I'm sure I didn't have it in the first place. But, you know, if I become unpopular because I stand my ground then so be it. If people like you want to suck Apple's cock and dirty your nose with Job's backside be my guest.
I'll stand by and call Apple a chump when I see it. Keep my nose clean and not go down on my boyfriend.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott they can't help it.. when people mention anything Apple does that is bad their apologetic ears burn.
??? Similarly, Apple never made anyone think that they [Apple] were going to swap their Rage Pro for a Rage128 free of charge out of the kindness of their hearts. So what has that got to do with anything?
The point I was trying to make was that both G3 and G4 computers can run OSX and are essentially "OSX ready". However, OSX also has and will include further enhancements that utilize the Altivec unit in only G4-equipped machines. By your strict definition of what counts as "OSX ready", how can any G3 computer be labeled as "OSX ready" when they are fundamentally unequipped with an Altivec unit. Nevertheless, they do run OSX just fine (according to some). They certainly meet the basic "OSX ready" qualification as they are functional to do work on. They just don't meet your strict definition of "OSX ready". In the end, it is largely inconsequential save for a bit of speed- hardly enough to get so upset over, hardly enough to accuse others of "sucking Apple's cock", and hardly enough to accuse others of "happily taking it in the rear by Apple", etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh for one Altivec isn't a Core OS X Technology.
For another Apple specifically said G3s are not Altivec enhanced.
Had Apple made a claim that these ATI cards would not be OpenGL enhanced there would be no problem.
1st - "3-5 year old stuff" problem with your confusion is that ATi doesn't make computers, they make graphics chips, and if you know anything about sentence structure, ie you read, you would see that Apple is paying and ATi is making something. So what does ATi make? Yeah, not computers.
2nd - you still have not stated your purpose, is this too hard for you? What [clearly and concisely] do you mean to accomplish by arguing in this forum?
<strong>2nd - you still have not stated your purpose, is this too hard for you? What [clearly and concisely] do you mean to accomplish by arguing in this forum?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We have to have a "purpose" to post here? I suppose yours is "valid" and others are "invalid". Right?
I asked about a page ago what the goal of the argument you and Sinewave are making is, I am not asking because I think it is valid or invalid I am asking because I can't determine what it is, besides wanting to bitch.
I am asking straight out for you to correct me and tell me what your goal in arguing is, both of you have side stepped my question or completely ignored it.
Now look, Scott - you lash out at me claiming that I am going to call your reason invalid when I ask what your reason is, talk about defensive. Sinewave, you just ignore my request for your purpose all together.
Here is why I am asking:
1st - To try and get this thread back on topic, it has degenerated to name calling and in my opinion should come back to topic or just get locked up because it does not comply with AI's thread policies. The topic was a discussion of support under Mac OS X for early Rage chipsets, not a shouting match, not name calling.
2nd - To figure out what the two of you [Applenut seemed to have left so now it is just Scott and Sinewave] want out of this since you are continuing to fight and bash people. If your goal is to get drivers for the graphics chips calling people here names is not going to get them written, and if you want to convince others of your side, we need to know what that side is.
3rd - To determine who [Apple/ATi] is ultimately responsible to write the drivers, who [Apple/ATi] has access the necessary information to write the drivers. I know that Sinewave and Scott both think Apple is responsible but other than the computers in question having been made by Apple and Apple saying those computers could run Mac OS X, I have seen no conclusive evidence either way. While the "Apple made the claim and the computer" argument does create a logical connection between Apple's products and their responsibility to support those products, the connection is just as well made by the fact that ATi has pledged Mac OS X support and ATi made the graphics chips. Neither is conclusive as to which [Apple/ATi] is responsible for getting it done.
So, can either of you [Scott/Sinewave] answer what your goal/purpose/point/whatever in this argument/discussion/name calling match is?
PS - Scott, no if you want to go through life without a purpose, I spose you don't need one, but if you are pushing an agenda and you want it to succeed it will help your audience to know what that agenda is.
[EDIT ADDED - Sinewave's name at the top by Scott's, the PS note, and clarified some wording in my 3rd statement.]
