ipod classic v6

[DrTeeth]

Hi,

The from page on the site says that v1-5.5 is supported, but the installer has detection for v6. Does that mean that Rockbox will work on v6 or not?

Rockbox changed the piece of junk that was my iRiver H140 into a usable bit of kit and I will only but the ipod if Rockbox will install and work.

Regards

DrT

[LambdaCalculus]

Rockbox Utility can currently detect iPod Classics, but can't install Rockbox onto them. The install process for iPod Classics is still a manual process only; you can read the instructions here:

http://www.freemyipod.org/wiki/EmCORE_Installation/iPodClassic

[DrTeeth]

Brilliant. Looks as if I may be able to get by without using iTunes at all. Is that right? Could you please kindly confirm that I can install Rockbox on the latest v6 of the ipod classic. If I cannot, I am not buying it.

DrT

[saratoga]

Brilliant. Looks as if I may be able to get by without using iTunes at all. Is that right?

Yes.  But instead of asking you should probably check out that link, it explains this.

[DrTeeth]

I just wanted confirmation as the Rockbox home page says versions 1-5.5 are supported by the installer. Nowhere does it say that the RB can be installed on v6, the inference being that it cannot. Also, another red herring was the into on the RB site that the installer can detect v6 hardware...inferring that it could work.

The link that you supplied does not 110% say that the ipod can be used without iTunes, it infers it granted, but I just wanted more than that.

I just wanted yes/no answers rather than guesswork before I splash out on an ipod.

Many thanks for your help and clarifications. I have just ordered one - I feel so dirty <g> as I am not an Apple fan at all.

With kind regards

DrT

[Llorean]

The Rockbox Home page says what versions Rockbox supports over all, not just by the installer. It does in fact say that Rockbox can be used on the Classic, but that it's in the "Unusable Builds" category still. So the "inference being that it cannot" being true if a player wasn't listed would be fine if you'd read carefully enough to notice that the player *was* listed.

[DrTeeth]

The Rockbox Home page says what versions Rockbox supports over all, not just by the installer. It does in fact say that Rockbox can be used on the Classic, but that it's in the "Unusable Builds" category still. So the "inference being that it cannot" being true if a player wasn't listed would be fine if you'd read carefully enough to notice that the player *was* listed.

The reason they do not have a hair-splitting event in the Olympics is that they know you would get the Gold medal so there is no point in competing LOL.

Yours hair-splittingly

DrT

[Llorean]

Ah yes, it's splitting hairs to say "hey, guess what, the homepage doesn't say what you thought it did (telling you which things the installer works on) and does say what you thought it didn't (that Rockbox has a port for the classic) and that basically you were just either imagining things or not reading it at all."

If you're going to say things like "Nowhere does it say that the RB can be installed on v6, the inference being that it cannot." it's not at all "splitting hairs" to say "actually, it does say that Rockbox can be installed on the v6."

[DrTeeth]

Seriously, have you seen how much different areas on the site seem to contradict each other? It can be quite subtle, but it is there. There are even some discrepancies as to what the same item is called on different pages. Add to that that some lists are sorted A-Z and some not does not make for ease of info retrieval.

Okay so some firmware will install, that does not mean that it will not brick the recipient. I would wager to most people 'install' is equivalent to 'work properly'. I am sure we have all come across some software that installs and then FUBARs the PC...but at least it installed, right  ?

Chillax, we are on the same side.

With kind regards

DrT

[saratoga]

Seriously, have you seen how much different areas on the site seem to contradict each other?

Not really, since I usually fix them when I see them.  Would you mind linking them here so that they get fixed (or if they're the wiki just fixing them yourself)?

[DrTeeth]

Hi,

I will get back to you later with some screen shots and details. Please do not be offended by what I may say as I am not familiar with the site whereas you may dream about it as you know it so well .

I often find that manuals etc, when written by somebody who developed the program and knows it inside out, does not write in a style that is helpful to newcomers. It is often difficult to see the wood for the trees.

There are examples of ipods being called 'Apple ipods' and just 'ipods' - who would think to look at the 'i's after not finding something in the 'A's for example?. Looking around the site and forum, it is not clear exactly what an ipod classic is - IIRC, I have come across 2-3 definitions or inferences.

Would you prefer this to be taken to PM?

Regards

DrT

[saratoga]

You don't need screen shots, just post a link here (or better yet fix it yourself if its in the wiki).

[Llorean]

As to what the iPod Classic is, fortunately Apple themselves have provided a page that defines it clearly. We use their definition.