iPod touch "new" iPod Touch? -> That´s it??

[Tosser]

why should you be mad? You're wrong after all. The touch would need to be in wifi range in order to download the maps. Otherwise you would need the maps stored locally which would take up gigabytes in storage and wouldn't work with google maps.

Erm, I'm not wrong at all. Do you not learn anything?
I am aware that the iPhone at present uses google maps, but there is no rule that states a turn-by-turn GPS have to use google maps.

Secondly, most GPS's/chartplotters don't use "gigabytes" in storage, nor have they a need to work with Google Maps. The google maps could be used just like it is used now, but there are no need to use such a thing on a turn-by-turn GPS.

You should take a look at proper chartplotters/turn-by-turn GPSs before continueing with your nonsense about what is needed for a chartplotter to work.
I guess the fanboy-seal is harder to break for some than for others.


I guess this says it all, though:

Nor could the info be transferee through GPS as it's too slow.

You really show here how little you know.
The "transfer" CAN'T be "slow", as there IS no transfer going on. Absolutely naught. It's not communication satellites!

The satellites that constitutes the Global Positioning System, GPS, can't transfer anything, but they do transmit time derived from an atomic clock. Hence the need to have as many channels on your GPS (receiver) as possible. It's the time delay that gives you a fix.

"Transfer speed is too slow"

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Erm, I'm not wrong at all. Do you not learn anything?
I am aware that the iPhone at present uses google maps, but there is no rule that states a turn-by-turn GPS have to use google maps.

Secondly, most GPS's/chartplotters don't use "gigabytes" in storage, nor have they a need to work with Google Maps. The google maps could be used just like it is used now, but there are no need to use such a thing on a turn-by-turn GPS.

You should take a look at proper chartplotters/turn-by-turn GPSs before continueing with your nonsense about what is needed for a chartplotter to work.
I guess the fanboy-seal is harder to break for some than for others.


I guess this says it all, though:


You really show here how little you know.
The "transfer" CAN'T be "slow", as there IS no transfer going on. Absolutely naught. It's not communication satellites!

The satellites that constitutes the Global Positioning System, GPS, can't transfer anything, but they do transmit time derived from an atomic clock. Hence the need to have as many channels on your GPS (receiver) as possible. It's the time delay that gives you a fix.

"Transfer speed is too slow"

So you're saying that it won't work with google maps, an application that is heavily integrated into the iPhone OS and that in order to use the GPS you would need another (that's two) map applications? Riiiiiiiight. Nice thinking, bud. Try again next year.

as for your comment about GPS not transfering anything. Yes, GPS does not transfer anything, but the GPS satelites (yes, they do more than one thing, this function is used in some GPS devices) can be used for moving data, however it is much slower than wifi or even edge. but thanks for playing, try again.... again.

 

[Tosser]

So you're saying that it won't work with google maps, an application that is heavily integrated into the iPhone OS and that in order to use the GPS you would need another (that's two) map applications? Riiiiiiiight. Nice thinking, bud. Try again next year.

On the other hand, you're saying that in order to have GPS, one has to make use of the cellular network, will have to use google maps, and will have to have gigabytes upon gigabytes of maps, and that a GPS satellite can be used for communication, that a GPS receiver also transmits to the satellites and so on.
Yes, I'm saying that with just 128MB or 256MB you could have a pretty decent map of the world on your turn-by-turn GPS. However, if you wanted more detail, you could use google maps to look at other things.
The mere notion that google maps is needed for this is ridiculous, and even more ridiculous is the notion that it would be better to use google maps than make some much smaller maps, utterly negating the need for gigabytes upon gigabytes of maps and a constant connection to download maps from.
Yes, the classic solution is much better than downloading maps constantly.

as for your comment about GPS not transfering anything. Yes, GPS does not transfer anything, but the GPS satelites (yes, they do more than one thing, this function is used in some GPS devices) can be used for moving data, however it is much slower than wifi or even edge. but thanks for playing, try again.... again.

You can ask me to try again as many times as you please. But I'll give you the chance to say EXACTLY what else the GPS satellite does. You cannot move data with the satellite. It's a geostationary atomic clock hovering above your head.
What functions do you claim are done by the satellites? You do realise that means your GPS-receiver will have to have a transmitter to send information to the satellite in order for your claims to be true, right?
Come now, show the people here that your argumentation is not as ignorant as it sounds.

If you STILL don't get it and insist that the GPS satellites in connection with, say, a turn-by-turn GPS/chartplotter/GPS-receiver is able to move data around - as in you being able to send something to the GPS satellite, I suggest you take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS

You really need to get your research done.

Edit/add: Btw, It's funny you're trying to qualify your statement about moving data by stating it is much slower "than wi-fi and "even" edge" …
The thing is, even satellite phones doesn't have anything close to ordinary GSM/GPRS speeds.

