Difference between 160 and 120 classic?

Discussion in 'iPod' started by ACAx1985, Sep 9, 2008.

  1. ACAx1985 macrumors member

    Sep 8, 2008
    Is there ANY difference besides HDD capacity? Size, firmware, anything?
  2. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Nov 4, 2003
    it's thinner/lighter.

    of course if you wanted thinner/lighter, you'd have bought a nano
  3. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Jul 16, 2002
    The new 120GB is the same form factor as the previous 80gb. It's pretty much the same in all other respects as well.
  4. Bobioden macrumors 68000


    Sep 23, 2007
  5. matthewroth macrumors member

    Jan 9, 2006
    you got there just before me!
  6. Dragn macrumors newbie

    Sep 7, 2008
    Yes, the new 120 has the Genius playlist thingie supported in the device firmware (maybe avail to older Classic in future...or maybe not), and can be controlled by control module on new in-ear phones (play, pause, etc) - see Apple's website. Other than that, nothing really that I can see other than 40 gig more while retaining the form factor of the old 80gig.
  7. Lord Zedd macrumors 6502a

    Lord Zedd

    Oct 24, 2007
    Denver, Colorado
    The 80gb model used a single platter while the 160 used 2 platters (80x2=160). The "new" downgraded classic has 120gb on 1 platter, which is why its exactly the same size as the old 80. Why Apple didn't release a 2 platter classic with 240GB, I don't know.

    I do know that it cost them a sale. I was holding off on buying the classic because I knew updates were coming. The fact they downgraded the highest capacity model from 160->120GB means that I definitely won't be buying one and I won't buy a previous generation model.

    :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :apple:

    We can only hope that the 240GB HDDs were too difficult to get in time for the release and Apple will sell them later on this year.
  8. MacLadybug macrumors 6502a


    Jun 6, 2008
    I hear that...

    Why won't you buy previous models? Not sure what I'm going to do. My 8GB Nano is useless and I was hoping for a huge Classic too. Disappointed! Struggling between the old 160 and the new 120.
  9. elmateo487 macrumors 6502a

    Jun 12, 2008
    Yeah. I can't decide either. I feel ripped both ways. i want the 40 gigs... but i want the next headphone support with mic and controls, plus i like the genius feature. I have too much music, and forget about some, genius reminds me. Plus i like the smaller size of the new 120... so far the only advantange the 160 is the 40 gigs. Which is big for me, cuz i have 98 gigs or so of music... DANG!

    In summation:

    Positives of 120:

    1) Significantly smaller, the 80 gig felt so much smaller than the 160. Now the 120 is the same size as the 80

    2) 50 dollars cheaper. Brand new ipod classics are going for 300 now from apple themselves.

    3) Possible new UI features? I don't know, no one has talked about it yet! Pisses me off. SHOW ME A HANDS ON! I hope they included the "hold down the center button for more option" option. If not that is RETARDED.

    4) Genius features for sure. Which will be nice for a large collection.

    5) Support for the uber inexpensive high quality headphones with volume, track, and mic control!!! Super sweet. Possibly 3rd party support?

    6) Will get all the new updates in firmware.

    Positives of the 160

    1) It has 40 more gigs.

    and honestly i cannot see any more advantages. BUT for some reason i feel ripped!
  10. DaftUnion macrumors 6502a


    Feb 22, 2005
    Maybe the 120gb has improved sound quality? I'm curious to know.
  11. alphaod macrumors Core


    Feb 9, 2008
    One platter 120GB classic means a 120GB 1.8" drive for the MacBook Air. ;)
  12. saxman macrumors 6502

    May 13, 2004
    Very good point indeed
  13. markredf150 macrumors newbie

    Sep 4, 2008

    I think it's kind of sad that Apple ditched the super high capacity Classic to make just a high capacity player. Was there a reason to put out just 120GB? Ahh my imagination runs about that Apple could have had the world's first 200GB media player that fits in your pocket...I guess those thoughts are a moot point now. *tear* I mean what could it have been? could it have been because people want to see videos on a bigger screen (Phone or Touch) instead of the smaller screen on the Classic? And because there's probably no point in putting so much content on a small screened player? Still the thought of challenging yourself to stuff this monster jukebox with as many songs and remixes as you want and still have room for backups of those songs is a nice one.
  14. Lord Zedd macrumors 6502a

    Lord Zedd

    Oct 24, 2007
    Denver, Colorado
    The only real alternative I can think of to the classic is a HDD equipped Touch. I love the touch, but even the 32GB model is much too low capacity for people with a large collection of music and video. For me it would always be a compromise of what albums to cut from the upload and only watching one season of TV shows at a time.

