Apple sued over Mac OS X / G3 [Archive]

CaseCom

02-01-2002, 12:17 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Stroszek:

isn't that just life?
you buy a computer and all is well, and pretty soon, time passes and your computer is old, and all of a sudden, new software isn't going to work too well.

damn! maybe we should all sue adobe. and macromedia. and quark. and every other software manufacturer.

someone needs to get a life.<hr></blockquote>

You're missing the point. It's not a simple case of obsolescence. These people bought new computers with the expectation -- based on Apple's assurances -- that OS X would be <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1998/may/11strategy.html" target="_blank">fully optimized</a> to run on them (note that at the time OS X was believed to be coming in fall 1999).

OS X comes out, and it runs on their computers, but it's crippled for video and games because of the video drivers.

I'd be pissed too. And frankly, if Apple can't/won't get complete OS X drivers for their video cards, then yeah, I think these people are due a few bucks or some free software or whatever they can get in a settlement.

Heck, Apple settled that lawsuit over having to buy OS 9 to get OS 8.6's DVD Player software to work properly. If that had a shot I'd say this has a shot.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: CaseCom ]

ColorClassicG4

02-01-2002, 12:48 AM

What a loser.

What a bunch of whiners he's representing.

I like the part where part of the damages sought are refunds for the G3s, as if they suddenly collapsed into a pile of sand the moment OS X was released.

*cough* Rule 12(b)(6) motion *cough*

Mac Write

02-01-2002, 02:21 AM

On May 11, 1998, I attented the downlink for the WWDC unveiling of Mac OS X. Steve Jobs said "Mac OS X will be optimized for the G3 processor." Then in late May when my PowerBase 180 could no longer do FTP (and this was after several several reinstalls etc) and was just way to slow to work in DW etc. I spent the last of my Trust, to get a Beige G3 266 MT/AV.

I clearly said that I was getting it to run Mac OS X when it came out in fall 1999.

Well fall 1999 comes and goes, and then I get the Public beta which installed on the third reboot (the CD booted rather), and all installs have run flawlessly since.

Well I can tell you Mac OS X isn't fast. sometimes it can be unexecptable for speed. 10.1 did improve preformance, but when I boot back into Mac OS 9.2.2, my computer is alot faster.

When I got the computer on June 3, 1998, my mom said it had to last 3 years. At that time, I was upgrading every 12 months (PC) and then 18 months for my first and present Mac (December 3, 1996, June 3, 1998). and Sept 94, Dec 95, for the PC. (got my first used PC Aug 92).

I did a RAM Upgrade from 160MB to 416MB in July 2001 and also a 7200RPM 60GB Maxtor a few days earlier. I did a USB/Firewire PCI in March which was OK by me (OrangeMicro). the 4MB Vram upgrade to my ATI Rage II+ failed @that time (and my palm got fried by there USB Connect kit).

and in December I added a Radeon PCI which has helped some (millions of color), but the OS is still sluggish (and getting worse due to defragmentation or something (clean install October). Apple needs to dump as much as possible of Quartz onto the VIdeo card instead of the CPU. This will improve the preformance of Mac OS X. I won't beable to afford my half towards a new PowerMac until July 2003. I am disabled and am unable to work, but use my computer heavily each day (12+ hours). even my moms iMac DV SE 99 (bought Appril 1 2000) is sluggish in X with 128MB RAM)

Eugene

02-01-2002, 02:43 AM

[quote]Heck, Apple settled that lawsuit over having to buy OS 9 to get OS 8.6's DVD Player software to work properly. If that had a shot I'd say this has a shot.<hr></blockquote>

Apple just decided it would be less costly to fight them and have them get their wish, which was basically a free upgrade to whichever version of Mac OS for certain iMac model affected.

This guy is saying Apple didn't optimize OS X for the G3 because the DVD Player doesnt work?

[quote]G3 users migrating from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X have discovered that they've lost features like DVD playback, support for hardware graphics acceleration using OpenGL and hardware-accelerated QuickTime movie playback.<hr></blockquote>

DVD playback was an issue before OS X. My iMac couldn't play Quake III Arena in 1999, again not OS X's or OS 9's fault. Hardware accelerated QT ihas always been in Rage 128 and later cards...wtf. None of these problems are unique to OS X...this is why his case is invalid.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]

Junkyard Dawg

02-01-2002, 02:45 AM

What a pathetic lawsuit. These G3 computers are several years old, and yet these people expect them to run OS X optimally? That's absurd.

Also, they are wrong about the lack of support for ATI graphics chips:

<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/features/atimacosx.html" target="_blank">http://www.thinksecret.com/features/atimacosx.html</a>

ATI is going to write OS X drivers for these old ATI chips, so the G3 owners can quit their whining. But even if they didn't, these whiners forget that OS X DOES run on their computers, the only problem is that it doesn't run as well as it does on newer Macs.

And since the B&W G3 owners can go and buy PCI Radeons for their towers, the only people affected are owners of old iMacs, powerbooks, and some iBooks. But you know the funny thing is, the GPUs and CPUs on these computers are so damn slow that even if OS X had support for their video cards, OS X would be dog-slow anyways! OS X is simply not usable on a G3 under 400 MHz, I've tried it and it's painfully slow. Yeah it would be nice if it ran fine, but I'd rather get an OS with advanced technologies that will still be advanced 5-10 years from now, instead of getting an OS that's optimized for Macs Apple sold 4-5 years ago. :rolleyes:

I think these people should either run OS 9 (funny, how their computers came loaded with OS 8 and yet they were able to run OS 9, but that's not enough for them), or if they can't deal with OS 9, they should buy new Macs. They knew full well when they bought their Macs that they were not upgradable, so now is not the time to whine. And like I said, B&W tower owners can upgrade their video cards if they want to run OS X.

applenut

02-01-2002, 05:57 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Macintosh:
And what a great way to ensure that the company that doesnt support his computer will do so in the future. I have an idea, instead of asking nicely for support lets sue their asses and put them outta business, wait, then they still cant support us. :rolleyes: <hr></blockquote>

jackass. we have asked nicely, we have begged, we have screamed. apple is the good feel pro customer BS you think they are. wake up. Apple had this coming. and if tradition continues, this guy will win and apple will give in

applenut

02-01-2002, 05:59 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
What a pathetic lawsuit. These G3 computers are several years old, and yet these people expect them to run OS X optimally? That's absurd.

