Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > iPhone, iPad & iPod > iPod nano

iPod nano (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Scandalous Ion Cannon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:09 AM
 
The shuffle is much more rugged than the Nano.
"That's okay, I'd like to keep it on manual control for a while."
     
schalliol
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon
The shuffle is much more rugged than the Nano.
No way, shuffle is disk-based, nano is flash-based. Nano + case = way more rugged than mini.
iMac Late '15 5K 27" 4.0 Quad i7 24/512GB SSD OWC ThunderDock 2 Blu-Ray ±RW MBP '14 Retina 15" 2.6 16/1TB iPhone 7+ 128 Jet Black iPad Pro 128 + Cellular

FOR SALE: MP '06 Yosemite 8x3.0 24/240GB SSD RAID 0, 240GB SSD, 1.5TB HDD RAID 0, 1TB HDD, Blu-Ray±RW, Radeon HD 5770
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by schalliol
No way, shuffle is disk-based, nano is flash-based. Nano + case = way more rugged than mini.
You are confused, my friend. Shuffle is flash based. And yes, the shuffle + case is way more rugged than mini.

Chris
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon
IMG this thing is perfect except for the fact that it doesn't sync over Firewire. I mean why the hell not?!
Probably because the firewire controller would add size, cost, and weight.
     
schalliol
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:33 AM
 
Yep, it's after midnight and you're totally right. For some reason I was thinking that the mini was being referred to. Yes, the shuffle, with less functionality is more rugged, as well as more useless for the masses.

Originally Posted by chabig
You are confused, my friend. Shuffle is flash based. And yes, the shuffle + case is way more rugged than mini.

Chris
iMac Late '15 5K 27" 4.0 Quad i7 24/512GB SSD OWC ThunderDock 2 Blu-Ray ±RW MBP '14 Retina 15" 2.6 16/1TB iPhone 7+ 128 Jet Black iPad Pro 128 + Cellular

FOR SALE: MP '06 Yosemite 8x3.0 24/240GB SSD RAID 0, 240GB SSD, 1.5TB HDD RAID 0, 1TB HDD, Blu-Ray±RW, Radeon HD 5770
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by schalliol
No way, shuffle is disk-based, nano is flash-based. Nano + case = way more rugged than mini.

Yeah I am going to say you are mistaken.

shuffle being the most durable, then it is a toss up between the Nano and the Mini. The Nano is flash based but thin, maybe easily bent, and not well protected. The metal casing on the Mini is tougher and has no flex but it does use an HDD. So it is a matter of trade offs in protection IMHO. If there is a hard padded case for the Nano I would think it would be better.

If only the headphone plug wasn't on the bottom

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Jens Peter
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious
If only the headphone plug wasn't on the bottom
Thats also the only thing I dislike about the Nano... And the reason why me 2.G 10Gb isen't going to retire yet...
     
Enigmatic
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 02:37 AM
 
the thing about the headphone port on the bottom is that it looks awkward, but I don't think it would function awkwardly, if you're holding your ipod in your hand it's no big deal, and I think the ipods clickwheel would be easier to function upside down in the pocket because with it rightside up you have to reverse the controls that you would use if it were in your hand(also with it upside down you pull it out of your pocket and its already facing the right direction)
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 02:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by inkhead
Yes exactly. That's a $900 computer. The iPod costs $250. Get a new computer.
I've got one, thank you very much, and there isn't likely to be any music on my iBook that isn't on my G5. The point was more that there are lots of us with macs that are far less than five years old, and yet don't have USB 2.0.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
schalliol
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 02:46 AM
 
Ordinarily when people are holding an iPod the cord drops down and then up your body. As such, this seems better in most cases. I would think it's not as nice on the bottom if you use it in a car though.
iMac Late '15 5K 27" 4.0 Quad i7 24/512GB SSD OWC ThunderDock 2 Blu-Ray ±RW MBP '14 Retina 15" 2.6 16/1TB iPhone 7+ 128 Jet Black iPad Pro 128 + Cellular

FOR SALE: MP '06 Yosemite 8x3.0 24/240GB SSD RAID 0, 240GB SSD, 1.5TB HDD RAID 0, 1TB HDD, Blu-Ray±RW, Radeon HD 5770
     
radii_22
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 02:46 AM
 
iPod Nano : The best iPod ever. Will be a best seller.

iTunes 5 : New hints of the graphical appearance of Finder in Leopard. Not as good as it could be, I guess.