1st - "3-5 year old stuff" problem with your confusion is that ATi doesn't make computers, they make graphics chips, <hr></blockquote></strong>
We where talking about ATI supporting these machines for OS X. When you said "stuff" I believed "stuff" = computers. Stop being a ass. You know very well you weren't clear on the issue. Your arguing semantics.
[quote]<strong>
and if you know anything about sentence structure, ie you read, you would see that Apple is paying and ATi is making something. So what does ATi make? Yeah, not computers.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No but ATI makes the cards in the computers that aren't supported by OS X.
[quote]<strong>
2nd - you still have not stated your purpose, is this too hard for you? What [clearly and concisely] do you mean to accomplish by arguing in this forum?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know.. what is your purpose? I hadn't said a thing about it till some of you morons starting making fun of the people complaining about a legitimate issue. Like they had no reason to complain. I come in to support them saying I too think it's bogus and I get called a whiner and a moron. You tell me.
3rd - To determine who [Apple/ATi] is ultimately responsible to write the drivers, who [Apple/ATi] has access the necessary information to write the drivers. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again.. it's not up to ATI to back up Apple's claims. It's up to Apple to take the initiative to get it done. ATI did not make the OS X ready claims. Apple is responsible for their own words. Not ATI.
[quote]<strong>
I know that Sinewave and Scott both think Apple is responsible but other than the computers in question having been made by Apple and Apple saying those computers could run Mac OS X, I have seen no conclusive evidence either way.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure you have. Are you saying Apple didn't make claims of OS X readiness?
[quote]<strong>
While the "Apple made the claim and the computer" argument does create a logical connection between Apple's products and their responsibility to support those products, the connection is just as well made by the fact that ATi has pledged Mac OS X support and ATi made the graphics chips. Neither is conclusive as to which [Apple/ATi] is responsible for getting it done.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
[broken record]
Again ATI never made claim that any certain chipset would be OS X ready. ONLY Apple made those claims.[/broken record]
<strong>Sinewave you just misread my post, ignored most of it and again failed to provide an answer to my chief question: what are you trying to accomplish?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did no such thing. I came in here to take up for the people you guys where calling whiners for complaining about this. What are you trying to accomplish?
[quote]<strong>
And in response, ATi has stated Mac OS X compatibility, look on their website.</strong><hr></blockquote>
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.
Not only that I don't see anywhere that ATI states it supports OS X on these chipsets.
In the hopes of confirming that either it is Apple's responsibility or that it is in fact ATi's I am emailing ATi to ask their tech support about their OS X compatibility. I know Sinewave and Scott will tell me that some how asking for the facts from the source that knows is a copout I am going to do it anyway. Here is the little info I found on their site.
This second site states that OEM onboard chipsets are by ATi not "Powered by ATi" and made by someone else.
When I did a search for Mac OS X support I found this statement:
ATI is working with Apple® to complete multimedia support under OS X for supported products. For information regarding OS X technical specifications and release schedule, consult the Apple® web site at <a href="http://www.apple.com."; target="_blank">www.apple.com.</a>
Also of interest:
Will ATI graphics features under Classic be equivalent to those under OS 9.1?
ATI's OpenGL acceleration on Mac OS X has several enhancements over OpenGL under Mac OS 9.1, including improved OpenGL conformance and robustness, support for stencil buffers, and support for all 3 texture units on RADEON. 3D RAVE applications are also hardware accelerated under Classic via OpenGL. Because Classic has different kernel than OS 9, some hardware features that are accessible in Mac OS 9.1 are not accessible in Classic. For this reason, there is no support for some multimedia features under Classic.
"I came in here to take up for the people you guys where calling whiners for complaining about this." - Sinewave
So your sole mission is to defend people who left? Tell me if I understood you correctly.
"What are you trying to accomplish?" - Sinewave
I stated my purpose in my last post:
1) To try and get this thread back on topic from a name calling match.
2) To determine who is really responsible, you have a very logical argument to leave responsibility at Apple's door, however, it is not supported by anything other than logic. It makes sense but that doesn't mean its right, I want to find out for sure if it is right or not.
