At the point at which it became clear that OS X wouldn't run snappily on a G3/233, what do you think Apple should have done? Announced as soon as possible "Okay, never mind, maybe next year's computers will be snappier, so hold off buying until then"?
The plaintiffs aren't asking the court to order Apple to add floppy disk and proper SCSI support to the operating system. They're asking for a refund of copies of OS X, 10.1, their computers, their peripherals, etc. etc. This is an attempt by the plaintiffs' attorneys to pry some cash out of Apple. Nothing more. Nobody's trying to stick it to Apple about WWDC promises of years past. They just want the money, preferably to scare Apple into settling before the case goes to trial.
As other people have asked: is there something wrong with running OS 9 on your G3/233? I thought it was more responsive and better looking than OS X. Now we're trying to have it both ways?
So the specifications for OS X creeped in the last five years. Big f-ing deal. It's called software development. Specs creep. Grow up.
And no, I don't have a dual-1Ghz. I have a G3/400, and X runs fine for me.
Out of interest, are you using your Mac as a server, or a development box? Or both?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I use one site for learning and testing stuff, another is the dev server for macwrite.com along wiht another site for testing out new ideas for macwrite.com then I have my business site dev server, and the actual domain hosted on my computer web only (well it only gets 20 hits a month and I am broke and can't afford hosting for it).
I think the MySQL server is was slows my computer down (256.5 TeraByte mysql file in tmp?)
The plantiffs do have some points. But, I don't think it will go anywhere. Apple is not legally bound by its public statements at all times. And, they have since amended their statements to basicially say "we are not going to support system X, Y and Z"
I think a massive letter campaign might be a good idea. I also think these people might have a case for a refund on the purchase price of OS X. If Apple said the system was supported, then it should work....with ALL functions. They may not run well, but they should either run or be labled as non-supported functions in advance.
Not much to happen here. Can you imagine M$ getting sued because Win95 didn't run to well on a 100MHZ 486 with 8MB of RAM.....they said it would but let me tell you....it didn't work too well!!!!!
If you go to the <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html"; target="_blank">Mac OS X Supported systems</a> page, it does show the Beige G3, All iMac's, iBook, B&W G3's, and G4's are supported (and PowerBooks excluding the orginal PowerBook G3).
I agree that for the PowerMac's there will be required maintainance on your computer over a 3-4 year period
?RAM
?Video Card
?USB/Firewire (Beige G3)
?Harddrive upgrade
I have done all these and my computer is running alot better (in Mac OS 9 that is) and is faster in Mac OS X thanks the RAM.
I am not whining, I am just trying to figure this thing out. I was excepting Mac oS X to run at acceptable levels on this computer with the latest version through 10.5 (or 2004).
I was thinking it wouldn't be until Mac OS 10.3 until we saw Mac OS X fully optimzed for all the machines. I just hope with 10.2 this computer gets alot faster. Mac OS X should run @about 80-90% of what Mac OS 9 ran in speed on your Mac.
I'll chip in with my experience. I purchased a 333 MHz "Lombard" model powerbook back in 1999 and run OS X on it exclusively. The only update that was required to make OS X run respectably was the addition of 128 MB of RAM.
If I want to watch a DVD I boot to OS 9. It's not like I need to use iPhoto or Word v.X while I'm watching a movie.
I simply do not notice "redraw" issues or slowness. Sure, it's slower than my 533 MHz G4 desktop, it's also two years older! This machine meets and exceeds every promise that Apple made regarding OS X.
Apple has made me a fan by wrapping a gorgeous interface around a solid core. I don't use OS 9 any more and see no need. This lawsuit is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
[quote]I purchased a 333 MHz "Lombard" model powerbook back in 1999 and run OS X on it exclusively. The only update that was required to make OS X run respectably was the addition of 128 MB of RAM.<hr></blockquote>
of course people have different standards of what they consider "respectably". yours are obviously very low. mine are obviously mid-high.
[quote]
If I want to watch a DVD I boot to OS 9. It's not like I need to use iPhoto or Word v.X while I'm watching a movie. <hr></blockquote>
so we should be forced to restart to gain functionality and have to live in a dual boot life. talk about the macintosh way, this sounds awfully similar to the things we would rip into MS and Windows about.
sad how people come to just accept these things when there is no technical reason that DVD Playback won't work in OS X.
[quote]
I simply do not notice "redraw" issues or slowness.<hr></blockquote>
yea, right... everyone admits they are there. APPLE admits they are there but some how you are immune? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[quote]Sure, it's slower than my 533 MHz G4 desktop, it's also two years older!<hr></blockquote>
no one is saying it should be as faster or faster
[quote]This machine meets and exceeds every promise that Apple made regarding OS X<hr></blockquote>
according to who? you? certainly not apple. I think you should go back and look into that because you are wrong
[quote]
Apple has made me a fan by wrapping a gorgeous interface around a solid core. I don't use OS 9 any more and see no need. This lawsuit is nothing more than a publicity stunt. <hr></blockquote>
awww.... OS X is pretty so you are happy.... how sweet
You are so dumb. I wonder if he really thinks that OS X is good just because of how it looks. But thne again you prbably dont care about what it looks like at all. You are the type of person that has no apreciation for art or craftsmanship.
