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 2

post #41 of 358
Safe to assume that you mean the word "apologist" to be an insult, Scott? Frankly, you're getting tiresome to say the least. Suit yourself. If you want to alienate yourself from everyone else on top of all this, its your prerogative.
post #42 of 358
OS X is slow on G4 Powermacs? Really?!

I use a G3 500mhz based iBook 2001 running OS X exclusively, with 384megs RAM. It seems decent enough for me, and I do some very funky stuff with it. True, I dont run PhotoShop+iMovie+Framemaker at the same time. But I do compile tons of Unix goodies on my iBook, and run them just fine...I also throw the display from my Sun Solaris machine to my iBook (XDarwin) and it works nicely.

Anyways, Apple should definitely support the damn video card in the old iMacs, specially if they list the machine as supported. If they want to be taken seriously, they have to do this. People will STILL buy new hardware, even if their old iMac runs OS X...because once people see the OS, they'll WANT new hardware! Forcing people does not get them to buy new hardware from you.

Look at Sun...Solaris 8 is supported (AND WORKS!)on super old machines such as the Sparcstation 5! Thats multiple generations ago!

-Moazam

[quote]Originally posted by Fred Bear:
<strong>People,

OS X is still slow on G4 Powermacs. To while about old(er) graphics cards is a waste of time. Things must changer here or there. I think that apple moving to OS X stopped being 'smooth' when all applications had to be 'carbonized'. I am sorry for all of you with older graphics cards, but I am sure that Apple didn’t do this just to spite you. Look at graphics cards today compared to 2 years ago, there is quite a difference. All of you must also remember that there is much more power in the damn GPU its self than in the drivers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
post #43 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fred Bear:
<strong>People,

OS X is still slow on G4 Powermacs. To while about old(er) graphics cards is a waste of time. Things must changer here or there. I think that apple moving to OS X stopped being 'smooth' when all applications had to be 'carbonized'. I am sorry for all of you with older graphics cards, but I am sure that Apple didnt do this just to spite you. Look at graphics cards today compared to 2 years ago, there is quite a difference. All of you must also remember that there is much more power in the damn GPU its self than in the drivers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

um, we aren't expecting a breakthrough here.

we are expecting what we are able to get in OS 9. these chips and cards work perfecty fine in OS 9. Apple won't write OS X drivers so they are useless. if they were just as slow/fast as in OS 9 I could give a shit less. All I want is for them to work.
post #44 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fred Bear:
<strong>People,

OS X is still slow on G4 Powermacs. To while about old(er) graphics cards is a waste of time. Things must changer here or there. I think that apple moving to OS X stopped being 'smooth' when all applications had to be 'carbonized'. I am sorry for all of you with older graphics cards, but I am sure that Apple didnt do this just to spite you. Look at graphics cards today compared to 2 years ago, there is quite a difference. All of you must also remember that there is much more power in the damn GPU its self than in the drivers.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Apple Apologist (TM)
post #45 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Apple Apologist (TM)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Annoying (TM)
post #46 of 358
This problem is a result of Jobs' policy of

JUST **** 'EM!
post #47 of 358
Does OS 9 have transparent windows, etc??? The OS's are not similiar in their graphic requiorements. Just because it woks in OS 9 doesnt mean in OS X...
post #48 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fred Bear:
<strong>Does OS 9 have transparent windows, etc??? The OS's are not similiar in their graphic requiorements. Just because it woks in OS 9 doesnt mean in OS X...</strong><hr></blockquote>

and that has what to do with OpenGL?

can you think before posting?
post #49 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fred Bear:
<strong>Does OS 9 have transparent windows, etc??? The OS's are not similiar in their graphic requiorements. Just because it woks in OS 9 doesnt mean in OS X...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple Apologist (TM)
post #50 of 358
Scott, it's really getting annoying now.
post #51 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>Scott, it's really getting annoying now.</strong><hr></blockquote>

He's a Republican. What can you expect?
post #52 of 358
No, seriously, it has to do with lashing out in any direction with his anger. Scott's anger is justified, but it's starting to be indiscriminate and he's not only insulting people, but in effect throwing himself on the floor going "lalalalalalala." Scott, I expect more of you. Keep your focus.
post #53 of 358
Is he actually wrong about anything?
Dispute his content, not him. Of course, you can't in this situation because Apple dropped the ball and apparently doesn't want to bother picking it up.

