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 - Page 4

post #121 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>It's no use, Bogie. Rationality has left the (proverbial) building.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How is expecting one company to be responsible for another companies claims rational in any way? It's not.
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 #122 of 358
Uhm, regarding the whole ATi is not Apple's big video card provider statement -

iMac
iBook
PowerBook

All based on ATi graphics.

Only one product line isn't, and this past year Apple's portable sales were higher than their desktop sales for the first time ever, so ATi was supplying more cards and chipsets than nVidia, as per usual.

EDIT- ADDED:

Oh and while it is conjecture, it would make sense that Apple's contracts with its OEM suppliers such as ATi and nVidia state who is responsible and in the case that the supplier is, Apple might very well not have either the access to the necessary information or the legal right to write the drivers.

Now, here is my get out of jail free card.

Fact is, if it is in Apple's hands then they were dead wrong to drop support like this, it was in poor taste and poor customer relations.

But before we have more fun bashing them we should find out, for sure, who we should be bashing.

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Bogie ]</p>
AI Member since 1998.

Founder GACmug, former Chairman.

Macintosh Specialist and Administrator, Lees-McRae College
Reply
AI Member since 1998.

Founder GACmug, former Chairman.

Macintosh Specialist and Administrator, Lees-McRae College
Reply
post #123 of 358
This <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0007/26.ati.shtml" target="_blank">article</a> makes reference to the fallout between ATI and Apple after ATI leaked info about new Macs 2 days before the keynote.

Plus, like it or not, ATI is the company that has to write the drivers (or at least provide enough information to Apple). ATI doesn't provide the downloads because the drivers are already built into the Classic Mac OS.

Apple announced support for the 'older systems' at the WWDC in May of 2000. Apple had no way of knowing of the impending fallout with ATI a few months later.

It is ATI's responsibility to support their hardware. Support was obviously intended for the older cards, but ATI won't develop. Apparently ATI has decided not to write the drivers as Apple has announced they will not support those cards.
post #124 of 358
It doesn't matter Apple is the one that made the statements. Apple is the one responsible to back them up. No one else is responsible but Apple. If Apple claims hardware they ship runs OS X then it should. It's about taking responsibilities for ones actions or speech. Apple and only Apple should be responsible for their claims.
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 #125 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>This <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0007/26.ati.shtml" target="_blank">article</a> makes reference to the fallout between ATI and Apple after ATI leaked info about new Macs 2 days before the keynote.

Plus, like it or not, ATI is the company that has to write the drivers (or at least provide enough information to Apple). ATI doesn't provide the downloads because the drivers are already built into the Classic Mac OS.

Apple announced support for the 'older systems' at the WWDC in May of 2000. Apple had no way of knowing of the impending fallout with ATI a few months later.

It is ATI's responsibility to support their hardware. Support was obviously intended for the older cards, but ATI won't develop. Apparently ATI has decided not to write the drivers as Apple has announced they will not support those cards.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again. Apple made the claim, It's Apple's responsibility to back it up Not ATIs. How hard is that to understand? IT would be different if the card wasn't one that Apple shipped with Macs but this isn't the case. ATI says that Apple is responsible for the display card upgrades for the cards that shipped with the Macs in that page I posted. Again Apple made the compatibility statement NOT ATI.
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 #126 of 358
Ok, maybe I should post this in terms people will understand.

Apple CAN'T write the drivers. ATI WON'T write the drivers.

No amount of petitions, complaining, phone calls, or letters is going to make Apple able to write those drivers.

Apple said that these machines would work when they were on good terms with ATI.

At least Apple came out and said that the drivers will never be produced rather than leaving everyone waiting for non-existant drivers to come out.
post #127 of 358
[quote]ATI says that Apple is responsible for the display card upgrades for the cards that shipped with the Macs in that page I posted.<hr></blockquote>

The page only mentions distribution of drivers. Not development.

Apple wanted to distribute the drivers of the ATI cards with the Classic Mac OS to make sure that everything worked properly. That doesn't mean that they wrote the drivers.
post #128 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Ok, maybe I should post this in terms people will understand.

Apple CAN'T write the drivers.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
They can't can they? Care to show me some proof?
[quote]<strong>
ATI WON'T write the drivers.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
ATI isn't responsible for writing the drivers for a OS they don't make. This has always been up to Apple to do. Apple usually is the one that hands out the updated drivers. Apple has always been the one that you called for support.
[quote]<strong>
No amount of petitions, complaining, phone calls, or letters is going to make Apple able to write those drivers.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure there is. If enough people complain and boycott Apple wont have a choice. Apple unlike MS doesn't have the mkt share to go through this. If Apple doesn't back up it's claims they are going to lose a lot of customers.
[quote]<strong>
Apple said that these machines would work when they were on good terms with ATI.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sounds like a apologetic argument. As someone said themselves. Apple STILL ships Macs with ATI cards. Their terms can't be THAT bad.
[quote]<strong>
At least Apple came out and said that the drivers will never be produced rather than leaving everyone waiting for non-existant drivers to come out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh yeah and this justifies what they did how? More apologetic knee jerks. Apple never gave anyone a reason for their actions. I am ashamed of Apple right now.

