since when is windows media superior too AAC ?

oh boy... OH BOY... you have put live flamebait on yer site... WMA is the SUPERIOR format? pfff. gimme a break!

oh and by the way, you're /.'ed.

BOOM.

I prefer ogg vorbis. I want to be able to practice my rights to copy music that i PAY for. I see nothing on music laels that say that I am 'renting' it.

It isn't. ACC offers much more than WMA including more accurate sound reproduction at the same bit rate, and not discarding about 1/5 of the frequencies we can hear to reduce space (*) and (and give the illusion of better compression) like mp3 and wma do.

http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/ http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html (*) http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020712/2u4u-06.html

Shame on you! You had a somewhat noteworthy piece of information to pass out. What do you do? You insert what is so obviously your lack of understanding of codecs and specificity to differentiate yourself from an automated teletype.

If you're going to interject your thoughts on one codec versus another, couldn't you at least back it up? Superior how? Clarity? Losslessness? Compression? Or is this just more ambiguous hype to push the DRM "solution". Because we're all thinking the latter, and about replacing you with that teletype.

Lame ending Pal.

how incredibly idiotic...wma better than aac? what idiot wrote this piece?

Superior Windows Media Audio (WMA) format, yea thats a good one. I would call this more of a troll then flamebait. Can I ask what technical specifications you have to prove your statement?

wma is only "superior" because alot of nukes behind the keyboard dont know or care what format they're using. "superior", hahaha, keep tokin' it up on that crack pipe.

I commend Mr. Thurrott on his professional journalism. Now perhaps he'll return the favor and commend my wonderful sarcasm. Or my clever circular logic.

superior?

hahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahah

Yeah, and I suppose that the MUSHRA tests done by Hydrogenaudio and the like are supposed to mean nothing. Most independent tests show AAC to clearly lead the pack at 128kbps or higher for CBR applications. WMA is good for voice and folk music and that's about it.

I think WMA sounds better then AAC, but of course anything not created by Apple would be viewed as inferior in the eyes of an Apple user.

Superior?!?!?

My god...

Superior... my goodness... ahahahahahahahha

You Mac-jerks are just geloush that MS is so good! Everyone else knows that, witch is why your not selling as may $10000 computers that are slower than my $300 PC. Your so lame! WMA rules and this Paul guy is so smart for knowing it.

Just in case the reader hasn't caught the gist of the reader commentary.......

WMA superior to AAC????

bwah hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

snicker snicker snicker

tee hee hee

He's Right!!!! I DID hear it HERE first!

WMA's superiority!! I shall have to remember where to look for cutting edge news and knowledge!

The superior WMA? I'll take your info with a grain of salt. If you said the proprietary WMA, or something along those lines, than I might believe you.

This is not a Microsoft v. Apple thing, it's an WMA v. AAC thing.

AAC was not developed by Apple, it was simply adopted by them. AAC is a standard like MP3. And as so many people here are saying (in one way or another), AAC has continually been shown to be superior to almost every format (note the almost, I know it hasn't everytime), while WMA has continually been shown to be inferior to almost every format (same disclaimer).

More DRM? No thanks.

It's reasonable that HP would look to add WMA support to the iPod if they plan to bundle the device with Windows machines. It seems as though the task should be trivial for an entity such as HP, especially given the fact that WMA support is already in open source.

It is quite unreasonable to suggest that WMA is a superior format as compared to Apple's audio format, but here we are comparing apples and oranges. Remember that their Windows-geared iPod supports only the MP3 format, which is horrific even when compared to WMA.

So, by adding WMA to iPod-Windows, HP will be introducing a superior format compared to that which is available on that platform. Comparison against the Apple format is unfair, as that format is not supported by Apple on Windows-hooked iPod machines.

Apple's iTunes service is the BEST one. They don't need to lock people into it to get them to use it. Supporting WMA will let people who already purchased WMA music buy an iPod. It will also make it look like they have choice, even to move to another player if they buy music in WMA. Apple isn't Microsoft, they don't need to block out other choices to succeed.

"ou Mac-jerks are just geloush that MS is so good! Everyone else knows that, witch is why your not selling as may $10000 computers that are slower than my $300 PC. Your so lame! WMA rules and this Paul guy is so smart for knowing it."

I usually dont reply to trolls but felt this matter must be debated. I own an AthlonXP 1900 with a Nvidia GeForce 4 that currently runs w2k, it USED to run XP Pro. I also own an iBook G3 300 w/288mbb RAM, and a 4 gig HD. I recently installed Panther 10.3 on this little clamshell iBook. It runs quite smooth, although I can complain about the boot time. I cannot see XP Pro running on these specs with this type of smoothness with the interface. My first glance of panther after using XP made me in awe. As we all know, '99 clamshells came witth a 4mb ATI rage Pro card. Don'tt get me wrong. I love my GeForce 4, but the color, and speed produced on the ibook are supperior. I have used many OS in my time, From SCO, BSD, Linux, Windows, and MacOS. The hardware on a Mac IS supperior. PC hardware is cheap. I own a computer repair store, I know, people buy what is marketed to them, like sheep. iTunes is a good example. Make a fine product, make it only available to a certain crowd, then all of a sudden release it to everyone. Boom. 25,000,000 users. what would happen if Apple would realease their GUI to run on darwin to the PC market? That would end M$s OS monopoly. One reason this has not happened is the fact that M$ owns stock in apple, and can help push decisions eitther way. Strange world we live in huh?

I don't know is WMA is better or worse then apple's format. I do know that Paul Thurrott make his living as Microsoft's "independent" reporter. If Microsoft was a religion, Paul would be the pope, swammi, medicine man or Yahway-ben-yahway to god (mr. gates).

in response to: I think WMA sounds better then AAC, but of course anything not created by Apple would be viewed as inferior in the eyes of an Apple user.

Nick -January 11, 2004

I think that AAC sounds better than (see, atleast I used proper grammar) WMA, but of course anything created by Apple would be viewed as crap in the eyes of a blind Microsoft idiot.

Just for the record, Microsoft owned a smaller percentage of shares in Apple at one time to help make a deal with Apple. Those shares have since been sold. Microsoft does not have any say in what decisions Apple makes. Apple just relies on their own hardware for sales and the stability of the hardware being under their control. They choose not to market OS X for PCs.

Yet again Paul Thurott proves that he neither understands technology in general or Apple in specific. Adding closed, inferior proprietary codecs to the iPod, the best selling Digital Audio Player on the market, isn't in anyone's interest except Microsoft's.

One thinks that Paul would be better off reminding us yet again that he runs one of the "most visited" Microsoft oriented websites on the net (Allegedly) and as such has a vested interest in everything coming up Microsoft.

Stay off the Apple news and "speculation" Paul, you embarrass both yourself and your readers when you inevitably get it wrong. And if perhaps you might run into fellow "Apple expert" Rob Enderle in the halls, maybe at Redmond the next time both of you are on a press junket, or at the next three PDC's as you both wait for Longhorn to ship "real-soon-now", please pass on the same request.

Regards, Mark.

Hey, either Paul is right, or he's not. It sure seems like he might be wrong about this, it's pretty difficult to find anyone else pitching this story as a likelihood. So, have a couple of laughs, give it a few months, and see if it comes true. Who cares ? Either Paul got a scoop on a story that no one else has, or he's completely out to lunch and stirring up traffic for his site. Proof is in the pudding.

Lincoln wrote: "Remember that their Windows-geared iPod supports only the MP3 format, which is horrific even when compared to WMA."

Firstly, Windows-geared iPod supports WAV, MP3 and AAC. Personally I use a combination of MP3 and AAC.

Ok the windows version of the iPod currently supports, MP3, AAC, AIFF and others. So the WMA would not be superior ot all of those. I use AAC on my iPOD via my Windows box as the default. But some of my stuff is MP3 (legacy), I think WMA and OGG support would be good on the iPod as that would complete the common codecs.

OK, here's a great scientific comparison of AAC, WMA, and MP3, and its all very easy to understand:

http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020712/2u4u-04.html

The results: AAC wins. MP3 loses only because it dampens throughout the frequency range. WMA comes in 2nd, but it chops at a much lower frequency than either AAC or MP3. Looks like it gets 2nd place only because its freely available to 95% of the computer users (M$ supporters). Not convincing if you ask me. When asked if he was concerned that Apple only has less than 5% of the market share, Steve Jobs responds by saying that its a larger share than BMW and Mercedes combined have in the auto industry. I love it!

Your Comments (required):

Hey Paul, I hope you read this. I'm an avid reader of your site (http://www.winsupersite.com) and, as an owner of both a Mac and a PC, would be very interested in hearing your rebuttal to all these comments that have been made refering to your "superior WMA" comment. 'Superior to what?' comes to mind, as well as your thoughts on DRM contained within WMA files as compared to Apple's use of the AAC codec. Thanks a bunch!

What's the point in making an iPod that supports WMA, when the only software App that it interfaces with (iTunes) doesn't support it? If HP/Apple are going to come out with an iPod that supports WMA, then either Apple will come out with iTunes that supports WMA, or instead allow the iPod to interface as a normal drive, with drag-and-drop copying from within the OS.

Superior? Are you sniffing glue? In what parallel universe is WMA superior to ANYTHING?

Nick, Apple didn't create AAC, dolby did. Think before you speak.

Its only superior, because they can integrate it with windows.

Bla bla windows gimps, bla bla newbies.. As usual, there is no thought pattern in the popular stories.. but it least it gets them eyeballs on the page.

WMA is superior because it has DRM. The consumer isn't the one buying DRM. The media producers are. Because of this, WMA is superior. New content will show up on DRM'd versions first.

So many people whine and bitch about fair usage rights, when it's really a cry out against the monopoly on copyright created through congressional lobbying.

The cathedral and the bazaar only works for utilitarian based content. It plainly falls apart when applied to entertainment based content. Even the founding fathers knew this, but nobody ever bothers to research the purpose of copyright and why it was created. The arguments being rased today are not new.

I sometimes joke that "I work for the dark side" because I've also been a linux and GPL fan since 1.2.03 (mmm slackware). The joke is because of my realization that DRM is a necessary evil.

Copyright is ment to be a loan from the public domain to create incentive for production of high quality works. Think sixty million dollar hollywood film & everybody has fiber & dvd burners. Why produce the movie at all when it's just gonna land on KazAa a day after the master DVD is finished?

Copyright protects the quality of entertainment based content (while harming utilitarian, factual based content). Since content is only information, which can be limitlessly copied, having high quality content benefits all. DRM is just as necessary for entertainment based content as the GPL is necessary for utilitarian based content.

