Who Designed This Crap? The Great Ipod Scam - Page 5

Last message on previous page:

Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced Tab -> Burning -> Gap Between Songs

.

NO SHIT SHIRLOCK. i said for CD's its' not a problem

but many MP3 players don't know when not to put a gap. with CD's you can change the gaps for each track. CD's can do this because CD's are statically written. the data is dumped and thats it. it wites the tracks and it writes the gaps exactly as you tell it to.

MP3 players are dynamic. they dynamically read their playlists and data files when they're needed. there is no real place to say "when playing trace A to B don't gap, but everything else is ok to gap". the only options are either completely gapless play for every track or gapped play for every track.

personally. yes a .2 second gap between songs is sometimes an annoyance to me. but never is it a make or break issue.

however, after looking at the files on my iPOD i'll admit the format they've used to save the music is retarded at best.

it keeps them in the native MP3 format i've chosen, but it completely garbles the names of the files so you can't copy them off. I never saw this before. now to ME, this is a make or break issue. the inability to retreive my MP3's off my ipod in case of my system failing at home worries me. This comes new to me because I used to have a 3rd Gen Ipod and it did NOT do it this way. it didnt organize the mp3's but it didnt change the names.

too bad i just bought this. if i realized this new ipod would do this i probably wouldn't have.

Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced Tab -> Burning -> Gap Between Songs

.

The gaps (if done properly) are inter-track-gaps and not part of the audio stream. On a good CD player you can tell because it will say -00:02 (or however long the gap is) at the start of the gap and count down to 00:00 before starting the track. Hence this is not audio data but a gap in the data stream before the next track is burnt. So when you rip the CD, with EAC or nero or abcde or whatever you use you should not be ripping any silence at all.
I know that you can use iPods with winamp and a winamp plugin ( http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=138888) so for windows users there's really no excuse for going through the pain of using iTunes and imposing these crazy limits on your music burning and copying. That's presuming that you buy CDs instead of DRM files of course.
There are plenty of good MP3 players that can play AAC and iTunes isn't the nicest of library utilities by a long way, vis poor codec support, limited vis and awkward import/export options. Leave iTunes alone and it will fade away like other unloved software.

But why iPod in the first place? It doesn't do that much more than any other MP3 player, it forces you to use iTunes rather than acting as a removable hard drive, it doesn't support many codecs other than MP3 and AAC, it hasn't got an LCD remote, you can't replace the battery yourself.
Why is it popular?

When you look at the above argument there is only one reason left: Simplicity. iPod is a simple tool for simple people who don't know much about computers and don't want to know much about computers. It's like a microwave ready meal- you pay money and get something that says its lasagne, and if you've never had proper lasagne you think "that was easy, I like that, sorted" and all is cool, you're happy and you've had a meal in 5 minutes. But if you know how to cook you spit it out saying "horrible salty textureless pulp!" and you'd rather spend an hour or so doing it properly so you can enjoy it as you know it should taste. So it is with iPods and those who don't know computers vs those who do.

Can we please get a bit back on topic vis the ipod debate and spend less time flaming each other like kids? Thanks everyone.

laters dudes

theDudeAbides

There, fixed that!

Envy, it's a bitch, ain't it!

A certain song comes to mind, "I fell good, ....

Of course, this song is playing on my NANO (DId I sid spell it right according to this brain iFarticle?) headphones as I do the pencil sharpener motion (hand behind my back) while walking down the street, and encounter a DOS fanboi listening to music on their 0.00000000000001% market share player!



i think that you are the epitomy of what is wrong with the ipod craze. you obviosly only care about market share and make your deciscisions based on such; even when the reason for the market share is the multi million ad campaign that is sponsored by the big recording institutions. so basicly you just follow the crowd. thats ok and all but you will all fall off the cliff together

not true. i can understand the reasoning behind wanting a player that has market share..

