[quote]So your basically saying any company that makes it big practices illegal anti-competitive behavior?<hr></blockquote>
Yes.
(you're)
[quote]And that somehow justifies MS in doing so?<hr></blockquote>
It depends on what kind of justification you're looking for?
Legal? Apparently not.
[quote]Yup.. groverat the self-proclaimed genius.<hr></blockquote>
My only claim is to an intelligence superior to yours and, believe me, it doesn't take genius-level to get there.
[quote]No obsession here.. your the one claiming MS gained it's market share purely out of having better products than the competition and not cause of anti-competitive behavior.<hr></blockquote>
You're
Having better products is anti-competitive. You're hurting your competition by releasing good products. You've got to look a little deeper if you want to be serious about it.
Microsoft did dominate the market by having a better product (for the environment). It ran on more varied hardware and was/is pretty flexible. But that's a side-issue and nothing at all to do with the subject.
[quote]Want me to go find you some direct quotes you made?<hr></blockquote>
It depends on what kind of justification you're looking for?
Legal? Apparently not.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Legally certainly not. Morally not.. what other way would it be ok?
[quote]<strong>
My only claim is to an intelligence superior to yours and, believe me, it doesn't take genius-level to get there<hr></blockquote></strong>
The only thing your superior at grover is dodging things when your wrong.. or putting words in people's mouths son. You obviously have a over-inflated opinion of yourself. I remember when you talked shit about eating everyone at Macmonkey for lunch. I think your stomach wasn't as big as your mouth was huh?
[quote]<strong>
Having better products is anti-competitive. You're hurting your competition by releasing good products. You've got to look a little deeper if you want to be serious about it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No that is competing. When you use your monopoly to gain other ones without competing with quality is where the anti-competitive behavior comes into effect. See that is what MS did. But again your trying to justify their actions. And again your being a apologist.
[quote]<strong>
Microsoft did dominate the market by having a better product (for the environment). It ran on more varied hardware and was/is pretty flexible. But that's a side-issue and nothing at all to do with the subject.<hr></blockquote></strong>
MS got the monopoly by it's anti-competitive licensing deals with major PC clone vendors. Practices the Gov put a stop to in 1990. Not because DOS was better. But a apologist wouldn't see it that way I guess.
Yeah MS is known for quality 1st rate software all right.
I don't think you can you (TM) trade marked without a lawyer and a good amount in your checking account. Perhaps you mean Patented.
Scott is a cranky old foggy. Enough said.
I really don't see what the big deal is. Computer users especially in the IBM compatible PC world expects this.
The usual about 4yr depreciation thing had been recorded since the 90s(boy it sounds so old now).
AND no where does it say anything about "not working" , it's saying "not optimized further" which can mean many things and that's like saying My Windows95,98,ME will not be "blue screened any less" or Adobe Photoshop 1-6.x will not be updated any further, go after 7.
Call me a cynic, but I sincerely doubt there are huge corporations out there who haven't bent quite a few rules in the name of progress.
I'd love to be proven wrong, I would be genuinely glad to find one.
MS was able to get vendors to sign those restrictive contracts because. . . Microsoft had the best available product for them to use. Microsoft wasn't a bully monopoly from the get-go. At one point they were tiny small and worked their way to a point where they had a monopoly to illegally leverage.
(And no one disputes that they broke those rules, I don't know why you keep dragging them up as if they are some revelation to those of us sinners who have never heard of it. We know, you drag it into damn near every goddam thread you're involved in if you're given the opportunity. Let it go.)
[quote]or putting words in people's mouths son.<hr></blockquote>
Oooh, a nice bit of sanctimony there, sinewave. Isn't this basically what you've done in this thread, stating for me what I think and then attacking my phantom thoughts?
I don't even think I need to be involved, you seem to be able to have the argument with me by yourself.
[quote]I remember when you talked shit about eating everyone at Macmonkey for lunch. I think your stomach wasn't as big as your mouth was huh?<hr></blockquote>
GET IN MAH BELLY!!
Microsoft does make pretty damn good software. Not perfect, of course, but it's good.
<strong>I don't think you can you (TM) trade marked without a lawyer and a good amount in your checking account. Perhaps you mean Patented.
Scott is a cranky old foggy. Enough said.
I really don't see what the big deal is. Computer users especially in the IBM compatible PC world expects this.
The usual about 4yr depreciation thing had been recorded since the 90s(boy it sounds so old now).
