Apple Computer iPod mini: The Power User’s review | iLounge



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)


"(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 it like a new feature or something?

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


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)


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.


(I edited it a bit for me smile

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


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)


"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)


Amit - right on!

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


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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.


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


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.


"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)


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.





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





uh ... mine shows the album names.

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


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)


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)


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)


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)

Page 2 of 5 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Shop for Accessories: Cases, speakers, chargers, etc.