[DigDub]

i have owned the 5G ipod before and held the zen M. and i prefer the size of the zen over the video because it is more handy to hold. and the zen is certainly not as thick as some of you make it out to be. it also does not take a rocket scientist to know that 262k is greater than 65k. and zip22, if you are the same person in dapreview, then i think you have quite a 'reputation' there, eh?

 

[apnk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigDub i have owned the 5G ipod before and held the zen M. and i prefer the size of the zen over the video because it is more handy to hold. and the zen is certainly not as thick as some of you make it out to be. it also does not take a rocket scientist to know that 262k is greater than 65k. and zip22, if you are the same person in dapreview, then i think you have quite a 'reputation' there, eh?

Oh, and a punch to the face.

i agree with Dig. I have held a lot of daps and I find my karma more confortable sitting in my hand and its like what? 1 inch thick?

 

[dskywalker]

If I really care about size, I go with a flash player such as nano. The zen is thicker than the 5g iPod, but even the 5g ipod makes me uncomfortable. So it doesn't really matter to me as long as it's not anything like the old zen xtra. It seems like its size is comparable to the 4g ipod photo.

 

[zip22]

a reputation of not going with the flow. they all seem to hate the ipod and anyone who uses one. things seem more normal here. if you have followed the posts on dapreview, you would see i am still not convinced the vision:m uses more colors. the side by side comparisons show it is brighter and oversaturated while the ipod is undersaturated, but that does not mean it has more colors. i simply don't think that should be something it is advertised with, since it won't be tested. talk about video resolutions, video formats, customizeable backgrounds, playlist creating, album art browsing, searching, and anything else we can see it has that the ipod does not, but don't base your praise on more colors unless you can prove it has them and it makes the experience better. no one even discussed the number of colors before creative decided to stick it into their presentation. then they crank up the saturation on the screen (like the tv's at best buy) and bingo, everyone talks about more colors. before that, all the color players had more colors than the ipod. that was rarely (if ever) important or mentioned.

i realise some people might prefer a bigger player, but the sleekness of the ipod is (in my opinion) one of its major draws. i'm curious why it is so much bigger than the ipod. the battery life is the same for audio (my hunch is video is longer because of the formats supported) and its not even replaceable.

 

[PixelSquish]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zip22 a reputation of not going with the flow. they all seem to hate the ipod and anyone who uses one. things seem more normal here. if you have followed the posts on dapreview, you would see i am still not convinced the vision:m uses more colors. the side by side comparisons show it is brighter and oversaturated while the ipod is undersaturated, but that does not mean it has more colors. i simply don't think that should be something it is advertised with, since it won't be tested. talk about video resolutions, video formats, customizeable backgrounds, playlist creating, album art browsing, searching, and anything else we can see it has that the ipod does not, but don't base your praise on more colors unless you can prove it has them and it makes the experience better. no one even discussed the number of colors before creative decided to stick it into their presentation. then they crank up the saturation on the screen (like the tv's at best buy) and bingo, everyone talks about more colors. before that, all the color players had more colors than the ipod. that was rarely (if ever) important or mentioned. i realise some people might prefer a bigger player, but the sleekness of the ipod is (in my opinion) one of its major draws. i'm curious why it is so much bigger than the ipod. the battery life is the same for audio (my hunch is video is longer because of the formats supported) and its not even replaceable.

so basically, you are accusing creative of lying about their players specs. agreed?

 

[zip22]

not really. saying the display is capapble of 256k colors may be 100% true, but they just may not be utilized (as i stated before).

 

[PixelSquish]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zip22 not really. saying the display is capapble of 256k colors may be 100% true, but they just may not be utilized (as i stated before).

yeah.

i cant believe that didnt occur to me before.

creative spent the money to put in hardware that could display 256k colours, then said **** it.

zip you are pure genius!

 

[zip22]

i guess i was wrong about things being more normal.

heres the thing, we don't know how much more expensive a 256k screen was. it could be $0.02 more than a 64k for 256k, so they would get that but then the video chip is $0.10 more to display 256k or it would use up 15% more battery life to display the 256k. there are many reasons why they would get something and not necessarily utilize it. look at the ipod. the chip they used for video supports higher resolutions, but they limited it. why? i don't know, but the vision:m reportedly has some trouble with higher resolution files. hiccups every so often (only confirmed by 1 review and a thread on creative's site, but it hasn't seen a lot of people's hands yet)

 

[phatty]

This is by far one of the best threads i've come across in a looooonnngggg while here at head-fi.

Quote:

The battery too is not as good as 5G iPod.

Oh I didn't realize that... I could have sworn rated and realized battery life was greater on the vision:m?

Quote:

its also pretty chunky.

Quote:

because of huge size

From the same guys who were probably slogging some other player when the 3/4g iPods came out which are basically the same thickness give or take a couple of mm.

Quote:

a reputation of not going with the flow.

Except to go with the iPod flow... they're like bellybuttons, everyone's got one. Ever try to be original and daring, break out of the "iPod" mold, not conform, tell others who ask "hey is that an iPod?", no... the same clown from dapreview... yawn....

Quote:

saying the display is capapble of 256k colors may be 100% true, but they just may not be utilized

Riiiiiight... in my best Dr. Evil voice... that video I watched the other day with the Vision:M utilizes a full 256k color range but Creative engineered its 256k display to only display 64k colors.



oooppppssss... forgot, back to lurkdom for another 6 mos. or so.

 

[mister__big]

Quote:

Originally Posted by idiotekniQues yeah. i cant believe that didnt occur to me before. creative spent the money to put in hardware that could display 256k colours, then said **** it. zip you are pure genius!