I believe the key ingredient to an Apple Apologist is making an idiotic defense against an obvious truth for the sole purpose of making sure Apple isn't blamed for something. He was dead-on in both accusations.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #54 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Codename:
<strong>

He's a Republican. What can you expect?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah cause we all know Democrats can't be annoying.
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 #55 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>I believe the key ingredient to an Apple Apologist is making an idiotic defense against an obvious truth for the sole purpose of making sure Apple isn't blamed for something. He was dead-on in both accusations.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Like your reasoning MS isn't guilty of anti-competitive behavior?
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 #56 of 358
Allow me to repeat for the hard of reading:

His ripe is legit. His attitude towards others is obnoxious. Get it?

Ah, the joy of a relatively anonymous forum -- you can be an ass and no one can confront you face to face.
post #57 of 358
[quote]yea, but Apple is suppose to be different. that's why we are apple users. that's why I'm an "applenut". It's suppose to be a community. Apple is suppose to take care of us, not be the corporate ass you says your 2 year old computer is legacy and won't be supported anymore.<hr></blockquote>

Maybe that's why you are so upset - you've discovered that Apple is a company!

Sure they make it seem like they are everybody's friends, and sure because they are the small guy they often have to go that extra mile. However, Apple like other companies screws up now and then, and makes decisions like this. This is just reality, there is no alternative.

Maybe you'd be happier in the Linux community (where money is not a factor), but then again you'd be without a lot of the backing and advantages money can bring.

Either boot into OS 9 to play QT movies or run OpenGl games, or else otherwise act on the reality.

How do QT movies run in QT via Classic?
post #58 of 358
[quote]Like your reasoning MS isn't guilty of anti-competitive behavior?<hr></blockquote>

Well of course Microsoft is guilty of anti-competitive behavior, every company worth a damn is guilty of anti-competitive behavior. Releasing a better product at a lower price is anti-competitive. My being smarter than you is anti-competitive.

Microsoft broke monopoly rules and is being "punished", what is your obsession?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #59 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by besson3c:
<strong>

Maybe that's why you are so upset - you've discovered that Apple is a company!

Sure they make it seem like they are everybody's friends, and sure because they are the small guy they often have to go that extra mile. However, Apple like other companies screws up now and then, and makes decisions like this. This is just reality, there is no alternative.

Maybe you'd be happier in the Linux community (where money is not a factor), but then again you'd be without a lot of the backing and advantages money can bring.

Either boot into OS 9 to play QT movies or run OpenGl games, or else otherwise act on the reality.

How do QT movies run in QT via Classic?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Scott you wanna do the honors on this one or should I?
post #60 of 358
So? How long will it be before Apple drops support for DVD play back for computers with DVD decoding hardware?
post #61 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Well of course Microsoft is guilty of anti-competitive behavior, every company worth a damn is guilty of anti-competitive behavior. Releasing a better product at a lower price is anti-competitive.<hr></blockquote></strong>

So your basically saying any company that makes it big practices illegal anti-competitive behavior? And that somehow justifies MS in doing so?

Not only is that not a true statement.. it's also more apologist behavior from grover.

[quote]<strong>
My being smarter than you is anti-competitive.
<hr></blockquote></strong>

Yup.. groverat the self-proclaimed genius.

[quote]<strong>
Microsoft broke monopoly rules and is being "punished", what is your obsession?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No obsession here.. your the one claiming MS gained it's market share purely out of having better products than the competition and not cause of anti-competitive behavior. Want me to go find you some direct quotes you made?
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 #62 of 358
[quote]So your basically saying any company that makes it big practices illegal anti-competitive behavior?<hr></blockquote>

Yes.
(you're)

[quote]And that somehow justifies MS in doing so?<hr></blockquote>

It depends on what kind of justification you're looking for?
Legal? Apparently not.

[quote]Yup.. groverat the self-proclaimed genius.<hr></blockquote>

My only claim is to an intelligence superior to yours and, believe me, it doesn't take genius-level to get there.

[quote]No obsession here.. your the one claiming MS gained it's market share purely out of having better products than the competition and not cause of anti-competitive behavior.<hr></blockquote>

You're

Having better products is anti-competitive. You're hurting your competition by releasing good products. You've got to look a little deeper if you want to be serious about it.

Microsoft did dominate the market by having a better product (for the environment). It ran on more varied hardware and was/is pretty flexible. But that's a side-issue and nothing at all to do with the subject.

