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 3

post #81 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Fred Bear:
<strong>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....</strong><hr></blockquote>

It doesn't matter how old. Apple said it would work. It doesn't. OpenGL is apart of the OS. If a part of the OS isn't supported than that OS doesn't support that computer. Apple didn't put these machines out saying "OS X will run on these computers but it wont fully support them" You think Apple would have sold as many iBooks that they did if they said that? No.
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 #82 of 358
OK, first I don't buy all this "Mac OS X is slow on my ________ so it doesn't matter about the graphics cause it sucks anyway."

Cause, well, its all BS. I run Mac OS X on three different older supported Power Macs: a Beige G3 300/640MB/onboard with 6MB, a Beige G3 400/384MB/Rage128 PCI with 16MB, and a Pismo 400/320MB/onboard Rage128 AGP 2x with 8MB.

And you know what? OS X runs fine on all of them. Better on the two 400s, which can be attributed to the video support since the difference between a 300 and 400 G3 isn't THAT much, when the video support is dramatically different between the systems.

Now, would I be pissed if I were on a 1st generation iMac, but not because of performance cause when it comes down to it it is about four years later and the fact is computers, even Macs, slow down [run 9 on a 7200 and you will see what I mean] but because Apple said for several years that the iMac was teh poster child for Mac OS X

When you are wondering what the requirements of Mac OS X will be look at the iMac they said. Well, here I am looking and you can tell me that they are the minimum requirements and I would be ok with that, but they ought to be fully supported minimum requirements.

Heck its not like the G3 is only partially supported.
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 #83 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by fuzz_ball:
<strong>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 </strong><hr></blockquote>

Read the entire thread.

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
post #84 of 358
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
1.) it's not just early iMacs and beige G3s. its all iMacs revisions a-&gt; d, Beige G3s, all iBooks up to the 366 SE, and the wallstreet and lombard powerbooks. that covers a whole lot of the current Mac G3 population. And a whole lot of people that Apple has pissed off simply because they don't want to put the "effort" into writing graphic acceleration drivers.
2.) slower systems? what do you consider slower? OS X sucks if it is only capable of running decently on the newest computer.

[quote]
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?<hr></blockquote>

um... we are not talking legacy here. we are talking 2-4 years of what are considered "modern" macs. these machines are not legacy. Apple supports the rest of the machine, why can't they support the graphic acceleration? you have a extremely weak point there and I hope you realize that.

[quote]
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. <hr></blockquote>

LOL. Spew the bullshit. please, we don't have enough of it here.

[quote]
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.<hr></blockquote>

Apple Apologist if I ever did see one. My god.

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

you are in serious denial man.
post #85 of 358
ATI is to blame, not Apple. ATI unwilling to provide the reference drivers.
post #86 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Codename:
<strong>ATI is to blame, not Apple. ATI unwilling to provide the reference drivers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

reference drivers? surely you can't be serious.lol
post #87 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

you are in serious denial man.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nice to know we can still safely express our opinions on this board, now all I need is another bible-beater to come knock on my door to make the day complete


PS - I was not trying to stick up for Apple, if they lied to their customers, then they deserve the consequences of those lies. I was merely trying to say I prefer that they make design decisions that are looking to the future, rather than the past (e.g. Win98 and WinME are examples of the latter, IMHO).

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: fuzz_ball ]</p>
post #88 of 358
Check it out fellas:
<a href="http://www.PetitionOnline.com/atiapple/petition.html" target="_blank">http://www.PetitionOnline.com/atiapple/petition.html</a>

There's a thread about this at the Apple message boards and it has about 400+ posts. We're not the only ones pissed off about this.
post #89 of 358
For all those saying that supporting these 'old' graphics card would hobble the OS:

How? Why would having a driver hobble the OS in anyway? I've got an iBook with an ATi card, but there are kexts for other chipsets in my system folder. Does that hobble the OS? One of the major selling points of OS X was the dynamic libraries. If it's needed, it's loaded. Otherwise it's kmoddestroy. That's the beauty of OS X and the reason there won't be any hobbling. I can't see the problem with having an additional kext file in the system.

The only reason Apple wouldn't support these systems is a capitalistic one. Unless they can provide some technical reason why they can't write drivers that support graphic acceleration, they should be held accountable. And even then, they should be. I helped my sister choose her new computer based partly on the fact that I was told that it would be fully functional under OS X. It's not. I was lied to. Period. $1799 for a relatively underpowered computer seemed like a good purchase at the time because of the promise of the OS. Now, I'm not so sure.

