With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.
Yeah I remember those days. I used Windows and hated Netscape because it was very slow and cost money (initially).
With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.
Which browser engine was better: the licensed Spyglass for IE for Mac v1-v4 and WIndows v1-v3; Tasman for IE 5 for Mac; or Trident starting with IE 4 for Windows?
I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.
Well, Apple's hardware is 'decent.' It is, for the most part, a work of art.
However, Rain has a point on the GPUs. Melgross can't just say 'it's an industry problem' when people commonly extol the virtues of Apple's mono-hardware/software whole widget culture.
If anything Apple should REALLY be on TOP of GPU driver issues seeing as they flagrantly offer limited choice, out of date GPUs that they over charge for where driver issues should have been cracked ages ago. It's not like Apple have as many GPU drivers to support as Windows does?
In that context...Apple's choice of GPU is limited, the drivers mediocre and way overpriced and simply: old. Especially on machines Apple is charging far more for than equivalent PC performance. By a factor of 100% or more in some cases.
Similarly, while the iMac has a stunning screen, the hardware on the low end is out of date. Quad core i5s are cheap. They'll be in low end PCs. Why not low end iMacs?
The Mac Pro and the ancient 30 inch plastic screen LCD look dreadful value for money. An astronomical. £1900 or nearly £2k for a mediocre quad tower in a nice case. Craaaahhhhp gpu and no monitor included. 30 inch LCD? An unbelievable £1300. £3300k for mediocre quad core and an ageing display. Sure makes the quad iMac look a bargain. But only in the context of 'Apple land.'
So, yeah. They could offer some 'decent' hardware at 'decent' prices. Don't hold your breath though. It's not like the Mac Pro couldn't have a better gpu bundled as standard and be given a steeeeeeeeeeeeeep price cut. But at 30 billion and counting...it seems to be working for Apple...to a degree. That still doesn't make the Mac Pro or Mini a value equation in my opinion.
Oh, yeah. Kinda back on topic. Psystar. You got P-owned. Serves you right. And I hope a light is shone on their backers.
But that doesn't mean Apple's desktop line up is perfect. And there's 95% of the PC market that don't want Apple product. And until they access those customer's concerns they will never reach critical mass. For me, that means a price cut, better gpus as standard (ie more vram on them) and a little more desktop choice...and possibly a 'cheaper' laptop/netbook/tablet equiv'.
With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.
The booing had a lot more to do with the browser war raging at that time. The open question was whether Microsoft would be allowed to dominate the internet as they had already come to dominate PCs. So much was at stake that Apple making MSIE the "default" browser for the Mac was considered to be a big deal.
... Apple should REALLY be on TOP of GPU driver issues seeing as they flagrantly offer limited choice, out of date GPUs that they over charge for where driver issues should have been cracked ages ago. It's not like Apple have as many GPU drivers to support as Windows does?... In that context...Apple's choice of GPU is limited, the drivers mediocre and way overpriced and simply: old. Especially on machines Apple is charging far more for than equivalent PC performance. By a factor of 100% or more in some cases. ....
I've heard this argument again and again over the years, but while it's technically accurate, it's always seemed like more of a red herring to me.
Even the "lamest" of mac hardware (like an old single core PPC mini with integrated graphics), "does the job" that it was intended to do. People are always mentioning that there are faster GPUs or newer ones or whatever, but if you can open and close windows and browse the web the same as with any other PC, and if there are no hangs or glitches, it's really a moot point.
Even on fast windows PC's for instance, many aspects of the OS and the GUI hang or are slow. On a Mac, even with shitty graphics capabilities, you don't tend to see any interface lag at all, so it appears "fast" to the user.
The only time any of the specs you are referring to make any difference is on xbox/ps3 type gaming (something most mac users don't do), or for high end graphic editing (most of which is done on custom hardware.) It's not irrelevant that you can buy more power for less money on the PC side, or that you can get a PC with more up to date (to the minute!), components. But it is mostly unimportant to the vast majority of people buying and using the computer.
If the user doesn't think it's slow, or notice any problem with the graphics, the fact that technically they could have put in a faster CPU or GPU is really not important. You could say that the PC is a better value, but to most people "value" is not based on tech specs alone it's the overall experience.