in the computer field and others. companies with very poor market share tend to kill products and move elsewhere.. when they do this they often cut support to the existing products that had already been sold in the past.

buying a product with good market penetration sometimes asures that you will continue to receive adequate support from the company. as well more add on options from other companies trying to buy into the craze.

from a business standpoint, you will normally want to buy the device that has the support.

again with the MP3 player comparison. I bought an Apple ipod. my friend bought the Dell Jukebox. both had similar features except the dell's music import feature was itune's less. Dell has since stopped supporting the jukebox due to poor market penetration.... however ive still got full support for my ipod and new features, upgreades and 3rd party addons keep comming.

Hers.... will forever be exactly what she bought.. no new addons, no new firmwares nothing.

Hello Barry Gerber:

You are what you criticize.
Have you done some research before you bought your stuff?
Or, YOU just compulsively bought your mp3 player to discover it did not fit your needs. And now you are making others believe that you have nightmares and blame OTHERS for your mistakes.

I own a MAC.
And I HAVE NOT bought and iPod.
Guess what!!!
I HAVE a MUVO.
Because I don’t need and iPod…

I say YOU wrote this CRAP, with crappy feelings that basically came from yourself
You, basically, wrote this CRAP to create controversy and to be in the center spot.

CRAP like this does nothing to help people make smart buying decisions
And CRAP like is just an incentive to hate, not to be rational.

Frankly, I am concerned with these GOD Vs EVIL characterizations.
Grow up!!!

Jose E Castejon

don't you me he wrote this iCrap

Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced Tab -> Burning -> Gap Between Songs

.

The gaps (if done properly) are inter-track-gaps and not part of the audio stream. On a good CD player you can tell because it will say -00:02 (or however long the gap is) at the start of the gap and count down to 00:00 before starting the track. Hence this is not audio data but a gap in the data stream before the next track is burnt. So when you rip the CD, with EAC or nero or abcde or whatever you use you should not be ripping any silence at all.
I know that you can use iPods with winamp and a winamp plugin ( http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=138888) so for windows users there's really no excuse for going through the pain of using iTunes and imposing these crazy limits on your music burning and copying. That's presuming that you buy CDs instead of DRM files of course.
There are plenty of good MP3 players that can play AAC and iTunes isn't the nicest of library utilities by a long way, vis poor codec support, limited vis and awkward import/export options. Leave iTunes alone and it will fade away like other unloved software.

But why iPod in the first place? It doesn't do that much more than any other MP3 player, it forces you to use iTunes rather than acting as a removable hard drive, it doesn't support many codecs other than MP3 and AAC, it hasn't got an LCD remote, you can't replace the battery yourself.
Why is it popular?

When you look at the above argument there is only one reason left: Simplicity. iPod is a simple tool for simple people who don't know much about computers and don't want to know much about computers. It's like a microwave ready meal- you pay money and get something that says its lasagne, and if you've never had proper lasagne you think "that was easy, I like that, sorted" and all is cool, you're happy and you've had a meal in 5 minutes. But if you know how to cook you spit it out saying "horrible salty textureless pulp!" and you'd rather spend an hour or so doing it properly so you can enjoy it as you know it should taste. So it is with iPods and those who don't know computers vs those who do.

Can we please get a bit back on topic vis the ipod debate and spend less time flaming each other like kids? Thanks everyone.

laters dudes

theDudeAbides



iReebok

There I said what you said, IN ONE WORD!

But on a serious note, 99+% of people just want to listen to music, you start going techie on them and you put them to sleep, and I do mean this in the literal sense. I've lost count of the number of times I've gone techie with someone, and they start yawning, the eyes go shut, and the head starts to bobbing.

They don't care, they REALLY don't care!

But what really amazes my, is that you people go on, and on, and on, about gapless, Ogg Vorbis, Rockbox, yadda, yadda, yadda, ....

And it never sinks in to you, that 99+% of people JUST DON"T CARE, and they never will, no matter how much of a brow beating you inflict on them!