[quote]Want me to go find you some direct quotes you made?<hr></blockquote>

Sure, have at.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #63 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
Yes<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well you would be wrong then.
[quote]<strong>
It depends on what kind of justification you're looking for?
Legal? Apparently not.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Legally certainly not. Morally not.. what other way would it be ok?
[quote]<strong>
My only claim is to an intelligence superior to yours and, believe me, it doesn't take genius-level to get there<hr></blockquote></strong>
The only thing your superior at grover is dodging things when your wrong.. or putting words in people's mouths son. You obviously have a over-inflated opinion of yourself. I remember when you talked shit about eating everyone at Macmonkey for lunch. I think your stomach wasn't as big as your mouth was huh?
[quote]<strong>
Having better products is anti-competitive. You're hurting your competition by releasing good products. You've got to look a little deeper if you want to be serious about it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No that is competing. When you use your monopoly to gain other ones without competing with quality is where the anti-competitive behavior comes into effect. See that is what MS did. But again your trying to justify their actions. And again your being a apologist.
[quote]<strong>
Microsoft did dominate the market by having a better product (for the environment). It ran on more varied hardware and was/is pretty flexible. But that's a side-issue and nothing at all to do with the subject.<hr></blockquote></strong>
MS got the monopoly by it's anti-competitive licensing deals with major PC clone vendors. Practices the Gov put a stop to in 1990. Not because DOS was better. But a apologist wouldn't see it that way I guess.

Yeah MS is known for quality 1st rate software all right.

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
post #64 of 358
I don't think you can you (TM) trade marked without a lawyer and a good amount in your checking account. Perhaps you mean Patented.

Scott is a cranky old foggy. Enough said.

I really don't see what the big deal is. Computer users especially in the IBM compatible PC world expects this.

The usual about 4yr depreciation thing had been recorded since the 90s(boy it sounds so old now).

AND no where does it say anything about "not working" , it's saying "not optimized further" which can mean many things and that's like saying My Windows95,98,ME will not be "blue screened any less" or Adobe Photoshop 1-6.x will not be updated any further, go after 7.

Anyone remember Connextic Speed doubler, RAM doubler, Abobe type manager, etc...

Apple just pulled a rare one here. It's how the world works, live with it. Jump off a bridge and swear off the IT sector if you can't handle it.

I think from Tidus : Whining make one feel better, But that's cause they're wussies. =p

~Kuku
post #65 of 358
I think from applenut: "Thou who acts like an ass, is an ass".

You are an ass

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
post #66 of 358
Call me a cynic, but I sincerely doubt there are huge corporations out there who haven't bent quite a few rules in the name of progress.

I'd love to be proven wrong, I would be genuinely glad to find one.

MS was able to get vendors to sign those restrictive contracts because. . . Microsoft had the best available product for them to use. Microsoft wasn't a bully monopoly from the get-go. At one point they were tiny small and worked their way to a point where they had a monopoly to illegally leverage.

(And no one disputes that they broke those rules, I don't know why you keep dragging them up as if they are some revelation to those of us sinners who have never heard of it. We know, you drag it into damn near every goddam thread you're involved in if you're given the opportunity. Let it go.)

[quote]or putting words in people's mouths son.<hr></blockquote>

Oooh, a nice bit of sanctimony there, sinewave. Isn't this basically what you've done in this thread, stating for me what I think and then attacking my phantom thoughts?

I don't even think I need to be involved, you seem to be able to have the argument with me by yourself.

[quote]I remember when you talked shit about eating everyone at Macmonkey for lunch. I think your stomach wasn't as big as your mouth was huh?<hr></blockquote>



GET IN MAH BELLY!!

Microsoft does make pretty damn good software. Not perfect, of course, but it's good.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #67 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:
<strong>I don't think you can you (TM) trade marked without a lawyer and a good amount in your checking account. Perhaps you mean Patented.

Scott is a cranky old foggy. Enough said.

I really don't see what the big deal is. Computer users especially in the IBM compatible PC world expects this.

The usual about 4yr depreciation thing had been recorded since the 90s(boy it sounds so old now).

AND no where does it say anything about "not working" , it's saying "not optimized further" which can mean many things and that's like saying My Windows95,98,ME will not be "blue screened any less" or Adobe Photoshop 1-6.x will not be updated any further, go after 7.

Anyone remember Connextic Speed doubler, RAM doubler, Abobe type manager, etc...

Apple just pulled a rare one here. It's how the world works, live with it. Jump off a bridge and swear off the IT sector if you can't handle it.

I think from Tidus : Whining make one feel better, But that's cause they're wussies. =p

~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>

4 years, yes, I can see a machine being unsupported. But less than 2 years? That's ludicrous. iBook SE 366 is not supported. That's insane. And I'm a self-proclaimed Apple Apologist.
post #68 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:
<strong>I don't think you can you (TM) trade marked without a lawyer and a good amount in your checking account. Perhaps you mean Patented.

