And what common definition is that? Hahhah I haven't seen such a load of horshit in my life. </strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said before, "this hardware is xy-ready" is nowadays almost always used to express that it will run xy, nothing more.
[quote]<strong>
These computer will run OS X and will take advantage of most* of OS X's technologies
*No open GL on these rage chipsets
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But there ***IS*** OpenGL, even if you have a Rage card. The screen does *not* stay all black. You can do OpenGL, but it's dog slow. Yet it is there.
[quote]<strong>Saying a computer is OS X ready is saying it takes advantage of all of OS X's technologies.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it's saying OS X works on this computer, and is supported on this computer. Besides, the computer in question *does* take advantage of OS X' technologies, it's the other way round that's the problem (i.e. OS X does not take advantage of all of the computers technologies).
[quote]<strong>
These computers are NOT OS X ready. Apple lied. I doubt it was intentional. But you can't just BS then not take responsibilities for your actions or words. When you do that you lose credibility and trust.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, as stated before, I don't agree on this one (even though I admit providing those dirvers would be a nice thing for Apple to do), but then again the two of us will probably never agree about that.
OS X partially runs on these machines. Again.. these machines where not "OS X Ready" as Apple claimed them to be. Some of the Core of OS X doesn't work. And it hasn't from the start. And according to Apple it wont. Apple DID claim it would be OS X Ready. Having a chipset that doesn't support one of the core features in OS X is hardly OS X ready </strong><hr></blockquote>
But it *does* work. You *do* get OpenGL, the screen does *not* stay black. Even those games *could* technically run, they just say "oh, there's no harware acceleration in here, so it's probably too slow, so I'll just quit and give an error".
The iBook that is not supported came out a year before OS X was shipped. Having a OS not support a computer that is only a year old is unreasonable, and unjustifiable. It's nonsense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nonetheless, the Rage Pro was already aeons old at that time. Thus, the "3-5 year old chip" term was correct. Didn't mean to imply anything more.
Well, according to *your* definition of the term "OS X ready".
[quote]<strong>
Making excuses and apologetic arguments only makes you look like a simpleton Mac zealot.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about you just let other people have different opinions from yours? Even if you don't understand them or disagree, this does not make everyone else stupid RDFed idiots, you know?
[quote]<strong>
Some people for some reason have a hard time admitting that a company that makes a product they really like can do wrong. I have seen it in the car industry.. the video game console industry to the computer industries. You're love for the product is in such a zealous nature that you make to make excuses and justify the reasoning of wrong doings by these companies you see in your eyes can do no wrong.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So everyone who has a different opinion about this issue than you have is automatically a Mac-zealot because they are too "blinded" to see your only true way of seeing things? You don't really seem too willing to accept others' standpoints either, so where's the difference?
Of course, you think that *your* point of view is objectively correct (and the others are not), but that's exactly what the others think about *their* point of view.
Could you please show me some documentation on this?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I'm afraid I can't -- this stuff isn't documented, and most of what I know comes from lurking a couple of years back on the Apple OpenGL mailing lists and from my own work on the PC dealing with these stupid ATI chips (via DirectX, primarily, and talking to the ATI technical reps that come by to visit us on a regular basis). If you sift through a lot of hard-to-find mailing list archives you could gather the details.
All I can tell you is from my personal experience under Windows. The early ATI, S3, and other "2.5 D" chips suck. In many cases it is better to have the CPU do the 3D rendering because it can cut corners, do exactly what you want, and do it faster. When writing an OpenGL driver, however, the driver writer does not know what the application wants, so it cannot cut corners and still be correct. If it is not correct, the application will not work. If it is correct, the software rasterizer runs exceedingly slowly -- I'm talking many seconds per frame in some cases on the CPUs we're talking about here.
A similar principle applies to the QuickTime acceleration. The way these early ATI chips implement the YUV overlays & blit functions is very constrained and will not work in a properly organized & protected OS like MacOS X. Weird things happen like a particular colour being the chromakey, or there being exactly one overlay available and it has to be aligned & sized in VRAM in some special way.