In general, people just don't sit down at a mac and say to themselves, "Wow this is slow, I could have got the (insert name brand) processor if I had a choice." Mostly they don't know, mostly they don't care, and mostly they think the Mac is "amazingly fast", "has wonderfully clear graphics" and words to that effect.
Sculley's power usage was all about Sculley, Jobs' is all about getting the greatest products created. I prefer the latter.
I don't remember that at all. Scully did a pretty good job at Apple in general. He got into trouble mostly because of Copeland. He wasn't a computer person. Managing reams of programmers who were interested in their own projects more than the overall OS wasn't something he was used to. MS, which should know better has been having the same problem.
His other problem was the Newton. It was released before it was entirely ready. That held sales back, and was one of the main reasons for his demise. Sadly enough, the last version, which appeared later, was much better, and was selling much better when Jobs killed it.
Apple was also a much more open company when Scully was leading it.
The most interesting part for me is how both men measured their words so carefully, to the point of visible discomfort -- especially in Steve's case. This was clearly a very scripted event.
I heard form a good source, (but I can't find it now so I can't say for sure), that the video portion with Bill on the screen, was actually a recording. So it was completely choreographed if that's true.
I heard that mostly in the context of how ironic it was, because Bill would be appearing as a recording on the big screen, just like Big Brother in the original Apple advertisement.
If you read back to the articles run at the time, the general consensus seemed to be that Apple had been saved by Microsoft, a myth that persists to this day. This really reflects the other consensus in play at the time, which is that Bill never loses. This view came for some good reason -- Microsoft was incredibly dominant in those years, and few thought it should be any different. Still this meant that many had such a hard time seeing the deal any other way than yet another big win for Bill.
As for the booing (and cheering), partisanship was so much a part of MacWorld during these years. I attended many of the keynotes in the late '90s and it was always more tent revival than trade show. Mac fans hardly even met another Mac fan except at these events. People who attended knew what side they were on, the embattled one. It was a bit of a bunker mentality, but still, MacWorld was really a lot more fun in those days. By the mid-2000s it felt like only a trade show.
What Apple needed from them, and got, was that 5 year contract to keep developing and selling Office for the Mac. Without that, Apple would have had problems.
That clause only give Congress the right to create Copyright laws the details would fall under other parts. For example one could argue that the extension of old copyrights is a violation of Article I section 9.
One can't argue that. The clause gives Congress the right to do almost anything other than to eliminate the copyright clause itself.
I heard form a good source, (but I can't find it now so I can't say for sure), that the video portion with Bill on the screen, was actually a recording. So it was completely choreographed if that's true.
I heard that mostly in the context of how ironic it was, because Bill would be appearing as a recording on the big screen, just like Big Brother in the original Apple advertisement.
Could be, but it seems like Bill waited for quite awhile for the boos to let up before he started speaking. Maybe that was all anticipated. The video screen did have a "big brother" quality to it, but can you imagine what would have happened if he'd appeared live on the stage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
What Apple needed from them, and got, was that 5 year contract to keep developing and selling Office for the Mac. Without that, Apple would have had problems.
As a political matter, that announcement was important, but as a practical one, I wonder. At the time, Office 98 was well underway, so all they were really committing to was one more version (which turned out to be Office X). I don't know that Microsoft was on the verge of discontinuing Office for the Mac in any case. But the value of the symbolism was undeniable.
Nope, agreed, Sculley was a power mad, clueless MBA. Sculley's crown jewels should be on show in a large vat of Pepsi, sorry 'sugar water'.
I wonder if with the enormous egos ALL these guys have, if there's some sort of poetic justice that Sculley has to live out his days in a corporate purgatory. One where he's forced to realize not only his role in Apple's downfall, but then be forced to watch its wildly succesful rebirth under his former rival.
Updates always make some things worse. Products are too complex these days. I remember when OS's and programs had NO bugs. But that was in the mid '70's. It's just gone downhill since.
Delusional. All software has bugs. It has always had bugs and always will have bugs.
Its just that what you expect is more complex than it was in the 70's
Dow Jones is reporting the following quote from a Psystar attorney:
Eugene Action, one of Psystar's lawyers, said the decision is "ripe for appeal."
"Judge Alsup has written some very well reasoned findings that you couldn't fault, even though they went against us," Action said. "But it looks like ( Friday's ruling) was written by misguided bloggers."
