or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Confirmed: Older graphics card not supported by OSX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Confirmed: Older graphics card not supported by OSX

post #1 of 358
Thread Starter 
Check the link below:

<a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0112/21.graphics.php" target="_blank">MacCentral Story</a>

I personnaly think this is really stupid. I mean, for beige G3 owners, they do have the option to upgrade their graphics cards, but for iMac owners, it's a completely different story.

Apple, If you're going to ship a system, at least continue to support it's hardware, or at least give it the ability to upgrade the hardware!
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz, 15" Matte, 2GB RAM, 120GB HD, iPod nano 2GB Black.
Reply
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz, 15" Matte, 2GB RAM, 120GB HD, iPod nano 2GB Black.
Reply
post #2 of 358
I'm boxing up my copy of OS X and sending it back for a refund. This is really just fucking ridiculous. I'll never buy Apple again. They've lost me.
post #3 of 358
Bye.

Scratch one less Republican for the mac platform.
post #4 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by erbium:
<strong> but for iMac owners, it's a completely different story.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's only the early iMacs. All DVs support it. I'm not saying I agree with it though.

Chris
post #5 of 358
I don't see why this is an issue at all - I have an iBook 500 with a supported graphics card and it's STILL slow. Supporting older graphics cards would be like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
post #6 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by imacSE:
<strong>

It's only the early iMacs. All DVs support it. I'm not saying I agree with it though.

Chris</strong><hr></blockquote>


There are hundreds of thousands of people who own those iMacs. I may be wrong but i thought the original imac was the first mac designed with os X in mind. Why the hell wouldn't apple have programmed support for this mac first?!

Very annoying.
post #7 of 358
I think this statement from Apple is very disappointing, as I own a Beige G3, and was expecting some form of hardware acceleration in OS X. I don't expected very good performance, but at least QuickTime acceleration and some OpenGL.

But, assuming that this situation isn't going to change in the near future, what are the options for Beige G3 owners out there? (unfortunately, older iMacs and iBooks/PowerBooks haven't got any options)

1- ATI Radeon Mac (PCI) $230.00- I think for someone wishing just a better accelerated graphics display for working purposes (Aqua screen redraws, scrolling, etc), Video display (QuickTime and DVD) and some casual gaming, this card is too expensive.

2- ATI Radeon VE Mac (PCI) $130.00- With support for dual displays, DVD playback, QuickTime and OpenGL acceleration, this card is much less expensive than the other Radeon, while only lacking in 3D power for gamers. I actually find it much more useful than the original Radeon due to the support for 2 dislplays.
This card was first announced at MacWorld last July (I think), and was ment to be selling by late September, but to date, hasn't been released and I've found no information about it anywhere. I'm waiting to buy this card but I guess it would probably never be released, because the new chips from ATI (the new Radeons 8500,7500,etc) are already out and maybe they're working on a new card with the new generation chips. After all, the Radeon VE for PCs came out a year ago, and launching the Mac card with this delay doesn't make much sense...

Are there any more alternatives to work with a well supported card (optimized drivers) in OS X?

Link:
<a href="http://www.ati.com/na/pages/sitemap/sitemap_index.html" target="_blank">http://www.ati.com/na/pages/sitemap/sitemap_index.html</a>
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
post #8 of 358
Thread Starter 
I say somebody oughta start a petition, and send it to Apple.

How hard would it be for Apple to support the machines left out in the cold!? I mean all they have to do is write proper drivers, and bam!

To me, a computer made in early '99 (iMac 333) should be fully supported under MacOSX. This is totally unacceptable.

