Wow, talk about your hot issues! I'm not trying to apologize for their decision, but perhaps there are technical reasons that need to be considered...
I can guess why Apple made this decision from a technical perspective. They are currently working on getting their fancy new graphics system (MacOS X's Quartz / OpenGL / QuickTime) to use hardware acceleration and to handle the new graphics capabilities of upcoming graphics chips (i.e. geForce3 and later), and they've built an architecture that can do it. Its probably a thing of beauty (at least to an engineer like me). Its probably very fast, and very powerful. It also has certain minimum requirements for it to run effectively -- X pixel rate, Y VRAM, Z polygon fill rate, and certain basic hardware features. The Rage2 and RagePro don't meet those requirements, and bending over backwards to make those chips work would compromise everything going forward because the difference cannot be hidden inside of the graphics drivers. This happens all the time, and is unavoidable.
The Rage2 and RagePro are actually pretty pathetic as 3D processors -- I know, I've had to write software that worked with them before. They are very limited in their capabilities, what they can do they do slowly, and they usually do it "incorrectly" (from OpenGL's point of view). Most games that work with these chips have to tread carefully to ensure that things come out even close to acceptably. In some cases performance is better if the CPU does the drawing! They aren't OpenGL compliant by a long stretch.
By dropping support for these chips, Apple and 3rd party software developers can stop contorting their code to make sure it works on the old chips, and they can focus on making the code work much better on the Rage128 and later hardware.
Having said all that it is nonetheless upsetting that Apple is just cutting off all those machines from 3D graphics in MacOS X. I suspect their reasoning is that for all things 3D, if you are running the hardware in question, you are probably much better off booting MacOS 9 to get as much out of the hardware as you can (i.e. avoiding MacOS X's pre-emptive multitasking, and resource sharing mechanisms). You can still use OS X for non-3D operations, but 3D would be just too painful for words. Games are going to continue supporting both OSes for some time.
They definitely could have done a better job of the PR around this issue...
OpenGL effects QuickTIme playback. Apple says computers that lack OpenGL support should just lower their resolution when playing QT movies. it has alot more to do with everyday computer usage than just 3D games.
While they do not make the drivers available for download in anything other than what comes with Mac OS X, they have made drivers available for download to use with the 'classic' Mac OS.
ATI writes the drivers for their chipsets. If ATI does not make the drivers available to the older cards, why is it Apple's responsibility to make them (even if they can)? That shows a lack of responsibility from ATI more than it does from Apple.
We all know about Apple's recent history with ATI, and none of the stories we hear are good. If Apple is planning on completely ditching ATI in favor of NVIDIA within the next few Macworlds, then what incentive does ATI have to rewrite its drivers for cards that are in some cases four years old to work on the latest Mac OS? What incentive do they have to even provide Apple with the information they need to write the drivers themselves?
I have an original iMac (Rev. A, but does the name really make sense if it wasn't a revision?). The iMac has a 2MB Rage IIc graphics card. I also purchased a Voodoo 2 8 MB card for it. I can already say that the computer will never be running Mac OS X.
Why will the computer never run Mac OS X? The machine is too slow, it doesn't have enough RAM, and the hard drive doesn't have a gigabyte of available memory to install the new OS on it. The 2MB graphics card is the least of my problems.
So let's say that Apple and ATI decided to write the drivers for Mac OS X for this card. Is it really worth it to write the driver for a 2 MB graphics card? Then take all of the varities of cards currently 'not supported' by Mac OS X that are in 'supported' machines. That's a lot of graphics cards.
If ATI isn't willing to bend and start writing some drivers (or at least providing the info neccesary to get them done), then I wouldn't expect you to see Apple somehow making progress on these drivers.
BTW, if you're going to use (TM) in the thread, at least use this ?. Option-2.
<strong>OpenGL effects QuickTIme playback. Apple says computers that lack OpenGL support should just lower their resolution when playing QT movies. it has alot more to do with everyday computer usage than just 3D games.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is because the frame buffer uses too much of the graphic chip's VRAM, and there isn't enough room left to put the current frame of the movie into VRAM as well. These older chips can only read data from VRAM, so if you can't fit your frame buffer (i.e. the screen) and the current movie frame into VRAM at the same time then you can't use the chip to draw the movie. If the graphics chip can't do part of the work then your CPU has to do all of it, and this can get very expensive -- which seriously impacts playback performance. MacOS X has higher overhead and a single process can't monopolize the processor like it can in MacOS 9 (that's part of its advantage!) so there are times where MacOS 9 can do a better job of a single task.
