The iPod (I have the original 5GB model) lets me take my own music in the car, on planes, and to the office. As a walker, I've never had a problem with it skipping while I'm exercising.

It may not be for you, but not everyone has your requirements. I'm happier with a larger library than solid state and size limits. I also prefer higher bitrates than most people use, so I get fewer songs on any device.

AAC, by the way, is non-proprietary. It's the Audio Codec from the MPEG-4 standard. I was using them on Windows (WinAMP) before I was using them on Macs.

Amongst other nice features, AAC playback works on all iPod models, so I'm not SOL for having an iPod that's over a year old.

What a lousy piece of writing. Maybe you should try backing up your claims by supporting statements and other people's evidence. Spouting your opinion and make a huge generalisation ("iPod is a loser") is not particularly pursuading.

The iPod allows you to have your whole music collection with you. That is in a whole different class than the flash mp3 players like the one you are talking about.

Oh, and no moving parts does not equal freezes. But of course, I have no idea what you mean by freezes. Software lock-up? Song skipping? Who knows... specific writing is obviously not your forte.

Try again.

why does anyone need the ability to carry around "10,000 of your favorite songs," as the iPod ad copy proclaims?

I carry 25-50 CDs with me most days because I can't make up my mind on what I want to listen to. 30 songs is tremendously limiting for me, because I can switch interests at the drop of a hat. IPods just don't make sense to me yet because I really can't stand mp3s, and the sound quality I demand would require a lot of space (yes, I really can tell the difference between the 128 kBps mp3s they base their numbers on and CDs - 192 is fine, however, but are obviously much larger.) I'll wait for the day when compression is not an issue before investing in something like this. I'm content to carry my discs with me for the time being.

I can't wait for your shopper's guide comparing disposable cameras with the over-priced Leicas and Nikons which have too many features anyways.

You wouldn't happen to be selling these toy gadgets, would you?

The only thing I would quarrel with Tom is that you can tell THAT much of a difference given the quality of portable device players available. Unless you are using a portable CD player that I don't know about, the quality being pumped through headphones makes is never going to be that of the quality of a well-powered and well-placed sound system in a room.

If you do have great portable sound, you must help a guy out. I NEED whatever it is you listen on.

an opinion from the old fart team: even if the sound quality was very good, a device like an ipod forces me to have more interactions with a computer....no thank you. it's not worth it.

Craig, I'm running out the soundcard on my computer into a pair of cheap Jensen cans. I most definitely can tell the difference between the "standard" 128 kBps mp3 and the CDs I play, even on these cheap headphones. Were they simple on-ear headphones or buds, I might agree with you, but these surround and cover the ear (to drown out background noise, which is why I bought them - work is noisy!) I do, however, tend to have pretty sensitive hearing - I always wear ear-plugs at concerts to protect it and don't play my music at loud volumes. So it may simply be that *I* hear things that others don't. Obviously, not being in others heads, I can't say beyond that I can tell an mp3 from the original.

I just cannot stand to hear the high-frequency "warbling," for lack of a more descriptive term, of mp3s. It drives me crazy. Apparently others don't care. That's fine, but someday people are going to realize what a waste were all these mp3s they spent time downloading and buying when they play them on ever-increasingly good home theater systems. All that money spent on a system that most accurately and realistically pumps out the tunes only to listen to something hopelessly hobbled by compression that eliminates the sparkle and rumble of music.

Wow, bookofjoe, excellent job! Whatever bait you're using, it sure is pulling in the carp! ;-)

Hey Tom, I listen through the soundcard on my laptop and I just got a new set of Sony Bud headphones that absolutely rule. They cut out other sounds like an earplug and deliver the most accurate sound I have ever gotten out of a set of headphones. They were a bit expensive ($40) but I plan on having them for a while.

Follow this link to check them out.

Well, it is cheap. But, I haven't read a review anywhere that says a flash player is superior to the iPod.

The only people I know who prefer flash players are obsessed with the small form factor. That is one feature that is tough to argue with. Other than that, it depends on what you are looking for. I want to carry a bunch of material in a small space so Ipod and the other HDD based solutions would be better for me. At this point, the cost is still too prohibitive so I went with an MP3 CD player by Aiwa. It isn't perfect, but for 100 bucks it gets the job done and I can carry 700 megs worth of material which will do for now.

Well, I am expecting to get my third iPod for Christmas. (Had the 10GB, now have the 20GB.) One of the great things about it for me is that I was able to dispense with my external backup FireWire hard drive. I just back up to the 'Pod instead. That means I haven't paid for an external backup HD, saving at least $200. I can also take the 'Pod on the road with me without the additional weight of a big HD. This is an aspect of owning a portable hard drive MP3 player worthy of consideration.

Tom: I also don't like MP3s at 128 kBps. I find that I can detect a difference in quality between an MP3 my wife has ripped and one I've ripped.

I do find I'm perfectly happy with AAC at 160 kBps. Have you tried AAC? What were your results?

What LOSER again wrote that cr*p again?! Dude - the ability to carry 10 000 tunes in your pocket understates limitless possibilities! Apple R O C K S and anyone who doesn't agree and who is a PC lemming will probably never understand why iPod is the fastest selling electronic toy this Christmas :)

Joe gets downright incensed when contemplating the iPod, Lover. One bit him when he was a tyke.

Seriously, though, I was surprised to see Joe get some support in his anti-iPodism from an unlikely source yesterday. This month's MacAddict agrees with him that the iPod is not suitable for using while exercising. It recommends a flash player. Seriously.

Well I don't know about you guys but my Radio Shack portable 8 track suits me fine. It may be a little clunky but what the hey, it works.

Apple may soon sell lower-cost iPods

But, can a lower-cost iPod really be an iPod? Yes, most of the iPod's appeal is that it is a great little piece of technology -- both functional and elegant. But, much of its cachet comes from being the MP3 player of note. Will lowering the price on the 'Pod also lower the boom? When I was a kid, Izod shirts were de rigeur for prep school types. Then they became mass produced and cheaper. Soon, their cachet was gone. Will the same thing happen to cheap seat iPods?

Exactly my point. That's why I consider my 8 track a poor-man's iPod. Those old Stompin' Tom Conners tapes still sound great :-)

I was listening the other day to the Big Black CD compilation "Rich Man's Eight Track". The liner notes feature a great rant from Steve Albini about how the CD format is doomed.