If this is Apple's way of getting people to buy new machines, then I'm really ashamed.
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz, 15" Matte, 2GB RAM, 120GB HD, iPod nano 2GB Black.
Reply
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz, 15" Matte, 2GB RAM, 120GB HD, iPod nano 2GB Black.
Reply
post #9 of 358
I'm curious as to what, exactly, people expect out of these cards? The current drivers make little or no attempt to optimize quartz using any hardware. I do think that in the future the 3D hardware will be used to accelerate certain features of quartz, but I have serious doubts as to whether the Rage 2 or Pro cards could handle it or, more to the point, be faster than software alone. Especially when the limited amount of VRAM that these cards contained is taken into account I can't see how they could even be used at all. Consider an original iMac with 2MB of VRAM; OS X needs at least an 800 x 600 screen at 16 bits to present a decent interface, and that already is using half of the memory for display purposes only. When the fact that every window and layer in the display system is double buffered, 2 or 4 MB of VRAM would simply cause too much swapping across the system bus to be feasible for acceleration. The 6MB versions would handle it a little better, but then the limitations of the chips themselves have to be considered. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if 16 or 32 MB of VRAM is a requirement for future acceleration options.

Besides, Apple is not saying that X will not run on these systems (it obviously does) but only that the realities of the display layer and the memory and speed required for it precludes the successful utilization of these particular cards. It is unfortunate that they will not be used for acceleration, but I am not willing to accept the theory that Apple is simply trying to make users upgrade. These chips and memory configurations have serious shortcomings that, apparently after investigation by Apple, simply make them untenable.

The point must also be forwarded that, even were acceleration enabled, X still would be a painful experience on any configuration that uses a Rage 2/Pro.

And before anyone raises the question... yes, I probably would crucify microsoft for the same transgression. Oh well, I'll have to deal with my own hypocrisy.
post #10 of 358
this is ridiculous and anyone who backs up apple on this decision like countless people in the MacNN "talkback" thread are idiots.

games such as Cro mag Rally run just fine in OS 9.x on these machines yet in OS X there are no open gl drivers so they can't be used. its inexcusable. the damn screensavers Apple ships don't even run well because they use OpenGL and these machines don't have it.

It's possible, they are just lazy.
post #11 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fluffy:
<strong>I'm curious as to what, exactly, people expect out of these cards?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It used to work in OS 9. Sure it wasn't that hot but it was there. I even played Q3A on my little iMac. It worked. I wasn't expecting much more in OS X than what I got in 9. That assumes crApple supported my machine. They say they do but they don't.

Blame the user will be the major theme of the Apple Apologists (TM). It's my fault for buying the iMac. It's my fault for being and "early adopter". It's my fault that my hardware is "old". It's my fault for expecting something. It's my fault for not upgrading. No matter what it's my fault. Not Apple's.

Isn't it Apple that claims a major advantage from making both the hardware and software. What good has that done me?
post #12 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

It used to work in OS 9. Sure it wasn't that hot but it was there. I even played Q3A on my little iMac. It worked. I wasn't expecting much more in OS X than what I got in 9. That assumes crApple supported my machine. They say they do but they don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I didn't really address the 3D issue, as I agree with you and Applenut on that point, at least for the Rage Pro. Apple should at least provide basic OpenGL functionality for 4+ MB Pro users.
post #13 of 358
The original iMacs were not designed to run OS X.

Jobs has said from day 1 from his return at Apple, when he introduced the iMac, and when he introduced OS X that revamping the system software takes more time than revamping the hardware side. They were never intended to be in synch, never planned on the same time line even when one ignores the continuous delay of the OS.

PS: doesn't capitalism suck?

[ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
post #14 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>The original iMacs were not designed to run OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why is it on the supported list then? What's stopping crApple from just writing a driver?
post #15 of 358
OS X uses Quartz. Quartz uses OpenGL for 3D. The cards Apple listed it will no longer support, lack full OpenGL acceleration. The machines these cards are found in, also lack the CPU power neccissary to deliver acceptable OpenGL performance in software. It's a case of tough luck. Apple can't dwell on the fact that these machines have poor OS X performance. What are they going to do? Go back and recode Quartz to accommodate legacy hardware? Give me a break! If Apple did that, they'd screw every Mac owner with a modern machine. OS X is designed to get the most out of tomorrow's hardware, not yesterday's. That's why it requires OpenGL for 3D. Apple still supports legacy hardware with its Carbon spec. A rev A. iMac running OS 9, will still be able to run the next version of Photoshop. You don't have to run OS X, and by the time Apple forces you to, you'll have a new computer anyway.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #16 of 358
Then they shouldn't have put it on the supported list and they should offer refunds to those of us the lied to. If OS 9 can go OpenGL OSX can too. crApple is just too lazy to do it. **** them. I will upgrade but not to Apple.
post #17 of 358
I think the main problem with Apple is that they just make these statements without supporting them with reasons. If there is a good reason, like the one explained here, why 4mb or less cards can never be able to accelerate OSX then tell us that and we will live with it...but by just making a declaration that they won't be supported it gives rise to frustration and speculation as to Apple's motives that can't be good for the company.
post #18 of 358
Ick, I don't like my previous reply at all. What I meant to say is that the iMac was not designed around OS X. Poorly stated, sorry.

I do sympathize with you Scott, but I think we all know what's going on: Apple does not see a big economic advantage to taking time and money from other areas of OS development to write the drivers. Plus, it's about the usual upgrade time for these computers: 3 years, typically. hence, my "capitalism" comment. It's the nature of this economy to drop older support and try to force upgrades and new purchases. I didn't mean to be insensitive; I thought I was being clever, but then again it was 2 in the morning.

The one thing I do *not* take your side on (I'm not sure if this is even something you're arguing though) is whether Apple designs the OS to support legacy software at the (apparent) expense of future code and hardware. I think that aspect is a no-brainer.

I have an iMac that I don't bother to upgrade to OS X, knowing that while it can run OS X, it will not run it well. The supported list is for machines that will run OS X, but there is no qualification for how they run the OS. But, again, I'm into Apple for OS X, not my older hardware, so if push comes to shove I know which will give.

The one possibility at this point is that someone can write OpenGL drivers for those cards since OpenGL is, well, open. You're at the mercy of the Darwin community at that point. However I wouldn't necessarily take much solace in that since I can't write code myself.

Again, I apologize for the dumb post above.
post #19 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Codename:
<strong>Bye.

Scratch one less Republican for the mac platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Don't tell me your such a political zealot that you keep track of such things
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
post #20 of 358
Well that's fantastic.

We've got about a dozen beige G3s in "my" department with people waiting on better graphics acceleration before they switch to OSX. Looks like Apple gets 10+ orders for new machines.

Nice MS-like move, Apple, planned obsolescence is the way to go. Well, I don't think anyone has accused Apple of being pro-customer over pro-dollar.



(If it works on OS9, it should work on The Most Advanced Operating System in the World)

proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #21 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Keeksy:
<strong>OS X uses Quartz. Quartz uses OpenGL for 3D. The cards Apple listed it will no longer support, lack full OpenGL acceleration. The machines these cards are found in, also lack the CPU power neccissary to deliver acceptable OpenGL performance in software. It's a case of tough luck. Apple can't dwell on the fact that these machines have poor OS X performance. What are they going to do? Go back and recode Quartz to accommodate legacy hardware? Give me a break! If Apple did that, they'd screw every Mac owner with a modern machine. OS X is designed to get the most out of tomorrow's hardware, not yesterday's. That's why it requires OpenGL for 3D. Apple still supports legacy hardware with its Carbon spec. A rev A. iMac running OS 9, will still be able to run the next version of Photoshop. You don't have to run OS X, and by the time Apple forces you to, you'll have a new computer anyway. </strong><hr></blockquote>

quartz doesn't use OpenGL for 3d.

OS X uses OpenGL for 3d. quartz isn't the controller of all visual activities.

what the hell are you talking abpout when you say these cards don't support full OpenGL acceleration and the CPU is not powerful enough? Am I not making it clear than games such as Quake 3 and Cro Mag rally run fine in 9.x on these machines with the use of OpenGL but Apple hasn't released OpenGL OS X drivers and therefore they don't work. And the clim of 30 percent faster OpenGL in OS X due to optimization of OpenGL and the fact that its at the core of OS X could make huge improvements of OpenGL performance on these machines if Apple's claims are true

And OpenGL is only part of the problem. Apple even refuses to support QT acceleration on these cards. and yes these cards do support QT acceleration. In fact the QT acceleration for ATI cards only chnaged in the Radeon series when they implemented more codecs. there is no reason not to support it.