Also, they are wrong about the lack of support for ATI graphics chips:

<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/features/atimacosx.html" target="_blank">http://www.thinksecret.com/features/atimacosx.html</a>.<hr></blockquote>

iBooks affected are a little over 1.5 years old. hardly several years

yea, quote a rumor site to dismiss a lawsuit. you'll do great in law :rolleyes:

Willoughby

02-01-2002, 11:22 AM

ZoranS

02-01-2002, 11:42 AM

Applenut
Umm, no offence bro... but are you like having a midlife crisis/period? You've been HARSHER than usual these last couple of weeks...

Signed
Concerned

NoahJ

02-01-2002, 12:30 PM

Amazing, OS X does not run on my G3 like I think it should so apple owes me "the purchase price of the G3-based systems affected as well as the costs of upgrading to Mac OS X 10.0 and 10.1; incidental and consequential damages (including the price of accessories and software); and other costs."

Let's sum that up please:

1) My money back on my current computer.
2) My Money back for OS X and X.1
3) Whatever I spent for any accessories or hardware for my computer.
3) Any money I may have spent on software on my computer.
4)Whatever other money for whatever else I cn come up with.

Did I miss anything?

Applenut, how again is this a fair lawsuit?

Scott_H

02-01-2002, 04:00 PM

Apple didn't deliver what they said the were. They said that systems are supported and they are not. Features that Apple claims are "core technologies" are non functional on many "supported" systems. Ergo Apple sold software that dose not do what Apple claims it does.

Eugene

02-01-2002, 05:24 PM

Quartz, OpenGL, QuickTime, and other "core technologies" all function on Mac OS X. Graphics acceleration, DVD Playback, and other issues raised in the article have all been pre-Mac OS X issues. From this article alone, this man has no case.

Scott H., Applenut, do you see this?

Could I sue Apple because they took the Control Strip and Application Switcher out of OS 9? I really want my Platinum interface back...can I sue for that?

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]

Macintosh

02-01-2002, 05:36 PM

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:


jackass. we have asked nicely, we have begged, we have screamed. apple is the good feel pro customer BS you think they are. wake up. Apple had this coming. and if tradition continues, this guy will win and apple will give in<hr></blockquote>

Apple will win this case because there is no case. How can a law firm dictate to a computer company on how to run update cycles and have certain support features?

Apple had this coming? The users of that old hardware had this coming. Apple, give in?

Apple cut off clones while managing not to be sued. Tell me how they did that one.

<a href="http://www.np.edu.sg/~pcb/macnp/events" target="_blank">http://www.np.edu.sg/~pcb/macnp/events</a>

Click on the clon liscensing link at the bottom right of the page..wait a few secs...see the man himself explain things like this.

applenut

02-01-2002, 06:28 PM

apologies for being harsh

but this lawsuit overall is a good thing. it may have some dumb points but overall it serves a good purpose even if some of you aren't affected or just are too pro-apple to admit that some of their recent actions have been really crappy.

take a system like the PowerMac G3 Beige which is "supported"

serial
scsi
floppy drive
opengl acceleration
qt acceleration
audio/video in
dvd personality card

all don't work in OS X. that's not supported.. sorry. I know a ton of you will respond that OS X runs on it and therefore is supported but that's just a bullshit arguement and if it ever happened with... oh I don't know... MS... you all would be crying apple

Macintosh

02-01-2002, 06:52 PM

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
apologies for being harsh

but this lawsuit overall is a good thing. it may have some dumb points but overall it serves a good purpose even if some of you aren't affected or just are too pro-apple to admit that some of their recent actions have been really crappy.

take a system like the PowerMac G3 Beige which is "supported"

serial
scsi
floppy drive
opengl acceleration
qt acceleration
audio/video in
dvd personality card

all don't work in OS X. that's not supported.. sorry. I know a ton of you will respond that OS X runs on it and therefore is supported but that's just a bullshit arguement and if it ever happened with... oh I don't know... MS... you all would be crying apple<hr></blockquote>

Why would you run OS X on a Beige G3, it defeats the purpose.

applenut

02-01-2002, 06:53 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Macintosh:


Why would you run OS X on a Beige G3, it defeats the purpose.<hr></blockquote>

it's a waste of time dealing with you. next please

Macintosh

02-01-2002, 06:54 PM

Avoiding the question are you? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />

applenut

02-01-2002, 08:04 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Macintosh:
Avoiding the question are you? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> <hr></blockquote>

no, there is no question... you made a dumb statement... especially dumb coming from a "mac lover" like you.... no need to take it further or give it more attention... its just dumb

alcimedes

02-01-2002, 08:14 PM

why bother talking to applenut, he's just an ignorant jackass.

no point having a discussion with an idiot. you can spell it out, draw it out, even put it into simple, one syllable words, and they're still an idiot who won't be able to tell their a**hole from a hole in the ground.

save your breath, he's just a moron.

applenut

02-01-2002, 08:18 PM

[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
why bother talking to applenut, he's just an ignorant jackass.

no point having a discussion with an idiot. you can spell it out, draw it out, even put it into simple, one syllable words, and they're still an idiot who won't be able to tell their a**hole from a hole in the ground.

save your breath, he's just a moron.<hr></blockquote>

yea what he said
:rolleyes:

nice of you to add something to the discussion asshole.

but then again, when do you ever

corvette

02-01-2002, 08:25 PM

I mostly agree with whatever applenut says on these forums, he is not afriad to tell the truth. Period.