AND no where does it say anything about "not working" , it's saying "not optimized further" which can mean many things and that's like saying My Windows95,98,ME will not be "blue screened any less" or Adobe Photoshop 1-6.x will not be updated any further, go after 7.
Apple just pulled a rare one here. It's how the world works, live with it. Jump off a bridge and swear off the IT sector if you can't handle it.
I think from Tidus : Whining make one feel better, But that's cause they're wussies. =p
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>
4 years, yes, I can see a machine being unsupported. But less than 2 years? That's ludicrous. iBook SE 366 is not supported. That's insane. And I'm a self-proclaimed Apple Apologist.
<strong>I don't think you can you (TM) trade marked without a lawyer and a good amount in your checking account. Perhaps you mean Patented.
Scott is a cranky old foggy. Enough said.
I really don't see what the big deal is. Computer users especially in the IBM compatible PC world expects this.
The usual about 4yr depreciation thing had been recorded since the 90s(boy it sounds so old now).
AND no where does it say anything about "not working" , it's saying "not optimized further" which can mean many things and that's like saying My Windows95,98,ME will not be "blue screened any less" or Adobe Photoshop 1-6.x will not be updated any further, go after 7.
<strong>I don't think you can you (TM) trade marked without a lawyer and a good amount in your checking account. Perhaps you mean Patented.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. You can use a Trademark? anytime you want. You need the lawyer and checking account for a Registered Trademark®.
Systems affected by this problem include "beige" Power Mac G3 models; iMacs running at 233-333MHz; PowerBook G3 "Wall Street" and "Lombard" models; and the original iBook. All of these computers utilize ATI RAGE II+, IIc, Pro, Pro Turbo, LT Pro or Mobility chip variants.
<hr></blockquote>
Original ibooks was introduced in Sept 99 That's near the end of the depreciation curve. Well depending on what kind of depreciation technic is used...still kind of over the hill.
Still the key word here is "further" which is just saying "As is" as all computers are.
I should ignore it, but isn't repetitive "quote" "/quote" copy, paste, post considered spamming? If it continues there should be some temp bans issued.
[quote]Original ibooks was introduced in Sept 99 That's near the end of the depreciation curve. Well depending on what kind of depreciation technic is used...still kind of over the hill.<hr></blockquote>
listen up. you just don't get it. iBook SE, 2000 does not have graphic acceleration. do you relealize how dumb and insane that is? if not please leave now. it uses the same graphic cip. so if apple wrote a driver for a 1 and a half year old computer they would support all previous rage pro macs. not that difficult.
and this is not whether or not you consider a 1999 mac "old". You are an idiot if you think that is too old to be supported. These machines were said to be fully OS X compatible. When the iMac was released. Apple said it would be what OS X's requirements were to be based on.
[quote]I should ignore it, but isn't repetitive "quote" "/quote" copy, paste, post considered spamming? If it continues there should be some temp bans issued.<hr></blockquote>
uh... what the hell are you talking about <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
The world doesn't revolve around you, applenut. I 'get it' perfectly, I just don't believe it. Choose your words better.
There was never 'full' support. Your perfect world doesn't exist. I can't really see how people can think such a thing. If your computer crashes, restart. If continues to crash, trouble shoot. Calling up technical support is not going to magically make it work again. They can give you tips but that's all they can do. But the burden will still be in your hands.
Live with it. Argue the reasoning, yes, but you're just whinning at this point.
Spamming --> unwanted junk ---> repetitive copy and pasting with no usefulness.
And don't do that apple apologist, I never mentioned apple once above. It's should be basic knowledge. Forest Gump : Shit happens
Call me whatever you want, but is it so hard to immagine that the requirements for OS X have changed in the last 2 years? They work in OS X, just not very well... Look at alot of Nvidia cards and XP, many new(er) Nvidia boards (mainly GF 2's from Wintek) do not work well in XP, yet they still work....
There was never 'full' support. Your perfect world doesn't exist. I can't really see how people can think such a thing. If your computer crashes, restart. If continues to crash, trouble shoot. Calling up technical support is not going to magically make it work again. They can give you tips but that's all they can do. But the burden will still be in your hands.<hr></blockquote>
and this has WHAT to do with OpenGL drivers?
[quote]Live with it. Argue the reasoning, yes, but you're just whinning at this point.<hr></blockquote>
whing about what? Is anyone who complains about Apple and what they don't do a whiner to you???