RoKr : One of the more ugly things I've ever seen in S. Jobs hands. What a poor phone. Motorola 's deception. Sony's new walkmans-phones are a way more beautiful and handy (Sonyericsson is the Apple of cell phones)

Video stream : S. Jobs appeared nervous (he missed a key in the "pretty cool" -as he said- Rokr), Morotola-Cingular presentation was funny but so business-like.

Personal note : If I had 250 euros, what would I buy? Sorry Nano, but, personal opinion, I would go for a PSP.

--->>>
--->>> Karate is only for defense
     
schalliol
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 02:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane
I've got one, thank you very much, and there isn't likely to be any music on my iBook that isn't on my G5. The point was more that there are lots of us with macs that are far less than five years old, and yet don't have USB 2.0.
Yep, my $3,000 PowerBook G4 purchased in December 2002, that's 2.5 years ago doesn't have USB 2.0.
iMac Late '15 5K 27" 4.0 Quad i7 24/512GB SSD OWC ThunderDock 2 Blu-Ray ±RW MBP '14 Retina 15" 2.6 16/1TB iPhone 7+ 128 Jet Black iPad Pro 128 + Cellular

FOR SALE: MP '06 Yosemite 8x3.0 24/240GB SSD RAID 0, 240GB SSD, 1.5TB HDD RAID 0, 1TB HDD, Blu-Ray±RW, Radeon HD 5770
     
zl9600
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Breckenridge, Colorado USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 02:56 AM
 
you know, all i want is bluetooth. i am so tired of cords. apple earphones are rotten to the core (the ones that come with them now and ostensibly the ones that are attached to that otherwise cool as heck lanyard).

i love this thing. but i'm waiting for bluetooth. this aint' gettin me yet. and i think the metal cases were a dream for many people, and the sheen wears off those ipods quickly. tubes? one word: blech.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are
missing.
     
schalliol
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 03:01 AM
 
BT would be good, but I think they would need to have a great partner to make some sweet headphones to do that. Another issue is that often Bluetooth can't use multiple devices at the same time (always?). Using Bluetooth to sync on proximity would be awesome too though. There's lots of possibilities if they did this.
iMac Late '15 5K 27" 4.0 Quad i7 24/512GB SSD OWC ThunderDock 2 Blu-Ray ±RW MBP '14 Retina 15" 2.6 16/1TB iPhone 7+ 128 Jet Black iPad Pro 128 + Cellular

FOR SALE: MP '06 Yosemite 8x3.0 24/240GB SSD RAID 0, 240GB SSD, 1.5TB HDD RAID 0, 1TB HDD, Blu-Ray±RW, Radeon HD 5770
     
radii_22
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 03:15 AM
 
Part of the idea of the wired earphones is the status of cultural icon they have. You have a white cord, you have an iPod.

Funny note : Jobs, looked angry when he compared iPod nano to other MP3 players. When he presented Creative, he said "a company who calls itself creative"... Was funny, because one day before Creative renamed it's flash based Zen as the Zen Nano. I think that Apple discontinued colors in the iPod because it was so copied and knocked-off, that they were obligated to stick to the iPod white/glossy-metal appearance.

Jobs was respectful in regard with the PSP and Sony (they are trying to negociate iTunes store in Japan, and future camcorders compatibility with Apple video software, Job's has always been a Sony admirer), and Samsung (they provide Apple of the Nano's flash memory, and their MP3 players are the best players after the iPod).

Why Jobs canceled Paris keynote? Was he angry with their french associates? Is he angry with Macbidouille, a site that has installed OS X for x86 to a unprotected Intel PC and to an AMD PC? What happens with the Mac, our little good friend, now a step brother of the victorious iPod?
--->>> Karate is only for defense
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 03:55 AM
 
The Nano is nice, very nice, and it is going to sell loads, but I dont need one. I have a 40Gb 4G iPod (B&W screen), and a PSP. So the PSP will do for me what any colour or video iPod would do. And I don't take that many photos to need a colour iPod to store them.