Go AN! :)

applenut

02-01-2002, 08:25 PM

another thing to take note of is that I think both the iBook 366 and iBook 466 SE also do not have opengl hardware acceleration an qt acceleration and they were still selling from apple when OS X was released

alcimedes

02-01-2002, 08:25 PM

[quote]yea what he said

nice of you to add something to the discussion asshole.

but then again, when do you ever<hr></blockquote>

lol, irony is lost on this putz.

kaboom

02-01-2002, 08:26 PM

[quote]Why would you run OS X on a Beige G3, it defeats the purpose.<hr></blockquote>I'm with applenut on this one, that's just a fscking stupid statement.
Defeats the purpose? What purpose would that be? To give Apple as much of your money as possible?
The "purpose" of running OSX on a beige g3 is to get the 10 years too late, modern operating system that mac users deserve.
The "purpose" is to be able to keep up with technology on a "supported" system without spending $1800 for acceptable performance.
The "purpose" is to be able to use something that you dropped probably $2k - $3k on for more than 3 years.
Does that clarify the "purpose" for you?

applenut

02-01-2002, 08:26 PM

[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:


lol, irony is lost on this putz.<hr></blockquote>

yep, sure is :rolleyes:

Eugene

02-01-2002, 08:32 PM

[quote]serial
scsi
floppy drive
opengl acceleration
qt acceleration
audio/video in
dvd personality card<hr></blockquote>

I own a Beige G3.
SCSI works

floppy drive support - gone
a/v in - gone
opengl acceleration - never had it
qt acceleration - never had it
dvd personality card - doesn't work with DVD Player 2.0 or better.

Unfortunate, but still. Nobody forces anybody to buy OS X. OS X comes with OS 9.2.1. What's the problem? Features are missing? Can I sue because software functionality is taken away? Can I sue Roxio because Toast Titanium for OS X doesn't recognize my SCSI CD-R drive?

alcimedes

02-01-2002, 08:32 PM

applenut, you're one of those little pale stick boys who sits on the other side of his computer screen dreaming about what a big man he is.

you have a lot of stupid one-liners and inane blather you like to spread around, but you don't really ever say anything.

you like to talk it up like you're a badass, but if you said half of this crap to people's faces they pop you upside the head and treat you like the bitch you are.

you're pathetic.

you were more mature 2 years ago than you are now. that's really, really sad.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

applenut

02-01-2002, 08:43 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:


I own a Beige G3.
SCSI works

floppy drive support - gone
a/v in - gone
opengl acceleration - never had it
qt acceleration - never had it
dvd personality card - doesn't work with DVD Player 2.0 or better.
<hr></blockquote>

qt acceleration has been a feature of all ati chips since at least the rage pro and I think the rage IIc. I don't see how you never had it. OpenGL from apple has worked on the rage pro as well.

you're dvd player uses the 1.x versions of dvd player and updates were made to the 1.x series even after 2.0 was released. the number differentiation was meant to show the difference in the processing of decoding hardware vs software not neccessarily as a replacement

[quote]
Unfortunate, but still. Nobody forces anybody to buy OS X. OS X comes with OS 9.2.1. What's the problem? Features are missing? Can I sue because software functionality is taken away? Can I sue Roxio because Toast Titanium for OS X doesn't recognize my SCSI CD-R drive?<hr></blockquote>

did they make andd sell you the SCSI CD-R? no. the things mentioned are basic things to consider a machine "supported". Yes you can sue if software functionality is taken away if the features were promised or expected to be there.

[quote]applenut, you're one of those little pale stick boys who sits on the other side of his computer screen dreaming about what a big man he is.<hr></blockquote>

uh... relatively tanned, 6'2" 190lbs.... but yea <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[quote]
you have a lot of stupid one-liners and inane blather you like to spread around, but you don't really ever say anything.<hr></blockquote>

yep, believe what you want

[quote]
you like to talk it up like you're a badass, but if you said half of this crap to people's faces they pop you upside the head and treat you like the bitch you are.<hr></blockquote>

the joys of the internet, huh.

and I would likely kick most ya asses here ;)

[quote]
you're pathetic.<hr></blockquote>

thank you.. you're certainly not helping your image

[quote]
you were more mature 2 years ago than you are now. that's really, really sad. <hr></blockquote>

thank you.. I'll take not of that.

BTW, nice to see you can stick to the topic... love the affection but there are other things in life than me baby

Macintosh

02-01-2002, 09:18 PM

[quote]Originally posted by kaboom:
I'm with applenut on this one, that's just a fscking stupid statement.
Defeats the purpose? What purpose would that be? To give Apple as much of your money as possible?
The "purpose" of running OSX on a beige g3 is to get the 10 years too late, modern operating system that mac users deserve.
The "purpose" is to be able to keep up with technology on a "supported" system without spending $1800 for acceptable performance.
The "purpose" is to be able to use something that you dropped probably $2k - $3k on for more than 3 years.
Does that clarify the "purpose" for you?<hr></blockquote>

So, OS X is 10 years too late? You mean the same modern operating system called OS X would have been possible 10 years ago on 10 year old hardware. Please.

OS X is here now, not 10 years ago. Just because Apple could not commit to an operating system strategy before Steve Jobs came back to Apple does not mean that OS X is too late. Look at Windows XP, a company like M$ cant even outdo a tiny company like Apple. Your point about OS X being too late is outrageous.

All of the systems not supported by Apple are better off using what they can. A G3 333, like my iBook is not supported and I understand why. It is just slow.

Get over it, upgrade. If you cant dont complain about something that would just bog down your slow computer anyway.