1999 hardware is not legacy hardware. a performa is legacy hardware. these machines werre part of the "new Apple" of the late 90s and were released AFTER OS X started development. there is no reason not to fully support them. But dumbasses like you and the other apologists here let Apple do whatever they want. the response in the mac community is now, "buy a new mac" or "buy a pc if you don't like it". Wha's to like about Apple if they don't appreciate and value their customers? and what's the mac community worth being in if its members are jsut going to turn on you and say so what, buy a newer mac or pc.

[ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: applenut ]

[ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
post #22 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fluffy:
<strong>I'm curious as to what, exactly, people expect out of these cards? The current drivers make little or no attempt to optimize quartz using any hardware. I do think that in the future the 3D hardware will be used to accelerate certain features of quartz, but I have serious doubts as to whether the Rage 2 or Pro cards could handle it or, more to the point, be faster than software alone. Especially when the limited amount of VRAM that these cards contained is taken into account I can't see how they could even be used at all. Consider an original iMac with 2MB of VRAM; OS X needs at least an 800 x 600 screen at 16 bits to present a decent interface, and that already is using half of the memory for display purposes only. When the fact that every window and layer in the display system is double buffered, 2 or 4 MB of VRAM would simply cause too much swapping across the system bus to be feasible for acceleration. The 6MB versions would handle it a little better, but then the limitations of the chips themselves have to be considered. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if 16 or 32 MB of VRAM is a requirement for future acceleration options.

Besides, Apple is not saying that X will not run on these systems (it obviously does) but only that the realities of the display layer and the memory and speed required for it precludes the successful utilization of these particular cards. It is unfortunate that they will not be used for acceleration, but I am not willing to accept the theory that Apple is simply trying to make users upgrade. These chips and memory configurations have serious shortcomings that, apparently after investigation by Apple, simply make them untenable.

The point must also be forwarded that, even were acceleration enabled, X still would be a painful experience on any configuration that uses a Rage 2/Pro.

And before anyone raises the question... yes, I probably would crucify microsoft for the same transgression. Oh well, I'll have to deal with my own hypocrisy.</strong><hr></blockquote>


that's bull. most of quartz is stored in main ram. this is obvious as the latest 10.1.2 update reduced RAM usage by up to 30MBs because it compresses window information.

the first rev iMac can also be upgraded to 6 MB VRAM. OS X also has 3d acceleration on 8mb cards such as the iMac with rage 128 8mb and the Powerbook G3 Pismo and G4 with 8 mb ATI chipsets.
post #23 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
Most of quartz is stored in main ram. this is obvious as the latest 10.1.2 update reduced RAM usage by up to 30MBs because it compresses window information.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Currently yes. Most of my post was regarding future optimizations to speed 2D scrolling, drawing, etc. and, like I wrote in regards to Scott's post, I agree with adding 3D support to Rage Pro machines.
post #24 of 358
Still the Apple Apologists (TM) cant' tell me why it's okay for crApple to put a system on the supported list and then drop support for it months and months later. They tell us "updates are coming" and then months and months later, after charging for a "free" update, that there are no updates coming for "supported" systems.

Also the point I made earlier. Apple controls the hardware. They control the software. They friggen soldered the GPU to the motherboard of the computer I'm using and they can't write a friggen driver for it? Please?

Like others and myself have pointed out OpenGL worked well under 9. Why not X? If this is a ploy for Apple to sell more systems it fail. I wont buy anymore crApple systems. You can't count on support two years later. My system is still on crApplecare warrantee. If crApple will warrantee it can it still be legacy hardware?

I know I know It's all my fault.
post #25 of 358
Let's try again then:

The original iMac is supported by OS X, though your definition of supported is different than their definition. OpenGL isn't supported. It's not fully- or well- supported.

