arstechnica.com— Review of Apple's new 2nd Generation iPod nano, introduced on September 12, 2006. Story includes a stress test and a complete breakdown of the player.
Sep 18, 2006View in Crawl 4
Summary:Pros:Case and screen more difficult to scratch Battery life (24 hours) Increased storage capacity on high-end (8GB)The return of colored cases Headphone jack holds on tight... most of the time. Improved earbuds Lower price Cons:Black nano only comes in highest-end model (and highest-end model only comes in black) Overall not as durable as 1st gen nano Some, but not all, old nano accessories are incompatible No software CD included
I personally don't think it is fair for you to copy that material and paste it here without the copyright holder's permission.They invested time and money in writing that text and placed a Copyright notice to inform you that they wish have the rights to their content.I'm not affiliated with them in any way, I just find you crossed the line. Might as well copy the whole article.Did the thought even cross your mind?
The jump in RAM (to 256MB) is huge. That'll have major positive ramifications for both alternative firmwares (Linux, Rockbox), and could mean gaming is down the line.
Even though it was just one iPod they tested, that one iPod broke on the first drop from about 3ft. That is unacceptable. No iPod should fail after one drop from such a short distance.
That's a pretty bad review. They could have squeezed some sound quality comparisons in between the repeated stress tests. It is a music player after all!
klawzSep 18, 2006
Summary:Pros:Case and screen more difficult to scratch Battery life (24 hours) Increased storage capacity on high-end (8GB)The return of colored cases Headphone jack holds on tight... most of the time. Improved earbuds Lower price Cons:Black nano only comes in highest-end model (and highest-end model only comes in black) Overall not as durable as 1st gen nano Some, but not all, old nano accessories are incompatible No software CD included
odiwanSep 18, 2006
I personally don't think it is fair for you to copy that material and paste it here without the copyright holder's permission.They invested time and money in writing that text and placed a Copyright notice to inform you that they wish have the rights to their content.I'm not affiliated with them in any way, I just find you crossed the line. Might as well copy the whole article.Did the thought even cross your mind?
convergeSep 18, 2006
The review did not mention the sound quality once. To me that is the most important part of any music player. Reported as lame.
theblackgeckoSep 18, 2006
The jump in RAM (to 256MB) is huge. That'll have major positive ramifications for both alternative firmwares (Linux, Rockbox), and could mean gaming is down the line.
wicketrSep 18, 2006
Even though it was just one iPod they tested, that one iPod broke on the first drop from about 3ft. That is unacceptable. No iPod should fail after one drop from such a short distance.
Closed AccountSep 18, 2006
Oops. You're right. Bad sexist habit.
superalamarSep 18, 2006
why not include itunes on the ipod if the CD is no longer included? It boots as a drive initially doesn't it?
Closed AccountSep 18, 2006
That's a pretty bad review. They could have squeezed some sound quality comparisons in between the repeated stress tests. It is a music player after all!
Closed AccountSep 18, 2006
Is it 256Mb, so 32MB in general terms? Still a lot for a dinky iPod.