HAA!!! WMA "Superior" hahahaha man if I had to use WMA stuff I'd go insane literally. This world would be so much better if people could build their products around good standard formats instead of adding support for Microsoft crap that they shove down our throats with the "we made it so it must be superior" attitude.

AAC is so much better than WMA, this is just another Microsoft apologist preaching to us that "MS products are cool" at the alter of Bill Gates. Just because people chose AAC over WMA doesn't mean all for Apple, we just prefeer quality formats over crap.

"what would happen if Apple would realease their GUI to run on darwin to the PC market? That would end M$s OS monopoly. One reason this has not happened is the fact that M$ owns stock in apple, and can help push decisions eitther way. Strange world we live in huh?"

I think another reason why they are afraid of putting it on x86 processers is because when other companies were allowed to make Apple hardware, apple suffered a lot, and now they'll only run the MacOS on Apple made computers. A shame, really... I'd like to build my own PC and install OS X on it, but it might never happen.

WMA is superior to AAC in the same sense that tuberculosis is superior to the common cold. </grafy>

Grow up. I own a Mac and a PC, both are useful for different purposes, I wouldn't even try to run Photoshop or do video editing in Windows, but I wouldn't bother to buy expensive apple hardware for corporate morons who can use an e-machine and be happy. AAC is clearly not made by Apple and WMA is clearly not popular because it is made by Microsoft, but WHO CARES, the fact is that it would be nice to have a player that supported 4 major filetypes. The veracity of this posting is not clear and as I think about it is seems that Apple would have no trouble incorporating WMA into iTunes as I get an update for it about every 3 weeks as it is.

Well, WMA is a lossless format, maybe he was refering to that. I personally use AAC on PC. Obviously iTunes will eventually support WMA, and maybe even OGG. (Look in your iTunes.exe icons)

"Just for the record, Microsoft owned a smaller percentage of shares in Apple at one time to help make a deal with Apple. Those shares have since been sold. Microsoft does not have any say in what decisions Apple makes. Apple just relies on their own hardware for sales and the stability of the hardware being under their control. They choose not to market OS X for PCs."

Thanks, i stand corrected.

Well, blah, I've heard that SCO is going to try and add WMA support too.

How can HP work with Apple to impliment WMA on iTunes/iPod. HP doesn't own the code or the rights to WMA, Microsoft does. If Apple is going to work with anyone to put WMA on thier music system, they will work with Microsoft, the people who have the licenses and the source code to the codecs. This article is not only flame-bait, but is touting speculous lunacy as fact.

to the person that wrote this: One reason this has not happened is the fact that M$ owns stock in apple, and can help push decisions eitther way. Strange world we live in huh? The fact is that Microsoft only held about $100 million in stock. Apple's market cap is over $4 billion. I say HELD because MS sold that stock a few years ago. There's also the simple fact that the stock was "non voting", meaning that Microsoft could have no say in the operation despite the investment.

To summarize: 1. Microsoft held a very minority stake in Apple 2. The stock that MS held was non-voting 3. MS long since sold the stock (for a profit) and holds no financial interest in Apple today.

Joe Klein: "Well, WMA is a lossless format..." This is absolutely untrue! If it were lossless, it would sound as good as a CD. They chop off all frequencies above some absurdly low threshold, something like 15 kHz. Visit the link in my post above to see the stats.

From a Longhorn FAQ on Paul's www.winsupersite.com site: http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/longhorn.asp << Q: But Mac OS X already has a lot of these features. What's the big deal?

A: Apple has implemented some basic desktop composition features in Mac OS X "Panther." But the basic problem with Mac OS X isn't going away: It's a classic desktop operating system that doesn't offer anything in the way of usability advancements over previous desktop operating systems. Today, Windows XP and its task-based interface are far superior to anything in Mac OS X. In the future, Longhorn will further distance Windows from OS X. From a graphical standpoint, there won't be any comparison. As Microsoft revealed at the PDC 2003 conference, Longhorn is far more impressive technically than Panther. >> Not much information backing here again. Enough said.

IMO, this clearly demonstrates the level and type of Paul's journalistic skills.

(Yes, there are rumor/fan sites for the Mac too).

yes- true. Microsoft once owned several thousand non-voting stocks in Apple, but they have since sold. I could see that it might make good sense for apple's iTunes and iPod to have the ability to play WMA DRM files, but to have that as an option for encoding or ripping from iTunes seems kind of pointless to me. The AAC codec is comparable if not better sounding at similar bitrates than WMA. I can say that listening to either through a flat response poweramp and genelec monitors in the studio I am sitting in right now with a Mac and a PC connected through optical. WM has some work to do on high frequency sounds such as cymbals and electric guitar. I can hear the lossy-ness and the cymbals sound artifacted like hell. Obviously AAC at 128 has some of this, but it is bearable and at 160-192 it is nearly acceptable at 224. Paul's comment of WMA being superior is quite ridiculous.

Nate wrote:"the fact is that it would be nice to have a player that supported 4 major filetypes."

Rio Karma supports four of them today: FLAC, MP3, Ogg Vorbis, and WMA. Also includes a Java app to communicate with the player via ethernet (should work with OSX Java).

http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/shop/_templates/item_main_Rio.asp?model=220&cat=56 http://gear.ign.com/articles/458/458401p1.html

Fools, WMA is better than AAC to instigate lots of emotional comments and increase web site traffic. This should have been obvious to all of you.

Does WMA even let you fast forward correctly? WMA is exactly the type of format that's designed when the a company such as MS goes through a checklist like this:

a) what features does the legal dept. of entertainment companies want? b) how can we, MS sell servers, PC's and an encoder? c) how can we create a consistent revenue stream from each use or distribution?

Nowhere in that checklist is "What might consumers want?"

Unlike Apple. AAC Mp4's function, transfer and operate virtually like Mp3's.

BTW, That's exactly MS's process for the WM-9 video player coming - be careful of what you wish for. Why not just buy a $10 DVD and rip it ourself instead of paying MS the privilege of creating a copy protected WM-9 file that can never be moved to another device?

But I guess since you're used to calling in to register your PC & your whereabouts, what's more spyware to you?

BTW, the ipod supports 5 open standards and two 'copy-protected.'

Dear Goddess, what kind of moron would dare call WMA a "superior" format? Superior to what? A steaming pile of doggie-doo? Paul Thurrott should really give AAC a listen. Beats the heck out of MP3 at 128k, and WMA - Whaaaaaaaaaaaa! You are joking, right?

You should have said dominant - not superior - now all you've done is rubbed alot of people the wrong way.

"The cathedral and the bazaar only works for utilitarian based content. It plainly falls apart when applied to entertainment based content. Even the founding fathers knew this, but nobody ever bothers to research the purpose of copyright and why it was created. The arguments being rased today are not new."

HAHA! One of those Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, didn't even want copyrights or patents for that matter saying they're "'monopolies' sufferable only for limited periods, and only for the purpose of incenting invention." Using an actuarial table (statistical table of the length of people's lives) his calculations of how long copyrights should last from 1992 is 30-35 years. This webpage, <a href="http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/bplist/archive/1999-02-11$2.html">Thomas Jefferson's copyright term (fwd)</a> goes over corespondence between Jefferson and James Madison, another Founding Father.

ew

I can see Apple adding non-DRM WMA functionality to the iPod. The only problem PC users should have with no WMA support is if they've already ripped their CDs to WMA. Make their lives easier by letting them use those, but still lock out purchased WMAs.

And, I'd rather use a format designed by Dolby than one designed by MS. But I guess that's just me.

AAC was developed by the MPEG group that includes Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T, Sony, and Nokia—companies that have also been involved in the development of audio codecs such as MP3 and AC3 (also known as Dolby Digital). WMA was developed by Microsoft. Who would you rather trust for music fidelity? AAC is also "DRM." After all, what do you think is preventing you from making more than 10 copies or playing on more than three machines? But that's only if you download music from ITMS. Rip your own and you have no DRM.

http://www.winsupersite.com/

Need I say more?

You da man, Paul! Ignore these MAC lamerz. We both know that only MS makes the best stuff, and that is why they rule the computer world. If AAC didn't suck so bad, Apple wouldn't need to support WMA! It shows that Windows users are still even more better than MAC idiots; but we both new that, right, buddy? Get lost MAC-jerks!

It is obvious that the article's author does not know what he is talking about. Embarassing!

Yeah!!! Get lost MAC-jerks! We love Windows! We love Windows! We love Windows!

And I would much rather buy a device from HP that those rip-off losers at Apple. Somebody tell Steve Jobs to stop wearing those stupid trainers and put a bloody suit on, the hack.

My understanding of this story is that WMA is superior to MP3. Nowhere in the article does it mention anything about it being bettter that ALL other codecs. And isn't this all a pointless thread anyway? Who *really* cares what the best codec is? MP3 is the most popular although it's far from the best. Sometimes theres a trade off between compatibility and quality.

The fact that so many slashdot idiots oppose this article prove by nature that everything written must be true, cause these idiots flame this much only when it is true and favorable to Microsoft.

The only true "superiority" that WMA can claim over AAC, is that WMA9 has a "lossless" encoding method in it. So you can get lossless audio into instead of using raw WAV or AIFF files. The size would be about 60% of the original WAV/AIFF file.

Otherwise, there's no true claim to superiority. I am excited if they can get lossless compression audio into the iPod. No reason to use WMA otherwise for me.

Sergio: as already written, why don't you just hear for yourself. Code a few songs and listen. LISTEN! I did.. and chose AAC.

If the next iPod update is going to include just WMA support, I guess I'll stay with 2.1

Superior WMA eh? another case of Thurrott shamelessly parroting the Microsoft PR machine (and Longhorn is already superior to OSX too isn't it Paul just because Microsoft says it will be in a couple of years)

This is all ridiculous on all sides - the people arguing both for and against Apple in this post. I sincerely doubt that Apple even gives a crap about which codec is "superior" - primarily because Jobs has stated multiple times that the primary purpose of the iTunes music store is to sell more iPods. If they can get more people to buy more iPods by adding more support, then it's quite unlikely that they're being "strongarmed" into doing this. Apple is, first and foremost, a business - they are not a cult leader, though some of my fellow mac users would have you think differently. People buy more iPods, realize the music playing hardware is far superior to anything out there, then they think "hmmm... maybe their computers are better, too!" so then they buy a G4 or a PowerBook, and they realize it's superior as well. It's the ultimate subtle advertising. It's a business model, and Apple is genius for doing this - windows loving Paul is in denial about the potential this represents for the future of all Mac hardware.