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
OB1
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 04:18 AM
 
I love the Nano so very much. I want to buy two, one of each colour, and leave them for my girlfriend to find and pick one - as long as it's the white one.

Unfortunately there are no Macs here with USB2... No syncing over Firewire??? I'm surprised more people aren't surprised by this. Isn't USB2 a fairly recent addition to Macs? Maybe I've been sleeping but It doesn't seem like that long ago I bought a new Mac.
     
wilsonng
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Guam USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 04:25 AM
 
Well, I guess syncing over USB1.1 will be excrutiatingly slow for the first sync since you'll fill up the 2GB or 4GB capacity. But it should get easier in subsequent syncs since you'll be adding and removing songs in the synced playlist. This makes updating a little more bearable.

I do wish it had FireWire but at least I have my iPod 20GB.
     
OB1
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 04:28 AM
 
Ahhh, so it is do-able on older (if you can call 2 years old) Macs... Thanks wilsonng.
     
OB1
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 05:22 AM
 
It's nice, but not as nice as a Nano.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 05:23 AM
 
OB1, yes, of course everybody with USB 1.1 will be able to sync, charge and do everything with their nano that they want to. The only difference is that it will take quite a while longer to get the initial 2GB or 4GB of music onto it. USB 2 or FW would of course be much faster.

But, what's the big fuss? If you're buying a nano instead of a full blown iPod, chances are your music collection is small and therefor your transfer time will be moderate. If you want to transfer GBs of music, you'd probably be better of with a standard iPod anyway.

The nano is awesome. Expensive (I guess big flash memory is really very pricey), but incredibly cool. I can't wait till they drop the price by $50 and add 6GB and/or 8GB versions.
     
OB1
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 05:31 AM
 
My music collection is vast. My 2nd gen 10gig iPod doesn't scratch the surface. The Nano is closer to what I want from a portable music player. Maybe not quite close enough to bother uprgrading...
     
badtz
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by drainyoo
Who cares about the freaking colors. Those colors were lame. Apple products should only be black and white or titanium. Colors make them look cheap.
the variety of colors was the main selling point for the iPod mini. obviously many people agree that they don't look cheap and/or lame.

Apple products should only be black/white/titanium? seriously?
     
mdc
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY²
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by schalliol
BT would be good, but I think they would need to have a great partner to make some sweet headphones to do that. Another issue is that often Bluetooth can't use multiple devices at the same time (always?). Using Bluetooth to sync on proximity would be awesome too though. There's lots of possibilities if they did this.
the only problem i see with bluetooth is the speed. i transfered about 1mb of photos off my cellphone and it took a few minutes.
according to a review of the nano they said it took them 7 minutes to copy 900 songs.

how long would bluetooth take?
     
schalliol
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 08:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by mdc
the only problem i see with bluetooth is the speed. i transfered about 1mb of photos off my cellphone and it took a few minutes.
according to a review of the nano they said it took them 7 minutes to copy 900 songs.

how long would bluetooth take?
I agree there, but once you've loaded with a wired connection, the amount you update would be far less.
iMac Late '15 5K 27" 4.0 Quad i7 24/512GB SSD OWC ThunderDock 2 Blu-Ray ±RW MBP '14 Retina 15" 2.6 16/1TB iPhone 7+ 128 Jet Black iPad Pro 128 + Cellular

FOR SALE: MP '06 Yosemite 8x3.0 24/240GB SSD RAID 0, 240GB SSD, 1.5TB HDD RAID 0, 1TB HDD, Blu-Ray±RW, Radeon HD 5770
     
ibugv4
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 09:15 AM
 
this makes me a bit sick. lets talk about obsessions and not needing -- this product is great, but like shuffle so many will be bought and never used because it's 'cool.' It's like having a spare SUV in 2001.