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
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 #129 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>So the argument is that OSX's pre-emptive multi-tasking indirectly requires a beefed-up graphics card to perform simple operations? What is the processor busy doing? Drawing pretty Aqua buttons the entire time?

And as for there not being enough RAM to hold the frame buffer:
1) It works in OS9, how do you explain it magically fitting in a different OS?
2) AGP

If Aqua is hogging too many resources maybe they should have re-thought that when laying out the requirements for the OS. It's bad faith to pull the bait and switch, which is essentially what Apple has done.

Razz:

Usually you get your existing product working properly before going on to bigger and better things. That's the theory anyway.

What's the next excuse, will the TiBook not be supported by OSX.5 because the thin titanium design clashes with Aqua 2.0?</strong><hr></blockquote>


1) MacOS 9 doesn't use VRAM for much of anything, and its use of the graphics acceleration is quite limited. I'm guessing that MacOS X will finally include a decent, forward thinking, and well-architectured graphics engine that will take advantage of hardware acceleration. Unfortunately to do that you have to make certain base assumptions, and if you want to do something progressive and competitive then your base assumptions are more severe. If older hardware doesn't meet the requirements, it isn't usable. I've done this before, and believe me there just isn't a way around it. You can't hide all of the differences in a driver either so the 3rd party software guys would have to bear some of this pain as well -- something they aren't eager to do, I'm sure.

2) The hardware in question does not support AGP, so that isn't a factor. In fact, if it DID support AGP then it would probably be more useful hardware.

To stay competitive in the market it is often necessary to build things thinking about the future and laying the groundwork in advance. It simply is not possible to do everything, software is limited by physics just like everything else. Go see how well DirectX 8 runs on the Rage2 and RagePro (if it does at all), and yet in 6 months people will demand that Apple's OpenGL compete with DirectX 9.

Can't have it both ways guys. As I said before, technical issues aside, Apple has really botched this situation...
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #130 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>

The page only mentions distribution of drivers. Not development.
<hr></blockquote></strong> And tech support and updates. Apple handles that. If something isn't working right it's Apple job to get it fixed.
[quote]<strong>
Apple wanted to distribute the drivers of the ATI cards with the Classic Mac OS to make sure that everything worked properly. That doesn't mean that they wrote the drivers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again doesn't matter WHO wrote the drivers. What if Apple and Nvidia get into a spat tomorrow? Is it ok for them not to support these cards in future OS X updates? How is that justifiable? It's not. Again Apple made claims it needs to back up. Claims to it's consumers. Apple is trying to pull a bait and switch. They are beginning to remind me of MS here lately. Apple used to care about it's customers. Not screw them over.
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 #131 of 358
ATI has always written the drivers for their own cards. The proof is that the one set of drivers they have provided download on their website are for the Radeon. They write the drivers, Apple distributes them. That's the deal they have.

Plus, if Apple isn't as committed to ATI overall, what incentive does ATI have to go back and write drivers for cards that are 2-4 years old?
post #132 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>ATI has always written the drivers for their own cards. The proof is that the one set of drivers they have provided download on their website are for the Radeon. They write the drivers, Apple distributes them. That's the deal they have.

Plus, if Apple isn't as committed to ATI overall, what incentive does ATI have to go back and write drivers for cards that are 2-4 years old?</strong><hr></blockquote>
AGAIN. it's NOT up to ATI to make sure all the Macs that APPLE said would be OS X ready to make sure that they are. This is on APPLE'S shoulders. I am sure they could pay ATI to make drivers if they wanted. You think ATI wouldn't do it? Hah! Apple is just pulling a bait in switch in the middle of the game. They are expecting users to take it up the ass and not complain. Now will they give you a reason why they are giving it to you up they ass? No they are just doing it.

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
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 #133 of 358
[quote]I can't find anything on Apple's website to support this claim.

In fact, th is ATI web page seems to indicate otherwise.

While they do not make the drivers available for download in anything other than what comes with Mac OS X, they have made drivers available for download to use with the 'classic' Mac OS. <hr></blockquote>

that page shows nothing. Of course they made drivers for "classic" Mac os. their retail drivers work with the integrated chipsets however that situation is unsupported.

for more information look here:
<a href="http://www.ati.com/na/pages/partnerproducts/faq.html#2" target="_blank">http://www.ati.com/na/pages/partnerproducts/faq.html#2</a>

specific quotes from above link
[quote]Most Partner Product manufacturers offer driver updates through their website or the support contact information that accompanies the product. Additionally, ATI offers reference drivers that will install on all Partner Products.
It is recommended that drivers from the manufacturer of the Partner Product be used before trying the reference driver. Feature enhancements provided by the Partner Product manufacturer will be lost when using ATI reference drivers. ATI reference drivers are provided as an alternative solution for customers and are not supported by ATI. Reference drivers are located here.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Q8: How do I get technical support for a Partner Product?