[quote]Spamming --> unwanted junk ---> repetitive copy and pasting with no usefulness.<hr></blockquote>
serves a very good purpose. it helps address specific points and helps organize a response. the majority of the members here do it the exact same way. If you do not like I would suggest you leave.
[quote]Call me whatever you want, but is it so hard to immagine that the requirements for OS X have changed in the last 2 years? They work in OS X, just not very well... Look at alot of Nvidia cards and XP, many new(er) Nvidia boards (mainly GF 2's from Wintek) do not work well in XP, yet they still work.... <hr></blockquote>
uh... they don't work at all. 3d does not work at all. qt acceleration does not work at all. hardware decoding does not work at all.
and you people making a point that 1999 is old and should be considered legacy and that's why Apple doesn't support it:
then why do they fully support my PMG4 released in 99?
I do think it sucks for those that were hoping to be able to run OS X on their current Macs (e.g. early iMacs and Beige G3s). However, if you have used OS X, you quickly learn that it was NOT designed to run on slower systems.
You have to remember, when designing an OS you (or any system for that matter: PS/PS2) you have to make design decisions. Do you "hobble" your system to support legacy apps/hardware, or do you design for the future?
It is quite apparant IMHO that Apple has chosen the path of the future. I'm sure they were well aware that they might piss off some users, but personally, I would rather have a "forward-thinking" OS than a "looking-back" OS.
For those that have Macs that aren't supported, take solice in that you will be able to continue to run OS 9 for the life of the machine, including your current apps. Macs last a long time, and if your current apps meet your needs then you'll be fine.
PS - My aunt has an older Mac running OS 7.x and it meets her needs just fine--for now at least
<strong>I do think it sucks for those that were hoping to be able to run OS X on their current Macs (e.g. early iMacs and Beige G3s). However, if you have used OS X, you quickly learn that it was NOT designed to run on slower systems.
You have to remember, when designing an OS you (or any system for that matter: PS/PS2) you have to make design decisions. Do you "hobble" your system to support legacy apps/hardware, or do you design for the future?
It is quite apparant IMHO that Apple has chosen the path of the future. I'm sure they were well aware that they might piss off some users, but personally, I would rather have a "forward-thinking" OS than a "looking-back" OS.
For those that have Macs that aren't supported, take solice in that you will be able to continue to run OS 9 for the life of the machine, including your current apps. Macs last a long time, and if your current apps meet your needs then you'll be fine.
PS - My aunt has an older Mac running OS 7.x and it meets her needs just fine--for now at least </strong><hr></blockquote>
Original ibooks was introduced in Sept 99 That's near the end of the depreciation curve. Well depending on what kind of depreciation technic is used...still kind of over the hill.
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please.. Apple claimed OS X would support this computer. OS X doesn't. This computer was a year old when OS X came out. It didn't support it then. It doesn't support it now. I can remember when I could install a new Mac OS on a 4 year old Mac and it would support it just fine. Next year will OS X not support the TiBooks as well? I sure as hell hope not. This is making me question my next computer purchase indeed.
<strong>The world doesn't revolve around you, applenut. I 'get it' perfectly, I just don't believe it. Choose your words better.
There was never 'full' support. Your perfect world doesn't exist. I can't really see how people can think such a thing. If your computer crashes, restart. If continues to crash, trouble shoot. Calling up technical support is not going to magically make it work again. They can give you tips but that's all they can do. But the burden will still be in your hands.
Live with it. Argue the reasoning, yes, but you're just whinning at this point.
Spamming --> unwanted junk ---> repetitive copy and pasting with no usefulness.
And don't do that apple apologist, I never mentioned apple once above. It's should be basic knowledge. Forest Gump : Shit happens
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>
What they are complaining about is Apple lied. People bought computers thinking OS X was going to support them cause Apple told them it would. Now Apple is saying OS X wont support these computers fully. People have EVERY right to be pissed. It's called false advertising. Apple could very well be sued for such a thing.
<strong>Call me whatever you want, but is it so hard to immagine that the requirements for OS X have changed in the last 2 years? They work in OS X, just not very well... Look at alot of Nvidia cards and XP, many new(er) Nvidia boards (mainly GF 2's from Wintek) do not work well in XP, yet they still work....</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't matter how old. Apple said it would work. It doesn't. OpenGL is apart of the OS. If a part of the OS isn't supported than that OS doesn't support that computer. Apple didn't put these machines out saying "OS X will run on these computers but it wont fully support them" You think Apple would have sold as many iBooks that they did if they said that? No.
