Confirmed: Older graphics card not supported by OSX - Page 6

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>"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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But with those OS X Ready signs they pretty much put it next to anything with the 128MB required RAM.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>"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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey, what can I say. OS X runs on my unsupported 9500 (G3/400). Sorry it doesn't run on your whatever. If that's your argument, you're wrong. You were doing better with your "Apple won't write drivers" argument.

I really don't want to enter back into this argument cause Sinewave is being just too bitchy, sorry man but most of your replies consist of replying over and over [like 7-10 times on the last page of this thread] that the person is wrong.

But anyway, I think its funny how this thread is going, its a one guy shouting at everyone else that know you are wrong this is how it is, and everyone else is saying - uhm, how is that? to which he replies - no you're wrong, its like this.

Heehee, its funny.

Anyway.

Just to try and give some direction, not to argue for either side any more [gave that up], I have two things:

Sinewave-

First - can you post your evidence that Apple or ATi will never provide drivers [please include it for both, links are best].

Second - could you please backup your claim that Apple is solely responsible for providing the drivers with some sort of agreement or policy that Apple and/or ATi have rather than just saying "Apple said, Apple said."

Third - on the matter of "supported" and "OS X ready" can you show me Apple's endorsement of what you take this to mean? "Ready" in technology normally means that something can be added - like being AirPort ready, it means you can add an AirPort card. Simply meaning that "ready" is taken to mean a wide variety of things, so if you take it to mean that Apple will make everything on those Macs work at 100% please show where they say that.

Everyone arguing with Sinewave-

Be nice if anyone else can show any evidence of ATi/Apple policy that clearly states responsibilities of each.

Or if anyone can show what Apple's meaning of "ready" and "supported" is.

Normally I don't like this whole "what is so and so's definition of this word" stuff, but I think words are being put in Apple's mouth.

[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

But with those OS X Ready signs they pretty much put it next to anything with the 128MB required RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No they only put it next to the ones that they claimed where OS X ready. And at the time every computer they shipped was OS X ready.

What's your point?

[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>

Hey, what can I say. OS X runs on my unsupported 9500 (G3/400). Sorry it doesn't run on your whatever. If that's your argument, you're wrong. You were doing better with your "Apple won't write drivers" argument.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Did I ever say OS X wont run on a G3?

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>
I really don't want to enter back into this argument cause Sinewave is being just too bitchy, </strong><hr></blockquote>
So I just just sit there and bite the pillow and take the screwin?
[quote]<strong>
sorry man but most of your replies consist of replying over and over [like 7-10 times on the last page of this thread] that the person is wrong.<hr></blockquote></strong>
If the shoe fits..
[quote]<strong>
But anyway, I think its funny how this thread is going, its a one guy shouting at everyone else that know you are wrong this is how it is, and everyone else is saying - uhm, how is that? to which he replies - no you're wrong, its like this.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
One guy? I am not the only one in this thread that are telling the apologists that they are being morons son.
[quote]<strong>
Sinewave-

First - can you post your evidence that Apple or ATi will never provide drivers [please include it for both, links are best].
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Did you not read this thread? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Apple stated those cards would NO LONGER BE SUPPORTED. ATI says Apple is responsible for the Cards they ship with.

How hard is that to comprehend? Read ----&gt; Comprehend -----&gt; Reply

[quote]<strong>
Second - could you please backup your claim that Apple is solely responsible for providing the drivers with some sort of agreement or policy that Apple and/or ATi have rather than just saying "Apple said, Apple said."
<hr></blockquote></strong>

Apple is the only one that made the "OS X ready" claim is it not? Apple is the only one responsible for making those claims. (I feel like I am repeating myself over and over again for you guy. PLEASE comprehend it this time.) ATI didn't make this claim. ATI isn't responsible for Apple's words. Apple is responsible to make sure these cards are support by OS X.

[quote]<strong>
Third - on the matter of "supported" and "OS X ready" can you show me Apple's endorsement of what you take this to mean? "Ready" in technology normally means that something can be added - like being AirPort ready, it means you can add an AirPort card. Simply meaning that "ready" is taken to mean a wide variety of things, so if you take it to mean that Apple will make everything on those Macs work at 100% please show where they say that.
<hr></blockquote></strong>

And here is where your apologist argument comes in. If a computer says it's AirPort ready and you add a Airport card and it 100% works it's Airport ready I agree. If a computer says It's "OS X Ready" and you add OS X to it and not all of it works that computer IS NOT OS X ready.

