4 ms·

I want 160gb classic back!

by Phogo 11y ago

sizzzzlerz 11y ago
I totally agree. Mine is still going after 5 years of use so I'm expecting to have to replace it any time now. The 128G option is acceptable but, since I'm touching that now, I'll have to thin my library a bit. Still, its better than the 64G and smaller.
- mynameisvlad 11y ago
  Do you truly need your entire library on your device at any one time? 160GB of songs is roughly 111 days of continuous listening (assuming ~1MB/min, but I do admit that number goes up with higher bitrate content). Nobody truly needs that much music at any one time.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    The point is to not have to manage it.
    - mynameisvlad 11y ago
      The point is flawed. If you aren't going to listen to 90% of your library, why even waste space for it? For that 0.00000001% chance when you remember you loved Fall Out Boy as a teen and want to relive those memories?
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        I guess, but the other side of it is that lots of people have the $200 to waste on such a piffling concern.
      - glomph 11y ago
        Right but the alternative is to have to go through and decide what music I might listen to.
        mynameisvlad 11y ago
        I mean, there are smart playlists that can be based on last played date (eta: or ratings, or play count, for that matter. Honestly the iTunes smart playlists are a powerful but hugely underused feature), and iTunes fully supports selective syncing where you can just sync certain playlists you like and the smart playlist, and nothing else. iTunes was built as a music management system. Regardless of the crud that has been added on since, that's still what it is at its core.
      - crazygringo 11y ago
        To paraphrase what advertisers say... "I know I don't listen to half my music. The problem is, I don't know which half." The last thing I want to do is shuffle albums/tracks between lists that keep track of which items I listen to, and which ones I don't. And it changes over time, too. That would probably be several days' worth of work. Far, far, far cheaper just to buy a larger device.
throwaway7767 11y ago
I would prefer a larger one. Currently have the 160GB and it's getting restricting. We're about at the point where I think a 256GB flash-based iPod would be economical, especially with cheaper/slower flash (doesn't really need to be very fast for this use case). It would provide capacity and still have no moving parts, checking all the boxes for me.

I want 160gb classic back!

by Phogo 11y ago

I want 160gb classic back!

I totally agree. Mine is still going after 5 years of use so I'm expecting to have to replace it any time now. The 128G option is acceptable but, since I'm touching that now, I'll have to thin my library a bit. Still, its better than the 64G and smaller.

mynameisvlad 11y ago
Do you truly need your entire library on your device at any one time? 160GB of songs is roughly 111 days of continuous listening (assuming ~1MB/min, but I do admit that number goes up with higher bitrate content). Nobody truly needs that much music at any one time.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  The point is to not have to manage it.
  - mynameisvlad 11y ago
    The point is flawed. If you aren't going to listen to 90% of your library, why even waste space for it? For that 0.00000001% chance when you remember you loved Fall Out Boy as a teen and want to relive those memories?
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      I guess, but the other side of it is that lots of people have the $200 to waste on such a piffling concern.
    - glomph 11y ago
      Right but the alternative is to have to go through and decide what music I might listen to.
      - mynameisvlad 11y ago
        I mean, there are smart playlists that can be based on last played date (eta: or ratings, or play count, for that matter. Honestly the iTunes smart playlists are a powerful but hugely underused feature), and iTunes fully supports selective syncing where you can just sync certain playlists you like and the smart playlist, and nothing else. iTunes was built as a music management system. Regardless of the crud that has been added on since, that's still what it is at its core.
    - crazygringo 11y ago
      To paraphrase what advertisers say... "I know I don't listen to half my music. The problem is, I don't know which half." The last thing I want to do is shuffle albums/tracks between lists that keep track of which items I listen to, and which ones I don't. And it changes over time, too. That would probably be several days' worth of work. Far, far, far cheaper just to buy a larger device.

throwaway7767 11y ago

I would prefer a larger one. Currently have the 160GB and it's getting restricting. We're about at the point where I think a 256GB flash-based iPod would be economical, especially with cheaper/slower flash (doesn't really need to be very fast for this use case). It would provide capacity and still have no moving parts, checking all the boxes for me.