iPod touch Archos 605 over touch, for me at least. Here's why.

[Mobile923]

I bought BOTH of these players and test drove them...

I first bought the Archos 605 30GB (as opposed to the 160GB, only for the size factor)

At first it was dope, compared to my previous Creative Zen Vision W 60GB (thing was a beast)... Touch screen, nice big display, and in a sense, pocketable. ...way more than the Zen. Here's my brief love and hate review of the 605:

INTERFACE
-barely used the buttons. felt a little flimsy.
-GUI was a little confusing at first, but i quickly got used to it. the girlfriend didnt even bother.
-it's way too easy to confuse 'closing music player' and 'going back to the main menu'.
-touch screen is finger friendly, but for some buttons, the stylus is necessary.
-drag and drop, nothing beats it

MEDIA
-mp3s can be browsed in two manners: tags and folders
-'prev' and 'next' buttons have song titles beside them, nice touch.
-output not as hot as the Zen. bummer when trying to bump in the car.
-videos: a majority of the codecs worked. (divx, wmv, etc)
-animated video thumbnails = awesome. you can even customize which part of the video for the thumbnail.
-pictures were beautiful on that resolution.

WEB
-shelled out $30 for the browser plugin. note: that plugin was a 1 kb download. ripoff.
-connecting to wi-fi was a bit of a challenge (mini gripe: i have a LONG wep key at home... it wouldnt take the very last digit. so had to go to wi-fi cafe to test it)
-browsing was very impressive
-built-in flash worked well
-cant browse and listen to music
-battery pounded to half-charge after 30 mins of browsing
-One zoom, and it's about a 25% zoom.
-PDF viewer is a plus. It had the manual built in.

DESIGN
-pocketable, but with the case, forget it. feels like the zen again.
-side buttons and headphone jack are at opposite sides of the player. bad pocket design for me.
-must use button lock. screen and buttons way too sensitive in a pocket.
-button/screen lock: you set it, then the screen would power off, when you try to touch the screen or press a button, the screen would power back on, then you touch it a second time, then it displays the message to tell you it was locked. screen turns back off after 10 seconds. imagine this while in your pocket... this feature was basically a battery killer.
-frequent in-and-out-of pocket was way too annoying for it's size. immediate wear-and-tear would be unavoidable. (buttons felt like they'd snap off if caught on a thread)
-charging it was like watching grass grow.


SO... I bought the iPod touch shortly after, and swallowed the fact that it was only 16GBs, that i'd have to sit through video conversions... and that it was an iPod. After 2 hours with the iPt, the archos was factory reset and boxed for immediate return.

Here's what I felt about the archos compared to iPt:
-605 was nice at first, but then I felt like i was going to break the thing. I had to 'learn' the interface, as well as 'teach' it to others, and i just wasnt comfortable with having a player that required TLC... my iPt i treat like a best friend, while the archos was like a little baby...

605 wifi was $275 and iPt was $400... well worth the extra money for me to get something reliable, would receive good support and little worries.

So there, that's one person's opinion for you.

Happy purchasing...

 

[Evangelion]

it is, why not? it only plays certain codec of videos, plus music and browser, what do you call that? good functionality? compare to what?

Um, compared to the other iPods for example? Or other mediaplayers from their competitors (sandisk, Creative etc.)? Yes, Archos has it beat here, but Archos has other shortcomings.

I really fail to see the issue with the codecs. So it doesn't play back those illegal downloads from P2P, big deal. What it does play back just fine is my Handbrake-ripped DVD-collection.

In short: it touch might not play back as many codecs as the Archos does, but it plays back those that matter.

 

[onionperson654]

I bought BOTH of these players and test drove them...
[...]
SO... I bought the iPod touch shortly after, and swallowed the fact that it was only 16GBs, that i'd have to sit through video conversions... and that it was an iPod. After 2 hours with the iPt, the archos was factory reset and boxed for immediate return.
[...]
So there, that's one person's opinion for you.

