Last Saturday I ventured over to the Apple Store to check out the new iPods. While I was impressed by size of both the Classic and 3G Nano, I wasn't particularly "wowed" by the new interface. The main menu, now in split screen form, seemed too crowded for my tastes, and Coverflow was a bit sluggish with bringing up album covers.

Of course, these are just my initial impressions after spending a mere half-hour with the players. For a more in-depth analysis, I turn your attention to the reviews of iLounge, and ars technica. Both are filled to the brim with information, but two things stand out from the rest. First the good news. According to iLounge, the new iPods' battery life are remarkable:

3G iPod Nano

Audio: 30 hours, 21 minutes (24 hours rated)
Video: 5 hours, 47 minutes (5 hours rated)

80 GB iPod Classic

Audio: 36 hours, 16 minutes (30 hours rated)
Video: 6 hours, 46 minutes (5 hours rated)

160 GB iPod Classic

Audio: 58 hours, 14 minutes (40 hours rated)
Video: 9 hours, 28 minutes (7 hours rated)

Impressive numbers huh? I certainly think they are. Now onto the bad news. Ars Technica found the Classic performed much slower than its predecessor. Boot times were more than twice as long for the Classic, and navigating to a song took about 45% longer.




The verdict is still out on whether these findings can be replicated. If I were shopping for an iPod Classic, it'd be hard to justify the player's strength in battery life, when its interface is seemingly lacking so much in performance.

Thanks zip22

---

Like all this juicy data we're providing you? Even if you don't, we have just a few more numbers to show ya. In last week's poll we asked you which iPod (if any) you were going to buy. As I expected, most voted for the iPod touch (28.85%), followed closely by the Classic (22.61%), and then the 3G Nano (8.68%). Another 5.61% couldn't decide what to buy.

See Complete Results