Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MacosNerd · Sep 27, 2007, 08:04 AM

I'm still debating whether to get the iPod classic 160gig flavor or the iPod touch 16gig model.
My music library is only 9 gig and my video library is tiny, mostly because I don't own a video ipod.

I'm inching closer to getting a new ipod but still can't decide.

What's the consensus on the touch, a winner, or a crippled iPhone. I think it may fit my needs but I'd like to see what others have to say particularly any owners out there.

MacinTommy · Sep 27, 2007, 08:15 AM

I know there is always room for your library to grow, but why wouldnt you get an 80GB before you got a 160GB? I personally would go for the touch. You will still have room to expand your library and you'll have wifi... just my 2 cents.

MacosNerd · Sep 27, 2007, 09:13 AM

One of my concerns is durability, specifically regarding the screen. I've owned enough PDAs in my time and regardless of how careful I was they'd get scratched. I've had to put on those clear plastic screen protectors. I'm not sure if they're available for the touch and I'm not sure how well it would look or work.

Additionally I use my iPod at the gym, I usually put it in the cup holder of the treadmill or elliptical, I'd me more concerned that the touch could get damaged there because of its size.

I think its an awesome design, great screen and has wifi which is why I'm leaning towards it.

You're right about the 80 vs. 160 classic but if I'm going to get the classic I might as well jump into the deep end and get the 160gig

Hanul · Sep 27, 2007, 10:35 AM

Got my 8GB touch today, and I think it's great. My music collection is much bigger (>40GB) and I have a considerable amount of photos and videos, too. I don't mind syncing only a fraction of it (kind of best of).

Concerning the gym I think both the classic and the touch are "oversized". I use a iPod shuffle for the gym, enough playtime for a workout. Again, you have to sync more often to change music.

Handling the touch is much easier and faster than using a srollwheel (i own a 3rd gen iPod) and the visual presentation is very pleasing. Wifi and Safari are ok for a quick look at a webpage or to check web-based e-mail, but not for extensive hours of surfing the web.

For me, the touch is an iPhone without the phone (I need a separate mobile phone with a better camera than the iPhone has). If your looking for a music player only, get the classic or a nano. Or do you like to show off your gadgets?

butterfly0fdoom · Sep 27, 2007, 10:36 AM

Well, I'd get a Classic, not only because it has 10 times the capacity for $50 less than the touch, but because the 160 GB's battery life is amazing (iLounge got 56 hours audio and 9 hours video, leaps and bounds better than Apple's claims).

Visnaut · Sep 27, 2007, 10:49 AM

Don't know if you've held an 80gig and a 160gig, but the latter is rather bulkier and heavier. Both the classics are also hard-drive based, so that might not be a good thing for workouts at the gym.

As for the touch's screen, if it's got the same glass face as the iPhone (I haven't heard confirmation of that) then it should be very durable to wear and tear, even compared to your previous PDAs.

If you're happy with the software on the touch as-is (i.e.: no music lyrics or search, no notes, read-only calendar) then it would probably a good choice for you.

pcryan5 · Sep 27, 2007, 10:54 AM

[QUOTE=Hanul;Concerning the gym I think both the classic and the touch are "oversized". I use a iPod shuffle for the gym, enough playtime for a workout. Again, you have to sync more often to change music.

I agree and do the same.

I have the 16G iTouch and it is okay. The web browser is brutal on these old eyes. I'm thinking of digging out my old Palm pointer. The YouTube add in is more fun than I thought it would be. Itunes is fine - slower to access and use but that may change over time.

I give it a B-

MacosNerd · Sep 27, 2007, 09:17 PM

Thanks guys but you're not making it easier

pcryan what do you mean that itunes is slower to access. Do you mean navigating or performance?

I have used an ipod mini until it gave up the ghost which is why I'm now in the market. It may turn out to be an emotional choice, that is until I go to my local apple store and compare them side by side.

I still think at the gym, the classic will work better

stuffedmonkey · Sep 27, 2007, 09:51 PM

I would tell you to get the new video Nano. The price is great and the space is plenty for most things is managed well. Why on earth would you want a 160 gig ipod when you dont have 1/10th that much stuff?

The ipod touch would have the cool factor though.

MacosNerd · Sep 28, 2007, 09:06 AM

The nano's screen is too small for my liking.

The classic is a nice size and the touch screen is even better.

One thing that I'm wondering is the battery life. How accurate is Apple's claim for 22 hours audio/5 hours of video are. I'd hate to be watching movie only to run out of juice 3/4 into the movie. The classic as such great battery life that doesn't look like it would be a problem.

pcryan5 · Sep 28, 2007, 11:19 AM

<><pcryan what do you mean that itunes is slower to access. Do you mean navigating or performance?

