PDA

View Full Version : Doh! My new nano won't work with my Mac!




adamcz
Sep 6, 2007, 09:04 PM
I have 10.3.9. I guess they decided only the newest Mac purchasers get to use the new ipods. Sort of sucks to bring the thing home, plug it in, and be denied. Now I have to decide if I want to pay $20 to return it, or put it on ebay.

You know they could make it compatible with my OS if they wanted to. They just don't want to, because they think they can force me to update to a new OS this way.

Is it my fault for not asking more questions at the store about whether it would work with my computer? Honestly, I bought into the hype of "it's a mac - stuff just works." I guess that line holds true for printers and cameras, but not with products actually made by Apple.

:mad:



Shorties
Sep 6, 2007, 09:06 PM
Why not upgrade to Tiger, or wait and upgrade to leopard. Then you iPod will work great.

adamcz
Sep 6, 2007, 09:10 PM
Why not upgrade to Tiger, or wait and upgrade to leopard. Then you iPod will work great.
Or maybe I should upgrade to Windows, since Apple thinks they can mess with me.

torchwood04
Sep 6, 2007, 09:13 PM
Okay, breathe, Leopard is just around the corner. If I can go without an iPod for 6-8 weeks, you can too, sure it's an inconvenience, but then again, any time now, Apple will be dropping security updates for Panther too. Just wait until Leopard, you'll be fine. Seriously.

aristobrat
Sep 6, 2007, 09:15 PM
I have 10.3.9. I guess they decided only the newest Mac purchasers get to use the new ipods.
Only the newest? The very first Mac I bought over two years ago came with 10.4?! :rolleyes:

wakerider017
Sep 6, 2007, 09:17 PM
Or maybe I should upgrade to Windows, since Apple thinks they can mess with me.

They are not "messing" with you...

I have never heard some one say "What the heck man, why can't I use my Zune with windows 98..."

You have an OLD OS... Over 2 years old in fact...

Just wait and buy Leopard..

torchwood04
Sep 6, 2007, 09:17 PM
Okay, dude, my G3 runs 10.4.10 lol, I'm sure you have a higher end mac rofl..

adamcz
Sep 6, 2007, 09:19 PM
I'm not paying for a new OS to use a product I just bought. The OS I have works just fine, and the only reason they decided not to make the ipod compatible is because they think they can force me to spend more money. Doesn't work that way for me - I'm not a fanboy with unwavering brand loyalty.

If they want to push me away with greedy tactics like this, that's a choice they're free to make. I'm sure they calculated the risks and decided that they would lose a few angry customers but force a few more to pay extra money.


You have an OLD OS... Over 2 years old in fact...
How old is Windows XP?

Only the newest? The very first Mac I bought over two years ago came with 10.4?! :rolleyes:Is 10.4 the most current OS or is it not?

neuroticomic
Sep 6, 2007, 09:22 PM
Only the newest? The very first Mac I bought over two years ago came with 10.4?! :rolleyes:

HAHAAHA, i was gonna say the same thing.

apple is assuming u kept up with the times.
i have a g3 ibook that runs tiger.

oy.

move on up dude.

adamcz
Sep 6, 2007, 09:29 PM
My wife has 10.4, so I use it all the time, and I honestly can't name a single difference other than widgets, which I don't care about even slightly. Why should I pay $80 for fricking widgets??? Yeah I know there are 10 million hidden features or whatever, but if I can't tell what they are while going back and forth between the two systems, they aren't that important.

Windows XP was released in 2001, and Apple decided to support that. It's clear that I will get better support from Apple if I buy a PC, so I will not rule that out for my next purchase.

torchwood04
Sep 6, 2007, 09:31 PM
Erm, buy Leopard? Seriously, at least go to a current (in security updates) OS, Panther will be cut from security updates very soon..

powderblue17
Sep 6, 2007, 09:31 PM
Apple has only ever supported 2 OS versions at once. So for these new iPods that means Tiger and Leopard. They will also stop updating Panther after Leopard is released so it only makes sense that the new iPods are for Tiger or Leopard. The only reason XP is still supported is because of the 3 year delay that was Vista. If it had come out in 2003 like what was originally planned then they might have dropped XP support by now also. Vista only came out in 2006 so of course they have to support XP.

adamcz
Sep 6, 2007, 09:32 PM
I'm going to buy a Zune.

powderblue17
Sep 6, 2007, 09:34 PM
I'm going to buy a Zune.

Good luck getting that to work with Panther.

Eclipse278
Sep 6, 2007, 09:36 PM
I'm going to buy a Zune.

lol good one

Garrett
Sep 6, 2007, 09:37 PM
Adamcz, before making you purchase you sure didn't take into effect the system version you needed:
Mac computer with USB 2.0 port
Mac OS X v10.4.8 or later
iTunes 7.4 or laterSo I don't feel any sorrow for you, did you think of the 1 feature out of the 10,000,000 to do something for the updating of the iPod, or supporting it?

Maybe you should rethink the thread title: Doh! My new nano won't work with my unsupported mac!

Sorry to come as the *******, but you just seem to have asked for it.

janitorC7
Sep 6, 2007, 09:40 PM
I'm going to buy a Zune.

good. can I hold onto your ipod in the mean time, I will work a little like a pawn shop. Only 20% when you want it back, dont worry, I'll never take it out of the package.

Have fun making the zune work with your mac, then again you could always buy a new PC. $800 for a pc box, thats cheeper than a mac os update, rite?

adamcz
Sep 6, 2007, 09:43 PM
Adamcz, before making you purchase you sure didn't take into effect the system version you needed:No I didn't, and there are a couple reasons for that. The biggest by far is that Mac claims over and over again that they just work. You buy stuff, plug it in, and it works. The last thing going through my head at the store was asking if the thing was compatible with my Mac, which isn't that old, and has the second most recent OS.

The other thing is that they don't have the system requirements on display anywhere in the store. They keep the boxes behind the checkout and I never once touched it before I bought it. The cashier put it straight into the bag.

I've been using Mac products since 1999, and have never needed to ask about compatibility. I thought for sure that ipods were compatible with all computers.

Sorry to come as the *******, but you just seem to have asked for it.If only I had known to buy a windows computer, this thread wouldn't exist, because it would be supported.

adamcz
Sep 6, 2007, 09:45 PM
$800 for a pc box, thats cheeper than a mac os update, rite?Clever sarcasm, but a new mac OS is just a fee to pay to use the ipod, and widgets. It does nothing else.

If I buy a new PC, then I've got all new hardware and compatibility with all sorts of software that doesn't work on this mac. Do I really want to pay 10% of the cost of a brand new computer as a fee for using an ipod?

MikeTheC
Sep 6, 2007, 09:46 PM
I don't mean to be rude or anything, but why would you honestly expect the new iPods to work with that old an OS?

swiftaw
Sep 6, 2007, 09:50 PM
Clever sarcasm, but a new mac OS is just a fee to pay to use the ipod, and widgets. It does nothing else.

If I buy a new PC, then I've got all new hardware and compatibility with all sorts of software that doesn't work on this mac. Do I really want to pay 10% of the cost of a brand new computer as a fee for using an ipod?

So, you're running an operating system that is 4 years old and was replaced 2 and a half years ago, and you just presumed that some brand new hardware would work, and somehow it's apple's fault?

You've made the choice not to upgrade, so you have to live with the fact that the latest and greatest software/hardware might not be supported.

To quote you from another thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3662262#post3662262

thejadedmonkey
Sep 6, 2007, 09:52 PM
Tiger is the latest OS. Vista is the latest OS.
Panther is not supported. XP is supported.

WTF? This is just Apple looking to make $$$ off of people who wouldn't otherwise upgrade. It's not like Panther can't work with the new iPod, it just needs the appropriate driver support. This is Apple being greedy, plain and simple. I don't get why everyone is defending apple for not supporting their current gen -1 OS.

wakerider017
Sep 6, 2007, 09:53 PM
Let him buy a Zune...

It will serve him right.

swiftaw
Sep 6, 2007, 09:54 PM
Tiger is the latest OS. | Vista is the latest OS.
Panther is not supported. | XP is supported.

WTF? This is just Apple looking to make $$$ off of people who wouldn't otherwise upgrade. It's not like Panther can't work with the new iPod, it just needs the appropriate driver support. This is Apple being greedy, plain and simple. I don't get why everyone is defending apple for not supporting their current gen -1 OS.

XP was only replaced 8 months ago, Panther was replaced 2 and a half years ago, and it's replacement is about to be replaced.