You're obviously not very well-informed with regards to technology. There have been examples where hardware companies PURPOSELY disable, or "nerf" their own hardware. One instance is when nVidia and ATi made graphics cards that came with 128MB installed but with 64MB physically disabled. "OMG!!! nVidia and ATi is stoopid!!! Why put in 128MB when they're going to only use 64MB!!!" you say.

I'm not saying Creative nerfed their own player in any way, just pointing out that insulting someone else when YOU'RE the clueless one makes you seem like the fool instead.

 

[zip22]

phatty, the ipod 3g was 15.7mm (10/15GB) or 18.7mm (30GB). the ipod 4g was 14.6mm(20GB?) or 17.6mm(40GB/60GB?)
the vision:m is 18.6

my statement would have been clarified if you had quoted the next sentence.

 

[apnk]

How about someone just buy a Vision to put this debate to an end?

Not me because I could care less.

 

[PixelSquish]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mister__big You're obviously not very well-informed with regards to technology. There have been examples where hardware companies PURPOSELY disable, or "nerf" their own hardware. One instance is when nVidia and ATi made graphics cards that came with 128MB installed but with 64MB physically disabled. "OMG!!! nVidia and ATi is stoopid!!! Why put in 128MB when they're going to only use 64MB!!!" you say. I'm not saying Creative nerfed their own player in any way, just pointing out that insulting someone else when YOU'RE the clueless one makes you seem like the fool instead.

take a deep breath.

i am well aware that companies disable features. for example, in the canon digital slr series, the old digital rebel had many features of the better 10d but were firmware disabled. some people firmware hacked to enable them.

that is where in your haste to defend your friend zip. you have failed to differentiate a VERY IMPORTANT POINT. so sit down and listen.

however, CANON DID NOT ADVERTISE THOSE FEATURES AS BEING PART OF THAT PRODUCT .THEREFORE, again take a deep breath, MY ACCUSATION STANDS> CREATIVE WOULD HAVE TO BE LYING about the 256k being enabled. sure it is possible that a company includes better hardware then disables them, but they generally DO NOT ADVERTISE THEM AS PART OF THE SPECS. if they do , then that is ****ed up. however, i am asking ZIP22 if he is willing to accuse CREATIVE of LYING, since they DID include that as part of the specs.

here is creatives specs, u can see the 256K+ colour is in there.

http://www.creative.com/products/pro...ct=14331&nav=1


also, id LOVE if you could post me ATi ADVERTISING their product as using X amount of ram while much less was actually used as you have used as your example.

thanks.

i am pretty sure the only one not very well informed here is you.

because i follow the graphics card world fairly close, and if ATI actually ADVERTISED a graphics card as having DOUBLE the ram available as actually was, it woulda been all over the net.

sure, it is common knowledge that companies send out a product with disabled features, and sell it as a lower class product, but THEY DO NOT CLAIM TO HAVE THE DISABLED FEATURES ENABLED.
a very big difference between your point and mine.

happy holidays!

edit: oh i forgot to say, happy holidays FOOL!

 

[Taphil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zip22 do you believe everything you read? just because the screen is capable of that many colors does not mean they are utilized. for all we know, apple and creative could use the same screen (probably) and the same video chip. creative just listed the nicer spec of the screen while apple listed the truer spec of the video chip.

I think you're on the losing end of this argument. Do you even listen to yourself type?

First, if Apple used a 262K screen, they'd say so because it's another spec people can use to compare against in their favor, or at the very least to relieve disfavor on the iPod.

Second, videos come encoded in 24-bit 16.7M colors. Of course any video decoding chip is going to support all those colors. What is else is the chip supposed to do - say, "Hmm, I don't support that shade of red, I think I'll make it this shade of red; and I don't like that shade of green, but this one I do."

Third, looking at the iPod's Broadcom BCM2722 video decoder spec sheet, it actually does support 24-bit 16.7M colors for video decoding and output to the LCD. The LCD is the limiting factor.

And like someone already said, how does using a 262K screen and hardware more than capable of that to display 64K color really make sense.

Finally, no one here has actually seen the two together in real life. Even if the screen is better, I doubt anyone is going to use the 262K vs 64K as the only factor in choosing one over the other.

 

[cerbie]

mister__big, yes, some products are crippled, but nothing like how you say; for you own example is incorrect, and what you are clearly thinking of is something alive and well and perfectly reasonable.

In video cards, there are three parts, aside from the GPU, that really have costs:
1. RAM
2. PCB
3. Cooling

What they cut was not the amount of RAM (by itself, that is), but how many channels are available. By doing so, they can use a smaller and simpler PCB, and save a good bit of money. On some cards, they would use the same PCB (usually when they have a lot of extras), and just not put all the RAM on there. In both cases, the full amount installed is advertised (and that is what is important, as far as this discussion goes). What they do, regularly, is try to sell 64-bit and 128-bit cards as being as good as their 128-bit and 256-bit cousins, which they just plain aren't (this is one reason they emphasize RAM amount so much, too--it's like selling w/ GHz numbers).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taphil Second, videos come encoded in 24-bit 16.7M colors. Of course any video decoding chip is going to support all those colors. What is else is the chip supposed to do - say, "Hmm, I don't support that shade of red, I think I'll make it this shade of red; and I don't like that shade of green, but this one I do."

Actually, once decoded, they could do just that. The LCD itself is only getting however-many bits it can handle per colo (6 for 262k), after all, so it may have to do that before the chip goes and tells the LCD what to display. However, it will either cut the bits out, or round it. It's also possible the chip might not have the oomph to do full color, and cut out bits early to save space. This, however, is unlikely, and it would be on the fraudulent side to advertise using the higher of the two numbers if that was done. So, zip22 is still losing...