Wow. What a stupid pointless jab. I mean, if you want to say something complimentary about Microsoft, you couldn't find anything more counterproductive than mentioning WMA, the crappiest audio format this side of, um, actually, let's just make that the crappiest format EVER, for reasons already cited by the 10,000 people who posted above.

WMA beats AAC, MP3pro, Vorbis, and all the others HANDS DOWN! About time we had a decent SECURE format on this dreadful piece of hardware. Finally music piracy will be a thing of the past! What a great day for RIAA! Yipee!

The problem with the phrase "superior..." is that it isn't qualified. "Superior" in itself is nothing. Superior to what? Well, the author might mean the superior version of WMA (as compared to previous). The big deal about WMA is that it is proprietory. That is not a good thing. Still, inclusion of WMA will open up new markets. The real problem is that Microsoft doesn't allow for using AAC... (WMA is usable on the Mac). So, the article is a piece of bad journalism as it uses unqualified ascertions and advertising language (only there do comparatives without comparandum). As for the anti-Apple comments, I don't see the point. This is about formats. The language and quality of their comments is really rock-bottom. Microsoft surely is embarrassed by such 'fans'. All in all, this is a clever move by both HP and Apple. For Apple, it opens up a huge new market, where they are at last able to reap the fruits of the entire computer market, not just a niche. iTMS + the iPod constitutes their first serious forray into the PC world. They have finally understood that while abiding and using standards is good, to really dominate the digital music industry, they have to do all major codecs. As for HP, they simply chose the best player out there, undertanding Apple unrivaled ability to build the best and most innovative products in the industry.

Did enyone else get a napster 2.0 advertisement banner on this page? The site is obviously biased.

Apple vs Microsoft?! Give me a break. I will never touch a Mac, but i rather use AAC then WMA. Mac-bashing is fun, but get your facts straight.

"What's the point in making an iPod that supports WMA, when the only software App that it interfaces with (iTunes) doesn't support it? If HP/Apple are going to come out with an iPod that supports WMA, then either Apple will come out with iTunes that supports WMA, or instead allow the iPod to interface as a normal drive, with drag-and-drop copying from within the OS.

Feynman -January 11, 2004"

I don't what your iPod behaves like but mine (2nd gen) shows up as a removable drive when I plug it into my laptop and I can move, copy, delete files on it however I want with whichever file manager app I want to use.

Oh dear. All it takes is a single sentence in one of Paul's articles, some passing Slashbot gets their buttons pushed, and the hordes pour in to display their disgust, in their own inimitable style. :-)

(Yeah, I got the link to this article from /. but I'm a non-iPod-owning Windows guy, so I'm just here to watch the bunfight)

MT.

>Did enyone else get a napster 2.0 advertisement banner on this page? The site is obviously biased.

Heh, I'm getting an Apple iPod ad! (the 'Ads by Google' banner, below).

Bias neutralized? ;)

"Paul Thurrott is the news editor for Windows & .NET Magazine. He writes a weekly editorial for Windows & .NET Magazine UPDATE (http://www.win2000mag.net/email) and writes a daily Windows news and information newsletter called WinInfo Daily UPDATE(http://www.wininformant.com). Email address: thurrott@winnetmag.com "

Partiality is not journalism....Enough said.

I've listend to WMA and Apple's proprietary format. To call one superior to the other is just plain silly. If anything, Apple's protection limits seem much more user friendly and consumer-oriented, giving Apple a big edge in my book. As for the HP iPod playing WMA, I'd have to think the odds are low and, even if it did, the Apple music, which will be promoted as the store of choice by HP, won't be offering the WMA format anytime soon, IMHO.

heheh this is getting violent.. sorry im a Solid PC and a Mac user and WMA reduces quality in certain areas i believe. Im not even going to verify that cos i just know.

WMA is just another creation by M$ to try and corner a market. And this article is M$ propaganda for saying WMA is superior.. ive supported PCs for only 3 years now and i know that..

sorry but not very professional at all.

(P.s. PC's smell)

First, please provide a link to a credible website that is reporting this.

Second, this is nearly absurd. HP will be preinstalling iTunes, which means access to the iTunes Music Store, which means .AAC. That means that .WMA support for the iPod is useless to HP. Hell, it is useless to most people. MP3 rules the world. Ogg is useless because very few people use it. WMA is in the same boat (really, not that many people use it). The minor market share that WMA related music stores have is not worth it, plus the odd DRM associated with these stores leaves them as undesirable.

hehhehheeheeheh

Amazing the traffic a little canard can bring.

This article was written by Paul Thurrott:

http://www.winsupersite.com/

<Insert your favorite codec> sucks!

That's basically what this thread has turned into. Most of you are spewing fiction as facts, saying Apple developed AAC, WMA is superior (when several independent sites have said otherwise). Then you claim the Mac-heads are just mad because someone said their product sucks. I think you M$-heads are the ones with that problem, and your heads in the sand.

Apple sold TONS of iPods for Christmas. If the iPod sucked, it wouldn't have sold. So a lot of people felt it was worth the extra money over the cheaper (and inferior) players out there. I was one of these people that got one for Christmas, and I love mine. I don't leave the house without it. If they add the option for WMA, that's nice. I won't use it. I wanted an iPod because I had bought some iTMS albums with iTunes. No other player supports iTMS protected media. iTMS has 70% market-share. The WMA sites have an uphill battle, and it's going to be a losing one.

That cheap shot probably caused u to receive gigabytes of flame. But if you could not foresee this, well you probably have bigger problems. :)

Next time, just stick to the facts...

Or, if sensationalist journalism is more your bag (and let's be honest, we humans are a widely varying species), you may take solace in the assurance that you're more than qualified to go after a job at Fox News Network.

In any case, you can't say the flames were entirely undeserved and/or unprovoked.

Posted by Michael: "Please people. Get a life"

Hah... The surest sign of someone who has no possible way of winning an argument. Nice try there Mikey! I'm sure you're really just Paul in disguise anyway.

For those of you after data rather than unsubstainsiated mindless Micro$oft propaganda, try the vorbis 'listen and compare site' where you can hear for yourself the deficiencies of wma:

http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/listen.html

To all you loudmouths who think that Apple invented and owns the AAC standard, give your head a shake. First, AAC is an open standard deveoped by the MPEG-4 consortium. If you'd like to get an education instead of making fools of yourselves, then go here and see for your self. http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html

As a result of the fact that Apple is nothing more than a licensee of the AAC codec, Apple has nothing to gain from the increasing acceptance of that standard - except to say that they made the right choice when iTunes and iPod were developed. Microsoft, on the other hand, has everything to gain from the acceptance of WMA - including taking control of a fledgling digital media industry by controlling the standard through which it is distributed.

The fact that there are so many 'Microsoft zealots' and 'Mac haters' out there (like Paul Thurrott) who simply believe what Microsoft says without doing any real independent research tells me that Microsoft actually has a chance at pulling this off - much to the detriment of the industry as a whole...and consumers.

I'm not qualified to enter the discussion regarding the different codecs. I am however, interested in the use of the term "stunned". Is it really that inconceivable that HP would take a look around, identify the market leader, and decide to partner with them? Onlookers were really stunned?

I really dont care which is superior. I would like to have all options while playing my music.I use a 30 GB 3G iPod and here are my questions:

1 Will HP's new device support AAC? (Or only MP3, AIFF and WMA since its Windows based / oriented) 2 Will my 3G iPod be able to play WMA files via a firmware upgrade, or is there hardware involved that decodes the WMA files? (Apple iPod's will be inferior to HP iPod's?)

One comment on this: inclusion of WMA is very unlikely. Add WMA support to iTunes and the iPod, and Apple will pay every time a customer downloads iTunes or purchases a new iPod.

Why bother? Their current business model is kickin' butt for them. The iPod this year appeared on as many Christmas lists as the Red Ryder bb gun did, back in the day. This things fly off the shelves like little chrome and plastic barbies. It's truly frightening. Market impact and consumer desire resemble the days of cocaine-added Coca-Cola.

Learn to love it.

just a note about the comments about apple releasing osx on an x86 platform IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN because if the did release it all the current mac app's would not work cause of the x86 achetechture and no pc app's would work because of the opperating system the only app's that may work would be x11 based linux app's or linux app's converted with somthing like FINK

apple will never allow wma on any ipod ever it is not in there intrests they are pushing the superior format and that is what they have always done and always will do.

I own a g4 cube you dont, me 1 you 0

First of all, I am quite excited about the prospect of getting WMA support on my iPod. I hope that there will be a software update that will allow it to happen on my 3G. There are songs available in WMA format on Napster and/or Musicmatch that I can't currently get on iTunes, so I would like to be able to shop those stores, too.

Second, to the person who made the comment on the Windows iPod using MP3, get your facts straight. My Windows iPod uses AAC.

Also, to the person who wanted to be able to use their iPod like a removable disc, read the instructions. You already can.

I suppose the author of the article meant WMA superior to MP3, which is the only other codec that the iPod is capable of handling - as far as I know. I am sure AAC is better than WMA, as most of the things that Apple invent are better than others. Unfortunately the world looks different. Most people have Windows and WMA as a gift from Bill and would not know how to handle AAC...

Why be surprised that Paul is touting WMA as "superior". He's an expert at knowing where his bread is buttered...not an expert on technology.

The following is only a click away from this page:

Paul Thurrott is the news editor for Windows & .NET Magazine. He writes a weekly editorial for Windows & .NET Magazine UPDATE (http://www.win2000mag.net/email) and writes a daily Windows news and information newsletter called WinInfo Daily UPDATE(http://www.wininformant.com). Email address: thurrott@winnetmag.com

I don't know whether to laugh out loud or cringe with horror at ignorance/bootlicking

If everyone that seems to make an MP3 player is compared to the iPod, then Apple must be doing something right you suckhead-bootlicking-little-girly-man.

Everyone has to stand up to iPod. Makes one think doesn't it?

For supported file formats on iPod, check out: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60920&sessionID=anonymous|35374439&kbhost=kbase.info.apple.com%3a80%2f#faq16

Question 16: What audio formats does iPod work with? Answer: Mac: AAC (up to 320 kbit/s), MP3 (up to 320 kbit/s), MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR), WAV, AIFF, Audible. Windows: AAC (up to 320 kbit/s), MP3 (up to 320 kbit/s), MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR), WAV, Audible.

" Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio "

You are either ignorant or just can't give Apple more credit than you can stand. As a sound engineer, I have to correct you and please stop mis informing the public. And yes I use bot OSX and XP so there you have it.

Hey, He wouldn't let it lie either....

http://www.connectedhomemag.com/HomeOffice/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=41434

WMA is Kicking Butt apparently. What a fool!

