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 5

post #161 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

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 </strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry applenut but as a fellow New Yorker I will always call em like I see em... (it's a New Yorkers god given right as you well know) and the Bronx has let more trash back out onto the city streets than all of the other boroughs combined...

Are you new to NYC and need me to explain the concept of "a bronx jury" to you?

For our non-NYC readers here is a perfect example... (found via goole in under 10 seconds with a 'bronx jury' keyword search) but please as a warning don't read too many of the hits as you may become very upset.

<a href="http://www.bronx.com/red/11_22_01front.html" target="_blank">http://www.bronx.com/red/11_22_01front.html</a>

And I quote...

"Despite such statements, a jury made up of 12 women saw enough evidence to acquit Waldermar in the murder of Gordon, a mother of five, who was killed shortly after celebrating the birthday of her twin sons."

Sorry applenut you WILL lose this fight... I have tons of trials to back me up... The scum of the earth WISH their trial were held in the bronx for a reason....

Oh and here goes another for the 'old bronx cheer'...

"Huge tort claims, especially when they involve horrific injuries and rest on novel or complex legal theories, naturally tend to garner the most attention from the general public and the news media. So do cases that feature outrageous disparities between the size of the verdict and the severity of injuryÂsuch as a Bronx juryÂs recent award of $4.2Â*million in damages to a woman who sued New York City after she slipped on a snowy sidewalk and damaged a knee joint while chasing her dog. "

Way to go Bronx! keep those innocents safe sound and the lawyers even richer!

As an Apple fan.... I'd say that Apple NOT having their home offices in the BRONX is a pretty good thing wouldn't you say?

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 #162 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
They can't can they? Care to show me some proof?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unless ATI gives them the exact specifications on how to directly talk to the Rage Pro chip, Apple can't sensibly write a driver (reverse-engineering is not really feasible here). I'm not 100% sure if Apple and ATI have some kind of special deal granting Apple access to these specifications, but I can't see why they would have any interest in doing so. Name one major graphics chip manufacturer that does *not* do the driver development (and no, custom-modifying reference drivers does not count).


[quote]<strong>
ATI isn't responsible for writing the drivers for a OS they don't make.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's not true. ATI, just as any other graphics chip manufacturer, *does* write drivers, and *does not* write any OSes at all.


[quote]<strong>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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, Apple hands out and distributes the drivers, and does the support, but they don't *develop* them, and AFAIK never did for third-party chips.


[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm, could it be that "ashamed" should have been "pissed off because I wasted my money" instead?

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #163 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
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. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, OS X *does* run on these machines. Apple never claimed it would run fast, or even only as fast as OS 9, did they?

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #164 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>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, </strong><hr></blockquote>


This, by the way, goes a long way to explaining why Rage2/Pro can be supported on MacOS9, but not MacOSX. They are different OpenGL implementations. The MacOS9 implementation is incorrect in many ways and this forces applications to code for the incorrect behaviours, and limits how good the implementation can be. MacOS X gets a full fledged, industrial strength implementation. This requires hardware support for stencil buffers and various other things that the Rage2/Pro cannot do.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #165 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
the only one not showing a "trace of a clue" is you.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Doubt that.


[quote]<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh yeah? WHat makes you think so? Ever did something like that?


[quote]<strong>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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Um, exactly how is moving two people from other projects to writing a rage pro driver for some weeks not hindering advancement in those other projects? Also, how has "work already been started"?


[quote]<strong>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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, that's how you see it, obviously others have other preferences.


[quote]<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nonetheless, this invalidates the claim (which wasn't yours though, I believe) that Apple has been lying because they said OS X would run on these machines and that OS X supports OpenGL (both are true, even if it's dog slow and software-only).

Bye,
RazzFazz

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
post #166 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
And that my friend makes the hardware NOT OS X-ready
</strong><hr></blockquote>

According to common definitions of "...-ready", "OS X ready" would rather mean "the hardware supports running OS X", *not* "OS X supports every single feature of this particular piece of hardware".

Bye,
RazzFazz

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
post #167 of 358
...

[ 01-01-2002: 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 #168 of 358
Hi Programmer,

Thanks for the clarifications here and in numerous other threads.