A8:
Support will come from the product manufacturer. Retail Partner Products contain support information within the package. System integrators who include Partner Products in their computer systems can provide advice on how to get support for Partner Products supplied with complete systems.
<hr></blockquote>



[quote]
ATI writes the drivers for their chipsets. If ATI does not make the drivers available to the older cards, why is it Apple's responsibility to make them (even if they can)? That shows a lack of responsibility from ATI more than it does from Apple.<hr></blockquote>

as shown above it is Apple's responsibility. it is their OS. it is they who made the classic drivers incompatible due to a new OS. it is their hardware.

[quote]I have an original iMac (Rev. A, but does the name really make sense if it wasn't a revision?). The iMac has a 2MB Rage IIc graphics card. I also purchased a Voodoo 2 8 MB card for it. I can already say that the computer will never be running Mac OS X.

Why will the computer never run Mac OS X? The machine is too slow, it doesn't have enough RAM, and the hard drive doesn't have a gigabyte of available memory to install the new OS on it. The 2MB graphics card is the least of my problems.

So let's say that Apple and ATI decided to write the drivers for Mac OS X for this card. Is it really worth it to write the driver for a 2 MB graphics card? Then take all of the varities of cards currently 'not supported' by Mac OS X that are in 'supported' machines. That's a lot of graphics cards. <hr></blockquote>

for the most part we are not talking about your computer. for the most part we are only asking for rage pro support.

I don't know what you mean by "a lot of graphic cards". writing support for the rage pro would cover about 90 percent of the machines we are complaing about. the only exception would be first run imacs and beige G3s.

BTW, the rev a can be upgraded to 6 mb of VRAM making your point about too little VRAM mute.

[quote]
If ATI isn't willing to bend and start writing some drivers (or at least providing the info neccesary to get them done), then I wouldn't expect you to see Apple somehow making progress on these drivers. <hr></blockquote>

It's apple's hardware and OS. it is their job. ATI is under no obligation to rewrite drivers because Apple won't support their own hardware
post #134 of 358
Fine. You seem set in your opinion that Apple is wrong here. No amount of posts/explanations will be good enough for you, and that's fine with me.

But like I said, no one's making drivers for these cards.

If you want to boycott Apple because of it, by all means go ahead. No one will stop you.

I'm just trying to inform everyone here, that ATI writes the drivers and has written the drivers for these machines. Apple distributes the drivers through the OS.

Maybe Jobs will talk about this in his keynote, but I highly doubt it. It appears to me that this is a done deal for Apple, otherwise they wouldn't have told the public that drivers would never be written for Mac OS X.
post #135 of 358
[quote]Sorry, but try to at least get a little trace of clue before posting stuff like that.

Why do you think it takes Apple quite some time to fix bugs, release updates, complete developer documentation, etc. pp.? Why do you think they still didn't manage to get full AltiVec support in GCC3? Why is the current OS X UFS implementation years behind FreeBSD (softupdates, anyone?)?

Damn, do you really think being "a billiondollar compay with several hundred software engineers" allow Apple to have tons of engineers just sitting around idly all day waiting to write drivers for anything that crosses their path? Do you really think Apple doesn't write drivers for other companies' legacy graphics chips just to deliberately piss of their own customers? Or because they are simply to *lazy* to so, and just spend their working time doing coffee breaks?

I do understand you guys are pissed because you have obsolete hardware right now, but that's the way the IT business goes, and Apple is as much a profit-oriented company as anybody else.<hr></blockquote>

the only one not showing a "trace of a clue" is you.

To think that writing Rage pro support in would be a difficult talk is assinine. It would take 2-3 people maybe a few weeks plus testing. Don't give this bullshit that it would somehow limit Apple from making other advancements by dedicated 2 people to write a driver where the work has already been started.

and even if it did I would rather OS X work and support current hardware which is said to be supported then forget about it and move on.

[quote]I don't have a Mac with one of the old graphics cards, so I can't test it, but does OpenGL really not work *at all* on them? I remember that, on windows, OpenGL would also technically *work* on graphics cards that don't have any 3D capabilities at all, but it obviously would not be hardware-accelerated, and thus be awfully slow. Still, it technically *does* work. Is the same true for the MacOS on these older machines?<hr></blockquote>

depends,
ie: the screensavers "work" but they really go at around 5 fps.
games on the otherhand often don't work at all because they expect these machines to have hardware accelerated OpenGL.
post #136 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

2) The hardware in question does not support AGP, so that isn't a factor. In fact, if it DID support AGP then it would probably be more useful hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>


all the ibooks in question use AGP 2X interfaces
post #137 of 358
Applenut- the cards in Macs are 'Built by ATI'. The cards in the Nintendo Game Cube are 'Powered by ATI'.