If Apple meant any other than 100% compatible with "OS X Ready" it was trying to deceive it's customers. I know plenty of people who would have waited had they would have known this was going to happen.

Hm, according to what Apple stated, further development of X might bring a full support of old ATI cards. They did not explicitly exclude this possibility.

But they gave strong hints to the opposite possibility, that they will never ever try to fully support this hardware.

This is a policy that Apple has since it started with its new OS. The supported hardware limits were most elastically shifted around during announcements and during the course of the development.

Eventually everything from a B&W G3 upwards turned out to be officially supported, some G3 (beige and others) formed a grey zone of doubt and older PowerMacs of the 9XXX-7XXX line were "out", despite able to run X after some (unsupported) tweaking.

Now a further drawback path seems to be paved. Anyone who purchased hardware based on Apples claims to officially support a certain hardware that was close to the grey zone now must fear to be left out too.

I can understand that this odd behaviour by Apple (certainly not a hall of fame worth stance) gets called lying. The task of supporting various hardware is hard, yes. Since new hardware comes up quickly the task gets tight when deadlines are to be reached. I can understand that.

However, running a business needs having an extremely elastic conscience, at least as elastic as the loose border line between supported and unsupported hardware. At least it seems so. You may fail to find a court to support the lying reproach, but within the relation between consumers and companies not everthing is sorted out by law.

If the same measures, like some of the above proposed, of what can be regarded as a product/service being up to its claims would be applied to medicine, the arguing here would have been not so different I guess.

But since it all affects computers and some money there is no need for bloodthurst.

However on a more personal side note I find this Apple policy of cheating and cunningly putting the tongue in the cheek and creeping very poor. It is not a new policy though. Maybe they have to react this way due to the American law, otherwise they could face severe financial difficulties?

Marketing wise these things are huge faults. If a sticker like "Mac OS X ready" isn't worth its paint and provokes a debate about its meaning, Apple already lost a case (and customer?) that never will go on trial whatever the semantics may turn out to be proven.

my 2 cents.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sinewave:
[QB][/qb]
So I just just sit there and bite the pillow and take the screwin?

That's exactly what you are doing. You don't even want to try to understand the issues involved. Instead all you want to to is talk to empty air about nothing, just trying to shout down people who don't really care about what you are saying.

If you would care to try to understand the issues, you could do something constructive, like submit feedback to Apple or encourage people to sign some petition or another. You've been around long enough to know that Apple doesn't respond to posts on this or their own forum. But they sometimes respond to their feedback site. Wouldn't it be great if someone wrote to them, got a reply, and then posted it here to find out what their official position is? Perhaps if you would go to school, you'd find out how valuable listening to second-hand opinions is and the value of doing your own research from first-hand sources.

Talk about mindless responses. You are so blinded by your rage that you have ceased to do anything except state your unchanging position over and over and over. You don't even read what people say, but misinterpret it for your own purposes. Your signature is definately self-descriptive.

Now we have an official Apple Apologist.

Boy I can't go away for a New Years get away with out a pack of idiots defending Apple at every turn. I don't know why I didn't put the "Blame ATI" apology up top :confused: Blame the user, blame the hardware, blame ATI ... blame everyone but Apple. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Scott, some of us try and explain what's going on and why Apple can't magically pull drivers out of it's butt, and you decide to call all of us idiots. Real nice.

Have you forgotten that your 'battle' is against Apple and not us?

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Now we have an official Apple Apologist.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple Apologist Coward.
[quote]<strong>
Boy I can't go away for a New Years get away with out a pack of idiots defending Apple at every turn. I don't know why I didn't put the "Blame ATI" apology up top :confused: Blame the user, blame the hardware, blame ATI ... blame everyone but Apple. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah of course. Cause Apple can't do wrong. And if they do and you complain.. well your just being a whiner. Yipee

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Scott, some of us try and explain what's going on and why Apple can't magically pull drivers out of it's butt, and you decide to call all of us idiots. Real nice.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple doesn't have to pull them out of any orifice. They can pay for them. Saying there is no way Apple can get these drivers is kinda silly.

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Scott, some of us try and explain what's going on and why Apple can't magically pull drivers out of it's butt, and you decide to call all of us idiots. Real nice.