I am sorry, I really am but upgrading is necessary once every 2-4 years.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]

kaboom

02-01-2002, 09:22 PM

[quote]You mean the same modern operating system called OS X would have been possible 10 years ago on 10 year old hardware. Please.<hr></blockquote>*cough* NeXT *cough*

Macintosh

02-01-2002, 09:27 PM

[quote]Originally posted by kaboom:
*cough* NeXT *cough*<hr></blockquote>

NeXT? Are you kidding? For maybe 10 grand.

Lets be reasonable.

The point is Apple is in a position to deliver TODAY. Not 10 years ago. The hardware and the software are here now.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]

Amorph

02-01-2002, 09:29 PM

There is far too much rude language in this thread.

Everyone: Calm down. Be civil. It's not like you're suing each other.

Eugene

02-01-2002, 09:53 PM

[quote]qt acceleration has been a feature of all ati chips since at least the rage pro and I think the rage IIc. I don't see how you never had it. OpenGL from apple has worked on the rage pro as well.<hr></blockquote>

My G3 and iMac have Rage II+/IIc graphics. All you Pro owners try disabling your ATI extensions and playing QT video. You won't notice a difference. The only difference I've noticed is window redraw.

[quote]you're dvd player uses the 1.x versions of dvd player and updates were made to the 1.x series even after 2.0 was released. the number differentiation was meant to show the difference in the processing of decoding hardware vs software not neccessarily as a replacement<hr></blockquote>

I am not aware of any updates made to DVD Player 1.1 after 2.0 was released. And it is extremely hard to find on Apple's website.

<a href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=59000" target="_blank">http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=59000</a>

It was last updated before the PowerMac G3 smurf towers were released.

[quote]did they make andd sell you the SCSI CD-R? no. the things mentioned are basic things to consider a machine "supported". Yes you can sue if software functionality is taken away if the features were promised or expected to be there.<hr></blockquote>

Roxio provided SCSI support for Toast Titanium for OS 9. They have taken it away in OS X. Can I sue Intel because they announced and later recalled 1 GHz and 1.13 GHz PIIIs? Yes, i can, but I won't win. This man just wants publicity.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]

kaboom

02-01-2002, 09:56 PM

[quote]...would have been possible 10 years ago on 10 year old hardware....<hr></blockquote>You asked, I answered. [quote]NeXT? Are you kidding? For maybe 10 grand.<hr></blockquote>
$10k or not, the fact is that it is 10 year old hardware that ran a modern OS.
Seems to me that Apple certainly could make an OS that runs well on hardware that is 7 years older than the NeXT boxen.

Eugene

02-01-2002, 09:59 PM

[quote]qt acceleration has been a feature of all ati chips since at least the rage pro and I think the rage IIc. I don't see how you never had it. OpenGL from apple has worked on the rage pro as well.<hr></blockquote>

My G3 and iMac have Rage II+/IIc graphics. All you Pro owners try disabling your ATI extensions and playing QT video. You won't notice a difference. The only difference I've noticed is window redraw.

[quote]you're dvd player uses the 1.x versions of dvd player and updates were made to the 1.x series even after 2.0 was released. the number differentiation was meant to show the difference in the processing of decoding hardware vs software not neccessarily as a replacement<hr></blockquote>

I am not aware of any updates made to DVD Player 1.3 after 2.0 was released. And it is extremely hard to find on Apple's website...if it's there at all.

[quote]did they make andd sell you the SCSI CD-R? no. the things mentioned are basic things to consider a machine "supported". Yes you can sue if software functionality is taken away if the features were promised or expected to be there.<hr></blockquote>

Roxio provided SCSI support for Toast Titanium for OS 9. They have taken it away in OS X. Can I sue Intel because they announced and later recalled 1 GHz and 1.13 GHz PIIIs? Yes, i can, but I won't win. This man just wants publicity.

Willoughby

02-01-2002, 10:27 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
There is far too much rude language in this thread.

Everyone: Calm down. Be civil. It's not like you're suing each other.<hr></blockquote>

Thank You, finally a voice of reason. This thread is getting ugly.

Macintosh

02-01-2002, 10:27 PM

[quote]Originally posted by kaboom:

$10k or not, the fact is that it is 10 year old hardware that ran a modern OS.
Seems to me that Apple certainly could make an OS that runs well on hardware that is 7 years older than the NeXT boxen.<hr></blockquote>

You miss the point. Apple can give us that technology now at an affordable price. Look how far they did come since NeXT. Cheaper hardware thats faster and runs better software, I am not complaining.

i am monkey

02-01-2002, 11:07 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
What a pathetic lawsuit. These G3 computers are several years old, and yet these people expect them to run OS X optimally? That's absurd.
<hr></blockquote>

Well, I have an rev-a iBook. Not long after I got it OS-X was previewed. I got OS 9 right away (iBook came with 8.6) so that I could upgrade cheaper (or so I thought) to OS-X right away. A year later the public beta was out. So came G4's... I wasn't thrilled with what I heard about it not running great on G4's.

Overall, I don't feel screwed by Apple. Sure I can run OS X if I want, but the performance won't be great. OS 9 runs great. So why change?

PCs and Windows have the same issues. No PC from three years ago runs Windows XP great (Well, unless you bought a XEON processor with a crap load of RAM). It's eye-candy and junk that basically forces you to buy a new machine. If you can live without that stuff you can save yourself some money.

For Macs OS-X is more than eye candy, but I can live without it for now.

:p

i am monkey

02-01-2002, 11:10 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Macintosh:


You miss the point. Apple can give us that technology now at an affordable price. Look how far they did come since NeXT. Cheaper hardware thats faster and runs better software, I am not complaining.<hr></blockquote>

No doubt. My Powermac 7100/66 was $3500 back in 1994 with a 15" CRT. Look at what you can get now for that much $$$..

:eek:

Mac Write

02-02-2002, 01:24 AM

When I bought my Beige G3, which was needed, I bought it TO RUN MAC OS X.