It's likely, again, that Apple doesn't want to devote resources to older hardware support, that Apple wants to "encourage" people to upgrade (even if it is petty), and maybe their strained relationship with ATI has something to do with it. Pick one reason, any one. I'm not asking you to be happy with it. No one is saying it's your fault, just that the reasons are in front of you for better or worse.
post #26 of 358
there are no "reasons" as you like to put it.

you say apple doesn't wan tto devote its resources to this "legacy" support task...

Apple is a multibillion dollar company with hundreds of employees just working on OS X. Drivers for the ATI Rage Pro and IIc would likely take a team of 2-3 a month to do, if that. they already have something to start with. this is not a difficult thing to do. there is no excuse for it.
post #27 of 358
This really makes me question the big upgrade I was going to make soon... If I buy new Apple hardware, how long until OS XI comes out and Apple drops support for more crap because they are too lazy and don't want to add support for older hardware, even though they will gladly SAY it is supported?

Bad move, Apple.
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
post #28 of 358
Apple is encouraging me to upgrade. I do want a faster computer. I'll get the fastest one out there. An Athlon based Linux box. Bye bye crApple.


Apple totaly blew it on this one. No one can talk this one down.
post #29 of 358
This is pretty shitty. And whether or not Apple's motives they need to explain themselves, and why the these systems are listed as compatable.

However maybe we are pointing some of the finger in the wrong direction. Purhaps it is ATi who is unwilling to go back and right drivers for these computers. I really doubt Apple writes any drivers for ATi's products to be used with their computers. Either way this reeks, and I am glad I do not own one of these older iMacs and all. No offense, but I would kill myself if I was forced to use one of those klunkers whether or not they had OpenGL in OS X.
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
post #30 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Falcon:
<strong>However maybe we are pointing some of the finger in the wrong direction. Purhaps it is ATi who is unwilling to go back and right drivers for these computers. I really doubt Apple writes any drivers for ATi's products to be used with their computers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe but as I've said before ... I didn't buy a graphics card I bougth and iMac. Apple says, "We make the hardware we make the software" not "we make the hardware, slap a graphics card on it for you no extra charge, we make the software except the graphics card driver."
post #31 of 358
Apple just doesn't have the option of ****ing masses of its customers over the table. The implicated computers should be supported, period.
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
post #32 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Falcon:
<strong>This is pretty shitty. And whether or not Apple's motives they need to explain themselves, and why the these systems are listed as compatable.

However maybe we are pointing some of the finger in the wrong direction. Purhaps it is ATi who is unwilling to go back and right drivers for these computers. I really doubt Apple writes any drivers for ATi's products to be used with their computers. Either way this reeks, and I am glad I do not own one of these older iMacs and all. No offense, but I would kill myself if I was forced to use one of those klunkers whether or not they had OpenGL in OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple is responsible for supporting all ATI integrated chipsets. It's an OEM part. you don't go to maxtor when your built-in drive fails or you need a driver. you go to apple. same thing with the graphic card/chip
post #33 of 358
There is a difference between supporting a product used in your computer and writing a driver to make that product compatible with an OS. Apple might do updates on their side of the line to make the product work, but that can only go so far. Its ATi that has the licenses, and patents, not to mention the authorization to do full on driver updates.

However Apple should still gives you a full explanation of whats going on. This whole one line statement with no explanation sucks.
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
post #34 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Falcon:
<strong>There is a difference between supporting a product used in your computer and writing a driver to make that product compatible with an OS. Apple might do updates on their side of the line to make the product work, but that can only go so far. Its ATi that has the licenses, and patents, not to mention the authorization to do full on driver updates.

However Apple should still gives you a full explanation of whats going on. This whole one line statement with no explanation sucks.</strong><hr></blockquote>

apple is responsible for ATI integrated chipset driver support. that's what ATI says and that's why Apple releases driver updates for ATI cards shipped with macs.
post #35 of 358
Scott, Applenut:

I'm not going to apologize for Apple. I would like the see a driver for Rage Pro cards, and do think it would have been smart of them to produce one.