Nintendo's graphics processor would make it a 'Partner Product'.

Apple's cards, however, are 'Built by ATI', and therefore, don't fall under the category of 'Partner Product'.

Yes, Apple's OS changed. That doesn't mean that Apple can write the driver for the card.
post #138 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Fine. You seem set in your opinion that Apple is wrong here. No amount of posts/explanations will be good enough for you, and that's fine with me.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Just how ISN'T Apple wrong here?
[quote]<strong>
But like I said, no one's making drivers for these cards.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And that is Apple's fault
[quote]<strong>
If you want to boycott Apple because of it, by all means go ahead. No one will stop you.

I'm just trying to inform everyone here, that ATI writes the drivers and has written the drivers for these machines. Apple distributes the drivers through the OS.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And this means ATI is at fault how? Apple can surely pay ATI to write the drivers. Problem solved.
[quote]<strong>
Maybe Jobs will talk about this in his keynote, but I highly doubt it. It appears to me that this is a done deal for Apple, otherwise they wouldn't have told the public that drivers would never be written for Mac OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not the first time Apple announced something to the public then retracted it after it got negative feedback.
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 #139 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
all the ibooks in question use AGP 2X interfaces</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, but the RagePro doesn't have the ability to read textures from across the AGP bus, if I recall correctly.

And to the comment about how easy it is to write drivers for the RagePro, that isn't the case. Writing 3D drivers is a fairly complex task -- otherwise drivers would be a whole lot better! Getting acceptable performance out of the RagePro by working at the driver level and supporting all the features of OpenGL is a ton of work. Under MacOS 8/9 apps have to do some coding specifically for the RagePro even though they are using OpenGL, and that is because it isn't compliant nor fast.

So some RagePros can be upgraded to 6 meg VRAM... if supported it adds confusion and performance still isn't acceptable.

I agree that the whole situation is ugly, and Apple is to blame at least about not saying well in advance that machines with these lame chips couldn't support OpenGL properly. They knew it would happen, after all I told them about it at the time. No matter what though, I suspect owners of these machines aren't going to be happy... either it won't work at all (current situation) or it'll work so badly they won't be able to use it in any practical way.

I don't think you'll get very far by claiming that MacOS X doesn't work on these machines though. It does work, but not all the features are fully functional. Does the SCSI support work on your iMac or iBook? No. Would it be reasonable to complain about that because MacOS X's feature list includes SCSI and supported hardware lists an iMac and iBook? No.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #140 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I don't think you'll get very far by claiming that MacOS X doesn't work on these machines though. <hr></blockquote></strong>
Some of OS X works right. Just not some of the key Core features. And for hardware that was supposably OS X ready.. this isn't tolerable.
[quote]<strong>
It does work, but not all the features are fully functional.
<hr></blockquote></strong> And that my friend makes the hardware NOT OS X-ready
[quote]<strong>
Does the SCSI support work on your iMac or iBook? No. Would it be reasonable to complain about that because MacOS X's feature list includes SCSI and supported hardware lists an iMac and iBook? No.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If my iMac or iBook CAME with a SCSI card installed I'd be bitching if it didn't have SCSI support in OS X. See these cards CAME with the computer that was SUPPOSED to be OS X ready. If Joe Blow PCI card wont work with your Mac it isn't up to Apple to make it work. However Apple IS responsible in the hardware it ships with it's computers.

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
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 #141 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Applenut- the cards in Macs are 'Built by ATI'. The cards in the Nintendo Game Cube are 'Powered by ATI'.

Nintendo's graphics processor would make it a 'Partner Product'.

Apple's cards, however, are 'Built by ATI', and therefore, don't fall under the category of 'Partner Product'.

Yes, Apple's OS changed. That doesn't mean that Apple can write the driver for the card.</strong><hr></blockquote>


not true. Apple uses the ATI graphic chip and integrates ino its motherboard and makes changes where neccessary. If you actually read it you'll see this applies to all integrated chipsets which the iMac and iBook contain
post #142 of 358
Let me get this straight - everything can be solved if Applenut and Sinewave take over the openGL and 3D acceleration projects from Apple and ATi?

Cause that is what I am hearing.

Just pay em and they will do it eh? Ever think ATi might have said no to this? What is in it for them, I doubt Apple is willing to [and it does not make sense to] pay ATi as much as they would make working on new products to write new drivers for 3-5 year old stuff.

What about IX Micro? I hear no one whining that Apple is not accelerating their hardware. And it is supported according to Apple. Supported does not mean what we want it to. It means whatever the party saying it wants it to.

Sucks, I don't like it, yet it is reality.

Now ... please explain how it is that Apple should support every product that ships with a Mac and that the supplier does not have responsibility.