Here's a link so you can see how slow GSM, GPRS and so on is:

http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/gprs/class.shtml


Now, go here, and you'll see just HOW SLOW data transfer on dedicates satellite telephones are (no, they're not GPSs):
http://www.thetravelinsider.info/phones/aboutsatellitephoneservice.htm

However, all such services have very slow data bandwidths, typically in the realm of about 2400 baud (ten to twenty times slower than a regular dialup modem, and 50+ times slower than broadband).

Add the slow data transfer rate to the reasonably high cost per minute of airtime, and you won't want to use your satellite phone to access the internet for casual web surfing!

That's 2.4kbps. 2.4!

So, yes, even on telephone satellites like Iridium the data transfer is much slower than edge (what isn't). How ever, as there is no data transfer from your GPS receiver to a GPS satellite, that has to take the prize as the slowest connection ever, as you can "send and send" to a GPS satellite, yet nothing will ever happen as it's an atomic clock broadcasting GMT/UTC (Greenwich Mean Time/Universal Time Coordinated).

 

[MaxPower49]

I agree that there probably aren't enough improvements for a 1st gen touch owner to upgrade to the new model... but the improvements and price drops are nice for people (like me) who were planning to get a touch anyway. I was really hoping for 64gb, but I guess I'll have to settle for 32gb for now.

Also, there are reports that the new model has a bluetooth chip in it, which could pave the way for GPS with the use of an external bluetooth gps receiver.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

On the other hand, you're saying that in order to have GPS, one has to make use of the cellular network, will have to use google maps, and will have to have gigabytes upon gigabytes of maps, and that a GPS satellite can be used for communication, that a GPS receiver also transmits to the satellites and so on.
Yes, I'm saying that with just 128MB or 256MB you could have a pretty decent map of the world on your turn-by-turn GPS. However, if you wanted more detail, you could use google maps to look at other things.
The mere notion that google maps is needed for this is ridiculous, and even more ridiculous is the notion that it would be better to use google maps than make some much smaller maps, utterly negating the need for gigabytes upon gigabytes of maps and a constant connection to download maps from.
Yes, the classic solution is much better than downloading maps constantly.





You can ask me to try again as many times as you please. But I'll give you the chance to say EXACTLY what else the GPS satellite does. You cannot move data with the satellite. It's a geostationary atomic clock hovering above your head.
What functions do you claim are done by the satellites? You do realise that means your GPS-receiver will have to have a transmitter to send information to the satellite in order for your claims to be true, right?
Come now, show the people here that your argumentation is not as ignorant as it sounds.

If you STILL don't get it and insist that the GPS satellites in connection with, say, a turn-by-turn GPS/chartplotter/GPS-receiver is able to move data around - as in you being able to send something to the GPS satellite, I suggest you take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS

You really need to get your research done.

Edit/add: Btw, It's funny you're trying to qualify your statement about moving data by stating it is much slower "than wi-fi and "even" edge" …
The thing is, even satellite phones doesn't have anything close to ordinary GSM/GPRS speeds.

Here's a link so you can see how slow GSM, GPRS and so on is:

http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/gprs/class.shtml


Now, go here, and you'll see just HOW SLOW data transfer on dedicates satellite telephones are (no, they're not GPSs):
http://www.thetravelinsider.info/phones/aboutsatellitephoneservice.htm



That's 2.4kbps. 2.4!

So, yes, even on telephone satellites like Iridium the data transfer is much slower than edge (what isn't). How ever, as there is no data transfer from your GPS receiver to a GPS satellite, that has to take the prize as the slowest connection ever, as you can "send and send" to a GPS satellite, yet nothing will ever happen as it's an atomic clock broadcasting GMT/UTC (Greenwich Mean Time/Universal Time Coordinated).

You just argued that satellites don't move data and then you follow your argument with satellite phones and talk about how slow their data connection is? Then you correct me when I say it's slower than edge and follow that with how ridiculously slow it is compared to edge? What point are you trying to make?!? And no, you cannot have a good map of the world in just 128MB, a good map of california is about 512mb.

 

[goosnarrggh]

You just argued that satellites don't move data and then you follow your argument with satellite phones and talk about how slow their data connection is? Then you correct me when I say it's slower than edge and follow that with how ridiculously slow it is compared to edge? What point are you trying to make?!?

You had suggested that the GPS satellites themselves could be used for two-way data communication. That is blatantly false. Certainly, other satellites may be used to send data back and forth, but this is not the case with the Navstar (GPS) satellites.

Any 2-directional data exchanges that may happen with Navstar satellites are under the exclusive domain of the DoD, and are most likely limited to commands to perform orbital adjustments, correct atomic clock discrepancies, etc.

Such exchanges would almost certainly require a much higher power transmitter than you'd get from any handheld equipment anyway. Remember, the Navstar satellites are at an orbit of 20,230 km, and they use rather high power transmitters to reach receivers on the ground.

The Iridium satellite telephone service uses a constellation of satellites at a much lower orbit of 780 km, thus they'd require handsets with significantly less transmission power.

And no, you cannot have a good map of the world in just 128MB, a good map of california is about 512mb.

There ya go. If you're traveling to California, there's no need to download detailed maps of Timbuktu. Still no obligation to have gigs and gigs of maps if you don't want to.