I am reviewing the May 11, 1999 WWDC keynote, and Jobs said

"We are targeting Mac OS X for the G3, which means, all of the products we are shipping will run Mac OS X."

I pushed extra hard to get the G3, instead of a older new stock model cuase IT would run Mac OS X while a 604 based system wouldn't.

I used that last of my Trust fund to get it. Due to me being disabled and not being able to work, I am unable to afford a new Mac.

My Beige G3 does run OS X. It is that OS X sometimes can bog it down. So all you guys out there with rich parents who will buy you a new computer every 12 months shut up, and realize that over 70% of the people out there can't afford a new computer every 1-3 years.

Junkyard Dawg

02-02-2002, 03:18 AM

Do you people who have beige G3s, old iBooks, do you really think that some video drivers are going to make OS X usable on your systems??? I sure as hell don't .

I have a G4 400 MHz Sawtooth, and OS X is just barely fast enough for everyday use. I've tried OS X on a 400 MHz G3 iMac, and based on that experience, I would opt to stick with OS 9 if I owned such a computer.

Which brings up the next question: what's wrong with using OS 9 on these systems? You do realize that way back when, in the old days when OS 9 was released, there were people with older Macs that couldn't run OS 9 very well, so they had to stick with some variant of OS 8. I bet these people were jealous of you all because you got to run the almighty OS 9...but now that's not enough, you want to be able to update not one but two full Mac OS updates, one an entire rewrite of their OS. You sure don't ask for much do you?

Interestingly, the majority of Mac users never update the OS that came with their Mac. Most of the Macs I've seen, I'd say about 90% of them, are still running the exact same OS version that their computer shipped with. Apple knows this, and Apple knows that they are catering to a minority of Mac users by even developing OS X to work on the older Macs that it can run on. I don't know where you all got this guarantee that OS X would run on your old beige G3s, because when I bought my Sawtooth G4, there was no documentation at all that made any promises about the hardware being "OS X ready" or "Built for OS X". If your computers came with such documentation, then please scan it and post the image here, I would love to see it. Court exhibit A: Apple's guarantee that shipped with 266 MHz Beige G3 Powermacs: "These computers will run OS X, no matter when we finish it and no matter how demanding OS X is at said time."

It just proves that some people will whine and complain about anything, it's their nature to do so. One of the unfortunate traits of the current economy is that it's based on consumerism, so companies cannot stay in business unless they continually sell new systems to people. To justify new systems to their customers, corporations add new features to the new systems. That's why Powermacs can be found today with dual 1 GHz G4s, compared to the beige G3s that had a single 266 MHz G3 processor.

To think that OS X will run as well on a 266 MHz beige G3 as it does on a fast G4 Powermac is preposterous. I swear some people here have brain damage or something. The ugly truth is that even if they got an OS X update tomorrow with drivers for their video cards, in a few days they would sink back into their normal mood and begin ruminating over some other flaw in their Macs, some other shortcoming that was Apple's responsibility to have addressed, and upon ruminating over this shortcoming, the rants and whining would begin all over the internet.

Support for video cards: As I already posted, ATI will probably be writing drivers for these (according to think secret, a fairly reliable rumor site). And I beet good money that the new drivers don't do sh!t for OS X performance. I don't care if you stick a PCI GeForce 4 Titanium with 256 MB DDR vRAM into one of those beige G3s, fact of the matter is that a 266 MHz G3 is going to be swamped by OS X. This is probably the reason Apple decided not to bother with video drivers for these Macs....OS X performed so bad on them that it isn't worth Apple's time to write video drivers that do no good.

I hope that rumor site is correct, because I can't wait for you all to get your video drivers, and then the very same day you get them, I know I'm going to see you back here, whining about how OS X STILL won't run "snappily" on your beige G3s. :rolleyes: I know this will happen, I've foreseen it. :) And via some twisted, contrived logic that had been festering in your minds, you would lay it all out to us about how Apple has violated trust, guarantees, promises, and common decency by releasing a version of OS X that does not run well on your computers.

As for the release dates of OS X getting delayed, I don't see how Apple could be held liable for such a thing in court. Software development is riddled with uncertainties and because of this development almost always takes longer than originally planned, furthermore, Apple had to put extra effort into OS X to meet developer's demands for carbon and such. So of course if the release date is pushed back a year or two, the Macs that are supported are going to be pushed back as well! What do you expect, that since Apple began developing OS X in 97 or whatever, that computers from back then work on OS X?!?!?

Mac Write

02-02-2002, 03:41 AM

I need Mac OS X, cuase OS 9 can't do the things i need to do.

•Apache
•PHP
•MySQL

Then
•Protected memery
•better looking GUI

I upgraded my RAM and added a Radeon PCI.

Apple needs to dump more of the GUI off the CPU and onto the video card that will help preformance.

ZoranS

02-02-2002, 06:57 AM

Macwrite... I thought you were quoting somthing... but now that I see its what your really saying, I have this for you.

OPTIONS.

1. Keep bitching and moaning about the fact that you "need" OSX - umm, if you need it SO MUCH invest in it!

2. Buy a new G4 system, sell your old system and "live your life"

3. Screw the options! WTF makes you think that mummy and daddy buy the nice shiny Macs for all these guys and gals? huh? Bitching about the fact that you cannot upgrade your PC every 1-2years is a choice YOU make! I have friends who make ****all money, have a mortagage & kids and still manage to get what they NEED.

Sure they sacrifice some things, but tell me... DO YOU NEED OSX for business purposes perhaps? If the answers no STFU!

Signed
MR.Youmayhavesomevaildpointsbutimsicktodeathofpeop leclaimingtheyneedsomethingwhentherealwordthatshou ldbeusedisWANT

Artman @_@

02-02-2002, 09:50 AM

Millions of Apple Computers with millions of variations. With millions of various custom settings and set-ups. Millions with thousands of different OS's and software. Millions of problems either on the hardware end and OS/software end. Thousands of days of use and abuse...and this lawyer is suing Apple for not supporting his set-ups.

