[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.