PS
Anyone notice that I am not arguing, just asking a question or two and saying that we should find out more info? Just how offensive can that be?
<strong>So your sole mission is to defend people who left?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am sure if I stopped posting they would be posting again
[quote]<strong>
I stated my purpose in my last post: to try and get this thread back on topic from a name calling match.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How am I taking it off topic? I have been discussing the poor support for machines Apple claims it was going to support. Wasn't that what this topic was about?
Bogie: "I doubt Apple is willing to [and it does not make sense to] pay ATi as much as they would make working on new products to write new drivers for 3-5 year old stuff."
Sinewave: Yeah it's pretty obvious you was talking about the graphics chip there Bogie. No you didn't make yourself clear as to what "stuff" (a generic term) you was referring to.
No. You are just posting replies to selected lines without looking back at what people said. RazzFazz took the time to state that the 3-5 years in the Bogie/Sinewave exchange referred to the graphics chipset. Mr. Sinewave did not challenge the facts at that time and only claimed that he did not understand the meaning of "stuff" when selected lines were cited to illustrate the discrepancy.
Bogie: "I doubt Apple is willing to [and it does not make sense to] pay ATi as much as they would make working on new products to write new drivers for 3-5 year old stuff."
Sinewave: Yeah it's pretty obvious you was talking about the graphics chip there Bogie. No you didn't make yourself clear as to what "stuff" (a generic term) you was referring to.
No. You are just posting replies to selected lines without looking back at what people said. RazzFazz took the time to state that the 3-5 years in the Bogie/Sinewave exchange referred to the graphics chipset. Mr. Sinewave did not challenge the facts at that time and only claimed that he did not understand the meaning of "stuff" when selected lines were cited to illustrate the discrepancy.
Or SkipJack telling me I have no credibility with bogus proof?
It was not bogus and you are still not taking the entire thread into context, but backpedaling. See the previous comment.
Or Some one hiding behind a nick "AppleApologist" to flame me?
No one is hiding behind the nick AppleApologist.
AppleApologist was used because I was posting from work. You never asked or challenged the remarks.
It just seems no one gets that Apple was the only company that made the OS X ready claims for these machines.
You know, I don't think anyone has disputed this. There has been a debate about whether or not, in certain individual's experience "OS X ready" means the same thing to you as it does to someone else, and you are not respecting their opinion that for their purposes they see nothing wrong with OS X on the computers in question.
I believe people are trying to get a little more information. We already know your opinion and the discussion gets confrontational when people respond to individual lines in in individual posts taking things out of context or without regard to posts which have come before.
As for the Republican comment, I agree that personal, but then that person has not been back.
But the tread up to a point was supportive of the position of Scott H. and applenut until someone had a different opinion, at which point Scott H. coined the Apple Apologist (TM) and started labelling anyone who had a different opinion (whether or not it supported Apple's policy or whether it was just a technical discussion) as openly supportive of Apple's clear intention to defraud the public.
So, again,
For some of us (perhaps because we grew up when sliderules were the rage), OS X works fine. The "power users" should respect that.
For others, OS X is still not adequate. I think we agree on that.
The particular subject is older ATI graphics.
ATI has stated that it will no longer support driver development drivers for those cards.
Apple may or may not have stated that it will no longer develop drivers. Yes, the news media said that Apple would no longer develop drivers, but there are circumstances which indicate that their interpretation might not reflect Apple's intentions.
If Apple has made it the policy that it will never improve the drivers, then some computers will never work to their user's expectations, and those users feel betrayed by Apple. Also, some see this as Apple's planned obsolescence in order to spur their hardware sales. Some people see this as unethical and some see it as "business as usual".
OK, so what can we expect from Apple (whether or not it is the right thing to do)? Do we expect them to submit to pressure, do we expect them to ignore their customers, do we not expect drivers due to technical reasons beyond their control?
I use a stock 9500 with a stock graphics card and a G3/400 upgrade, an original iBook, and a G4/450 Cube. I do some word processing, web surfing/shopping, and programming both in the GUI and in the terminal. OS X is fine for my needs and is at least as comfortable to use as the Dual P3/600 Mhz units with NT 4.0 that I test every day for work.