So what?

Apple should settle out of court and give them all new G4 PMs and iBooks...nuff said? Oh, and reword their "Upgrade to OS X" specs page... :p

kaboom

02-02-2002, 10:33 AM

Hey Zorans, read his post. Let me help you out: [quote]Due to me being disabled and not being able to work, I am unable to afford a new Mac. <hr></blockquote>There is a word for people like Zorans...hmmmm, I just had it....oh wait, I got it.....F*CKTARD!

applenut

02-02-2002, 10:49 AM

[quote]w.

Get over it, upgrade. If you cant dont complain about something that would just bog down your slow computer anyway.<hr></blockquote>

first you say you make your posts all pro-apple because "someone reading may get a bad impression of the mac if you don't" and then you post BS like this which makes mac users look like rich stuck up snobs who's response to everything is if you don't like it leave or upgrade. and that is a bad image and its a very popular image

[quote]My G3 and iMac have Rage II+/IIc graphics. All you Pro owners try disabling your ATI extensions and playing QT video. You won't notice a difference. The only difference I've noticed is window redraw.<hr></blockquote>

it's supported on all... just limited codecs... play a cinepak video fullscreen with the drivers installed and then without... you'll see a difference.

QT acceleration unfortunately isn't all that great and really wouldn't affect much of anything as it only affects a dozen or so codecs on those chipsets

[quote]I am not aware of any updates made to DVD Player 1.1 after 2.0 was released. And it is extremely hard to find on Apple's website.

<a href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=59000" target="_blank">http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=59000</a>

It was last updated before the PowerMac G3 smurf towers were released.<hr></blockquote>

last update I believe is 1.3 released with 8.6/9 or so

[quote]Roxio provided SCSI support for Toast Titanium for OS 9. They have taken it away in OS X. Can I sue Intel because they announced and later recalled 1 GHz and 1.13 GHz PIIIs? Yes, i can, but I won't win. This man just wants publicity.<hr></blockquote>

again, Roxio did not sell you the integrated hardware with the software. They did not make promises. So much for making the whole widget advantage

BTW, does Toast for OS X really not support SCSI burners because I have read reports of people using scsi burners in OS X and can't see what software they would be using except for toast :confused:

[quote]Do you people who have beige G3s, old iBooks, do you really think that some video drivers are going to make OS X usable on your systems??? I sure as hell don't .<hr></blockquote>

it would certainly help and something like 3d acceleration and video acceleration or basic fundamental things. there is no reason a 466iBook can't be running OS X acceptably and be fully supported if it was selling when OS X was.

[quote]
Which brings up the next question: what's wrong with using OS 9 on these systems? You do realize that way back when, in the old days when OS 9 was released, there were people with older Macs that couldn't run OS 9 very well, so they had to stick with some variant of OS 8. I bet these people were jealous of you all because you got to run the almighty OS 9...but now that's not enough, you want to be able to update not one but two full Mac OS updates, one an entire rewrite of their OS. You sure don't ask for much do you? <hr></blockquote>

what's wrong? Apple promised OS X to G3 buyers and said it would showcase the power of the G3 architecture by being completely PPC native and specifically optimized for G3 systems.

Strange how OS X went from being expected to run fast on something as slow as a 132 Mhz 604e, then to a 233Mhz G3 but now people wouldn't reccomend anything less than a 400Mhz G4 to run it "decently". Somewhere along the line something got screwed up or apple just said **** optimization who cares we have faster computers and don't need to worry about anything else.

[quote]
Support for video cards: As I already posted, ATI will probably be writing drivers for these (according to think secret, a fairly reliable rumor site). And I beet good money that the new drivers don't do sh!t for OS X performance. I don't care if you stick a PCI GeForce 4 Titanium with 256 MB DDR vRAM into one of those beige G3s, fact of the matter is that a 266 MHz G3 is going to be swamped by OS X. This is probably the reason Apple decided not to bother with video drivers for these Macs....OS X performed so bad on them that it isn't worth Apple's time to write video drivers that do no good. <hr></blockquote>

there is no reason OpenGL performance would be any worse than before. if anything it should be better in OS X as OS X supposedly has a "25%" OpenGL performance advancement over OS 9. What system needs that advantage more than older ones.

Macintosh

02-02-2002, 11:39 AM

[quote]first you say you make your posts all pro-apple because "someone reading may get a bad impression of the mac if you don't" and then you post BS like this which makes mac users look like rich stuck up snobs who's response to everything is if you don't like it leave or upgrade. and that is a bad image and its a very popular image<hr></blockquote>

Thanks for caring about me. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

applenut

02-02-2002, 01:16 PM

wow... MacNN members are capable of discussing this lawsuit witout getting at each other's throats and making dumb bias statements like buy a pc or just upgrade... but we can't... that's sad.

2 quotes from MacNN

Moki said
[quote]Well, I disagree. When OS X was on the drawing board, I actually believed that it might offer *better* performance than OS 9. Why did I hold such a niave point of view?

Well, it wasn't exactly niave. There is lots of cruft in Mac OS 9, such as the non-preemptive multitasking, and the fact that the interrupt model is *still* emulated 68K code (and interrupts happen rather often and continuously on your computer). A fully PPC-native modern OS could have indeed outperformed Mac OS 9, and Apple was claiming that these machines would work well with Mac OS X when it was released.

Now that I know more about the underpinnings about Mac OS X, I understand why it is slower than Mac OS 9. It isn't because Apple did a bad job, it is because they architected it in such a way that it would be very forward-thinking (especially with regards to the imaging model). Certain design choices they made ensured that the performance would be less than OS 9 for most tasks.

That's fine, I understand the choices they made, and from the perspective of needing an OS that will scale well for years to come, I agree with them.

However, it wasn't just naive, stupid people who thought Mac OS X would perform well on their G3s when they bought them. And Apple did let people know that those machines would be great for OS X.