Most people want seemless ease of use, most people want simplicity, most people want a lowest common denominator, most people have much more important things to do with their lives then to fuss with all those techie details.

Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced Tab -> Burning -> Gap Between Songs

.

The gaps (if done properly) are inter-track-gaps and not part of the audio stream. On a good CD player you can tell because it will say -00:02 (or however long the gap is) at the start of the gap and count down to 00:00 before starting the track. Hence this is not audio data but a gap in the data stream before the next track is burnt. So when you rip the CD, with EAC or nero or abcde or whatever you use you should not be ripping any silence at all.
I know that you can use iPods with winamp and a winamp plugin ( http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=138888) so for windows users there's really no excuse for going through the pain of using iTunes and imposing these crazy limits on your music burning and copying. That's presuming that you buy CDs instead of DRM files of course.
There are plenty of good MP3 players that can play AAC and iTunes isn't the nicest of library utilities by a long way, vis poor codec support, limited vis and awkward import/export options. Leave iTunes alone and it will fade away like other unloved software.

But why iPod in the first place? It doesn't do that much more than any other MP3 player, it forces you to use iTunes rather than acting as a removable hard drive, it doesn't support many codecs other than MP3 and AAC, it hasn't got an LCD remote, you can't replace the battery yourself.
Why is it popular?

When you look at the above argument there is only one reason left: Simplicity. iPod is a simple tool for simple people who don't know much about computers and don't want to know much about computers. It's like a microwave ready meal- you pay money and get something that says its lasagne, and if you've never had proper lasagne you think "that was easy, I like that, sorted" and all is cool, you're happy and you've had a meal in 5 minutes. But if you know how to cook you spit it out saying "horrible salty textureless pulp!" and you'd rather spend an hour or so doing it properly so you can enjoy it as you know it should taste. So it is with iPods and those who don't know computers vs those who do.

Can we please get a bit back on topic vis the ipod debate and spend less time flaming each other like kids? Thanks everyone.

laters dudes

theDudeAbides

Let's see if I can do w/o flames and profanity (unlike all the others around here trying to make a point).

I am going to try and state this as simply as I can:

The problem is not the definition of the word gap.

The problem is not a single track vs. multiple.

The only problem (which, if the morons who refuse to re-read and comprehend my original post, will refer to...) is telling people they cannot listen to Dark Side (or whatever other album you wish to use for demonstration) w/o gaps using the iPod and iTunes.

btw, theDudeAbides get's quoted on this one because he (like so many others) misguidedly re-states what has already been said in an attempt, I guess, just to see his own words on the page.

So, There is nothing wrong with "your" definition of the word....

AS LONG AS YOU DEFINE THAT WORD!

All people were saying is that there was no way to do this on an iPod or no way to do that (I randomly choose gapless playback to rebutt), and saying "no way" is a very bad thing to do when there is a "way". Some might even consider that dishonest.

M_S

There, fixed that!

Envy, it's a bitch, ain't it!

A certain song comes to mind, "I fell good, ....

Of course, this song is playing on my NANO (DId I sid spell it right according to this brain iFarticle?) headphones as I do the pencil sharpener motion (hand behind my back) while walking down the street, and encounter a DOS fanboi listening to music on their 0.00000000000001% market share player!



i think that you are the epitomy of what is wrong with the ipod craze. you obviosly only care about market share and make your deciscisions based on such; even when the reason for the market share is the multi million ad campaign that is sponsored by the big recording institutions. so basicly you just follow the crowd. thats ok and all but you will all fall off the cliff together



No, you missed the basic point of my jab.

It's all about turning tables, metaphorically speaking!

Being an admitted Mac fanboi all these years, and listening to all those Apple whiners over the years, in the various Mac forums, to come here and listen to you all, is really, Really, REALLY fun!

Payback is a bitch, ain't it?