The only thing going down the toilet here are all you whiny, delusional, myopic, full-of-yourselves, "calling-yourselves-creatives" who get all caught up in your technical complexities.
You belong with Windoze where you can tinker a putter to your heart's content.
If you'd been with Apple over the long term you may recall that there have been numerous transitional phases like the current one in its (you need to learn how to spell "its" like these WITHOUT the apostrophe) history.
True creatives who love Apple products find ways to weather these "storms" and just keep working. The problems get sorted out.
The "Snow Leopard"-class transition is about the move to multi-cores to further satisfy the ever-growing need for more power. There seems to be a "back and forth" between hardware and software, too. The 8-core Pro's have been hobbled by 32-bit software, limiting apps to 4GB RAM. Now that SL is 64-bit, it's up to Adobe, et al, to upgrade to 64-bit and perhaps further optimize for Grand Central.
In the mean time, hardware is making its strides.
It all takes time and patience.
This is no time for Apple to relent and open its systems to tinkerers--especially in light of its current struggles with jackals like Pisstar and others.
I'm personally for simply staying the course and using available Apple systems to the best of my ability to make money and be ready for future upgrades, to both hardware and software.
Why should expecting more from Apple mean that he is whiny if the facts that he stated (which seem to be held up in independent testing) are accurate? Why not debate the facts he presented rather than attacking him? And by the way, if you are going to go after someone for spelling, get it right yourself. It is Windows, not Windoze - that was funny the first time someone said it 15 or 20 years ago. Now, not so much.
In general, people just don't sit down at a mac and say to themselves, "Wow this is slow, I could have got the (insert name brand) processor if I had a choice." Mostly they don't know, mostly they don't care, and mostly they think the Mac is "amazingly fast", "has wonderfully clear graphics" and words to that effect.
I'm not so sure...
I recently cut an HD feature on a MacBook Pro using eSata drives and it all went swimmingly well. Even when I had to resort to USB playback for a brief while (one of the striped drives went south), performance was still fine. Motion and AE also worked flawlessly. So no problems professionally.
HOWEVER... what is becoming an issue isn't so much the speed or power of Apple's offerings, but the lack of what is becoming basic, essential features - the main one being NO HDMI out. This is available on basic netbooks, and with the growing importance of HTPC computers, I'd say this is a GLARING omission.
So.... not defending Psystar's unauthorized selling of OS X-loaded systems, but since when does adding/removing/modifying kexts = copyright infringement? I've purchased hardware that has done that to OS X... is that copyright infringement too?
So.... not defending Psystar's unauthorized selling of OS X-loaded systems, but since when does adding/removing/modifying kexts = copyright infringement? I've purchased hardware that has done that to OS X... is that copyright infringement too?
-Clive
If you remove a KEXT to a system you own then you?re fine.
If you add a KEXT to a system you own then you?re fine.
If you personally modifying a copyrighted code in a KEXT is less clear as it?s not the same as it once was, but if you try to sell it as your work you are fine.
What Psystar has done has nothing to do with what you mention.
The only thing going down the toilet here are all you whiny, delusional, myopic, full-of-yourselves, "calling-yourselves-creatives" who get all caught up in your technical complexities.
Ummm... "calling - yourselves - creatives"...
Seeing as how I'm a professional designer with an education and successful company... I feel I have the right to call myself 'creative'. I get paid a whole lot of money to be creative. And as far as getting all caught up in my "technical complexities", well, that is part of the services I also offer that people pay me lots and lots of money to have a handle on... not unlike many others here.
So i'd have to say your post is
The problem is, I'm having a video card problem, and there is no solution in sight as mum is always the word at Apple.
Don't get me wrong, after working with apple for over 20 years, converting many many people to the platform and going through all the growing pains, I'm still cheering for them and want them to get better.
However, I have some frustrations; Like a company that is drowning in an obscene amount of money can't hire one dude, or a small army, to write some damn drivers for the people who pay a premium price for their products.
So along comes a company that offers a solution, and they get squashed. Sure I understand the entire debate, and I don't necessarily support Pystar in this case... but at the end of the day, there was a solution for my needs and now their is not. Apple seems content to not address my problems, therefore, I'm not a satisfied customer at this moment.
It's hard to extol the virtue's of the Mac when your new one is years behind in technology and sitting in the shop for repairs.
Comments
With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.