Comments
Yes.
(you're)
[quote]And that somehow justifies MS in doing so?<hr></blockquote>
It depends on what kind of justification you're looking for?
Legal? Apparently not.
[quote]Yup.. groverat the self-proclaimed genius.<hr></blockquote>
My only claim is to an intelligence superior to yours and, believe me, it doesn't take genius-level to get there.
[quote]No obsession here.. your the one claiming MS gained it's market share purely out of having better products than the competition and not cause of anti-competitive behavior.<hr></blockquote>
You're
Having better products is anti-competitive. You're hurting your competition by releasing good products. You've got to look a little deeper if you want to be serious about it.
Microsoft did dominate the market by having a better product (for the environment). It ran on more varied hardware and was/is pretty flexible. But that's a side-issue and nothing at all to do with the subject.
[quote]Want me to go find you some direct quotes you made?<hr></blockquote>
Sure, have at.
<strong>
Yes<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well you would be wrong then.
[quote]<strong>
It depends on what kind of justification you're looking for?
Legal? Apparently not.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Legally certainly not. Morally not.. what other way would it be ok?
[quote]<strong>
My only claim is to an intelligence superior to yours and, believe me, it doesn't take genius-level to get there<hr></blockquote></strong>
The only thing your superior at grover is dodging things when your wrong.. or putting words in people's mouths son. You obviously have a over-inflated opinion of yourself. I remember when you talked shit about eating everyone at Macmonkey for lunch. I think your stomach wasn't as big as your mouth was huh?
[quote]<strong>
Having better products is anti-competitive. You're hurting your competition by releasing good products. You've got to look a little deeper if you want to be serious about it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No that is competing. When you use your monopoly to gain other ones without competing with quality is where the anti-competitive behavior comes into effect. See that is what MS did. But again your trying to justify their actions. And again your being a apologist.
[quote]<strong>
Microsoft did dominate the market by having a better product (for the environment). It ran on more varied hardware and was/is pretty flexible. But that's a side-issue and nothing at all to do with the subject.<hr></blockquote></strong>
MS got the monopoly by it's anti-competitive licensing deals with major PC clone vendors. Practices the Gov put a stop to in 1990. Not because DOS was better. But a apologist wouldn't see it that way I guess.
Yeah MS is known for quality 1st rate software all right.
[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]
[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
Scott is a cranky old foggy. Enough said.
I really don't see what the big deal is. Computer users especially in the IBM compatible PC world expects this.
The usual about 4yr depreciation thing had been recorded since the 90s(boy it sounds so old now).
AND no where does it say anything about "not working" , it's saying "not optimized further" which can mean many things and that's like saying My Windows95,98,ME will not be "blue screened any less" or Adobe Photoshop 1-6.x will not be updated any further, go after 7.
Anyone remember Connextic Speed doubler, RAM doubler, Abobe type manager, etc...
Apple just pulled a rare one here. It's how the world works, live with it. Jump off a bridge and swear off the IT sector if you can't handle it.
I think from Tidus : Whining make one feel better, But that's cause they're wussies. =p
~Kuku
You are an ass
[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
I'd love to be proven wrong, I would be genuinely glad to find one.
MS was able to get vendors to sign those restrictive contracts because. . . Microsoft had the best available product for them to use. Microsoft wasn't a bully monopoly from the get-go. At one point they were tiny small and worked their way to a point where they had a monopoly to illegally leverage.
(And no one disputes that they broke those rules, I don't know why you keep dragging them up as if they are some revelation to those of us sinners who have never heard of it. We know, you drag it into damn near every goddam thread you're involved in if you're given the opportunity. Let it go.)
[quote]or putting words in people's mouths son.<hr></blockquote>
Oooh, a nice bit of sanctimony there, sinewave. Isn't this basically what you've done in this thread, stating for me what I think and then attacking my phantom thoughts?
I don't even think I need to be involved, you seem to be able to have the argument with me by yourself.
[quote]I remember when you talked shit about eating everyone at Macmonkey for lunch. I think your stomach wasn't as big as your mouth was huh?<hr></blockquote>
GET IN MAH BELLY!!
Microsoft does make pretty damn good software. Not perfect, of course, but it's good.
<strong>I don't think you can you (TM) trade marked without a lawyer and a good amount in your checking account. Perhaps you mean Patented.
Scott is a cranky old foggy. Enough said.
I really don't see what the big deal is. Computer users especially in the IBM compatible PC world expects this.