PS - If you really, Really, REALLY, knew me (as many others do), the very, Very, VERY last thought on your mind would be "LEMMING."

Amazing, I think I figured out what the problem is. It's your own selfishness. You say you agree with me, you pose a problem you have, you ask "how do i get an iPod to do THAT for me?". Please re-read my above post, try to get just a glimpse of what I put forth. If that is impossible for you, I dismiss any further comment from your side of the court as self-serving.

It's not about YOU! It's about others reading who might not understand that when YOU say there is NO WAY, you mean to say "well, there's no way unless you use this simple menu option over here"

Let me guess, you still don't get it?

M_S

p.s. name calling is a great way to get your point across.

Oh dear. I think he was trying to establish that the iPod cannot do this. It is broken in that respect and should rightly be fixed, especially given the simplicity of the problem.
Joining your MP3 files together is a workaround but is hardly a workable solution, who wants to have to fast-forwards an entire album to get to 1 track at the end?
I think the assertion that the iPod cannot do this is fair and in this respect it has certainly been bettered by a number of players on the market.

Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced Tab -> Burning -> Gap Between Songs

.

The gaps (if done properly) are inter-track-gaps and not part of the audio stream. On a good CD player you can tell because it will say -00:02 (or however long the gap is) at the start of the gap and count down to 00:00 before starting the track. Hence this is not audio data but a gap in the data stream before the next track is burnt. So when you rip the CD, with EAC or nero or abcde or whatever you use you should not be ripping any silence at all.
I know that you can use iPods with winamp and a winamp plugin ( http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=138888) so for windows users there's really no excuse for going through the pain of using iTunes and imposing these crazy limits on your music burning and copying. That's presuming that you buy CDs instead of DRM files of course.
There are plenty of good MP3 players that can play AAC and iTunes isn't the nicest of library utilities by a long way, vis poor codec support, limited vis and awkward import/export options. Leave iTunes alone and it will fade away like other unloved software.

But why iPod in the first place? It doesn't do that much more than any other MP3 player, it forces you to use iTunes rather than acting as a removable hard drive, it doesn't support many codecs other than MP3 and AAC, it hasn't got an LCD remote, you can't replace the battery yourself.
Why is it popular?

When you look at the above argument there is only one reason left: Simplicity. iPod is a simple tool for simple people who don't know much about computers and don't want to know much about computers. It's like a microwave ready meal- you pay money and get something that says its lasagne, and if you've never had proper lasagne you think "that was easy, I like that, sorted" and all is cool, you're happy and you've had a meal in 5 minutes. But if you know how to cook you spit it out saying "horrible salty textureless pulp!" and you'd rather spend an hour or so doing it properly so you can enjoy it as you know it should taste. So it is with iPods and those who don't know computers vs those who do.

Can we please get a bit back on topic vis the ipod debate and spend less time flaming each other like kids? Thanks everyone.

laters dudes

theDudeAbides

Let's see if I can do w/o flames and profanity (unlike all the others around here trying to make a point).

I am going to try and state this as simply as I can:

The problem is not the definition of the word gap.

The problem is not a single track vs. multiple.

The only problem (which, if the morons who refuse to re-read and comprehend my original post, will refer to...) is telling people they cannot listen to Dark Side (or whatever other album you wish to use for demonstration) w/o gaps using the iPod and iTunes.

btw, theDudeAbides get's quoted on this one because he (like so many others) misguidedly re-states what has already been said in an attempt, I guess, just to see his own words on the page.

So, There is nothing wrong with "your" definition of the word....

AS LONG AS YOU DEFINE THAT WORD!

All people were saying is that there was no way to do this on an iPod or no way to do that (I randomly choose gapless playback to rebutt), and saying "no way" is a very bad thing to do when there is a "way". Some might even consider that dishonest.