The real problem here is that Apple used crappy graphics chips for too long. Even after ATI had better chips available, Apple continued to put the Rage2 (and later the RagePro) into their machines. The portables suffered with this even longer even though ATI had introduced better and better members of its "Mobility" series.
Why is it on the supported list then? What's stopping crApple from just writing a driver?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Time?
Other things to do that are *way* more important to 99% of mac users than being able to play OpenGL-games on an almost stone-age graphics card to a (very) limited extent? Guys, get over it, that's the way the computer world goes - there's no incentive for manufacturers to make significant investments in very old out-of-sale hardware, and almost noone in the IT industry does.
Oh please.. Apple claimed OS X would support this computer. OS X doesn't.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, I kinda wonder whether they actually officially said that partivular piece of hardware would be *fully supported* in OS X, or whether they just said it would *run* OS X (which it obviously does) - then again, I really don't know, maybe someone got links?
Other things to do that are *way* more important to 99% of mac users than being able to play OpenGL-games on an almost stone-age graphics card to a (very) limited extent? Guys, get over it, that's the way the computer world goes - there's no incentive for manufacturers to make significant investments in very old out-of-sale hardware, and almost noone in the IT industry does.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
yep. a billiondollar compay with several hundred software engineers doesn't have the time to write OpenGL hardware acceleration and QT accleration drivers for the rage pro
Apple said these computers where OS X ready. Being OpenGL is a core component in OS X and it doesn't work right on these machines I'd say Apple has some explaining to do.
<strong>yep. a billiondollar compay with several hundred software engineers doesn't have the time to write OpenGL hardware acceleration and QT accleration drivers for the rage pro
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but try to at least get a little trace of clue before posting stuff like that.
Why do you think it takes Apple quite some time to fix bugs, release updates, complete developer documentation, etc. pp.? Why do you think they still didn't manage to get full AltiVec support in GCC3? Why is the current OS X UFS implementation years behind FreeBSD (softupdates, anyone?)?
Damn, do you really think being "a billiondollar compay with several hundred software engineers" allow Apple to have tons of engineers just sitting around idly all day waiting to write drivers for anything that crosses their path? Do you really think Apple doesn't write drivers for other companies' legacy graphics chips just to deliberately piss of their own customers? Or because they are simply to *lazy* to so, and just spend their working time doing coffee breaks?
I do understand you guys are pissed because you have obsolete hardware right now, but that's the way the IT business goes, and Apple is as much a profit-oriented company as anybody else.
Bye,
RazzFazz
(Waiting for Scott to make yet another highly insightful posting giving me my "Apple Apologist (TM)" tag...)
<strong>Apple said these computers where OS X ready. Being OpenGL is a core component in OS X and it doesn't work right on these machines I'd say Apple has some explaining to do.
I see some major problems with this picture
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have a Mac with one of the old graphics cards, so I can't test it, but does OpenGL really not work *at all* on them? I remember that, on windows, OpenGL would also technically *work* on graphics cards that don't have any 3D capabilities at all, but it obviously would not be hardware-accelerated, and thus be awfully slow. Still, it technically *does* work. Is the same true for the MacOS on these older machines?
[quote]OpenGL would also technically *work* on graphics cards that don't have any 3D capabilities at all, but it obviously would not be hardware-accelerated, and thus be awfully slow. Still, it technically *does* work. Is the same true for the MacOS on these older machines?
<hr></blockquote>
yes
if anything some quicktime acceleration would be nice. I don't enjoy having to quit everything else just to make a movie play w/otu being extremely choppy.
So the argument is that OSX's pre-emptive multi-tasking indirectly requires a beefed-up graphics card to perform simple operations? What is the processor busy doing? Drawing pretty Aqua buttons the entire time?
And as for there not being enough RAM to hold the frame buffer:
1) It works in OS9, how do you explain it magically fitting in a different OS?
2) AGP
If Aqua is hogging too many resources maybe they should have re-thought that when laying out the requirements for the OS. It's bad faith to pull the bait and switch, which is essentially what Apple has done.
Razz:
Usually you get your existing product working properly before going on to bigger and better things. That's the theory anyway.
What's the next excuse, will the TiBook not be supported by OSX.5 because the thin titanium design clashes with Aqua 2.0?
Fran isn't right. Apple stopped using ATI cards as their default for their puters. Why should it be up to ATI to write drivers for their older cards when they aren't getting anything out of it? It's a simple fact. Apple said OS X would support the hardware. It didn't. It's up to Apple to back up it's claims not ATI. ATI never said their hardware would be OS X ready. Apple did. It's on Apple's shoulders to set things right. Had ATI made such statements Fran would have a point. ATI shouldn't be held responsible for claims and statements Apple makes. Only Apple is held responsible for such things. If ATI isn't writing driver's for these cards it's up to Apple to take up the slack and do it's customers right. Some of these cards can't be replaced. It's apart of Apple's hardware. They whole point of a company making both the hardware and software is compatibility with the OS.. when this goes south there is no reason for doing such things. The one iBook was out a year before OS X hit the streets. A year old computer isn't outdated nor should it be left behind in compatibility.