Happy purchasing...

Well, that's a pretty strong opinion (I like that instead of going through all the ipods points, he just demonstrated his overall reaction, and well).

To be fair, here's a link to a forum more biased on the other side (read its title) http://forum.archosfans.com/


Completely by accident (ok, I was looking to see what Target had in ipods while I was in there for other reasons (they have the touch label out, but also for the classic which they don't have in, so they're behind the times)) I saw a clearance Archos 604, which was a suprise because I never imagined seeing one in a store (plus the shock of seeing something you've researched extensively for the first time).

It was certainly not too big, but quite sizable. THEN, I looked at it from the top and wow, it was FAT. Now, the 605 is smaller, but only .6 inches compared to .7. The ipod touch really seems small at .3, so an extra .1 inch could be a lot more than it looks like, but still, volume wise, the 605 is way bigger.

Archos has some things down (decent pricing except for plugins, codec support, screen resolution), but needs to put in a smaller hard drive and shrink the device (to the size of the present screen and maybe .5 inches thick) to be competative to the ipod. Sure, no one quite expects multitouch technology (although the openness and drag-and-drop will certainly make its os appeal more to some than itunes and certainly has some advantages), but size is going to be what makes the 605 just not sell as much.

Make it larger than the iphone but smaller than the current model and fix the WI-FI battery (while it gets decent video battery, apparently WI-FI sucks, so keep that in mind for downloading videos and such) and you've got my eye again Archos, but for now, I just hope you catch all of the business that (for whatever reason) looks away from Apple.

 

[clevin]

Um, compared to the other iPods for example? Or other mediaplayers from their competitors (sandisk, Creative etc.)? Yes, Archos has it beat here, but Archos has other shortcomings.

I really fail to see the issue with the codecs. So it doesn't play back those illegal downloads from P2P, big deal. What it does play back just fine is my Handbrake-ripped DVD-collection.

In short: it touch might not play back as many codecs as the Archos does, but it plays back those that matter.

thats such a biased view, nowadays you goto any pirate website, see if H.264 is that innocent.

compare to iPod? great, now read this forum and see how many people really use it as a pure iPod.

 

[Evangelion]

thats such a biased view, nowadays you goto any pirate website, see if H.264 is that innocent.

Since I don't visit those website, I'll have to take your word for it. And did I claim that it is? I haven't really seen that much need for DivX outside of illegal downloads. I do have (and will have) bunch of other video that I would be watching on the touch and guess what? touch would play back that content just fine. Lack of DivX is such a non-issue that it's not even funny.

And even if H.264 was used in P2P-networks, so what? They I could say that the touch would play back the legal content AND the illegal content from P2P. Then the whole argument of codec-support becomes more or less academic, since the missing codecs would not bring anything extra to the table.

But seriously: so frigging what if touch does not play back DivX? Why would I want that? my DVD-rips are H.264, and touch handles those just fine. What other media could I be watching on the touch? YouTube? Working fine as it is.

compare to iPod? great, now read this forum and see how many people really use it as a pure iPod.

Maybe they are not using it as an "pure iPod" since it has new features that allow it to do more? So we are back at the "touch has sucky features"-argument. And since there are loads of people using touch for other things than iPodding, then it kinda shows that it does have quite a bit of features.

 

[gloss]

Loud Noises

 

[ivan a rom]

I love lamp. ...I actually screamed "LOUD NOISES" during a friends argument and it ended it with laughter.

On topic, I got my GF the 16 Gig touch today, when she gets home I'll check it out.

 

[PygmySurfer]

And even if H.264 was used in P2P-networks, so what? They I could say that the touch would play back the legal content AND the illegal content from P2P. Then the whole argument of codec-support becomes more or less academic, since the missing codecs would not bring anything extra to the table.