I really don't understand how anyone can be defending Apple on this issue. I'm both a consumer and a shareholder and either way, I'm upset about its handling of this issue. I trust that there will be some reparations.

[apple apologist hat coming on]While Apple may be a corperation, they are a good one. They have repeatedly attempted to rectify situations that they were wrong in (the beta DVD upgrade to G4's are an example). I just hope they do right this time too.[/apple apologist]
post #90 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Codename:
<strong>ATI is to blame, not Apple. ATI unwilling to provide the reference drivers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

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 #91 of 358
Pet peeves in this thread:

1. You agree, and still they manage to disagree.
2. It's all so personal: the "Apple has betrayed me" attitude
3. All-or-nothing deductions: it's either all Apple's fault or all ATI's fault, but it couldn't possibly be both their fault to at least some degree.
4. Derogatory labeling of those who dare to disagree (from complacence or laziness from the trouble of discussing, I must assume).
5. We have mainly 3-4 people posting the same thing over the course of 3 pages.
6. "LALALALALALALALALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING! LALALALALALALALALA!"
7. Apple is not, has not and will not be different than any other money-making enterprise. It is a business, not a subculture despite our best attempts. Even Ben and Jerry cancel flavors and close stores.

Sign the petition!
post #92 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by kaboom:
<strong>
There's a thread about this at the Apple message boards and it has about 400+ posts. We're not the only ones pissed off about this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where is that thread? I was hitting the support sire and didn't see a big "out cry". I must have hit the wrong forum?
post #93 of 358
Follow this path at the <a href="http://discussions.info.apple.com/" target="_blank">Apple Discussion boards</a>:
Discussions &gt; Mac OS X &gt; Mac OS X (10.1) &gt; Getting Started and General Use &gt; Using Mac OS X &gt; ATI Rage Drivers Request
post #94 of 358
I must have hit that thread at some point in time. Since then it's grown a lot .
post #95 of 358
Man! Apple is playing games with their own discussion forums. Seems they moved that almost 500 post thread to the last page of the forum.

Hey Apple! Pull your head out of the sand! People are pissed off and hiding the thread aint going to change things!
post #96 of 358
Someone should probably copy that thread before they delete it.

"Huh? I don't see anyone complaining about drivers for their old macs. Heh heh heh."
post #97 of 358
And who let Groverat in here and how did he get on the topic of claiming MS was a good legally upright company, pass him another bowl of .... and lets get on topic.

Oh and yeah, forward thinking OS X is, and necessary a forced conversion is, but supported should be supported if you get my drift.
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 #98 of 358
Bogie:

Sinewave brings Microsoft into any thread he possibly can. Please pay closer attention.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #99 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Bogie:

Sinewave brings Microsoft into any thread he possibly can. Please pay closer attention.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No grover.. I was just pointing out the irony of you making comments about Apple apologists

Oh and mark that up as another bizarro extreme there grover

[ 12-29-2001: 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 #100 of 358
[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
post #101 of 358
Oh my. What a can of worms Apple got itself into. I have never seen an issue that ticked off so many people. I've read most ot these posts, and have an opinion. Apple could have gotten off the hook any time before releasing OS X for sale. They could have said certain Macs would not be fully supported, and provided the details. Sure, a lot of us would have grumbled, but it would not have hurt their reputation, especially if they gave solid reasons for the decision. We would be a little unhappy, but not mad. By saying nothing, they now have a real problem. What do you think? If Apple fessed up before selling OS X, would that have made a real difference to those of you who are most dissatisfied? If they come clean now, and say what is going on, will that make a difference? No, I don't work for Apple. If I did I would have something better than a old Beige G3 running at 233 MHz.
post #102 of 358
Wow, talk about your hot issues! I'm not trying to apologize for their decision, but perhaps there are technical reasons that need to be considered...