M_S

Jeez, its not that there is no way to do this, its that such a stupidly simple feature should be included on every major MP3 player. I'm trying to have a discussion on music management software, not boost my own ego. Mr M__S appears to be ranting a fair bit without much content so I'm going to reply to the patently obvious problem of "how do I listen to an album without gaps when my player puts in pauses between tracks". Please can we shut the hell up about it now?

Yes, you rip it as a single track.

Well done, you've told everyone something totally self-evident. Now why don't you talk about something useful.

What I want to know is why the most popular player on the market with a huge development team cannot implement a feature that others have reliably managed to do while programming in their spare time. For iPod not to have gapless playback is a joke, and should be fixed.

Surely the prevailing MP3 player should be the one with the most advanced feature set and capabilities that out-shine the competition. Gapless playback is the basics, MP3 player design 101.

I was really expecting this article to be more informative and entertaining. As one that has owned a variety of MP3 players over the years, I did not find your criticisms to be very analytically useful. Perhaps your nightmares have infiltrated your daytime sensibilities.

I thouroughly agree. That was a frankly pointless rant.. somewhat below the otherwise high standard of content on this site is known for. Im dissapointed.

This aside though. Whats this with people going on and on and on about scratching their nanos? I wonder how many of these are the retards (excuse me) that put them in pockets with metal objects and expect them to sustain no damage?! Thers few products that would manage that, or maybe if it wer some cheap crappy mp3 player one would not care if it were scratched. I know of plenty of nano owners whose ipods are just fine when traeted normaly. i.e. kept in a pocket free of keys and the like, and not sat on. I would agree then they do a seem a little fragile, but they look soo nice...

LET ME just add one more quick quib to the gapless debate

i've copied over my entire library. every trak is an individual mp3. i'm now nowhere near a computer or my itunes library.

NOW how do enable gapless?

I can't.

there's no workaround in this scenario. a simple menu option WOULD be nice

Hang it up, he's just a troll. He'll deny it, but he is.

Boy, you sure talk about the Apple fanboy's around here but what about the (I guess) "all others" fanboys. Someone points out that you are wrong and all you can do is say "troll"?

Are you still upset about not being able to put forth coherent argument in type?

M_S

There, fixed that!

Envy, it's a bitch, ain't it!

A certain song comes to mind, "I fell good, ....

Of course, this song is playing on my NANO (DId I sid spell it right according to this brain iFarticle?) headphones as I do the pencil sharpener motion (hand behind my back) while walking down the street, and encounter a DOS fanboi listening to music on their 0.00000000000001% market share player!



i think that you are the epitomy of what is wrong with the ipod craze. you obviosly only care about market share and make your deciscisions based on such; even when the reason for the market share is the multi million ad campaign that is sponsored by the big recording institutions. so basicly you just follow the crowd. thats ok and all but you will all fall off the cliff together



No, you missed the basic point of my jab.

It's all about turning tables, metaphorically speaking!

Being an admitted Mac fanboi all these years, and listening to all those Apple whiners over the years, in the various Mac forums, to come here and listen to you all, is really, Really, REALLY fun!

Payback is a bitch, ain't it?

PS - If you really, Really, REALLY, knew me (as many others do), the very, Very, VERY last thought on your mind would be "LEMMING."



i dont know you and i doubt many on the forum know you but all i have to judge you by is your words. and all your words said was "i have a large market share mp3 player! shame on the rest of you and your small market share items!" or better yet "i am a lemming"

Hang it up, he's just a troll. He'll deny it, but he is.

Boy, you sure talk about the Apple fanboy's around here but what about the (I guess) "all others" fanboys. Someone points out that you are wrong and all you can do is say "troll"?

Are you still upset about not being able to put forth coherent argument in type?

M_S

MS, the only person who thinks your points are worth anything are you. As I said before, you're a consensus of 1.