Scott is a cranky old foggy. Enough said.

I really don't see what the big deal is. Computer users especially in the IBM compatible PC world expects this.

The usual about 4yr depreciation thing had been recorded since the 90s(boy it sounds so old now).

AND no where does it say anything about "not working" , it's saying "not optimized further" which can mean many things and that's like saying My Windows95,98,ME will not be "blue screened any less" or Adobe Photoshop 1-6.x will not be updated any further, go after 7.

Anyone remember Connextic Speed doubler, RAM doubler, Abobe type manager, etc...

Apple just pulled a rare one here. It's how the world works, live with it. Jump off a bridge and swear off the IT sector if you can't handle it.

I think from Tidus : Whining make one feel better, But that's cause they're wussies. =p

~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>


Apple Apologist (TM)
post #69 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:
<strong>I don't think you can you (TM) trade marked without a lawyer and a good amount in your checking account. Perhaps you mean Patented.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No. You can use a Trademark anytime you want. You need the lawyer and checking account for a Registered Trademark®.

<a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm" target="_blank">http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm</a>
Why am I whispering?
Reply
Why am I whispering?
Reply
post #70 of 358
[quote]
Systems affected by this problem include "beige" Power Mac G3 models; iMacs running at 233-333MHz; PowerBook G3 "Wall Street" and "Lombard" models; and the original iBook. All of these computers utilize ATI RAGE II+, IIc, Pro, Pro Turbo, LT Pro or Mobility chip variants.
<hr></blockquote>

Original ibooks was introduced in Sept 99 That's near the end of the depreciation curve. Well depending on what kind of depreciation technic is used...still kind of over the hill.

Still the key word here is "further" which is just saying "As is" as all computers are.

I should ignore it, but isn't repetitive "quote" "/quote" copy, paste, post considered spamming? If it continues there should be some temp bans issued.

~Kuku
post #71 of 358
[quote]If it continues there should be some temp bans issued.<hr></blockquote>

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

proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #72 of 358
[quote]Original ibooks was introduced in Sept 99 That's near the end of the depreciation curve. Well depending on what kind of depreciation technic is used...still kind of over the hill.<hr></blockquote>

listen up. you just don't get it. iBook SE, 2000 does not have graphic acceleration. do you relealize how dumb and insane that is? if not please leave now. it uses the same graphic cip. so if apple wrote a driver for a 1 and a half year old computer they would support all previous rage pro macs. not that difficult.

and this is not whether or not you consider a 1999 mac "old". You are an idiot if you think that is too old to be supported. These machines were said to be fully OS X compatible. When the iMac was released. Apple said it would be what OS X's requirements were to be based on.

[quote]I should ignore it, but isn't repetitive "quote" "/quote" copy, paste, post considered spamming? If it continues there should be some temp bans issued.<hr></blockquote>

uh... what the hell are you talking about <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
post #73 of 358
The world doesn't revolve around you, applenut. I 'get it' perfectly, I just don't believe it. Choose your words better.

There was never 'full' support. Your perfect world doesn't exist. I can't really see how people can think such a thing. If your computer crashes, restart. If continues to crash, trouble shoot. Calling up technical support is not going to magically make it work again. They can give you tips but that's all they can do. But the burden will still be in your hands.

Live with it. Argue the reasoning, yes, but you're just whinning at this point.

Spamming --&gt; unwanted junk ---&gt; repetitive copy and pasting with no usefulness.

And don't do that apple apologist, I never mentioned apple once above. It's should be basic knowledge. Forest Gump : Shit happens

~Kuku
post #74 of 358
Call me whatever you want, but is it so hard to immagine that the requirements for OS X have changed in the last 2 years? They work in OS X, just not very well... Look at alot of Nvidia cards and XP, many new(er) Nvidia boards (mainly GF 2's from Wintek) do not work well in XP, yet they still work....
post #75 of 358
[quote]
There was never 'full' support. Your perfect world doesn't exist. I can't really see how people can think such a thing. If your computer crashes, restart. If continues to crash, trouble shoot. Calling up technical support is not going to magically make it work again. They can give you tips but that's all they can do. But the burden will still be in your hands.<hr></blockquote>

and this has WHAT to do with OpenGL drivers?

[quote]Live with it. Argue the reasoning, yes, but you're just whinning at this point.<hr></blockquote>

whing about what? Is anyone who complains about Apple and what they don't do a whiner to you???

