Apple iPod classic 160 GB Black (7th Generation) NEWEST MODEL Review.
"My favorite iPod to date. (A.K.A. The iPod Apple should've released in 2007.)" 2009-09-17
By Alex (NJ)
NOTICE: This review is for the NEW 2009 160GB iPod Classic, NOT the 2007 160GB iPod Classic!
The new 160GB iPod Classic is easily Apple Inc.'s best iPod to date, and out of all of the iPods that I own, this is my favorite.
First, the capacity of this iPod is simply unbeatable. I've yet to see another portable media player that can match the iPod Classic in capacity. I have a huge music library, and it's nice to be able to carry every song that I own on my person at all times. What's more, thanks to the iPod Classic's capacity, I also have room to carry a few videos with me, and some of my photos. If you don't like having to pick which songs to load onto your portable media player, the iPod Classic is the way to go.
The second thing that I love about this iPod can be summed up in two words: it works. The 160GB iPod Classic that was introduced in 2007 was extremely buggy, had a non-responsive Clickwheel on many units, crashed frequently, and required a hit-and-miss firmware update to stop the hard drive from spinning even when the device was "off," which often lead to dead batteries. All of these problems left the 2007 160GB iPod Classic warming shelves and earning it the infamous "honor" of being the "worst selling iPod ever," according to Apple. I'm pleased to say that the new 160GB iPod Classic released earlier this month has virtually none of these problems. There's no "spinning hard drive bug," the Clickwheel is incredibly responsive, and the device isn't crash-prone. While it's true that many of these issues were fixed with last year's iPod Classic, there hasn't been a truly functional 160GB model until now. To put it bluntly, this is the iPod that Apple should've released in 2007.
Another thing that I really like about this iPod, and the iPod Classic in general, is it's ability to double as an external hard drive. While I believe that the iPod Nano is also capable of this, the only iPod that really has enough space to function as an external hard drive is the iPod Classic. The hard drive functionality admittedly reduces the number of devices I have to carry on me at any given time. If you regularly work with large files and are considering a new iPod, the iPod Classic is the way to go, plain and simple.
So what are the caveats? Well for starters, as with every other iPod Classic, this is a hard-drive (rather than flash-memory) based device. As a result, it has moving parts which make it unsuitable for running or any physical activity that exerts mechanical shock onto the iPod. Unless you exercise constantly with your iPod though, this really shouldn't be an issue. The only other caveat, which is more of personal taste than an actual flaw, that I can find, is that Apple has not made any cosmetic changes to this device since they introduced it in 2007. Now don't get me wrong, the point of an iPod "Classic," is to retain the "Classic" design, but after seeing how much better a black Clickwheel looks on the silver iPod Nano, I'd have thought that Apple would have given the silver iPod Classic a black Clickwheel as well. However, I admit that this is entirely my personal preference and not a "flaw" per se. I've put a quick list of pros and cons together, which can be seen below:
Pros: Largest iPod Capacity-wise, long battery life, "Genius" feature, excellent value for your money, well-built, doubles as an external hard drive, and improvements to Cover Flow.
Cons: Hard Drive (rather than Flash memory) based storage medium; device is cosmetically identical to the 2007 80GB model. (I still don't understand why Apple hasn't colored the Clickwheel black on the silver model to match the iPod Nano.)
Finally, I would highly recommend this product, which is why it gets five stars from me. I don't like the iPod Nano; it's too small for my hands, and the screen is too small for my eyes. While the iPod Touch may have app store access and Wi-Fi, I find it to be a really gimmicky device, that makes for a poor portable media player, (Apple was wise to position it as a handheld game system,) and is really an "iPhone without a phone." In contrast, the iPod Classic is an excellent portable media player, it has an excellent interface, and it only costs $249 dollars. To put things in perspective, the 2009 160GB iPod Classic costs $70 dollars more than a 16GB iPod Nano, and $150 dollars less than a 64GB iPod Touch. All in all, I highly recommend this product.
"New To iPod - A Review for People with Large mp3 Collections" 2009-09-15
By Matthew Mitchell (Charles Town, WV)
I am quite new to the portable mp3 world, although I have about 250 gb of music on my computer. The only mp3 player I own is a 1 gb Samsung Pebble, which I use at the gym. This was the only mp3 player I thought I needed since both of the stereos in my vehicles have mp3 disc players. But then I started thinking...since my new Camry has an auxilary jack to hook up an mp3 device, wouldn't it be great to have one and get rid of those giant cd wallets?! The first task was to get permission from my wife to spend 250 bucks. After a little hesitation, she agreed. And then it was on to the research. Since I have such a large collection of music, the capacity of the device was number one on my list (as well as positive reviews & quality). I was pleasantly surprised to see that Apple had reissued the Classic in 160 gb form instead of the 120 gb. So after much personal debate between the Zune and the new 160 gb iPod Classic, the iPod won out.