I believe there may be technical issues which may prevent Apple from developing drivers as demonstrated by the cross-platform difficulties that people are having getting the Rage Pro drivers to work with the newer OSs (both OS X and Win XP). In the case that Apple has stopped work on the drivers as a business decision, I believe that Apple will work on the drivers, but not as a priority (maybe by next year).
If OS X did not work properly on the iBook, then I would feel betrayed by Apple, but in my experience, I haven't seen any problems so don't know what the fuss is about.
Perhaps if people would state some examples, I could be sympathetic, but until then I haven't even heard of any behaviors cited in this thread to look for, except for one comment about playing Quake on an iMac.
Comments
<strong>
I'm sure I didn't have it in the first place. But, you know, if I become unpopular because I stand my ground then so be it. If people like you want to suck Apple's cock and dirty your nose with Job's backside be my guest.
I'll stand by and call Apple a chump when I see it. Keep my nose clean and not go down on my boyfriend.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott they can't help it.. when people mention anything Apple does that is bad their apologetic ears burn.
<strong>Blast from the past. I found a link to this on Apple's Discussion forums.
<a href="http://icq.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2638154,00.html"; target="_blank">Apple: OS X galvanizes modern Macs</a>
I wonder what happened?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What happened was Apple gave it's customers the Shaft?
<strong>
??? Similarly, Apple never made anyone think that they [Apple] were going to swap their Rage Pro for a Rage128 free of charge out of the kindness of their hearts. So what has that got to do with anything?
The point I was trying to make was that both G3 and G4 computers can run OSX and are essentially "OSX ready". However, OSX also has and will include further enhancements that utilize the Altivec unit in only G4-equipped machines. By your strict definition of what counts as "OSX ready", how can any G3 computer be labeled as "OSX ready" when they are fundamentally unequipped with an Altivec unit. Nevertheless, they do run OSX just fine (according to some). They certainly meet the basic "OSX ready" qualification as they are functional to do work on. They just don't meet your strict definition of "OSX ready". In the end, it is largely inconsequential save for a bit of speed- hardly enough to get so upset over, hardly enough to accuse others of "sucking Apple's cock", and hardly enough to accuse others of "happily taking it in the rear by Apple", etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh for one Altivec isn't a Core OS X Technology.
For another Apple specifically said G3s are not Altivec enhanced.
Had Apple made a claim that these ATI cards would not be OpenGL enhanced there would be no problem.
Apple wouldn't have lied.
Again Altivec isn't a CORE OS X Feature.
1st - "3-5 year old stuff" problem with your confusion is that ATi doesn't make computers, they make graphics chips, and if you know anything about sentence structure, ie you read, you would see that Apple is paying and ATi is making something. So what does ATi make? Yeah, not computers.
2nd - you still have not stated your purpose, is this too hard for you? What [clearly and concisely] do you mean to accomplish by arguing in this forum?
<strong>2nd - you still have not stated your purpose, is this too hard for you? What [clearly and concisely] do you mean to accomplish by arguing in this forum?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We have to have a "purpose" to post here? I suppose yours is "valid" and others are "invalid". Right?
I asked about a page ago what the goal of the argument you and Sinewave are making is, I am not asking because I think it is valid or invalid I am asking because I can't determine what it is, besides wanting to bitch.
I am asking straight out for you to correct me and tell me what your goal in arguing is, both of you have side stepped my question or completely ignored it.
Now look, Scott - you lash out at me claiming that I am going to call your reason invalid when I ask what your reason is, talk about defensive. Sinewave, you just ignore my request for your purpose all together.
Here is why I am asking:
1st - To try and get this thread back on topic, it has degenerated to name calling and in my opinion should come back to topic or just get locked up because it does not comply with AI's thread policies. The topic was a discussion of support under Mac OS X for early Rage chipsets, not a shouting match, not name calling.
2nd - To figure out what the two of you [Applenut seemed to have left so now it is just Scott and Sinewave] want out of this since you are continuing to fight and bash people. If your goal is to get drivers for the graphics chips calling people here names is not going to get them written, and if you want to convince others of your side, we need to know what that side is.
