200gb Hack for iPod Nano
romka1 writes "For people who think their Nano doesn't have enought space for their music there is a hack walkthrough to get 200 gigs on your Nano. Warning some assembly required" For some reason this tickled my funny bone this morning. Enjoy.
In all seriousness, size is the only reason I haven't bought an iPod. I bought one in 2003 and gave it away by the end of the year to a coworker. I don't want to just carry a few songs with me. I want to carry my entire collection. And not just MP3s and AACs, but OGGs, too. Theoretically, I would like to store and listen to all of my music on a single device. I don't want to store 100% of my collection on an external drive, plug it into my laptop, connect the ipod to my laptop and copy of 20% of my collection at any one time.
So as soon as these suckers hit around 300gbs, I'll be buying one.
My gmail account has some 827MB worth of crap on it. I'm filling it at pretty close to the growing rate.
Remember that 1GB HD that you'd never fill up?
The 32MB of RAM that was workstation levels?
The fast 14.4k modem?
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
http://ohlssonvox.8k.com/fdd_raid.htm
Sorry someone beat you to it.
Me too, when I submitted it a week ago....
Ipod Nano 200GB mod 16:57 Wednesday 05 October 2005 Rejected
Just junk food for thought...
Thanks Google Calc:n +dollars+per+MB
http://www.google.com/search?q=%2490+%2F+200+GB+i
-DF
The old Archos players are bulky, but they do go to 120GB when you drop in the latest Seagate 2.5" drives. Pretty sweet. It's nice being able to add $100GB to your DAP for only a hundred bucks or so.
It's just a pity that their expansion has to stop here because their disk controller is not LBA and only reads up to the ~127GB limit.
Da Blog
Does anybody else get tired of the seemingly interchangeable way that bytes(B) and bits(b) are used by many people?
>Would this be a bad time to mention that all digital audio is by definition lossey?
Wait. What makes "digital" lossy but non-digital non-lossy?
Pick any analog method of recording and duplication. Its lossy. Now toss in playback equipment, speakers, ears, etc.
I don't see how your neo-luddite comment applies nor why it should be modded up.
Arguably, digital methods are non-lossy over time considering current analog recordings (tapes, LPs) over time simply disintegrate causing all sorts of loss, while digital data can be reproduced without loss over generations and onto different digital media thus avoiding the aging problem. Copy that Office 2000 CD all you like, after the 8th generation you arent suddenly going to lose spell checker. Same with digital audio. Now copy that audio tape 8 times and tell me its not lossy.