Although the iPod is a fantastic little device with a large capacity, the software is not without its troubles. I downloaded the most current version of iTunes (verison 9) and immediately began importing my mp3 files from my hard drive. This process can take some time, but not much longer than any other media player. I was so excited to finally have the majority of my music all on one device; and have the cover art as well (I just think that is awesome)! After loading a large chunk of my files into iTunes, I noticed that only a handful of the albums had the cover art. I attempted using the "get cover art" function, but it didn't work. My only option was to track down the cover art online, right click, save, and then add the picture to the album file in iTunes. I know that it's not such a huge deal, but when you're dealing with A LOT of music, it can become quite a pain & time consuming. I later learned that the files have to be spelled exactly like they are in iTunes. And if they didn't come from iTunes in the first place, 9 times out of 10, the album art won't come up anyway. I would like to see a function that gets the cover art from other online sources, not just iTunes; and without a strict spelling criteria. There's no reason that the way I name my "The" bands should restrict the retrieval of cover art. An example being "Animals, The" instead of "The Animals."
So other than the minor annoyance with the cover art, the player itself is fantastic. I found the interface very user-friendly and intuitive, without much of a learning curve. Again, I am new to the world of iPod, but I can honestly say that I am very pleased. I wanted to write a review for people that have a large digital music collection that came mostly from ripping cd's to their computers. I am one of the people who still enjoy listening to an entire album, and is not satisfied by just downloading the single, so I still buy physical cd's & collect vinyl. I would definitely recommend the 160 gb iPod to any music fan with a large collection. Just remember to be patient when getting the artwork for all of those older albums. If you don't have a collection full of Taylor Swift, the Jonas Brothers, or Beyonce, iTunes just may not recognize your music!
"Almost everything I want" 2009-10-08
By P. Geyer (Vienna, VA United States)
I'll admit it, I've been avoiding buying an MP3 player for years. I have a 6-CD changer in the car, and I used to not drive more than 1/2 per day, so that was perfectly adequate. But, now with an auto commute of over 3.5 hours per day, I quickly realized that I needed more than 6 albums to keep me from going insane. With a music collection of several thousand albums, I wanted something with significant capacity. Having tried unsuccessfully in the past to use the MP3 player on my 3G phone with Microsoft Mobile OS, I wanted something with an easy and intuitive user interface that would actually work(!!!!). The iPod Classic with 160 GB meets these criteria handsomely.
Already a long-term user of iTunes on my PC, loading my collection on my new iPod was easy and relatively quick. With a separately purchased connection cord, I was able to quickly and successfully (hint, hint, Microsoft) hook my new iPod up to my car's stereo, where the sound was crisp, clear, and compelling. Even after a LONG drive, remaining battery life was barely dented, and the simple touch wheel user interface meant that I could switch play lists with a minimum amount of fiddling and distraction (at stoplights).
Admittedly, I'm not a high-end user. I don't care about cameras (video or still), I don't care about watching movies (although I might start now), and I don't care about sexy graphics. But I do care about large storage capacity, ease of use, and excellent sound quality, and the new iPod Classic has all of these in spades at a relatively reasonable price. The only thing that would make this better would be even more capacity, but realistically 160 GB is plenty for the foreseeable future.
"Room to grow" 2009-09-14
By kungfuhamster (snata cruz, ca. usa)
I got this new 160GB because my old 80GB had been full for a while. I wanted a 160GB so bad that a few months ago I almost broke down and got the discontinued 160GB from '07 at $500. glad I waited for Apple to release the 160GB again. I like everything about the Classic. the cover flow is really nice, not just working with album covers but photos and movies too. I love how it also shows the number of songs in library or playlist just by highlighting and not selecting. It's crazy that this is twice the hard drive space but is like 1/3 less in actual size. Guess I'll hold on to this till they come out with a 320GB
"7th Gen iPod is Still Plagued with Distracting Random Album Cover Art" 2009-09-19
By Skyhawk (USA)
(This review is for the NEW 2009 160GB iPod Classic, not the 2007 model.)
I hate televisions in restaurants, and I hate the split screen menus in the iPod.