Normally, I don't even bother getting involved in these flaimbait religious wars: *nix v. Windows, vi v. emacs, J2EE v. .Net, Debian v. Slackware, yada, yada, yada.

I think this is a bit different though. Thurrott had the opportunity to write a very informative little piece of news, but with the insersion of one rediculous adjective he transformed himself from journalist to troll. If this were some /. posting, that'd be par for the course, but this guy is supposed to be a respected and successful journalist in the industry?

r.m.

What's your source Paul? I am embarassed to be a windows developer and associated with the platform you advocate. Fortunately, I'm strictly a mac users now at home. Thanks for making me a switcher.

On reading your other articles it would appear that anything Microsoft is what is superior. Question, how often in your everyday life do you support and condone amoral activity? Microsoft has repeatedly been convicted in courts of law for theft, it has broken the country laws concerning monopoly and been convicted. It repeatedly steals others ideas and locks out competition for the single goal of forcing you to use their products regardless of their quality. You know this yet continue to use their products of your own free will. You sir, are as amoral as they are, if you simply write this off as "good business" or "tough business" or any other excuse given for business to act the way they do. In no other part of society do we tolerate what business gets away with and Microsoft is leading the way in bullying tactics. This apparently is not important to you. As for WMA, you fail to offer one single proof for your ridiculous claim. What I heard here first is yet another person who claims to have knowledge on a subject but offers no proof. You should work at PC magazine, they are very good at not being technical but acting like they know what they're talking about.

Since when is a technology that has the ability to limit the number of times you can actually copy a track to your player superior? Copy it to your mp3 player, remove it, re-add it on another date, remove it again (to make room for a different song) and then re-add it again...

Bam, you will never be able to copy that song to any player ever again, unless you rebuy the track again... Any company that produces this kind of technology as an option (which is actually used by some of the music sites out there today) pretty much invalidates any "superiority" the format may have (not to say it that is would be superior without that feature)...

You don't have to be an Apple zealot (or even a fan) to realize that AAC, which is an open standard (something Microsoft has a long history of "adopting" and then corrupting (see "Web browsing" for me info)), produces higher quality audio than a WMA file, which just squashes the hell out of just about everything. Not to mention licensing fees out the wazoo for hardware manufacturers.

Oh, and Mr. Freedom 2 Innovvate's comments:

"You Mac-jerks are just geloush that MS is so good! Everyone else knows that, witch is why your not selling as may $10000 computers that are slower than my $300 PC. Your so lame! WMA rules and this Paul guy is so smart for knowing it. Freedom 2 Innovate -January 11, 2004" Could you please explain your freedom to innovate on a proprietary OS with draconian licensing schemes? Please use "spell-check" first. Or maybe that's just how your spell-check works. Please don't be "geloush." (Isn't that a Hungarian dish?)

Long live Linux, UNIX, Apple, Sun... oh just about everybody else.

I'm a software designer and a former session drummer (Nashville) and I do a lot of work on PCs and Macs. I have a decent idea of what superior sound is at a pro-level as well as a pretty good understanding of computer-related technologies especially in regard to music. Does Thurott not know that WMV sounds like crap? It's pretty much understood in the music industry. He's either deaf or a completely moronic MS lemming.

WMA superior? What kind of drugs is Paul Thurrot taking and how long has microsoft been feeding them to him?

It says something about one's character when they continuously try to pass off onto the public what is supposed to be technical information when in fact it is Microsoft's marketing played through some techno-croney. Shame on you Thurrott. Do some real research once in a while, and tell the TRUTH about it. I've yet to see anything you say NOT reflect the fact that you are hopelessly biased to the Wintel platform. (Hey people, read this one. Paul says that if you include the free labor from the grad students at Va Tech when they built the third fastest supercomputer on the planet for a measly $5.2 million, then it wouldn't be such a good deal after all. I guess if grad students made $100,000 per hour it may be true. http://rss.com.com/2452-7339_3-5137856.html)

zer0: about the slow boot time with Panther on your iBook;

This is actually due to a small bug in the Panther installer, where it fails to create a link to the boot cache utility. You can fix it with a command in the Terminal, or with a little GUI app someone has made (check versiontracker.com for "Panther boot" or the like). With it fixed, boot times are drastically reduced, even or maybe especially on a slow machine (because it benefits more from caching the boot load process).

Yes it's totally offtopic, so I'll also say this: WMA sucks, Apple's AAC wrapper sucks, all DRM sucks. Bring on the Ogg. ;)

" I think WMA sounds better then AAC, but of course anything not created by Apple would be viewed as inferior in the eyes of an Apple user. "

I disagree... Apple has made some dud products, the first laptops were POS... and Mac Gaming system was a joke...

"Well, WMA is a lossless format, maybe he was refering to that. I personally use AAC on PC. Obviously iTunes will eventually support WMA, and maybe even OGG. (Look in your iTunes.exe icons)

Joe Klein -January 11, 2004" Um... WMA is a LOSSY Format. Not Lossless.

Lossy, it cuts out the low end of the spectrium end.

" AAC was developed by the MPEG group that includes Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T, Sony, and Nokia—companies that have also been involved in the development of audio codecs such as MP3 and AC3 (also known as Dolby Digital). WMA was developed by Microsoft. Who would you rather trust for music fidelity? AAC is also "DRM." After all, what do you think is preventing you from making more than 10 copies or playing on more than three machines? But that's only if you download music from ITMS. Rip your own and you have no DRM.

ro -January 12, 2004"

ahh!

Oh my god!

A Person in the know!

Paul... Please stop the Madness.

Give Links in your articles backing up your sad claims.

Sad sad claims.

Thurott's just making this up out of thin air. Can't believe ConnectedHomeMag got scammed by this groupie.

Making up the part about WMA, I mean, not about HP.

WMA? Superior? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

SUPERIOR? Well, everybody got an opinion. Why make the iPod WMA compatible, why not take the time and make it OGG (Vorbis) compatible?? I like that format, it's great and it's open source!

Well, when the iPod supports all the nicest formats like: MP3, MP3pro, AAC, OGG, WMA, WAV... and future popular format. I'm happy!

"But please Apple, start with the open source OGG, then maybe WMA..!"

I am a Mac fan, iPod user and Steve Jobs follower. But, it seems to me that adding any format (superior or inferior) that helps get iPods in the hands of more Napster, Dell Jukebox, etc, users on PCs is a GOOD thing for Apple. It is nice to be a marketshare leader for change. Moves like this will help keep it that way. And, to tell you the truth, I would like to try out Napster and other stores, but I won't waste the money until I can get that stuff on my iPod. So, I am looking forward to WMA.

So, I think it's a good thing, and I also think this author needs to do some fact checking about "superiority."

This is pure nonsense. What are your sources for this claim. You PULL THIS OUT OF THIN AIR. It makes no sense (AAC is superior AND it's an open standard) and it will not happen!

You have a source for this, right?

Is it the same kid who told you WMA was "superior"?

Stop making misinformation!!! AAC != Apple's AAC != Apple's AAC != Apple's AAC != Apple's AAC != Apple's

and

WMA < AAC WMA < AAC WMA < AAC WMA < AAC

final.

Go open standards. Go AAC.

To all you WMA people. Why don't y'all just ask those nice people at Dell, Walmart and Napster to just offer AAC stuff in addition to their WMA tracks. Oh, sorry, they won't do that 'cuz they're just lemming their way up the M$ path...

WMA, total crap... give me AAC anyday... after eight years of inferior microsoft rubbish I'm glad to now be on my powerbook...which never crashes... and runs industry standard media software... which 80% of professional musicians etc would choose over macrohard anyday...

Windows Media Audio is not really a single format, like RealAudio. WMA-9 has 3 versions: Windows Media Audio, Windows Media Audio (variable bit rate), and Windows Media Audio Lossless. Don't believe me? Fire up WMP 9 Series on MS Windows XP and goto Tools > Options and choose "Copy Music". You can choose the ripping format from there. Plus, like everybody else said, AAC is just the audio portion of the MPEG-4 format licensed to the MPEG group by Dolby. It is the successor to MP3, which was the audio portion of the MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 formats. WMA 9 is superior to MP3, but I cannot make a judgement against AAC.

I'm amazed by the foolishness of my fellow Mac users here. I can assure you, I have Mac credentials as good as anyone here -- I own four Macs currently and as a consultant have recommended and supported literally hundreds of them. I also own a recording studio -- all Macs of course. All of that said ... WMA most definitely sounds better than AAC at comparable file sizes. And frankly it's not even close. The supposedly "pro-Mac" flamers here obviously know nothing about this subject, and they are an embarassment to Apple enthusiasts (if that's possible). Now then, it's possible that AAC offers DRM possibilities that simply can't be supported within WMA. It's also possible that going with any Microsoft-controlled standard will screw you long-term. I don't profess to have those answers. But I can assure you, WMA sounds better.

Before WMA, support ogg(Ogg Vorbis).

I have been an Apple user since 1980. I've just read this entire thread for the fun of it. WHO THE F CARES?!!! Who the f cares about all this crap about who is better or what. Humans are an odd lot. The need to 'belong' or have a 'cause' is the only reason that keeps them going - for reality would set in to make them realize what a useless existence they would have without these delusions and mind-wasters...let alone bandwidth wasters.

Either you're all cultists on both sides, or silly shareholders who really think they have a say - or just blind idiots who think their opinion means crap in this useless bandwidth-sucking debate.

You all sound like children and a bunch of geeks. I like Apple. I use Apple. And I buy Apple. And I also own a PC laptop. I could care less about who does what -- as long as I get something out of it, fine. Go pick your fights in another useless debate -- politics!

Man, people should unplug man. Get a life you jokers. The only people getting rich aren't the people spending useless time in this forum discussing this crap!

I had something to say during my reading of the article. Hm. Forgot what it was after all.. that... scrolling. Ugh. What a turn off.

WMA is for fags!

I don't remember WMA being developed in large part by Dolby Labs, and having Dolby specific technologies backing it? Since when did Microsoft Monopolize the sound technology market. This is a new one on me. Wait a second, did you get one of those large figure checks in the mail endorsed by a Billy somthin or rather?

To Who The F Cares-

Quote "I've just read this entire thread..." Quote "...blind idiots who think their opinion means crap in this useless bandwidth-sucking debate." Quote "Get a life you jokers. The only people getting rich aren't the people spending useless time in this forum discussing this crap!"

I'd bet YOU were the only poor, idiotic, lifeless joker who read the ENTIRE THREAD.

Personally I think the general usage landscape looks like this today. Each individual case will vary of course.

