Magic_man12 wrote:2) try running or skiing with a discman (haha like that would even fit in a pocket).. it will skip
I run with my Discman. Doesn't skip. And if you are listening to music while, skiing, you are stupid. Skiiing is definately one of those pass-times that require more than just your sense of sight, in addition to people that might be yelling "LOOK OUT THERE'S A BEAR RIDING AN AVALANCH BEHIND YOU".
Magic_man12 wrote:3) SIZE.. if it wont fit in my pocket - im not walking around with it...
Most CD Players have a handy little device that lets you latch it onto your belt! Wow!
Magic_man12 wrote:MP3 players beat discmans is almost all respects. thats why discmans are becoming more rare. They are cheap because they are an almost obsolete technology.
MP3 PLayers beat Discmans in no respects except that you don't have to carry CDs. Anything an MP3 player can accomplish, a CD Player can accomplish, except at a $15 price tag (oh, and maybe $10 for 20 blanks CDs). They are cheap because different technology which is "cooler" came out.
Magic_man12 wrote:yeah and I can go get a VCR and VHS tapes for cheap and record my own stuff..... doesn't mean im going to....MP3 players simply out-do discmans..
Well unless you have a $300 DVD recorder, the most useless technology, yes a VHS is the only logical way to record things off of TV. MP3 PLayers don't out-do Discmans. Give your MP3 player a virus or dunk it in water, all your music is gone. Discmans can't get a virus, and if they get ruine din water, you'll be forced to fork over $10 for a new one.
You see, the reason why DVDs have replaced VHS tapes is because DVDs accomplish things that VHS Tapes cannot. DVDs hold more data, six hours at a very high quality. Also, DVDs are cheaper. Whereas MP3 PLayer vs. CD player, the MP3 is more expensive and does only one thing better than the CD player.
wdy wrote:Damn holding all those CD's.. can't carry in your hands... along with that discman your going to need a European handbag...
I don't know about you, but I really dont' have trouble holding five CDs =D. So for the walk to my counter, and the walk to my car which has a CD player, I can handle 5 CDs with little effort.
atom wrote:You find me a CD that I don't have to buy at RadioShack or Best Buy *COUGH*RIP OFF STORES*COUGH* with 200 songs and I'll gladly buy it. Oh, and nice math.
Um, anywhere that sells blank CDs. Any blank CD has the capacity of holding 200 songs at 256 something-or-another. Office Max has a sale right now for a 50 pack of CD-Rs for $9.99
Here is a big rant against the iPod
"Instead of continuing to question your values, I'm going to flat out say it - you don't need an iPod. They are a waste of your (parents') money. You don't need one, and you should be ashamed of yourself for being naive enough to think that you do. Every day I see people talking about how much they want an iPod. It reminds me of listening to kids on my old 4th grade playground saying, "I want a ZX Super Actionman so bad!" No, you didn't need the toy then and you don't need an iPod now.
What is an iPod? It's a little piece of metal that you plug headphones into and listen to music. I remember when I was ten we had a device that achieved the same goal - a Discman. You can buy them nowadays for... ohhh.. somewhere around the proximity of zero dollars. Discmans worked fine back in the day. Now that there is better technology, all of a sudden Discmans are worthless. But why? Discmans never got worse, technology got better. Worthless technology. The concept is to listen to music with no strings attached. Discmans accomplish this just fine.
The iPod is capable of holding ten thousand songs. Who needs that much? Of the thirteen million iPod owners in the world, how many have maxed out the space? Only 1425. Merely fourteen hundred people have successfully filled their iPod. And strangely enough, all of these kids were in the same room at the same time. It was at the annual GROTEFP (Geekiest Rejects on the Entire Fucking Planet) convention.
So you like iPods because they're smaller than CD players? That's reasonable, but how much is it worth to you to shave off a few precious inches?
The iPod ends up being ten square inches smaller than the average portable CD player. That means a total of about three inches squared.
It's only three inches. That's tiny, and for three hundred dollars? Penis enlargment pills offer you an extra three inches, and they're only forty or fifty bucks. Now honestly, would you rather have three inches less of audio player or a Discman and huge dick? Size won't even matter anymore because you can just hang the player from your enormous schlong.
Now that the size issue is settled, perhaps a Discman isn't the answer because you require more than 3 seconds of anti-skip. Oh wait! Discmans nowadays don't ever skip! Ever. That can't be what makes up for the drastic difference in money.
The iPod can hold 10,000 songs. The Discman uses CDs which hold twenty songs. Perhaps you don't want to carry 100 CDs everywhere you go. Oh wait! Discmans play mp3s now! That's 200 songs per CD! And unlike an iPod that maxes out at 10,000, Discmans have a removable source. So if we have 200 songs per CD and potentially infinite CDs, that's.. umm.. 200 infinity of songs? Let's put this into perspective.
iPods have rechargable batteries, but so does Ace Hardware store. A bunch of new technology and impressive statistics really don't mean much. When it comes down to it, an iPod isn't that great. So why could it possibly cost so much more money than Discmans, mini disk players, and cheaper mp3 players?
By buying an iPod, you're buying into a trend. You are paying hundreds of dollars to be a part of the new big thing and attempting to buy approval. This means one of two things: 1) you don't already have a big thing, or 2) you're stuck at the pre-adolescent stage of thinking having what someone want makes them your friend. Get a clue and get something else with your parent's Christmas fund." -ninjapirate.com