You implied DivX was used for nothing more than illegal P2P downloads, which isn't the case. Before h.264, DivX was huge for home use, especially on the PC side. I wouldn't be surprised if DivX/XviD was still bigger than h.264 in the PC world. IMHO, it was childish to imply that DivX is just this evil pirate codec. You then took a completley different stance when it was pointed out h.264 is also widely used for encoding movies for distribution via P2P.

But seriously: so frigging what if touch does not play back DivX? Why would I want that? my DVD-rips are H.264, and touch handles those just fine. What other media could I be watching on the touch? YouTube? Working fine as it is.

Just because you wouldn't want it doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. I'm not sure why there's so much animosity towards clevin for merely wanting DivX support on the iPod touch.

 

[bousozoku]

thats such a biased view, nowadays you goto any pirate website, see if H.264 is that innocent.
...

What's that got to do with someone's private collection? If someone has used his own DVDs to put video on his device, whether it's an iPod touch or Archos 605 or whatever, what does it matter if pirated video are showing up in H.264 form?

So, the iPod touch isn't good for pirates? They probably wouldn't consider it anyway because of the cost and storage.

If the iPod touch is what someone wants, they'll work with it and if it isn't, they'll get something else. It's like the people who keep asking for FLAC support on the iPod. It's not happening. If people want to transcode their CDs to a lossless format, they have a choice. If they don't have the CDs, who cares?

 

[Evangelion]

You implied DivX was used for nothing more than illegal P2P downloads, which isn't the case. Before h.264, DivX was huge for home use, especially on the PC side.

And where would I use it TODAY? When I move my DVD's to my computer, they will be in h.264. So where would I be using DivX? Where would I end up getting consumable media that was in DivX-format? P2P?

You then took a completley different stance when it was pointed out h.264 is also widely used for encoding movies for distribution via P2P.

It's not really my problem if you do not understand what we are talking about. My point was that just about only source of DivX-content is P2P. And that particular content is about 95% illegal. Is it really valid to pine for a codec that would mostly be used for illegal things? Now, the fact that it's popular in illegal activities does not mean that the codec is bad. But if it really doesn't have wide adoption outside that particular market, does it really matter? Now, the difference between DivX and h.264 is that while h.264 might be used in P2P like Divx is, it also has hozillion legal uses as well (trailers in apple.com, YouTube etc.).

This might be different for someone who has already encoded their DVD's to DivX. But they can always re-encode them. If this ISN'T about self-encoded DVD's, then only large-scale source for DivX-content that I can think of is P2P.

 

[mikeinmontreal]

I didn't bother reading all of the posts, so for those who are reading from here on in, here are my 2 cents:

I have the Archos 604 Wifi and it is a great machine for video playback and the web browsing experience is pretty good. Just drag and drop avi files without converting. Wish they could have incorporated flash into a firmware update for a product that is not even a year old, though.

I can stream from my Mac to my Archos, so I can have 100% free space on my Archos, and stream music and videos from my home network, much like Apple TV. But I think you can with the Touch now also with Telekinesis.

The battery is user replaceable and is only about $30. However, Archos support is not very good. It can be quite expensive to ship the unit back and forth if there are any issues, whereas you can pop into an Apple Store for service pretty much anywhere for iPods.

The iPod UI will always beat everyone else's. The 604 is a little bulky and it takes forever to charge by USB and my video playback is 2 hours at most vs 3 hour charging and 4-hour playback for the Touch. The newer 605 has additional costs for web browsing and the battery is not replaceable.

I will end up selling my 604 and picking up the Touch. But I think you cannot go wrong with either unit.

 

[PygmySurfer]

And where would I use it TODAY? When I move my DVD's to my computer, they will be in h.264. So where would I be using DivX? Where would I end up getting consumable media that was in DivX-format? P2P?

For anything you'd previously ripped in DivX, and didn't feel like re-ripping? From http://stage6.divx.com/? I've seen several websites on the internet where video has been encoded with DivX/XviD. Product advertisements, adult websites, there's lots of DivX out there that isn't illegal. A lot of sites are moving on (to Flash, mostly), but there's still a lot of old content out there.

