[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ProgSoc] Better than an iPod shuffle?



On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:31 am, Andrew Halliday wrote:
 ] I never said operational transparency was unimportant, I just made the

 You made some long-since-forgotten disparaging comments about
 how people who complain about transparency are missing the [your]
 point .. or some such.  My memory isn't what it used to be, most
 especially at this particular point in time.*

 ] Whoopy-doo, my iPod can be plugged in via USB or FireWire without
 ] installation of any software and it mounts as a disk drive. This is no
 ] amazing new feature.

 Yes, but the iPod fails on several fundamental levels - it fails with
 oggs, it fails with replacement battery (real-time, not after just
 after 12 months when it *completely* fails), and it fails with
 gapless playback of songs.  For a player that promotes itself as
 a high-end <sic> music device, the inability to put two songs
 together without a gap is simply unacceptable.

 ] As for operational transparency, if your music program is any good it

 amarok is best of breed, if the weenies on the net are to be
 believed -- but that's hardly the point, since I'd want to use the
 mechanism on the portable player, not the 'music program' on
 my computer.

 ] I couldn't care what people prefer to do, I just got annoyed that
 ] people assume that the difference is there to make life difficult for
 ] them, when in fact it's to get rid of irritating delay.
 
 Delay?!  Don't talk to me about delay .. 

 http://www.pretentiousname.com/mp3players/

 Jedd.

 * If anyone's interested, there's an astoundingly drunk girl
 at PJ's in Parra right now who's looking for love in all the
 wrong places -- viz, PJ's in Parra.

-
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for help.