Ipod Touch requires OS X Tiger

iUseVi

Ok was reading this article thought I might bring it to the attention of the illustrious folks of the Mac forum.

link: http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/ipod-touch-warning.html

I have no way to confirm/disprove this as I have tiger, as I imagine most people who frequent this forum do.

I have my doubts, but could this be true?:(

faceman

cant be right? that would a very bad commercial decision by apple

jahalpin

Yet another reason why Windows is better than Mac. At present all software (with the exception of a tiny tiny number of DX10 only games) that works on Windows Vista will work on XP or 2000.

Can you imagine what would happen if the Microsoft Zune would only work on Vista, Microsoft would be dragged before the courts under a class action suit in the states etc.

unklerosco

jahalpin wrote:

Yet another reason why Windows is better than Mac.

Words of wisdom there....:rolleyes:

Shame software that works on XP/2000 doesnt work on vista.... Then again, maybe it depends on which vista ur using... Oh, then it might depend on which version of XP it works on...

Im not a mac head, i've 3pcs n 1mac... What i like about apple is there's one OS, none of this home/premium/ultimate/business range. OSX is cheaper than vista(€129 versus €263 for basic retail vista), comes with much better software as standard n it works(way way way less updates/fixes)

Anyways, im getting away from the point of the thread here....

chrislad

In all fairness, Tiger is the equivilent of XP, not Vista. Your analogy should be more akin to it not working on Windows 2000 and working on XP.

Technologies change. Being brutally honest, it's not a major thing. Most Mac users that I know, which admittedly is barely into double figures, all use Tiger, and are waiting to upgrade to Leopard.

I don't see this as a big deal. Tiger was released nearly 2 and a half years ago. Seriously, these guys should have upgraded long ago or read the box where it said the system requirements. There was more than likely something involved in the new build that required a newer OS. It's not like they did it for ****s and giggles. Does the iPhone work with less than Tiger incidently?

K.O.Kiki

jahalpin wrote:

Yet another reason why Windows is better than Mac. At present all software (with the exception of a tiny tiny number of DX10 only games) that works on Windows Vista will work on XP or 2000.

Can you imagine what would happen if the Microsoft Zune would only work on Vista, Microsoft would be dragged before the courts under a class action suit in the states etc.

I think someone forgot to read The basic rules...

parsi

unklerosco wrote:

n it works(way way way less updates/fixes)

Anyways, im getting away from the point of the thread here....

OS X Tiger has plenty of regular security updates. iTunes 7.4 (the latest version as of a week ago) was patched within a few days of its release.

When I got my iMac the first thing it did was download a rake of patches and it still has regular "Security Updates". Being a Mac these wre obviously preventative patches which displayed the wisdom of Mr Jobs whereas the patches for my PC were a daming indictment of Microsoft.

440Hz

K.O.Kiki wrote:

I think someone forgot to read The basic rules...

My sentiments exactly hehe

iUseVi

Pheew. Didn't want to start a war here. :rolleyes: Just wanted to warn any of the Mac brethren who were gonna get a touch and would perhaps be too excited to read all the small print;) and would end up severly missled. Is missled a word?!

Anywho, 90%+ probably have the goodness that is tiger, (soon to be leopard, Hoorah!)

BanzaiBk

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. It makes sense imo for the Touch to require the soon to be outdated OS at least. Realistically how many people are still running Panther save for maybe G3 users.

Breezer

This is nothing unusual, it's Apple's business model. They sell themselves on their products 'just working', which is in large part down to the fact that they don't have to support legacy code. Vista was supposed to be along the same lines but Microsoft changed their minds.

The downside to that is the need to upgrade every so often. If the iPods had been made Leopard-only, perhaps there would be reason for complaint, but as has been pointed out, Tiger has been out for quite a while and is due for replacement shortly.

Adobe made their CS3 suite Tiger-only*. Just the way it works. If you want to be able to run any software/hardware on any operating system, either use Windows (the major strength of which is its compatibility) and only be forced to upgrade every 10 years or so, or run Linux and learn about hacking.

*Edited after correction by Zener

ZENER

Breezer wrote:

Adobe made their CS3 suite not only Tiger-only, but Intel-only. . . .

Erm, no they didn't. I have CS3 running on my PowerMac Dual G5 - MacBook Pro - PowerBook G4 and a G4 eMac !!

ZEN

Breezer

ZENER wrote:

Erm, no they didn't. I have CS3 running on my PowerMac Dual G5 - MacBook Pro - PowerBook G4 and a G4 eMac !!

ZEN

My mistake, I thought it was Intel-only. Happy to be corrected Still though, technology moves on. A lot of new Windows software won't run on anything less than Windows 2000. I appreciate that Panther is a lot newer than that, but with Apple, you buy into a faster-evolving platform. This is usually touted as an advantage but of course there is a downside.

Edit: Figured out what I was thinking of. Photoshop CS3 requires Tiger 10.4.8. Which I guess is more relevant to this topic anyway

Oriel

iUseVi wrote:

Is missled a word?!

Misled.

This is nothing new.
It's like something needing XP and not supporting 2000.

iUseVi

Oriel wrote:

Misled.

Yeah I know misled. I think missled sounds cool. Means similar to disconbobulated.

faceman

ok, its official, im an idiot who doesnt read everything in full.

When i first read the OP's post and (most of) the article i thought the article was implying that the iTouch was tiger compatible ONLY. (and i emphasise the word ONLY)

you may point and laugh