Have you forgotten that your 'battle' is against Apple and not us?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's idiotic to think that Apple couldn't have come up with a driver over the past (what is it now) three years at least. They have had years and years to do this and now months and months AFTER it ships Apple pulls out the rug.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>

No they only put it next to the ones that they claimed where OS X ready. And at the time every computer they shipped was OS X ready.

What's your point?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly what I said... the ones they claimed were OS X ready were the ones that were out at the time that had 128MB RAM.

All I was saying really was that Apple didn't seem to care if it ran well on that particular machine, they just put the Mac OS X ready thing next to all hardware that was shipping at the time with 128MB RAM.

[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

Exactly what I said... the ones they claimed were OS X ready were the ones that were out at the time that had 128MB RAM.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I dont think it had anything to do with RAM
[quote]<strong>
All I was saying really was that Apple didn't seem to care if it ran well on that particular machine, they just put the Mac OS X ready thing next to all hardware that was shipping at the time with 128MB RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it put OS X ready on all hardware that was supposed to be Ready for OS X. OS X ready means it's ready for OS X. Having features of OS X not work in these computers makes them NOT OS X ready.

Jesus ****ing Christ, Scott finished his tantrum four pages ago! How long do we have to watch you throw a tantrum in here? You've been saying the exact same thing for six pages, and nobody cares any more. We understood you after 100th post in a row. Quit. For your own dignity, quit.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

As I said, I WAS NOT TRYING TO IMPLY ANYTHING MORE THAN THE FACT THAT THE RAGE PRO CHIP WAS INDEED ALREADY 3-5 YEARS OLD, WHICH YOU CLAIMED WAS FALSE. Dammit, what's so hard to understand about that? I was neither giving resposibilites to anyone, nor taking them from anyone. I only, exclusively, withouth any further implications, noted that the Rage Pro was a stone-age chip even at the time you bought your machine. Blame it on whomever you want.

Bye,
RazzFazz

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
Ah so no proof.. no pudding. Next time don't state something fact that you can't back up :/
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh please... From what this guy wrote, he sounds like he has pulled this all out of his ass or what? Come on...

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

Hehe, since you seem to only accept arguments that are proven by links etc.: How about *you* proove that Apple promised OS X would fully support the RagePro?

Bye,
RazzFazz

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>[/qb]
Well your wrong on this one.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh, cool, let's play:
"Noooo! You are wrong on this one!"

Honestly though, maybe we should really leave it at that, guess this "discussion" won't get us any further (and I guess I doesn't really help too much in having a driver appear in one way or the other either).

Bye,
RazzFazz

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
No it put OS X ready on all hardware that was supposed to be Ready for OS X. OS X ready means it's ready for OS X. Having features of OS X not work in these computers makes them NOT OS X ready.</strong><hr></blockquote>

errm, just to point out, I'm quite sure that at the time Apple was plastering "OS X Ready" on it's products it deliberately left out the bottom-end iMac and iBook... and they had only 64Mb RAM. So I think it's pretty safe to say that 128Mb RAM and an "OS X Ready" accolade are correlated.

[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

As I said, I WAS NOT TRYING TO IMPLY ANYTHING MORE THAN THE FACT THAT THE RAGE PRO CHIP WAS INDEED ALREADY 3-5 YEARS OLD, WHICH YOU CLAIMED WAS FALSE. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I claimed that was false? I did? Really? I claimed the computers Apple shipped that was supposed to be OS X Read was newer than that .Not once did I make a comment on the age of the Rage Pro chip.Not that it matters how old the Rage Pro chip as in this situation.
[quote]<strong>
Dammit, what's so hard to understand about that?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Seems to me *I* am not the one having a hard time comprehending.
[quote]<strong>
I was neither giving resposibilites to anyone, nor taking them from anyone. I only, exclusively, withouth any further implications, noted that the Rage Pro was a stone-age chip even at the time you bought your machine. Blame it on whomever you want.

Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
And just because Apple choose to use a older chip Justifies what?

[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
Oh please... From what this guy wrote, he sounds like he has pulled this all out of his ass or what? Come on...<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes I agree it DOES sound like that.
[quote]<strong>
Hehe, since you seem to only accept arguments that are proven by links etc.: How about *you* proove that Apple promised OS X would fully support the RagePro?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Have we not been over this over and over again. Apple DID say these machines are were going to be OS X ready. That OS X would support these machines. Having a graphics card that isn't nor ever was supported by OS X makes the machine not supported by OS X. Making Apple liars.