<strong>You are so dumb. I wonder if he really thinks that OS X is good just because of how it looks. But thne again you prbably dont care about what it looks like at all. You are the type of person that has no apreciation for art or craftsmanship.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yea, right.. being the son of a carpenter/sculptor I think I have a extremely high appreciation for art and craftmanship.
don't open your mouth anymore. you enever back up your posts and just make dumb statements. are you not smart enough to respond? it sure seems that way.
yea, right.. being the son of a carpenter/sculptor I think I have a extremely high appreciation for art and craftmanship.
don't open your mouth anymore. you enever back up your posts and just make dumb statements. are you not smart enough to respond? it sure seems that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
applenut, are you OK? You are really a bitch latley!
Nutty and I just like to argue about everything. I just think that it is a waste of our time and Apple's to try to get them to support 3-year old hardware that they already support through another mechanism (Mac OS 9).
You and I both would love to see everything supported in X. Sure I was miffed when they revealed that the DVD player would never run on my Powerbook.
However, I would rather see Apple spend time accelerating performance for the new GF4Ti cards instead of coding in support for hardware-based DVD playback.
I haven't been on these threads very long (its getting harder to find a mac in the uk these days - I'm posting this on a compaq (Ugh) ) so I don't know if applenut is being more acetic than normal.
What I do know is that he has some very good points here.
Moreover this is not about the worth of OS X or the G3 or what constitutes respectable performance etc. at all.
this suit is really quite simple. Apple made certain claims about OS X and the G3. they didn't stick to those claims hence a lot of people are rightly furious. That's the key thing - apple made certain claims about OS X and the G3.
If Ford released a brand new engine that used a new type of fuel and said that the same fule would be optimised to run with older engines then you might feel more comfortable about switching to the new fuel. However, just how pissed off would you be when you found that using the new fuel on your older ford worked - but spewed fumes, burned more oil, lowered the efficiency of the car and replacement parts that you added to the engine no longer worked - they just got clogged up?
BTW a small family sized car here in the uk costs about the same as a global media sattelite.
Finally, how old is macintosh? he seems a little on the young side.
yea, right.. being the son of a carpenter/sculptor I think I have a extremely high appreciation for art and craftmanship.
don't open your mouth anymore. you enever back up your posts and just make dumb statements. are you not smart enough to respond? it sure seems that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, well being the son of a mechanic I would think that I have a good feeling for how a engine works and how to diagnose problems with it, but in reality I would need training for that. Just because I am a mechanics son does not mean that I am a mechanic as well.
When it comes to craftsmanship in software there are some things you can do to point to how good/bad something is but it is also very subjective. In my opinion OS X is gorgeous, and has a very nice interface with a solid and robust core. You on the other hand have some legitimate gripes with the OS that you then apply to the rest of it to say that the OS is then just crap unless it is done the way you want it. (I realize you don't think this totally, but your posts sure come across that way lately)
And more on topic, I still feel that the lawsuit as it is proposed right now is rediculous. Apple will likely win if it even makes it to court.
Comments
The plaintiffs aren't asking the court to order Apple to add floppy disk and proper SCSI support to the operating system. They're asking for a refund of copies of OS X, 10.1, their computers, their peripherals, etc. etc. This is an attempt by the plaintiffs' attorneys to pry some cash out of Apple. Nothing more. Nobody's trying to stick it to Apple about WWDC promises of years past. They just want the money, preferably to scare Apple into settling before the case goes to trial.
As other people have asked: is there something wrong with running OS 9 on your G3/233? I thought it was more responsive and better looking than OS X. Now we're trying to have it both ways?
So the specifications for OS X creeped in the last five years. Big f-ing deal. It's called software development. Specs creep. Grow up.
And no, I don't have a dual-1Ghz. I have a G3/400, and X runs fine for me.
<strong>I need Mac OS X, cuase OS 9 can't do the things i need to do.
?Apache
?PHP
?MySQL</strong><hr></blockquote>
Out of interest, are you using your Mac as a server, or a development box? Or both?
<strong>
Out of interest, are you using your Mac as a server, or a development box? Or both?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I use one site for learning and testing stuff, another is the dev server for macwrite.com along wiht another site for testing out new ideas for macwrite.com then I have my business site dev server, and the actual domain hosted on my computer web only (well it only gets 20 hits a month and I am broke and can't afford hosting for it).
I think the MySQL server is was slows my computer down (256.5 TeraByte mysql file in tmp?)
I think a massive letter campaign might be a good idea. I also think these people might have a case for a refund on the purchase price of OS X. If Apple said the system was supported, then it should work....with ALL functions. They may not run well, but they should either run or be labled as non-supported functions in advance.
Not much to happen here. Can you imagine M$ getting sued because Win95 didn't run to well on a 100MHZ 486 with 8MB of RAM.....they said it would but let me tell you....it didn't work too well!!!!!