I HATE THE COLOR CHOICES. They look good, but I WANT PINK. I WANT BLUE. GREEN. WHY does Apple GIVE us color then TAKE IT BACK??? I miss my clamshell iBook colors.

Apple's professional-personal borderline personality disorder keeps me outraged, but the products look good even if stuck in one tone of color. I'm sure this will outsell any cometitor.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 09:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
OB1, yes, of course everybody with USB 1.1 will be able to sync, charge and do everything with their nano that they want to. The only difference is that it will take quite a while longer to get the initial 2GB or 4GB of music onto it. USB 2 or FW would of course be much faster
Fortunately, this does not effect me as I've got the USB 2, but can you charge it with USB 1.1? I could very well be wrong here, but I thought USB 1.1 did not provide as much power as USB 2 (or firewire) which is why you never see USB 1.1 Portable HDD without a power adapter, but you do for Firewire and USB 2.

Obviously, it provides some power- but enough to charge the nano? I pretty clearly states everywhere it ca charge w/ USB 2 and FW.
     
schalliol
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 09:24 AM
 
I'm pretty sure you could power it with either.
iMac Late '15 5K 27" 4.0 Quad i7 24/512GB SSD OWC ThunderDock 2 Blu-Ray ±RW MBP '14 Retina 15" 2.6 16/1TB iPhone 7+ 128 Jet Black iPad Pro 128 + Cellular

FOR SALE: MP '06 Yosemite 8x3.0 24/240GB SSD RAID 0, 240GB SSD, 1.5TB HDD RAID 0, 1TB HDD, Blu-Ray±RW, Radeon HD 5770
     
legacyb4
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 09:24 AM
 
Far less, yes, but even with a shuffle over USB 2.0, there is that annoying lag everytime you make a change to the playlist when the shuffle is plugged in and mounted as it copies over the data.

Lack of FW sync will be a bummer, especially since my wife's older Pismo G3 laptop has FW but only USB 1.1.
Macbook (Black) C2D/250GB/3GB | G5/1.6 250GBx2/2.0GB
Free Mobile Ringtone & Games Uploader | Flickr | Twitter
     
mdc
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY²
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by schalliol
I agree there, but once you've loaded with a wired connection, the amount you update would be far less.
this is true, but for me it wouldn't work.

i have a shuffle that i use as an autofil device. i plug it in, click autofill, and have a random playlist that i use for that day. that night i autofill it again, next day, new playlist.

i have a 60gig ipod that has all my music (15gig). i'd use the nano to replace the shuffle, autofill every night. bluetooth just wouldn't work for me.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 10:06 AM
 
I just found another nano bummer- and I think it's been mentioned but not confirmed, there are no av cables for connecting to TV to view photos.

Oh well.
     
inkhead
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 10:19 AM
 
This goes to show a mistake Apple made. I'm not trying to yell at you saying "your computer is so old!" but this iPod wasn't designed for you. On desktop machines you can add USB 2.0, otherwise it's time for a new powerbook. Firewire is just overkill for miniture devices. Apple often does things like this, and waits forever to add features that go into PC laptops late. As far as a $3,000 laptop, they aren't investments and if you see it that way then that is your mistake.

You should only purchase as much computer as will make you money over the course of the year. I love Apple but if I were to purchase a powerbook right now it's already like 6 months outdated. If a $3,000 is so much money to you that you won't be able to afford a new computer once a year, then you should probably get a much more affordable computer.

Originally Posted by schalliol
Yep, my $3,000 PowerBook G4 purchased in December 2002, that's 2.5 years ago doesn't have USB 2.0.
     
inkhead
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 10:24 AM
 
Cost of 2 iPod Nanos = $500
Cost of Adding Firewire compatibility chipset to iPod Nano = SIZE INCREASE
Cost of Adding a USB 2.0 PCI card to your computer $9.99
If you no PCI, then the cost of a new computer = $500, or a PC wit USB2 (that runs itunes for $150)

My suggestion would be instead of buying cute electronics to start budeting buying in a computer that has technology that will be useful every year like usb2.0

Originally Posted by OB1
I love the Nano so very much. I want to buy two, one of each colour, and leave them for my girlfriend to find and pick one - as long as it's the white one.