Navigating. Getting to your selections - changing the volume - etc. If I was to have just one iPod there is no chance in hell it would be the touch. My touch is "neat - cool - fun to play with" but when I want to do serious music listening - I use my classic or shuffle.

MacosNerd · Sep 28, 2007, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by pcryan5

Navigating. Getting to your selections - changing the volume - etc. If I was to have just one iPod there is no chance in hell it would be the touch. My touch is "neat - cool - fun to play with" but when I want to do serious music listening - I use my classic or shuffle.

I have to agree, the more I read up on the itouch, the lack of physical volume controls is a tough omission. So you have both a classic and a touch.

The trouble in deciding is that both have features I want. The touch has the screen, wireless and surfing (and maybe one day email) while the classic has battery life, and storage.

I hope to visit an apple store tomorrow and compare them then.

Cadaver · Sep 30, 2007, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

I have to agree, the more I read up on the itouch, the lack of physical volume controls is a tough omission.

There is a physical volume control on the iPhone - is there not one on the touch? I haven't had a chance to go play with one in person.

Scarpad · Sep 30, 2007, 12:50 PM

I bought an 80gig classic and I'm getting an 8gb touch, the touch will mainly be used for Browsing the net, a few albums when I step out, and mainly when I want to watch Widescreen Movies. I can keep a bunch of vids on the 80gb, but I hardly do, I watch them, delete them and resync more, I can do the same on the Touch.

MacosNerd · Sep 30, 2007, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Cadaver

There is a physical volume control on the iPhone - is there not one on the touch? I haven't had a chance to go play with one in person.

Nope not on the touch. that is one of the complaints, the iphone has it, obviously the classic and other ipods do why not the touch.

wilsonng · Oct 1, 2007, 11:40 PM

i have the Apple radio remote just for that reason....

ajprice · Oct 2, 2007, 03:53 AM

... which isn't compatible with the touch.

wilsonng · Oct 2, 2007, 06:03 AM

Aw crap..... I was thinking of using my old remote with the iPod Touch.

My iPod Touch order is still pending..... When the iPod Touch first came out, Apple's spec page showed the radio remote as an accessory. Now I see it's no longer there.

Has anyone confirmed if the remote won't work with the iPod touch?

Originally Posted by ajprice

... which isn't compatible with the touch.

MacosNerd · 11:51 AM

I've virtually decided to go with the iPod Classic. I want to visit an apple store and compare the 80 and 160 gig.

Here's the reasons why I'm opting for the ipod classic
My usage will be primarily be listening to music. Mostly on my commute to work, also at my desk and of course the gym. For just listening, I think the classic has superior controls, i.e., physical ones for navigating and adjusting the volume.

Storage is another mark in the classic's favor. While my library isn't that large now, and the 16gig touch would handle it from now and the near future. The 80 and 160 has plenty of room.

Finally I think the touch is an immature product. If apple updates it with more useful apps, like a fully functioning calendar, notes, and email client I'd be more apt to buy one. For now the classic fits my needs and budget better.

Of course I say this now, but once I got to the apple store and see the touch...

Thanks for all of your input and advise. It certainly helped me make an informed decision.

Visnaut · Oct 2, 2007, 11:46 AM

Good choice. I think you'll be pleased with your purchase.

I hate to say this, but the more customers shun the touch, the better. Maybe Apple will get the message that consumers don't want products that are so obviously crippled.

passmaster16 · Oct 2, 2007, 07:00 PM

I agree with you guys. I want to get an iPod that I can use mainly in the car. I finally checked out the touch and the classic at the Apple store on Saturday. I like the form factor of the touch and obviously the interface, but I'm beginning to think that as a pure music player, the classic may be a better choice. Many have already mentioned about how you have look at the touch to do things like adjust the volume. For the car, this may be problematic. Also, while my library is relatively small (5 GB), I just can't seem to justify paying extra for significant decrease in capacity. I think if the touch had higher capacity, I could probably overlook the ease of use in the car in return for the added features. Also, taking away the wifi and web browsing, you have a nice screen but not really much space to store videos on it.

Comparing the 80 vs 160 GB classic models, as was already mentioned, the 160 is quite big and bulky compared to the 80. I think the 80 offers a nice combination of form factor and capacity so I'm leaning towards it over the touch.

wilsonng · Oct 6, 2007, 06:22 PM

Today, I just saw that Griffin Technologies just announced a remote with radio

Griffin Technology: iFM with Dock - Radio and Remote for iPod

The web page says that this forthcoming product will be compatible with all the new iPods including the Touch. I guess I'll keep my Apple radio remote for my older 5G iPod video.