OK, first I don't buy all this "Mac OS X is slow on my ________ so it doesn't matter about the graphics cause it sucks anyway."
Cause, well, its all BS. I run Mac OS X on three different older supported Power Macs: a Beige G3 300/640MB/onboard with 6MB, a Beige G3 400/384MB/Rage128 PCI with 16MB, and a Pismo 400/320MB/onboard Rage128 AGP 2x with 8MB.
And you know what? OS X runs fine on all of them. Better on the two 400s, which can be attributed to the video support since the difference between a 300 and 400 G3 isn't THAT much, when the video support is dramatically different between the systems.
Now, would I be pissed if I were on a 1st generation iMac, but not because of performance cause when it comes down to it it is about four years later and the fact is computers, even Macs, slow down [run 9 on a 7200 and you will see what I mean] but because Apple said for several years that the iMac was teh poster child for Mac OS X
When you are wondering what the requirements of Mac OS X will be look at the iMac they said. Well, here I am looking and you can tell me that they are the minimum requirements and I would be ok with that, but they ought to be fully supported minimum requirements.
Heck its not like the G3 is only partially supported.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
1.) it's not just early iMacs and beige G3s. its all iMacs revisions a-> d, Beige G3s, all iBooks up to the 366 SE, and the wallstreet and lombard powerbooks. that covers a whole lot of the current Mac G3 population. And a whole lot of people that Apple has pissed off simply because they don't want to put the "effort" into writing graphic acceleration drivers.
2.) slower systems? what do you consider slower? OS X sucks if it is only capable of running decently on the newest computer.
[quote]
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?<hr></blockquote>
um... we are not talking legacy here. we are talking 2-4 years of what are considered "modern" macs. these machines are not legacy. Apple supports the rest of the machine, why can't they support the graphic acceleration? you have a extremely weak point there and I hope you realize that.
[quote]
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. <hr></blockquote>
LOL. Spew the bullshit. please, we don't have enough of it here.
[quote]
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.<hr></blockquote>
Apple Apologist if I ever did see one. My god.
[quote]
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...<hr></blockquote>
you are in serious denial man.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice to know we can still safely express our opinions on this board, now all I need is another bible-beater to come knock on my door to make the day complete
PS - I was not trying to stick up for Apple, if they lied to their customers, then they deserve the consequences of those lies. I was merely trying to say I prefer that they make design decisions that are looking to the future, rather than the past (e.g. Win98 and WinME are examples of the latter, IMHO).
For all those saying that supporting these 'old' graphics card would hobble the OS:
How? Why would having a driver hobble the OS in anyway? I've got an iBook with an ATi card, but there are kexts for other chipsets in my system folder. Does that hobble the OS? One of the major selling points of OS X was the dynamic libraries. If it's needed, it's loaded. Otherwise it's kmoddestroy. That's the beauty of OS X and the reason there won't be any hobbling. I can't see the problem with having an additional kext file in the system.
The only reason Apple wouldn't support these systems is a capitalistic one. Unless they can provide some technical reason why they can't write drivers that support graphic acceleration, they should be held accountable. And even then, they should be. I helped my sister choose her new computer based partly on the fact that I was told that it would be fully functional under OS X. It's not. I was lied to. Period. $1799 for a relatively underpowered computer seemed like a good purchase at the time because of the promise of the OS. Now, I'm not so sure.
I really don't understand how anyone can be defending Apple on this issue. I'm both a consumer and a shareholder and either way, I'm upset about its handling of this issue. I trust that there will be some reparations.
[apple apologist hat coming on]While Apple may be a corperation, they are a good one. They have repeatedly attempted to rectify situations that they were wrong in (the beta DVD upgrade to G4's are an example). I just hope they do right this time too.[/apple apologist]
2. It's all so personal: the "Apple has betrayed me" attitude
3. All-or-nothing deductions: it's either all Apple's fault or all ATI's fault, but it couldn't possibly be both their fault to at least some degree.
4. Derogatory labeling of those who dare to disagree (from complacence or laziness from the trouble of discussing, I must assume).
5. We have mainly 3-4 people posting the same thing over the course of 3 pages.
6. "LALALALALALALALALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING! LALALALALALALALALA!"
7. Apple is not, has not and will not be different than any other money-making enterprise. It is a business, not a subculture despite our best attempts. Even Ben and Jerry cancel flavors and close stores.
There's a thread about this at the Apple message boards and it has about 400+ posts. We're not the only ones pissed off about this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where is that thread? I was hitting the support sire and didn't see a big "out cry". I must have hit the wrong forum?
And who let Groverat in here and how did he get on the topic of claiming MS was a good legally upright company, pass him another bowl of .... and lets get on topic.
Oh and yeah, forward thinking OS X is, and necessary a forced conversion is, but supported should be supported if you get my drift.
Oh my. What a can of worms Apple got itself into. I have never seen an issue that ticked off so many people. I've read most ot these posts, and have an opinion. Apple could have gotten off the hook any time before releasing OS X for sale. They could have said certain Macs would not be fully supported, and provided the details. Sure, a lot of us would have grumbled, but it would not have hurt their reputation, especially if they gave solid reasons for the decision. We would be a little unhappy, but not mad. By saying nothing, they now have a real problem. What do you think? If Apple fessed up before selling OS X, would that have made a real difference to those of you who are most dissatisfied? If they come clean now, and say what is going on, will that make a difference? No, I don't work for Apple. If I did I would have something better than a old Beige G3 running at 233 MHz.
Comments
Cause, well, its all BS. I run Mac OS X on three different older supported Power Macs: a Beige G3 300/640MB/onboard with 6MB, a Beige G3 400/384MB/Rage128 PCI with 16MB, and a Pismo 400/320MB/onboard Rage128 AGP 2x with 8MB.
