View Full Version : X7 compettor....the Zune
zaphanathpaneah
10-03-2007, 14:29
It seems odd that the Redmond Giant have see the value for an 80gb music player but Cowon has not seen the value in it. The feature set and interface is very nice. Microsoft has been forth coming with information about it for months. Cowon...does not get it. Cowon knows only 4 things, delays, hight prices, more delays and higher prices.
javi0084
10-03-2007, 16:40
So true [laugh] about Cowon, although their devices are of high quality. One thing I like about the new Zune is the ability to synch your music through WiFi, too bad it wont support Ubuntu. [no]
zaphanathpaneah
10-03-2007, 21:55
Make a request to the great linux gods on the net and see what comes up.
Portach King
10-04-2007, 07:00
No ogg or flac support...
I'm sorry but that is a big factor as far as I'm concerned.
The UI is beautiful though
Most of my music is in MP3, though I do have some OGG. Is OGG support possible through Rockbox? I wouldn't mind getting a zune then. I like the other features of the zune. The screen is pretty nice, and a high resolution. 250 bucks for 80 gigs, thats pretty good. What I'm really waiting for is the battery life. If the battery life were good, and it doesn't require software to transfer music, that would be gg right there.
RockBox has every possible feature, incl. OGG. However, there is no Rockbox for any of the Zunes. It is not even listed yet as "in development". C.f. rockbox forum (http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?topic=6848.0). If you want to use RockBox with a good HDD player, you'll need to find an out-of-production player, like iRiver h1x0 or iaudio x5 somewhere (e.g. ebay). But, as a matter of fact, probably Zune is neither completely hopeless to be implemented in the future given the number of owners... nothing's guaranteed though. Or hope for the best: an x7 and an implementation for it.
I had a zune, all it did was mess up my organized music collection.
HiMDforMe
10-04-2007, 16:55
yeah, the new zune looks pretty nice actually. i agree, it must have good life of 20+ hours to be good. i thought before i heard zunes were a no go for rockbox due to the processor it uses or something like that. where most, if not all, of the currently rockbox'd players have the same type of processor.
It's not true that they have the same processor, not even processors of the same architecture, but it is true that only 3 main architecures are supported (I think sh, 68k, and arm). The 68k is probably the most mature, but arm has the most ports. However, it seems that something might happen even with the encrypted-firmware ipod, thus who knows, something might happen with the zunes too; maybe not soon though: even Zune1 is not yet supported or planned to be.
afaik
I think rockbox is going to die in a year or two.
New players have tons of features, slick interface, video in popular formats... rockbox is way behind.
Rockbox, as we wish x7 will be, is much more professional than any other firmware. It's certainly not as shiny, classy, cool as those of the new player, but those who want to have the most out of their dap, all the current FW are far behind. You just simply can't name any non-patented (the effect of which can replaced by something standard, like BBE) audio feature that RockBox does not have, but any other does. But the list is long about the converse whichever current FW you take.
globiboulga
10-05-2007, 15:56
You have to say, both Microsoft and Apple have delivered solid HHD player this fall. They still suffer some key issues (which for me are the software side and the codecs support - the audio can be amped).
It is true that if rockbox was to be ported on any of these players before the arrival of the new X5 (if there is any - apparently Classic make up for 10% of sales of ipod, which is not a good sign), I would buy either of these since to me the best thing about Rockbox is that it removes the requirement for a synch software.
Rockbox is about choice and freedom, which is why is will never die because of its features. If it dies, it will be simply because:
1 - people have to donnate time and players to get things going, and this is not always easy
2 - manufacturer are deliberately trying to prevent rockbox to do what they want to do (firmware protection)
This is a shame. But I suppose it does avoid manufacturers the horror stories (and possible class actions) of having stupid noobs yelling because they have bricked their player. That's one of the marvelous effect of the sue you mentality developped in the US.
The DAP world is one of those shiny example where it does not make sense to have taste or sound expectation. unfortunately development costs are so high, that I am not sure the same will happen as in the hi-fi world: a large number of small high quality product manufacturers. Marantz tried with Rio and failed. Sony is struggling. Kenwood is not bold enough (and follow the same path as Apple/MS - small number of codecs and synch software). Archos has its niche. There is obviously Cowon, but I think they've simply given up on the audio/musical experience side to go mainstream and video (anyone who tells me that you can do audio when you don't offer large capacity for lossless files is in denial).
The ideal would be a manufacturer who'd let rockbox do the software side, but with help to get the GUI professional looking, just producing a high audio quality / large capacity player. But I am dreaming.
Well, the problem with simply amping is that you can get good quality sound only if you by-pass the low quality parts, c.f. iMod. But in that case you won't be able to get all the features of the FW, since they are done by those by-passed parts, e.g. EQ. On the other hand, according to recent reviews, the new iPod has better audio quality than its predecessors.
Also, I can't see any improvement in the encryption. It only makes things slower. And the less help they give, the more bricked players they end up with. I would consider a clear statement of no guarantee for 3rd party software to be more effective. Yet, I am not the company and I am not the expert.
zaphanathpaneah
10-06-2007, 22:24
Guys
I hate to say it but you are all right. The zune is NOT perfect and like the ipod, creative, iRiver, samsung and the Cowon players, they all suffer form a lackluster of a complete feature set. I guess for me unless i get a nice toshiba laptop, (the only way get to ALL the features you would ever want) i have to find a device that does at least one or two things really well and be satisfied with it. I think it is asinine for me to want all possible features and still have great battery life and good sound. I think not even Cowon can create such a device. But ...... i guess between an ipod and a zune, i'll take the zune anyday.
globiboulga
10-07-2007, 06:18
Well, between two evils, I would always choose the most popular. The Apple has bigger HDD, longer battery life and the community is so large that the likelyhood of it being hacked it that much higher (bypassing iTunes and open source firmware)
a point well made globiboulga.
but still, I just thought of what winnyec said, if they're trying for firmwire protection, then shouldn't they make their player do what people want it to do? I think thats pretty damn rediclous of the makers to spend time on a protection program when they can just use that time spent to make their OWN firmwire better. get where this is going?
its now the one thing I think of when buying my next mp3 (my own D2 makes me question that, why should we sit though the aonnying bugs, inconsentes and buggy new fetures just to try to get it want we want it to do) and I swear, this video suuport is a serious step behind- not forward
I can do nothing but agree with you Tac21...It would be soo much better is an employee from cowon spended 30min a week here at iaudiophile just to check what people want to be implemented in their new firmware. But i still dont think that we should complain too much, most of the players out there (other brands) dont even release new firmware as much as COWON does.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.