Nobody in this debate is talking about Apple fanboys. They're talking about a troll who goes by the name M_S

O_o

WHAT

THE

FUCK

ARE

YOU

TALKIN

ABOUT

now correct me if i'm wrong

the discussion we're having is about the ability for the ipod to handle different issues that have arised. ONE of those issues has been it's built in inability to remove the gap of time between different files.

the work around you've provide is to combine those multiple files into a single file. thus way the gap is non existant since it's one file.

fine. that is a WORKABLE solution to the problem

but it's not a practical solution as we've argued. yes it WORKS. but by doing that solution a couple other issues arise for us. such as losing the ability to jump between the individual tracks in that one file. and you can't do it on the fly without the use of your computer.

because of those drawbacks. we as a concensus have said it's not a suitable solution for most of us. by us I don't just mean me. i mean the vast majority of the posters in this forum.

we then question why can't apple make a simple patch to add this feature. at this point you keep telling us we're avoiding the issue and we're stupid because the work around exists. we keep responding by telling you it's not appropriate work around and doesnt solve what it should adequately.

at that point you still insist we're idiots and we're avoiding the issue and being selfish and everything you've argued

i repeat "what the fuck are you talking about" as you've not given us an ounce of argument further than "combine the files into one". we have already stated that as a group we don't like that solution cause it raises other problems

you are trolling. sir iTroll. you need to understand what we're talkin about before YOU begin to question our intelligence.

You did it again, should I count the number of times you we and I?

I know that you understand what I am saying, I read between the lines of your words and I get that. What baffles me is that you think this is all about you (and the other few who have posted like you) and say "that's all that matters", "we don't like this and it's a simple fix so do it", and "other players do this exceptionally well, why won't this one".

It's not all about you. If it were, I would say it's fine to make blanket statements that could mislead others, but it's not. Do you really feel that you are the collective voice for all DAP users? Do you feel that you have to right, in writing, to disavow features because they are not real-world solutions for YOU? It's ok, I see how you think now. You feel it's better to tell a half-truth (as it fits your opinion) than a fully documented fact, that is a pity.

M_S

wow.. that article pretty much puts everything i hate about the ipod line into well... an article.

i admit it, i've been an ipod hater since the start. i own an iRiver H320 and a Creative Zen Vision:M. these 2 mp3 players kill the ipod hands down. before apple thought about video playback, my iRiver alredy had it. FM tuner and voice recorder?? ipod never had it but both of my players had it. plus they have better sound quality. and for the same price as the ipods. so which would you choose? better features or a crappy mp3 player cuz so-and-so has one?? i mean, that's basically how apple's been getting sales. cuz of gullible people who are too lazy to do their research. here's the research for you guys who still think the ipod's better based on the competition at the time of production:

H320 vs iPod photo:

H320 has what the iPod has PLUS:
-does NOT require software to tranfer songs and files (NO DRM!!). even works on Macs
-can play videos, has a text viewer, voice recorder, radio tuner, graphics equalizer and SRS audio processor
-has a 3rd party firmware called Rockbox that is fully customizable, has FLAC support, a Gameboy emulator, a bunch of games and features such as a calculator.

Zen Vision:M vs iPod 5G (video):

ZVM has what the iPod has PLUS:
-support for more mainstream video codecs (DivX, Xvid, mpeg, wmv, etc) which means less chance of having to convert videos.
-more simplified media transfer software (drag and drop capable)
-a display with more vibrant colours
-voice recorder, radio tuner
-different colour themes available
-ability to put wallpapers on display
-5 band custom equalizer (duno if the ipod has this)
-ability to change touch pad sensitivity settings for users who have trouble navigating menus
-customizable menus and a shortcut button
-very simplified touch pad (up=up, down=down. no need for "is clockwise up or down???" )

so that pretty much sums up why i would choose any mp3 player over the ipod. damn North Amercan MP3 player market is so dilluted thanks to the iPod. there are way more MP3 players in Asia that can give the iPod a run for its money.

i understand what you mean. but there;s some myths' that need to be dispelled. (and some to agree upon. hell i love my ipod, but it aint perfect)

- does NOT require software to tranfer songs and files (NO DRM!!). even works on Macs
Yes the Ipod requires Itunes. i'll agree that it's a pain. HOWEVER. the DRM issue is a completely seperate one. only itune distributed media has DRM. any other audio format is subject to the identical things thats every other player has. Mp3 is Mp3 is mp3 across the board. even on the ipod. itunes doesnt take existing emp3's and assign DRM to them. only their downloaded music.... don't buy itunes music you don't have DRM.