I know forums are the place for opinions, but it's good to have some substance, too.
post #169 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
3-5 years old? try newer than that
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Rage Pro chip? Not so sure about that (yes, Apple does use plain standard ATI chips, nothing custom-made for them).


[quote]<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

One could also argue that, since OS X does run on these machines (albeit slow), they did not lie.

Bye,
RazzFazz

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
post #170 of 358
I keep seeing statements like, OS X does run on older G3 Macs, although slowly, so Apple didn't lie. Who cares about minor technicalities like that? Apple has not tried to pass on the kind of information that people need to make a good decision. Apple calls it an upgrade. What kind of upgrade make the computer run worse? In some ways it is actually a downgrade. And video performance is not all. Other hardware that was part of the original Mac does not function at all. Customers should be informed of these details, when performance takes a serious hit or things do not work. That is what I expect Apple to do, not to mislead customers. The fact that these older Macs are not completely supported does not bother me. The fact that Apple is not up front about it does.

Now, all that venting of steam aside, I really like OS X, and it runs well enough for the simple things I do with my 233 MHz Beige G3. But I sympathize with the frustration that many of you feel. It would not have been as bad if Apple spoke up just as soon as they knew the support would be less than they hoped to provide.
post #171 of 358
Hey, while we're discussing video cards, what do you think of this?

<a href="http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=support_faqs" target="_blank">http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=support_faqs</a>

I currently own a PowerMac and would like to purchase an NVIDIA-based graphics card for my system. Where can I purchase one?

Currently all Mac NVIDIA-based graphics cards are made and sold by Apple. If you wish to purchase an NVIDIA-based graphics card for the Mac, you will need to contact Apple through their Apple Store at: <a href="http://www.store.apple.com" target="_blank">www.store.apple.com</a>

Doesn't this situation sound completely different from that with ATI? I couldn't find any mention about NVIDIA providing Mac drivers while the ATI site does. Does this imply that, in the future, we might expect better support for equipment with NVIDIA hardware since Apple seems to be completely responsible for providing NVIDIA support whereas with ATI, we can only speculate as to what extent Apple has control over ATI drivers?

The above is speculation based on information on the ATI and NVIDIA websites. Perhaps somewhat would care to provide more insight?
post #172 of 358
One more question:

This thread is in response to a MacCentral report. Looking at the Knowledge Base document, I see that it was originally issued on March 9, 2001 and modified on December 20, 2001. Does anyone know what the Apple document originally said and what was changed?

Do we even know what Apple meant? We know MacCentral's interpretation. How about this: The extent to which the graphics cards are supported is no more than what is issued in the latest OS X release. No further OS X support is not planned (no separate driver releases will be issued?) since ATI has stated in its website that it is not their intention to provide OS X support for RAGE PRO based products.

Is my interpretation correct? Probably not. But is MacCentral's interpretation definitive? Maybe, maybe not.

It seems that much is being read into Apple's intentions when the point of the TIL is "Movies and 2D graphics perform better at lower color depths when using Power Macintosh computers with earlier ATI graphics chipsets."

OK, so does anyone really know? Has Apple replied to this subject anywhere?
post #173 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>


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.<hr></blockquote></strong>
But OpenGL is OpenGL sure OS X is a different OS than OS 9. Seems to me Apple isn't supporting machines as much as they are processors. Which is a bad move if you sell the whole box.
[quote]<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ATI is just waiting to see if OS X catches on. It's up to Apple to make sure they drivers are available 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 #174 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
Unless ATI gives them the exact specifications on how to directly talk to the Rage Pro chip, Apple can't sensibly write a driver (reverse-engineering is not really feasible here). I'm not 100% sure if Apple and ATI have some kind of special deal granting Apple access to these specifications, but I can't see why they would have any interest in doing so. Name one major graphics chip manufacturer that does *not* do the driver development (and no, custom-modifying reference drivers does not count)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes But I was asking for the contract that was said to be the reason it couldn't be done. either way Apple could pay ATI to do it. So the point is moot.
[quote]<strong>
That's not true. ATI, just as any other graphics chip manufacturer, *does* write drivers, and *does not* write any OSes at all.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes and as ATI stated Apple was responsible for the cards that are shipped with their machines. If Apple wants their OS supported with the older cards it's up to Apple to get it done.
[quote]<strong>
Yes, Apple hands out and distributes the drivers, and does the support, but they don't *develop* them, and AFAIK never did for third-party chips.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again this is a moot point. Apple could pay ATI to do it.
[quote]<strong>
Hmm, could it be that "ashamed" should have been "pissed off because I wasted my money" instead?<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I am ashamed that such a reputable company has sunken this low. It's sad to see a company that once boasted how long you could use one of their puters before it became obsolete now not being able to claim that. Usually a OS will work fully on a Mac that is 4 years older than the OS. OS X didn't work fully on a computer made a year before it came out.
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 #175 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