How many times do I have to state simple facts as this? How many more times are you going to ignore it and try the same tired apologetic twist to your argument?

[quote]Originally posted by Evil Ed:
<strong>

errm, just to point out, I'm quite sure that at the time Apple was plastering "OS X Ready" on it's products it deliberately left out the bottom-end iMac and iBook... and they had only 64Mb RAM. So I think it's pretty safe to say that 128Mb RAM and an "OS X Ready" accolade are correlated.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well does that mean if I had a 9600 with 128m of RAM it would also be OS X Ready? No. The RAM amount wasn't what made it "OS X Ready" And again they said OS X would support those computers. Having no OpenGL drivers for those computers is NOT support. Nor it it "OS X Ready"

hmm, cowards, apologists, idiots.

sure are convincing people here.

well since none of the people bashing Apple can seem to answer the questions I asked, I have a new plan:

Clearly and shortly tell me and everyone else you are arguing with, degrading, fighting with, calling names, etc. . . what your goal in this thread is.

Just a short statement of purpose. All I want to know.

Oh, and Sinewave, you aren't old enough to call me son, but I hope it makes you feel better.

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>Jesus ****ing Christ, Scott finished his tantrum four pages ago! How long do we have to watch you throw a tantrum in here? You've been saying the exact same thing for six pages, and nobody cares any more. We understood you after 100th post in a row. Quit. For your own dignity, quit.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You make a point but you're too dumb to get the real message. Yea, I haven't posted in several pages. Why then did the thread continue? Hummm? Maybe because this is a real issue that Apple needs to deal with. Maybe more people than just -&gt;me&lt;- are interested in this issue.

So it's not just me throwing a "tantrum". But feel free to continue your blind support of Apple and try to mitigate this issue as a tantrum of a hand full of isolated users.

Apple Apologist (TM)

What about Altivec support in OSX? Since anything with a G3 or a 604 doesn't have a hardware vector unit, does this make them less than "OSX ready"? Should Apple decline from any further G4 enhancements because such code would not be functional on anything below a G4-based desktop, thus making formerly "OSX ready" computers into "not ready". Should Apple not code for any new hardware tweaks that will come in future hardware since that functionality can't be shared on the first gen iMac and 1+ yr old Powerbooks, just to maintain some vague "OSX ready" status on older hardware.

Clearly, Apple must continue to progress the state of OSX as new hardware comes to light. Inevitably, this will leave a lot of older Apple hardware behind, or more precisely, recent Apple hardware with unarguably older components. These units do run OSX (if you care to do so), drivers or not, but it is inevitable that some functions will not run fully. This does not change the fact that OSX does run on them, and you can still do 98% of anything you care to do in OSX on them. OpenGL is an add-on, not an integral part of the OS- bottomline. A computer can most certainly be "OSX ready", be able to run OSX, and not run OpenGL.

(I just dropped in on page 6 to see what's up, so it's quite possible this has been rehashed already.)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bogie:
"Just a short statement of purpose. All I want to know."

Thanks for trying to get us on track. OK, here's my summary again (also on MacNN, but no one goes to that thread anymore):

The Apple TIL was originally written in March of 2001 and was revised in December 2001. (I don't know what it said originally, and no one else offered any insight.) If you go to the ATI website, it says that it is not their intention to provide OS X support for RAGE? PRO based products." I believe the Apple TIL was revised in response to this ATI statement, although I cannot back that up because I do not know when they posted it.

Furthermore, ATI states that "As OS X matures, ATI intends to provide updated drivers for our customers." This leads me to speculate that while Apple and ATI work together to provide hardware drivers, there is some code of a proprietary nature which requires ATI involvement.

The Apple TIL says for best results to use the current version of OS X. The Apple TIL does not say "Future" development is not planned. It says "further" development is not planned. It is probably a stretch, but this may not preclude the release of new drivers in the current version of OS X, but it might mean that "further" development (i.e., by ATI) will not be available.

It is interesting to note that the same situation exists with Rage Pro drivers and Windows XP. There is discussion on the <a href="http://www.opengl.org" target="_blank">www.opengl.org</a> site that the Rage Pro does not seem to support OpenGL on Windows XP and the ATI seemed to indicate the only way Rage Pro was supported was via the generic driver.

It is also interesting (to me, at least) that the situation seems to be completely different with NVIDIA. NVIDIA does not say they are responsible for the driver, but that the user must go to Apple for the driver.