Unfortunately there are no Macs here with USB2... No syncing over Firewire??? I'm surprised more people aren't surprised by this. Isn't USB2 a fairly recent addition to Macs? Maybe I've been sleeping but It doesn't seem like that long ago I bought a new Mac.
     
EricN
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500
I just found another nano bummer- and I think it's been mentioned but not confirmed, there are no av cables for connecting to TV to view photos.

Oh well.
Yeah, this is very interesting. I wonder why this was done. It seems to be a step away from the direction of "VideoIpod."

However, I have never seen anybody use the photo display feature. Perhaps for movies, it will be different. Carrying around an iPod with your entire movie collection would be awesome.
PB Pismo G3 400, 320 MB RAM, 40 GB 5400, Airport
     
legacyb4
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 11:53 AM
 
While syncing is stated to be USB-only, I wonder if it can still be charged with an earlier Firewire-based AC adapter and cable a la 3G iPods?

Anyone know?
Macbook (Black) C2D/250GB/3GB | G5/1.6 250GBx2/2.0GB
Free Mobile Ringtone & Games Uploader | Flickr | Twitter
     
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by legacyb4
While syncing is stated to be USB-only, I wonder if it can still be charged with an earlier Firewire-based AC adapter and cable a la 3G iPods?

Anyone know?
According to playlistmag.com they say you can charge it over a firewire connection.

http://playlistmag.com/features/2005...irst/index.php

Syncing

The nano can be synced to a Mac or PC by a USB 2.0 connection only, although you can charge it over a FireWire connection. (At this point I’m not sure what this means for booting from the device.)

When you sync the nano you’ll learn that it will hold both music and photos. The iPod Setup Assistant suggests that music takes priority, but this suggestion is a little confusing. When I plugged in the nano and saw the Assistant’s admonition that “iTunes will first copy all of your music to the iPod and then use the remaining space for photos,” I assumed that no photos would be copied to the nano as my music library should take up all its space. That turned out to not be the case.
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
OB1
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 12:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by inkhead
Cost of 2 iPod Nanos = $500
Cost of Adding Firewire compatibility chipset to iPod Nano = SIZE INCREASE
I don't believe you actually know that for a fact.

Originally Posted by inkhead
Cost of Adding a USB 2.0 PCI card to your computer $9.99
If you no PCI, then the cost of a new computer = $500, or a PC wit USB2 (that runs itunes for $150)

My suggestion would be instead of buying cute electronics to start budeting buying in a computer that has technology that will be useful every year like usb2.0
Of the numerous Macs around here the oldest is a G3 iMac, which is still happily acting as a file server and web browser/email machine to visitors. I've been thinking about upgrading it... Thinking about it for 3 years now.

You see, I don't actually care, I'm just saying that I'm surprised Apple would ignore so many machines still out there that don't have USB2.

So you can take your snooty advice somewhere else dork.
     
Scandalous Ion Cannon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by radii_22
iTunes 5 : New hints of the graphical appearance of Finder in Leopard.
Says who?
"That's okay, I'd like to keep it on manual control for a while."
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 12:46 PM
 
My brand new mini has just become a collectible!

No firewire on the nano means I won't be buying one until after I upgrade my Quicksilver.
It will charge on FW, but not sync. Although, once you sync initially (after a long wait) with USB 1.x, updates won't take too long unless you make a lot of changes to the playlists and songs.

I'm sad that the mini did not get upgraded to 8GB. It would have been nice to have a SIZE in between the 4GB nano and the 20GB iPod (nothing). Wait till the prices drop and see what happens.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
legacyb4
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 12:50 PM
 
Sweet, that means my AC adapter at work that shipped with the 3Gs is still usable along with the extra FW cable I bought!

