On mySimon: Oakley Juliet Polarized Lens Sunglasses
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 4 of 5:
Next »
« Previous
Hard Drive vs. Flash
Hi, dsipp.

I agree with you that hard drives have more things that can go wrong (because of more moving parts), but flash drives are also susceptible to problems. Even solid state players need buttons and displays, both of which can fail and/or break.

For me, the weight factor is outweighed by the price/quantity quotient. A 4 GB Nano goes for what, $249? I just bought an Archos XS 202 for the same price, that holds 20GB. (It was a close call between Creative and Archos, but Archos makes solid products, and the price was better.)

Let's compare iPods to iPods, though: If you go with a 20GB iPod instead of the Nano, you pay 17% more for 500% more memory. Looked at another way, you pay $62.50/GB for a Nano, but $15/GB for a hard drive-based iPod. I like lightweight gear as much as the next guy, but paying over $45/GB more for a lightweight player doesn't make sense to me. Admittedly, I don't run (or even walk, actually) but I can't imagine the slight heft of a modern hard drive-based player would be a major issue (although I could see an iPod or Karma being awkward on an armband).

When flash capacities can rival hard drive capacities, flash players might get more attractive, providing they can get price parity with the hard drives.
Posted by: bhartman36   Posted on: 09/22/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Never go back????  rpmyers1 | 09/08/05
You will see less focus on it  nucrash | 09/08/05
Love it\Hate it  dsipp@... | 09/08/05
Hard Drive vs. Flash  bhartman36 | 09/22/05
Longer Battery Life?  rpmyers1 | 09/09/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here