The usual about 4yr depreciation thing had been recorded since the 90s(boy it sounds so old now).
AND no where does it say anything about "not working" , it's saying "not optimized further" which can mean many things and that's like saying My Windows95,98,ME will not be "blue screened any less" or Adobe Photoshop 1-6.x will not be updated any further, go after 7.
Anyone remember Connextic Speed doubler, RAM doubler, Abobe type manager, etc...
Apple just pulled a rare one here. It's how the world works, live with it. Jump off a bridge and swear off the IT sector if you can't handle it.
I think from Tidus : Whining make one feel better, But that's cause they're wussies. =p
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>
4 years, yes, I can see a machine being unsupported. But less than 2 years? That's ludicrous. iBook SE 366 is not supported. That's insane. And I'm a self-proclaimed Apple Apologist.
<strong>I don't think you can you (TM) trade marked without a lawyer and a good amount in your checking account. Perhaps you mean Patented.
Scott is a cranky old foggy. Enough said.
I really don't see what the big deal is. Computer users especially in the IBM compatible PC world expects this.
The usual about 4yr depreciation thing had been recorded since the 90s(boy it sounds so old now).
AND no where does it say anything about "not working" , it's saying "not optimized further" which can mean many things and that's like saying My Windows95,98,ME will not be "blue screened any less" or Adobe Photoshop 1-6.x will not be updated any further, go after 7.
Anyone remember Connextic Speed doubler, RAM doubler, Abobe type manager, etc...
Apple just pulled a rare one here. It's how the world works, live with it. Jump off a bridge and swear off the IT sector if you can't handle it.
I think from Tidus : Whining make one feel better, But that's cause they're wussies. =p
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple Apologist (TM)
<strong>I don't think you can you (TM) trade marked without a lawyer and a good amount in your checking account. Perhaps you mean Patented.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. You can use a Trademark? anytime you want. You need the lawyer and checking account for a Registered Trademark®.
<a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm</a>;
Systems affected by this problem include "beige" Power Mac G3 models; iMacs running at 233-333MHz; PowerBook G3 "Wall Street" and "Lombard" models; and the original iBook. All of these computers utilize ATI RAGE II+, IIc, Pro, Pro Turbo, LT Pro or Mobility chip variants.
<hr></blockquote>
Original ibooks was introduced in Sept 99 That's near the end of the depreciation curve. Well depending on what kind of depreciation technic is used...still kind of over the hill.
Still the key word here is "further" which is just saying "As is" as all computers are.
I should ignore it, but isn't repetitive "quote" "/quote" copy, paste, post considered spamming? If it continues there should be some temp bans issued.
~Kuku
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
listen up. you just don't get it. iBook SE, 2000 does not have graphic acceleration. do you relealize how dumb and insane that is? if not please leave now. it uses the same graphic cip. so if apple wrote a driver for a 1 and a half year old computer they would support all previous rage pro macs. not that difficult.
and this is not whether or not you consider a 1999 mac "old". You are an idiot if you think that is too old to be supported. These machines were said to be fully OS X compatible. When the iMac was released. Apple said it would be what OS X's requirements were to be based on.
[quote]I should ignore it, but isn't repetitive "quote" "/quote" copy, paste, post considered spamming? If it continues there should be some temp bans issued.<hr></blockquote>
uh... what the hell are you talking about <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
There was never 'full' support. Your perfect world doesn't exist. I can't really see how people can think such a thing. If your computer crashes, restart. If continues to crash, trouble shoot. Calling up technical support is not going to magically make it work again. They can give you tips but that's all they can do. But the burden will still be in your hands.
Live with it. Argue the reasoning, yes, but you're just whinning at this point.
Spamming --> unwanted junk ---> repetitive copy and pasting with no usefulness.
And don't do that apple apologist, I never mentioned apple once above. It's should be basic knowledge. Forest Gump : Shit happens
~Kuku
There was never 'full' support. Your perfect world doesn't exist. I can't really see how people can think such a thing. If your computer crashes, restart. If continues to crash, trouble shoot. Calling up technical support is not going to magically make it work again. They can give you tips but that's all they can do. But the burden will still be in your hands.<hr></blockquote>
and this has WHAT to do with OpenGL drivers?
[quote]Live with it. Argue the reasoning, yes, but you're just whinning at this point.<hr></blockquote>
whing about what? Is anyone who complains about Apple and what they don't do a whiner to you???