And so, despite the fact that it will cost Apple money if they lose this lawsuit, I agree with it in principle.<hr></blockquote>

MemeTransport said
[quote]Way back in the Rhapsody days SJ publically declared that every machine then being manufactured would be fully supported by the new OS (at a WWDC I think). He made the assurance so that Apple would keep selling machines in the near term. At the time that included everything back to the PPC 7200/120 (which had the 601 in it).

People took him at his word and kept buying machines. After all, public statements by a corporation's officers are legally binding.

After Rhapsody mutated into OSX (more or less Rhap + Carbon), the list of supported machines started to creep. Now yes, Apple can claim that OSX isn't Rhapsody but it's a pretty obvious cop-out. It seems that the supported list is still creeping.

I'm an owner of a 7200. I don't expect support for the machine: it's ancient and I'd think twice before running OS9 on it let alone OSX. Even with excellent HW support it'd run like a sloth on quaaludes.

However, G3 owners are quite right to be pissed off. Apple has engaged in deceptive sales practices and consumers are getting burned. People made buying decisions based on Apple's statements. Support for the graphics chip and the floppy drive is NOT a big demand. Apple has a responsibility to meet its obligations and Steven Jobs publically obligated Apple to supporting these machines. If they didn't want the obligation they shouldn't have made the statement.

As far as ATI goes: they may have a contractual obligation to Apple. But the primary obligation is with Apple: they used the chip and sold the machines as a package. The obligation for the package rests with Apple. If ATI does not have a contractual obligation to Apple to provide OSX drivers for these chips then Apple must pay them or do it themselves.

People have discussed rumours of ATI making drivers for these chips: it may be at the request of Apple. Apple would have known that the law suit was coming and may now be trying to cover its butt. <hr></blockquote>

2 posts that sum it up quite well IMO.

but my favorite comment:
Cipher13
[quote]Apple is getting sued for being the bastards they are... haha!!<hr></blockquote>

applenut

02-02-2002, 02:10 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:


Try to find that version on the Apple website.

Cipher13 is one of the MacNN personalities I despise the most. By quoting him, you are hurting your argument, as far as I cam concerned.<hr></blockquote>

1.) I'll try but I know its available. perhaps apple is willing to take stuff down to "help their case" ;)
2.) I agree. don't care for him either, just thought he summed it up nicely

ColorClassicG4

02-02-2002, 02:22 PM

At the point at which it became clear that OS X wouldn't run snappily on a G3/233, what do you think Apple should have done? Announced as soon as possible "Okay, never mind, maybe next year's computers will be snappier, so hold off buying until then"?

The plaintiffs aren't asking the court to order Apple to add floppy disk and proper SCSI support to the operating system. They're asking for a refund of copies of OS X, 10.1, their computers, their peripherals, etc. etc. This is an attempt by the plaintiffs' attorneys to pry some cash out of Apple. Nothing more. Nobody's trying to stick it to Apple about WWDC promises of years past. They just want the money, preferably to scare Apple into settling before the case goes to trial.

As other people have asked: is there something wrong with running OS 9 on your G3/233? I thought it was more responsive and better looking than OS X. Now we're trying to have it both ways?

So the specifications for OS X creeped in the last five years. Big f-ing deal. It's called software development. Specs creep. Grow up.

And no, I don't have a dual-1Ghz. I have a G3/400, and X runs fine for me.

Belle

02-02-2002, 11:12 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Mac Write:
I need Mac OS X, cuase OS 9 can't do the things i need to do.

•Apache
•PHP
•MySQL<hr></blockquote>
Out of interest, are you using your Mac as a server, or a development box? Or both?

Macintosh

02-03-2002, 12:22 AM

Applenut thinks that Apple is just a bunch of bastards? HAHA LOL! :rolleyes:

Mac Write

02-03-2002, 04:36 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:

Out of interest, are you using your Mac as a server, or a development box? Or both?<hr></blockquote>

Well I use one site for learning and testing stuff, another is the dev server for macwrite.com along wiht another site for testing out new ideas for macwrite.com then I have my business site dev server, and the actual domain hosted on my computer web only (well it only gets 20 hits a month and I am broke and can't afford hosting for it).

I think the MySQL server is was slows my computer down (256.5 TeraByte mysql file in tmp?)

SDW2001

02-03-2002, 06:51 PM

The plantiffs do have some points. But, I don't think it will go anywhere. Apple is not legally bound by its public statements at all times. And, they have since amended their statements to basicially say "we are not going to support system X, Y and Z"

I think a massive letter campaign might be a good idea. I also think these people might have a case for a refund on the purchase price of OS X. If Apple said the system was supported, then it should work....with ALL functions. They may not run well, but they should either run or be labled as non-supported functions in advance.

Not much to happen here. Can you imagine M$ getting sued because Win95 didn't run to well on a 100MHZ 486 with 8MB of RAM.....they said it would but let me tell you....it didn't work too well!!!!!

Mac Write

02-04-2002, 02:04 AM

If you go to the <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html" target="_blank">Mac OS X Supported systems</a> page, it does show the Beige G3, All iMac's, iBook, B&W G3's, and G4's are supported (and PowerBooks excluding the orginal PowerBook G3).

I agree that for the PowerMac's there will be required maintainance on your computer over a 3-4 year period
•RAM
•Video Card
•USB/Firewire (Beige G3)
•Harddrive upgrade

I have done all these and my computer is running alot better (in Mac OS 9 that is) and is faster in Mac OS X thanks the RAM.

I am not whining, I am just trying to figure this thing out. I was excepting Mac oS X to run at acceptable levels on this computer with the latest version through 10.5 (or 2004).

I was thinking it wouldn't be until Mac OS 10.3 until we saw Mac OS X fully optimzed for all the machines. I just hope with 10.2 this computer gets alot faster. Mac OS X should run @about 80-90% of what Mac OS 9 ran in speed on your Mac.

