comments

TheRaven: It looks like you didn't even read the review, or missed what that paragraph was talking about.

Posted by Frank on February 24, 2004 at 1:03 PM (PDT) Comment 21

"(For those keeping score, the large icon now features a gradated fill effect rather than an one-to-four bar fill effect.) Fans of other MP3 players may scoff at the late arrival of this otherwise mandatory "feature," but we'll just say that it's good to see it in the mini."

- My 3G 15gig has that graduated fill too, no bars...is it like a new feature or something?

Posted by Ronin on February 24, 2004 at 2:27 PM (PDT) Comment 22

To clarify about my earlier statement about using XP, I have just been having trouble with it from day one. It's not the iPod. Just a poor OS, IMHO. I love my mini and iTunes

Posted by Thomas on February 24, 2004 at 2:56 PM (PDT) Comment 23

Michael Beno wrote:

I have a HUGE music collection. I own both a 40GB and a mini. I don't, however, anticipate the 40GB leaving the house with me any time soon. The mini is the perfect alternative to the 40GB -- it holds only the music I LOVE , it doesn't require a protective case and is small enough to carry in any pocket without it becoming an annoyance. Home run, if you ask me.

Exactly.

(I edited it a bit for me smile

Posted by Chris on February 24, 2004 at 5:23 PM (PDT) Comment 24

Zal Buu, they're being released is Aus is April, but MacConnection will ship worldwide and u pay in US$ so it will be cheap at the current exchange rate smile and u'll get it b4 everyone else.

Posted by Nuke666 on February 24, 2004 at 6:01 PM (PDT) Comment 25

"But I'd like to see Apple use their screen a little more than just for system info - let's see some album art and some cute icons."

Screen: The reason the iPod is so great is because it's simple. Adding useless images and icons may look nice, but it makes it seem more complicated. The key to their design was simplicity and they hit the nail right on the head. It's perfect the way it is!

Posted by Amit on February 24, 2004 at 6:30 PM (PDT) Comment 26

Amit - right on!

Posted by Chris on February 24, 2004 at 6:33 PM (PDT) Comment 27

I think the idea that because it has some sort of physical buttons, it is going to be prone to premature death is a bit silly. I have plenty of electronic gizmos WITH BUTTONS that work fine after a decade or more. Sure it's a moving part, but if it's made well, it doesn't matter. I mean, will you be using your mini in a decade? I doubt any of us will. It will last long enough.

Posted by Nicky G on February 24, 2004 at 7:57 PM (PDT) Comment 28

Yes that screen looks a little crowded and the iPod UI works really well, but wouldn't it be good to be able to switch from the iPod's mainly text mode to an iconic screen to display album art or liner notes or something? Like a single toggle button or something?

It does seem unusual to me that basically Macintosh people are now arguing FOR text only UIs and and AGAINST graphics-based UIs.

This is not why I bought a Mac instead of a PC all those years ago!

Posted by icons on February 24, 2004 at 10:30 PM (PDT) Comment 29

I just reread these comments and saw this:

"Adding useless images and icons may look nice, but it makes it seem more complicated"

That my friends is exactly what the DOS people said about the Mac back in 1984.

Posted by 80s flashback on February 24, 2004 at 10:32 PM (PDT) Comment 30

mac was never about lot of icons and pictures

it was about usability.

it's the same now. iPod use some light graphics and text

sometimes osx use huge graphical effects (génie, exposé for example) but never try to force on the user tons of pictures.

in fact, apple try to be "light".

the main problem is balance and usability.

it's not unusual for a long time mac to be sceptical of "full graphics" , because mac interface never tried to eleminate text.

Posted by michel on February 25, 2004 at 8:25 AM (PDT) Comment 31

Right, then if the Mac was always about usability, then the 40 or so swaps it took me to copy a floppy disk back in the 80s was about enhancing my arm strength?

A big part of Apple's appeal has always been eye candy. This goes back to the Apple ][, when it was one of the only microcomputers that was available with an RF plug to output direct to the TV using bitmapped graphics.