 

[MaxPower49]

FWIW... I have TomTom on my treo cellphone. I have the entire US & Canada map pack on it which takes up about 1gb.

 

[Tosser]

You just argued that satellites don't move data and then you follow your argument with satellite phones and talk about how slow their data connection is?

Sigh! Frankly, you have reached the point where you're merely ridiculing yourself.

No, I didn't argue that "satellites" don't move data. I argued that "GPS satellites" don't move data. Sheesh! At least try get the basics.

I mentioned satellites used for satellite TELEPHONES, because your notion that GPS satellites would be "even slower than edge" is laughable, when satellites dedicated to actual communication is way, way, slower than simple GSM (as in the terrestial cell network) in order to show you how far fetched the notion that you could use something like your GPS receiver to "move data". It was a comparison, it's not that hard to get. But I guess that since you think that a GPS satellite is the same as a communication satellite and vice versa, it really isn't surprising to anyone.

Then you correct me when I say it's slower than edge and follow that with how ridiculously slow it is compared to edge?

You don't have to use the confused-emoticon, it's obvious you were confused from before you mouthed off about how wrong I was.
To explain:
You were using edge as an example of a really slow network, in order to rheotrically make-belief you knew what you were talking about.
I was comparing to edge in my rebuttal to show you that when it comes to satellite communication, speeds akin or even just close to edge would be super, super fast.

Then, in order to try to explain that the GPS is merely an atomic clock which broadcast time, and to show that trilateration and multilateration (akin to triangulation on the ground) all takes place in the GPS-receiver I told you it wouldn't be possible to to "move data" with such a receiver/chart plotter/whatever.

What point are you trying to make?!? And no, you cannot have a good map of the world in just 128MB, a good map of california is about 512mb.

Notice how you say "good map". How good do you want it?
In any case, there's no reason you couldn't download just the maps you need and with the resolution and details you want.

Here's a 115MB GPS receiver with turn-by-turn directions. 115MB. You can get it with a map of the whole of Europe, or, say, the whole of North America.

http://www.amazon.com/Garmin-Quest-115-Megabyte-Handheld-010-00306-00/dp/B0002JUH3O

You really should reread my posts, and most certainly Goosnarrggh's. Perhaps you won't be so determined to stay in the dark when reading his posts.

 

[i0Nic]

In my opinion, the new touch is A LOT better than the old one, and worth the upgrade.

In my opinion, there should be two 'mobile touch' devices that are exactly the same, except one is slightly thicker to accomodate 3G/GSM radio and a bit bigger battery. I think this is an idea they have probably thought of, but the cost of the iPhone without the phone would be too high unsubsidised.

 

[hogfaninga]

In my opinion, the new touch is A LOT better than the old one, and worth the upgrade.

That has to be one of the dumbest comments I have ever heard on this site. Better? A little. A LOT? Pure stupidity.

 

[NightFlight]

That has to be one of the dumbest comments I have ever heard on this site. Better? A little. A LOT? Pure stupidity.

Really nice response...

I am sure that new members browsing the forum who read this will really want to stay...

 

[i0Nic]

That has to be one of the dumbest comments I have ever heard on this site. Better? A little. A LOT? Pure stupidity.

Just the volume rocker is a big deal in my opinion... what about the hugely improved battery life? Then there's also the speaker, the integrated nike+ (which I would love). It's quite an upgrade, and if I was in the market for an iPod touch I would get the new one at retail price even if I was offered the old for a quarter of the price.

Oh and also the new upcoming in-ear headphones that won't work with the old iPod touch will only sweeten the deal.

 

[hogfaninga]

Really nice response...

I am sure that new members browsing the forum who read this will really want to stay...

He gave his opinion and I did as well. You don't like how I phrased it. Oh well.

i0Nic I agree there are some decent upgrades, but to say it is A LOT better is overstating it. I went to the Apple store and the speaker is well....horrible. Jobs basically said that himself. The volume controls are a needed feature, but way too small. Nike+ won't be used by most. Then to add insult to injury they added new earbuds that cost $79 so you can take advantage of some of these new things.

Overall it is alright, but not great. IMO it would be foolish for someone to sell their gen 1 and buy this one unless they can get a good price on their gen 1 which they probably won't. Now if this is your first ipod touch then it is a good deal.

 

[clyde2801]

He gave his opinion and I did as well. You don't like how I phrased it. Oh well.

i0Nic I agree there are some decent upgrades, but to say it is A LOT better is overstating it. I went to the Apple store and the speaker is well....horrible. Jobs basically said that himself. The volume controls are a needed feature, but way too small. Nike+ won't be used by most. Then to add insult to injury they added new earbuds that cost $79 so you can take advantage of some of these new things.

Overall it is alright, but not great. IMO it would be foolish for someone to sell their gen 1 and buy this one unless they can get a good price on their gen 1 which they probably won't. Now if this is your first ipod touch then it is a good deal.

Couldn't agree with you more, after having played with the new ones just now at the apple store. The screen was yellow compared to my 1st gen as well.