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 8

post #281 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>
My point was that I don't need a line by line rebuttal of the comments to no purpose other than increasing one's post count.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And who is doing that? You think I am doing this to increase my post count? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
Considering the nature of other posts by you I have seen (brief and to the point), I believe you just enjoy the argument.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really.. I hate to argue. I also hate being told I am a whiner for believing injustice was served. :/
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 #282 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>Well, if I am in the discussion and I don't know what you are trying to say [ie where you want to take the discussion/point/goal/motive/whatever then you are failing at getting your point across, that is just common sense.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you didn't know what I was trying to get across after I had repeated it many times? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
I haven't tried to justify their actions. I have asked if there were any other possible reasons other than Apple choosing to harm its own customers, you haven't shown me that those reasons are invalid.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I said it doesn't matter the reasons. It's moot. Apple made claims.. Apple isn't backing them up. Apple needs to rectify the customers it hurt in this move. No matter who's fault it is.
[quote]<strong>
You do if you want me to agree with you, and if you could give me the type of evidence it is likely I would agree with you.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
See here is where you are making the mistake I care less if you agree with me. I am not trying to get you to agree with me. You can believe what you want.

So now are you saying you don't think Apple lied? I am curious.
[quote]<strong>
You skipped over my criticism that you admitted your only "information" is "guesses and speculation."

I would be happy to hear you address it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
My guesses as to why Apple did it is only guesses or speculation. The fact that Apple did indeed do it is not under speculation. As it has been stated in all the news sites. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
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 #283 of 358
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sinewave:

"See here is where you are making the mistake I care less if you agree with me. I am not trying to get you to agree with me. You can believe what you want."

Well that explains it. But I still don't understand why if you believe you are right and others are mistaken and you are convinced of a misjustice, that you wouldn't want to convince people other by "you said this ... the facts are the same ... but I say that." ... unless you believe things are hopeless and won't change anyway.
post #284 of 358
"See here is where you are making the mistake I care less if you agree with me. I am not trying to get you to agree with me. You can believe what you want." - Sinewave

So then why are you still posting, I don't get it. If you are not trying to convince anyone, what is the point of sharing your opinion in the manner you are doing so in?


"So now are you saying you don't think Apple lied? I am curious." -Sinewave

I have never said that I thought Apple lied, I have asked over and over for more conclusive evidence that they did so, or that they did not. I have chosen to hold off making a judgment until I have better information than your opinion.

It is very possible that their contract with ATi is preventing them from fixing the problem, I do not know if that is true or not, right now I am not blaming ATi or Apple because without information about that contract I can't determine for sure who I should be blaming.

Its nice of you to share your opinion that Apple is screwing us all but if you are wrong then any efforts to get Apple to fix the graphics support would be in vain. I would prefer to know, not just suspect, that Apple is the wrong doer. Just as I have not yet criticized ATi for not supporting OS X in old Rage chipsets better, I will not criticize either company until I know whose fault it really is.

Your opinion and argument, logical as though it may be, does not rule out the possibility that Apple may not be able to do it.

Should Apple take a hand in fixing it? Of course, I just want to know if they can fix it and your assumption that they can does not mean it is fact.

According to your logical argument Apple should fix it, I agree, but your argument does not account for their ability to do so, if ATi is not supplying the necessary information for Apple to write the needed drivers then Apple physically can not do what you want and you should be bitching about ATi. The second possibility is that the contract between ATi and Apple prohibits or does not give Apple the right to develop the drivers and therefore Apple is contractually kept from fixing the graphics issue. Last possibility is that Apple is in complete control of the situation and is choosing not to spend the money.

If it is the first one I would be mad at ATi, if it is the second I would be mad at both ATi and Apple for not coming to an agreement in some way to support their customers better, and if it is the third then I would mad at Apple.

But as I, and everyone else who has voiced disagreement with you, has said its not whether we should be mad at Apple for doing us wrong, its a question of was it Apple or ATi who did us wrong.

I know your take is that Apple did us wrong, but your single argument is weak as I pointed out above and you have declared openly that as you are not trying to convince me you have no reason to give better evidence.

Eh, fine. But why keep posting if you are not trying to persuade people of your point of view?
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 #285 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>Well that explains it. But I still don't understand why if you believe you are right and others are mistaken and you are convinced of a misjustice, that you wouldn't want to convince people other by "you said this ... the facts are the same ... but I say that." ... unless you believe things are hopeless and won't change anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Does it really matter? This is a discussion forum. I didn't know I had to have a "reason" Why do you care what my reasons are? Why do you care I think Apple is wrong?
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 #286 of 358
"Does it really matter? This is a discussion forum. I didn't know I had to have a "reason" Why do you care what my reasons are?

Mostly cause you won't shutup and so I thought you were trying to share information or convince me of something that I obviously wasn't understanding.

"Why do you care I think Apple is wrong?"

At first I wanted to understand your opinion, now I don't care what your opinion is, but you keep posting it over and over with seemingly no purpose. Now you have started to declare over and over that you are not willing to tell us your purpose, so basically it have just increased in annoyance. I honestly can't figure out why you are still posting. I am still posting because I want more evidence and I am hoping someone might provide it, you claim you don't want more evidence and you don't want to convince others ... so ... why are you still talking?
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 #287 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>So then why are you still posting, I don't get it. If you are not trying to convince anyone, what is the point of sharing your opinion in the manner you are doing so in?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Hey I just stated my opinions and I am replying to the people who reply to my posts.
[quote]<strong>
I have never said that I thought Apple lied, I have asked over and over for more conclusive evidence that they did so, or that they did not. I have chosen to hold off making a judgment until I have better information than your opinion
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And I said they either

1. Lied
2. Pruposably misled

Either way they did wrong and need to compensate it's customers.