While all the Altair people had their blinking lights and the Commodore Pet people had their green text screens, we had eye candy.

Posted by usability on February 25, 2004 at 10:16 AM (PDT) Comment 32

Technically, the Apple ][ series did NOT have an RF output -- it had a composite video output. You had to add an external RF modulator to attach it to a television.

The "point" about taking 40 swaps of a floppy disk to copy it (assumed: on a single-drive system) is a gross exaggeration, not to mention PCs of the same era were just as bad.

-Aaron-

Posted by Aaron on February 25, 2004 at 12:21 PM (PDT) Comment 33

Yes, well, the lack on an on-baord RF was because Apple failed to get FCC certification and so had to sell it through third parties as an after-market mod.

Okay, so maybe I was exaggerating slightly when I said "40". It felt like 100! In fact, it was usually around 20 or so.

But it's worth noting that Macs did take longer to copy floppies because of all the GUI stuff that stayed resident in the RAM. DOS machines did not have this problem and so they could copy floppies faster.

How fast it took to copy floppies used to be a serious issue! Now I feel really old.

Click

"A simple calculation shows that copying a 400K disk should involve about 5 or 6 swaps. Five disk swaps was barely tolerable, but, as early Finder users will remember, occasionally it would take well over 20 disk swaps."

"Even though the whole Finder was only 46K of code and had about 10K of overhead, the remaining 30K of memory was too small for practical copying. So, I had to break up the code into two chunks: the bare minimum for copying and all the rest. Then, I had to carefully flush out all data that was cached in memory, preload the small disk-copying chunk of code, and coalesce the balance of RAM. Usually, the Finder ended up with 75K of free memory and things worked as planned. But, sometimes the system would mysteriously reload the larger chunk of the Finder code, fragment the free memory, and cause another case of Disk Swapper's Elbow."

Posted by usability on February 25, 2004 at 1:14 PM (PDT) Comment 34

Why do you guys worry so much about every little detail about it. It's a music player. Isn't it for MUSIC? Why do you guys care about anything else it has. 1, it looks cool, 2, IT PLAYS MUSIC, 3, it mostly does work fine.

"NO ALBUM NAME?!?!

THAT'S THE IPOD MINI OFF MY XMAS LIST!!!!!

grin"

Right.

Posted by why on February 25, 2004 at 5:40 PM (PDT) Comment 35

"NO ALBUM NAME?!?!

THAT'S THE IPOD MINI OFF MY XMAS LIST!!!!!

grin"

uh ... mine shows the album names.

Posted by nihil8r on February 25, 2004 at 7:02 PM (PDT) Comment 36

no album name: I wont even look at it twice. it's immediatly outdated and crap trash.
it's uglier than my 10 giga 2gen ipod, less battery, much less hdd space, much less durability... and mine shows albuns.
Ipod original are still the best buy...and they are cheap now

Posted by 5th Raider on February 25, 2004 at 8:20 PM (PDT) Comment 37

You will throw you ipod anyway in 2 years want your batterie will be death.

Posted by FardocheX on February 25, 2004 at 8:50 PM (PDT) Comment 38

So when is Apple going to fix the crappy battery charge cycle on the 3G iPod? Did we get stuck with that horrible software/firmware for the past 3 months since they were more worried about getting it to work for the iPod mini instead of helping their customers?

Posted by ZildjianKX on February 25, 2004 at 10:38 PM (PDT) Comment 39

The new font on the iPod mini is actually an old font - Espy Sans - that was introduced with eWorld and came to MacOS ... hell ... actually, I'm not sure when it came to MacOS. Charcoal might've been a variant of it, if I remember correctly.

I'd love an iPod firmware update that brought Espy to regular iPods. While the Chicago font is all nostalgic, Espy is so much more attractive ... sigh ...