Plus, XP is still the dominant Windows OS, whereas Panther is nowhere near the dominant Apple OS.

aristobrat
Sep 6, 2007, 09:58 PM
Tiger is the latest OS. Vista is the latest OS.
Panther is not supported. XP is supported.

WTF? This is just Apple looking to make $$$ off of people who wouldn't otherwise upgrade. It's not like Panther can't work with the new iPod, it just needs the appropriate driver support. This is Apple being greedy, plain and simple. I don't get why everyone is defending apple for not supporting their current gen -1 OS.
You honestly pretend like Leopard isn't taking the lions share of Apple's resources at the moment? :rolleyes::eek:

10.5 = Vista
10.4 = XP
10.3 = Windows ME

They couldn't freaking get the iPhone out the door on time without delaying Leopard.

Why on EARTH would they spend their resources updating an OS that very few people are using just to support a new product?

adamcz
Sep 6, 2007, 09:59 PM
Tiger is the latest OS. Vista is the latest OS.
Panther is not supported. XP is supported.

WTF? This is just Apple looking to make $$$ off of people who wouldn't otherwise upgrade. It's not like Panther can't work with the new iPod, it just needs the appropriate driver support. This is Apple being greedy, plain and simple. I don't get why everyone is defending apple for not supporting their current gen -1 OS.Thank you.

And 10.3 wasn't legitimately replaced two years ago. They just added wigets to it. It's the same exact OS.

Let him buy a Zune...

It will serve him right.
Lol, I have incurred the wrath of fanboy nation for my awful sin of not buying every unneccesary product that Apple spits out. Listen to yourself.

aristobrat
Sep 6, 2007, 10:06 PM
Thank you.

And 10.3 wasn't legitimately replaced two years ago. They just added wigets to it. It's the same exact OS.
Right, right. How's 10.3 running on your Intel machine?

Oh that's right. 10.3 won't run on any Mac made in the last year.

Spotlight perhaps? Guess not. Front Row? Ugh. Automator? Optimized kernel? Launchd for faster reboots? Core Image? None of that in 10.3? Really?

Thankfully you're a gifted musician as your skills in pointing out non-visual differences in an OS aren't the best.

monke
Sep 6, 2007, 10:06 PM
Thank you.

And 10.3 wasn't legitimately replaced two years ago. They just added wigets to it. It's the same exact OS.

Tiger's 200+ new features. (http://www.apple.com/macosx/newfeatures/over200.html):rolleyes:

Basically from that post, you're saying that Mac OS X has hardly changed...

adamcz
Sep 6, 2007, 10:11 PM
Automator? Optimized kernel? Core Image?For all I know you made those terms up. I'm on 10.4 right now on my wife's laptop and I don't see evidence of any of those things. Looks, feels, and smells the same to me, except if I mouse over the corner, a calculator and a dictionary pop up.

I'm sure optimized kernel is awesome, but to me, it's $80 spent on widgets.

swiftaw
Sep 6, 2007, 10:16 PM
For all I know you made those terms up. I'm on 10.4 right now on my wife's laptop and I don't see evidence of any of those things. Looks, feels, and smells the same to me, except if I mouse over the corner, a calculator and a dictionary pop up.

I'm sure optimized kernel is awesome, but to me, it's $80 spent on widgets.

No-one here is saying you're wrong to still be running Panther, you looked at what Tiger offered you and decided it wasn't worth the upgrade, fair enough. But, if you choose not to keep up you can't expect to be supported indefinitely, especially as you are a few weeks away from being two OS's behind. If you were two OS's behind in Windows you'd be running Windows ME, and how supported is that?

monke
Sep 6, 2007, 10:19 PM
For all I know you made those terms up. I'm on 10.4 right now on my wife's laptop and I don't see evidence of any of those things. Looks, feels, and smells the same to me, except if I mouse over the corner, a calculator and a dictionary pop up.

I'm sure optimized kernel is awesome, but to me, it's $80 spent on widgets.

No, he didn't 'make those terms up'. They're all here. (http://www.apple.com/macosx/newfeatures/)

Really, it sucks to be you right now. You bought an iPod, yet your to stubborn to make it work. Ha. Get real.

adamcz
Sep 6, 2007, 10:27 PM
If you were two OS's behind in Windows you'd be running Windows ME, and how supported is that?I bought my computer in 2003. If I had bought a Windows computer instead, it would be supported. In fact, if I had bought a Windows computer in 2001, it would be supported.

It seems like a logical conclusion that if I were to buy a computer today, it would be smarter to buy a Windows computer. If I did, I would get Vista, and Apple will probably support this OS for the next 6-8 years. If I bought a Mac today, I would 10.4, and Apple will support this only for the next 2 years.

Am I wrong?

swiftaw
Sep 6, 2007, 10:31 PM
Am I wrong?

Nobody knows what the future holds.

BennyK
Sep 6, 2007, 10:35 PM
Or maybe I should upgrade to Windows, since Apple thinks they can mess with me.

Just an FYI, the nanos dont work with Windows 3.0 either.

Wyvernspirit
Sep 6, 2007, 10:49 PM
For all I know you made those terms up. I'm on 10.4 right now on my wife's laptop and I don't see evidence of any of those things. Looks, feels, and smells the same to me, except if I mouse over the corner, a calculator and a dictionary pop up.

I'm sure optimized kernel is awesome, but to me, it's $80 spent on widgets.

Core image is "under the hood" and can't be seen but allows applications to do some amazing things.

As for Automater, open up the applications folder on your wife's comp and look for an icon of a robot holding a beam. Underneath it will say automater.

Out... For now

wakerider017
Sep 6, 2007, 10:53 PM
I bought my computer in 2003. If I had bought a Windows computer instead, it would be supported. In fact, if I had bought a Windows computer in 2001, it would be supported.


Am I wrong?

That is besides the point... Vista was delayed, delayed and then delayed some more...

Are you asking Apple to come out with a new OS every 6 years? If so maybe a PC would be better suited for you.

PygmySurfer
Sep 6, 2007, 10:53 PM
It seems like a logical conclusion that if I were to buy a computer today, it would be smarter to buy a Windows computer. If I did, I would get Vista, and Apple will probably support this OS for the next 6-8 years. If I bought a Mac today, I would 10.4, and Apple will support this only for the next 2 years.

Am I wrong?

And if you bought a Mac in November, it'll come with 10.5. You're making an unfair comparison, Microsoft just released their new OS, Apple hasn't yet, but is just about to.

That being said, Microsoft does support Windows longer than Apple supports Mac OS - however, that's only because they have to - they don't release new versions nearly as often as Apple. Microsoft also charges substantially more than Apple does for upgrades.

Mac OS X - $129
Vista Home Premium Upgrade - $145 (Courtesy Newegg)
Vista Ultimate Upgrade - $240 (Courtesy Newegg)

If you're a gamer, Microsoft has already left you behind - games such as Halo 2 and Shadowrun require Vista. There's no reason for it, MS is just using them to push their platform. Sure, if you're not a gamer, this doesn't affect you, but if MS can do this to gamers, you can be sure they'll do it to others as well, whether its software or hardware that ends up being unsupported with the next OS release.

So you can switch platforms if you want, but MS is just as bad as Apple in this case. A platform switch is going to be more costly than the $129 to upgrade Mac OS X.


I bought my computer in 2003. If I had bought a Windows computer instead, it would be supported. In fact, if I had bought a Windows computer in 2001, it would be supported.

Your computer from 2003 probably wouldn't even work with Vista - if it did, you certainly wouldn't get all the pretty effects of the new interface. Macs older than your 2003 model are able to run the latest OS X versions (I think the Quicksilver PowerMac G4 from 2001 is going to be eligible for Leopard). A Windows PC typically sees one MS OS over its lifetime, maybe 2. That G4 started with OS 9.2, and has so far lasted through 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and I believe it'll work with 10.5. That's 6 UPGRADES, 7 OS releases in total.

One last thing to consider. Apple has been planning these iPod updates for some time - they likely had a September release in mind back when they began planning the upgrades (iPod updates seem to occur every September now). Mac OS X 10.5 should have been released in the Spring, but it was delayed. So when Apple began designing these new iPods, they likely expected that 10.5 would have been released. They'd have been supporting 10.4 and 10.5 - the latest release, and the previous release. I don't know that there's a technical reason these new iPods require 10.4 (I kind of doubt it, except for maybe the iPod touch and iPhone), but if they initially expected 10.5 to be released by the time these new iPods were released, it may explain why they targeted 10.4 or later.

Wyvernspirit
Sep 6, 2007, 10:53 PM
I bought my computer in 2003. If I had bought a Windows computer instead, it would be supported. In fact, if I had bought a Windows computer in 2001, it would be supported.