-can play videos, has a text viewer, voice recorder, radio tuner, graphics equalizer and SRS audio processor
iPods have Videos and Text viewers default. you can purchase additions voice recorder, radio tuners for it. would it be nice to have them built in. yes. but whatever.

-has a 3rd party firmware called Rockbox that is fully customizable, has FLAC support, a Gameboy emulator, a bunch of games and features such as a calculator.
Rockbox is a 3rd party ap and isnt supported by ANY company that makes a DAP. however. there is an ipod version and you can instal rockbox on any ipod. so this is the same across the board.

-support for more mainstream video codecs (DivX, Xvid, mpeg, wmv, etc) which means less chance of having to convert videos.
I will agree. apple playing these formats would be nice. however they use the standard MP4 format thats becomming a standard so hopefully it will be ok. (same format as the PSP)

-more simplified media transfer software (drag and drop capable)
dude.. itunes.. so fucking simple anyone can use it. in some sense it's easier than file management. drop it to itunes and itunes sorts it by anything automatically and trasfers it for you. both are simple. one just requires software

-a display with more vibrant colours
can you show me some specs. i'm not sure where to find them. the ipod video itself can display 65,353 colour (basically the same as any PDA can and is 2" screen). the colour thing i think is moot

-different colour themes available
-ability to put wallpapers on display
-5 band custom equalizer (duno if the ipod has this)
-ability to change touch pad sensitivity settings for users who have trouble navigating menus
-customizable menus and a shortcut button

Agreed. wish apple would have these

-very simplified touch pad (up=up, down=down. no need for "is clockwise up or down???" )
mehhhh. i find the ipod simple as hell. this is a personal preference though.

M_S

in stating Opinion. there is no fact.

yu can USE fact to endorse your opinion. but you can't say yours or my opinion is fact.

no one is disputing the facts. there IS a problem. there IS a work around.

whether I, or anyone else LIKES the work around is Opinion.

because this is our opinion and my opinion, we have right to say it. you have right to state your opinion elsewise

You (and others) said the iPod would NOT do gapless playback. You did NOT say this was was your opinion. You (and others) let it be taken as fact (how can you argue otherwise unless you qualify it as opinion or at least say "it can, but..." ).

You are incorrect that "in stating Opinion. there is no fact." If you state opinion and ignore fact what do you have? A worthless opinion which is what started this mess to begin with.

nilepez, your comments do not merit response.

M_S

In one post you completely agree with my argument (as originally posted), then I call you on mistakes you make and you come back 180 and say "no, the way I said it the first time is correct". Simply amazing.

Make up your mind.

M_S

must be some derivative of Stockholm Syndrome, you are a hostage to your own rantings.

M_S

Still waiting for a reply M_S.

Let's say we were talking about a CD player. Let's assume there's one that always inserts a small gap between each track. Would you be whining about misrepresenting the facts if I'd said it couldn't play back an album without gaps?

Or to be more specific if I'd said, Personally, I think the best reason to avoid the this cd player is its inability to play back albums without inserting pops or gaps between songs, would you claim that they play could play back The Wall without gaps?

Come on M_S. Answer the question.

I think transfering this argument to the world of CD players shows he's FOS.

He won't answer the question, but if he did, he'd either look like an idiot or be proven wrong. He won't answer it. He most likely will respond to this post instead.