WMA, avoid it AAC, avoid it MP3, play it if you got it MP3 rip it since it is widely supported (car stereo, DVD player, portable player) If AAC, non DRM'd becomes included on most players then re-rip If WMA becomes standard then I believe MS strongly marketed it. My assumption behind this is that it should cost manufacturers more to license WMA. DRM'd or not. AAC will be included like MP3 unless they don't have the processing poer to do it.

DRM'd music is bought based upon which portable player you have.

We'll see what the landscape looks like a year or two from now.

As for the article. Writers should stick to the facts, verify their statments and clearly state points that are their opinion or prediction if they voice them.

Let's see if the format doesn't get f'd up this time....

Each individual case will vary of course. Personally I think the general usage landscape looks like this today.

WMA, avoid it. AAC, avoid it. MP3, play it if you got it. MP3 rip it since it is widely supported (car stereo, DVD player, portable player). If AAC, non DRM'd becomes included on most players then re-rip. If WMA becomes standard then I believe MS strongly marketed it. My assumption behind this is that it should cost manufacturers more to license WMA. DRM'd or not. AAC will be included like MP3 unless they don't have the processing power to decode it.

DRM'd music is bought based upon which portable player you have.

We'll see what the landscape looks like a year or two from now.

As for the article. Writers should stick to the facts, verify their statments and clearly state points that are their opinion or prediction if they voice them.

Nope? I guess returns don't work on short sentences!

This dude is doin some serious Trollin! :) Awww Chit here comes the PC Trolls! hahahah.. I think the windows os has sublimital messages to make people hate mac and mac users. Interesting thought huh? :P

I concur with most comments saying AAC is a superior format to WMA regarding compression/music quality ratio. The only way I can accept Pauls remark, is to view "format" as being superior in the sense of wider distribution and availability than AAC at the present time. However, being a happy iTunes user on my iMac, I am happy with AAC by far. I want an iPod mini!!!

Pop quiz: what was the first Windows Media? A: Quicktime. That's right, these thieves you so embrace took quicktime code and put their name on it. Look it up. It's in their vast conviction history of theft.

Must be nice to support real visionaries. Only problem is, your boys don't have one, besides stealing every good idea and shoving it down your throat as their right to "innovate". You like MS so much, tell me, name one thing they've brought to the table. C'mon, one. In 1995 your boy Gates repeatedly stated that the web was a fad and MS wouldn't be getting into it. They issued a revised addition of his book, the road ahead, to include his "new" vision for the web only after they realized that their lack of vision was making them fall behind. If it weren't for others ideas your company would be nowhere at all. Course I'm guessing that you're pretty much along those same lines. Exacltly what is connected home mag?

Well, now we have proof Thurott pulled this "side effect" out of his ass. HP has said they aren't going to support WMA on the iPod:

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61897,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

Krapster

Freedom 2 Innovate: Lern to spel! "why your not selling as may $10000" is not a sentence. It's "you're" and "many".

Oh, and by the way: Those who slag the Mac the most are normally those who wish they were Mac-users.

K

All too often I go to an article that is just SO WRONG, that I DEMAND to comment on it, but I can't. Someone finally had the balls to attach a flam^D^D^D^D posting area beneath. THIS IS AWESOME! lol

Mr.Thurott It seems that there are many users that disagree; me being one of them. I would not buy music in wma format if they gave it away. If I buy a CD or an mp3 I can play it as long as I want, and copy it as many times as I want for my own use. The idea there is to buy not to rent for 5 or 6 uses. As far as quality I am very happy with the ACC. No reason to use Win Media Player or wma (besides Windows in not about choice) I can play mp3’s on BeOS to Solaris to Linux, or BSD. Open formats will endure. ACC v. WMA is not an OS battle. That is a different war. Making the statement that WMA is superior was very obtuse. Next time do some research to back up your claims. Generally being a technology reviewer you need to realize that you readers are not sheep

Right on! Paul, dude. WMA is far superior to anything because it comes from Microsoft. WMA rules and those dudes at HP are crazy Apple sux and who wants to have an inferior iPod. If HP doesn't use the best sounding WMA they will suck too. So you are right on saying HP will put the far superior WMA on the ipod. They have to because WMA is the best and Apple sux. Those 2 million plus people with iPods are also crazy and they suck too. Why do they want such a crappy player?

The truth is here:

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61897,00.html?tw=wn_tophea

The AAC format is MPEG-4, and not a proprietary format to Apple. Look at the studies on the net on MPEG-4 vs. WMF and it is clear that AAC is superior to WMF in almost every single case. Apple should implement support of WMF on iPod and iTunes not because it is a better format, but because that is what we Windows users have. Apple has a horrible reputation for creating closed systems that only they support (like their OS), which has limited their ability to expand in the market. There is a pretty good article on TechCynic (www.techcynic.com) about why Apple should do this and why it will be in their best interests in the long run.

PS - the writer of this article is ignorant if he thinks WMF is better than AAC.

Ok iv used windows all my life and I switched to a 15" powerbook in Nov. Apple makes a much better machine and OS we all forget Microsoft doesnt make hardware only Windoz that said i dont think there is much difference between mp3, wma, or aac to tell you the truth I like mp3 because everyone can listen to it no matter what you use Windows, OS X, Linux, Unix bla bla bla. Buy what you want listen to what you want in what ever format you want to.

A quick point for all those pointing out that Apple didn't create the AAC format: they didn't create AAC, no, but they did create the FairPlay DRM that is used by the iTunes Music Store's protected tracks. So anything purchased from the Music Store is technically Apple-proprietary, even though it's layered over an open standard.

While it would be nice for all the PC users with either purchased or self-ripped WMA tracks to be able to put those songs on an iPod, I don't think Apple will ever be that eager to pay Microsoft more licensing fees. Certainly not when the iTMS is doing so well, and the iPod has the dominant share in digital music players. If anything, the decision of HP to go with the iPod + iTunes combination both recognizes and extends Apple's lead in the digital music market.

I would like to see the iPod support Ogg, though. It would make sense, what with Apple making such a big deal of trying to be a nice player in the open source community. And it's not like they'd need to pay anyone to add it (as they would with WMA)!

I'm not going to touch the whole "superior" bit, except to say that whatever sounds good to you, will work for you. Personally I can't tell the difference between my purchased iTMS tracks at 128k AAC and the MP3's I've ripped at 192k. Maybe if they ever add Ogg to the iPod, I'll give that a try. :)

Thurrott actually had no intention of ever printing the truth. Not only did he expound a blatant lie that anything Microsoft is superior to something Apple, but he also outright fabricated the idea that HP had any stupid idea of adding Windows Media format compatibility to an iPod device. Both were outright lies, which places all his facts in the garbage bin. I believe Thurrott's style of writing is called YELLOW YOURNALISM. (that being kind enough to place it in the realm of Journalism at all).

For what its worth, I've been in communication with Paul Thurrott on this issue and I would like to defend him on one important point for a moment. This piece, presented as reported news by Connected Home, was actually taken out of context from his personal website, which makes no bones about being an Op/Ed site. Connected Home does have his permission to republish from that site, but he was unaware (and seemingly a bit non-plussed) that they had reported this bit as a news report. The original publication is here: http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/41423/windows paulthurrott_41423.html

Now, that said, I don't happen to agree with Mr. Thurrott, but he is entitled to his opinion, however blinkered he may be <g>. I think in this case that much of the energy expended in excoriating Mr. Thurrott in this forum would be better retargetted towards Connected Home itself for failing to place this piece firmly in the context of Op/Ed.

Way to go Paul. Learn to check your facts and stop speculating. Are we supposed to believe you still even though HP denied pushing for WMA support?

I don't hide the fact that i pretty much hate everything coming out of redmond. beginning with the activation "feature" with windows xp, i can only see microsoft as a greedy monopolist, who is much more interested in making more money and increasing market share/control than providing for consumers. to say whether one format is superior over another is speculative, and "superiority" is a relative term. personally, i prefer an OPEN STANDARD created by a CONSORTIUM of companies (including DOLBY - who knows more about sound than dolby?) as opposed to a PROPRIETARY file format (and no, WMA is not a standard, it's dominant because of the sheer number of windows pc's out there) controlled by a sneaky, underhanded, shamless 2-bit company. i've never trusted WMA because i don't think a file that small could possibly give the quality i demand. furthermore, anyone that says windows is about "choice" (choice my ass: the only "choice" is microsoft) or that everything MS makes is superior is obviously just as bad a zealot as any mac fanboy i've ever seen.

Woah! look at the madness. Anyway i dont like WMA because of the fact that it doesnt sound as good at the same bit rate as AAC. of course i have an iPod so i would use AAC

"WMA is the best their are anytime, anyware. ACC is for stupid heads that aren't good thinking for themselfs. You all are just jealous because my $300 computer that uses Microsoft is better than your $1000 metal pice of garbage.

SmartPcUser -January 13, 2004" You cant be that smart. Can you say you have read up about AAC vs WMA? or are you just saying this? Oh and apples peice of "garbage" is $1000-$2000, and i doubt that your $300 will be running the latest OS in a few years time? Doubt it.

An interesting question is, why doesn't Microsoft's media player support downloads from the most popular music store? Plus HP just announced WMA will not currently be supported on the HP Pods so, yet another blow to the devil.

BTW, someone mention a $300 PC to a $10,000 Mac. You must be kidding yourself with your EMACHINE! Like many have said before, I'd rather drive a BMW or Mercedes than a YUGO!

Ok , I haven't bothered to read all the comments , but just to register my vote as it were ; 1 ~ AAC is not an apple codec , it comes from the good folks at dolby and mpeg who know what they're doing with audio compression . 2 ~ This is not an apple / MS issue it's about accurate reporting etc . 3 ~ WMA superior ? how ? 4 ~ having tried both as a professional sound tech working on live theatrical shows in London's West End I can say that AAC is far superior to WMA in sound repro , lack of 'artfacts' , bass response and frequency width whilst producing smaller files ! Of course 'raw audio is always better but AAC is far closer than encoded sound has ever come before . 5 ~ Mr Thurrot of the Windows Supersite does tend to be almost as biased as Rob "M$ pay me plenty" Enderle .

If you have taken a peak inside iTunes 4.2's package contents, there is an icon for WMA.

This guy is as unbiased as Fox News Network

Just look at the way this page renders in Safari... the Article Information links run over Carly's picture, and the edge of the white is uneven against the blue down the right. Wow, that must mean that IE is 'superior' to Safari.

Or you used Frontpage.

Don't worry about safari... (superior?) IE doesn't render it properly either. I'm looking at a lovely picture of a lady holding up an advert! Where's the HP-Pod

This article is a LIE.