[quote]<strong>
It is very possible that their contract with ATi is preventing them from fixing the problem, I do not know if that is true or not, right now I am not blaming ATi or Apple because without information about that contract I can't determine for sure who I should be blaming.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
So are you saying that ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them? Isn't that a option? I mean I hope your not trying to say ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them.
[quote]<strong>
Its nice of you to share your opinion that Apple is screwing us all but if you are wrong then any efforts to get Apple to fix the graphics support would be in vain. I would prefer to know, not just suspect, that Apple is the wrong doer. Just as I have not yet criticized ATi for not supporting OS X in old Rage chipsets better, I will not criticize either company until I know whose fault it really is.
<hr></blockquote></strong>

ATI isn't the one making the claim for these machines. Apple is. That is all you SHOULD have to know. You guys are making it more complicated than it is to somehow try to justify Apple's wrong doing. Again it isn't ATI's responsibility to back up Apple's claims. They are not even suspect to be blamed.

[quote]<strong>
Your opinion and argument, logical as though it may be, does not rule out the possibility that Apple may not be able to do it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>

Again are you saying Apple isn't able to pay ATI to do it?

[quote]<strong>
Should Apple take a hand in fixing it? Of course, I just want to know if they can fix it and your assumption that they can does not mean it is fact.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Of course they can fix it. It doesn't matter what little it may help.. it will still be supported. If there was no way to do it Apple would have stated so from the get go.

[quote]<strong>
According to your logical argument Apple should fix it, I agree, but your argument does not account for their ability to do so,<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure it did. I mentioned MANY times that Apple could pay ATI to do it.
[quote]<strong>
if ATi is not supplying the necessary information for Apple to write the needed drivers then Apple physically can not do what you want and you should be bitching about ATi.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes all except Apple can pay ATI to do it. Apple doesn't need to know any information.
[quote]<strong>
The second possibility is that the contract between ATi and Apple prohibits or does not give Apple the right to develop the drivers and therefore Apple is contractually kept from fixing the graphics issue. Last possibility is that Apple is in complete control of the situation and is choosing not to spend the money.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sense Apple could indeed pay ATI to do it I am guessing the last option.

[quote]<strong>
If it is the first one I would be mad at ATi, if it is the second I would be mad at both ATi and Apple for not coming to an agreement in some way to support their customers better, and if it is the third then I would mad at Apple.

But as I, and everyone else who has voiced disagreement with you, has said its not whether we should be mad at Apple for doing us wrong, its a question of was it Apple or ATi who did us wrong.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again for the MILLIONTH time. ATI isn't the one that claimed these machines would be OS X ready. ATI is not to be held responsible for claims another company makes. This rests on Apple. Cause Apple made the claim.

If I make mouse pads and sell them to my roomate then he goes and sells the same mouse pads as being "Indestructible" even though I made no such claim, is it my fault cause I didn't make them indestructible or is it my roomate's fault for making a false claim?

[quote]<strong>
I know your take is that Apple did us wrong, but your single argument is weak as I pointed out above and you have declared openly that as you are not trying to convince me you have no reason to give better evidence.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
My argument is weak? Ahahaha you deserve the big ones here



My argument isn't weak if your not a apologist.

[quote]<strong>
Eh, fine. But why keep posting if you are not trying to persuade people of your point of view?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Cause I find it proper to respond to anyone that responds to one of my posts. BTW why are you so concerned with why I am posting here. What business is it of yours anyhow? And since when are you the "Reason" police?

[ 01-03-2002: 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 #288 of 358
All quotes taken from Sinewave.

"Hey I just stated my opinions and I am replying to the people who reply to my posts."

So as long as I reply to your posts you will reply to mine and this will continue indefinitely?

"And I said they either
1. Lied
2. Pruposably misled
Either way they did wrong and need to compensate it's customers."

I don't get this, you asked question, I replied and then you made this statement, which doesn't really communicate anything new, not sure why you did that.

"So are you saying that ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them? Isn't that a option? I mean I hope your not trying to say ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them."

This one actually has some meat to it. I said several pages ago that I thought it is possible that either ATi refused to code the drivers for payment because it is not important to them [new products are more important and worth more money] or ATi wanted more money to code them than Apple could afford to pay for it. I know that Apple has enough money but openGL drivers for those Macs may not be worth as much as ATi wanted. Don't know and while I have asked no one has addressed this possibility. Now, if it is the case that ATi wanted more money that Apple was willing to pay or could afford I can understand that, if it was an exorbitant amount then I would not have paid it either. But regardless, this is just one possibility which you have disregarded up to this point, without evidence or cause.

"That is all you SHOULD have to know."

Sorry, I have higher standards for the information I need to have before I pass judgments. High standards are important when making decisions like who is at fault for something.

"Of course they can fix it."

What is this based on?

"If there was no way to do it Apple would have stated so from the get go."

How do you know this?

"Again for the MILLIONTH time. ATI isn't the one that claimed these machines would be OS X ready. ATI is not to be held responsible for claims another company makes. This rests on Apple. Cause Apple made the claim."

I am not holding ATi responsible - I even stated that in the post which you replied to here - I said that it is possible that for whatever reason ATi is preventing Apple from fixing the graphics support problem. You have not addressed the possibility that ATi could be preventing Apple from fixing it.

"If I make mouse pads and sell them to my roomate then he goes and sells the same mouse pads as being "Indestructible" even though I made no such claim, is it my fault cause I didn't make them indestructible or is it my roomate's fault for making a false claim?"

This argument is horrible, it doesn't equate tho the possibility that I mentioned. What I said was that if ATi had technical information that they did not give to Apple and not having that information prevents Apple from being able to write the drivers, then its not really in Apple's control. I don't know if this is the case, but it is a possibility that you rule out without cause.

"BTW why are you so concerned with why I am posting here. What business is it of yours anyhow? And since when are you the "Reason" police?"

Funny, but a bit too argumentative for my taste.

[EDIT ADDED: that all quotes belonged to Sinewave.]

[ 01-03-2002: 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 #289 of 358
On a side note, so far I have not yet apologized for Apple. I have stated that if Apple is at fault they should correct the problem. Lastly I have asked for evidence that would rule out the possibility that it is not in Apple's control to provide the necessary update for the graphics chips in question. Getting such evidence would actually strengthen your claim, not sure why you have argued against my requests for more evidence.

Never said Apple was not responsible, never said they should not fix it, never said they should not be held accountable.

Just want to make sure you are right before I go off.