[quote]Spamming --&gt; unwanted junk ---&gt; repetitive copy and pasting with no usefulness.<hr></blockquote>

serves a very good purpose. it helps address specific points and helps organize a response. the majority of the members here do it the exact same way. If you do not like I would suggest you leave.


[quote]Call me whatever you want, but is it so hard to immagine that the requirements for OS X have changed in the last 2 years? They work in OS X, just not very well... Look at alot of Nvidia cards and XP, many new(er) Nvidia boards (mainly GF 2's from Wintek) do not work well in XP, yet they still work.... <hr></blockquote>

uh... they don't work at all. 3d does not work at all. qt acceleration does not work at all. hardware decoding does not work at all.

and you people making a point that 1999 is old and should be considered legacy and that's why Apple doesn't support it:

then why do they fully support my PMG4 released in 99?
post #76 of 358
I do think it sucks for those that were hoping to be able to run OS X on their current Macs (e.g. early iMacs and Beige G3s). However, if you have used OS X, you quickly learn that it was NOT designed to run on slower systems.

You have to remember, when designing an OS you (or any system for that matter: PS/PS2) you have to make design decisions. Do you "hobble" your system to support legacy apps/hardware, or do you design for the future?

It is quite apparant IMHO that Apple has chosen the path of the future. I'm sure they were well aware that they might piss off some users, but personally, I would rather have a "forward-thinking" OS than a "looking-back" OS.

For those that have Macs that aren't supported, take solice in that you will be able to continue to run OS 9 for the life of the machine, including your current apps. Macs last a long time, and if your current apps meet your needs then you'll be fine.

PS - My aunt has an older Mac running OS 7.x and it meets her needs just fine--for now at least
post #77 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by fuzz_ball:
<strong>I do think it sucks for those that were hoping to be able to run OS X on their current Macs (e.g. early iMacs and Beige G3s). However, if you have used OS X, you quickly learn that it was NOT designed to run on slower systems.

You have to remember, when designing an OS you (or any system for that matter: PS/PS2) you have to make design decisions. Do you "hobble" your system to support legacy apps/hardware, or do you design for the future?

It is quite apparant IMHO that Apple has chosen the path of the future. I'm sure they were well aware that they might piss off some users, but personally, I would rather have a "forward-thinking" OS than a "looking-back" OS.

For those that have Macs that aren't supported, take solice in that you will be able to continue to run OS 9 for the life of the machine, including your current apps. Macs last a long time, and if your current apps meet your needs then you'll be fine.

PS - My aunt has an older Mac running OS 7.x and it meets her needs just fine--for now at least </strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple Apologist (TM)
post #78 of 358
Come on Scott, can't you put a little more thought into your rebuttle rather than a quick cliche?

FYI - I use Macs and PCs, and while I like the Mac Interface better than the Windows interface, I'm anything but an Apple zealot...

Try and add something on your next post, if not, then just a simple smily will do
post #79 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:
<strong>

Original ibooks was introduced in Sept 99 That's near the end of the depreciation curve. Well depending on what kind of depreciation technic is used...still kind of over the hill.
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh please.. Apple claimed OS X would support this computer. OS X doesn't. This computer was a year old when OS X came out. It didn't support it then. It doesn't support it now. I can remember when I could install a new Mac OS on a 4 year old Mac and it would support it just fine. Next year will OS X not support the TiBooks as well? I sure as hell hope not. This is making me question my next computer purchase indeed.
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 #80 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:
<strong>The world doesn't revolve around you, applenut. I 'get it' perfectly, I just don't believe it. Choose your words better.

There was never 'full' support. Your perfect world doesn't exist. I can't really see how people can think such a thing. If your computer crashes, restart. If continues to crash, trouble shoot. Calling up technical support is not going to magically make it work again. They can give you tips but that's all they can do. But the burden will still be in your hands.

Live with it. Argue the reasoning, yes, but you're just whinning at this point.

Spamming --&gt; unwanted junk ---&gt; repetitive copy and pasting with no usefulness.

And don't do that apple apologist, I never mentioned apple once above. It's should be basic knowledge. Forest Gump : Shit happens

~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>

What they are complaining about is Apple lied. People bought computers thinking OS X was going to support them cause Apple told them it would. Now Apple is saying OS X wont support these computers fully. People have EVERY right to be pissed. It's called false advertising. Apple could very well be sued for such a thing.
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Confirmed: Older graphics card not supported by OSX