Lets take a trip down that road.

That would meant that everyone can make Mac hardware for Apple. Cause there is nearly no difference in 75% of the hardware used between platforms right?

So the problem is not that 3rd parties don't support Apple it's that Apple doesn't spend more time and money writing drivers for 3rd party stuff.

Why should I expect any third party vendor to write Mac software for their hardware? Why can't Apple do it all?

See thing is, there is a contract between Apple and ATi, and if it states that ATi writes the drivers, then that implies Apple can not, not practically, and not legally.

Apple isn't outsourcing graphics in terms of having someone make a chipset for them. Apple is buying a ready made solution from a third party, when you buy an off the shelf ATi card from CompUSA it is little different from Apple buying truck loads of them.

But I bet they get a bulk rate.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
AI Member since 1998.

Founder GACmug, former Chairman.

Macintosh Specialist and Administrator, Lees-McRae College
Reply
AI Member since 1998.

Founder GACmug, former Chairman.

Macintosh Specialist and Administrator, Lees-McRae College
Reply
post #143 of 358
Apple brought this mess upon themselves by not communicating clearly and up front the things that people want to know, and have a right to expect from their computer supplier. It is one thing to be secretive about new products. Hey, it even adds to the excitement. But don't be sly about support and system requirements. The compatibility page gives the impression that all these Macs will be fully functional. It says nothing about limitations, except that processor upgrades are not supported by Apple. (Most of us already realize that any third party hardware add-ons would not be supported.} Why is this kind of information withheld from those considering an upgrade. Of course people will get upset when they only find out these facts later on. Sure it might lose a few sales to be open about it, but many will still upgrade to OS X knowing what the limitation are, and they won't be ticked off after they install it.
post #144 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>Let me get this straight - everything can be solved if Applenut and Sinewave take over the openGL and 3D acceleration projects from Apple and ATi?
Cause that is what I am hearing.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Who said that? Can anyone say bizarro extremes? Do you hear voices son?
[quote]<strong>
Just pay em and they will do it eh? Ever think ATi might have said no to this?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
What is in it for them, <hr></blockquote></strong>
Uh money?
[quote]<strong>
I doubt Apple is willing to [and it does not make sense to] pay ATi as much as they would make working on new products to write new drivers for 3-5 year old stuff.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
3-5 years old? try newer than that And it doesn't matter what you think Apple is willing to do. They made statements. They need to back them up. The ****ed up big time. They lied to the consumer. They pulled the bait and switch. Why are you trying to justify Apple's actions? Are you that much of a Apple zealot?
[quote]<strong>
What about IX Micro? I hear no one whining that Apple is not accelerating their hardware. And it is supported according to Apple. Supported does not mean what we want it to. It means whatever the party saying it wants it to.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Apple never said OS X would support the Machines IX Micro came with did it? No. Your point is moot.
[quote]<strong>
Sucks, I don't like it, yet it is reality.

Now ... please explain how it is that Apple should support every product that ships with a Mac and that the supplier does not have responsibility.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Cause when they make promises that the hardware they are shipping will be OS X ready they need to make sure it is? How big of a no-brainer is this one folks? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Again Apple is the only one that made this claim.. Apple is the only that needs to make sure to back it up. It's on their shoulders. How many times am I going to have to repeat myself on this one? What part of that is confusing you?
[quote]<strong>
Lets take a trip down that road.

That would meant that everyone can make Mac hardware for Apple. Cause there is nearly no difference in 75% of the hardware used between platforms right?

So the problem is not that 3rd parties don't support Apple it's that Apple doesn't spend more time and money writing drivers for 3rd party stuff.

Why should I expect any third party vendor to write Mac software for their hardware? Why can't Apple do it all?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Depends If companies want to support Apple they will write drivers for their platform. But the difference is here this hardware COMES BUNDLED with the Mac. This is apart of the Mac computer they sold. They are responsible to make sure that hardware works. And when they make claims about support on this hardware it is up to THEM to back it up. Again why do I feel like I keep repeating myself? If a 3rd party wants to write drivers for hardware that doesn't ship on Macs cool deal! If they want to make it OS X ready good deal! We are talking about hardware Apple ships with it's computers. Hardware Apple is responsible for.
[quote]<strong>
See thing is, there is a contract between Apple and ATi, and if it states that ATi writes the drivers, then that implies Apple can not, not practically, and not legally.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Please show me this contract. I want to see it <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> ANd that doesn't mean Apple can't pay ATI to write them does it? No again it falls back into Apple's lap.
[quote]<strong>
Apple isn't outsourcing graphics in terms of having someone make a chipset for them. Apple is buying a ready made solution from a third party, when you buy an off the shelf ATi card from CompUSA it is little different from Apple buying truck loads of them.

But I bet they get a bulk rate.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and the difference in buying a card in CompUSA and having a card that came with your Mac that Apple shipped is Apple is responsible for the card they ship with their product.