Well, OS X *does* run on these machines. Apple never claimed it would run fast, or even only as fast as OS 9, did they?

Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>

OS X partially runs on these machines. Again.. these machines where not "OS X Ready" as Apple claimed them to be. Some of the Core of OS X doesn't work. And it hasn't from the start. And according to Apple it wont. Apple DID claim it would be OS X Ready. Having a chipset that doesn't support one of the core features in OS X is hardly OS X ready
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 #176 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

According to common definitions of "...-ready", "OS X ready" would rather mean "the hardware supports running OS X", *not* "OS X supports every single feature of this particular piece of hardware".

Bye,
RazzFazz
</strong><hr></blockquote>

And what common definition is that? Hahhah I haven't seen such a load of horshit in my life. Stop being a apologist.Apple needed to say

These computer will run OS X and will take advantage of most* of OS X's technologies

*No open GL on these rage chipsets


Saying a computer is OS X ready is saying it takes advantage of all of OS X's technologies.

These computers are NOT OS X ready. Apple lied. I doubt it was intentional. But you can't just BS then not take responsibilities for your actions or words. When you do that you lose credibility and trust.
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 #177 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
The Rage Pro chip? Not so sure about that (yes, Apple does use plain standard ATI chips, nothing custom-made for them).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
The iBook that is not supported came out a year before OS X was shipped. Having a OS not support a computer that is only a year old is unreasonable, and unjustifiable. It's nonsense.
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 #178 of 358
You guys seems to be tiptoeing around the fact that only Apple is responsible for what they say. Doesn't matter the reason behind why Apple isn't supporting these machines. Apple claimed these machines would be OS X ready and they weren't. Plain and simple. And yes if Apple wanted to really do the right thing.. they could pay ATI to write the drivers. You can't say ATI wouldn't do it for money. Well you could .. but you'd be a retard.

Again Apple is the one that made the claims. Only Apple is to be held responsible for their claims. Making excuses and apologetic arguments only makes you look like a simpleton Mac zealot. Some people for some reason have a hard time admitting that a company that makes a product they really like can do wrong. I have seen it in the car industry.. the video game console industry to the computer industries. You're love for the product is in such a zealous nature that you make to make excuses and justify the reasoning of wrong doings by these companies you see in your eyes can do no wrong.

Who knows maybe it IS Job's RDF working. I've seen people's IQs lower when he is near.

[ 01-01-2002: 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 #179 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
But OpenGL is OpenGL.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Nooooo... that's what I said. The MacOS 9 OpenGL implementation is incomplete and incorrect in some ways. Making it correct in MacOS X is highly desirable, but that means it cannot be implemented on the early Rage chips. Cannot.

I'm not apologizing for Apple, I'm saying that sometimes technical things are impossible to do, no matter what you said or promised. Yes, in my opinion Apple is reponsible for making their products work as well as possible. If it is simply not possible, however, what then? Technology is not magic, software can't solve every problem. Yes, they could implement something that would run... but it would be so slow that you'd be foolish to have it installed!

Does this mean that OSX doesn't work on those computers in question? No, it means that MacOS X OpenGL implementation doesn't work -- everything else is fine. Same holds for the playback of certain QuickTime codecs, except that you can make those work better by dropping the resolution.