Both Apple and HP have publicly denied this assertion, of putting WMA on iTunes or the iPod.

Just because Connected Home Media choose to repeat this pathological liars (Paul Thurrott) lies, does not make Connected Home Media any less a liar, it just shows them to be STUPID LIARS.

Perpetuating lies when Apple is involved, are the normal fair in the Windows dominated universe. For some reason Apple's perpetual leadership is a huge threat to the meek little wannabes that continually make their pathetic imitations of all things Apple if they can figure out how it works. This usually takes 2 to 12 years Microsoft being the prime example.

As usual the Insipid Microsoft Sycophants are all rushing to feed the FUD machine, their tiny little neurons flashing furiously praying to be noticed, like pathetic gnats buzzing around Bill Gates ass.

I'd like to know what makes windows media format (.wma) files superior to AAC and MPEG? I suspect this is just more prejudicial fluff.

This reminds me of the statements from Microsoft that .wma files are the "industry standard". They are careful to use the term "industry standard" (meaning "Microsoft standard") as opposed to "standards-based" technology. MP3 and MPEG4 are standards-based media formats created by the moving pictures experts group convened by the international standards organization. Why isn't this the "industry standard".

Perhaps when Paul Thurrot refered to .wma as "Microsoft's superior .wma format" he meant to say "...superior Microsoft's .wma format".

we are in June, quite near the mid-year that Paul crowed about and yet no wma support, real or announced, on the iPod. Which makes Paul a l.....?

BLLAHH BLLAAAHH BLLAAHHH! Who the hell cares both ACC and WMA are both good for different reasons. There problem solved!

....wow what a war...... I feel sorry for people that use any format that is licensed only to be used in a limited number of devices or a format that doesn't allow them to share their music. Apple created a format that most computer illiterate people would be dumb enough to use... The MP3 player buzz was created by all the "FREE" music..... APPLE "fixed" the Free problem by restricting and selling the music.....

... peace on earth ...

ok it's november now. where's the wma support? how about the blue that the "company" told you about? you are a complete and utter phony.

I agree with miranda you guys stink what are yaws thinkin better ship up or ship out

You suck whats wrong with you people I can down load and play my music whenever what right do you people have you guys dont have S***.

Alright, this entire argument is a bunch of crap. AAC is simply better. It's not an MS versus Apple issue. I have a PC with XP, but I still choose to avoid WMA. My 96KBPS MP3 collection sounds better than it did in 256 WMA, does that tell you anything? I'm going to switch to a 100% AAC collection once my friend's portable music players support it, my windows formatted iPod already does.

hi everyone could anyone please explain to me what wma is?

What does superior mean?

WMA sucks because you have to use Windows Media Player to play it. Technically winamp supports WMA but its such pisspoor support that its not worth it. Theres no way in hell I would use WMP to listen to music, same with that giant resource hog iTunes. iTunes is great for ripping and modifying id3 tags, but music player tis not.

wma doesnt exist to me because of its requirement of WMP so I have no opinion on its sound quality. ACC vs MP3 I dont understand, apparently AAC is vastly supperior. Ive tried both, 128kbps acc is still a few hundred KB larger than a 192kbps mp3 (judging by around an 8:00 song), yet from what I heard it sounds worse than a 192kbps mp3 since it gargles at high pitches which is common of a 128kbps mp3, so what is all the fuss about? It may have better sound quality than a 128kbps mp3 but when compared to a 192kbps mp3 that sounds better AND is smaller in size why would anyone bother with ACC? Maybe apple just uses a really crappy codec to render acc, I know that some ripping programs render mp3's extremely bad while some render them extremely well depending on the codec used. In my computer I have a SoundBlaster Audigy 2 which is more than capable of handling anything MP3 or ACC can throw at it and is extremely supperior to the plain apple soundcard which doesnt even go above 100db snr, I accompany it with 106db snr Sony headphones which are again more than mp3 or acc are capable of. My guess is that everyone claiming acc is better is because their soundcards or speakers are deaf to the incosistencies acc compression causes at the low bitrates, you cant truly test the sound of something unless your hardware exceeds the output.

Ok, first of all, why is everyone slagging off the article because the author has an opinion?

Secondly, with all this bitching about AAC / WMA, it really makes you wonder how many people have actually sat down and EXTENSIVELEY used both formats. As far as I can see there's also a lot of Microsoft-bashing going on, but really it's irrelevant. Currently, if you use an iPod, you use AAC and if you use another player such as Creative you use WMA. Including the WMA format in a new iPod version can only be a good thing - it increases the competition for music vending websites. Anyone who says they can't enjoy music encoded in WMA because of the AAC quality difference is either lying or is incredibly narrow-minded.

Get over it. They're both good formats, and do the job they do well. Shame about the DRM, but as someone said earlier - probably a necessary evil.

haha superior? I'm sorry but were you dropped as a child? There is no way wma is superior in anyway to an audiophile like me.

You Mac-jerks are just geloush that MS is so good! Everyone else knows that, witch is why your not selling as may $10000 computers that are slower than my $300 PC. Your so lame! WMA rules and this Paul guy is so smart for knowing it.

Freedom 2 Innovate -January 11, 2004 BTW last time i checked which was today! iTunes will convert that "superior" WMA format to MP3,AAC, AIFF and WAV since it is such a sorry file type, i never remember WMP being able to do that......Wait, i think it is because....IT IS...M$S SUCKS and so does WMA format I just thought that i would inform you and by the way i have been running windows OS since the day i have gotten into computers i have used them for more hours than i can count i have used macs for o' lets say 5 hours max i wish m$S would take some pointers from Apple because they apperantly need it the only rason i dont have a Mac is because i am 16 and what i get i buy/build

you sould have cd's so people can down loud them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All I have to say is that if AAC is so much better then WMA as you say it is then how come it is not accepted on more devices then WMA. This must mean that more people use WMA. I WONDER WHY more people would use WMA over AAC. AAC only works on the ipod and a couple of other divices. Where WMA works on basicly every new music playing divice that comes out. Think about it AAC lovers, how are you meant to be able to share your music to all your friends where most of them wouldn't have anything that can play AAC.

On another note I have compared AAC to WMA and to tell you the truth I can not tell a difference I audio quality. But what I have found is that WMA produces a louder sound then AAC, which to me is important. Plus don't forget that compressed files do loose a little volume to take up let room and AAC does not take up less room over AAC. Plus AAC is a little better then WMA when compressed at over 128kb/s but WMA is a little better then AAC when compressed at under 128kb/s.

Let me say to all of you who have some kind of partisan attachment to one company or type of computer or format. It's nice you have some kind of loyality and want to belong to some kind of group but this isn't the area to do it in. Save your personal attachments for people or institutions that improve life for people. These companies are out to make money and don't care about the people who buy their stuff per se. So try to shed the misplaced loyalities that are fostered and abused by corporations and evaluate the products those companies make on their merits! The nov '04 issue of AV monthy guide evaluates 4 players from an audiophile perspective (sound quality).It includes a brief but informative discussion of formats. BTW What about the battery problems with these things. Wouldn't we be better served by encouraging companies to find some way that we enjoy our music without paying 100-200 dollars a year in addition to the purchase price of the players ?

If you have really read this far, you are either stupid or bored. I stumbled on this board trying to decide which format is superior for myself. Thanks for your comments, you jackasses. I read about a quarter of the way down and decided to just jump to the bottom in order to tell you how great it is to live in a world where your geeky little biases govern your pathetic lives. Learn to think and observe objectively, you vomit encrusted pieces of excrement. I did my own test. I ripped a WAV of a song, and encoded it in to WMA and AAC at several bitrates. To me, the three formats (WAV, WMA, AAC) sound exactly the same when the compressed formats reach 160 kbps. At lower bitrates, WMA and AAC are both better than MP3, but neither is superior. The main difference is that iTunes runs like crap on my Pentium II 333 running Windows XP, whereas Windows Media Player runs fine. The final point, stick with what you're used to.

I agree with Santiago Torres Contrares... None of your comments helped at all. The only way to decide which is the best, is to research it for yourself. Don't take advice from these know-nothings who are on other sites right now writing posts about how the Power Rangers are superior to Ninja Turtles. If you all feel the need to contend over who has the bigger hard drive, save it for the Dairy Queen parking lot - and make sure you have the specs handy on you tricked out Honda Civic.

Hi folks, I'm a sound engineer although I have to admit that I don't know much about the compression methodology used by the various codecs. However... It seems prudent at this stage in the flame war to point out that what 'sounds' best to one person will be different for another. Some codecs no doubt shred inaudible frequencies to aid ("give the illusion of better...") compression however techniques such as those still detriment the final sound as inaudible frequencies effect the harmonic structure of audible sound - Hence the prolific use of 32Khz boosts (fairy dust) on most modern production. It all reminds me of people ******** about what speakers are best and basicly a 20 quid pair could out perform a 2000 quid pair. It just depends on your ears and the frequencies you are receptive to, how many scillia you have damaged, the shape of your pinna - the dynamics of your ear/brain mechanism. Everybody get together and shine on your brother right now!

"I usually dont reply to trolls but felt this matter must be debated. I own an AthlonXP 1900 with a Nvidia GeForce 4 that currently runs w2k, it USED to run XP Pro. I also own an iBook G3 300 w/288mbb RAM, and a 4 gig HD. I recently installed Panther 10.3 on this little clamshell iBook. It runs quite smooth, although I can complain about the boot time. I cannot see XP Pro running on these specs with this type of smoothness with the interface. My first glance of panther after using XP made me in awe. As we all know, '99 clamshells came witth a 4mb ATI rage Pro card. Don'tt get me wrong. I love my GeForce 4, but the color, and speed produced on the ibook are supperior. I have used many OS in my time, From SCO, BSD, Linux, Windows, and MacOS. The hardware on a Mac IS supperior. PC hardware is cheap. I own a computer repair store, I know, people buy what is marketed to them, like sheep. iTunes is a good example. Make a fine product, make it only available to a certain crowd, then all of a sudden release it to everyone. Boom. 25,000,000 users. what would happen if Apple would realease their GUI to run on darwin to the PC market? That would end M$s OS monopoly. One reason this has not happened is the fact that M$ owns stock in apple, and can help push decisions eitther way. Strange world we live in huh?"

take a look around idiot, MS with an OS monopoly? hmm, I seem to remember PC being open to any operating system, unix, linux, OS/2, DOS or anything else you want to create, where APPLE only let you use MAC O/S on theirs. now who has the monopoly again? who makes money of of hardware sales? yea think next time before you open your trap, pity youll never read this as you need a lesson. and I dont know why people are complaining about mp3 vs ACC vs WMA. people are talking about encoding at 128kb... no wonder it sounds like crap! you need 192kb in mp3 by vorbis to get CD quality sound... idiots.