I'm going to drop this argument at this point because I cannot produce the proof that you desire. You feel burned, and I understand that. My point is only that there are legit technical reasons why a driver implementation for these graphics chips is not feasible under the new MacOS X enviroment, and that aside from the OpenGL & QuickTime features MacOS X does run on the machines in question. Functionality is limited, but then functionality is always limited by your hardware (performance is affected by RAM and disk space, for example). Apple never claimed that all features of MacOS X would work on all machines (hence my earlier comparison to SCSI support). The fact that MacOS X OpenGL isn't supported doesn't prevent you from switching back to MacOS 9 and using its OpenGL implementation.
As I said before, "this hardware is xy-ready" is nowadays almost always used to express that it will run xy, nothing more.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Really? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Not from where I am from. OS X ready means that computer is ready for OS X. These computer are obviously not.
[quote]<strong>
But there ***IS*** OpenGL, even if you have a Rage card. The screen does *not* stay all black. You can do OpenGL, but it's dog slow. Yet it is there.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And it's unusable. Not because the computer is too slow. But because Apple didn't back up it's promise
[quote]<strong>
No, it's saying OS X works on this computer, and is supported on this computer. Besides, the computer in question *does* take advantage of OS X' technologies, it's the other way round that's the problem (i.e. OS X does not take advantage of all of the computers technologies).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ahaha aaaaah "OS X isn't the problem it's the computers that doesn't support it" is basically what your saying. Either way Apple lied.
[quote]<strong>
Well, as stated before, I don't agree on this one (even though I admit providing those dirvers would be a nice thing for Apple to do), but then again the two of us will probably never agree about that.
But it *does* work. You *do* get OpenGL, the screen does *not* stay black. Even those games *could* technically run, they just say "oh, there's no harware acceleration in here, so it's probably too slow, so I'll just quit and give an error".
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but the point of open gl is gone then. Might as well not have it. That is like saying "OH OS X support network connections.. just only at 1.2kps"
Nonetheless, the Rage Pro was already aeons old at that time. Thus, the "3-5 year old chip" term was correct. Didn't mean to imply anything more.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh it doesn't matter son. How is that the consumers fault? It isn't Apple needs to compensate for that. Why should I buy a new Mac when it might be outdated in a year?
Well, according to *your* definition of the term "OS X ready".
<hr></blockquote></strong>
According to the rational non-apologist definition of it I mean. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
ow about you just let other people have different opinions from yours? Even if you don't understand them or disagree, this does not make everyone else stupid RDFed idiots, you know?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Did I say you couldn't have your own opinion? No I didn't. I have the right to tell you I think your opinion is FOS right? When the shoe fits..
[quote]<strong>
o everyone who has a different opinion about this issue than you have is automatically a Mac-zealot because they are too "blinded" to see your only true way of seeing things?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No not everyone. Just the ones that make bizarro apologist examples to try to justify Apple lying to it's customer base.
[quote]<strong>
You don't really seem too willing to accept others' standpoints either, so where's the difference?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am not being blinded by some zealous fervor I have for a company? That is the only way I could explain someone actually justifying Apple shitting down the customers throat.
[quote]<strong>
Of course, you think that *your* point of view is objectively correct (and the others are not), but that's exactly what the others think about *their* point of view.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And I have every right to tell them they are morons for thinking it.
Sorry, I'm afraid I can't -- this stuff isn't documented, and most of what I know comes from lurking a couple of years back on the Apple OpenGL mailing lists and from my own work on the PC dealing with these stupid ATI chips (via DirectX, primarily, and talking to the ATI technical reps that come by to visit us on a regular basis). If you sift through a lot of hard-to-find mailing list archives you could gather the details.
All I can tell you is from my personal experience under Windows. The early ATI, S3, and other "2.5 D" chips suck. In many cases it is better to have the CPU do the 3D rendering because it can cut corners, do exactly what you want, and do it faster. When writing an OpenGL driver, however, the driver writer does not know what the application wants, so it cannot cut corners and still be correct. If it is not correct, the application will not work. If it is correct, the software rasterizer runs exceedingly slowly -- I'm talking many seconds per frame in some cases on the CPUs we're talking about here.
A similar principle applies to the QuickTime acceleration. The way these early ATI chips implement the YUV overlays & blit functions is very constrained and will not work in a properly organized & protected OS like MacOS X. Weird things happen like a particular colour being the chromakey, or there being exactly one overlay available and it has to be aligned & sized in VRAM in some special way.