Again you made no point. Just more apologistic zealot behavior.

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
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 #145 of 358
I have a dual monitor system at home. Its an upgraded Beige G4/500 minitower w/a Radeon driving my main monitor and the stock ati on the second. In OS9, the difference in grapic quality is not really evident in the finder...both monitors are set to millions and things work fine.

In OSX, the difference is dramatic. The monitor which uses the stock chip is barely usable. Windows jump by 10-20 px at a time as I move them around. Sreen redraws are visible and all of this while running at thousands of colors.

I could not work like this if it were my only monitor. For those of you who think that this is simply an issue for people who play games, you are wrong. Because Apple has dropped full support for these machines, they have rendered them unusable.

I am sure a court would agree with this. OGL & QT are shown as core technologies on both the OSX box and Apples web site. Because core elements of the OS are not supported, the entire OS becomes bogged down.

The beigew is the least of my worries. I bought an iBook for my mom. Now her machine will not be able to perform at the levels she has become accustomed to under OS9. This iBook JUST turned 2. C'mon, dont tell me this is an old machine. Its not the latest, but Apples have always had long life spans. Until recently, we were using 2 6100s as local servers here at work.

Apple needs to be taken to task on this. They have the ability to write drivers for the older cards. ATi and Apple are business partners, not buddies. If Apple wanted to support the old Macs, they could easily purchase whatever they needed from ATi.

What really pisses me off here is the fact that this is a thinly veiled attempt to force people to buy new machines.

I would be happy to fully support any legal action that is taken against Apple in this situation.
post #146 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
If my iMac or iBook CAME with a SCSI card installed I'd be bitching if it didn't have SCSI support in OS X. See these cards CAME with the computer that was SUPPOSED to be OS X ready. If Joe Blow PCI card wont work with your Mac it isn't up to Apple to make it work. However Apple IS responsible in the hardware it ships with it's computers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>


Ah, but your Mac didn't come with a 3D graphics chip sufficient to make it run OpenGL. The Rage2 and RagePro are not OpenGL-compliant 3D accelerators. Just because you thought they were doesn't mean Apple is accountable for it.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #147 of 358
OK, whatever, you people want to argue and complain?

Fine, like Fran, I am taking leave of this thread, and you know what, go ahead and reply to this post claiming you proved your point or something ...

Cause when it comes down to it, you still won't get what you are complaining about.

And on the off chance that someone does release OS X drivers for those chipsets, I still win [heehee] cause I would benefit.

[oh, and try reading the ReadMe with Mac OS X - it includes IX Micro cards on the support list, sigh, so silly]
AI Member since 1998.

Founder GACmug, former Chairman.

Macintosh Specialist and Administrator, Lees-McRae College
Reply
AI Member since 1998.

Founder GACmug, former Chairman.

Macintosh Specialist and Administrator, Lees-McRae College
Reply
post #148 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>


Ah, but your Mac didn't come with a 3D graphics chip sufficient to make it run OpenGL. The Rage2 and RagePro are not OpenGL-compliant 3D accelerators. Just because you thought they were doesn't mean Apple is accountable for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Funny they ran OpenGL in OS 9. ANd you keep forgetting the fact Apple said this hardware would run it. Apple is accountable for it's own statements indeed. More silly apologist arguments.

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
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 #149 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>OK, whatever, you people want to argue and complain?

Fine, like Fran, I am taking leave of this thread, and you know what, go ahead and reply to this post claiming you proved your point or something ...</strong><hr></blockquote>

We DID prove something. Apple indeed made statements then changed them later after it was too late. Apple DID lie to the consumers. There is NO rebutting this. This is what is known as a fact.
[quote]<strong>
Cause when it comes down to it, you still won't get what you are complaining about.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You know this how? ANd how does us not getting what we want justify Apple doing this?
[quote]<strong>
And on the off chance that someone does release OS X drivers for those chipsets, I still win [heehee] cause I would benefit.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Everyone wins. Not just you.
[quote]<strong>
[oh, and try reading the ReadMe with Mac OS X - it includes IX Micro cards on the support list, sigh, so silly]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but These cards DID NOT come with the computers that Apple claimed where OS X ready. The cards we are talking about DID. There lies the difference.
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 #150 of 358
Boy, this thread has been busy since the last time I was here

Obviously this issue has become rather heated, with many people taking different points of view; I can understand that. What I don't understand are the cries of "Apple apologist" when someone of a differing opinion offers up their view of the situation.

Remember, we only learn and grow if our minds are open to the possibility of change; doesn't mean you have to (change that is), but when your mind is obviously closed shut (like some on this board) people won't take your arguments/points to seriously...

Have a great day!