Yeah I remember those days. I used Windows and hated Netscape because it was very slow and cost money (initially).
With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.
Which browser engine was better: the licensed Spyglass for IE for Mac v1-v4 and WIndows v1-v3; Tasman for IE 5 for Mac; or Trident starting with IE 4 for Windows?
I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.
Well, Apple's hardware is 'decent.' It is, for the most part, a work of art.
However, Rain has a point on the GPUs. Melgross can't just say 'it's an industry problem' when people commonly extol the virtues of Apple's mono-hardware/software whole widget culture.
If anything Apple should REALLY be on TOP of GPU driver issues seeing as they flagrantly offer limited choice, out of date GPUs that they over charge for where driver issues should have been cracked ages ago. It's not like Apple have as many GPU drivers to support as Windows does?
In that context...Apple's choice of GPU is limited, the drivers mediocre and way overpriced and simply: old. Especially on machines Apple is charging far more for than equivalent PC performance. By a factor of 100% or more in some cases.
Similarly, while the iMac has a stunning screen, the hardware on the low end is out of date. Quad core i5s are cheap. They'll be in low end PCs. Why not low end iMacs?
The Mac Pro and the ancient 30 inch plastic screen LCD look dreadful value for money. An astronomical. £1900 or nearly £2k for a mediocre quad tower in a nice case. Craaaahhhhp gpu and no monitor included. 30 inch LCD? An unbelievable £1300. £3300k for mediocre quad core and an ageing display. Sure makes the quad iMac look a bargain. But only in the context of 'Apple land.'
So, yeah. They could offer some 'decent' hardware at 'decent' prices. Don't hold your breath though. It's not like the Mac Pro couldn't have a better gpu bundled as standard and be given a steeeeeeeeeeeeeep price cut. But at 30 billion and counting...it seems to be working for Apple...to a degree. That still doesn't make the Mac Pro or Mini a value equation in my opinion.
Oh, yeah. Kinda back on topic. Psystar. You got P-owned. Serves you right. And I hope a light is shone on their backers.
But that doesn't mean Apple's desktop line up is perfect. And there's 95% of the PC market that don't want Apple product. And until they access those customer's concerns they will never reach critical mass. For me, that means a price cut, better gpus as standard (ie more vram on them) and a little more desktop choice...and possibly a 'cheaper' laptop/netbook/tablet equiv'.
Lemon Bon Bon.
With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.
The booing had a lot more to do with the browser war raging at that time. The open question was whether Microsoft would be allowed to dominate the internet as they had already come to dominate PCs. So much was at stake that Apple making MSIE the "default" browser for the Mac was considered to be a big deal.
Given the Copyright Directive is more restrictive than the DMCA it is likely Psystar would have done a major crash and burn there too.
If one reads the decision, it can be seen that the DMCA was just one area amongst a bunch of others that the Judge ruled against Psystar.
... Apple should REALLY be on TOP of GPU driver issues seeing as they flagrantly offer limited choice, out of date GPUs that they over charge for where driver issues should have been cracked ages ago. It's not like Apple have as many GPU drivers to support as Windows does?... In that context...Apple's choice of GPU is limited, the drivers mediocre and way overpriced and simply: old. Especially on machines Apple is charging far more for than equivalent PC performance. By a factor of 100% or more in some cases. ....
I've heard this argument again and again over the years, but while it's technically accurate, it's always seemed like more of a red herring to me.
Even the "lamest" of mac hardware (like an old single core PPC mini with integrated graphics), "does the job" that it was intended to do. People are always mentioning that there are faster GPUs or newer ones or whatever, but if you can open and close windows and browse the web the same as with any other PC, and if there are no hangs or glitches, it's really a moot point.
Even on fast windows PC's for instance, many aspects of the OS and the GUI hang or are slow. On a Mac, even with shitty graphics capabilities, you don't tend to see any interface lag at all, so it appears "fast" to the user.
The only time any of the specs you are referring to make any difference is on xbox/ps3 type gaming (something most mac users don't do), or for high end graphic editing (most of which is done on custom hardware.) It's not irrelevant that you can buy more power for less money on the PC side, or that you can get a PC with more up to date (to the minute!), components. But it is mostly unimportant to the vast majority of people buying and using the computer.