Sheep buy what is marketed to them?

everyone is entitled to their own opinions but it would help if they know exactley what they were talking abour. MP# is like almost all codecs formats is a compresion format and when you compress anything at lower than the original file you are losing sound quality. same with all the other formats that are out there. aac, artec. and many more, I can always tell the difference between a burned cd or the original listen to the cymbols and the highs and lows they suck compared to the origanal cd. the cymbols are a destinct sound and you can tell that they are on an origanal cd. but in mpp3 even at the highest bitrate they still arn't as clear. same with highs and lows. most people would even know the differennnnnnnnce. but if you do you kow what i am talking about. furthermore the best format is WAV because nothing is changed and it is the exact same as the original file. and that is what i use for all my sound files now. but if you could care less about the quality and all you want is quantity the by all means use crappy MP# and others if you were going to use anything use atrac or aac they are a little better. also wav and the original cd sounds way better on surround and Dolby. don't want to get too technical here with numbers and stuff that most would't get so that is all i have to say here

that is my thought

Was just curious about any experiences with WMA on portable players. Do you have to reboot those, too? What's the crash rate to uptime ratio?

This is all it comes down to: Paul made a coment that was not factual, but mearly an opinion. An opinion cannot be right or wrong, thus it should not be in a factual article.

To all you Windows-flamers: You are just as bad as any Mac-flamers. You say the hardware is better, the company is better, and all of that, but you don't have any facts to support it. Same thing applies to Mac-flammers.

I love my PC, and I wouldn't touch a Mac with a 10-foot pole. But I don't flame Macs. Different people like different things. I like PC because of the compatability, interface, and ability to swap hardware parts. Also, because I'm used to it.

But it's all just an opion. Drop it and get back to discusing the body of the article, not just the flamebait.

Aerobic exercise involves the manner of muscles drawing on oxygen in the blood as well as fats and glucose that increase cardiovascular endurance. Aerobics is done in order to improve fitness, burn calories, shape the body, strengthen physical well-being, and maintaining fitness. There are different types of Aerobics, apart from a Warm up, a Cardio part, and a Cool down. There is another lesson that consists of Floor work, and Stretching.

Your body is always burning some fat but if you want to lose weight, you need to increase your activity to the point where your body starts to let go of some of its fat reserves. That means sustaining some activity. It takes about 20 minutes of aerobic activity before the body starts to burn its fat deposit. And fat-burning has an added bonus: if you can get your body into its fat-burning range, your metabolism stays elevated even after you’ve stopped exercising –for up to six hours!

Exercising aerobically means you are basically doing two things: helping your body take in more oxygen, which strengthens your heart and lungs, and over time allows you to achieve more physical work that you could not without aerobic exercise. Aerobic exercise also creates a situation in the body due to which fat that is stored somewhat out of reach, are accessed and burned in greater number than they are when you are at rest.

ok here is my end all debate as to which is better, wma or acc. unlike all arguements before whihc rely on tech lingo and quantitative data im here to give you the qualatative data. I'm a music major with a concentration in recording. i can tell you cutting frequencies does in fact reduce quality, however it is also dependant on which frequencies you cut. knowing which frequencies to cut based on the over all sound map is key in finding the lowest bit rate while maintaining the highest possible sampling rate. this is why VBR (variable bit rate) has become the new standard replacing CBR (constant bit rate). Windows media audio format is supierior in this aspect. they take data from the entire file and find the best way to cut frequencies without losing sound quality. and thats what this is about, sound quality! not fancy tech specifications and numbers. the way sound is acoustically reverberated using these frequencies provides maximun quality. yes, acc is very good at compression. but they are cutting the wrong frequencies thus the sound quality drops. thats the bottom line. take it from a sound engineer. wma just sounds better.

Anyone audio video the equipment for you.

Toys for your favourite children.

Health and Personal Care - goods for appearance and health.

AirTools Online Store Site

Texas Holdem Table - plenty of players and a great opportunity to win big with small stakes. Definitely it&#039;s favorite place to play.

Description of Casino Bonuses

It is a lot of the good, necessary books on a garden site, garden, kitchen garden.

Animation World - best animation films.

Hi. Images are not loading.

Accessories for Cameras - any accessories for your chambers.

Anime Collection - huge choice anime of films.

Online sport-related DVD store

Site devoted to a hunt!

Site devoted to a hunt!

This site is awesome. Your site is really nice! I really enjoy your site! Just cool site! No any words else to say...

Like Kipling, your page is a treasure. Many thanks

<a href = "http://www.photovideo-store.info">www.photovideo-store.info</a>

Superior is ACC as to Beans with WMA. No comparison!

I prefer ogg vorbis. I want to be able to practice my rights to copy music that i PAY for. I see nothing on music laels that say that I am 'renting' it.

-Set DRM to off when you rip it you idiot.

I HATE U ALL U SUCK BALLS

HP SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

HP IS AS GAY AS I AM!!!!!!!

tonight im wasted on meth, smack, weed and some shrooms. on the bed lies the ho of the house panting still and covered in thick champion ***, were listening acc, cause its superior like.

fu ck you, you gay shi te lover wma is so superior the herrenformat ms uber alles sieg hail

can u put wma music on the ipod photo thanks if u know how plz email me at haroon_hashmi@hotmail.co.uk thnks agen

I use WMA but have made my own lests with WMA, AAC and MP3 (not LAME). I encoded using WMP10 (WMA and MP3), itunes (AAC). I used winamp to compare coz it played all three codecs well. I found MP3 to be the wurst coz no matter how much people try to improve it. It is simply an older piece technology thats why AAC was created to begin with. Comparing WMA and AAC I could not tell the difference in quality, they both sounded very good over MP3. The difference was I found WMA to be slightly louder.

Compare any codec to the original and you will find the original to be louder. So in my opinion WMA is better plus it is more compatiple with devices.

The reason I didi not use LAME MP3 is because I woudn't use it anyway.

I compressed everything at 128kbps CBR. Couldn't be bothered comparing VBR

I used a standard computer with fairly good SONY earphones.

I rekomend to everyone not to listen to sites like this about what codec is better. Do your own tests using ther equipment you would normally use, nothing fancy unless you've got that.

omg lain site

i mean laim site!!!

so boring, just noobs here!!!!!!

MP3 is an abbreviation for "Motion Pictures Experts Group Layer-3". It was originally developed for high quality digital film audio soundtracks, but was soon adapted by the market as a quality method to compress all types of audio. Today it has become the most popular standard of audio compression on the Internet. In the high quality compression mode, MP3 compresses PCM audio by 11 times with very little perceived loss of audio quality. You can store around 11 hours of music or 160 stereo audio tracks on a single 650MB CD-Rom when using the 128Kbps compression rate. A regular Audio CD which has non-compressed Digital PCM encoding provides 74 Minutes of audio on the 650MB CD. MP3 is the ideal format to download audio from Internet web-sites, a typical MP3 audio track (at 128Kbps) is around 4MB (ie 1MB=1minute).

The Apple ipod The 60GB MP3 player can hold 15,000 songs.

MP3 PORTABLE PLAYERS Many portable pocket size players MP3 players are available. The MP3 files are either downloaded from the internet and transferred into the player memory via the USB bus. Or audio CD's are ripped on the computer by widely available software and converted in the PC into the MP3 audio format. One of the most popular players in the UK is the Apple ipod. The Apple IPOD Various models are avalable in the IPOD range, shown on the left is the top of the range 60Gb colour lCD version that costs £299 in the UK. The 20GB version costs £209 and can hold around 5000 songs.

Compression rates vs a standard CD: Thats facts

Admin delete this so i know u exist.. im gonna find u... hehe just wait!!

Didn't Woz work for HP back in the day? Maybe this pair isn't that far off?

The problem is that we users don't have the "Superior WMA" codec, only the standard WMA codec. Perhaps things will be differrent when Superior WMA gets released to the public.

ACC does not belong to apple and this is not something between apple and oranges. so my dear APPLE and PC fans cooldown. If u want a appe and mac war ....apple is the best ah but why 85% of the market is covered by bill gates

We Authorised sellers and exporter of different brands and model of Electronic

Gadgets of various brands and models of mobile Phones.Plasma TVS

Electronics, Laptops / Notebooks Pcs, Ipods, PlayStation, navigation systems,

DVD / Audio Players and other Consumer Electronics.

We export products such as sony ericsson, HTC, IMATE, Blackberry, LG,

Sony,Panasonic,Nokia, Apple, Acer, Toshiba, Pioneer, Kenwood, Motorola,

Asus Dell, Lenovo, Samsung, NEC, GPS, Play Staion,X box, Nintendo Wii and

more.

All our products are brand new and sealed in original boxes complete with all

accessories and 12 months guarantee that also comes with the return policy of

90 days.

Unsatisfied items should be returned to us in 3-7 days fof delivery, whereby we

refund or replace items without charge,we offer some discount on every 5 unit

you buy our products.

We ship and Deliver to anywhere in the world within a period of 3-4 days via

FEDEX, DHL or UPS Expres upon which we send to you the Tracking Number of airways and the bill confirmation of shipment .

