Talk:Archos Generation 5

Transcription of marketing material?
Is this just a transcription of marketing material?--70.231.148.239 05:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit, should be good enough to take off the advert tag, agree? 69.123.69.24 01:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did my part. Removed a whole load of POV, inconsistencies, spelling (It's Opera, not Oprah), structure, formatting, and so on. I mean, the 605 WiFi section used to be frustratingly tiring for us to read. Now it's good enough for the Simple English readers. Gonna start workin' on the others, and I hope this article won't be a one-man/woman show... right, TMV? --Jw 21 / PenaltyKillah VANucks 06:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Info needed
Suggest to add any available information on hardware specs - cpu, speed, internal memory, operating system, etc.
 * The Operating System is some type of Linux, they released the source code (there's info on that in the Gen 4 article), other hardware specs really isn't necessary for an MP3 Player TMV943 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ordering
it's easy to order it numerically but shouldn't it be by rank of importance or something, assuming had the models not been so conveniently named with numbers TMV943 (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Importance = Personal opinion, right? I don't see how ordering the "flagship" product (actually, Archos has never stated the 605 WiFi being the flagship product...) first is important... --Jw 21 / PenaltyKillah VANucks 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * at least for the moment, I changed it to descending this not only shows which have more features to less but also release order TMV943 (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the text speaks for itself when it comes to which player has more features or not. Since the players were released roughly around the same period, I don't think that's quite efficient.--Jw 21 / PenaltyKillah VANucks 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Section on criticism
Should a section be added on criticism of the Archos? The article currently doesn't mention negative points IE the cost of optional plugins. This would also go some way to removing the criticism of the article sounding like an advertisement. I'm happy to make a start on this, if there are no objections. Aawood (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ready, everyone? One, two, three... source? Well, criticism on consumer electronics products must be documented by a notable source first. No citation, no nothin'. You know what, just show me one first. --Jw 21 / PenaltyKillah VANucks 21:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I know about getting a source/sources. If you check this article's history, I'm the one who started the reference section in the first place. Might want to ease back on the flippancy a touch there. Aawood (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And, done. I presume 2 reviews are enough? I've also added a forum thread from ArchosFans, but feel free to remove this if it's not considered a valid source. Aawood (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've re-written the criticism section. If anyone's got a problem with it, I ask that they discuss it here and we come to some sort of an agreement over how it should be altered, don't just revert it out of laziness. It's arguably not NPoV, with its description of Archos as 'deceptive', but if anyone has any better way of describing the marketing that tells outright fibs about the product, by all means edit away. I am, for what it's worth, an ex-605WiFi owner. Mine went back to the shop for a refund after I realised exactly how little the unit did, unless I first spent some £140 on extra hardware and software unlock codes for it, and because it had a design flaw that caused severe crackling through the headphone output when WiFi was enabled. My sister's did the same thing, and looking around Google, it seems it's not an uncommon fault. Archos suck. Unreadablecharacters (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"How little the unit did" ? you dont need all the plugins for extra codecs - just use divx converter to convert all the video you want to put on it into divx mobile format and away you go. £20 for the browser is a little steep but its probably the only one you will need apart from the internet radio or web tv ones, if you're so inclined. Never had that headphone problem you mention, and i frequently use my 605 (30gb) to browse the web and listen to music at the same time. Machete97 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be cleaning it up a bit later, all you're arguments to the 2nd paragraph are ok. In the 2nd paragraph, "deceptive marketing" isn't really the same as getting a fact wrong, unless you're talking about deceptive marketing in general which can pretty much apply to many companies. Closed nature isn't much of a criticism because most manufacturers are that way with products. Archos did however comply to GPL by providing the player's source code. Proprietary USB cables are necessary (as it is for the top 3 MP3 player brands, iPod, Sansa, and Zune) to be about to work with a range of accessories through one interface and the last bit about replacement is kind of a localized complaint than a criticism. On a second note, the complaint about the "crackling" would have fit better along with a citation of what you found from Google —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMV943 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

GFT exploit / GPL
There was a line in the GFT section that said Archos hadn't released the updated code for the fixes they made that removed the GFT exploit, as required under the GPL. The GFT exploit targeted an archos-written shell script (that was included with the GPL stuff, presumably on the grounds of completeness) and so GPL publishing requirements don't apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.199.68 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Archos Generation 5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pocketli/20071217/ttc-archos-605-wifi-harry-potter-special-57dbc65.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726074518/http://www.wikispecs.org/index.php?title=Archos_605_WiFi to http://www.wikispecs.org/index.php?title=Archos_605_WiFi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)