the other problems with coverflow. For me it's a completely worthless feature.
That's usually easily fixable by setting the album to be a compilation, although I've found one album that insists on appearing as two covers.
Actually what you need to do is go to the album in question, highlight all the songs in that album, then drop the album artwork into the small square on the lower right hand side. Then each album will display the same cover for every song.
If you have a compilation album, then you can have different names for the category "Artist" but make sure you put "Various Artists" for every song under "Album Artist" for that album. Then check the box "Compilation - Yes"
For albums that are all the same artist make sure you have the same artist's name in both categories "Artist" and "Album Artist" then make sure the box "Compilation" is not checked and the drop down states "No".
Also for each album make sure you indicate for "Disc Number" if it is "1 of 1" or "1 of 2" or "2 of 2" etc
I spent the last few days doing all these and Coverflow works really well and accurately as a result.
well even in one of the classic's demos on apple's website shows a short lag in the cover flow load time.
it's not gonna be perfect.
and the apple's stores demo iPods are being played with all day long and are prolly near full of media. so that should account for lag.
it's not gonna be perfect.
and the apple's stores demo iPods are being played with all day long and are prolly near full of media. so that should account for lag.