I'm going to drop this argument at this point because I cannot produce the proof that you desire. You feel burned, and I understand that. My point is only that there are legit technical reasons why a driver implementation for these graphics chips is not feasible under the new MacOS X enviroment, and that aside from the OpenGL & QuickTime features MacOS X does run on the machines in question. Functionality is limited, but then functionality is always limited by your hardware (performance is affected by RAM and disk space, for example). Apple never claimed that all features of MacOS X would work on all machines (hence my earlier comparison to SCSI support). The fact that MacOS X OpenGL isn't supported doesn't prevent you from switching back to MacOS 9 and using its OpenGL implementation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah so no proof.. no pudding. Next time don't state something fact that you can't back up
Apple didn't tell it's customers that functionality would be limited. Apple would not have sold as many machines had they done so. Apple committed false advertisement and didn't explain why. Too bad we are just supposed to take it up the ass and not complain. Bite the pillow and take the screwin. I don't think it's gonna happen that way.
I think all people want is for their computers to be OS X ready like Apple told them it would be when they bought their computers. That isn't much to ask considering Apple said it would be at the time. It isn't too much to ask for a company to keep it's word. No matter how much little giving these computers acceleration support will speed them it is besides the point.
I think people can handle their older computer not running as fast as a newer one does. This isn't what people are complaining about. They are complaining that Apple lied to them. Apple got them to buy a product on the bases it would be OS X ready. That product according to Apple will never be OS X ready. How hard is this for you guys to understand?
Especially when some of these computers were not even a year old when OS X shipped. There is no excuse for it.
If Apple keeps doing things like this it will indeed be burying itself. Consumers will only take so much abuse and will only put up with so many lies.
Apple is in no situation to be pulling shit like this it doesn't have the 80% + mkt share to lose a few customers here and there.
"Apple got them to buy a product on the bases it would be OS X ready. That product according to Apple will never be OS X ready."
This is the crux of your argument. It is based on a MacCentral article written about an Apple TIL which is 9 months old and half the time has not even been cited accurately. So, tell me, where is your proof as to Apple's intentions? Apple clearly states to use the latest version of OS X. Does that mean this whole thread comes down to an interpretation of the word "further" as meaning "future" rather than "additional"?
This is the crux of your argument. It is based on a MacCentral article written about an Apple TIL which is 9 months old and half the time has not even been cited accurately. So, tell me, where is your proof as to Apple's intentions? Apple clearly states to use the latest version of OS X. Does that mean this whole thread comes down to an interpretation of the word "further" as meaning "future" rather than "additional"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple's web page stated with a bursts "OS X Ready!" all over there site when these computers where out. What are you talking about? OS X NEVER supported these machines. When part of the OS isn't supported that machine isn't "ready" for that OS X. Plain and simple. There is no BS'ing your way around that.
What are YOU talking about. I've just tried to pull together different references available. In fact, can you point out anywhere that I've said anything supporting Apple? I'm just trying to get some facts here rather than you trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you WITHOUT giving any concrete references.
So what is this "What are you talking about?" What in particular have I said that you are questioning?
What are YOU talking about. I've just tried to pull together different references available. In fact, can you point out anywhere that I've said anything supporting Apple? I'm just trying to get some facts here rather than you trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you WITHOUT giving any concrete references.
So what is this "What are you talking about?" What in particular have I said that you are questioning?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I am meaning you claim Apple never made such claims. Apple INDEED did. You made claims that I based my reasoning on some MacNN article I have never read. That isn't so. It's a known fact Apple advertised these computers as "OS X READY"
I am meaning you claim Apple never made such claims.
No so. If you read my post, I said that my interpretation is probably not correct. But my point was until Apple tells us what they meant, since, by taking into account the statement by ATI, what they said does not definitively state their position, you cannot claim that, "... And according to Apple it wont. ..."
Now if you are saying that, in your experience, Apple has shown by their actions that they are reluctant to support older hardware, then I can accept that simply stated claim.
However, you are stating "Apple this" and "Apple that" based on some festering idea, and I don't believe you have sufficient cause to be asserting it as fact.
"OS X Ready" means OS X support the hardware and runs no it. If Apple meant anything other than that they where trying to deceive the consumers. And that is just as bad.
<strong>"OS X Ready" means OS X support the hardware and runs no it. If Apple meant anything other than that they where trying to deceive the consumers. And that is just as bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But with those OS X Ready signs they pretty much put it next to anything with the 128MB required RAM.