I prefer to have the whole story rather than go off with just an opinion and make an ass out of myself by not having any evidence besides my opinion, hence why I keep asking for evidence and have not made any claims of my own.

[EDIT: clarified first statement]

[ 01-03-2002: 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 #290 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>So as long as I reply to your posts you will reply to mine and this will continue indefinitely
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure..

BTW why are you arguing things that are off topic? Didn't you just get on to me about being off topic?
[quote]<strong>
I don't get this, you asked question, I replied and then you made this statement, which doesn't really communicate anything new, not sure why you did that.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It states either Apple lied.. or if it didn't they pruposably misled. Either way they did wrong.
[quote]<strong>
This one actually has some meat to it. I said several pages ago that I thought it is possible that either ATi refused to code the drivers for payment because it is not important to them [new products are more important and worth more money]
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Worth more money? Heh money is money. If Apple is going to play ATI to do this they will do it. Of course Apple would have to pay ATI enough to compensate them .. duh.
[quote]<strong>
or ATi wanted more money to code them than Apple could afford to pay for it. I know that Apple has enough money but openGL drivers for those Macs may not be worth as much as ATi wanted.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not worth it to who? T the consumers that wanted it and was promised compatibility? Not worth Apple's reputation?
[quote]<strong>
Don't know and while I have asked no one has addressed this possibility. Now, if it is the case that ATi wanted more money that Apple was willing to pay or could afford I can understand that, if it was an exorbitant amount then I would not have paid it either. But regardless, this is just one possibility which you have disregarded up to this point, without evidence or cause.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I have not disregarded anything. If Apple offered ATI enough to compensate their time they would do it. Your not thinking in business terms. Money is Money. And I am sure Apple has enough money to pay for a little extra driver support.
[quote]<strong>
Sorry, I have higher standards for the information I need to have before I pass judgments. High standards are important when making decisions like who is at fault for something.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again. the fault can only lay in the people that made the claim.
[quote]<strong>
I am not holding ATi responsible - I even stated that in the post which you replied to here - I said that it is possible that for whatever reason ATi is preventing Apple from fixing the graphics support problem. You have not addressed the possibility that ATi could be preventing Apple from fixing it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Your coming up with bizarro extremes as to why ATI may be at fault. This is the problem.
[quote]<strong>
This argument is horrible,
<hr></blockquote></strong> Surely it's just like this situation.
[quote]<strong>
it doesn't equate tho the possibility that I mentioned. What I said was that if ATi had technical information that they did not give to Apple and not having that information prevents Apple from being able to write the drivers, then its not really in Apple's control. I don't know if this is the case, but it is a possibility that you rule out without cause.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again If Apple can pay ATI then it wouldn't matter. And businesses are out to make money. That is the bottom line. If a company wants to pay you to develop something for your own product. More than likely your going to grab at 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 #291 of 358
What a sad state of affairs. That's what happens when you have only one choice in hardware vendors.

And one reason why I have never purchased a new Mac from Apple since 1998 when the clones were killed.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #292 of 358
Also, being that the cards in quesition were included by Apple in Apple machines, it is Apple's decision to include such hardware, and, Apple's responsibility to support said hardware.

ATI's only responsiblity is to people who purchase RETAIL ATI products.

Even in the PC world, it is the OEM who must support any included ATI products or chipsets, not ATI.

Apple really ****ed up on this one. Instant obsolescense for a millions of Apple manufactured machines, all in one fell swoop. Machines that, according to the box, are "supported" by OS X.



-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #293 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>

Does it really matter? This is a discussion forum. I didn't know I had to have a "reason" Why do you care what my reasons are? Why do you care I think Apple is wrong?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is this a rhetorical question? OK, I'll bite. What if I didn't have a strong opinion but tried to do some research to form an opinion seeing as how some other people had strong opinions which they voiced in a forum and still didn't know why they had such a strong opinion and so was wondering if anyone else had any information which would help me to decide where I stood on an issue? Isn't that what fora are for? &lt;-(rhetorical) But now that I know that is not your purpose, then it just doesn't matter and most of what I said in regard to your participation in this thread is garbage since it was aimed at a cross purpose for your being in this thread.
post #294 of 358
All quotes from Sinewave.

"It states either Apple lied.. or if it didn't they pruposably misled. Either way they did wrong."

No, it states "And I said they either 1. Lied 2. Pruposably misled." Above you make it sound like fact, its not, that is my main point, it is your opinion and you have even said you feel no need to back it up with evidence beyond your self fulfilling opinion argument.

"Worth more money? Heh money is money. If Apple is going to play ATI to do this they will do it. Of course Apple would have to pay ATI enough to compensate them .. duh."

No, in business money is not money. If ATi has potential to make more money by using all their resources for new products than they could make by splitting their resources between new products and work for Apple on old products. Potential is always worth more than contract work on old products, that is just a math equation and common sense.

"Not worth it to who?"

Not worth what is the question. And we can't answer that. Point is that it is entirely possible Apple made ATi an offer and ATi turned them down. Until someone rules that out your logical argument does not stand as it might not be in Apple's control according to this right here.

"T the consumers that wanted it and was promised compatibility?"

Aren't the ones paying for it so its not up to them to determine its worth in cash. ;-)

"Not worth Apple's reputation?"

What are you saying here? That if possible Apple should pay whatever it takes to get drivers for these graphics chips?

"If Apple offered ATI enough to compensate their time they would do it."

Back this up please, it might be logical but that alone doesn't mean its correct.

"Again. the fault can only lay in the people that made the claim."

OK, I'll take this on - if you promise to meet me at 4pm and you get delayed by someone else, whose fault is it that you are late? Yours' or the person who delayed you?

"Your coming up with bizarro extremes as to why ATI may be at fault. This is the problem."

Its not all that bizarre that ATi would not be interested in coding for chips of theirs that are 3-5 years old. And you did not address what I said.

"If a company wants to pay you to develop something for your own product. More than likely your going to grab at it."