I can guess why Apple made this decision from a technical perspective. They are currently working on getting their fancy new graphics system (MacOS X's Quartz / OpenGL / QuickTime) to use hardware acceleration and to handle the new graphics capabilities of upcoming graphics chips (i.e. geForce3 and later), and they've built an architecture that can do it. Its probably a thing of beauty (at least to an engineer like me). Its probably very fast, and very powerful. It also has certain minimum requirements for it to run effectively -- X pixel rate, Y VRAM, Z polygon fill rate, and certain basic hardware features. The Rage2 and RagePro don't meet those requirements, and bending over backwards to make those chips work would compromise everything going forward because the difference cannot be hidden inside of the graphics drivers. This happens all the time, and is unavoidable.

The Rage2 and RagePro are actually pretty pathetic as 3D processors -- I know, I've had to write software that worked with them before. They are very limited in their capabilities, what they can do they do slowly, and they usually do it "incorrectly" (from OpenGL's point of view). Most games that work with these chips have to tread carefully to ensure that things come out even close to acceptably. In some cases performance is better if the CPU does the drawing! They aren't OpenGL compliant by a long stretch.

By dropping support for these chips, Apple and 3rd party software developers can stop contorting their code to make sure it works on the old chips, and they can focus on making the code work much better on the Rage128 and later hardware.


Having said all that it is nonetheless upsetting that Apple is just cutting off all those machines from 3D graphics in MacOS X. I suspect their reasoning is that for all things 3D, if you are running the hardware in question, you are probably much better off booting MacOS 9 to get as much out of the hardware as you can (i.e. avoiding MacOS X's pre-emptive multitasking, and resource sharing mechanisms). You can still use OS X for non-3D operations, but 3D would be just too painful for words. Games are going to continue supporting both OSes for some time.


They definitely could have done a better job of the PR around this issue...

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #103 of 358
OpenGL effects QuickTIme playback. Apple says computers that lack OpenGL support should just lower their resolution when playing QT movies. it has alot more to do with everyday computer usage than just 3D games.
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 #104 of 358
This is from another thread that has long since slipped down the list in General Discussion. I will repost it here again:

Quote from applenut:
[quote]Apple is repsonible for supporting all integrated chipsets and OEM cards.<hr></blockquote>

I can't find anything on Apple's website to support this claim.

In fact, <a href="http://support.ati.com/products/mac/radeon/radeon_mac_edition_drivers.html?cboOS=MAC+OS&cboPr oducts=RADEON+MAC+EDITION&cmdNext=GO%21" target="_blank">th is ATI web page</a> seems to indicate otherwise.

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

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

We all know about Apple's recent history with ATI, and none of the stories we hear are good. If Apple is planning on completely ditching ATI in favor of NVIDIA within the next few Macworlds, then what incentive does ATI have to rewrite its drivers for cards that are in some cases four years old to work on the latest Mac OS? What incentive do they have to even provide Apple with the information they need to write the drivers themselves?

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

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

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

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

BTW, if you're going to use (TM) in the thread, at least use this . Option-2.
post #105 of 358
It is my understanding that like nVidia ATi provides drivers or at least the majority of the work that goes into them.
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 #106 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>OpenGL effects QuickTIme playback. Apple says computers that lack OpenGL support should just lower their resolution when playing QT movies. it has alot more to do with everyday computer usage than just 3D games.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is because the frame buffer uses too much of the graphic chip's VRAM, and there isn't enough room left to put the current frame of the movie into VRAM as well. These older chips can only read data from VRAM, so if you can't fit your frame buffer (i.e. the screen) and the current movie frame into VRAM at the same time then you can't use the chip to draw the movie. If the graphics chip can't do part of the work then your CPU has to do all of it, and this can get very expensive -- which seriously impacts playback performance. MacOS X has higher overhead and a single process can't monopolize the processor like it can in MacOS 9 (that's part of its advantage!) so there are times where MacOS 9 can do a better job of a single task.

The real problem here is that Apple used crappy graphics chips for too long. Even after ATI had better chips available, Apple continued to put the Rage2 (and later the RagePro) into their machines. The portables suffered with this even longer even though ATI had introduced better and better members of its "Mobility" series.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #107 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>
Why is it on the supported list then? What's stopping crApple from just writing a driver?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Time?
Other things to do that are *way* more important to 99% of mac users than being able to play OpenGL-games on an almost stone-age graphics card to a (very) limited extent? Guys, get over it, that's the way the computer world goes - there's no incentive for manufacturers to make significant investments in very old out-of-sale hardware, and almost noone in the IT industry does.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #108 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
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?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmmm, let me guess, you did *not* experience the move from 68k to PPC first-hand, did you?

