http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/

soo... 1 GB is better than 6? or even the lesser 4?...>.> ok.

i never said that 1gb is better than 6. you simply did not understand the reason why i was not able to purchase a mini, or a regular pod or a photo.

ah, you're in that smae boat as me... no money! It sucks to be this way, but it's a way none the less. =P?

i ended up getting a little 256 Mb MuVo for like $100. i have to change the music more often, but it's the easiest to change the music in out of any mp3 player i've ever known.

and if i'm tired of my music, i can listen to the radio too! =P

yeah, i'm an mp3 l0ser.

Don't, and I mean DON'T, get an iPOD. I've got a 30 GB Creative NOMAD Jukebox Zen Xtra for only 200 bucks; and it rocks! You can put both MP3s and WMAs on there.

Do the math (not quoting the retarded Atari Jaguar system):

15 GB iPod: $299
30 GB NOMAD: $239 (I got a rebate, which was why it cost less).
40 GB NOMAD: $269

Less is more. Plus the sound is so crisp and clear. So what if you can add more unneeded crap to an iPod (who needs a bloody Photo thingy on their MP3 player, anyways; or a radio [MP3 players were meant to escape from radio Walkmen])?

Anyways, it worth checking out for a much better alternative.

And for your MP3/WMA needs, go with Soulseek. It's free, and you can find mostly anything you want on there.

[quote]You can put both MP3s and WMAs on there.[/quote]

WMAs should not exist.

[quote="omnistry"](who needs a bloody Photo thingy on their MP3 player, anyways;[/quote]
For jerking on the go.

[quote="StevenB130"][quote="omnistry"](who needs a bloody Photo thingy on their MP3 player, anyways;[/quote]
For jerking on the go.[/quote]

thrice makes a good point here.

[quote="StevenB130"]
For jerking on the go.[/quote]

True; but wouldn't your iPod get a bit sticky after one too many uses?

Everyone: [size=150]EWWW![/size]

Napkin.

[quote="Catfish"][quote]You can put both MP3s and WMAs on there.[/quote]

WMAs should not exist.[/quote]

wmas are gods gift to mankind. long live the wma!

honestly, though... the files are only very slightly larger than mp3s and contain the same information. wmas aren't all that bad.

[quote]honestly, though... the files are only very slightly larger than mp3s and contain the same information. wmas aren't all that bad.[/quote]

It's not an issue of size or quality. Why, when there exists an already acceptable and widely used file type would stubborn developers insist on using a different one. In an age where digital information is becoming the norm we should be striving for universal compatibility. Why would you use WMAs as opposed to mp3s or m4as?

If they contain the same info and are bigger, who needs/wants them? See? Yes. There's no point to them.

As far as compressed music goes, I like AAC way better than MP3. I rip most of my CDs at AAC and it sounds fine to me, although I don't find the quality of >192 MP3 to be acceptable. As far as I know, the iPod is the only MP3 player that plays AAC, and that's reason enough for me to get one over a nomad.

uhm... wmas were around far before mp3s.... although the wma may have come about after the first mp file type... mpa? mp1? i don't know...

anyways, wmas are just more convenient for me because my nero gives me errors when i rip to mp3...