iPod or Zen?

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

Synching is very retarded if you have a music collection larger than what your player can hold.

"HEY YOU'VE GOT ALL THIS COOL NEW MUSIC. OH IT DOESN'T FIT "

Highly unlikely in this case, but it's possible in many other cases.

Drag and drop gives a lot more control over what actually goes on your player, while syching is for convenience.

Personally, I'd rather have more control over convenience.

Interestingly enough, I have an iPod, I use iTunes, and I have both syncing convenience AND control over what goes on my player. It's called "sync from playlist." Because my library's too big to fit on my 20GB iPod, I have a playlist which contains all the songs I want on it. If I want to remove some, I take them off the playlist. If I want to add others, I put them on. I plug in the iPod, it takes care of the rest. It's the perfect compromise: I get to control exactly what goes on my iPod, but I keep the ID3 navigation (far superior, in my opinion) and metadata syncing (playcounts, ratings, etc.).

To the OP: basically it boils down to what you want. If you want easy, simple music playback and loads of accessory options, go with the iPod. If you want more format support and don't care about sleekness/style, go with something else.

As to the iPod's reliability, I think the main reason you hear so many more complaints on the Internet about the iPod than you did three years ago when I bought mine is that there are simply a fuckton more of them out there. When I bought mine, Apple was moving 250,000 a quarter. Now they're selling 8 million in regular quarters and 14 million in the holiday quarter. That's a lot more players that can break if mistreated or manufactured badly. Out of all the friends I have who have bought iPods, I only know two who've had consistent trouble. So I wouldn't worry about the iPod from a quality front, and besides, if something's wrong with yours within warranty, Apple will replace it.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Capo

It's in the way they chose to make it, not my inability to choose certain music over others. With a drag-and-drop interface it would be easy, but with the little checkmark boxes, it's damn annoying.

Uh, like I said—sync with playlist. No checkboxes required.

If you want something on the iPod, you drag and drop it onto the playlist. If you want something off, you delete it from the playlist.

Or hell, just put it in manual mode. Drag stuff on the iPod, or just delete it off. Easy. Both methods are "drag-and-drop."

You never have to use checkboxes to determine what goes on the iPod and what stays off.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I still have yet to see a single justification for how someone organizes music in folders that isn't possible with ID3 tag organization.

Also, the iPod does not only support H.264. Its primary format is H.264 at 320 x 240 w/ a video bitrate of up to 768Kbps, but it can also play MPEG-4 (which can be generated using the XviD codec) at 480 x 480 (a misnomer, it's actually MPEG-4 whose width and height are mod16 and whose total area is less than or equal to 230,400) and up to 2.5Mbit. I've made some widescreen 640 x 352 MPEG-4 encodes of anime for playback off a 5G iPod and not only do they look great on the screen, they look great on a standard-def TV. There are plenty of iPod-focused video converters that'll help you make videos that will play well on it.

Furthermore, the iPod's battery life on video is pretty much 2 hours, not 1 as someone claimed, especially if you're using MPEG-4 instead of H.264 (since it's less computationally intensive). And the 60GB iPod has 3 hours on video, since it also has a bigger battery.

And yes, the iPod has supported Unicode since the first gen, and still does, but it seems most other players do now as well, which is good.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

My iPod's root directory is my top-level domain. And then everything is organized like this:

Mp3\Genre\Album Name\ (And Disc number, if applicable.) Everything is organized exactly like this, always. If a song is from a video game, it will always be under \Video Game Music\. If it is from an anime show, it will always be under \Anime\. All electronic music that isn't from an anime show or video game goes under \Techno\. I don't bother to divide that by sub-genre. Any kind of classical music (you know what I'm talking about) goes under \Classical\. I also do not divide this by sub-genre. \Rock\ is for rock, and \Pop\ is kind of a catchall folder for anything that doesn't fit in the other folders. Knowing this, and, of course, having all of the album names memorized, and what genre they belong to, I can find anything I want in seconds.

This kind of organization scheme simply isn't possible with the default iPod OS. But Rockbox makes it a reality.

So when I go to Genre > Game and all my game soundtracks are there, or I go to Genre > Anime and all my anime soundtracks/singles are there... etc., what's different about that?

And what if I just want to get to an album really fast? With your system, I have to go to a genre first. With an iPod, I could do a genre first, OR I could just go Album > [Album name]. Done.

I think ID3 tags allow more flexibility, and folders are just too rigid. Database-like organization allows for way more possibilities.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

I just prefer to nagivate my hierarchal directory structure. I've been doing it that exact way ever since I encoded my very first Mp3 file, and I don't plan on changing any time soon. I like to know exactly where everything is, what is in each folder, how they're named and labeled, etc. I like to be in full control of my files and my iPod is no exception. I'm really very anal about how my files are organized.