3rd - To determine who [Apple/ATi] is ultimately responsible to write the drivers, who [Apple/ATi] has access the necessary information to write the drivers. I know that Sinewave and Scott both think Apple is responsible but other than the computers in question having been made by Apple and Apple saying those computers could run Mac OS X, I have seen no conclusive evidence either way. While the "Apple made the claim and the computer" argument does create a logical connection between Apple's products and their responsibility to support those products, the connection is just as well made by the fact that ATi has pledged Mac OS X support and ATi made the graphics chips. Neither is conclusive as to which [Apple/ATi] is responsible for getting it done.
So, can either of you [Scott/Sinewave] answer what your goal/purpose/point/whatever in this argument/discussion/name calling match is?
PS - Scott, no if you want to go through life without a purpose, I spose you don't need one, but if you are pushing an agenda and you want it to succeed it will help your audience to know what that agenda is.
[EDIT ADDED - Sinewave's name at the top by Scott's, the PS note, and clarified some wording in my 3rd statement.]
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Bogie ]</p>
<strong>Sinewave-
1st - "3-5 year old stuff" problem with your confusion is that ATi doesn't make computers, they make graphics chips, <hr></blockquote></strong>
We where talking about ATI supporting these machines for OS X. When you said "stuff" I believed "stuff" = computers. Stop being a ass. You know very well you weren't clear on the issue. Your arguing semantics.
[quote]<strong>
and if you know anything about sentence structure, ie you read, you would see that Apple is paying and ATi is making something. So what does ATi make? Yeah, not computers.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No but ATI makes the cards in the computers that aren't supported by OS X.
[quote]<strong>
2nd - you still have not stated your purpose, is this too hard for you? What [clearly and concisely] do you mean to accomplish by arguing in this forum?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know.. what is your purpose? I hadn't said a thing about it till some of you morons starting making fun of the people complaining about a legitimate issue. Like they had no reason to complain. I come in to support them saying I too think it's bogus and I get called a whiner and a moron. You tell me.
<strong>
3rd - To determine who [Apple/ATi] is ultimately responsible to write the drivers, who [Apple/ATi] has access the necessary information to write the drivers. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again.. it's not up to ATI to back up Apple's claims. It's up to Apple to take the initiative to get it done. ATI did not make the OS X ready claims. Apple is responsible for their own words. Not ATI.
[quote]<strong>
I know that Sinewave and Scott both think Apple is responsible but other than the computers in question having been made by Apple and Apple saying those computers could run Mac OS X, I have seen no conclusive evidence either way.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure you have. Are you saying Apple didn't make claims of OS X readiness?
[quote]<strong>
While the "Apple made the claim and the computer" argument does create a logical connection between Apple's products and their responsibility to support those products, the connection is just as well made by the fact that ATi has pledged Mac OS X support and ATi made the graphics chips. Neither is conclusive as to which [Apple/ATi] is responsible for getting it done.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
[broken record]
Again ATI never made claim that any certain chipset would be OS X ready. ONLY Apple made those claims.[/broken record]
And in response, ATi has stated Mac OS X compatibility, look on their website.
<strong>Sinewave you just misread my post, ignored most of it and again failed to provide an answer to my chief question: what are you trying to accomplish?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did no such thing. I came in here to take up for the people you guys where calling whiners for complaining about this. What are you trying to accomplish?
[quote]<strong>
And in response, ATi has stated Mac OS X compatibility, look on their website.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://support.ati.com/products/mac/motherboards/index.html"; target="_blank">http://support.ati.com/products/mac/motherboards/index.html</a>;
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.
Not only that I don't see anywhere that ATI states it supports OS X on these chipsets.
In the hopes of confirming that either it is Apple's responsibility or that it is in fact ATi's I am emailing ATi to ask their tech support about their OS X compatibility. I know Sinewave and Scott will tell me that some how asking for the facts from the source that knows is a copout I am going to do it anyway. Here is the little info I found on their site.
<a href="http://support.ati.com/"; target="_blank">http://support.ati.com/</a>;
BUILT BY ATI
ATI Retail products are manufactured by ATI and may be identified by the "BUILT BY ATI" logo.
