Me, Too! Complaint! New Nano Must Run on Tiger, WTF???

[guitarist]

Can I buy you a cup of coffee, Rip Van Winkle?...How long has Tiger been out? Hard to make a case that you're being mistreated, really. You want a new Nano to be supported not just two OS generations back, but three? What year does your calender say? Mine says 2008. You can skip Tiger altogether (nice nap I hope!) and jump on Leopard!

[silvarios]

Read the system requirements. I would be more sympathetic had you went with a more hypothetical approach such as, "I wish I could buy this nano, but I can't because I'm still on Panther", type of thing. But to actually have purchased something and not know what you need to make it work? That's a bad idea. I once bought a non-Apple digital audio player which listed Mac OS 9 compatibility on the box, but only actually worked with OS X. So this phenomenon is not just an Apple thing and is sometimes quite a bit worse with other companies.

Not to put too harsh a point on my post as I actually agree that newer iPod requirements seems rather stringent.


Nathan

[comaplate]

Release dates:

OS X 10.3 - October 24. 2003

iPod mini (1G)- January 6, 2004

G5 iMac - August 31, 2004

iPod mini (2G) - February 22, 2005

OS X10.4 - April 29, 2005

iPod nano (1G) - February 7, 2006

iPod nano (2G) - September 12, 2006

iPod nano (3G) - September 5, 2007


Moral of the story: Since the release of the G5 iMac, there have been two OS upgrades and four revisions to the mini/nano line.

On the PC side, Apple supports the current OS (Vista) and the previous OS (XP). On the Mac side, Apple supports the current OS (10.5) and the previous OS (10.4).

It's a bit of a stretch to not update a computer in three years and then expect it to run the latest and greatest releases. One can only dodge the bullet for so long unless you're content to run an older iPod connected to an older machine.

For what it's worth, under the refurb/clearance page, second generation nanos are available, which do offer support under 10.3.9

[space-time]

would a 2G nano tun on OS X 10.3? Apple still has NEW 2G nano for sale.

[MacArtist]

[quote Gareth][quote MacArtist]If the Nano runs on a PC with XP (released in 2000) then why the hell won't it run on 10.3.x?
It's not Apple's fault that Windows is on a 7 year development cycle and Apple keeps the Mac OS around a 2 year cycle. Consider that they're really just supporting the current OS and maybe one older, in which case, 10.5 and 10.4 make sense. If they supported 7 years of the Mac OS, these iPods would still run in OS 9!
That is hard to buy into. If Apple can make a new Nano work on XP; then why can't it make it run on a newer (than XP) operating system?

What is it about the new Nano that will not run under 10.3.9?

It's a USB device. As long as works with iTunes and iCal (contact syncing); what else is there?

[incognegro]

again: Apple has to drive OS and/or hardware purchases, I guess.

Gotta get the stock price up. Apple has shown that it doesn't really do what people want or need, but what they think Apple buyers should have.

[OWC Jamie]

In other words, Apple is becoming a class leader, all others need not apply.
Some on this board seem to feel the same way ?

[C(-)ris]

They support the two most current OS products (and it says so on the box if you would have read it before you bought it, or asked someone at the store) that is good enough for me. 10.3 is an old dog, I don't blame Apple for not wanting to support an almost 5 year old OS.

[RgrF]

A Nano or any other Apple purchase is and should be a stand alone devise.

Does no one here remember the old premise that Apple won't obselete you? I was able to run stuff that was produced in 1989 up to OSX. I know that was abandoned some years ago and It's normal for a company to want to intergrate products and maximize profits, but its shortsighted to penalize the customer base in that pursuit.

If it's being sold as a stand alone product , it should be as versatile as the producer can make it. Apple's iPod is adopting some of the most oppressive of Microsoft's marketing strategies.

[SteveO]

That's the point, peeps. THEY DO SUPPORT A 5-YR-OLD OS IN WINBLOZE XP.

That they would extend 5 YEARS of courtesy to M$ users and not Mac users is the point of the argument. And is some of you would read the thread instead of spouting, you'd see it's not for me, it's for my mom who as a 65-yr-old woman has no reason (nor can she afford) to upgrade to Tiger. She's on 10.3.9, it's rock solid, and she's happy there.

The Apple marketing mantra is take it out of the box, and "IT JUST WORKS." In this case, IT JUST WORKS -- but ONLY if you're a Winbloze user. Give me a f'ing break.

You're missing the point.