[quote]Spamming --> unwanted junk ---> repetitive copy and pasting with no usefulness.<hr></blockquote>
serves a very good purpose. it helps address specific points and helps organize a response. the majority of the members here do it the exact same way. If you do not like I would suggest you leave.
[quote]Call me whatever you want, but is it so hard to immagine that the requirements for OS X have changed in the last 2 years? They work in OS X, just not very well... Look at alot of Nvidia cards and XP, many new(er) Nvidia boards (mainly GF 2's from Wintek) do not work well in XP, yet they still work.... <hr></blockquote>
uh... they don't work at all. 3d does not work at all. qt acceleration does not work at all. hardware decoding does not work at all.
and you people making a point that 1999 is old and should be considered legacy and that's why Apple doesn't support it:
then why do they fully support my PMG4 released in 99?
You have to remember, when designing an OS you (or any system for that matter: PS/PS2) you have to make design decisions. Do you "hobble" your system to support legacy apps/hardware, or do you design for the future?
It is quite apparant IMHO that Apple has chosen the path of the future. I'm sure they were well aware that they might piss off some users, but personally, I would rather have a "forward-thinking" OS than a "looking-back" OS.
For those that have Macs that aren't supported, take solice in that you will be able to continue to run OS 9 for the life of the machine, including your current apps. Macs last a long time, and if your current apps meet your needs then you'll be fine.
PS - My aunt has an older Mac running OS 7.x and it meets her needs just fine--for now at least
<strong>I do think it sucks for those that were hoping to be able to run OS X on their current Macs (e.g. early iMacs and Beige G3s). However, if you have used OS X, you quickly learn that it was NOT designed to run on slower systems.
You have to remember, when designing an OS you (or any system for that matter: PS/PS2) you have to make design decisions. Do you "hobble" your system to support legacy apps/hardware, or do you design for the future?
It is quite apparant IMHO that Apple has chosen the path of the future. I'm sure they were well aware that they might piss off some users, but personally, I would rather have a "forward-thinking" OS than a "looking-back" OS.
For those that have Macs that aren't supported, take solice in that you will be able to continue to run OS 9 for the life of the machine, including your current apps. Macs last a long time, and if your current apps meet your needs then you'll be fine.
PS - My aunt has an older Mac running OS 7.x and it meets her needs just fine--for now at least
Apple Apologist (TM)
FYI - I use Macs and PCs, and while I like the Mac Interface better than the Windows interface, I'm anything but an Apple zealot...
Try and add something on your next post, if not, then just a simple smily will do
<strong>
Original ibooks was introduced in Sept 99 That's near the end of the depreciation curve. Well depending on what kind of depreciation technic is used...still kind of over the hill.
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please.. Apple claimed OS X would support this computer. OS X doesn't. This computer was a year old when OS X came out. It didn't support it then. It doesn't support it now. I can remember when I could install a new Mac OS on a 4 year old Mac and it would support it just fine. Next year will OS X not support the TiBooks as well? I sure as hell hope not. This is making me question my next computer purchase indeed.
<strong>The world doesn't revolve around you, applenut. I 'get it' perfectly, I just don't believe it. Choose your words better.
There was never 'full' support. Your perfect world doesn't exist. I can't really see how people can think such a thing. If your computer crashes, restart. If continues to crash, trouble shoot. Calling up technical support is not going to magically make it work again. They can give you tips but that's all they can do. But the burden will still be in your hands.
Live with it. Argue the reasoning, yes, but you're just whinning at this point.
Spamming --> unwanted junk ---> repetitive copy and pasting with no usefulness.
And don't do that apple apologist, I never mentioned apple once above. It's should be basic knowledge. Forest Gump : Shit happens
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>
What they are complaining about is Apple lied. People bought computers thinking OS X was going to support them cause Apple told them it would. Now Apple is saying OS X wont support these computers fully. People have EVERY right to be pissed. It's called false advertising. Apple could very well be sued for such a thing.
<strong>Call me whatever you want, but is it so hard to immagine that the requirements for OS X have changed in the last 2 years? They work in OS X, just not very well... Look at alot of Nvidia cards and XP, many new(er) Nvidia boards (mainly GF 2's from Wintek) do not work well in XP, yet they still work....</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't matter how old. Apple said it would work. It doesn't. OpenGL is apart of the OS. If a part of the OS isn't supported than that OS doesn't support that computer. Apple didn't put these machines out saying "OS X will run on these computers but it wont fully support them" You think Apple would have sold as many iBooks that they did if they said that? No.