"BUILT BY ATI" products will also have a 100 part number on the retail packaging, as well as a 102 part number on the PC Board.
support on BUILT BY ATI products
POWERED BY ATI
ATI also provides graphics chips and technology to third party vendors or partners.
Graphic cards produced by these vendors may be identified by the ?POWERED BY ATI? logo.
support information on your POWERED BY ATI partner product
<a href="http://support.ati.com/products/mac/index.html"; target="_blank">http://support.ati.com/products/mac/index.html</a>;
This second site states that OEM onboard chipsets are by ATi not "Powered by ATi" and made by someone else.
When I did a search for Mac OS X support I found this statement:
ATI is working with Apple® to complete multimedia support under OS X for supported products. For information regarding OS X technical specifications and release schedule, consult the Apple® web site at <a href="http://www.apple.com."; target="_blank">www.apple.com.</a>
Also of interest:
Will ATI graphics features under Classic be equivalent to those under OS 9.1?
ATI's OpenGL acceleration on Mac OS X has several enhancements over OpenGL under Mac OS 9.1, including improved OpenGL conformance and robustness, support for stencil buffers, and support for all 3 texture units on RADEON. 3D RAVE applications are also hardware accelerated under Classic via OpenGL. Because Classic has different kernel than OS 9, some hardware features that are accessible in Mac OS 9.1 are not accessible in Classic. For this reason, there is no support for some multimedia features under Classic.
So your sole mission is to defend people who left? Tell me if I understood you correctly.
"What are you trying to accomplish?" - Sinewave
I stated my purpose in my last post:
1) To try and get this thread back on topic from a name calling match.
2) To determine who is really responsible, you have a very logical argument to leave responsibility at Apple's door, however, it is not supported by anything other than logic. It makes sense but that doesn't mean its right, I want to find out for sure if it is right or not.
PS
Anyone notice that I am not arguing, just asking a question or two and saying that we should find out more info? Just how offensive can that be?
[EDIT ADDED: #2 and PS note]
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Bogie ]</p>
<strong>So your sole mission is to defend people who left?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am sure if I stopped posting they would be posting again
[quote]<strong>
I stated my purpose in my last post: to try and get this thread back on topic from a name calling match.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How am I taking it off topic? I have been discussing the poor support for machines Apple claims it was going to support. Wasn't that what this topic was about?
What are the major points I've hit on from that start? Go back and read.
<strong>
I come in to support them saying I too think it's bogus and I get called a whiner and a moron. You tell me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
(I really wanted to keep myself out of this thread, but I just can't help it, sorry.)
Sinewave, as far as I can remember, the *ONLY* one who repeatedly called others morons in this thread are *YOU*.
Bye,
RazzFazz
Bogie: "I doubt Apple is willing to [and it does not make sense to] pay ATi as much as they would make working on new products to write new drivers for 3-5 year old stuff."
Sinewave: Yeah it's pretty obvious you was talking about the graphics chip there Bogie. No you didn't make yourself clear as to what "stuff" (a generic term) you was referring to.
No. You are just posting replies to selected lines without looking back at what people said. RazzFazz took the time to state that the 3-5 years in the Bogie/Sinewave exchange referred to the graphics chipset. Mr. Sinewave did not challenge the facts at that time and only claimed that he did not understand the meaning of "stuff" when selected lines were cited to illustrate the discrepancy.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</p>
<strong>
(I really wanted to keep myself out of this thread, but I just can't help it, sorry.)
Sinewave, as far as I can remember, the *ONLY* one who repeatedly called others morons in this thread are *YOU*.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really you didn't see Scott H. do it? Or how about.
Or Codename making fun of someone cause they was Republican?
Or applenut calling people dumbasses?
Or BuonRotto calling people obnoxious telling people that the are having tantrums?
Or Kuku calling people cranky old foggy's or wussies and whiners?
Or DaveGee making fun on someone cause they are from the Bronx?
Or Bogie calling me a spammer and saying I am being "too bitchy"?
Or SkipJack telling me I have no credibility with bogus proof?
Or Some one hiding behind a nick "AppleApologist" to flame me?