LOCATION: 1174 Bank Street Ottawa, ON K1S 3X9 Canada

Below are some product we have in stock at the Moment ... Here is our contact info. salesauction@aol.com electronicsmobileplaza@googlemail.com

He

Nokia: N96 ....$350 N93i.............$300 N95..............$330 N95 8GB..........$460 Nokia 8600 Luna.....$415 Nokia 8800..........$520 N92: 460 USD N91: 258 USD N91(8GB):$300 N90: 200 USD N80: 203 USD N77: 242 USD n76: 230 USD N73: 200 USD n72: 180 USD N71: 164 USD 7500prism: 152 USD 7390:$220 6500 slide:$260 6324: 110 USD 6290: 172 USD 6288: 132 USD 6300: 135 USD 6131i: 174 USD 6120 Classic:$165 6110 Navigator:$270 6500 classic:$205 3250XpressMusic:168 USD 5300XperssMusic:128 USD 5500: 136 USD 5700XpressMusic: 198 USD E51:$225 E50:92 USD E60:$215 E61i:$305 E61: 220 USD E62: 243 USD E65:$220 E90 Communicator:$545

camera:

Canon 400DKIT $485 Canon X Kiss $539 Canon S5is $273 Canon IXUS950 $219 Canon A560 $105 Nikon D80 $480 Nikon D300 $1307 Canon eos 40D $616 Canon IXUS 75 $174 Canon A570 $135 Canon IXUS 70 $150 Panasonic Fx30 $152 Panasonic Fz50 $356 Nikon D80kit $652 Nikon D40x kit $405 Nikon D40kit $314 Sony T100 $210 Sony T200 $230

iPod shuffle III(1G) $60 iPod shuffle II(1G) $59 iPod nanoIII(4G) $108 iPod nanoIII(8G) $144 iPod nano II(4G) $109 iPod nano II(2G) $99 iPod nano II(8G) $140 iPod(30G) $156 iPod(80G) $179 ipod touch 32gb $310 ipod touch 16gb $290 ipod touch 8gb $230 iPod mini 4G $120/units ipod video U2(20G) $220/units ipod video (40G) $240/units ipod video2(80G) $260/units ipod video2(30G) $195/units U2 iPod(30GB) $195/units iPod classic(80GB) $160/units iPod classic(160GB) $230/units iPod nano 3(4GB) $100/units iPod nano 3(8GB) $125/units iPod shuffle 2(1GB) $55 /units iPod shuffle 2(2GB) $90/units

iPod touch(8G) $205/units iPod touch(16G) $260/units

ps3 40GB...........$250 ps3 60GB...........$280 ps3 80GB...........$320 Wii................$180 NDSL.............$95 DS...............$85 XBOX360............$170 XBOX 360 Elite.....$280 Xbox 360 Premium...$220

PSP................$100 PSP2000............$110

iphone 8GB...........$280 iphone 16GB..........$320

Pioneer CDJ-1000 CD Player........$450 Pioneer CMX-3000 Twin CD Player...$700 Pioneer CDJ-1000MK2...............$450 Pioneer CDJ-200 MP3 CD Player ....$130 Pioneer CDJ-800MK2................$400 Pioneer CDJ-MK2 1000..............$500 Pioneer CDJ-MK3 1000............. $500 Pioneer CDJ-500 CD-Player........$500 Pioneer DJM-1000 ................$600 Pioneer DJM-800..................$500 Pioneer DJM-600 Mixer ...........$500 Pioneer DJM-600-S Mixer..........$600 Pioneer DJM-909 Battle Mixer.....$700 Pioneer DVJ-X1 DVD Player......$700 Pioneer DVJ-1000...............$700

SPEAKER 2 JBL PRX515 (15" 2 - Way Self-Powered Sound)....$400 2 JBL PRX518S (18" Self Powered SubwooferSystem)....$420

Technics SL-1200MK2.................$500 Technics SL-DZ 1200..................$200 Technics SL-1210M5G Pro Turntable.. .$250 Technics SL-1210MK2 Turntable $150 Technics SL-1210MK5 Pro Turntable ...$150

SonyEricssion: Z610i:$115 W850i:$180 P990i:$190 W660i:$190 K530i:$175 W910i:$315 W960i:$400 W580c :194 USD K550c: 120 USD W908c: 290 USD W888c: 226 USD W610c: 156 USD T658c: 322 USD P1c: 400 USD K818c: 220 USD S500c: 179 USD W830c: 184 USD W958c: 209 USD M608c: 174 USD K790c:163 USD W810c: 130 USD W850i: 160 USD K800i: 152 USD Sony ericsson x1....$300

Samsung: SGH-Z170:$120 SGH-F500:$380 U708:$250 SGH-U108: 143 USD SGH-E848: 216 USD SGH-E498: 142 USD SGH-i718+: 326 USD SGH-E488: 144 USD SGH-Z728: 220 USD SGH-Z248: 174 USD SGH-U700: 191 USD SGH-U608: 276 USD SGH-U308: 192 USD SGH-P318(+): 304 USD SGH-L760: 148 USD SGH-J608: 150 USD SGH-i400: 238 USD SGH-G608: 344 USD SGH-F308: 284 USD SGH-E950: 188 USD

Moto: Moto Q9.$260 RIZR Z8:$135 RAZR2 V9:$315 E1070:$95

Rokr E8: 204 USD Razr2 V8: 258 USD Slvr L72: 116 USD Rokr Z6: 220 USD Razr Maxx V6: 115 USD Razr Maxx V3: 98 USD Rokr E6: 172 USD V3ie: 106 USD E680g: 129 USD V3i: 108 USD A1200: 124 USD PEBL U6: 79 USD L7: $89 z3: $127

DOPOD£? dopod s1...............$325 HTC touch dopod Touch Dual ......$375 HTC touch Dual dopod p800.............$425 HTC ARTEMIS 110 dopod d600.............$235 HTC GENE 100 dopod 838..............$290 HTC WIZARD 100 dopod c720.............$203 HTC EXCALIBUR dopod c730.............$230 HTC CAVALIER dopod d9000............$270 HTC TyTN D810:$355 900(Qtek):$410

HTC TyTN.............$300 HTC TyTN II..........$340 HTC S710.............$280 HTC S620.............$210 HTC S630.............$240 Htc touch............$195

O2: O2 Atom..........$270 XDA Zinc: 324 USD XDA Graphite: 166 USD XDA Atom life: 347 USD Flame: 504 USD XDA Stealth: 136 USD XDA Atom exec: 270 USD XDA Atom: 284 USD O2 XDATrion: O2 XDAII: O2 XDA II mini: O2 XDA Ne:

BLACK BERRY: Blackberry curve....$220 7100X:70 USD 8800/8820: 278 USD Pearl 8100: 143 USD 8700g: 152 USD 7130g: 118 USD 8707g: 188 USD

Pricelist On Laptops

Toshiba Portege M200 Laptop Computer..$650USD Toshiba Qosmio F15-AV201 Laptop Computer..$950USD Toshiba Qosmio E15-AV101 Laptop Computer..$1500USD Toshiba Satellite M45-S311 LaptopComputer..$470USD Toshiba Qosmio G15-AV501 Laptop Computer..$1100USD Toshiba Satellite A75-S229 Laptop Computer..$380USD Toshiba Satellite R15-S822 Laptop Computer..$720USD Toshiba Satellite A65-S126 Laptop Computer..$400USD Toshiba Satellite P25-S526 Laptop Computer..$900USD Toshiba Satellite A45-S120 Laptop Computer..$400USD Toshiba Satellite M35X-S149 Laptop Computer..$500USD Toshiba Satellite P35-S609 Laptop Computer..$1000USD Sony VAIO A130P LaptopComputer..$840USD Sony VAIO A170 Laptop Computer..$850USD Sony VAIO GRT250 Laptop Computer..$750USD Sony VAIO GRT270 Laptop Computer..$900USD Sony VAIO GRT100 Laptop Computer..$900USD Sony VAIO V505DC1 Laptop Computer..$800USD Sony VAIO PCG-R505ESK SuperSlim Pro..$870USD Sony VAIO PCG-GRX7001 Laptop Computer..$850USD Sony VAIO VGN-B100B08 Laptop Computer..$800USD Sony PCG-K33 VAIO K33 - Mobile Pentium 4..$600USD

Pricelist on Plasma TV

Sony Grand WEGA KDF-E60A20 60 in Rear-Projection LCD TV $500 Sony Grand WEGA KDF-E55A20 55 in LCD Rear-Projection TV $470 Sony Grand WEGA KDF-E55A20 55 in LCD Rear-Projection TV $450 Sharp Aquos LC-45GX6U 45 in Flat Panel LCD TV $400 Sharp Aquos LC-37D7U 37 in Flat Panel LCD TV $390 Sharp Aquos LC-45GD7U 45 in Flat Panel LCD TV $450 Samsung LN-R408D 40 in Flat Panel LCD TV $400 Sony Wega KDL-V40XBR1 40 in Flat Panel LCD TV $400 Sharp Aquos LC-37D7U 37 in Flat Panel LCD TV $400 Sharp Aquos LC45GD4U 45 in Flat Panel LCD TV $420 Sharp Aquos LC-32DA5U 32 in Flat Panel LCD TV $350 Sony BRAVIA XBR KDL-V32XBR1 32 in Flat Panel LCD TV $350 Samsung PPM63H3Q 63" Plasma Display PPM63H3Q..USD$1500 Samsung 400PX 40" LCD Display.................................USD$600 Samsung HP-S5073 50" High Definition Plasma TV........USD$700 Samsung HPR4252 42" High Definition Plasma TV.........USD$500 Samsung 42 in. Plasma TV/EDTV, Widescreen.............USD$400 Samsung PPM42M5S - Plasma panel - 42"inch.............USD$450 Samsung - 32""LCD HDTV w/Int HD Tuner.....................USD$450 Samsung HLR6768W 67 DLP Rear Projection TV ........USD$700 Samsung 46" LCD HDTV.............................................U SD$650

We also sell in Bulk order, and in GOOD Discount prices,We give discount for

bulk quantity ordered for,We are currently doing a bonanza and if you buy up to

3 units of any products,you get 1 Apple 80gb video ipod.We make shipment

through fedEx courier services and UPS, and they deliver within 48hrs home

delivery.email us for your order. Here is our contact info.

electronicsmobileplaza@googlemail.com salesauction@aol.com

Thanks.

The Management

im interested in some of the stuff your selling ....where r u located?????

we are Located in Ottawa Canada

Your Comments (required):

AAC sucks anyhow. I'll take my V0 and Vorbis to some AAC crap anyday, or maybe even some FLAC if I feel like busting out my headphone amp.

They are Brand New, Unlocked, Original, Full accessories and come with 1 yr International waranty from the Manufacturer

Nokia 5800 XpressMusic...........$300 SAMSUNG I900 Omnia...............$350 SAMSUNG I8510 innov8 8gb..........$280 NOKIA N96 16 GB................$300 SONY ERICSSON x1....$300 Sony Ericsson C905 ....$350 HTC TOUCH DIAMOND........$350 HTC TYTN ....$290USD Nokia 97...........$300 Apple iphone 8GB 3g ...........$350 Apple iphone 16GB 3g..........$400 BlackBerry Bold 9000....$350 BlackBerry 9500....$360 Apple iphone 8GB...........$280 Apple iphone 16GB..........$320 Sony Ps3 .....................$300 Nokia E71.....................$300 Nokia N85 ...................$280 Nikon D3 ....................$1300 Here is our Contact Email: phoneshopdirect.com@gmail.com Legit Forum Seller Registered No. 04501084

READER COMMENTS: We want to hear what you have to say about this article!     Acceptable Use Policy Your Comments (required): Your email is only used if our editors need to contact you. It is not used or stored for any other purpose, nor posted with your comments. Enter the text from the image below Please refresh the page if you have trouble reading this text.