Comments
<strong>
And what common definition is that? Hahhah I haven't seen such a load of horshit in my life. </strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said before, "this hardware is xy-ready" is nowadays almost always used to express that it will run xy, nothing more.
[quote]<strong>
These computer will run OS X and will take advantage of most* of OS X's technologies
*No open GL on these rage chipsets
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But there ***IS*** OpenGL, even if you have a Rage card. The screen does *not* stay all black. You can do OpenGL, but it's dog slow. Yet it is there.
[quote]<strong>Saying a computer is OS X ready is saying it takes advantage of all of OS X's technologies.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it's saying OS X works on this computer, and is supported on this computer. Besides, the computer in question *does* take advantage of OS X' technologies, it's the other way round that's the problem (i.e. OS X does not take advantage of all of the computers technologies).
[quote]<strong>
These computers are NOT OS X ready. Apple lied. I doubt it was intentional. But you can't just BS then not take responsibilities for your actions or words. When you do that you lose credibility and trust.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, as stated before, I don't agree on this one (even though I admit providing those dirvers would be a nice thing for Apple to do), but then again the two of us will probably never agree about that.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
OS X partially runs on these machines. Again.. these machines where not "OS X Ready" as Apple claimed them to be. Some of the Core of OS X doesn't work. And it hasn't from the start. And according to Apple it wont. Apple DID claim it would be OS X Ready. Having a chipset that doesn't support one of the core features in OS X is hardly OS X ready
But it *does* work. You *do* get OpenGL, the screen does *not* stay black. Even those games *could* technically run, they just say "oh, there's no harware acceleration in here, so it's probably too slow, so I'll just quit and give an error".
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>[/qb]
The iBook that is not supported came out a year before OS X was shipped. Having a OS not support a computer that is only a year old is unreasonable, and unjustifiable. It's nonsense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nonetheless, the Rage Pro was already aeons old at that time. Thus, the "3-5 year old chip" term was correct. Didn't mean to imply anything more.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Again Apple is the one that made the claims.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, according to *your* definition of the term "OS X ready".
[quote]<strong>
Making excuses and apologetic arguments only makes you look like a simpleton Mac zealot.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about you just let other people have different opinions from yours? Even if you don't understand them or disagree, this does not make everyone else stupid RDFed idiots, you know?
[quote]<strong>
Some people for some reason have a hard time admitting that a company that makes a product they really like can do wrong. I have seen it in the car industry.. the video game console industry to the computer industries. You're love for the product is in such a zealous nature that you make to make excuses and justify the reasoning of wrong doings by these companies you see in your eyes can do no wrong.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So everyone who has a different opinion about this issue than you have is automatically a Mac-zealot because they are too "blinded" to see your only true way of seeing things? You don't really seem too willing to accept others' standpoints either, so where's the difference?
Of course, you think that *your* point of view is objectively correct (and the others are not), but that's exactly what the others think about *their* point of view.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Could you please show me some documentation on this?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I'm afraid I can't -- this stuff isn't documented, and most of what I know comes from lurking a couple of years back on the Apple OpenGL mailing lists and from my own work on the PC dealing with these stupid ATI chips (via DirectX, primarily, and talking to the ATI technical reps that come by to visit us on a regular basis). If you sift through a lot of hard-to-find mailing list archives you could gather the details.
All I can tell you is from my personal experience under Windows. The early ATI, S3, and other "2.5 D" chips suck. In many cases it is better to have the CPU do the 3D rendering because it can cut corners, do exactly what you want, and do it faster. When writing an OpenGL driver, however, the driver writer does not know what the application wants, so it cannot cut corners and still be correct. If it is not correct, the application will not work. If it is correct, the software rasterizer runs exceedingly slowly -- I'm talking many seconds per frame in some cases on the CPUs we're talking about here.
A similar principle applies to the QuickTime acceleration. The way these early ATI chips implement the YUV overlays & blit functions is very constrained and will not work in a properly organized & protected OS like MacOS X. Weird things happen like a particular colour being the chromakey, or there being exactly one overlay available and it has to be aligned & sized in VRAM in some special way.