Not true, if I can make more working on current or new products than it is reasonable to charge for work on legacy stuff I will work on newer stuff in order to make the most money.
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 #295 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>All quotes from Sinewave.
No, it states "And I said they either 1. Lied 2. Pruposably misled." Above you make it sound like fact, its not, that is my main point, it is your opinion and you have even said you feel no need to back it up with evidence beyond your self fulfilling opinion argument.<hr></blockquote></strong>
The Evidence? Apple said the machines would be OS X ready. They are not. Nor will they be according to Apple.
[quote]<strong>
No, in business money is not money. If ATi has potential to make more money by using all their resources for new products than they could make by splitting their resources between new products and work for Apple on old products. Potential is always worth more than contract work on old products, that is just a math equation and common sense.<hr></blockquote></strong>
And from what I have been just told this job wouldn't be a large task for ATI. A total rewrite of the driver code is not needed. Let me quote this guy

[quote]OpenGL. Say it with me: OpenGL. There's just a few cards out there, an open standard, and it would take Apple a very small amount of time to adapt drivers. They have the new card drivers, they have the old cards' OS9 drivers, there are virtually certainly OpenGL drivers for these for Linux on x86 and maybe even PPC.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Not worth what is the question. And we can't answer that. Point is that it is entirely possible Apple made ATi an offer and ATi turned them down. Until someone rules that out your logical argument does not stand as it might not be in Apple's control according to this right here.<hr></blockquote></strong>
If that was the case Apple would have stated as much. That way Apple isn't in the fault. Being quiet about the whole issue.. and brushing things under the rug transmits the look of guilt if you ask me.
[quote]<strong>Aren't the ones paying for it so its not up to them to determine its worth in cash. ;-)
<hr></blockquote></strong>
They payed for it out of our wallets did we not? Or did they just pay for a lie?
[quote]<strong>
What are you saying here? That if possible Apple should pay whatever it takes to get drivers for these graphics chips?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I don't think ATI would ask for a unreasonable amount again more bizarro extremes. "Oh what if the world exploads?!?!"
[quote]<strong>
Back this up please, it might be logical but that alone doesn't mean its correct.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
lol do you want me to call up ATI and asked them myself? This is pretty much a good guess that they would.
[quote]<strong>
OK, I'll take this on - if you promise to meet me at 4pm and you get delayed by someone else, whose fault is it that you are late? Yours' or the person who delayed you?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You'd blame the person that delayed you. But if you don't show up at all you blame yourself. Apple delayed.. then decided not to show up. There is the difference.
[quote]<strong>
Its not all that bizarre that ATi would not be interested in coding for chips of theirs that are 3-5 years old.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I agree it's not bizarre. That is normal. That is unless Apple pays them enough to. Or Apple is able to code them themselves. But it's bizarre to think ATI wouldn't code these under any condition! That ATI is just not coding them to be mean! If ATI was payed they would more than likely code them. Of course we are talking about normal non-bizarre situations.
[quote]<strong>
And you did not address what I said.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Cause it was a bizarro situation.
[quote]<strong>
Not true, if I can make more working on current or new products than it is reasonable to charge for work on legacy stuff I will work on newer stuff in order to make the most money.</strong><hr></blockquote>\\
Again I said if Apple payed them enough to compensate they would do it. And since Apple is the one that made these claims. It is Apple that needs to take the initiative. Not get cheap and screw it's customers.
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 #296 of 358
Don't forget, OpenGL is a CORE technology of OS X.

If Apple's not going to support a core technology on millions of Macs, then, Apple should not lie and claim that OS X is supported on those machines.

I think it's time for a class action lawsuit. There should civil penalties, and, possibly, criminal ones. It's outright fraud.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #297 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:
<strong>Don't forget, OpenGL is a CORE technology of OS X.

If Apple's not going to support a core technology on millions of Macs, then, Apple should not lie and claim that OS X is supported on those machines.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've been trying to say that for 8 pages now. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> they will come back with "You can't prove Apple lied!" or "It might not be Apple's fault!"

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 #298 of 358
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:
[QB]Also, being that the cards in quesition were included by Apple in Apple machines, it is Apple's decision to include such hardware, and, Apple's responsibility to support said hardware.

Hi, not to leave you out (since I don't know whether or not you really want a response), and assuming you have not read the entire thread:

"ATI's only responsiblity is to people who purchase RETAIL ATI products."

I don't dispute your screen shots. Some of us are confused because in the Mac OS X FAQ, ATI says it will provide drivers for OS X.

"Even in the PC world, it is the OEM who must support any included ATI products or chipsets, not ATI."

I understand that the maker of, for example, a single board computer will provide a CD-ROM with the necessary drivers on it, but who writes those drivers? Again on the ATI site, this example is given for the developer:
"A large PC Builder who is designing a new system with an ATI chip on the motherboard may decide to purchase ONLY the Windows 98 driver, and NOT our DVD Player."
To me, this implies that ATI writes the driver and the manufacturer purchases the driver. Having said that, I would speculate that the situation is different with Apple because if Apple wants drivers in its small market, ATI and Apple work together to provide the drivers, which is also stated on the ATI site.

So, this tangent of the thread was a speculation on whether Apple WILL HAVE TO write/improve the driver independently, or whether Apple WILL HAVE TO pay ATI to do so.

(Rewritten in the active vs. subjunctive text so Mr/Ms Sinewave doesn't have to emphasise that Apple will have to provide drivers, no matter how they do it. That is, if he/she doesn't want to.)

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</p>
post #299 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>Thank you for bringing this point up. Just roughly, when did you find out about the ATi support change? Was this what the original TIL said? Or was the inclusion of "Further development ... not planned." not in response to a change in ATI policy but was indicative of a change in Apple's intent?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Back when ATi published that page. I think that was back during the DPs or maybe the public beta. Long time ago.

[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>(Not all of us have the answers. It's nice to share.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yea I know. Which is why I hold the Apple Apologist feet the fire.

[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

You'll probably turn this aside as another attempt at Apple-Apologizing, but has it ever occured to you that maybe the folks at Apple didn't actually know for certain whether they would at some point provide drivers for the RagePro? Maybe (most certainly) they didn't know in advance how everything relating to OS X would work out in the end, so they might actually not have known for sure so early that they'd completely drop HW-acceleration-support for these cards? I'm not saying this is the case, I just think this might be a possibility you'd have to consider before putting the blame on Apple like you did.