It seems like a logical conclusion that if I were to buy a computer today, it would be smarter to buy a Windows computer. If I did, I would get Vista, and Apple will probably support this OS for the next 6-8 years. If I bought a Mac today, I would 10.4, and Apple will support this only for the next 2 years.

Am I wrong?

I bought my computer in 2002 and my computer is supported. I also have tiger. But hey I like to keep as current as I can, and as the OS has gotten faster on my system with each major OS release it is an incentive to upgrade for me, but your milage may vary. :rolleyes:

Yvan256
Sep 6, 2007, 11:07 PM
I just received Metroid Prime 3 today.

The damn thing requires a Wii and won't work on my Gamecube. Damn you Nintendo for not making your brand new game work on my 4-years old console! ;)

---

Seriously though, don't compare Mac OS versions and Windows versions. Microsoft took over 6 years to release Vista and a four-years old PC would never run it (or barely).

Either wait and upgrade to Leopard, or if your Mac really is 4 years old, wait for Leopard then buy a Mac mini, it'll be worth it (G4/G5 to Core 2 Duo).

Or if you're really low on cash you could wait for Leopard then buy Tiger at a discount (I'm assuming Tiger will drop in price once Leopard is out).

Rapmastac1
Sep 7, 2007, 12:18 AM
I can easily see why they still support XP. Let me tell you... Vista has only been out for one year and it has some of the worst (and mind you some good) reviews. My friend has vista and it has it's problems, that is why I bought XP (like two weeks ago) to install on my Macbook vrs. Vista! Vista has only been out for not even a year yet. OSX 10.4 has been out for two years for craps sake! I can understand that *and unlike Vista, osx actually works and doesn't feel like a beta test*

Stampyhead
Sep 7, 2007, 12:54 AM
Wow, this has got to be the most inane discussion/argument I have ever heard. You can complain all you want, but it comes down to the fact that you have 3 choices:
1. Upgrade your OS (it's worth the $129, but you can probably buy Tiger on Ebay for like $50 now),
2. Go buy a PC, or
3. Return the iPod.
I guess complaining is an option too, but in the end it doesn't solve your problem. People on here are trying to be helpful, but attacking them and/or Apple does nothing except diminish their desire to help. So there are your three choices. Pick one and stop complaining.

Markleshark
Sep 7, 2007, 02:42 AM
Yeah, why wont this damn electricity work in my Petrol car? I want to help the environment... Oh, thats not how it works? Damn...

EssentialParado
Sep 7, 2007, 03:21 AM
Wow. I'm surprised how much ignorance and Apple fanboyism there is in this thread.

Have you all forgotten that it was just months ago that Steve Jobs said 25% of Mac users were running Panther? How are some of you even comparing 10.3 as the equivalent of Windows ME or Windows 3.0??

You have an OLD OS... Over 2 years old in fact...
2 years is old for an operating system now?? We're expected to shell out a couple hundred to upgrade our OS every 2 years? That makes OS X way more expensive than Windows is.

And is it really SO MUCH to assume Apple would support just a 2 year-old OS??

For the record, I completely agree with the topic poster. I'm still on 10.3, and nothing in Tiger has made me want to upgrade, I was waiting for Leopard. Yet I've been waiting for a touchscreen iPod and ordered it immediately. There aren't just a few users out there using 10.3, it's millions, and a lot of those will be buying iPods.

As far as I can see it, Apple has justified me pirating my OS while I wait for Leopard. As much as I despise piracy they've just pissed me off so much.

bousozoku
Sep 7, 2007, 03:35 AM
Be nice. I know there is a lot of anger this week, but calm down, please.

Apple sometimes makes arbitrary requirements with products and software and it's extremely frustrating. What Apple did with Java and is still doing with Java bothers me. I know that there are certain times when the requirements are real but there have been plenty of time they've pushed us to upgrade. Such is the case with Java.

For all we know this requirement for the new iPod nano is no more than Apple saying that they want us to pay to upgrade to Tiger or later. I'm on Tiger but I don't benefit from a lot from the significant features like Dashboard and Exposé. In fact, Dashboard always caused my system to run poorly so I stopped it from running.

It's surprising that Apple didn't say 10.3.9 or later. Nothing in the operating system has changed so much that they couldn't have, at least, from my knowledge of the internals.

Yvan256
Sep 7, 2007, 04:48 AM
The thing is, we have no idea how iTunes interacts with iPods, and how iTunes interacts with the operating system.

Could Mac OS 10.3.9 work with the new iPods? Probably. Would it require Apple to keep legacy code around? Perhaps. Unlike Microsoft, Apple does not seem to hesitate to cut bridges with old versions (soon to be "current OS - 2"), maybe for the sake of legible and maintainable code.

Because if "backward compatible" means your software is hard to maintain and is unstable, then you're putting yourself in trouble with current and up-to-date users for the sake of users of old versions.

And yes, it does mean Apple could decide that my G4 Mac mini won't work with Mac OS 10.6.

fredsherbet
Sep 7, 2007, 07:17 AM
just wanted to throw in some support for the OP... I'm shocked that 10.3 isn't supported. We shouldn't be expected to pay an effective subscription to continue using our hardware... maybe once leopard comes out apple should offer tiger at a much reduced price, since they are removing support for Panther

Yvan256
Sep 7, 2007, 08:02 AM
just wanted to throw in some support for the OP... I'm shocked that 10.3 isn't supported. We shouldn't be expected to pay an effective subscription to continue using our hardware... maybe once leopard comes out apple should offer tiger at a much reduced price, since they are removing support for Panther

To be fair, Apple isn't asking the OP to pay for Tiger to "continue using his hardware". His current hardware should still be working fine.

His new iPod isn't something he had last week. It's something that he bought without checking the requirements.

His options are:
- return his new iPod (shouldn't be any fees since it's not even a week, not sure how laws work in USA)
- buy Tiger (new or used - if he can wait a few weeks/months then it'll be even cheaper)
- wait and buy Leopard
- switch to Windows XP

I don't think that talking about his problem on MacRumors will make Apple suddenly add Panther support. Then again I could be wrong, who knows.

As for Tiger being "Panther with widgets", let's not reduce an OS to its GUI alone. Tiger added 200+ features, some of them used by programmers, which may be the reason why the new iPods require Tiger.

milo
Sep 7, 2007, 08:20 AM
Basically it comes down to this:

Apple is supporting two operating systems on each platform. XP and Vista, and 10.4 and 10.5. It's just on the mac side, 10.5 doesn't ship for another month. It would be nice if they supported 10.3 now, but since that support would only last about a month, it would probably be a waste of resources.

It is an awkward situation for those still on 10.3 who want one of these new ones now.

Personally, I'd wait until Leopard ships and get the ipod then. This will be especially easy with the Touch since it doesn't ship until close to Leopard anyway.

If you bought one and really don't want to pay twice to upgrade, take it back and ask them to waive the restocking fee since you can't use it. Or just borrow 10.4 from a friend and buy 10.5 in a month or so. And read the system requirements next time.

Just to be clear, 10.4 is 2.5 years old, and 10.3 is almost four years old. There's no question that they'd be dropping support for 10.3 when 10.5 ships, they're just doing it about a month early.

wakerider017
Sep 7, 2007, 08:32 AM
Wow. I'm surprised how much ignorance and Apple fanboyism there is in this thread.

Have you all forgotten that it was just months ago that Steve Jobs said 25% of Mac users were running Panther? How are some of you even comparing 10.3 as the equivalent of Windows ME or Windows 3.0??


2 years is old for an operating system now?? We're expected to shell out a couple hundred to upgrade our OS every 2 years? That makes OS X way more expensive than Windows is.

And is it really SO MUCH to assume Apple would support just a 2 year-old OS??

Is it really 2 years old... OR has it been replaced for over 2 years now... The actual OS is almost exactly 4 years old!!

Just for a point of reference... The war on Iraq started in 2003. Every says that seems like forever ago.

For the record, I completely agree with the topic poster. I'm still on 10.3, and nothing in Tiger has made me want to upgrade, I was waiting for Leopard. Yet I've been waiting for a touchscreen iPod and ordered it immediately. There aren't just a few users out there using 10.3, it's millions, and a lot of those will be buying iPods.

As far as I can see it, Apple has justified me pirating my OS while I wait for Leopard. As much as I despise piracy they've just pissed me off so much.


Apple does something you don't agree with so you are going to go out and do something illegal.. Mature!

Funny thing is you started off this post calling other people ignorant... Haha :cool:

clevin
Sep 7, 2007, 08:41 AM
Clever sarcasm, but a new mac OS is just a fee to pay to use the ipod, and widgets. It does nothing else.