I know my interpretation of the TIL differs from the MacCentral columnist, but I'm not a trained industry analyst. But, no, I am not exonerating Apple. I mean to state
1) the situation with older ATI drivers may be more complex than petitioning Apple to write drivers
2) if Apple cannot write the drivers independently from ATI, they may not be able to pay ATI a reasonable amount to write drivers if ATI does not want to write drivers
3) related to 2) given the problems with older ATI chipsets in both OS X and Win XP, it does not look like ATI wants to support the older hardware
4) Apple may not be stating that they will not update the ATI PRO drivers,
and, for those who have not abandoned the platform,
5) it seems to me that anyone getting a Mac in the future might find better support with NVIDIA graphics rather than ATI graphics, if the choice is available.

My goals here follow:

To find out if anyone knows for sure the relationship between ATI and Apple as far as driver development goes and if Apple can proceed independently. (My concern is that since there are so many more Wintel machines with ATI graphics and since there have been the same complaints about Windows XP support for the Rage Pro chipset, ATI involvement may be necessary due to proprietary code, and that ATI has chosen to no longer support the Rage Pro chipset.)

To find out if anyone sees another interpretation to the Apple TIL beyond the sensationalism of the news media. (At least one other person has agreed that there is not definitive evidence that Apple will no update the drivers.)

And to solicit opinions on whether the same situation is likely to happen with other ATI products and since the relationship between ATI and NVIDIA and Apple seem to be completely different, whether it would be wise to choose NVIDIA graphics if the choice is available.

My references are on the following websites:
Apple (TIL)
<a href="http://www.ati.com" target="_blank">www.ati.com</a> (OS X FAQ)
<a href="http://www.nvidia.com" target="_blank">www.nvidia.com</a> (FAQ)
<a href="http://www.opengl.org" target="_blank">www.opengl.org</a> (Forums)

My complaint is with no specific person, but anyone who dilutes the subject matter and thus discourages anyone from trying to follow the discussion.

Scott, you've lost my respect. You are a child. God help you, loser.

Mr/Ms. Sinewave,

This is an example of why you have no credibility in this argument. You have said things and then denied saying them several times.

quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
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.

quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)
3-5 years old? try newer than that And it doesn't matter what you think Apple is willing to do.

quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
As I said, I WAS NOT TRYING TO IMPLY ANYTHING MORE THAN THE FACT THAT THE RAGE PRO CHIP WAS INDEED ALREADY 3-5 YEARS OLD, WHICH YOU CLAIMED WAS FALSE.

quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)

I claimed that was false? I did? Really? I claimed the computers Apple shipped that was supposed to be OS X Read was newer than that .Not once did I make a comment on the age of the Rage Pro chip.Not that it matters how old the Rage Pro chip as in this situation.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>What about Altivec support in OSX? Since anything with a G3 or a 604 doesn't have a hardware vector unit, does this make them less than "OSX ready"? Should Apple decline from any further G4 enhancements because such code would not be functional on anything below a G4-based desktop, thus making formerly "OSX ready" computers into "not ready". Should Apple not code for any new hardware tweaks that will come in future hardware since that functionality can't be shared on the first gen iMac and 1+ yr old Powerbooks, just to maintain some vague "OSX ready" status on older hardware.

Clearly, Apple must continue to progress the state of OSX as new hardware comes to light. Inevitably, this will leave a lot of older Apple hardware behind, or more precisely, recent Apple hardware with unarguably older components. These units do run OSX (if you care to do so), drivers or not, but it is inevitable that some functions will not run fully. This does not change the fact that OSX does run on them, and you can still do 98% of anything you care to do in OSX on them. OpenGL is an add-on, not an integral part of the OS- bottomline. A computer can most certainly be "OSX ready", be able to run OSX, and not run OpenGL.

(I just dropped in on page 6 to see what's up, so it's quite possible this has been rehashed already.)</strong><hr></blockquote>


Apple never made anyone think their G3 was going to be Altivec enhanced.

