The iPod or iPod Classic will always lose out to the other models simply due to its harddrive. It can't compete on a speed basis with the flash storage.
I noticed the difference myself with the 2G nano and 5.5G.
Isn't the mini also hard drive-based, though?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.
Thanks, those were some encouraging words . I'll probably use CoverFlow very little, too.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!
Are the clickwheels unresponsive, or less sensitive than the older iPods? I actually find my current 5.5G a little bit too sensetive.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.
Isn't the mini also hard drive-based, though?
please, the speed difference is from flash vs. HDD? did you see coverflow lagging in your mac?
.. 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...