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

Yup, More apologizing. Like I stated above. Apple knew for a long time (long meaning more than enough time to writer drivers three times over) that ATi crapped out on them. So ...

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>
You can't identify your own point?</strong><hr></blockquote>

NO! I have already you stupid tool. If you want to read my point go back and read the thread you ****ing half wit.


[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>Unless you can provide me proof of this in terms of some sort of admission or policy statement it is just conjecture and caries no weight.</strong><hr></blockquote>


The proof is in the ATi page. They put that up a long ass time ago. I think we know now that Apple put drivers on the bottom of the to do list and never looked back (down the list).

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>We don't know that they have dropped support, they sure haven't told us that they have dropped support.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How ****ing blind can you be? I guess its dark up SJs ass huh?

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>We don't know if either of these conclusions are true. </strong><hr></blockquote>


Um? Maybe if Apple didnt have an Iron Curtain policy when it came to talking about updates and support. Maybe if they had answered the question when it was asked a long ass ****ing time ago. Maybe if they had a policy of giving out the best information they have at the time the question is asked? Maybe that would have solved the problem. Of course it would have meant fewer sales for Apple. In the long run it will mean NO sales for Apple to me.

Bogie you are the gold start Apple Apologist (TM).
post #300 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:


I understand that the maker of, for example, a single board computer will provide a CD-ROM with the necessary drivers on it, but who writes those drivers? Again on the ATI site, this example is given for the developer:
"A large PC Builder who is designing a new system with an ATI chip on the motherboard may decide to purchase ONLY the Windows 98 driver, and NOT our DVD Player."
To me, this implies that ATI writes the driver and the manufacturer purchases the driver. Having said that, I would speculate that the situation is different with Apple because if Apple wants drivers in its small market, ATI and Apple work together to provide the drivers, which is also stated on the ATI site.

So, this tangent of the thread was a speculation on whether Apple WILL HAVE TO write/improve the driver independently, or whether Apple WILL HAVE TO pay ATI to do so.

<hr></blockquote>

If Apple doesn't have the marketing power to twist ATI's arm to finish drivers for OS X, it's a sad statement of how small Apple's market share indeed is.

The biggest loser here is the consumer, and, since only Apple ships the operating system that comes with the Mac, it's Apple's responsibility to ensure that a "supported" operating system fully functions on "supported" machines.

In the PC world, even though Dell or Gateway may ship a system with an ATI board, ultimately, since they don't have to code the OS as well, their only responsibility to the end user is if they have ATI custom make the chipset for a particular system.

This is where Apple's responsibility lies. Not only does Apple give a person no choice of the graphic chipset in the iMac, likewise, there's no other alternative than ATI for mobile Macs.

Since Apple is limiting a person's choice, it's therefore Apple's responsiblity to support that hardware.

My God, you'd think that one computer company could support one OS using one chipset vendor. It's a disgrace.

So much for "tight intergration" being a Mac's strong point. In this case, it's a severe flaw.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #301 of 358
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:

If Apple doesn't have the marketing power to twist ATI's arm to finish drivers for OS X, it's a sad statement of how small Apple's market share indeed is.

I appreciate your comments, but what do you think of this (I hate to duplicate stuff, but this thread is getting hard to navigate).

One of the foci here has been the Rage Pro chipset, which is actually the basis for this thread. In looking at one of the fora at <a href="http://www.opengl.org," target="_blank">www.opengl.org,</a> I found a thread complaining about a similar lack of support in Windows XP.

Perhaps Apple has more pull here because the chip set is so old that most Wintel users have moved away from it (speculation) and so Apple negotiates for all the Apple users as a block. Do realistically do you believe that these drivers will be forthcoming or that this specific group of Mac users is out of luck? (Not meant to be a leading question, but is the Newton example all we have to consider or do you know of an instance when Apple has surprised us in a situation like this?)
post #302 of 358
Microsoft doesn't make computers, so, Microsoft has no obligation whatsoever to make sure Windows supports some facet of any computer.

Apple does because Apple makes both the hardware and the OS.

The age of the chipset is irrelevent. If Apple isn't going to provide support for the most basic piece of hardware in a class of machines, then, that class of machines must be excluded from the official "support" list.

PC users aren't in a quandry like this because as long as a chipset supports DirectX, it doesn't matter whether or not the chipset supports OpenGL because the DirectX API provides needed hardware video acceleration.

Apple gets off the hook on the desktop machines because the graphics can be upgraded. This is one major reason why a machine like the iMac is fundamentally flawed because there's no way to bypass or upgrade the onboard video.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #303 of 358
Ironically, ATI supports the same chipsets in XP that are not being further supported by Apple in OS X.

<a href="http://support.ati.com/drivers/winxp/winxp_5_1_2505_0_r2.html" target="_blank">ATI's RAGE II Driver Support for XP</a>
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #304 of 358
TheRoadWarrior? Give it up. I've made that same point about 100 times here. The Apple Apologist (TM) don't want to listen. Shit in the ears I suspect. Hazard of wedging your head up SJ's ass.
post #305 of 358
The typical response elsewhere is:

&lt;Maczealot mode&gt;It's a 3 year old computer. Time to get a faster machine with faster graphics! Apple's just trying to do us all a favor!&lt;/Maczealot mode&gt;

Even though, in another thread, same person would say:

&lt;Maczealot mode&gt;Macs are better because they last longer and have longer lives than PCs that have to be updated every year for the latest version of Windoze.&lt;/Maczealot mode&gt;
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #306 of 358
OK, this is going to be the longest reply I have ever made by far ...

First from Sinewave-
"Nor will they be according to Apple."

They haven't stated this although it is implied in their TILs.

"And from what I have been just told this job wouldn't be a large task for ATI. A total rewrite of the driver code is not needed. Let me quote this guy"

From what that guy says that you quote it doesn't sound hard but who is he? Random boy, if some other guy made up a reason that it was really, really hard I wouldn't believe him either.

"If that was the case Apple would have stated as much."