Why? It's nothing more than 'Eye Candy', it's distracting, and unnecessary fluff.
You know how teenagers will decorate their mobile phones with cheap jewelry or stickers, that's what the split screen menu is to me.
Most of us 'grown ups' over the age of 18 want a nice, simple, and easy to read menu display with no distractions.
Now I understand that there is a certain demographic (teenagers) that likes this sort of stuff (I mean fluff) and Apple rightfully wants their business (after all, this age group spends the most money). The split screen artwork may also increase disk thrashing, and unnecessary wearing of the hard drive and draining the battery (by a relatively small amount).
It takes energy, time, and resources to handle the moving graphics.
I've owned most every iPod type ever made. Over time I saw the interface improve. Probably the iPod Video 5.5 Gen had the best interface. Simple menus, and non-moving (and non-tilted) album art of the song being played.
Apple should give us A CHOICE of speed versus glitz in the iPod settings menu and make everybody happy!
You might be reading this review in order to decide which iPod to get. For me the choice was easy, because the 160GB (it's actually about 148GB true free space) is the only iPod that will hold all of my music. I import my music in the highest quality possible (iTunes has doubled the quality for most of its music) which uses up more drive space.
I found that the classic definitely feels like a hard drive-based player. It's heavy for its size. Video looks magnificent on the classic. You can choose to watch movies in full screen or widescreen.
Some people think a hard drive based iPod is fragile. I have not found this to be the case. True, a Flash Drive based iPod is 'tougher', however the hard drive in the iPod classic can take a lot of shock. Typically these drives can take 1 G of Vibration (1 to 50 Hz), 250 G's of Operating Shock, and an incredible 1000 G's of Non-Operating Shock. A limitation of flash memory is that it has a finite number of erase-write cycles. Most commercially available flash products are guaranteed to withstand around 100,000 write-erase-cycles, before the wear begins to deteriorate the integrity of the storage.
All of my cars have TRUE iPod connectors, (not the 3.5 mm audio only, but the dock connector that also charges and can 'run' the iPod). I can control many of the iPod functions from the steering wheel or dashboard.
I usually use the iPod in the car. The click wheel is perfect because I don't have to look at it.
The 160GB iPod Classic, faults and all, I love it and recommend it!
Finally, I wish that the iPod Classic (and other Apple products) were not manufactured in Communist China. I wish that Apple would manufacture in countries that are not totalitarian and opposed to democracy. I can remember a time when Apple manufactured all over the world.
By Alex (NJ)
NOTICE: This review is for the NEW 2009 160GB iPod Classic, NOT the 2007 160GB iPod Classic!
The new 160GB iPod Classic is easily Apple Inc.'s best iPod to date, and out of all of the iPods that I own, this is my favorite.
First, the capacity of this iPod is simply unbeatable. I've yet to see another portable media player that can match the iPod Classic in capacity. I have a huge music library, and it's nice to be able to carry every song that I own on my person at all times. What's more, thanks to the iPod Classic's capacity, I also have room to carry a few videos with me, and some of my photos. If you don't like having to pick which songs to load onto your portable media player, the iPod Classic is the way to go.
The second thing that I love about this iPod can be summed up in two words: it works. The 160GB iPod Classic that was introduced in 2007 was extremely buggy, had a non-responsive Clickwheel on many units, crashed frequently, and required a hit-and-miss firmware update to stop the hard drive from spinning even when the device was "off," which often lead to dead batteries. All of these problems left the 2007 160GB iPod Classic warming shelves and earning it the infamous "honor" of being the "worst selling iPod ever," according to Apple. I'm pleased to say that the new 160GB iPod Classic released earlier this month has virtually none of these problems. There's no "spinning hard drive bug," the Clickwheel is incredibly responsive, and the device isn't crash-prone. While it's true that many of these issues were fixed with last year's iPod Classic, there hasn't been a truly functional 160GB model until now. To put it bluntly, this is the iPod that Apple should've released in 2007.
Another thing that I really like about this iPod, and the iPod Classic in general, is it's ability to double as an external hard drive. While I believe that the iPod Nano is also capable of this, the only iPod that really has enough space to function as an external hard drive is the iPod Classic. The hard drive functionality admittedly reduces the number of devices I have to carry on me at any given time. If you regularly work with large files and are considering a new iPod, the iPod Classic is the way to go, plain and simple.