Originally Posted by typoon
According to playlistmag.com they say you can charge it over a firewire connection.

http://playlistmag.com/features/2005...irst/index.php
Macbook (Black) C2D/250GB/3GB | G5/1.6 250GBx2/2.0GB
Free Mobile Ringtone & Games Uploader | Flickr | Twitter
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:03 PM
 
Chalk me up as unhappy about the USB2/FireWire issue. I bought my iMac in May 2003 - just over 2 years old and no USB2. At the time I was trying to hold out for a USB2 machine but my old one died and I couldn't wait any longer. I knew I'd be taking risks with other peripheral suppliers, but it's annoying that APPLE itself ditched out on supporting its original direction this early in the game.

Apple dragged their a$$ on USB2 for a long time because they wanted to promote FireWire - you'd think they'd recognize that and support it in their new products for at least the reasonable lifecycle of the older products they chose not to add the competing feature to. My iMac has at least 2 years of useful life in it - but unlike a PowerBook, no way to add USB2.

As to the suggestions about getting another machine - come on! The whole point of an iPod is the easy and simple integration with a computer. If I wanted that complexity, I'd get a Rio or iRiver or whatever other garbage is out there. Plus that approach AT LEAST more than doubles the cost of the nano itself.

Oh well - not that big a deal - just means a lost sale for Apple. I'd consider a nano - but not where its usability/integration with my current setup is compromised.
     
Phat Bastard
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by inkhead
I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't have USB 2 on your computer you can buy a $10 USB 2.0 card from any electronics store (Belkin brand or just about any generic).

If you have a laptop that can't be upgraded then I think you shouldn't be using $250 towards an iPod rather you should spend $250 towards a computer that's less than 5 years old ;-)
I know you didn't mean to sound rude, but your comment, and subsequent ones you've made here, comes across instead as being unrealistic.

"Budgeting for a new computer every 2.5 years?" The strength of the Mac has been to OUTLAST the PC's that I used to have to upgrade every 2 or so years. People are still using G3 Powerbooks. Longevity is (was?) something that was part of what set Macs apart from PC's. We're already paying a premium for Macs over PC's, we shouldn't have to dish out for a new one as often.

Then there's the economics: A new laptop (I'd buy a Powerbook) would cost me $1899 CDN--that's 8X more than the cost of the iPod nano I just bought. You can't expect people to make the jump to buying a product that is 8X the cost of another product. You don't see people saying "gee, I can only afford to buy that Honda Civic but there's a Mercedes-Benz dealership right next door, so I'll spend 8X more for that Benz, which is in a totally different product category and totally out of my budget!" That just doesn't happen.

At any rate, my rev. A. 12" Powerbook, without USB 2.0--which is only 2 years old, NOT 5--is serving me just fine and will last until the Intel Powerbooks next year, which I will surely buy.

So I think many people that are stuck with Macs that are about 2 years old (not old at all when you think about people still using G3 Powerbooks) are getting shafted here by the supposed lack of Firewire connectivity. But the jury is still out: I'd like to see for myself if Firewire can be used only for power and not syncing. Firewire is "Apple's baby", I would be very surprised if they gave up on it completely.

p.s. Mac laptops generally can't be upgraded. You must be new here.
( Last edited by Phat Bastard; Sep 8, 2005 at 01:21 PM. Reason: typos)
The world needs more Canada.
PB 12" 867 MHz, 640 MB RAM, AE, OS 10.4.2
Black iPod nano 4GB
     
OB1
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:18 PM
 
Phat Bastard, Are you planning to sync AND charge over USB1 to your 12"PB? My Sony Ericsson K750i phone is supposed to be able to charge over USB... I think it would probably take about 3 days... Just a thought.
     
Phat Bastard
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:22 PM
 
That's a GOOD POINT. I hadn't thought of that either.

This iPod nano purchase is looking more and more frustrating by the minute. Grr.....serves me right for making an impulse buy. Now I see Apple's plan--to force me into buying a new Mac when I wasn't planning to.

But I'll wait, no one has PROVEN Firewire can't be used for power or syncing...right?
The world needs more Canada.
PB 12" 867 MHz, 640 MB RAM, AE, OS 10.4.2
Black iPod nano 4GB
     
volcano
Senior User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500
Fortunately, this does not effect me as I've got the USB 2, but can you charge it with USB 1.1? I could very well be wrong here, but I thought USB 1.1 did not provide as much power as USB 2 (or firewire) which is why you never see USB 1.1 Portable HDD without a power adapter, but you do for Firewire and USB 2.