I don't agree, Apple generally keeps their mouth shut even when they should clear the air about something that isn't their fault, so you can't determine if it is or isn't their fault from the fact that they haven't issued a press release calling shanagans on someone else.


"and brushing things under the rug transmits the look of guilt if you ask me."

Yes, it does make them look bad, but the look of guilt doesn't make them guilty.

"They payed for it out of our wallets did we not? Or did they just pay for a lie?"

Ooooh a slight at dark humor? OK, you opened the door - how much is too much? Any amount?

"I don't think ATI would ask for a unreasonable amount"

And you know this how? You have a mindmel with the CEO of ATi?

"again more bizarro extremes. "Oh what if the world exploads?!?!""

You are comparing ATi turning down a contract to write drivers for chips they sold 3-5 years ago to the world exploding. Wow.

"lol do you want me to call up ATI and asked them myself? This is pretty much a good guess that they would."

Email or fax would be better so that it was documented but hell, sure, I will take you up on that. ;-)

"Apple delayed.. then decided not to show up. There is the difference."

Actually not sure if they are coming yet, already started serving dinner but the guests haven't left yet, I am hoping they still make it because there is a lot of food. :-)

"But it's bizarre to think ATI wouldn't code these under any condition!"

Oh, so is that what you convinced yourself I said, well congrats, it took some effort to get that out of what I did say, which was that ATi might have better things to do.

"That ATI is just not coding them to be mean!"

You are right, that does not make sense, funny, its also what you are claiming about Apple. Hmm, still doesn't make sense, still want to say that?

"Cause it was a bizarro situation."

Under that clause I wouldn't ever be replying to you and this would have ended long ago.

"Again I said if Apple payed them enough to compensate they would do it. And since Apple is the one that made these claims. It is Apple that needs to take the initiative. Not get cheap and screw it's customers."

So wait, you are willing to say that ATi is more than willing to write the drivers, that it is easy to do, that basically there is nothing holding them back. Obviously it wouldn't cost much under that assumption either right? But you also claim that Apple is obviously not willing to pay this small amount of money because they want to screw their customers.

Oh yeah, that makes sense, Apple must want to hurt their customer base, nothing else could be in the way, its not possible and we should not even look into it.

From TheRoadWarrior [cool name by the way]

"Don't forget, OpenGL is a CORE technology of OS X."

Yeah I know just how you feel, CD Burning is a CORE technology too, and my Beige G3 doesn't seem to burn CDs under X, lets sue, maybe if we take more money from Apple the resources they have to correct this will increase.

One more from Sinewave just for posterity

"they will come back with "You can't prove Apple lied!" or "It might not be Apple's fault!""

Do me a favor and try and quote me on that, I am pretty sure I never said either. Did say that you are blowing off other possibilities without consideration, but that is a bit reasonable for you to quote.

Scott's turn [Ahead of time, this is 99% reactionary, argumentative, and bashing cause well, that also happens to be what I am responding to. If you care about the actual topic and trying to determine who is responsible for holding up Rage drivers, just skip this whole section.]

"Which is why I hold the Apple Apologist feet the fire."

I am not sure what you mean here, I think I am too tired, or misreading, don't know that it matters but would you rephrase for my curiosity?

"Apple knew for a long time (long meaning more than enough time to writer drivers three times over) that ATi crapped out on them."

So they should what then, use the force to create driver references to use?

"NO! I have already you stupid tool. If you want to read my point go back and read the thread you ****ing half wit."

Impressive, you an english major? I reread your posts, mostly you deride people, like, uhm, oh yeah, the example I just quoted. I was giving you benefit of a doubt that you were trying to say something more intelligent, but we all make our choices right?

"The proof is in the ATi page. They put that up a long ass time ago."

Ah, that one ATi page, that one right ... the one next to the other one, the one with the graphic on it right? Which one was that again?

"I think we know now that Apple put drivers on the bottom of the to do list and never looked back (down the list)."

Well, if "we" all knew this I wouldn't be asking for more information would I. Oops, logical conclusions sneak up on people.

"How ****ing blind can you be? I guess its dark up SJs ass huh?"

Don't like blind people or something? I wouldn't think he would keep it there, but since you are so familiar with it could you take a look for me just in case. ;-)

"Um? Maybe if Apple didnt have an Iron Curtain policy when it came to talking about updates and support. Maybe if they had answered the question when it was asked a long ass ****ing time ago."

OK, you just said that they are in the wrong because they don't talk about new updates, that is well, immaterial and so, basically unimportant to this discussion. But thanks for sharing.

"Maybe if they had a policy of giving out the best information they have at the time the question is asked?

Or maybe they do and it just happens that their information sucks, easy to believe that their information sucks from your point of view that they suck, in fact it only follows that naturally if they suck their information should suck also.

"In the long run it will mean NO sales for Apple to me."

And while that does suck for Apple the sales guy you might have worked with is probably over-joyed.

"Bogie you are the gold start Apple Apologist (TM)."

Man, my own title and I never even had to claim it wasn't Apple's fault, which, it might very well be. ;-)

More RoadWarrior

"If Apple doesn't have the marketing power to twist ATI's arm to finish drivers for OS X, it's a sad statement of how small Apple's market share indeed is."

Well, they have shown to some extent that they do, the whole fiasco of bringing in nVidia and deriding ATi in the public eye has caused ATi not to repeat old mistakes. But we never can tell the true extent and implications of this move.

"The biggest loser here is the consumer"

True.

"since only Apple ships the operating system that comes with the Mac, it's Apple's responsibility to ensure that a "supported" operating system fully functions on "supported" machines."

Hmm, Microsoft and RedHat don't live up to that, not sure who does. But they are in a different situation. However, it isn't hard to envision some situations where some things just can not be supported. I mean Programmer brought up the point several pages ago that many Rage chips aren't actually OpenGL compliant if that is the case, it is very simple that no one could write the drivers we are talking about.

"My God, you'd think that one computer company could support one OS using one chipset vendor. It's a disgrace.

So much for "tight intergration" being a Mac's strong point. In this case, it's a severe flaw."

Yeah, I see your point, one instance of screw up that could have been caused by chipset limitation or outsourced work really blows that whole hardware/software integration thing to crap huh. Man, if only this one problem hadn't happened it would all be perfect ... or something.

