 |
 |
iPod Video 5G software update coming?
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Status:
Offline
|
|
With the new iPods appearing, do you think there is any chance we will see a software update for iPod video owners adding coverflow?
|
|
Chris Brown
Media, Brand, and IPTV Consultant
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus  Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
All glory to the hypnotoad.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's called "Apple's Means Of Forcing Upgrades". Although honestly, the interface doesn't look that nice on the classic. It looks so much sharper and nicer on the nano (high pixel density does wonders).
|
|
MacBook Core 2 Duo 2.16 (Black)
iPod classic 160GB
iPhone 8GB
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't think a video could display cover flow nicely. Not enough pixels. It would look like Tiger on an iBook clamshell.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Status:
Offline
|
|
That's where I would have to disagree. The classic and the video (same product other than casing and hard drive change) have the same resolution screen. No difference there. Unless they made a change to the internal CPU, there's no reason why it could not run the updated interface.
|
|
Chris Brown
Media, Brand, and IPTV Consultant
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
No *technical* reason does not mean there isn't a reason. 
|
All glory to the hypnotoad.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 
I don't think a video could display cover flow nicely. Not enough pixels. It would look like Tiger on an iBook clamshell.
Bullshit. The pixel count is identical: 320x240.
But of course Apple won't release such an update. They'd rather sell you a new iPod than supply you with a free update.
|
|
•
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Status:
Offline
|
|
1st gen nanos never got the simple software upgrade that the 2nd gen nanos did: search features and keeping track of the skipped count and last skipped date.
The hardware was perfectly capable of that, but for obvious business reasons, Apple decided not to.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ChrisB
That's where I would have to disagree. The classic and the video (same product other than casing and hard drive change) have the same resolution screen. No difference there. Unless they made a change to the internal CPU...
Anybody know whether they have? I'd think that caching the covers for CoverFlow would require a pretty efficient caching system, and probably a lot more system RAM - and possibly a faster processor.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
The screens are the same resolution, but the nano's is a lot higher DPI, so it looks better. (From what I hear -- I haven't seen either one in person.)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
True.
But the Classic and the video have the same screen pixel count and dimensions.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
They don't have the same dimensions. They do have the same aspect ratio.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
CLASSIC and video. NOT NANO.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New Jersey
Status:
Offline
|
|
I understand the idea of "forcing" people to buy upgrades, but in reality, how many people update a 5G to 6G ipod JUST for the software. I understand if one's iPod is low on space, or scratched up bad, but I doubt Apple updating the software for the 5G will keep a lot of customers from buying a whole new upgrading.
|
|
plamparello
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ChrisB
That's where I would have to disagree. The classic and the video (same product other than casing and hard drive change) have the same resolution screen. No difference there. Unless they made a change to the internal CPU, there's no reason why it could not run the updated interface.
Actually, there is a considerable amount that's different under the hood with the classic versus the 5/5.5G iPod. For one, the DAC is totally different, and I suspect that the fw that interfaces with the hw has to be completely reconfigured. So writing the right fw for the 5th gen might not be trivial.
Additionally, this is speculation of course, but the additional battery life is a result of these under the hood changes and possibly more efficient coding of the fw, or perhaps a larger cache (or some combination thereof).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ~bash $
Actually, there is a considerable amount that's different under the hood with the classic versus the 5/5.5G iPod. For one, the DAC is totally different
Where did you find this information?
I'm interested.
A few years ago, somebody did a great analysis of audio performance (esp. bass response) under load on various iPods and other mp3 players. Anybody know if a similar test has been repeated more recently?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top