PS - Programmer, nice to see a fellow engineer that had a grasp of what I was trying to say earlier in the thread! Of course, you explained it much better than I.
post #151 of 358
When a company does something wrong and you try to make excuses and justify their wrong doing it makes you a apologist.
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 #152 of 358
The whole "well it's not going to be done so shut up" attitude is sad and quite pathetic, Fran, especially for someone with that signature.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #153 of 358
Let's think about this as adults shall we?

While I don't claim to have the background to explain why Apple could / couldn't make this happen (because I don't) I can understand basic business.

Do you think Apple made this choice for the fun of it?
Do you think Apple DIDN'T know they would hear about it?
Do you think if Apple could throw $50k or $100k at the problem for it to go away they'd choose not to?

If you believe any of the above then you have every right to leave the platform... I on the other hand don't think any of the above is true.

Do you think ATI is being less than helpful and maybe even holding some things over Apples head due to Nvidia moving into their space?

Do you think Apple might have been forced to do things with the OS that may have prevented the older cards from working to support future (yet unseen) technologies?

I can come up with a ton of other reasons but I think you see where I'm going with this...

Apple doesn't want to make their users/customers upset... And it isn't always easy for them to explain each and every choice they make due to a host of other reasons (politics and/or complexities). I really do believe that if Apple could throw some cash (even a few hundred grand) at this problem and make it go away they would have... But I have a feeling the underling issues are bigger than a 6 figure signoff.

Apple can/has done some pretty amazing things over the years... They have shown that they can stay in business against a MEGA corp known as Microsoft so don't you think they could churn out a silly driver?

Would you have Apple kill Nvidia as a graphics card option in order to get your old ATI drivers? Would you have Apple make OS X less usable with tomorrows technology in order to get your old ATI driver?? Those are just some questions for you to ponder...

Like I said, I'm not a driver programmer but I do know business and sometimes decisions aren't as cut and dry as some would lead you to believe... Ask some of the developers (that work for larger companies), they will tell you... Just because something 'could be done' isn't always the full story.

In the end you're gonna believe what you want anyway but make sure you take into account all of the posibilities...

Dave

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #154 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>Let's think about this as adults shall we?

Do you think Apple made this choice for the fun of it?
Do you think Apple DIDN'T know they would hear about it?
Do you think if Apple could throw $50k or $100k at the problem for it to go away they'd choose not to?

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

uh... Apple has done this in the past.

Most notably with the DVD Player that shipped with early PowerMac G4s and iMac slot loaders.

Guess what? It took a lawsuit to get Apple's attention. and guess what? We won. Apple had to pay the damages and offer discounts to all affected users.

same thing with lack of hardware decoding in OS X for people with B/W G3s and Lombards. Apple didn't support it until people started making petitions.

I don't know how to explain why they continuously try to do things like that but they do
post #155 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

uh... Apple has done this in the past.

Most notably with the DVD Player that shipped with early PowerMac G4s and iMac slot loaders.

Guess what? It took a lawsuit to get Apple's attention. and guess what? We won. Apple had to pay the damages and offer discounts to all affected users.

same thing with lack of hardware decoding in OS X for people with B/W G3s and Lombards. Apple didn't support it until people started making petitions.

I don't know how to explain why they continuously try to do things like that but they do</strong><hr></blockquote>

You know who won that VICTORY? It was the lawyers... They got their fee's and you got a coupon... Apple had money it could have put to use on better hardware/software and instead gave it to lawyers... The problems were fixed with free OS updates... At no time did Apple say those users were SOL (shucks outta luck) but now instead of the problem just going away via the software updates that followed Apple lost a ton of cash...

Way to go guys!

Dave

You being from the Bronx explains a lot... (inside NY joke but the short of it is even Osama would be found inocent in a 'bronx jury' - aka liberal to the bone)

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #156 of 358
Hi DaveGee,

I can see what you are saying, and I do not expect very much from Apple. They have a right to change their mind about how much they will do for the older Macs. I may not like it, but I will try to understand. My complaint is that they conceal the facts from customers who are considering an upgrade to OS X. To read their compatibility page you would believe that any of the mentioned Mac models will be fully functional running OS X. The fact that parts of the original hardware does not work is something that potential customers have a right to know about. Why should people have to pay their money and install OS X before they know what works, and what does not? This is the issue I find inexcusable. I said all this earlier, but I believe most folks are so ticked off by now that nothing will satisfy them but to fix the hardware problem completely. Apple could have avoided this ugly situation by being candid about changes in support.
post #157 of 358
Well, I suppose both sides will use these statements to support their own side, but I'm just wondering why some people continue to talk off the tops of their heads without doing a little bit of research.

<a href="http://www.ati.com/na/pages/faq/mac/mac_osx_faq.html" target="_blank">http://www.ati.com/na/pages/faq/mac/mac_osx_faq.html</a>

Q3: Which ATI graphics products have 2D and 3D support under OS X?