I agree this sucks and I do think Apple needs to be involved in fixing it, I am still just curious as to whether they have the means.

"Apple gets off the hook on the desktop machines because the graphics can be upgraded. This is one major reason why a machine like the iMac is fundamentally flawed because there's no way to bypass or upgrade the onboard video."

Good point, doesn't help me on my quest to determine the nature of the Apple/ATi arrangement but still a valid point.

On more shot at Scott

"The Apple Apologist (TM) don't want to listen."

Work on your grammar, it would either be a plural noun or change the tense of don't to doesn't.

"Shit in the ears I suspect. Hazard of wedging your head up SJ's ass."

What is your obsession with Steve Job's ass? Jeez man, go see a counselor or do something, at least get a better buzz phrase to degrade with.

RoadWarrior

"&lt;Maczealot mode&gt;It's a 3 year old computer. Time to get a faster machine with faster graphics! Apple's just trying to do us all a favor!&lt;/Maczealot mode&gt;"

Yeah, I don't agree with that, for people who complain that the graphics suck, yeah its valid but for people who just want full support, they should not have to buy a new Mac, that is just BS.

Summary of my thoughts:

Well, basically Sinewave seems to think that I shouldn't need anything more than "Apple made a promise" to condemn them. Scott is obsessed with ass and claims I am making excuses for Apple when I haven't defended them yet and just want to explore the possibilities that it could be something other than Apple's great need to screw their own customer. And RoadWarrior doesn't seem to be able to show any more evidence than anyone else of anyone being responsible for this situation but does continue with original thought instead of repeating himself [aka Sinewave] or just calling people rude things [aka Scott].

So everyone knows, I could really care less if it is Apple's fault or ATi's but I am not going to blame either until I can find out who I should be blaming.
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 #307 of 358
All I'm saying is that if Apple is going to abandon a core OS X technology on certain Macs, then, the box and system requirements ought to reflect the reality. Better to do that then blatantly lie about what they are selling.

A computer is fairly crippled if the video chipset cannot function properly. Ironically, Microsoft seems to have enough influence to get XP drivers written for "ancient" ATI chipsets.

Whether or not it's Apple's fault, ATI's fault, or the hotel janitor's fault is totally irrelevent. The responsbility lies solely on Apple to make things right, whether that's twisting ATI's arm or changing the system requirements for OS X.

BTW, I never had a problem CD burning on my Power Computing clone
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #308 of 358
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:
[QB]Ironically, ATI supports the same chipsets in XP that are not being further supported by Apple in OS X.

Thanks, but I guess your prior post made my question moot.

In case you are at all interested in what I was looking at, it is here

<a href="http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000207.html" target="_blank">http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000207.html</a>

not that it matters anymore.

So, Wintel uses DirectX or OpenGL. Of OS X only has to support OpenGL, it would seem that, on the surface, Apple should have an easier time in that, as suppliers of hardware and software, in ensuring proper support for their graphics. Is that the obvious conclusion, or am I missing something?
post #309 of 358
The reason for DirectX's superiority over OpenGL is that DirectX encompasses more than just 3d...it includes 2D and sound/music/audio as well.

This is a major reason why DVD playback on a PC is far superior to DVD playback on a Mac as it latches into the hardware abstraction layer created by DirectX.

In fact, typically, DVD playback on a Mac takes twice the processing time as it does on a PC, regardless of CPU speed.

How does this relate? Apple needs to work on something similar to DirectX for the Mac. That one set of APIs has done wonders for game development, in addition to giving video card manufacturers some other option besides Open GL. And, DirectX is backwards compatible, which is why "ancient" chipsets are easy to support in a new OS like XP.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #310 of 358
BTW, that's an interesting debate, but, Open GL is supported in XP, otherwise, I couldn't play Quake III, RTCW, or Medal of Honor: Allied Assault in XP.

Likely the complainers' problems are that they are using generic Microsoft provided drivers for their video cards.

They would see if that they installed proper drivers for their video card, the proper OpenGL driver would be installed, as does the "nvOpenGL.dll" file when installing the XP drivers for any Nvidia card.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #311 of 358
Thanks again.

We were discussing a while back about who could write drivers. If, in the worst case, Apple abandons the owners of the machines in question, are there third party opportunities here, or is driver stuff proprietary. I remember a company, AppliedEngineering, that used to do some nice stuff for the Apple II series. Is it likely (well, maybe not likely, but possible) that there might be some saviour out there, or would that be impractical (due to royalties or whatever)?
post #312 of 358
Hey, RoadWarrior,

Thank you for coming to this discussion. I have enjoyed reading your last few posts, and I didn't know the thing about DVD playback and the processor intensity. Very interesting, to be honest I am just happy to hear from someone who has something to add rather than just bash me for asking questions.

Sorry if I was kinda harsh in your direction in my last post, got wrapped up. The CDR comment was just that while my Beige G3 runs OS X, CD burning, which is a CORE feature of OS X, does not work on that Mac under OS X, for obvious reasons. Right now I am tending to agree with Programmer's earlier post that Rage chips just didn't comply with OpenGL as I could never run anything in OpenGL under 8.6 or 9.x on my Beige G3. But your last posts make it seem like it should have worked.

Like I have been saying, I still want more info.
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 #313 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:
<strong>BTW, that's an interesting debate, but, Open GL is supported in XP, otherwise, I couldn't play Quake III, RTCW, or Medal of Honor: Allied Assault in XP</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you have OpenGL in XP you did not get it from Microsoft. Windows XP does not have OpenGL. You got it from a third party.
post #314 of 358
Thread Starter 
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: erbium ]</p>
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz, 15" Matte, 2GB RAM, 120GB HD, iPod nano 2GB Black.
Reply
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz, 15" Matte, 2GB RAM, 120GB HD, iPod nano 2GB Black.
Reply
post #315 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
Of course they can fix it. It doesn't matter what little it may help.. it will still be supported. If there was no way to do it Apple would have stated so from the get go. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, you'll have to understand that Apple is primarily a *company*, and as such wants to (and actually is obliged to try to) make *money*. So, from an economical point of view, it might not be sensible to pay ATi enough money so they devote some of their crew to writing RagePro drivers (instead of any next-generation stuff that ATi is currently working on, which is of course much more profitable for ATi) just for idealistic reasons, "doesn't matter what little it may help."