    I honestly wouldn't miss the Classic if Apple were to kill it and release a 120GB Touch, I'd spooge if they released a 240GB Touch!
  15. illegalprelude macrumors 68000


    Mar 10, 2005
    Los Angeles, California
    yea...I was waiting for this announcement too for a bigger HDD so I could put it in my car and the opposite happened...120GB will do but that means not only did I lose 40GB, but it wasnt the 240GB or so I thought they would announce....weird transition going on for me.
  16. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002


    Probably based upon sales figures.

    My guess is that few need 160GB capacity let alone 240GB.

    At the electronic stores that I frequent, I've noticed that the Classic sales seem slow compared to the other models. Subjective data for sure.

    Who knows, we may see a 240GB model introduced in the future.

    But realistically, how many people need that much capacity. Sure there are exceptions -- especially folks that frequent MR. But looking at the population at large, I bet the new Nano and the new Touch will each outsell the Classic by a long shot.

  17. SactoGuy18 macrumors 68030


    Sep 11, 2006
    Sacramento, CA USA
    Actually, I don't find 160 GB that useful unless you ripped your CD collection using Apple Lossless encoding. If you're using 256 kbps VBR AAC encoding to rip your CD collection, even a 120 GB classic could hold probably nearly 10,000 songs easily.
  18. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002
    Good point.

    I would venture to say that those who purchased a 160GB Classic were very much in the minority.

    Here in Japan, based upon what I've seen, most have a Nano or Shuffle. Japanese like small players. Sure there are some who have the Classic but they seem far and few between. The Nano and Shuffle are the colors which also seems popular. Also, the Shuffle with it's clip provides flexibility in where you can carry it. :)
  19. DoFoT9 macrumors P6


    Jun 11, 2007
    they probably have the nanos/shuffles etc because they look better. a lot of people go for style, i prefer space. that extra 160gb would have come in handy. i could of had a backup of my computer on there and still fit my music on it (it would be very full).

    now with the 120gb its either one or the other... so yea..im sure they had a good reason for it
  20. Scepticalscribe Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    Very good point. I, too, had been hoping for an updated (rather than downgraded) classic but this gives it a somewhat different perspective.

  21. WinterMute Moderator emeritus


    Jan 19, 2003
    London, England
    I bought the 160Gb as a replacement for my 60Gb, I have 96Gb of Lossless files on the machine and enough room to move large audio and video projects around.

    It acts as a day-backup drive, which was exactly what I bought it for. A 120Gb player simply wouldn't have been a big enough upgrade to make the purchase worthwhile.
  22. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002
    I'm not saying that you don't need it. I'm just saying folks like you are probably in the minority. Otherwise why would Apple have not made a 240GB offering?

    The old Classic was available in 80GB (1 plater) and 160GB (2 plater) models. You would expect that the new ones would have 120GB (1 plater) and 240GB (2 plater) versions. But for some reason they didn't.

    Two ideas come to mind:

    1. Apple could not get 240GB HDs.

    2. Apple determine that there wasn't a need. (My guess)

    Who knows, if those who want a larger iPod Classic are vocal enough, and Apple can get 240GB HDs, you may see them in the future.
  23. ashxf macrumors newbie


    Jul 17, 2008
    Baton Rouge
    Have a look at the Archos 7 and get back to me.:D

  24. Tom B. macrumors 65816

    Tom B.

    Mar 22, 2006
    I'd like to see a pocket which can contain something with a 7" screen. ;)
  25. MacBass macrumors 6502


    Aug 12, 2005
    La Crosse, WI
    I agree. When I got my 80 GB Classic last September, I thought that 80 GB would have been more than enough space...after acquiring more media, I ran into the same problem I had with my Nano...not enough space. So I considered for a while to move up to a 160, and now that option doesn't exist. However, I think it would be folly for Apple to not release a 240 GB model. There seems to be a big enough demand even on the MR forums for a larger iPod. I would even mind a fatty iPod, so long as I can bring my entire library with me!

Share This Page