If I buy a new PC, then I've got all new hardware and compatibility with all sorts of software that doesn't work on this mac. Do I really want to pay 10% of the cost of a brand new computer as a fee for using an ipod?

do what I did, go buy a acer aspire 3680 for $400. wi-fi, SD card slot, Vista. and cheap..


Apple is supporting two operating systems on each platform. XP and Vista, and 10.4 and 10.5. It's just on the mac side, 10.5 doesn't ship for another month. It would be nice if they supported 10.3 now, but since that support would only last about a month, it would probably be a waste of resources.


consider XP is 6 years old...

also I wonder what exactly prevent apple from supporting 10.3, business? or technology?

milo
Sep 7, 2007, 08:59 AM
consider XP is 6 years old...

Just curious, have any of the XP service packs had a charge, or have they all been free?

PygmySurfer
Sep 7, 2007, 08:59 AM
also I wonder what exactly prevent apple from supporting 10.3, business? or technology?

Could be many things. I think the biggest thing is QA - Apple would have to test all these new products against 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5. By dropping 10.3, they've eliminated 1/3 of the QA required.

As I mentioned before, I also suspect Apple thought Leopard would have been released by the time these new iPods were released, and their intent was to support the 2 latest releases.

It'd be nice if Apple made it possible for these new iPods to work with 10.3, even if it wasn't officially supported (Has anyone tried that, yet? Did the poster download iTunes 7.4 and try it?)

clevin
Sep 7, 2007, 09:01 AM
Just curious, have any of the XP service packs had a charge, or have they all been free?

SPs are all free.

milo
Sep 7, 2007, 09:04 AM
As I mentioned before, I also suspect Apple thought Leopard would have been released by the time these new iPods were released, and their intent was to support the 2 latest releases.

Bingo. And once Leopard ships, the number of people still using 10.3 is going to go down even further.

BII
Sep 7, 2007, 11:16 AM
I bought my computer in 2003. If I had bought a Windows computer instead, it would be supported. In fact, if I had bought a Windows computer in 2001, it would be supported.

It seems like a logical conclusion that if I were to buy a computer today, it would be smarter to buy a Windows computer. If I did, I would get Vista, and Apple will probably support this OS for the next 6-8 years. If I bought a Mac today, I would 10.4, and Apple will support this only for the next 2 years.

Am I wrong?

USB 2.0 required, there weren't any USB 2.0 machines in 2001, at least not until late 2001, and even then, only high end machines.

BII
Sep 7, 2007, 12:00 PM
just wanted to throw in some support for the OP... I'm shocked that 10.3 isn't supported. We shouldn't be expected to pay an effective subscription to continue using our hardware... maybe once leopard comes out apple should offer tiger at a much reduced price, since they are removing support for Panther

You could always use Linux.

milo
Sep 7, 2007, 02:32 PM
USB 2.0 required, there weren't any USB 2.0 machines in 2001, at least not until late 2001, and even then, only high end machines.

Do the new ones really require usb2? The old ones always recommended it for faster syncing, but usb1 still worked fine.

Is it a requirement now? Anyone care to try hooking up to a usb1 port and see what happens?

i0Nic
Sep 7, 2007, 02:38 PM
I know how you feel, I bought an iPhone and plugged it in to my mac only to find it doesn't work. Who'd have thought that OS 9 wouldn't be supported :(

torchwood04
Sep 7, 2007, 03:48 PM
Okay, some of you don't get it, very soon, 10.5 will be the new OS, VERY VERY soon okay? It has long been Apple's tradition of only supporting two versions of OSX at a time. Besides, this will likely be the last iPod update until next year, so it was either now or later. I think it's good that Apple's getting it over with..

EssentialParado
Sep 7, 2007, 04:44 PM
Could be many things. I think the biggest thing is QA - Apple would have to test all these new products against 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5. By dropping 10.3, they've eliminated 1/3 of the QA required.

That's a very good point, thanks. However the least they could do is just write 10.4 on the box as a requirement while not restricting people who are running 10.3 If we have problems that's our own prerogative for running "unsupported" hardware.

Wyvernspirit
Sep 7, 2007, 05:17 PM
Do the new ones really require usb2? The old ones always recommended it for faster syncing, but usb1 still worked fine.

Is it a requirement now? Anyone care to try hooking up to a usb1 port and see what happens?

I've added a USB 2.0 Card to my Mac, only cost about $15.

GimmeSlack12
Sep 7, 2007, 05:26 PM
Or maybe I should upgrade to Windows, since Apple thinks they can mess with me.

That has to be one of the stupidest things I have heard on these boards. Would you like some wine with that.... oh forget it.

torchwood04
Sep 7, 2007, 05:31 PM
Do the new ones really require usb2? The old ones always recommended it for faster syncing, but usb1 still worked fine.

Is it a requirement now? Anyone care to try hooking up to a usb1 port and see what happens?
It should work, but honestly, would you even want to try it at a maximum of 1.5MB (not mega bit) per second trying to sync over 8gb of stuff?

milo
Sep 7, 2007, 05:34 PM
It should work, but honestly, would you even want to try it at a maximum of 1.5MB (not mega bit) per second trying to sync over 8gb of stuff?

So someone tried it and confirmed it works?

torchwood04
Sep 7, 2007, 05:39 PM
I said it should, USB 1.1 is upward compatible with 2.0 (except for speed), so I don't see why it would not work, but there's a reason why Apple says 2.0, SPEED!!!

Here's link found it http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/faqs/answers/does-the-ipod-work-with-usb-11/

edit: though usb 1.1 may not be able to power the ipod, hmm

GimmeSlack12
Sep 7, 2007, 05:41 PM
It should work, but honestly, would you even want to try it at a maximum of 1.5MB (not mega bit) per second trying to sync over 8gb of stuff?

I wouldn't! That would take FOREVER!
Although I can confirm that the USB 1.1 DOES work. But jeez, goodluck to those who try to survive with that.

milo
Sep 7, 2007, 05:49 PM
Thanks for the confirmation.

dan-o-mac
Sep 7, 2007, 06:31 PM
My wife has 10.4, so I use it all the time, and I honestly can't name a single difference other than widgets, which I don't care about even slightly. Why should I pay $80 for fricking widgets??? Yeah I know there are 10 million hidden features or whatever, but if I can't tell what they are while going back and forth between the two systems, they aren't that important.

Windows XP was released in 2001, and Apple decided to support that. It's clear that I will get better support from Apple if I buy a PC, so I will not rule that out for my next purchase.

Since your wife has 10.4 and you use it all the time, couldnt you just use her computer for the time being?

TEG
Sep 7, 2007, 06:55 PM
The Needs of the many, outweigh, the needs of the few.

You sir are the few, everyone else is the many. The many will be upgrading to Leopard in a few weeks, and you will again be the few.

That being said... The reason to update the OS, on a Mac at least, are legion, including security, stability, and speed. With MS each one of those gets worse with each upgrade, but I swear, that with each OS X Update my computer gets faster, plus it gives me an excuse to wipe my HD and reload my programs, cleaning up the gunk that gets in there.

Solution to your problem: Install Tiger.

Also, people say that everything on a Mac just works... That's true, as long as your system's software is UP-TO-DATE!!!!!

SMEG,

TEG

HLdan
Sep 7, 2007, 06:58 PM
The OP is starting to sound like a big baby. Should you have asked questions before buying? YES. It's your responsibility. You could be running Mac OS 9 for all Apple knows. The website even mentions the system requirements.

Stop making these "I will switch to Windows and Zune" threats, you are just whining. Windows customers go through more compatibility crap than Macs yet that doesn't stop people from using Windows.

Apple isn't forcing you to do anything. It's your choice to buy the new iPod and it's your choice not to upgrade to Tiger or Leopard but understand something that computers outdate the day you take them out of the box.

Go ahead and switch to Windows (because you are mad at Apple), Vista isn't compatible with a lot of XP's software and XP is getting the boot in favor of new software and hardware designed for Vista only.

adamcz
Sep 8, 2007, 08:02 AM
Stop making these "I will switch to Windows and Zune" threats, you are just whining.The Zune thing was a joke. The Windows thing was to point out that Apple supports Windows OS all the way back to 2001, but Mac OS only back two years. If I want to use the latest Apple products with minimal upgrade costs over the years, the sensible route is to buy a PC.

Why does Apple choose not to display the system requirements anywhere in their store? They know a large percentage of users won't be able to use the products, so why not put a sign up somewhere? If the boxes were on display, people could pick them up and look at them, but they aren't.