ATI and Apple® have worked together to provide built-in 2D, 3D, and QuickTime? acceleration support on OS X for all RADEON?, RAGE? 128 PRO, and RAGE? 128 based products (this includes RAGE? ORION, NEXUS 128?, XCLAIM? VR 128, RADEON? MAC EDITION AGP and RADEON? MAC EDITION PCI). It is not ATI?s intention to provide OS X support for RAGE? PRO based products.

Q4: When and where will future OS X graphics software be available?

ATI will continue to work with Apple® to provide enhancements to the graphics software of future releases of OS X. For information on the OS X update release schedule, check the Apple® web site at <a href="http://www.apple.com." target="_blank">www.apple.com.</a> As OS X matures, ATI intends to provide updated drivers for our customers. ATI drivers are posted on the corporate website at <a href="http://www.ati.com." target="_blank">www.ati.com.</a>

Q6: Will ATI graphics features under Classic be equivalent to those under OS 9.1?

ATI's OpenGL acceleration on Mac OS X has several enhancements over OpenGL under Mac OS 9.1, including improved OpenGL conformance and robustness, support for stencil buffers, and support for all 3 texture units on RADEON. 3D RAVE applications are also hardware accelerated under Classic via OpenGL. Because Classic has different kernel than OS 9, some hardware features that are accessible in Mac OS 9.1 are not accessible in Classic. For this reason, there is no support for some multimedia features under Classic.

After reading this thread, this is what I found after about three minutes of looking. I'm not an engineer, but what do people think of the following?:

"It is not ATI?s intention to provide OS X support for RAGE? PRO based products."
So, it seems Apple is on its own for this, and the question remains, does Apple have the authorization to do this on their own, or are their proprietary concerns? (as in "Apple won't release the specs for the PPC, so BeOS can't support it")

"As OS X matures, ATI intends to provide updated drivers for our customers."
So if Apple is responsible for the drivers, why would ATI need to provide drivers?

"Because Classic has different kernel than OS 9, some hardware features that are accessible in Mac OS 9.1 are not accessible in Classic."
This seems ambiguous. What is the difference between the kernel in Classic and the kernel in OS X? Aren't they layers on the same kernel? And if so, does that mean there are some hardware features not available to OS X?
post #158 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>
This seems ambiguous. What is the difference between the kernel in Classic and the kernel in OS X? Aren't they layers on the same kernel? And if so, does that mean there are some hardware features not available to OS X?</strong><hr></blockquote>


MacOS X is a completely different operating system from MacOS Classic, from the kernel up. Some things cannot be done because MacOS X works differently.

Thanks for doing your 3 minutes of research, by the way. It shows the ATI doesn't want to do the work either, even if Apple can be held responsible for things they OEM'd.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #159 of 358
[quote]You know who won that VICTORY? It was the lawyers... They got their fee's and you got a coupon... Apple had money it could have put to use on better hardware/software and instead gave it to lawyers... The problems were fixed with free OS updates... At no time did Apple say those users were SOL (shucks outta luck) but now instead of the problem just going away via the software updates that followed Apple lost a ton of cash...

Way to go guys!<hr></blockquote>

awe. big old apple got sued from screwing over their customers and they lost and now dumbass mac users like yourself blame the people who sued for the lack of "new exciting hardware". how low are you going to go?

[quote]Dave

You being from the Bronx explains a lot... (inside NY joke but the short of it is even Osama would be found inocent in a 'bronx jury' - aka liberal to the bone)<hr></blockquote>

wait. you just got lower. lower than shit. what kind of inside joke is that? that is just sick and out of place and was not needed in this thread. You have lost any respect in my eyes. stooping so low to insult where I live and then insulting the bronx as a hole and then bringing in the fact that we would even find Bin laden innocent. what kind of "inside joke" is that because I'm sure not "in" on it. Some criticize me for not being mature at times but this. You disgusted me with that
post #160 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>Hi DaveGee,

I can see what you are saying, and I do not expect very much from Apple. They have a right to change their mind about how much they will do for the older Macs. I may not like it, but I will try to understand. My complaint is that they conceal the facts from customers who are considering an upgrade to OS X. To read their compatibility page you would believe that any of the mentioned Mac models will be fully functional running OS X. The fact that parts of the original hardware does not work is something that potential customers have a right to know about. Why should people have to pay their money and install OS X before they know what works, and what does not? This is the issue I find inexcusable. I said all this earlier, but I believe most folks are so ticked off by now that nothing will satisfy them but to fix the hardware problem completely. Apple could have avoided this ugly situation by being candid about changes in support.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Listen,

I don't disagree that Apple did THINK they could/would support OS X 'fully' when they sold the systems they did... I'm sure they really thought they could... But, in a word *($# happend along the way. I know this is hard for some of you to understand but software (and more to the point OS) development ISN'T always as cut and dry and you'd like to believe.

People who respect the law or love sauage never see either being made... Well folks, it seems the same hold true for software and/or OS development...

Business will always get in the way...

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
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