I agree that for the PowerMac's there will be required maintainance on your computer over a 3-4 year period
?RAM
?Video Card
?USB/Firewire (Beige G3)
?Harddrive upgrade
I have done all these and my computer is running alot better (in Mac OS 9 that is) and is faster in Mac OS X thanks the RAM.
I am not whining, I am just trying to figure this thing out. I was excepting Mac oS X to run at acceptable levels on this computer with the latest version through 10.5 (or 2004).
I was thinking it wouldn't be until Mac OS 10.3 until we saw Mac OS X fully optimzed for all the machines. I just hope with 10.2 this computer gets alot faster. Mac OS X should run @about 80-90% of what Mac OS 9 ran in speed on your Mac.
If I want to watch a DVD I boot to OS 9. It's not like I need to use iPhoto or Word v.X while I'm watching a movie.
I simply do not notice "redraw" issues or slowness. Sure, it's slower than my 533 MHz G4 desktop, it's also two years older! This machine meets and exceeds every promise that Apple made regarding OS X.
Apple has made me a fan by wrapping a gorgeous interface around a solid core. I don't use OS 9 any more and see no need. This lawsuit is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
of course people have different standards of what they consider "respectably". yours are obviously very low. mine are obviously mid-high.
[quote]
If I want to watch a DVD I boot to OS 9. It's not like I need to use iPhoto or Word v.X while I'm watching a movie. <hr></blockquote>
so we should be forced to restart to gain functionality and have to live in a dual boot life. talk about the macintosh way, this sounds awfully similar to the things we would rip into MS and Windows about.
sad how people come to just accept these things when there is no technical reason that DVD Playback won't work in OS X.
[quote]
I simply do not notice "redraw" issues or slowness.<hr></blockquote>
yea, right... everyone admits they are there. APPLE admits they are there but some how you are immune? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[quote]Sure, it's slower than my 533 MHz G4 desktop, it's also two years older!<hr></blockquote>
no one is saying it should be as faster or faster
[quote]This machine meets and exceeds every promise that Apple made regarding OS X<hr></blockquote>
according to who? you? certainly not apple. I think you should go back and look into that because you are wrong
[quote]
Apple has made me a fan by wrapping a gorgeous interface around a solid core. I don't use OS 9 any more and see no need. This lawsuit is nothing more than a publicity stunt. <hr></blockquote>
awww.... OS X is pretty so you are happy.... how sweet
<strong>You are so dumb. I wonder if he really thinks that OS X is good just because of how it looks. But thne again you prbably dont care about what it looks like at all. You are the type of person that has no apreciation for art or craftsmanship.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yea, right.. being the son of a carpenter/sculptor I think I have a extremely high appreciation for art and craftmanship.
don't open your mouth anymore. you enever back up your posts and just make dumb statements. are you not smart enough to respond? it sure seems that way.
<strong>
yea, right.. being the son of a carpenter/sculptor I think I have a extremely high appreciation for art and craftmanship.
don't open your mouth anymore. you enever back up your posts and just make dumb statements. are you not smart enough to respond? it sure seems that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
applenut, are you OK? You are really a bitch latley!
You and I both would love to see everything supported in X. Sure I was miffed when they revealed that the DVD player would never run on my Powerbook.
However, I would rather see Apple spend time accelerating performance for the new GF4Ti cards instead of coding in support for hardware-based DVD playback.
Simple priorities.
:eek:
What I do know is that he has some very good points here.
Moreover this is not about the worth of OS X or the G3 or what constitutes respectable performance etc. at all.
this suit is really quite simple. Apple made certain claims about OS X and the G3. they didn't stick to those claims hence a lot of people are rightly furious. That's the key thing - apple made certain claims about OS X and the G3.
If Ford released a brand new engine that used a new type of fuel and said that the same fule would be optimised to run with older engines then you might feel more comfortable about switching to the new fuel. However, just how pissed off would you be when you found that using the new fuel on your older ford worked - but spewed fumes, burned more oil, lowered the efficiency of the car and replacement parts that you added to the engine no longer worked - they just got clogged up?
BTW a small family sized car here in the uk costs about the same as a global media sattelite.
Finally, how old is macintosh? he seems a little on the young side.
someone else noticed? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
yea, right.. being the son of a carpenter/sculptor I think I have a extremely high appreciation for art and craftmanship.
don't open your mouth anymore. you enever back up your posts and just make dumb statements. are you not smart enough to respond? it sure seems that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, well being the son of a mechanic I would think that I have a good feeling for how a engine works and how to diagnose problems with it, but in reality I would need training for that. Just because I am a mechanics son does not mean that I am a mechanic as well.
When it comes to craftsmanship in software there are some things you can do to point to how good/bad something is but it is also very subjective. In my opinion OS X is gorgeous, and has a very nice interface with a solid and robust core. You on the other hand have some legitimate gripes with the OS that you then apply to the rest of it to say that the OS is then just crap unless it is done the way you want it. (I realize you don't think this totally, but your posts sure come across that way lately)
And more on topic, I still feel that the lawsuit as it is proposed right now is rediculous. Apple will likely win if it even makes it to court.