JonHimself
Sep 8, 2007, 08:20 AM
The Zune thing was a joke. The Windows thing was to point out that Apple supports Windows OS all the way back to 2001, but Mac OS only back two years. If I want to use the latest Apple products with minimal upgrade costs over the years, the sensible route is to buy a PC.

Why does Apple choose not to display the system requirements anywhere in their store? They know a large percentage of users won't be able to use the products, so why not put a sign up somewhere? If the boxes were on display, people could pick them up and look at them, but they aren't.

The one thing I don't get is that you've been on this forum for like 4 years (so you obviously are "into" Apple stuff - news, rumors, updates, etc) yet you don't really bother to check system requirements on anything? I mean, I'm fairly confident it was in the Keynote AND there was at least one discussion about it in this very forum. I wouldn't have bothered to check, but then again I'm running the current OS so I can be guaranteed that the OS will not be the limiting factor. You, however, are running an older OS - regardless of how old it is still not up-to-date - so I would think that you would at least think to ask someone about this or look into it for yourself. Back in my PC days whenever a new piece of software came out and I knew my computer was a year or two old I always checked to see how it would work. That's software, I know, but the fact remains that if you're using something that is a year or two old AND not up-to-date it's probably not a bad idea to look into these things.

maccam
Sep 8, 2007, 08:24 AM
They know a large percentage of users won't be able to use the products

Uh? 35% isn't that much to lose.

Wyvernspirit
Sep 8, 2007, 08:27 AM
The Zune thing was a joke. The Windows thing was to point out that Apple supports Windows OS all the way back to 2001, but Mac OS only back two years. If I want to use the latest Apple products with minimal upgrade costs over the years, the sensible route is to buy a PC.

Why does Apple choose not to display the system requirements anywhere in their store? They know a large percentage of users won't be able to use the products, so why not put a sign up somewhere? If the boxes were on display, people could pick them up and look at them, but they aren't.

Right or wrong, they expect you to be a wise consumer (was going to say intelligent, but this could happen to people of any intelligence level) and read the packaging before purchase. I always read the packaging, and if doesn't explictly state that it will work for me I investigate the product before purchase. Actually I investigate every tech purchase before purchase anyway.

As fot the box not being on display, when I bought the iPhone I was handed the box before purchace and it allowed me to read it.

Just a thought


Out...

nospleen
Sep 8, 2007, 08:29 AM
I have to agree with the OP on this one.

I fully understand that from a development standpoint, you have to cut ties with the old OS and move forward at some point. However, we are not talking about XP and the millions of developers, programs, hardware, etc. We are talking about Apple allowing the iPod to have the appropriate drivers. His mac already has iTunes on it.

So extending the support of the iPod to work with Tiger is not unreasonable. His mac will run the latest version of iTunes, so why shouldn't he be able to use the latest and greatest iPod?

gnasher729
Sep 8, 2007, 08:38 AM
Bingo. And once Leopard ships, the number of people still using 10.3 is going to go down even further.

I also believe that if you have a PowerPC Mac, and you bought 10.4 a while ago separate from your Mac, and you now buy Leopard, you can then sell 10.4 on eBay (after removing it from your Mac), so there should be cheap and legal copies of Tiger on eBay soon. Same as you can buy Panther quite cheap now.

gnasher729
Sep 8, 2007, 08:41 AM
I've added a USB 2.0 Card to my Mac, only cost about $15.

I should add: Some USB 2.0 cards have a sticker "Macintosh compatible" which magically doubles or triples the price. Cards without that sticker work just as fine :D

sushi
Sep 8, 2007, 08:43 AM
The OP has a point.

However, when you purchase hardware, you would always verify the hardware and software requirements first. Had the OP done this, he would have either purchased Tiger or not purchased the Nano.

Guess it pays to read the requirements.

adamcz
Sep 8, 2007, 09:11 AM
Guess it pays to read the requirements.Yep the requirements that are written in dim grey size 3 font on the back of a box that is locked behind the cash register, and placed directly in the bag when you buy it.

It's not the end of the world guys. I'm out $20 return fee, not a huge deal. I just thought it was appropriate to complain about a shady move on Apple's part, and defend my logic thereafter.

zap2
Sep 8, 2007, 09:29 AM
It's not the end of the world guys. I'm out $20 return fee, not a huge deal. I just thought it was appropriate to complain about a shady move on Apple's part, and defend my logic thereafter.

Wasn't shady...go online, read it there., read it in the store(you can ask to see it before you pay) Or upgrade your computer...Apple didn't lye, you just didn't read the specs(something everyone should, more so if your not up to date on the newest OS!)

other
Sep 8, 2007, 09:33 AM
Just an FYI, the nanos dont work with Windows 3.0 either.

So Panther == Windows 3.0? That was the worst comparison ever.

I really can't understand how anyone can defend the fact that Apple don't support Panther. That's messed up.

nsbio
Sep 8, 2007, 09:44 AM
I am on the same boat, with a G4 PB running Panther. What is so different about the new vs previous shuffles that one works with Panther and another one does not??? I have a Tiger machine at work and so use both, and the difference between Panther and Tiger is nonexistent for me as a user, except a couple of insignificant details.

For the new ipods, they could at least have enabled a simple syncing of songs/audiobooks without having to pay an upgrade fee.

About the impending Leopard release: how would it run on G4 machines? Will it be usable or much slower than 10.3/10.4? (This is a question for folks running preview versions on their PPCs).

Wyvernspirit
Sep 8, 2007, 09:49 AM
So Panther == Windows 3.0? That was the worst comparison ever.

I really can't understand how anyone can defend the fact that Apple don't support Panther. That's messed up.

I'm not sure what you want Apple to do? Do you want them to add all the features of tiger to Panther? Where do they stop? Yes, they would like you to upgrade, they are a company. I am not sure if in this specific case it is necessary to exclude Panther, and if there is no special drivers used or other software that is in tiger and not panther, they should allow it. But you seem to think apple should support you for as long as you want them to.

Out...

trevorlsciact
Sep 8, 2007, 09:59 AM
Before shelling out 100's of $ for a product i usually like to do a little research first! If money just doesn't matter to you that much--just buy a new OS.
Maybe Apple should have supported Panther, I think they should have. But don't wine about it. You bought it! Return it, or upgrade your OS (or wait till Leopard, the most logical option IMO) You are responsible for your own actions, not Apple.

iCantwait
Sep 8, 2007, 10:00 AM
just torrent tiger, its free (and illegal) but just do that to stop wingin'
:apple::apple::apple::apple::apple:

trevorlsciact
Sep 8, 2007, 10:02 AM
just torrent tiger, its free (and illegal) but just do that to stop wingin'
:apple::apple::apple::apple::apple:

I don't think he is bright enough to do that....

sushi
Sep 8, 2007, 10:18 AM
Yep the requirements that are written in dim grey size 3 font on the back of a box that is locked behind the cash register, and placed directly in the bag when you buy it.
Do what I do. Play ignorant and simply describe your setup and then ask them if your setup will support the new hardware, or ask what you need to run the new hardware or device that you are considering purchasing.

torchwood04
Sep 8, 2007, 10:23 AM
See, I like what someone brought up earlier, before the four month delay of Leopard, and these iPods would've been released, Apple would have supported the current (Leopard) and previous (Tiger) releases, though there would still be complaining. Are you Panther users going to complain when Apple discontinues security updates for Panther, or iTunes/QuickTime releases? Face it, Panther will be obsolete within the next two months..

trevorlsciact
Sep 8, 2007, 10:27 AM
See, I like what someone brought up earlier, before the four month delay of Leopard, and these iPods would've been released, Apple would have supported the current (Leopard) and previous (Tiger) releases, though there would still be complaining. Are you Panther users going to complain when Apple discontinues security updates for Panther, or iTunes/QuickTime releases? Face it, Panther will be obsolete within the next two months..

Yes, but it isn't right now, so shouldn't Apple support it. They are the ones who delayed Leopard. They should take responsibility for their actions.

other
Sep 8, 2007, 10:31 AM
I'm not sure what you want Apple to do?.

They support Windows Vista, XP and 2000. Windows 2000 was released in February 2000. Panther was released in October 2003.

Your comparisons are stupid, and you know it.

torchwood04
Sep 8, 2007, 10:36 AM
Yes, but it isn't right now, so shouldn't Apple support it. They are the ones who delayed Leopard. They should take responsibility for their actions.
But Panther is so close to End of Life either way...

aristobrat
Sep 8, 2007, 12:04 PM
They support Windows Vista, XP and 2000. Windows 2000 was released in February 2000. Panther was released in October 2003.

Your comparisons are stupid, and you know it.
iTunes 7.4 does NOT support Windows 2000

wordmunger
Sep 8, 2007, 12:21 PM
I'm with the OP. It's ridiculous that they don't support Panther. Many people are on a 3 or 4 year replacement cycle with their computers, and a 2 year old computer would have Panther.