Do you have selective site?
Not that these people doing it somehow justifies me doing it.
It just seems no one gets that Apple was the only company that made the OS X ready claims for these machines.
<strong>From a post by Sinewave:
Bogie: "I doubt Apple is willing to [and it does not make sense to] pay ATi as much as they would make working on new products to write new drivers for 3-5 year old stuff."
Sinewave: Yeah it's pretty obvious you was talking about the graphics chip there Bogie. No you didn't make yourself clear as to what "stuff" (a generic term) you was referring to.
No. You are just posting replies to selected lines without looking back at what people said. RazzFazz took the time to state that the 3-5 years in the Bogie/Sinewave exchange referred to the graphics chipset. Mr. Sinewave did not challenge the facts at that time and only claimed that he did not understand the meaning of "stuff" when selected lines were cited to illustrate the discrepancy.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bogie wasn't being clear and expected people to read his mind. "How are you not know what I am talking about!"
<strong>Isn't my goal obvious?
What are the major points I've hit on from that start? Go back and read.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott ignore it.. they obviously just want to argue semantics now.
It was not bogus and you are still not taking the entire thread into context, but backpedaling. See the previous comment.
Or Some one hiding behind a nick "AppleApologist" to flame me?
No one is hiding behind the nick AppleApologist.
AppleApologist was used because I was posting from work. You never asked or challenged the remarks.
It just seems no one gets that Apple was the only company that made the OS X ready claims for these machines.
You know, I don't think anyone has disputed this. There has been a debate about whether or not, in certain individual's experience "OS X ready" means the same thing to you as it does to someone else, and you are not respecting their opinion that for their purposes they see nothing wrong with OS X on the computers in question.
I believe people are trying to get a little more information. We already know your opinion and the discussion gets confrontational when people respond to individual lines in in individual posts taking things out of context or without regard to posts which have come before.
As for the Republican comment, I agree that personal, but then that person has not been back.
But the tread up to a point was supportive of the position of Scott H. and applenut until someone had a different opinion, at which point Scott H. coined the Apple Apologist (TM) and started labelling anyone who had a different opinion (whether or not it supported Apple's policy or whether it was just a technical discussion) as openly supportive of Apple's clear intention to defraud the public.
So, again,
For some of us (perhaps because we grew up when sliderules were the rage), OS X works fine. The "power users" should respect that.
For others, OS X is still not adequate. I think we agree on that.
The particular subject is older ATI graphics.
ATI has stated that it will no longer support driver development drivers for those cards.
Apple may or may not have stated that it will no longer develop drivers. Yes, the news media said that Apple would no longer develop drivers, but there are circumstances which indicate that their interpretation might not reflect Apple's intentions.
If Apple has made it the policy that it will never improve the drivers, then some computers will never work to their user's expectations, and those users feel betrayed by Apple. Also, some see this as Apple's planned obsolescence in order to spur their hardware sales. Some people see this as unethical and some see it as "business as usual".
OK, so what can we expect from Apple (whether or not it is the right thing to do)? Do we expect them to submit to pressure, do we expect them to ignore their customers, do we not expect drivers due to technical reasons beyond their control?
I use a stock 9500 with a stock graphics card and a G3/400 upgrade, an original iBook, and a G4/450 Cube. I do some word processing, web surfing/shopping, and programming both in the GUI and in the terminal. OS X is fine for my needs and is at least as comfortable to use as the Dual P3/600 Mhz units with NT 4.0 that I test every day for work.
I believe there may be technical issues which may prevent Apple from developing drivers as demonstrated by the cross-platform difficulties that people are having getting the Rage Pro drivers to work with the newer OSs (both OS X and Win XP). In the case that Apple has stopped work on the drivers as a business decision, I believe that Apple will work on the drivers, but not as a priority (maybe by next year).
If OS X did not work properly on the iBook, then I would feel betrayed by Apple, but in my experience, I haven't seen any problems so don't know what the fuss is about.
Perhaps if people would state some examples, I could be sympathetic, but until then I haven't even heard of any behaviors cited in this thread to look for, except for one comment about playing Quake on an iMac.