And you know what? OS X runs fine on all of them. Better on the two 400s, which can be attributed to the video support since the difference between a 300 and 400 G3 isn't THAT much, when the video support is dramatically different between the systems.
Now, would I be pissed if I were on a 1st generation iMac, but not because of performance cause when it comes down to it it is about four years later and the fact is computers, even Macs, slow down [run 9 on a 7200 and you will see what I mean] but because Apple said for several years that the iMac was teh poster child for Mac OS X
When you are wondering what the requirements of Mac OS X will be look at the iMac they said. Well, here I am looking and you can tell me that they are the minimum requirements and I would be ok with that, but they ought to be fully supported minimum requirements.
Heck its not like the G3 is only partially supported.
<strong>Come on Scott, can't you put a little more thought into your rebuttle rather than a quick cliche?
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
Read the entire thread.
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
1.) it's not just early iMacs and beige G3s. its all iMacs revisions a-> d, Beige G3s, all iBooks up to the 366 SE, and the wallstreet and lombard powerbooks. that covers a whole lot of the current Mac G3 population. And a whole lot of people that Apple has pissed off simply because they don't want to put the "effort" into writing graphic acceleration drivers.
2.) slower systems? what do you consider slower? OS X sucks if it is only capable of running decently on the newest computer.
[quote]
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?<hr></blockquote>
um... we are not talking legacy here. we are talking 2-4 years of what are considered "modern" macs. these machines are not legacy. Apple supports the rest of the machine, why can't they support the graphic acceleration? you have a extremely weak point there and I hope you realize that.
[quote]
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. <hr></blockquote>
LOL. Spew the bullshit. please, we don't have enough of it here.
[quote]
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.<hr></blockquote>
Apple Apologist if I ever did see one. My god.
[quote]
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...<hr></blockquote>
you are in serious denial man.
<strong>ATI is to blame, not Apple. ATI unwilling to provide the reference drivers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
reference drivers? surely you can't be serious.lol
<strong>
you are in serious denial man.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice to know we can still safely express our opinions on this board, now all I need is another bible-beater to come knock on my door to make the day complete
PS - I was not trying to stick up for Apple, if they lied to their customers, then they deserve the consequences of those lies. I was merely trying to say I prefer that they make design decisions that are looking to the future, rather than the past (e.g. Win98 and WinME are examples of the latter, IMHO).
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: fuzz_ball ]</p>
<a href="http://www.PetitionOnline.com/atiapple/petition.html"; target="_blank">http://www.PetitionOnline.com/atiapple/petition.html</a>;
There's a thread about this at the Apple message boards and it has about 400+ posts. We're not the only ones pissed off about this.
How? Why would having a driver hobble the OS in anyway? I've got an iBook with an ATi card, but there are kexts for other chipsets in my system folder. Does that hobble the OS? One of the major selling points of OS X was the dynamic libraries. If it's needed, it's loaded. Otherwise it's kmoddestroy. That's the beauty of OS X and the reason there won't be any hobbling. I can't see the problem with having an additional kext file in the system.
The only reason Apple wouldn't support these systems is a capitalistic one. Unless they can provide some technical reason why they can't write drivers that support graphic acceleration, they should be held accountable. And even then, they should be. I helped my sister choose her new computer based partly on the fact that I was told that it would be fully functional under OS X. It's not. I was lied to. Period. $1799 for a relatively underpowered computer seemed like a good purchase at the time because of the promise of the OS. Now, I'm not so sure.
I really don't understand how anyone can be defending Apple on this issue. I'm both a consumer and a shareholder and either way, I'm upset about its handling of this issue. I trust that there will be some reparations.
[apple apologist hat coming on]While Apple may be a corperation, they are a good one. They have repeatedly attempted to rectify situations that they were wrong in (the beta DVD upgrade to G4's are an example). I just hope they do right this time too.[/apple apologist]
<strong>ATI is to blame, not Apple. ATI unwilling to provide the reference drivers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. You agree, and still they manage to disagree.
2. It's all so personal: the "Apple has betrayed me" attitude
3. All-or-nothing deductions: it's either all Apple's fault or all ATI's fault, but it couldn't possibly be both their fault to at least some degree.
4. Derogatory labeling of those who dare to disagree (from complacence or laziness from the trouble of discussing, I must assume).
5. We have mainly 3-4 people posting the same thing over the course of 3 pages.
6. "LALALALALALALALALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING! LALALALALALALALALA!"
7. Apple is not, has not and will not be different than any other money-making enterprise. It is a business, not a subculture despite our best attempts. Even Ben and Jerry cancel flavors and close stores.
Sign the petition!
<strong>
There's a thread about this at the Apple message boards and it has about 400+ posts. We're not the only ones pissed off about this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where is that thread? I was hitting the support sire and didn't see a big "out cry". I must have hit the wrong forum?
Discussions > Mac OS X > Mac OS X (10.1) > Getting Started and General Use > Using Mac OS X > ATI Rage Drivers Request
Hey Apple! Pull your head out of the sand! People are pissed off and hiding the thread aint going to change things!
"Huh? I don't see anyone complaining about drivers for their old macs. Heh heh heh."
Oh and yeah, forward thinking OS X is, and necessary a forced conversion is, but supported should be supported if you get my drift.
Sinewave brings Microsoft into any thread he possibly can. Please pay closer attention.
<strong>Bogie:
Sinewave brings Microsoft into any thread he possibly can. Please pay closer attention.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No grover.. I was just pointing out the irony of you making comments about Apple apologists
Oh and mark that up as another bizarro extreme there grover
[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>