Of course, from the morale point of view, somebody *should* provide those drivers, but we're talking about businesses here, and morale is rarely the top priority in that field.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #316 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
Again If Apple can pay ATI then it wouldn't matter. And businesses are out to make money. That is the bottom line. If a company wants to pay you to develop something for your own product. More than likely your going to grab at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now look at your own statement, and consider the fact that Apple is a business too, and as such their primary concern is making money too, as it is for all businesses. Customer satisfaction and reputation are essential and all, but still the main point in any business is to make money, and if the guys at Apple decide that having those drivers written will, summarized up, not be the economical way to go, well, then they probably won't spend their money on it, even though they might have the cash.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #317 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:
<strong>
The age of the chipset is irrelevent. If Apple isn't going to provide support for the most basic piece of hardware in a class of machines, then, that class of machines must be excluded from the official "support" list.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I guess a lot of people who bought that specific iMac back then didn't really see OpenGL as a "basic piece" of that system ('cos otherwise they wouldntt have bought that specific system in the first place), but that's probably another point.


[quote]<strong>
PC users aren't in a quandry like this because as long as a chipset supports DirectX, it doesn't matter whether or not the chipset supports OpenGL because the DirectX API provides needed hardware video acceleration.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, but this is just nonsense.
For games that require HW-accelerated OpenGL (which seem to be one of the main problem areas with the iMacs in question), a given card can be as DirectX compatible as it wants, it will still not run that game. DirectX (well, Direct3D, to be specific) is just another 3D graphics API like OpenGL. DirectX compatibility doesn't just automatically appear, nor is it in any way inherent to any piece of hardware. Just like with OpenGL, you have to write drivers that support it.


[quote]<strong>
This is one major reason why a machine like the iMac is fundamentally flawed because there's no way to bypass or upgrade the onboard video.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, in a way, yes, but that fact has been known right from the beginning (and in some cases isn't even true - Mezzanine et al.). If you need upgradeability, don't buy an integrated or portable computer.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #318 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:
<strong>Ironically, ATI supports the same chipsets in XP that are not being further supported by Apple in OS X.

<a href="http://support.ati.com/drivers/winxp/winxp_5_1_2505_0_r2.html" target="_blank">ATI's RAGE II Driver Support for XP</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, read the page you linked to: Those drivers do *not* provide OpenGL support.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #319 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
The Evidence? Apple said the machines would be OS X ready. They are not. Nor will they be according to Apple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is *your* interpretation of the situation. You can call them Apologists as much as you want, but there are people who consider "is XY ready" to be synonymous with "can run XY".

Thousands of computers have been branded "designed for Windows NT 4.0" or "ready for NT", yet NT4 never supported their power management facilities nor their USB ports (bith of which worked just fine in Win98).


[quote]<strong>
And from what I have been just told this job wouldn't be a large task for ATI. A total rewrite of the driver code is not needed. Let me quote this guy
</strong><hr></blockquote>

And who is that guy to be able to tell you that?


[quote]
OpenGL. Say it with me: OpenGL. There's just a few cards out there,
<hr></blockquote>

A *few*? Come on...


[quote]
an open standard,
<hr></blockquote>

Sure, OpenGL is, and guess what, OpenGL is already in OS X. THe difficult part, the one we're talking about here, is not buzilding an OpenGL implementation, but about having that OpenGL implementation talk to and use a certain piece of hardware (i.e. the RagePro). This is what drivers are all about, and unfortunately, this is not openly standardized at all (in fact, it's not even standardized across one manufacturer's line of products).


[quote]
and it would take Apple a very small amount of time to adapt drivers. They have the new card drivers,
<hr></blockquote>

In source form? Binaries are useless here.


[quote]
they have the old cards' OS9 drivers,
<hr></blockquote>

Which would even be all but useless in source form, since OS 9 had a completely different driver model and OpenGL implementation from OS X.


[quote]
there are virtually certainly OpenGL drivers for these for Linux on x86 and maybe even PPC.
<hr></blockquote>

"virtually certainly" as in "I don't know, I think so, but I'm too lazy to further inform myself"?

Sure, there is OpenGL on Linux (well, MESA), but again, even if one has access to the source code for the RagePro drivers, and even if they do support OpenGL, it would still be virtually useless as Linux, too, has a completely different driver and OpenGL architecture from OS X. A port would be nothing short of a near-complete rewrite (see the darwin-development mailing list recently for a similar topic (porting network drivers from BSD)).


[quote]<strong>
I don't think ATI would ask for a unreasonable amount again more bizarro extremes. "Oh what if the world exploads?!?!"
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, depends on your definition of "unreasonable". In this thread, you have basically made clear that you feel Apple should be willing to pay as much as it takes to get those drivers written. Apple, on the other hadn, has to take economics into accoutn, so from a business point of view, there might be limits as to what is reasonable and what not.


[quote]<strong>
Again I said if Apple payed them enough to compensate they would do it. And since Apple is the one that made these claims. It is Apple that needs to take the initiative. Not get cheap and screw it's customers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

As stated before, this is just a business decision. If Apple feels like it's more economical for them to "screw" some of their customers than to spend money on having those RagePro drivers written, then, as a business, they will probably do just that. Customer satisfaction and reputation are important, but in the end, running a business is all about making money.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #320 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:
<strong>The typical response elsewhere is:

&lt;Maczealot mode&gt;It's a 3 year old computer. Time to get a faster machine with faster graphics! Apple's just trying to do us all a favor!&lt;/Maczealot mode&gt;

Even though, in another thread, same person would say:

&lt;Maczealot mode&gt;Macs are better because they last longer and have longer lives than PCs that have to be updated every year for the latest version of Windoze.&lt;/Maczealot mode&gt;</strong><hr></blockquote>

So you don't agree 3 years is longer than 1 year?

Bye,
RazzFazz
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