It's not really my problem if you do not understand what we are talking about. My point was that just about only source of DivX-content is P2P. And that particular content is about 95% illegal. Is it really valid to pine for a codec that would mostly be used for illegal things? Now, the fact that it's popular in illegal activities does not mean that the codec is bad. But if it really doesn't have wide adoption outside that particular market, does it really matter? Now, the difference between DivX and h.264 is that while h.264 might be used in P2P like Divx is, it also has hozillion legal uses as well (trailers in apple.com, YouTube etc.).

How does your changing your stance equate to me not understanding what you're talking about? Your point is P2P is the only source of DivX content, and it's 100% wrong. h.264 can be and is being used for all the things DivX can, including pirating movies/tv shows/etc. That doesn't change the fact both have legitimate uses. By your logic, we should outlaw P2P, because it can be used to illegally download things. Maybe we should outlaw alcohol too, because people can get drunk, then go driving and run someone down. FACT: DivX has huge adoption outside of those activities. It's popularity may be waning, but that doesn't change that it was the dominant codec for several years.

This might be different for someone who has already encoded their DVD's to DivX. But they can always re-encode them. If this ISN'T about self-encoded DVD's, then only large-scale source for DivX-content that I can think of is P2P.

If someone has a bunch of DVDs already ripped to DivX, they probably don't want to re-rip them.

The fact is, someone suggested one thing they'd like to see is DivX support. By suggesting the only use for DivX/XviD is for nefarious activities, you've basically labelled him a pirate or a thief.

 

[ivan a rom]

The decision was made, I've ordered a 605wifi. I'll post comparisons and impressions. I have played with my GF's 16 gig touch for hours on end, so I have a good basis for comparison. I hope to have it by Friday. Wish me luck! (or not )

 

[db2431]

it is, why not? it only plays certain codec of videos, plus music and browser, what do you call that? good functionality? compare to what?

Size, ugly ui and **** wifi battery was the killer for me when comparing archos to touch.

 

[gloss]

The decision was made, I've ordered a 605wifi. I'll post comparisons and impressions. I have played with my GF's 16 gig touch for hours on end, so I have a good basis for comparison. I hope to have it by Friday. Wish me luck! (or not )

G'luck. Let us know how the comparison goes.

 

[RobK7]

It really depends what YOU are looking for, wanting and needing.

Several here are concerned a lot about size and ease of use.

I mostly want it to share photos and video clips, so the screen quality is my own personal picky point.

And this is interesting, because on paper the Archos has a fantastic screen, much much higher resolution than iPod touch, and MILLIONS of colors.

I haven't been able to compare screens in person, but on youtube it seems that the iPod Touch screen looks BETTER. Mainly because it's BRIGHTER.

So, the higher resolution, higher color resolution screen loses out to iPod Touch because it just isn't any brighter than the old Archos 604, which looks DULL compared to iPod Touch.

Personally, if the Arhcos screen were brighter, I'd go with it. Sharing photos and video clips with friends, they are looking at the screen and I want them to see how good the photos are. If anyone can comment on screen comparison (BRIGHTNESS), great, but YouTube seems to show it pretty clearly.

 

[RobK7]

...BUT...

The iPod Touch stores lower resolution photos only, so sending them to a bigger TV screen (which would be cool at various times in various other households) is a problem if you want to run a slide show. Also, obviously zooming in on photos on the Touch screen doesn't zoom into better resolution but just blows up the low resolution.

Not sure if Archos has that limitation but I don't think it does.

 

[madmaxmedia]

...BUT...

The iPod Touch stores lower resolution photos only, so sending them to a bigger TV screen (which would be cool at various times in various other households) is a problem if you want to run a slide show. Also, obviously zooming in on photos on the Touch screen doesn't zoom into better resolution but just blows up the low resolution.