Should Apple have warned you about this when it started talking up OSX? Yes, but then again hindsight is 20/20 and not all issues are brought to the fore right away, some fester and lurk in the background until forced into the limelight by the progress of development.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #180 of 358
[quote]<strong>
Nooooo... that's what I said. The MacOS 9 OpenGL implementation is incomplete and incorrect in some ways. Making it correct in MacOS X is highly desirable, but that means it cannot be implemented on the early Rage chips. Cannot.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Could you please show me some documentation on this?
[quote]<strong>
Yes, they could implement something that would run... but it would be so slow that you'd be foolish to have it installed!<hr></blockquote></strong>
So what if it is slower? It would be faster than it is NOW and it would be compatible with OS X. And Apple would have kept it's promise. There is NO excuse.
[quote]<strong>
Does this mean that OSX doesn't work on those computers in question? No, it means that MacOS X OpenGL implementation doesn't work -- everything else is fine. Same holds for the playback of certain QuickTime codecs, except that you can make those work better by dropping the resolution.<hr></blockquote></strong>
A lot of OS X relies on the acceleration to even make the speeds usable. You shouldn't HAVE to drop the resolution of your computer if it's fully supported by OSX. Again your making excuses. Quick Nor Open GL will work right on these computer in OS X. This is not acceptable.
[quote]<strong>
Should Apple have warned you about this when it started talking up OSX? Yes, but then again hindsight is 20/20 and not all issues are brought to the fore right away, some fester and lurk in the background until forced into the limelight by the progress of development.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No when the iBook that is listed was put out Apple knew what was going on. I have yet to read ANY documentation that says it's impossible for these cards to be supported. Apple is simply not doing it. They gave no reason. If the reason is the card can't support OpenGL (which I will doubt very seriously till I can get some proof) then Apple needs to make amends with the people that want a new card. Apple said their machine would be OS X ready when it shipped. IT NEVER WAS. This is false advertising. Plain and simple.
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 #181 of 358
In response to one of Sinewave's question, I tried looking around <a href="http://www.opengl.org." target="_blank">www.opengl.org.</a> I haven't found anything yet, but if anyone is really curious, that's one place to look.

A couple of interesting things I found there was one question on the forum in which a programmer asks why his code that worked in OS 9 gets an error in OS X (no answer yet), and that this thread mirrors a thread there, except that exactly the same things are being said about Windows XP and OpenGL, and, (coincidentally?) many of the comments have to do with older ATI cards.

In fact, here's one:
"The only solution is not to install XP at all.
We all know wich (sic) is the story :
1) Microsoft starts selling a beta OS claiming it's a final.
2) People start arguing with that OS.
3) Microsoft and/or card vendors start writing buggy drivers.
4) People starts arguing about the drivers' bugs too.
5) Finally OS and Drivers seems to be working.
6) Two days after Microsoft pops out with a new OS.
Ok, just "joking" , but hey it's real, ATI Rage 128 does not have a so stable driver.
And the other side, also last Detonator makes my GF256-2-3 cards crash somethimes.

And here's something in the FAQ:
Q. I have an old accelerator board that does not have an OpenGL driver. Is there any hope for me?
A. First, send an email to the board manufacturer. Tell them you want them to release a full and stable OpenGL driver. They do listen.

Can Apple pay ATI to develop drivers? The problem seems to be uniform with the older ATI cards, whether Wintel or Apple. So why would ATI even bother with a porential market which is much less than 5% of their target, when they could make more money elsewhere?

But speaking of facts, why are Mr. Sinewave and Mr. Applenut seeming to take MacCentral's interpretation of a terse TIL as the basis for a running argument? The whole first paragraph of the MacCentral article iare the author's words.
post #182 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
And what common definition is that? Hahhah I haven't seen such a load of horshit in my life. </strong><hr></blockquote>

As I said before, "this hardware is xy-ready" is nowadays almost always used to express that it will run xy, nothing more.


[quote]<strong>
These computer will run OS X and will take advantage of most* of OS X's technologies

*No open GL on these rage chipsets
</strong><hr></blockquote>

But there ***IS*** OpenGL, even if you have a Rage card. The screen does *not* stay all black. You can do OpenGL, but it's dog slow. Yet it is there.

[quote]<strong>Saying a computer is OS X ready is saying it takes advantage of all of OS X's technologies.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, it's saying OS X works on this computer, and is supported on this computer. Besides, the computer in question *does* take advantage of OS X' technologies, it's the other way round that's the problem (i.e. OS X does not take advantage of all of the computers technologies).