See, that's the thing. You think that "folders = organized." You need to make the shift, like I did, that "indexed, searchable metadata = organized." Because, in the end, if your files are tagged correctly and you use an application that uses those tags to organize your files, not only do you know exactly "where" they are, you can navigate and use them in many more flexible ways. It took BeOS' brilliant BFS filesystem to teach me this, and finally the rest of the computer industry is moving towards what Be realized years and years ago: folders are rigid and inflexible. They're good as loose organization tools, but the real power of information lies in instantly searchable metadata and saved queries (or, as OS X calls them, "smart folders").

So, basically... I used to use folders to organize too. Then, by using a different system, I was opened up to a whole world of things I could do that I couldn't do before, which really didn't have any downsides. And besides all that, tagging my files means that iTunes automatically organizes them into files, so that if for some reason I need to get to the underlying files, they're grouped in the filesystem. I'd imagine in the future, even that will become superfluous—iTunes could just pass a specific query to Finder/Spotlight and it'd return the files in question. And this isn't just on the Mac—Windows is (slowly, painfully) moving in the same direction. Whenever WinFS debuts, believe you and me they'll be trying to de-emphasize the folder as the basic unit of organization.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

Maybe for you, but not for me. I've never had any problems with my system. It's fast, smooth, clean, and efficient, and I will never give it up. I don't even want to be bothered with tagging files. I've never done it, have never felt the need to do it, and wouldn't care at all if ID3 tags had never been invented.

To me, file-tree is more intuitive and people who are in control of their PCs will have no problems controlling what's where on them.

Gah! Terrifying.

Lack of tagging aside, file-tree is not at all intuitive. It's completely learned. Think of how your brain works—the way it connects pieces of information together. The categories we create for things aren't concrete within our own heads. That's why we can make mix CDs, to continue using music as an example: we can see relationships between things that are fluid and flexible. The whole point of digital music is to get all our stuff OFF discrete discs and INTO one big playground where it's more accessible, flexible.

This is why metadata-focused filesystems (especially once these become networked, which will happen both with Leopard and whenever WinFS arrives) will be infinitely superior. We can use the folder as a rough form of organization, but true power will come with saved queries, especially once adding metadata to our files becomes semi-automated or just an automatic behavior. Network-searchable metadata indexes mean that our particular method of organization (which might not jive with someone else's) will be unimportant—we can still find stuff as we think of it.

As desktop/network filesystem search technology becomes more and more refined and technology progresses, I think we'll find that the searchable metadata world really is easier—because it more closely mimics how we think. The folder/file analogy came from the hierarchical organization systems of yesteryear. As we've moved forward, we've found that information which becomes not statically categorized but searchable and contextually linked to other similar information to be MUCH more useful! Think: the web. Think: wikis. And this is only scratching the surface.

Quote:

Besides, iTunes is the exact opposite of organized, regardless of how well your files are tagged. It puts all of the files in random directories like F00 or A03 and gives the files random names like A0204.mp3, and mixes files from different albums into single folders.

Uh, maybe in the hidden folders on the iPod, and that's just to discourage using their music player as a mass-piracy device. Remember that they were creating the iPod at the same time they were trying to woo the record labels into allowing for online music selling. Some concessions had to be made. On my computer (and on any other computer), iTunes organizes my files into Artist/Album/## Title.ext. Or, Compilations/Album for things I've marked as being... compilations.

Quote:

That will be the day I will have to start weaning myself off of my computer, hah!

I just had a thought. I wonder if one's preference for metadata-based or file-tree based organization is a result of that person's memory? I have a very good memory and I know where everything is on my computer. Navigating to any one file or directory isn't ever a problem, and never has been, which is why tagging files is a moot point for me. There's no need for me to, and it would only be a waste of time.

It really just has to do with whether you're capable of storing that hierarchy in your head. If you are, that's great. Not everyone is, and even if they are, some would rather not, like me. Why should I have to set up and remember a structure? Why waste that capacity when I can just search for things, or set up saved queries to group similar files? I think that the static file hierarchy is one of those "old guard-isms," something that "technologically literate" people hold onto and (intentionally or no) lord over those who can't or don't want to be bothered.

I mean, there are people who lament the demise of the punch card. Why? Because it made technology more inscrutable and less accessible? Fuck that. And in 10 years, I'm sure we'll look back on the file/folder-only system of computer navigation as similarly antiquated and silly. "Why did we ever do it that way?" we'll ask ourselves. And the long-haired tech geeks will go "I LIKED IT BETTER THAT WAY!" and the more normal among us will just keep using what will be, I believe, a better, easier, and more efficient system.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

Maybe how your brain works... I can't say I've ever thought this way in relation to my computer's files. I tend to think about things, well, more... sequentially? ABCDEFG man, not ABCG. There is a place for everything and everything has its place, that's what I always say. Not only is my computer organized as such, but so is my house, my workspace, my room, and everything around me.

