Comments on: New iPod nano review http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/09/10/new-ipod-nano-review/ The only tech you need Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:54:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Pgs1130 http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/09/10/new-ipod-nano-review/comment-page-1/#comment-190848 Pgs1130 Sat, 29 Oct 2011 04:48:00 +0000 http://188.65.36.75/?p=88168#comment-190848 iPod classic is the storage space. With 160GB’s of storage space, this iPod can store more than the entire iPod touch line up combined! That is the equivalent of 40,000 songs. The battery life of the iPod Classic is also significantly higher than any other iPod iPod classic is the storage space. With 160GB’s of storage space, this iPod can
store more than the entire iPod touch line up combined!
That is the equivalent of 40,000 songs. The battery life of the iPod Classic is
also significantly higher than any other iPod

]]> By: Andrew Tiney http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/09/10/new-ipod-nano-review/comment-page-1/#comment-152078 Andrew Tiney Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:45:36 +0000 http://188.65.36.75/?p=88168#comment-152078 "But ultimately, you’re paying at least £90 more for a bit more capacity than the new iPod shuffle (but still not much, mind)"<br><br>Then again, when you think about it, you're limited to a few hundred songs on 2GB. Enough to drive you nutty if you listen to it again and again without constantly syncing/transferring music/faffing around. <br><br>With 8GB - the iPod Nano - and an average compression rate, you can get well over 100 albums if you avoid pointless things like photos/videos (which the iPod Touch is for). <br><br>Apples (geddit?) and oranges - I think the Nano occupies the space it always has - the irritatingly low capacity of the Shuffle will always see to that. <br><br>My 2p worth “But ultimately, you’re paying at least £90 more for a bit more capacity than the new iPod shuffle (but still not much, mind)”

Then again, when you think about it, you're limited to a few hundred songs on 2GB. Enough to drive you nutty if you listen to it again and again without constantly syncing/transferring music/faffing around.

With 8GB – the iPod Nano – and an average compression rate, you can get well over 100 albums if you avoid pointless things like photos/videos (which the iPod Touch is for).

Apples (geddit?) and oranges – I think the Nano occupies the space it always has – the irritatingly low capacity of the Shuffle will always see to that.

My 2p worth

]]> By: Hghghghhgh http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/09/10/new-ipod-nano-review/comment-page-1/#comment-140823 Hghghghhgh Fri, 24 Sep 2010 04:26:15 +0000 http://188.65.36.75/?p=88168#comment-140823 this nano sucks! i hat e touch screen and this isnt a nano! its a mini ipod touch! what is the problem with the world! this nano sucks! i hat e touch screen and this isnt a nano! its a mini ipod touch! what is the problem with the world!

]]> By: surethom http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/09/10/new-ipod-nano-review/comment-page-1/#comment-139386 surethom Sat, 11 Sep 2010 05:10:22 +0000 http://188.65.36.75/?p=88168#comment-139386 Way to small that is what the shuffle is for, the screen should have been rectangular shape to display more information, I buy 1 new ipod nanos every year & i know 6 other people who upgrade every year, & non of them will upgrade to this, not because of the touchscreen but because fthe screen size. bad bad choice. Way to small that is what the shuffle is for, the screen should have been rectangular shape to display more information, I buy 1 new ipod nanos every year & i know 6 other people who upgrade every year, & non of them will upgrade to this, not because of the touchscreen but because fthe screen size. bad bad choice.

]]>