That being said, you guys that are obviously not new to the computer industry shouldn't find this news as a huge surprise.

No computer company actually strives or is capable of providing utopia computer experiences. Computers are amazing because you buy them as imperfect. You can get a refund/exchange if your microwave doesn't bake, but can you do the same if your computer crashes?

My point is, it's all ugly, and equally if not more ugly on the "other" side. Microsoft has shafted many a person too.. did you read their official response to their security problems ("please don't share hacking information with anybody, just tell us about it")?

We know your arguements, and I completely understand your points. However, assess what computer best fits your needs and accept the reality. The computer industry just sucks, and this is a perfect example.

There are many people who have printers that don't work under OS X, and other peripherals. There are many people with driver problems after migrating to WinXP (i.e. CD-R). Obsolesence is just a reality.

It would have been nice if Apple provided a disclaimer for people who were really counting on Rage support under OS X. They clearly dropped the ball here, and I won't apologize for that. However, almost everyday I hear of new "mistakes" that other companies have made (i.e. the recent XP security problems). I know that Apple is not alone.

The computer industry just sucks...
post #36 of 358
yea, but Apple is suppose to be different. that's why we are apple users. that's why I'm an "applenut". It's suppose to be a community. Apple is suppose to take care of us, not be the corporate ass you says your 2 year old computer is legacy and won't be supported anymore.

SO much for the computer for the rest of us.. It's now the computer for those who can upgrade every 2 years
post #37 of 358
Thread Starter 
Agreed.
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz, 15" Matte, 2GB RAM, 120GB HD, iPod nano 2GB Black.
Reply
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz, 15" Matte, 2GB RAM, 120GB HD, iPod nano 2GB Black.
Reply
post #38 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Falcon:
<strong>There is a difference between supporting a product used in your computer and writing a driver to make that product compatible with an OS. Apple might do updates on their side of the line to make the product work, but that can only go so far. Its ATi that has the licenses, and patents, not to mention the authorization to do full on driver updates.

However Apple should still gives you a full explanation of whats going on. This whole one line statement with no explanation sucks.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple Apologist (TM)
post #39 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by besson3c:
<strong>Scott, Applenut:

I'm not going to apologize for Apple. I would like the see a driver for Rage Pro cards, and do think it would have been smart of them to produce one.

That being said, you guys that are obviously not new to the computer industry shouldn't find this news as a huge surprise.

No computer company actually strives or is capable of providing utopia computer experiences. Computers are amazing because you buy them as imperfect. You can get a refund/exchange if your microwave doesn't bake, but can you do the same if your computer crashes?

My point is, it's all ugly, and equally if not more ugly on the "other" side. Microsoft has shafted many a person too.. did you read their official response to their security problems ("please don't share hacking information with anybody, just tell us about it")?

We know your arguements, and I completely understand your points. However, assess what computer best fits your needs and accept the reality. The computer industry just sucks, and this is a perfect example.

There are many people who have printers that don't work under OS X, and other peripherals. There are many people with driver problems after migrating to WinXP (i.e. CD-R). Obsolesence is just a reality.

It would have been nice if Apple provided a disclaimer for people who were really counting on Rage support under OS X. They clearly dropped the ball here, and I won't apologize for that. However, almost everyday I hear of new "mistakes" that other companies have made (i.e. the recent XP security problems). I know that Apple is not alone.

The computer industry just sucks...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple Apologist (TM)
post #40 of 358
People,

OS X is still slow on G4 Powermacs. To while about old(er) graphics cards is a waste of time. Things must changer here or there. I think that apple moving to OS X stopped being 'smooth' when all applications had to be 'carbonized'. I am sorry for all of you with older graphics cards, but I am sure that Apple didnt do this just to spite you. Look at graphics cards today compared to 2 years ago, there is quite a difference. All of you must also remember that there is much more power in the damn GPU its self than in the drivers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Confirmed: Older graphics card not supported by OSX