Posted by unravel on February 25, 2004 at 10:43 PM (PDT) Comment 40

Hi i was just wondering can i but the ipod mini (in pink) in the u.k.
i realy really really want one so please help i am willing to buy off the net to!!!
thanks
Kirsty

Posted by Kirsty Walker on February 26, 2004 at 4:19 AM (PDT) Comment 41

"buttons is actually a flexing surface that - at least conceivably - could break with repeated use. We like the concept, and greatly prefer it to a touch-sensitive pad that relies on laptop touchpad-style "tapping" for button inputs, but it's not a step towards greater durability in the iPod's design. If anything, it's a perfect feature for a more disposable iPod with lower lifespan expectations, and in truth, that's just what the $250 mini is, relative to its older $500 30GB and 40GB brethren. "

Disposables?!!
So they are not only cute, they are also the most expensive disposables I know off.
Incredible what people will pay for a pretty face....

Posted by dura on February 26, 2004 at 7:16 AM (PDT) Comment 42

I'm trying to decide what to buy.
I am a runner, and I want something to put my music on so that I can listen to it while running. The mini is hdd based, will that pose any problem?

Posted by Matt on February 26, 2004 at 5:05 PM (PDT) Comment 43


Does it show the Album or does it not?

They could do a bit a screen optimisation on the iPod itself.
I'd rather getting rid of the useless things, namely from my 1G iPod:
"Now Playing"
"The elapsed time bar"
"The elapsed time text"

Keep: Title, Artist, Album
Add: Composer
Add as an option (scrolling?): Grouping.

I mean, since they added these fields in itunes, we should be able to see them in iPod (and browse them in *both* iPod and iTunes.

Posted by Charles on February 26, 2004 at 10:09 PM (PDT) Comment 44

In my highschool (Denmark), half of the students have laptops, and when we are being given our, they tell us to recharge it for about 24 hours, so and stress the batteri and it will last longer. I'm quite sure the batteries in the ipod and in a laptop are the same. Dunno if this is any good, just passing on advice smile

Posted by mikkel morgen mark on February 27, 2004 at 7:39 AM (PDT) Comment 45
 1 2 3 >  Last »
related reviews

Congress passes bill to legalize phone unlocking
Bose sues Beats over noise-canceling patents
iLounge Game Spotlight: Modern Combat 5: Blackout
Apps of the Week: ShipAntics, Modern Combat 5, This American Life 3.0 + more
Report: Apple could launch own mobile wallet this fall
Report: Apple ‘tentatively’ plans mid-September iPhone event
Apple faces class action suit in California for labor violations
Apple, AT&T now sending $40 checks to some iPad 3G owners
Apple denies iOS “back door” access in new report
Notes from Apple’s Q3 2014 earnings call

related reviews

Incipio offGRID Smart Bluetooth Low Energy-Enabled Portable 6000mAh Backup Battery
Divoom Voombox Travel Rugged Portable Wireless Speaker
Logitech protection+ for iPhone 5/5s and +trip
Beats Powerbeats2 Wireless
Incipio Steno Ultra-Thin Bluetooth Keyboard Folio for iPad Air
OtterBox Resurgence Power Case for iPhone 5/5s
Gumdrop Cases FoamTech Case for iPad Air
Ztylus Camera Case + RV-2 Revolver Lens for iPhone 5/5s
JBL Synchros Reflect In-Ear Sport Headphones
JBL Synchros E50BT Over-Ear Headphones

related reviews

What’s New in iTunes 12
iLounge Picks: Five Great Summer Party Speakers
Editorial: Endings And Beginnings
Live From CE Week 2014: Brand New iPad, iPhone + Mac Accessories!
What’s New In iOS 8 For iPad, iPhone + iPod touch
iLounge Multi-Editorial: WWDC 2014’s iOS 8, OS X Yosemite + More
The Complete Guide to Apple TV Channels
iHistory: From iPod + iTunes to iPhone, Apple TV + iPad, 2001 to 2010
iHistory: From iPod + iTunes to iPhone, Apple TV + iPad: 2011 to Today
Viewing only downloaded iTunes Match tracks