A/UX

02-04-2002, 12:19 PM

I'll chip in with my experience. I purchased a 333 MHz "Lombard" model powerbook back in 1999 and run OS X on it exclusively. The only update that was required to make OS X run respectably was the addition of 128 MB of RAM.

If I want to watch a DVD I boot to OS 9. It's not like I need to use iPhoto or Word v.X while I'm watching a movie. :rolleyes:

I simply do not notice "redraw" issues or slowness. Sure, it's slower than my 533 MHz G4 desktop, it's also two years older! This machine meets and exceeds every promise that Apple made regarding OS X.

Apple has made me a fan by wrapping a gorgeous interface around a solid core. I don't use OS 9 any more and see no need. This lawsuit is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

applenut

02-05-2002, 03:37 AM

[quote]I purchased a 333 MHz "Lombard" model powerbook back in 1999 and run OS X on it exclusively. The only update that was required to make OS X run respectably was the addition of 128 MB of RAM.<hr></blockquote>

of course people have different standards of what they consider "respectably". yours are obviously very low. mine are obviously mid-high.

[quote]
If I want to watch a DVD I boot to OS 9. It's not like I need to use iPhoto or Word v.X while I'm watching a movie. <hr></blockquote>

so we should be forced to restart to gain functionality and have to live in a dual boot life. talk about the macintosh way, this sounds awfully similar to the things we would rip into MS and Windows about.

sad how people come to just accept these things when there is no technical reason that DVD Playback won't work in OS X.

[quote]
I simply do not notice "redraw" issues or slowness.<hr></blockquote>

yea, right... everyone admits they are there. APPLE admits they are there but some how you are immune? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[quote]Sure, it's slower than my 533 MHz G4 desktop, it's also two years older!<hr></blockquote>

no one is saying it should be as faster or faster

[quote]This machine meets and exceeds every promise that Apple made regarding OS X<hr></blockquote>

according to who? you? certainly not apple. I think you should go back and look into that because you are wrong

[quote]
Apple has made me a fan by wrapping a gorgeous interface around a solid core. I don't use OS 9 any more and see no need. This lawsuit is nothing more than a publicity stunt. <hr></blockquote>

awww.... OS X is pretty so you are happy.... how sweet

Macintosh

02-05-2002, 03:40 AM

You are so dumb. I wonder if he really thinks that OS X is good just because of how it looks. But thne again you prbably dont care about what it looks like at all. You are the type of person that has no apreciation for art or craftsmanship.

applenut

02-05-2002, 05:18 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Macintosh:
You are so dumb. I wonder if he really thinks that OS X is good just because of how it looks. But thne again you prbably dont care about what it looks like at all. You are the type of person that has no apreciation for art or craftsmanship.<hr></blockquote>

yea, right.. being the son of a carpenter/sculptor I think I have a extremely high appreciation for art and craftmanship.

don't open your mouth anymore. you enever back up your posts and just make dumb statements. are you not smart enough to respond? it sure seems that way.

SDW2001

02-05-2002, 06:26 AM

A/UX

02-05-2002, 11:57 AM

Nutty and I just like to argue about everything. ;) I just think that it is a waste of our time and Apple's to try to get them to support 3-year old hardware that they already support through another mechanism (Mac OS 9).

You and I both would love to see everything supported in X. Sure I was miffed when they revealed that the DVD player would never run on my Powerbook.

However, I would rather see Apple spend time accelerating performance for the new GF4Ti cards instead of coding in support for hardware-based DVD playback.

Simple priorities.

ColorClassicG4

02-05-2002, 10:23 PM

CONFIRMED! applenut's losing it.

:eek:

spooky

02-06-2002, 01:40 AM

I haven't been on these threads very long (its getting harder to find a mac in the uk these days - I'm posting this on a compaq (Ugh) ) so I don't know if applenut is being more acetic than normal.

What I do know is that he has some very good points here.

Moreover this is not about the worth of OS X or the G3 or what constitutes respectable performance etc. at all.

this suit is really quite simple. Apple made certain claims about OS X and the G3. they didn't stick to those claims hence a lot of people are rightly furious. That's the key thing - apple made certain claims about OS X and the G3.

If Ford released a brand new engine that used a new type of fuel and said that the same fule would be optimised to run with older engines then you might feel more comfortable about switching to the new fuel. However, just how pissed off would you be when you found that using the new fuel on your older ford worked - but spewed fumes, burned more oil, lowered the efficiency of the car and replacement parts that you added to the engine no longer worked - they just got clogged up?

BTW a small family sized car here in the uk costs about the same as a global media sattelite.

Finally, how old is macintosh? he seems a little on the young side.

alcimedes

02-06-2002, 01:43 AM

[quote]applenut, are you OK? You are really a bitch latley!<hr></blockquote>

someone else noticed? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

NoahJ

02-06-2002, 02:06 AM

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:


yea, right.. being the son of a carpenter/sculptor I think I have a extremely high appreciation for art and craftmanship.

don't open your mouth anymore. you enever back up your posts and just make dumb statements. are you not smart enough to respond? it sure seems that way.<hr></blockquote>

Yeah, well being the son of a mechanic I would think that I have a good feeling for how a engine works and how to diagnose problems with it, but in reality I would need training for that. Just because I am a mechanics son does not mean that I am a mechanic as well.

When it comes to craftsmanship in software there are some things you can do to point to how good/bad something is but it is also very subjective. In my opinion OS X is gorgeous, and has a very nice interface with a solid and robust core. You on the other hand have some legitimate gripes with the OS that you then apply to the rest of it to say that the OS is then just crap unless it is done the way you want it. (I realize you don't think this totally, but your posts sure come across that way lately)

And more on topic, I still feel that the lawsuit as it is proposed right now is rediculous. Apple will likely win if it even makes it to court.