I guess that's the difference between essentially analytical brains vs. creative brains. The possibility for new ways of interacting with and organizing information that could reveal new possibilities or connections between it all excites me.

I guess it comes down to personal taste.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

You can organize them by Album, or by Genre, or by Artist name (or whatever), but you can't organize them in precisely the way I mentioned, (In a hierarchal directory structure with sub-directories for genres, albums, and discs) to my knowledge. Did you see the image of my folder structure? Tell me how, using the default iPod OS, and iTunes, to organize my songs, exactly like that, so that, when navigating using the default iPod OS, I will be able to browse through them in exactly that way. (Just as if I were going through my hard drive in Windows.)

There isn't. The iPod by itself isn't a folder-based navigation system. You can get close with ID3 tags. For instance, like I said, I could drill down to the Chrono Cross OST by going "Genre > Game > All Artists > Chrono Cross OST". Or I could get to the first Azumanga Daioh OST by going "Genre > Anime > All Artists > Azumanga Daioh OST 1".

What it lacks in adhering to your exact system, however, it makes up for in flexibility. It's faster to get to that Azumanga Daioh OST by going "Albums > Azumanga Daioh OST", 'cause it's in the A's. Or, I could get all Frou Frou tracks to play by going "Artists > Frou Frou > All Albums" and shuffle them. With your system, Frou Frou's work is spread out over both the Pop genre folder (I'd assume) and, say, a Movie Soundtracks genre folder.

But, obviously, all this is merely an academic exercise.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

Oh, I know you can't. But Mucknuggle said I could, so...

Also, no album exists in more than one genre folder. And navigating is no problem. Let's say I'm in the second level directory, this is what I see

\Anime\
\Classical\
\Comedy\
\Pop\
\Rock\
\Techno\
\Video Game Music\

I can just go to Anime and then to Azumanga Daioh OST. Or if I canted to play some Jet'sN'Guns, I just press back twice, and go to Video Game Music, and then to Jet's'N'Guns. See, simple.

I don't see what's different about using the Genre menu item. It's the same on an iPod. If I browse to it, I can just hit back up to Genre, to go Game, and get to a Game OST. Simple. AND I get other options, like to browse the full list of artists, without picking a genre first.

Quote:

I actually used to do this for some multi-disc albums, but it was such a pain in the ass that I quit.

Agreed. I like iTunes' scheme—if you put in disc number info it tacks the disc number on the front of the file name. Hence, anything on disc 1 would be "1-## Track Name.ext" where ## is the track number (of course). Means you can keep the album all together without making folders, and the files are in order so if someone obtains them from you, they'll still be in order when he or she adds them to a playlist.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Dayvon

My point here is not to say that iPods break less, or that creative makes shit... My point is that these portables break. It's just what they do. Saying that "my **** busted so all ***** are poorly made" is quite frankly, ignorant. Build quality is pretty important to Apple as a company and usually they are highly praised for reliablity. The same is true of Creative, their products tend to have high quality because of good quality control.

Agreed. I'm sure if you looked at actual percentage statistics for both companies, their products would probably be roughly the same in terms of quality. Both Apple and Creative make quality products. Companies that make quality products also have products that fail, for whatever reason. As I've said before, the only reason you hear so many more (net) complaints about iPods is because Apple is outselling Creative many, many times over. With way more players out there, that means there will be more players breaking. That doesn't mean that Apple's players are less reliable in terms of the odds, it just means there are a fuckton more of them out there.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by neothe0ne

But other times, you simply have products that have an almost ubiquitous problem. Mainly, iPod's with short batteries and Zen Touch Micro's with faulty headphone jacks.

You realize that the "18 month battery" thing was mainly relegated to a small portion of the 3rd gen iPods, which was out almost three years ago, right? The only reason it got trumped up was because of that stupid video of those guys vandalizing iPod ads in New York. I have a 3rd gen iPod myself, and while it's battery certainly doesn't hold the exact same charge as it used to, it still lasts several hours, after three years. Lithium Polymer batteries, as used in the new iPods, will easily last for 3 years and still retain the majority of their charge, if taken care of properly.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Storm Petrel

No, I don't think he meant the life span of iPod batteries, but it's capacity. Most users will be lucky if they can get 8 hours out of it.

I'd say that's patently untrue, especially of the fifth generation. If you're letting the backlight turn off and listening to albums or playlists (not skipping around every five seconds) you will easily get close to the "rated" battery life of the iPod. For the 30GB that means 14 hours of music, for the 60GB that's 20. For the nano this is especially true, as there's no physical mechanism to spin up to access other tracks.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?