So what are the caveats? Well for starters, as with every other iPod Classic, this is a hard-drive (rather than flash-memory) based device. As a result, it has moving parts which make it unsuitable for running or any physical activity that exerts mechanical shock onto the iPod. Unless you exercise constantly with your iPod though, this really shouldn't be an issue. The only other caveat, which is more of personal taste than an actual flaw, that I can find, is that Apple has not made any cosmetic changes to this device since they introduced it in 2007. Now don't get me wrong, the point of an iPod "Classic," is to retain the "Classic" design, but after seeing how much better a black Clickwheel looks on the silver iPod Nano, I'd have thought that Apple would have given the silver iPod Classic a black Clickwheel as well. However, I admit that this is entirely my personal preference and not a "flaw" per se. I've put a quick list of pros and cons together, which can be seen below:
Pros: Largest iPod Capacity-wise, long battery life, "Genius" feature, excellent value for your money, well-built, doubles as an external hard drive, and improvements to Cover Flow.
Cons: Hard Drive (rather than Flash memory) based storage medium; device is cosmetically identical to the 2007 80GB model. (I still don't understand why Apple hasn't colored the Clickwheel black on the silver model to match the iPod Nano.)
Finally, I would highly recommend this product, which is why it gets five stars from me. I don't like the iPod Nano; it's too small for my hands, and the screen is too small for my eyes. While the iPod Touch may have app store access and Wi-Fi, I find it to be a really gimmicky device, that makes for a poor portable media player, (Apple was wise to position it as a handheld game system,) and is really an "iPhone without a phone." In contrast, the iPod Classic is an excellent portable media player, it has an excellent interface, and it only costs $249 dollars. To put things in perspective, the 2009 160GB iPod Classic costs $70 dollars more than a 16GB iPod Nano, and $150 dollars less than a 64GB iPod Touch. All in all, I highly recommend this product.
By Matthew Mitchell (Charles Town, WV)
I am quite new to the portable mp3 world, although I have about 250 gb of music on my computer. The only mp3 player I own is a 1 gb Samsung Pebble, which I use at the gym. This was the only mp3 player I thought I needed since both of the stereos in my vehicles have mp3 disc players. But then I started thinking...since my new Camry has an auxilary jack to hook up an mp3 device, wouldn't it be great to have one and get rid of those giant cd wallets?! The first task was to get permission from my wife to spend 250 bucks. After a little hesitation, she agreed. And then it was on to the research. Since I have such a large collection of music, the capacity of the device was number one on my list (as well as positive reviews & quality). I was pleasantly surprised to see that Apple had reissued the Classic in 160 gb form instead of the 120 gb. So after much personal debate between the Zune and the new 160 gb iPod Classic, the iPod won out.
Although the iPod is a fantastic little device with a large capacity, the software is not without its troubles. I downloaded the most current version of iTunes (verison 9) and immediately began importing my mp3 files from my hard drive. This process can take some time, but not much longer than any other media player. I was so excited to finally have the majority of my music all on one device; and have the cover art as well (I just think that is awesome)! After loading a large chunk of my files into iTunes, I noticed that only a handful of the albums had the cover art. I attempted using the "get cover art" function, but it didn't work. My only option was to track down the cover art online, right click, save, and then add the picture to the album file in iTunes. I know that it's not such a huge deal, but when you're dealing with A LOT of music, it can become quite a pain & time consuming. I later learned that the files have to be spelled exactly like they are in iTunes. And if they didn't come from iTunes in the first place, 9 times out of 10, the album art won't come up anyway. I would like to see a function that gets the cover art from other online sources, not just iTunes; and without a strict spelling criteria. There's no reason that the way I name my "The" bands should restrict the retrieval of cover art. An example being "Animals, The" instead of "The Animals."
So other than the minor annoyance with the cover art, the player itself is fantastic. I found the interface very user-friendly and intuitive, without much of a learning curve. Again, I am new to the world of iPod, but I can honestly say that I am very pleased. I wanted to write a review for people that have a large digital music collection that came mostly from ripping cd's to their computers. I am one of the people who still enjoy listening to an entire album, and is not satisfied by just downloading the single, so I still buy physical cd's & collect vinyl. I would definitely recommend the 160 gb iPod to any music fan with a large collection. Just remember to be patient when getting the artwork for all of those older albums. If you don't have a collection full of Taylor Swift, the Jonas Brothers, or Beyonce, iTunes just may not recognize your music!