To those who say "Apple traditionally supports 2 OSs," well, here's a case where they don't. The nano only ships supporting 1 Mac OS. Sure, Leopard will be available at some mythical point in the future, but as of now, Apple's only supporting one OS.

To those who say "pony up $129 for Tiger," that's absolutely insane. Why should I have to pay $129 to get my $149 product to work? For that price, I could get an iPod Touch (if it worked with my computer).

I agree that the OP should have read the system requirements, but regardless, I still think it's a mistake for Apple not to support the two most recent apple OSs in its new iPods, ESPECIALLY when those older computers still support the latest version of iTunes. Does this mean Panther will not be able to run the next version of iTunes?

One reason I can justify paying a premium for Apple computers is that they have a long life. If Apple stops supporting older models, that's one less reason for me to buy Apple computers.

torchwood04
Sep 8, 2007, 12:21 PM
iTunes 7.3.2 and QuickTime 7.1.6 are the last versions to support Windows 2000.
Edit: By the way, I don't get Apple's logic, if the new iPods don't support Panther, they should just drop iTunes for Panther then too, so that way we don't have this big and long list of requirements..

Wyvernspirit
Sep 8, 2007, 12:30 PM
They support Windows Vista, XP and 2000. Windows 2000 was released in February 2000. Panther was released in October 2003.

Your comparisons are stupid, and you know it.

They have to support xp as it is the largest install base. Not sure about 2000, but would guess its a very large part of the business community. Apple also doesn't need to sell copies of windows in order to pay for the r&d for software and hardware that other companies will steal from so that they don't pay the r&d costs.

Out...

other
Sep 8, 2007, 02:36 PM
You're right, the latest version of iTunes does not support Windows 2000. Maybe it's possible to get around, like with Age of Empires 3. Maybe I'll try that later.

torchwood04
Sep 8, 2007, 02:41 PM
It may possibly take more than just tricking the installer, there also may be a driver issue as well if you are attempting to try the new iPods on it..

ryannel2003
Sep 8, 2007, 06:54 PM
Just get over yourself and go get Tiger. You can get it for like $70, and will be supported for along time. I hate when people come up here and complain about how "OMG, OMG, my iPod doesn't work with 10.3". It's an old OS. You should have read the requirements before purchasing it. That's your own fault.

So go ahead and have fun with that Zune along with that PC. I'm sure the fact that you are carrying around something much less attractive than an iPod and having a PC that has the risk of viruses and spyware will be much better than you Mac. Plus you'll be spending a lot more money than if you just wanted to upgrade to Tiger.

bloodycape
Sep 9, 2007, 03:17 AM
Good luck getting that to work with Panther.

Not that hard as long as you get libMTP or similar you can get it to work fine.

Nickygoat
Sep 9, 2007, 03:29 AM
My wife has 10.4, so I use it all the time,

I didn't see anyone else post on this - why not use your wife's machine?

Just transfer over the songs you want and plug it in.

No fuss, no cost and no need to rag at Apple because you didn't read the specs properly.

Edit: oops someone did, just didn't see it before my coffee. The irony ;)

EssentialParado
Sep 9, 2007, 07:20 AM
Uh? 35% isn't that much to lose.

Sarcasm? That's over a third.

Hmac
Sep 9, 2007, 07:32 AM
I have 10.3.9. I guess they decided only the newest Mac purchasers get to use the new ipods.


Nothing new about bringing out new hardware and only have it workable with the newest software.

Why should those of us who have a current OS have to suffer an iPod crippled just so it will be backwards compatible and work for you?

EssentialParado
Sep 9, 2007, 07:35 AM
See, I like what someone brought up earlier, before the four month delay of Leopard, and these iPods would've been released, Apple would have supported the current (Leopard) and previous (Tiger) releases, though there would still be complaining.
Not from me, because I'd be running Leopard. A lot of Mac users leapfrog OS releases.

And seriously, will people stop telling us to upgrade to Tiger? We've held off upgrading for 2 years in waiting for Leopard. We're not going to upgrade now.

The point is that Apple should be supporting the 2 most recent OS's, especially when one of those was everyone's primary OS just as recently as 2005.

adamcz
Sep 9, 2007, 02:33 PM
Just got back from the Apple store. They waived the $20 return fee on account of the high volume of people complaining about this very thing.

PygmySurfer
Sep 9, 2007, 03:08 PM
The point is that Apple should be supporting the 2 most recent OS's, especially when one of those was everyone's primary OS just as recently as 2005.

I still think that was Apple's intention. Unfortunately, Leopard was delayed til about a month or so after the release of the new iPods. They had a choice to either support 10.4 and later only, or go back and re-engineer the new products to work with 10.3. Personally, I don't think there's any technical reason the new iPods wouldn't work on 10.3 (I think the internals are largely the same as the 5.5G iPod and 2G nano (actually, I think the classic is probably using the Samsung System-On-Chip from the nano)), but they would have to at least run QA on that platform. This may have delayed the products. Apple might have decided it was better to support 10.4 only than to delay the products to test for the small # of 10.3 users.

adamcz
Sep 9, 2007, 03:10 PM
the small # of 10.3 users.Otherwise known as millions of people.

wakerider017
Sep 9, 2007, 03:29 PM
Otherwise known as millions of people.

Relatively that is very small.

What percent of iPod owners do you think are using 10.3? (I am talking about overall... Windows/Mac) I would imagine that percentage would be extremely small. And it is about to get even smaller with 10.5 coming out in just a few weeks.

IMO this thread is just stupid.

A user on here made an error and wants to blame it on Apple. Why didn't you read the website, look at the product or ask an Apple employee?

This is nothing new and it is being made into a big deal about nothing. As Steve Jobs said:

There is always change and improvement, and there is always someone who bought a product before a particular cutoff date and misses the new price or the new operating system or the new whatever. This is life in the technology lane.

Did you know the last iPods only supported 10.3.9?

Didn't hear anyone with 10.2 complaining..

wordmunger
Sep 9, 2007, 04:36 PM
Just got back from the Apple store. They waived the $20 return fee on account of the high volume of people complaining about this very thing.

So.... apparently this is NOT an insignificant problem, despite all the naysayers in this thread. Just because you all have updated to the latest and greatest OS, doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of us who are hoping to extend the life of their older Apple products.

EssentialParado
Sep 9, 2007, 04:49 PM
Just got back from the Apple store. They waived the $20 return fee on account of the high volume of people complaining about this very thing.
Adam, I don't want to sound disbelieving but are you exaggerating to any degree? Did the staff actually say a high volume of people are complaining? If so this can only be a good thing for getting 10.3 drivers made.

MacAficionado
Sep 9, 2007, 04:54 PM
Just got back from the Apple store. They waived the $20 return fee on account of the high volume of people complaining about this very thing.

Good deal, I was going to suggest that very approach. It is pretty ****** that they do that. Good to hear they refunded you 100% and that there are more people with the same issue. Maybe that will make them support 10.3.

wakerider017
Sep 9, 2007, 04:57 PM
Good deal, I was going to suggest that very approach. It is pretty ****** that they do that. Good to hear they refunded you 100% and that there are more people with the same issue. Maybe that will make them support 10.3.

Did they ever come out with 10.2 support for the last gen ipods?

NO

sblasl
Sep 9, 2007, 05:09 PM
"It is better to remain silent and thought a fool then to speak up and remove all doubt" Abraham Lincoln

I have 10.3.9. I guess they decided only the newest Mac purchasers get to use the new ipods. Sort of sucks to bring the thing home, plug it in, and be denied. Now I have to decide if I want to pay $20 to return it, or put it on ebay.

You know they could make it compatible with my OS if they wanted to. They just don't want to, because they think they can force me to update to a new OS this way.

Is it my fault for not asking more questions at the store about whether it would work with my computer? Honestly, I bought into the hype of "it's a mac - stuff just works." I guess that line holds true for printers and cameras, but not with products actually made by Apple.

:mad:

adamcz
Sep 9, 2007, 08:29 PM
I'm amused by the number of people who are straight up mad at me in this thread. Mad that I would have the "nerve" to not own the latest everything.

sblasl, would you say something like that to somebody in real life? Nobody acts like that towards me in real life, so I have to wonder if the people on this board simply have no social skills, or if they are just relishing in their anonymoty.

aristobrat
Sep 9, 2007, 08:55 PM
My guess is that very few people in this thread give a rip about you (or how you chose to upgrade the OS on your Mac) to actually be mad at you.