Not sure if Archos has that limitation but I don't think it does.

I don't think the resolution of the photos would be an issue with TV out, as the TV out resolution is relatively low-res too.

I do agree with you on the photo thing though. It's not a big deal to me, but it would be nice if they were a bit higher resolution.

 

[Iscariot]

Nobody buys a Jag because it gets the highest fuel efficiency or has the most horsepower or because of those built-in seat warmers. They buy it because it's a Jag.

Maybe the Archos has more space, maybe it plays more codecs. But it's big, it's bulky, it's the girl at the party that has all the qualities of a great mother but nobody wants to be seen taking her home. The iPt is sleek, sexy, and it's designed with usability in mind.

 

[Mobile923]

Maybe the Archos has more space, maybe it plays more codecs. But it's big, it's bulky, it's the girl at the party that has all the qualities of a great mother but nobody wants to be seen taking her home. The iPt is sleek, sexy, and it's designed with usability in mind.

"...that's the smartest thing I've ever heard anyone say about anything!" (Peter Griffin)

...so true.

I returned mine, and compared to my 16GB touch, I don't regret it one bit. Archos' got all the great features, but it's truly a jack of all trades. UI is a mess, the only thing decent about it was the movie player, and it's just not pocketable. If you're thinking about a 605, please read my review on top of page two... functionality vs practicality.

 

[ivan a rom]

I am gonna have it in my laptop bag/ bookbag. It's pockets are padded.

On the drive to uni I'll be using it to listen to music.

I'm excited! And if it sucks for me I have no problem returning it.

Reason #2 for the nicer screen: I am getting a new digital camera (Panasonic DMC-FZ18k), so I really want to take my pics with me everywhere.

 

[RobK7]

Nobody buys a Jag because it gets the highest fuel efficiency or has the most horsepower or because of those built-in seat warmers. They buy it because it's a Jag.

Maybe the Archos has more space, maybe it plays more codecs. But it's big, it's bulky, it's the girl at the party that has all the qualities of a great mother but nobody wants to be seen taking her home. The iPt is sleek, sexy, and it's designed with usability in mind.

Well, Like I said, I'm looking for the best SCREEN.

What's interesting I guess is with allof Arhcos big gun specs and storage space, I think I'm gonna go with Apple's tiny 16gigs and lower resolution photos and a HOST of other draw-backs, beacause, mainly due to powerful brightness, the SCREEN LOOKS BETTER.

 

[ivan a rom]

So, I got it in finally. I must say that I'm impressed. Compared to the touch the apps are not as fast, but it's so much more versatile. Charging it is rather long but i just charged it while i slept and it was fine.

As far as battery life goes, i think it's ok...nothing spectacular, but I am anal about charging my stuff before i go to sleep.

The UI however, IS NOT BAD AT ALL. I like it.

Oh, and the photos look fantastic.

I'll be using it as my DVR soon.

 

[gloss]

So, I got it in finally. I must say that I'm impressed. Compared to the touch the apps are not as fast, but it's so much more versatile. Charging it is rather long but i just charged it while i slept and it was fine.

As far as battery life goes, i think it's ok...nothing spectacular, but I am anal about charging my stuff before i go to sleep.

The UI however, IS NOT BAD AT ALL. I like it.

Oh, and the photos look fantastic.

I'll be using it as my DVR soon.

Cool. Report back.

 

[clevin]

Size, ugly ui and **** wifi battery was the killer for me when comparing archos to touch.

thank god pretty isn't the only important thing in this world

I don't think the resolution of the photos would be an issue with TV out, as the TV out resolution is relatively low-res too.

it is, HDTV has pretty hight res, and iPT's photo are probably less than 640x480. its ok if the pics are just for general observing. if anybody rely on the information in the pic (like a pic with chemical table, a pic of some equations, etc), it will just be useless after the shrinking by iPT.