[quote]<strong>
These computers are NOT OS X ready. Apple lied. I doubt it was intentional. But you can't just BS then not take responsibilities for your actions or words. When you do that you lose credibility and trust.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, as stated before, I don't agree on this one (even though I admit providing those dirvers would be a nice thing for Apple to do), but then again the two of us will probably never agree about that.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #183 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
OS X partially runs on these machines. Again.. these machines where not "OS X Ready" as Apple claimed them to be. Some of the Core of OS X doesn't work. And it hasn't from the start. And according to Apple it wont. Apple DID claim it would be OS X Ready. Having a chipset that doesn't support one of the core features in OS X is hardly OS X ready </strong><hr></blockquote>

But it *does* work. You *do* get OpenGL, the screen does *not* stay black. Even those games *could* technically run, they just say "oh, there's no harware acceleration in here, so it's probably too slow, so I'll just quit and give an error".

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #184 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>[/qb]
The iBook that is not supported came out a year before OS X was shipped. Having a OS not support a computer that is only a year old is unreasonable, and unjustifiable. It's nonsense.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nonetheless, the Rage Pro was already aeons old at that time. Thus, the "3-5 year old chip" term was correct. Didn't mean to imply anything more.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #185 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
Again Apple is the one that made the claims.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, according to *your* definition of the term "OS X ready".


[quote]<strong>
Making excuses and apologetic arguments only makes you look like a simpleton Mac zealot.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

How about you just let other people have different opinions from yours? Even if you don't understand them or disagree, this does not make everyone else stupid RDFed idiots, you know?


[quote]<strong>
Some people for some reason have a hard time admitting that a company that makes a product they really like can do wrong. I have seen it in the car industry.. the video game console industry to the computer industries. You're love for the product is in such a zealous nature that you make to make excuses and justify the reasoning of wrong doings by these companies you see in your eyes can do no wrong.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

So everyone who has a different opinion about this issue than you have is automatically a Mac-zealot because they are too "blinded" to see your only true way of seeing things? You don't really seem too willing to accept others' standpoints either, so where's the difference?
Of course, you think that *your* point of view is objectively correct (and the others are not), but that's exactly what the others think about *their* point of view.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #186 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
Could you please show me some documentation on this?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't -- this stuff isn't documented, and most of what I know comes from lurking a couple of years back on the Apple OpenGL mailing lists and from my own work on the PC dealing with these stupid ATI chips (via DirectX, primarily, and talking to the ATI technical reps that come by to visit us on a regular basis). If you sift through a lot of hard-to-find mailing list archives you could gather the details.

All I can tell you is from my personal experience under Windows. The early ATI, S3, and other "2.5 D" chips suck. In many cases it is better to have the CPU do the 3D rendering because it can cut corners, do exactly what you want, and do it faster. When writing an OpenGL driver, however, the driver writer does not know what the application wants, so it cannot cut corners and still be correct. If it is not correct, the application will not work. If it is correct, the software rasterizer runs exceedingly slowly -- I'm talking many seconds per frame in some cases on the CPUs we're talking about here.

A similar principle applies to the QuickTime acceleration. The way these early ATI chips implement the YUV overlays & blit functions is very constrained and will not work in a properly organized & protected OS like MacOS X. Weird things happen like a particular colour being the chromakey, or there being exactly one overlay available and it has to be aligned & sized in VRAM in some special way.

I'm going to drop this argument at this point because I cannot produce the proof that you desire. You feel burned, and I understand that. My point is only that there are legit technical reasons why a driver implementation for these graphics chips is not feasible under the new MacOS X enviroment, and that aside from the OpenGL & QuickTime features MacOS X does run on the machines in question. Functionality is limited, but then functionality is always limited by your hardware (performance is affected by RAM and disk space, for example). Apple never claimed that all features of MacOS X would work on all machines (hence my earlier comparison to SCSI support). The fact that MacOS X OpenGL isn't supported doesn't prevent you from switching back to MacOS 9 and using its OpenGL implementation.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #187 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
As I said before, "this hardware is xy-ready" is nowadays almost always used to express that it will run xy, nothing more.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Really? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Not from where I am from. OS X ready means that computer is ready for OS X. These computer are obviously not.
[quote]<strong>
But there ***IS*** OpenGL, even if you have a Rage card. The screen does *not* stay all black. You can do OpenGL, but it's dog slow. Yet it is there.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And it's unusable. Not because the computer is too slow. But because Apple didn't back up it's promise
[quote]<strong>
No, it's saying OS X works on this computer, and is supported on this computer. Besides, the computer in question *does* take advantage of OS X' technologies, it's the other way round that's the problem (i.e. OS X does not take advantage of all of the computers technologies).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ahaha aaaaah "OS X isn't the problem it's the computers that doesn't support it" is basically what your saying. Either way Apple lied.
[quote]<strong>
Well, as stated before, I don't agree on this one (even though I admit providing those dirvers would be a nice thing for Apple to do), but then again the two of us will probably never agree about that.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well your wrong on this one.
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 #188 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