By P. Geyer (Vienna, VA United States)
I'll admit it, I've been avoiding buying an MP3 player for years. I have a 6-CD changer in the car, and I used to not drive more than 1/2 per day, so that was perfectly adequate. But, now with an auto commute of over 3.5 hours per day, I quickly realized that I needed more than 6 albums to keep me from going insane. With a music collection of several thousand albums, I wanted something with significant capacity. Having tried unsuccessfully in the past to use the MP3 player on my 3G phone with Microsoft Mobile OS, I wanted something with an easy and intuitive user interface that would actually work(!!!!). The iPod Classic with 160 GB meets these criteria handsomely.
Already a long-term user of iTunes on my PC, loading my collection on my new iPod was easy and relatively quick. With a separately purchased connection cord, I was able to quickly and successfully (hint, hint, Microsoft) hook my new iPod up to my car's stereo, where the sound was crisp, clear, and compelling. Even after a LONG drive, remaining battery life was barely dented, and the simple touch wheel user interface meant that I could switch play lists with a minimum amount of fiddling and distraction (at stoplights).
Admittedly, I'm not a high-end user. I don't care about cameras (video or still), I don't care about watching movies (although I might start now), and I don't care about sexy graphics. But I do care about large storage capacity, ease of use, and excellent sound quality, and the new iPod Classic has all of these in spades at a relatively reasonable price. The only thing that would make this better would be even more capacity, but realistically 160 GB is plenty for the foreseeable future.
By kungfuhamster (snata cruz, ca. usa)
I got this new 160GB because my old 80GB had been full for a while. I wanted a 160GB so bad that a few months ago I almost broke down and got the discontinued 160GB from '07 at $500. glad I waited for Apple to release the 160GB again. I like everything about the Classic. the cover flow is really nice, not just working with album covers but photos and movies too. I love how it also shows the number of songs in library or playlist just by highlighting and not selecting. It's crazy that this is twice the hard drive space but is like 1/3 less in actual size. Guess I'll hold on to this till they come out with a 320GB
By Skyhawk (USA)
(This review is for the NEW 2009 160GB iPod Classic, not the 2007 model.)
I hate televisions in restaurants, and I hate the split screen menus in the iPod.
Why? It's nothing more than 'Eye Candy', it's distracting, and unnecessary fluff.
You know how teenagers will decorate their mobile phones with cheap jewelry or stickers, that's what the split screen menu is to me.
Most of us 'grown ups' over the age of 18 want a nice, simple, and easy to read menu display with no distractions.
Now I understand that there is a certain demographic (teenagers) that likes this sort of stuff (I mean fluff) and Apple rightfully wants their business (after all, this age group spends the most money). The split screen artwork may also increase disk thrashing, and unnecessary wearing of the hard drive and draining the battery (by a relatively small amount).
It takes energy, time, and resources to handle the moving graphics.
I've owned most every iPod type ever made. Over time I saw the interface improve. Probably the iPod Video 5.5 Gen had the best interface. Simple menus, and non-moving (and non-tilted) album art of the song being played.
Apple should give us A CHOICE of speed versus glitz in the iPod settings menu and make everybody happy!
You might be reading this review in order to decide which iPod to get. For me the choice was easy, because the 160GB (it's actually about 148GB true free space) is the only iPod that will hold all of my music. I import my music in the highest quality possible (iTunes has doubled the quality for most of its music) which uses up more drive space.
I found that the classic definitely feels like a hard drive-based player. It's heavy for its size. Video looks magnificent on the classic. You can choose to watch movies in full screen or widescreen.
Some people think a hard drive based iPod is fragile. I have not found this to be the case. True, a Flash Drive based iPod is 'tougher', however the hard drive in the iPod classic can take a lot of shock. Typically these drives can take 1 G of Vibration (1 to 50 Hz), 250 G's of Operating Shock, and an incredible 1000 G's of Non-Operating Shock. A limitation of flash memory is that it has a finite number of erase-write cycles. Most commercially available flash products are guaranteed to withstand around 100,000 write-erase-cycles, before the wear begins to deteriorate the integrity of the storage.
All of my cars have TRUE iPod connectors, (not the 3.5 mm audio only, but the dock connector that also charges and can 'run' the iPod). I can control many of the iPod functions from the steering wheel or dashboard.
I usually use the iPod in the car. The click wheel is perfect because I don't have to look at it.
The 160GB iPod Classic, faults and all, I love it and recommend it!
Finally, I wish that the iPod Classic (and other Apple products) were not manufactured in Communist China. I wish that Apple would manufacture in countries that are not totalitarian and opposed to democracy. I can remember a time when Apple manufactured all over the world.