If the user doesn't think it's slow, or notice any problem with the graphics, the fact that technically they could have put in a faster CPU or GPU is really not important. You could say that the PC is a better value, but to most people "value" is not based on tech specs alone it's the overall experience.
In general, people just don't sit down at a mac and say to themselves, "Wow this is slow, I could have got the (insert name brand) processor if I had a choice." Mostly they don't know, mostly they don't care, and mostly they think the Mac is "amazingly fast", "has wonderfully clear graphics" and words to that effect.
Sculley's power usage was all about Sculley, Jobs' is all about getting the greatest products created. I prefer the latter.
I don't remember that at all. Scully did a pretty good job at Apple in general. He got into trouble mostly because of Copeland. He wasn't a computer person. Managing reams of programmers who were interested in their own projects more than the overall OS wasn't something he was used to. MS, which should know better has been having the same problem.
His other problem was the Newton. It was released before it was entirely ready. That held sales back, and was one of the main reasons for his demise. Sadly enough, the last version, which appeared later, was much better, and was selling much better when Jobs killed it.
Apple was also a much more open company when Scully was leading it.
The most interesting part for me is how both men measured their words so carefully, to the point of visible discomfort -- especially in Steve's case. This was clearly a very scripted event.
I heard form a good source, (but I can't find it now so I can't say for sure), that the video portion with Bill on the screen, was actually a recording. So it was completely choreographed if that's true.
I heard that mostly in the context of how ironic it was, because Bill would be appearing as a recording on the big screen, just like Big Brother in the original Apple advertisement.
If you read back to the articles run at the time, the general consensus seemed to be that Apple had been saved by Microsoft, a myth that persists to this day. This really reflects the other consensus in play at the time, which is that Bill never loses. This view came for some good reason -- Microsoft was incredibly dominant in those years, and few thought it should be any different. Still this meant that many had such a hard time seeing the deal any other way than yet another big win for Bill.
As for the booing (and cheering), partisanship was so much a part of MacWorld during these years. I attended many of the keynotes in the late '90s and it was always more tent revival than trade show. Mac fans hardly even met another Mac fan except at these events. People who attended knew what side they were on, the embattled one. It was a bit of a bunker mentality, but still, MacWorld was really a lot more fun in those days. By the mid-2000s it felt like only a trade show.
What Apple needed from them, and got, was that 5 year contract to keep developing and selling Office for the Mac. Without that, Apple would have had problems.
That clause only give Congress the right to create Copyright laws the details would fall under other parts. For example one could argue that the extension of old copyrights is a violation of Article I section 9.
One can't argue that. The clause gives Congress the right to do almost anything other than to eliminate the copyright clause itself.
I think it's better to say, "blow their load".
only if you want to be a crude 12 year old.
I heard form a good source, (but I can't find it now so I can't say for sure), that the video portion with Bill on the screen, was actually a recording. So it was completely choreographed if that's true.
I heard that mostly in the context of how ironic it was, because Bill would be appearing as a recording on the big screen, just like Big Brother in the original Apple advertisement.
Could be, but it seems like Bill waited for quite awhile for the boos to let up before he started speaking. Maybe that was all anticipated. The video screen did have a "big brother" quality to it, but can you imagine what would have happened if he'd appeared live on the stage?
What Apple needed from them, and got, was that 5 year contract to keep developing and selling Office for the Mac. Without that, Apple would have had problems.
As a political matter, that announcement was important, but as a practical one, I wonder. At the time, Office 98 was well underway, so all they were really committing to was one more version (which turned out to be Office X). I don't know that Microsoft was on the verge of discontinuing Office for the Mac in any case. But the value of the symbolism was undeniable.
Nope, agreed, Sculley was a power mad, clueless MBA. Sculley's crown jewels should be on show in a large vat of Pepsi, sorry 'sugar water'.
I wonder if with the enormous egos ALL these guys have, if there's some sort of poetic justice that Sculley has to live out his days in a corporate purgatory. One where he's forced to realize not only his role in Apple's downfall, but then be forced to watch its wildly succesful rebirth under his former rival.
Updates always make some things worse. Products are too complex these days. I remember when OS's and programs had NO bugs. But that was in the mid '70's. It's just gone downhill since.
Delusional. All software has bugs. It has always had bugs and always will have bugs.
Its just that what you expect is more complex than it was in the 70's
Eugene Action, one of Psystar's lawyers, said the decision is "ripe for appeal."