I'm going to drop this argument at this point because I cannot produce the proof that you desire. You feel burned, and I understand that. My point is only that there are legit technical reasons why a driver implementation for these graphics chips is not feasible under the new MacOS X enviroment, and that aside from the OpenGL & QuickTime features MacOS X does run on the machines in question. Functionality is limited, but then functionality is always limited by your hardware (performance is affected by RAM and disk space, for example). Apple never claimed that all features of MacOS X would work on all machines (hence my earlier comparison to SCSI support). The fact that MacOS X OpenGL isn't supported doesn't prevent you from switching back to MacOS 9 and using its OpenGL implementation.
<strong>
As I said before, "this hardware is xy-ready" is nowadays almost always used to express that it will run xy, nothing more.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Really? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Not from where I am from. OS X ready means that computer is ready for OS X. These computer are obviously not.
[quote]<strong>
But there ***IS*** OpenGL, even if you have a Rage card. The screen does *not* stay all black. You can do OpenGL, but it's dog slow. Yet it is there.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And it's unusable. Not because the computer is too slow. But because Apple didn't back up it's promise
[quote]<strong>
No, it's saying OS X works on this computer, and is supported on this computer. Besides, the computer in question *does* take advantage of OS X' technologies, it's the other way round that's the problem (i.e. OS X does not take advantage of all of the computers technologies).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ahaha aaaaah "OS X isn't the problem it's the computers that doesn't support it" is basically what your saying. Either way Apple lied.
[quote]<strong>
Well, as stated before, I don't agree on this one (even though I admit providing those dirvers would be a nice thing for Apple to do), but then again the two of us will probably never agree about that.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well your wrong on this one.
<strong>
But it *does* work. You *do* get OpenGL, the screen does *not* stay black. Even those games *could* technically run, they just say "oh, there's no harware acceleration in here, so it's probably too slow, so I'll just quit and give an error".
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but the point of open gl is gone then. Might as well not have it. That is like saying "OH OS X support network connections.. just only at 1.2kps"
<strong>
Nonetheless, the Rage Pro was already aeons old at that time. Thus, the "3-5 year old chip" term was correct. Didn't mean to imply anything more.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh it doesn't matter son. How is that the consumers fault? It isn't Apple needs to compensate for that. Why should I buy a new Mac when it might be outdated in a year?
Your reasoning amuses me.
<strong>
Well, according to *your* definition of the term "OS X ready".
<hr></blockquote></strong>
According to the rational non-apologist definition of it I mean. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
ow about you just let other people have different opinions from yours? Even if you don't understand them or disagree, this does not make everyone else stupid RDFed idiots, you know?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Did I say you couldn't have your own opinion? No I didn't. I have the right to tell you I think your opinion is FOS right? When the shoe fits..
[quote]<strong>
o everyone who has a different opinion about this issue than you have is automatically a Mac-zealot because they are too "blinded" to see your only true way of seeing things?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No not everyone. Just the ones that make bizarro apologist examples to try to justify Apple lying to it's customer base.
[quote]<strong>
You don't really seem too willing to accept others' standpoints either, so where's the difference?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am not being blinded by some zealous fervor I have for a company? That is the only way I could explain someone actually justifying Apple shitting down the customers throat.
[quote]<strong>
Of course, you think that *your* point of view is objectively correct (and the others are not), but that's exactly what the others think about *their* point of view.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And I have every right to tell them they are morons for thinking it.
<strong>
Sorry, I'm afraid I can't -- this stuff isn't documented, and most of what I know comes from lurking a couple of years back on the Apple OpenGL mailing lists and from my own work on the PC dealing with these stupid ATI chips (via DirectX, primarily, and talking to the ATI technical reps that come by to visit us on a regular basis). If you sift through a lot of hard-to-find mailing list archives you could gather the details.
All I can tell you is from my personal experience under Windows. The early ATI, S3, and other "2.5 D" chips suck. In many cases it is better to have the CPU do the 3D rendering because it can cut corners, do exactly what you want, and do it faster. When writing an OpenGL driver, however, the driver writer does not know what the application wants, so it cannot cut corners and still be correct. If it is not correct, the application will not work. If it is correct, the software rasterizer runs exceedingly slowly -- I'm talking many seconds per frame in some cases on the CPUs we're talking about here.
A similar principle applies to the QuickTime acceleration. The way these early ATI chips implement the YUV overlays & blit functions is very constrained and will not work in a properly organized & protected OS like MacOS X. Weird things happen like a particular colour being the chromakey, or there being exactly one overlay available and it has to be aligned & sized in VRAM in some special way.