But it *does* work. You *do* get OpenGL, the screen does *not* stay black. Even those games *could* technically run, they just say "oh, there's no harware acceleration in here, so it's probably too slow, so I'll just quit and give an error".

Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but the point of open gl is gone then. Might as well not have it. That is like saying "OH OS X support network connections.. just only at 1.2kps"
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 #189 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

Nonetheless, the Rage Pro was already aeons old at that time. Thus, the "3-5 year old chip" term was correct. Didn't mean to imply anything more.

Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh it doesn't matter son. How is that the consumers fault? It isn't Apple needs to compensate for that. Why should I buy a new Mac when it might be outdated in a year?

Your reasoning amuses me.
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 #190 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
Well, according to *your* definition of the term "OS X ready".
<hr></blockquote></strong>
According to the rational non-apologist definition of it I mean. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
ow about you just let other people have different opinions from yours? Even if you don't understand them or disagree, this does not make everyone else stupid RDFed idiots, you know?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Did I say you couldn't have your own opinion? No I didn't. I have the right to tell you I think your opinion is FOS right? When the shoe fits..
[quote]<strong>
o everyone who has a different opinion about this issue than you have is automatically a Mac-zealot because they are too "blinded" to see your only true way of seeing things?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No not everyone. Just the ones that make bizarro apologist examples to try to justify Apple lying to it's customer base.
[quote]<strong>
You don't really seem too willing to accept others' standpoints either, so where's the difference?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am not being blinded by some zealous fervor I have for a company? That is the only way I could explain someone actually justifying Apple shitting down the customers throat.
[quote]<strong>
Of course, you think that *your* point of view is objectively correct (and the others are not), but that's exactly what the others think about *their* point of view.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And I have every right to tell them they are morons for thinking it.
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 #191 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't -- this stuff isn't documented, and most of what I know comes from lurking a couple of years back on the Apple OpenGL mailing lists and from my own work on the PC dealing with these stupid ATI chips (via DirectX, primarily, and talking to the ATI technical reps that come by to visit us on a regular basis). If you sift through a lot of hard-to-find mailing list archives you could gather the details.

All I can tell you is from my personal experience under Windows. The early ATI, S3, and other "2.5 D" chips suck. In many cases it is better to have the CPU do the 3D rendering because it can cut corners, do exactly what you want, and do it faster. When writing an OpenGL driver, however, the driver writer does not know what the application wants, so it cannot cut corners and still be correct. If it is not correct, the application will not work. If it is correct, the software rasterizer runs exceedingly slowly -- I'm talking many seconds per frame in some cases on the CPUs we're talking about here.

A similar principle applies to the QuickTime acceleration. The way these early ATI chips implement the YUV overlays & blit functions is very constrained and will not work in a properly organized & protected OS like MacOS X. Weird things happen like a particular colour being the chromakey, or there being exactly one overlay available and it has to be aligned & sized in VRAM in some special way.