[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>Mr/Ms. Sinewave,

This is an example of why you have no credibility in this argument. You have said things and then denied saying them several times.

quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
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.

quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)
3-5 years old? try newer than that And it doesn't matter what you think Apple is willing to do.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
He said "3-5 year old stuff" He didn't specify the graphics chip
[quote]<strong>
quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
As I said, I WAS NOT TRYING TO IMPLY ANYTHING MORE THAN THE FACT THAT THE RAGE PRO CHIP WAS INDEED ALREADY 3-5 YEARS OLD, WHICH YOU CLAIMED WAS FALSE.

quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)

I claimed that was false? I did? Really? I claimed the computers Apple shipped that was supposed to be OS X Read was newer than that .Not once did I make a comment on the age of the Rage Pro chip.Not that it matters how old the Rage Pro chip as in this situation.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


And again.. since when does "stuff = Rage Pro Chip" ?

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>

Both you - I was the one that made the 3-5 year statement and as the statement was regarding ATi writing drivers for "stuff" it is easy to tell from the context that it referred to ATi graphics cards, nice of you to side step that Sinewave.

Also, you and Scott are not addressing my request for a statement of purpose, but I have a feeling I could conclude why easily.

Mr. Bogie,
My apologies for the wrong attribution. I tried to cut and paste the essential statements, but I edited too much.

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>Scott, you've lost my respect. You are a child. God help you, loser.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm sure I didn't have it in the first place. But, you know, if I become unpopular because I stand my ground then so be it. If people like you want to suck Apple's cock and dirty your nose with Job's backside be my guest.

I'll stand by and call Apple a chump when I see it. Keep my nose clean and not go down on my boyfriend.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>

Blast from the past. I found a link to this on Apple's Discussion forums.


<a href="http://icq.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2638154,00.html" target="_blank">Apple: OS X galvanizes modern Macs</a>

[quote]quote of Mac OS Product Marketing Ken Bereskin
...
He explained that Mac OS X was designed to work with models across the power range. "Our benchmark platform is one of the first- or second-generation iMacs that have 233- or 266MHz [G3] processors," Bereskin said. "We are ensuring that Mac OS X works well on that kind of platform.<hr></blockquote>

I wonder what happened?

Name-calling is childish. Calling me a cock-sucker merely reflects on your level of intelligence and maturity. It's what little boys do in self defense. I wanted to see how you liked it, of course knowing you can't take what you dish out.

That's what this is about. It's not your opinions on anything in particular which I object to but the way in which you conduct yourself. You're a baby. I'm sucking cock, you're sucking your own thumb. And all is well in your little world.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>


Apple never made anyone think their G3 was going to be Altivec enhanced.</strong><hr></blockquote>

??? Similarly, Apple never made anyone think that they [Apple] were going to swap their Rage Pro for a Rage128 free of charge out of the kindness of their hearts. So what has that got to do with anything?

The point I was trying to make was that both G3 and G4 computers can run OSX and are essentially "OSX ready". However, OSX also has and will include further enhancements that utilize the Altivec unit in only G4-equipped machines. By your strict definition of what counts as "OSX ready", how can any G3 computer be labeled as "OSX ready" when they are fundamentally unequipped with an Altivec unit. Nevertheless, they do run OSX just fine (according to some). They certainly meet the basic "OSX ready" qualification as they are functional to do work on. They just don't meet your strict definition of "OSX ready". In the end, it is largely inconsequential save for a bit of speed- hardly enough to get so upset over, hardly enough to accuse others of "sucking Apple's cock", and hardly enough to accuse others of "happily taking it in the rear by Apple", etc.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>Name-calling is childish. Calling me a cock-sucker merely reflects on your level of intelligence and maturity.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No it doesn't.


[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>It's what little boys do in self defense. I wanted to see how you liked it, of course knowing you can't take what you dish out.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Well? I'm not defending myself.

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>That's what this is about. It's not your opinions on anything in particular which I object to but the way in which you conduct yourself. You're a baby. I'm sucking cock, you're sucking your own thumb. And all is well in your little world.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Yea. Right. Apple's right I'm wrong blame the user blame ATI blame everyone but Apple. Apple can do no wrong. I have to see it from their perspective. I don't understand blah blah blah.

Come back when you grow some balls.

Last time and I give up:

My disrespect towards you has nothing to do with this OpenGL fiasco. You've claimed that three posts in a row so I have to conclude you don't understand. I just want everyone else to understand this. I support your anger and frustration towards Apple for the situation. But you have been nothing short of a complete ass to anyone who does have the "balls" to disagree with you.

In shorttOpenGL unsupported = bad. We agree.
\t\t\tYour attitude = worse. Me no like.

PS: Regarding the "get some balls" comment. Those are big words, boy. Please, again. Be sure to get that final word in so you feel like you've won.

Okay