Obviously, it provides some power- but enough to charge the nano? I pretty clearly states everywhere it ca charge w/ USB 2 and FW.
When I bought my first iPod mini in April (a 6GB silver one) I was still using a WIndows PC that only had USB 1.1. It charged and synced with my iPod just fine. Albeit, the song transfer was undoubtably slower when compared to USB 2.0, but it wasn't unbearable. USB 2 is backwards compatible with USB 1.1, so there is no need to worry about it.

Here's my take on those lamenting about the lack of an A/V connector: I believe the lack of this feature on the Nano makes the Nano vs. iPod color display argument more definitive. I upgraded from my first iPod - a 6GB silver version, to a 20GB color display, because I found I wanted to hold more music on my iPod. I didn't want the costlier iPod 'photo' versions, because I didn't need a 30, 40, or 60GB hard drive. I knew it would be too much. The iPod mini was a good starting point, regardless. To be honest, I had no idea what those other connectors on the top of my mini were for - nor did I care. I wanted an mp3 player for just that - to play mp3s. I didn't need the extras, and I still don't need them to this day.

Like the Mini, the Nano's target audience is the young hipster crowd. It's for those who want a sleek digital music player with high style - and they're willing to pay a premium for that. It's not targeted for those who need all the extras that many of us never utilize.

Not to mention, if Apple had included an A/V connector anywhere on the Nano, I'm sure it would have increased the size of the device.

As for the lack of FIrewire connectivity, I'm clueless on that topic. Would the addition of that connectivity increase the size of the Nano? Perhaps that might explain why they dumped it.

The way I look at it, the Nano is a shuffle and iPod color display combined. And I don't see anyone complaining about the lack of firewire on the shuffle - especially when it's exclusively USB.
     
OB1
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:34 PM
 
Phat Bastard, You can charge over Firewire, if you buy the right cable... I'm sure we'll soon see some real life reports from people who've attempted to sync as well.

Apples description does seem pretty specific, although they don't actually say it doesn't sync...
     
Scandalous Ion Cannon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 01:47 PM
 
"And the headphone port isn’t what you might expect - gone is the extended part with four metallic pins. That means iPod nano can’t work with iTrip, iTalk, or any of the other top-connecting accessories that draw power from the iPod. Intentionally or inadvertantly, Apple has segmented the iPod market into three categories: complete iPod accessory compatibility (iPod), half iPod accessory compatibility (iPod nano), and no iPod accessory compatibility (iPod shuffle)."
"That's okay, I'd like to keep it on manual control for a while."
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 02:48 PM
 
Making iPods compatible with accessories isn't Apple's job. The accessory makers will accomodate the new iPod. Did you think they wouldn't?

As for USB 1.1 syncing, sure it'll be slow. Start it before you go to bed and it'll be done when you wake up.
     
DeathMan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Capitol City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 02:49 PM
 
with a standard dock connector on the bottom, the nano gives you more existing accessories than the shuffle did when it came out. Anything that works with the nano, should work with the standard ipod.

I also love how the headphone jack is on the bottom. the shuffle controls hang upside down, and if you use an armband, its upside down as well. If I put my 3G ipod in my pocket I have to turn it around after I take it out if I'm not feeling particularly coordinated to use it upside down.
     
JMII
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft Laud, FL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2005, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by scottiB
It works with the Apple camera adapter. Peruse the Apple Store online.
Not according to Playlist: http://playlistmag.com/features/2005...irst/index.php
Also, it doesn’t work with Apple’s iPod Camera Connector or Belkin’s Media Reader, which means you can’t upload pictures to it.

My guess (and hope) is that at some point Apple (or a third party) will come out with an accessory that does allow picture uploads.

The lack of Firewire syncing is a bit of a disappointment since that's how I sync the wife's Mini, but after the inital upload making a few changes or adding new songs should not take that long... so its not a deal breaker.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,