I'm going to drop this argument at this point because I cannot produce the proof that you desire. You feel burned, and I understand that. My point is only that there are legit technical reasons why a driver implementation for these graphics chips is not feasible under the new MacOS X enviroment, and that aside from the OpenGL & QuickTime features MacOS X does run on the machines in question. Functionality is limited, but then functionality is always limited by your hardware (performance is affected by RAM and disk space, for example). Apple never claimed that all features of MacOS X would work on all machines (hence my earlier comparison to SCSI support). The fact that MacOS X OpenGL isn't supported doesn't prevent you from switching back to MacOS 9 and using its OpenGL implementation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah so no proof.. no pudding. Next time don't state something fact that you can't back up
Apple didn't tell it's customers that functionality would be limited. Apple would not have sold as many machines had they done so. Apple committed false advertisement and didn't explain why. Too bad we are just supposed to take it up the ass and not complain. Bite the pillow and take the screwin. I don't think it's gonna happen that way.
I think people can handle their older computer not running as fast as a newer one does. This isn't what people are complaining about. They are complaining that Apple lied to them. Apple got them to buy a product on the bases it would be OS X ready. That product according to Apple will never be OS X ready. How hard is this for you guys to understand?
Especially when some of these computers were not even a year old when OS X shipped. There is no excuse for it.
If Apple keeps doing things like this it will indeed be burying itself. Consumers will only take so much abuse and will only put up with so many lies.
Apple is in no situation to be pulling shit like this it doesn't have the 80% + mkt share to lose a few customers here and there.
talk about spam
ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
"Apple got them to buy a product on the bases it would be OS X ready. That product according to Apple will never be OS X ready."
This is the crux of your argument. It is based on a MacCentral article written about an Apple TIL which is 9 months old and half the time has not even been cited accurately. So, tell me, where is your proof as to Apple's intentions? Apple clearly states to use the latest version of OS X. Does that mean this whole thread comes down to an interpretation of the word "further" as meaning "future" rather than "additional"?
<strong>ahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha h
talk about spam
ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha</strong><hr></blockquote>
[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sinewave:
This is the crux of your argument. It is based on a MacCentral article written about an Apple TIL which is 9 months old and half the time has not even been cited accurately. So, tell me, where is your proof as to Apple's intentions? Apple clearly states to use the latest version of OS X. Does that mean this whole thread comes down to an interpretation of the word "further" as meaning "future" rather than "additional"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple's web page stated with a bursts "OS X Ready!" all over there site when these computers where out. What are you talking about? OS X NEVER supported these machines. When part of the OS isn't supported that machine isn't "ready" for that OS X. Plain and simple. There is no BS'ing your way around that.
[QB]
"What are you talking about?"
What are YOU talking about. I've just tried to pull together different references available. In fact, can you point out anywhere that I've said anything supporting Apple? I'm just trying to get some facts here rather than you trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you WITHOUT giving any concrete references.
So what is this "What are you talking about?" What in particular have I said that you are questioning?
What are YOU talking about. I've just tried to pull together different references available. In fact, can you point out anywhere that I've said anything supporting Apple? I'm just trying to get some facts here rather than you trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you WITHOUT giving any concrete references.
So what is this "What are you talking about?" What in particular have I said that you are questioning?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I am meaning you claim Apple never made such claims. Apple INDEED did. You made claims that I based my reasoning on some MacNN article I have never read. That isn't so. It's a known fact Apple advertised these computers as "OS X READY"
[QB]
I am meaning you claim Apple never made such claims.
No so. If you read my post, I said that my interpretation is probably not correct. But my point was until Apple tells us what they meant, since, by taking into account the statement by ATI, what they said does not definitively state their position, you cannot claim that, "... And according to Apple it wont. ..."
Now if you are saying that, in your experience, Apple has shown by their actions that they are reluctant to support older hardware, then I can accept that simply stated claim.
However, you are stating "Apple this" and "Apple that" based on some festering idea, and I don't believe you have sufficient cause to be asserting it as fact.
<strong>"OS X Ready" means OS X support the hardware and runs no it. If Apple meant anything other than that they where trying to deceive the consumers. And that is just as bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But with those OS X Ready signs they pretty much put it next to anything with the 128MB required RAM.