They're simply responding to the baiting comments that you left in most of your posts.

Seems like you were amused all along. You did an excellent job of pushing about every button that could be pushed to get replies! :)

wakerider017
Sep 9, 2007, 08:58 PM
My guess is that very few people in this thread give a rip about you (or how you chose to upgrade the OS on your Mac) to actually be mad at you.

They're simply responding to the baiting comments that you left in most of your posts.

Seems like you were amused all along. You did an excellent job of pushing about every button that could be pushed to get replies! :)

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Enjoy your Zune Adam...

matttrick
Sep 9, 2007, 09:27 PM
im glad to see the mac community is as smug as ever. you guys really deserve the way everyone thinks you guys act like your crap dont stink. the OP has a fair issue. apple programs hardware etc should "just work", at least across the same damned OS.

wakerider017
Sep 9, 2007, 10:00 PM
im glad to see the mac community is as smug as ever. you guys really deserve the way everyone thinks you guys act like your crap dont stink. the OP has a fair issue. apple programs hardware etc should "just work", at least across the same damned OS.

Your right...

Apple should support OS 9 too. :rolleyes:

aristobrat
Sep 9, 2007, 10:05 PM
im glad to see the mac community is as smug as ever. you guys really deserve the way everyone thinks you guys act like your crap dont stink. the OP has a fair issue. apple programs hardware etc should "just work", at least across the same damned OS.
Because the people who posted in this thread represent the entire Mac community, right? :rolleyes:

I bet most folks here believe the OP has a fair issue, not that any discussion in this thread could change the minimum system requirements for the new iPods.

Again, I think it's the one or two lines in most of the OPs replies that (judging from the replies they generated) read to others as being intentionally provocative that have set the tone of this thread.

Hmac
Sep 9, 2007, 10:08 PM
It's clear that I will get better support from Apple if I buy a PC, so I will not rule that out for my next purchase.

Well....that will teach us...:rolleyes:

im glad to see the mac community is as smug as ever. you guys really deserve the way everyone thinks you guys act like your crap dont stink. the OP has a fair issue. apple programs hardware etc should "just work", at least across the same damned OS.

Here's a flash...technology marches on. Loss of legacy support is the name of the game. Windows XP isn't a valid argument vis a vis legacy support....many of us are using Macs because that crappy, buggy piece of bloatware (Windows XP) was so bad.

reubs
Sep 9, 2007, 10:22 PM
im glad to see the mac community is as smug as ever. you guys really deserve the way everyone thinks you guys act like your crap dont stink. the OP has a fair issue. apple programs hardware etc should "just work", at least across the same damned OS.

It's not the "same damned OS". They are two different OSes that we're talking about. We're actually talking about three different OSes: Panther, Tiger, and Leopard. I'm glad to know that the folks at the Apple Store gave the OP a break and let him return his Nano w/o a penalty; that's a good move on their part.

torchwood04
Sep 9, 2007, 11:24 PM
To the people who upgrade every other release of OSX: power to 'ya! You really can wait less than two months for your new OS to sync your new iPods..
Edit: I don't think I remember a mass complaint when it was found that the iPhone does not support 10.3..

EssentialParado
Sep 10, 2007, 01:47 AM
Your right...

Apple should support OS 9 too. :rolleyes:
Yes, it is his right.

And no, Apple shouldn't support OS9. Just the previous version of OS X.

To the people who upgrade every other release of OSX: power to 'ya! You really can wait less than two months for your new OS to sync your new iPods..
Edit: I don't think I remember a mass complaint when it was found that the iPhone does not support 10.3..
iPhone sales to date: a million?
iPod sales to date: over 100 million.

kalamus
Sep 10, 2007, 12:24 PM
If only I had known to buy a windows computer, this thread wouldn't exist, because it would be supported.


Go buy one then and get off these forums with this drivel. Your arguements are ridiculous at best.


Why does Apple choose not to display the system requirements anywhere in their store? They know a large percentage of users won't be able to use the products, so why not put a sign up somewhere? If the boxes were on display, people could pick them up and look at them, but they aren't.

They dont display that because it muddles up the store. There are about 10 people standing around to answer any question you have. Hell, if I was in there I would tell you. ASK SOMEONE for the love of god. :eek:

uaaerospace
Sep 10, 2007, 12:55 PM
We shouldn't be expected to pay an effective subscription to continue using our hardware...

You're not being asked to pay anything to continue to use your hardware. Your computer functions just fine with 10.3.9....and every other piece of hardware you have works with it just fine. If you want the latest and greatest iPod, you have to have a somewhat new computer. If you don't have the latest computer (or at least one somewhat new), why should you have the latest iPod?

Besides, we aren't even talking about computers here. We're talking about a software upgrade. Maybe you didn't see the point in upgrading to 10.4 in the past. Perhaps the features weren't enough. Well, add owning a new iPod to that list. If you don't like it, take it back.

Many, many changes occurred under the hood in 10.4. Perhaps the new iPod takes advantage of these. We simply don't know.

This is preciously the reason companies put "hardware/software requirements" on the side of the box and on the web sites.

milo
Sep 10, 2007, 01:43 PM
Yep the requirements that are written in dim grey size 3 font on the back of a box that is locked behind the cash register, and placed directly in the bag when you buy it.

You don't think they'd let you see the box before buying it? I say if you're dumb enough to buy something without reading the box first you deserve what you get.

EssentialParado
Sep 10, 2007, 04:19 PM
You're not being asked to pay anything to continue to use your hardware. Your computer functions just fine with 10.3.9....and every other piece of hardware you have works with it just fine. If you want the latest and greatest iPod, you have to have a somewhat new computer. If you don't have the latest computer (or at least one somewhat new), why should you have the latest iPod?

So my PowerBook I paid $3500 for just 2 years ago isn't considered "somewhat new" ?

All your arguments would work if this was 10.2, but this is 10.3, an OS that was the primary Mac OS, and had the main marketshare during 2005 and possibly a large part of 2006.

chainring
Sep 11, 2007, 04:35 PM
I am another guy who is stuck with an iPod I can't use until the new OS X comes out - or I Windows.

I bought a Classic today, took it home and found out it was incompatible. The sales guy took the box from behind the counter and put it directly into the bag. Sure, I could of asked to check the specs but I expected it to work. I have a G4 PowerBook and a 2G iPod and I was psyched to get a new iPod. I never upgraded to Tiger since I didn't think I was missing anything - and I wasn't - until now.

My gripe is the sales guy should have asked my about what system I was running. He was more concerned with making a sale than keeping a customer happy. While I was being rung up a woman with kid in tow came into the store wanting to buy one for her mother. I'm sure she's not checking the specs in advance. She expects it to work. I sure hope grandma doesn't have any software issues.

The irony is I also have a Window PC and now I'll have to transfer my library over to it to use my new toy. I sympathize with the OP.

I am also surprised there isn't an easy workaround to the problem. Why hasn't any of the gurus on this board figured something out? And don't tell me it's because all the gurus are up to date on their operating systems. Accept the challenge and figure this one out. Afterall the iPod is only a hard drive.

motulist
Sep 11, 2007, 04:50 PM
You Apple apologists are sickening. We should applaud Apple when they get things right, but just as importantly we should condemn them when they get it wrong. The current OS is version 10.4, it is reprehensible that they don't fully support their own OS that's just one generation behind the current version of the OS.

C'mon, this is lame of them and you know it.

And to people arguing things like OS 10.3 equates to Windows ME and so it's only natural that it not be supported, you should be ashamed of yourself. Windows ME was released in september 2000, Mac OS 10.3 was released in october 2003. And 10.3 is the previous generation to the current Mac OS, not 2 generations older like Windows ME is. And OS 10.4 was released on April 29, 2005, so a person could've bought a Mac 2 and a half years ago and not be able to use his new iPod without paying for an upgrade to his two and a half year old computer? C'mon, that's totally messed up.

aristobrat
Sep 11, 2007, 07:21 PM
He was more concerned with making a sale than keeping a customer happy.
Since Apple employees don't get commissions or bonuses for selling stuff, he really didn't have a reason to be concerned with "just making a sale".

Afterall the iPod is only a hard drive.
Really? :eek: Is this your first iPod? It does a lot more than just be a hard drive. It keeps track of the last date/time you played a song, if you changed a rating of a song, if you skipped a song before it finished, updates your Smart Playlists on the fly, etc... It's more than "only a hard drive".

DoFoT9
Sep 11, 2007, 07:24 PM
Or maybe I should upgrade to Windows, since Apple thinks they can mess with me.

uuhh maybe read the fine print next time??

aristobrat
Sep 11, 2007, 07:28 PM
The current OS is version 10.4, it is reprehensible that they don't fully support their own OS that's just one generation behind the current version of the OS.
So if this is your criteria (2 supported OS versions = mandatory), then condemn them however many more days it is until next OS is out.