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #109 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
Oh please.. Apple claimed OS X would support this computer. OS X doesn't.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm, I kinda wonder whether they actually officially said that partivular piece of hardware would be *fully supported* in OS X, or whether they just said it would *run* OS X (which it obviously does) - then again, I really don't know, maybe someone got links?

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #110 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

Time?
Other things to do that are *way* more important to 99% of mac users than being able to play OpenGL-games on an almost stone-age graphics card to a (very) limited extent? Guys, get over it, that's the way the computer world goes - there's no incentive for manufacturers to make significant investments in very old out-of-sale hardware, and almost noone in the IT industry does.

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


yep. a billiondollar compay with several hundred software engineers doesn't have the time to write OpenGL hardware acceleration and QT accleration drivers for the rage pro
post #111 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>For all those saying that supporting these 'old' graphics card would hobble the OS:

How? Why would having a driver hobble the OS in anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>

By taking development resources away from other areas that are cosidered more important?

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #112 of 358
Apple said these computers where OS X ready. Being OpenGL is a core component in OS X and it doesn't work right on these machines I'd say Apple has some explaining to do.

I see some major problems with this picture

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 #113 of 358
Hello? Did anyone bother to read my post? Go back up and read it if you haven't. Thanks.
post #114 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>yep. a billiondollar compay with several hundred software engineers doesn't have the time to write OpenGL hardware acceleration and QT accleration drivers for the rage pro
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, but try to at least get a little trace of clue before posting stuff like that.

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

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

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

Bye,
RazzFazz

(Waiting for Scott to make yet another highly insightful posting giving me my "Apple Apologist (TM)" tag...)
post #115 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>Apple said these computers where OS X ready. Being OpenGL is a core component in OS X and it doesn't work right on these machines I'd say Apple has some explaining to do.

I see some major problems with this picture
</strong><hr></blockquote>

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

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #116 of 358
[quote]OpenGL would also technically *work* on graphics cards that don't have any 3D capabilities at all, but it obviously would not be hardware-accelerated, and thus be awfully slow. Still, it technically *does* work. Is the same true for the MacOS on these older machines?
<hr></blockquote>

yes

if anything some quicktime acceleration would be nice. I don't enjoy having to quit everything else just to make a movie play w/otu being extremely choppy.
post #117 of 358
So the argument is that OSX's pre-emptive multi-tasking indirectly requires a beefed-up graphics card to perform simple operations? What is the processor busy doing? Drawing pretty Aqua buttons the entire time?

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

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

Razz:

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

What's the next excuse, will the TiBook not be supported by OSX.5 because the thin titanium design clashes with Aqua 2.0?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #118 of 358
Everyone here should stop bitching and read Fran's post, because if he is right then none of what anyone has said since is even relevant.
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 #119 of 358
There is no point in saying anything. I apologize for interfering with your thread.

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
post #120 of 358
Fran isn't right. Apple stopped using ATI cards as their default for their puters. Why should it be up to ATI to write drivers for their older cards when they aren't getting anything out of it? It's a simple fact. Apple said OS X would support the hardware. It didn't. It's up to Apple to back up it's claims not ATI. ATI never said their hardware would be OS X ready. Apple did. It's on Apple's shoulders to set things right. Had ATI made such statements Fran would have a point. ATI shouldn't be held responsible for claims and statements Apple makes. Only Apple is held responsible for such things. If ATI isn't writing driver's for these cards it's up to Apple to take up the slack and do it's customers right. Some of these cards can't be replaced. It's apart of Apple's hardware. They whole point of a company making both the hardware and software is compatibility with the OS.. when this goes south there is no reason for doing such things. The one iBook was out a year before OS X hit the streets. A year old computer isn't outdated nor should it be left behind in compatibility.

Check out this ATI url

<a href="http://support.ati.com/products/mac/motherboards/index.html" target="_blank">http://support.ati.com/products/mac/motherboards/index.html</a>

For those of you not wanting to go to the link it says

[quote]
ATI Chips in Apple iMac and PowerMac Systems

Display drivers and multimedia applications for ATI chips that are factory-installed in Apple iMac and PowerMac systems are NOT available for download from ATI Technical Support.

Please refer to Apple Technical Support for assistance and drivers.
<hr></blockquote>
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