"Judge Alsup has written some very well reasoned findings that you couldn't fault, even though they went against us," Action said. "But it looks like ( Friday's ruling) was written by misguided bloggers."
The only thing going down the toilet here are all you whiny, delusional, myopic, full-of-yourselves, "calling-yourselves-creatives" who get all caught up in your technical complexities.
You belong with Windoze where you can tinker a putter to your heart's content.
If you'd been with Apple over the long term you may recall that there have been numerous transitional phases like the current one in its (you need to learn how to spell "its" like these WITHOUT the apostrophe) history.
True creatives who love Apple products find ways to weather these "storms" and just keep working. The problems get sorted out.
The "Snow Leopard"-class transition is about the move to multi-cores to further satisfy the ever-growing need for more power. There seems to be a "back and forth" between hardware and software, too. The 8-core Pro's have been hobbled by 32-bit software, limiting apps to 4GB RAM. Now that SL is 64-bit, it's up to Adobe, et al, to upgrade to 64-bit and perhaps further optimize for Grand Central.
In the mean time, hardware is making its strides.
It all takes time and patience.
This is no time for Apple to relent and open its systems to tinkerers--especially in light of its current struggles with jackals like Pisstar and others.
I'm personally for simply staying the course and using available Apple systems to the best of my ability to make money and be ready for future upgrades, to both hardware and software.
Why should expecting more from Apple mean that he is whiny if the facts that he stated (which seem to be held up in independent testing) are accurate? Why not debate the facts he presented rather than attacking him? And by the way, if you are going to go after someone for spelling, get it right yourself. It is Windows, not Windoze - that was funny the first time someone said it 15 or 20 years ago. Now, not so much.
In general, people just don't sit down at a mac and say to themselves, "Wow this is slow, I could have got the (insert name brand) processor if I had a choice." Mostly they don't know, mostly they don't care, and mostly they think the Mac is "amazingly fast", "has wonderfully clear graphics" and words to that effect.
I'm not so sure...
I recently cut an HD feature on a MacBook Pro using eSata drives and it all went swimmingly well. Even when I had to resort to USB playback for a brief while (one of the striped drives went south), performance was still fine. Motion and AE also worked flawlessly. So no problems professionally.
HOWEVER... what is becoming an issue isn't so much the speed or power of Apple's offerings, but the lack of what is becoming basic, essential features - the main one being NO HDMI out. This is available on basic netbooks, and with the growing importance of HTPC computers, I'd say this is a GLARING omission.
-Clive
So.... not defending Psystar's unauthorized selling of OS X-loaded systems, but since when does adding/removing/modifying kexts = copyright infringement? I've purchased hardware that has done that to OS X... is that copyright infringement too?
-Clive
If you remove a KEXT to a system you own then you?re fine.
If you add a KEXT to a system you own then you?re fine.
If you personally modifying a copyrighted code in a KEXT is less clear as it?s not the same as it once was, but if you try to sell it as your work you are fine.
What Psystar has done has nothing to do with what you mention.
The only thing going down the toilet here are all you whiny, delusional, myopic, full-of-yourselves, "calling-yourselves-creatives" who get all caught up in your technical complexities.
Ummm... "calling - yourselves - creatives"...
Seeing as how I'm a professional designer with an education and successful company... I feel I have the right to call myself 'creative'. I get paid a whole lot of money to be creative. And as far as getting all caught up in my "technical complexities", well, that is part of the services I also offer that people pay me lots and lots of money to have a handle on... not unlike many others here.
So i'd have to say your post is
The problem is, I'm having a video card problem, and there is no solution in sight as mum is always the word at Apple.
Don't get me wrong, after working with apple for over 20 years, converting many many people to the platform and going through all the growing pains, I'm still cheering for them and want them to get better.
However, I have some frustrations; Like a company that is drowning in an obscene amount of money can't hire one dude, or a small army, to write some damn drivers for the people who pay a premium price for their products.
So along comes a company that offers a solution, and they get squashed. Sure I understand the entire debate, and I don't necessarily support Pystar in this case... but at the end of the day, there was a solution for my needs and now their is not. Apple seems content to not address my problems, therefore, I'm not a satisfied customer at this moment.
It's hard to extol the virtue's of the Mac when your new one is years behind in technology and sitting in the shop for repairs.