I am also surprised there isn't an easy workaround to the problem. Why hasn't any of the gurus on this board figured something out? And don't tell me it's because all the gurus are up to date on their operating systems.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=353378&highlight=poll

I'll let the poll above tell you. :)

chainring
Sep 11, 2007, 08:00 PM
Since Apple employees don't get commissions or bonuses for selling stuff, he really didn't have a reason to be concerned with "just making a sale".


So then the salespeople have no reason NOT to make sure Apple customers are happy. They should ask before a sale is made. It should not be the customers responsibility to insure compatibility of a product that they expect to compatible.


Really? :eek: Is this your first iPod? It does a lot more than just be a hard drive. It keeps track of the last date/time you played a song, if you changed a rating of a song, if you skipped a song before it finished, updates your Smart Playlists on the fly, etc... It's more than "only a hard drive".


All of the above is done with simple XML. Why can't I simply mount the drive and drag the files over - LIKE I'M DOING ON MY WINDOWS COMPUTER RIGHT NOW!?

aristobrat
Sep 11, 2007, 08:20 PM
So then the salespeople have no reason NOT to make sure Apple customers are happy. They should ask before a sale is made. It should not be the customers responsibility to insure compatibility of a product that they expect to compatible.
Hmm, wonder why he didn't do that then? Apple retail, in general, is known for going out of their way to satisfy the customer. If they were getting lots of angry returns, you'd think that they'd be proactive.

All of the above is done with simple XML. Why can't I simply mount the drive and drag the files over - LIKE I'M DOING ON MY WINDOWS COMPUTER RIGHT NOW!?
Don't know. Like you pointed out, there seems to be nobody trying to find a workaround for this issue. And besides four or five people in this thread, I really haven't heard anyone else talk about it, which is very unusual for a problem of magnitude here on MacRumors.

suneohair
Sep 11, 2007, 08:21 PM
I am another guy who is stuck with an iPod I can't use until the new OS X comes out - or I Windows.

I bought a Classic today, took it home and found out it was incompatible. The sales guy took the box from behind the counter and put it directly into the bag. Sure, I could of asked to check the specs but I expected it to work. I have a G4 PowerBook and a 2G iPod and I was psyched to get a new iPod. I never upgraded to Tiger since I didn't think I was missing anything - and I wasn't - until now.

My gripe is the sales guy should have asked my about what system I was running. He was more concerned with making a sale than keeping a customer happy. While I was being rung up a woman with kid in tow came into the store wanting to buy one for her mother. I'm sure she's not checking the specs in advance. She expects it to work. I sure hope grandma doesn't have any software issues.

The irony is I also have a Window PC and now I'll have to transfer my library over to it to use my new toy. I sympathize with the OP.

I am also surprised there isn't an easy workaround to the problem. Why hasn't any of the gurus on this board figured something out? And don't tell me it's because all the gurus are up to date on their operating systems. Accept the challenge and figure this one out. Afterall the iPod is only a hard drive.

Sounds like you can't read. Not Apples problem. Apples job is not to inform you directly. They give you the requirements. If you don't read them that is your problem.

wakerider017
Sep 11, 2007, 08:32 PM
I am also surprised there isn't an easy workaround to the problem. Why hasn't any of the gurus on this board figured something out? And don't tell me it's because all the gurus are up to date on their operating systems. Accept the challenge and figure this one out. Afterall the iPod is only a hard drive.

Was there ever a fix for the last gen iPods to make them work with 10.2

NO

Get over it! This is not the first time this has happened and it was never the end of the world before.

twistedlegato
Sep 11, 2007, 08:57 PM
They are not "messing" with you...

I have never heard some one say "What the heck man, why can't I use my Zune with windows 98..."

You have an OLD OS... Over 2 years old in fact...

Just wait and buy Leopard..

Leopard comming around soon! So don't spend money on Tiger. It's pointless to now

wakerider017
Sep 11, 2007, 09:02 PM
Leopard comming around soon! So don't spend money on Tiger. It's pointless to now

Yes I know...

EssentialParado
Sep 12, 2007, 08:35 AM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=353378&highlight=poll

I'll let the poll above tell you. :)

116 votes? Well that's conclusive isn't it?

Apple's own reports showed that 1 in 4 Mac users are running Panther.

Was there ever a fix for the last gen iPods to make them work with 10.2

NO

Get over it! This is not the first time this has happened and it was never the end of the world before.
10.2 was supported on iPods up until 6 months after Tiger released.

And due to the growth of both the Mac and the iPod since then it's not hard to guess that there are significantly more 10.3 users now than there were 10.2 users when 10.4 released. This is the first time Apple has supported only one Mac OS on the iPod.

Sounds like you can't read. Not Apples problem.
Charming.

aristobrat
Sep 12, 2007, 11:18 AM
116 votes? Well that's conclusive isn't it?

Apple's own reports showed that 1 in 4 Mac users are running Panther.
Conclusive in regards as to why there aren't more people here complaining about this "issue".

Do you have a link to Apple's report? I've been trying to find it.

EssentialParado
Sep 12, 2007, 01:16 PM
Do you have a link to Apple's report? I've been trying to find it.
Do Apple ever publish their reports? I've only known them to announce the end statistic.

aristobrat
Sep 12, 2007, 02:06 PM
Do Apple ever publish their reports? I've only known them to announce the end statistic.
Right, Apple announces statistics which are then liveblogged by like 10 different Apple-related sites (like MacRumors, TUAW, MacNN, MacWorld, etc).

So you know where you heard that 25% of people were still running Panther? Was it at WWDC 2007? MacWorld 2007? I still haven't been able to find a record of it.

milo
Sep 12, 2007, 02:14 PM
Do Apple ever publish their reports? I've only known them to announce the end statistic.

So what's the source of your 1 in 4 number, report or otherwise?

Without any source, you could have just made that number up.

ChrisBrightwell
Sep 12, 2007, 02:20 PM
The last thing going through my head at the store was asking if the thing was compatible with my Mac, which isn't that old, and has the second most recent OS.

... I suppose they should support OS 9, too? What about the Apple II?

Face it ... with an OS install that's 2+ years old, there are just some things that, like it or not, will not be supported. You can either return the iPod and get your money back (the incompatibility should get you out of the restocking fee) or upgrade your OS. It's your choice.

Either way, it's hardly Apple's fault in the case. Caveat emptor, indeed.

EssentialParado
Sep 12, 2007, 04:22 PM
So what's the source of your 1 in 4 number, report or otherwise?

Without any source, you could have just made that number up.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/06/12/apple_serving_up_1_million_copies_of_itunes_each_day.html

"There are 22 million active Mac OS X users right now, he said, with 67 percent of them running Tiger and 23 percent running Panther."

Hmm… so there is a 10.3 user for every two 10.4 users. More dramatic than I first thought.

Look, i even have a big shiny graph for you:

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/8913/dsc5206dc1.jpg

LizKat
Sep 12, 2007, 04:27 PM
Leopard comming around soon! So don't spend money on Tiger. It's pointless to now

One good reason to buy Tiger now is if one of the machines you own -- say a powerbook-- can run Tiger but is still running Panther, or is running a family pack licensed Tiger, and you expect to sell it or give it away in the relatively near future.

It's nice to send a machine off in the most usable fashion, no? I like to give away a machine and the best OS (with updates) that it can support and still run decently. That way it speaks well for the capabilities of both the machine and Apple software. Recipients of my giveaways in the past have later become Apple customers on their own. I think that's partly because what I gave them was in good order, easy to reinstall and update if necessary, and not more than one major release behind the times.

And of course you cannot legally part with a machine carrying a family licensed OS unless you also transfer the discs and remove any installations you made on your other machines under that license. So you're not going to do that, right? Since your kids still need their installations? So then with your intended giveaway machine, you'd maybe be looking at re-installing even some old Jaguar that came on it, and passing along those original discs plus the drop-in CPU upgrade discs that only took it to Panther... a sort of yukkky gift and certainly not much of a selling point. I'd buy it the Tiger instead.

I just gave to a neighbor (for his grade school kids) an ibook with a new single user Tiger on it, updated, and threw in a couple of 1st-gen nanos so everything hangs together and will last the kids a couple years unless they turn out to be juvie rocket scientists or rock stars. They're thrilled because they had NO laptop and NO iPods, and I'm thrilled because I have an excuse to check out the new nanos and to daydream about that nonexistent 12" MBP I'd like to get for Christmas. With Leopard installed!