I'm going to drop this argument at this point because I cannot produce the proof that you desire. You feel burned, and I understand that. My point is only that there are legit technical reasons why a driver implementation for these graphics chips is not feasible under the new MacOS X enviroment, and that aside from the OpenGL & QuickTime features MacOS X does run on the machines in question. Functionality is limited, but then functionality is always limited by your hardware (performance is affected by RAM and disk space, for example). Apple never claimed that all features of MacOS X would work on all machines (hence my earlier comparison to SCSI support). The fact that MacOS X OpenGL isn't supported doesn't prevent you from switching back to MacOS 9 and using its OpenGL implementation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah so no proof.. no pudding. Next time don't state something fact that you can't back up :/

Apple didn't tell it's customers that functionality would be limited. Apple would not have sold as many machines had they done so. Apple committed false advertisement and didn't explain why. Too bad we are just supposed to take it up the ass and not complain. Bite the pillow and take the screwin. I don't think it's gonna happen that way.
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 #192 of 358
I think all people want is for their computers to be OS X ready like Apple told them it would be when they bought their computers. That isn't much to ask considering Apple said it would be at the time. It isn't too much to ask for a company to keep it's word. No matter how much little giving these computers acceleration support will speed them it is besides the point.

I think people can handle their older computer not running as fast as a newer one does. This isn't what people are complaining about. They are complaining that Apple lied to them. Apple got them to buy a product on the bases it would be OS X ready. That product according to Apple will never be OS X ready. How hard is this for you guys to understand?

Especially when some of these computers were not even a year old when OS X shipped. There is no excuse for it.

If Apple keeps doing things like this it will indeed be burying itself. Consumers will only take so much abuse and will only put up with so many lies.

Apple is in no situation to be pulling shit like this it doesn't have the 80% + mkt share to lose a few customers here and there.
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 #193 of 358
ahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahah

talk about spam

ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
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 #194 of 358
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sinewave:
"Apple got them to buy a product on the bases it would be OS X ready. That product according to Apple will never be OS X ready."

This is the crux of your argument. It is based on a MacCentral article written about an Apple TIL which is 9 months old and half the time has not even been cited accurately. So, tell me, where is your proof as to Apple's intentions? Apple clearly states to use the latest version of OS X. Does that mean this whole thread comes down to an interpretation of the word "further" as meaning "future" rather than "additional"?
post #195 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>ahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha h

talk about spam

ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha</strong><hr></blockquote>

.....

[ 01-01-2002: 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 #196 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sinewave:
This is the crux of your argument. It is based on a MacCentral article written about an Apple TIL which is 9 months old and half the time has not even been cited accurately. So, tell me, where is your proof as to Apple's intentions? Apple clearly states to use the latest version of OS X. Does that mean this whole thread comes down to an interpretation of the word "further" as meaning "future" rather than "additional"?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple's web page stated with a bursts "OS X Ready!" all over there site when these computers where out. What are you talking about? OS X NEVER supported these machines. When part of the OS isn't supported that machine isn't "ready" for that OS X. Plain and simple. There is no BS'ing your way around that.
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 #197 of 358
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sinewave:
[QB]

"What are you talking about?"

What are YOU talking about. I've just tried to pull together different references available. In fact, can you point out anywhere that I've said anything supporting Apple? I'm just trying to get some facts here rather than you trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you WITHOUT giving any concrete references.

So what is this "What are you talking about?" What in particular have I said that you are questioning?
post #198 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
What are YOU talking about. I've just tried to pull together different references available. In fact, can you point out anywhere that I've said anything supporting Apple? I'm just trying to get some facts here rather than you trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you WITHOUT giving any concrete references.

So what is this "What are you talking about?" What in particular have I said that you are questioning?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

I am meaning you claim Apple never made such claims. Apple INDEED did. You made claims that I based my reasoning on some MacNN article I have never read. That isn't so. It's a known fact Apple advertised these computers as "OS X READY"
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 #199 of 358
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sinewave:
[QB]

I am meaning you claim Apple never made such claims.

No so. If you read my post, I said that my interpretation is probably not correct. But my point was until Apple tells us what they meant, since, by taking into account the statement by ATI, what they said does not definitively state their position, you cannot claim that, "... And according to Apple it wont. ..."

Now if you are saying that, in your experience, Apple has shown by their actions that they are reluctant to support older hardware, then I can accept that simply stated claim.

However, you are stating "Apple this" and "Apple that" based on some festering idea, and I don't believe you have sufficient cause to be asserting it as fact.
post #200 of 358
"OS X Ready" means OS X support the hardware and runs no it. If Apple meant anything other than that they where trying to deceive the consumers. And that is just as bad.
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
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