For those of you not wanting to go to the link it says
[quote]
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.
Comments
I can guess why Apple made this decision from a technical perspective. They are currently working on getting their fancy new graphics system (MacOS X's Quartz / OpenGL / QuickTime) to use hardware acceleration and to handle the new graphics capabilities of upcoming graphics chips (i.e. geForce3 and later), and they've built an architecture that can do it. Its probably a thing of beauty (at least to an engineer like me). Its probably very fast, and very powerful. It also has certain minimum requirements for it to run effectively -- X pixel rate, Y VRAM, Z polygon fill rate, and certain basic hardware features. The Rage2 and RagePro don't meet those requirements, and bending over backwards to make those chips work would compromise everything going forward because the difference cannot be hidden inside of the graphics drivers. This happens all the time, and is unavoidable.
The Rage2 and RagePro are actually pretty pathetic as 3D processors -- I know, I've had to write software that worked with them before. They are very limited in their capabilities, what they can do they do slowly, and they usually do it "incorrectly" (from OpenGL's point of view). Most games that work with these chips have to tread carefully to ensure that things come out even close to acceptably. In some cases performance is better if the CPU does the drawing! They aren't OpenGL compliant by a long stretch.
By dropping support for these chips, Apple and 3rd party software developers can stop contorting their code to make sure it works on the old chips, and they can focus on making the code work much better on the Rage128 and later hardware.
Having said all that it is nonetheless upsetting that Apple is just cutting off all those machines from 3D graphics in MacOS X. I suspect their reasoning is that for all things 3D, if you are running the hardware in question, you are probably much better off booting MacOS 9 to get as much out of the hardware as you can (i.e. avoiding MacOS X's pre-emptive multitasking, and resource sharing mechanisms). You can still use OS X for non-3D operations, but 3D would be just too painful for words. Games are going to continue supporting both OSes for some time.
They definitely could have done a better job of the PR around this issue...
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
Quote from applenut:
[quote]Apple is repsonible for supporting all integrated chipsets and OEM cards.<hr></blockquote>
I can't find anything on Apple's website to support this claim.
In fact, <a href="http://support.ati.com/products/mac/radeon/radeon_mac_edition_drivers.html?cboOS=MAC+OS&cboPr oducts=RADEON+MAC+EDITION&cmdNext=GO%21" target="_blank">th is ATI web page</a> seems to indicate otherwise.
While they do not make the drivers available for download in anything other than what comes with Mac OS X, they have made drivers available for download to use with the 'classic' Mac OS.
ATI writes the drivers for their chipsets. If ATI does not make the drivers available to the older cards, why is it Apple's responsibility to make them (even if they can)? That shows a lack of responsibility from ATI more than it does from Apple.
We all know about Apple's recent history with ATI, and none of the stories we hear are good. If Apple is planning on completely ditching ATI in favor of NVIDIA within the next few Macworlds, then what incentive does ATI have to rewrite its drivers for cards that are in some cases four years old to work on the latest Mac OS? What incentive do they have to even provide Apple with the information they need to write the drivers themselves?
I have an original iMac (Rev. A, but does the name really make sense if it wasn't a revision?). The iMac has a 2MB Rage IIc graphics card. I also purchased a Voodoo 2 8 MB card for it. I can already say that the computer will never be running Mac OS X.
Why will the computer never run Mac OS X? The machine is too slow, it doesn't have enough RAM, and the hard drive doesn't have a gigabyte of available memory to install the new OS on it. The 2MB graphics card is the least of my problems.
So let's say that Apple and ATI decided to write the drivers for Mac OS X for this card. Is it really worth it to write the driver for a 2 MB graphics card? Then take all of the varities of cards currently 'not supported' by Mac OS X that are in 'supported' machines. That's a lot of graphics cards.
If ATI isn't willing to bend and start writing some drivers (or at least providing the info neccesary to get them done), then I wouldn't expect you to see Apple somehow making progress on these drivers.
BTW, if you're going to use (TM) in the thread, at least use this ?. Option-2.
<strong>OpenGL effects QuickTIme playback. Apple says computers that lack OpenGL support should just lower their resolution when playing QT movies.
This is because the frame buffer uses too much of the graphic chip's VRAM, and there isn't enough room left to put the current frame of the movie into VRAM as well. These older chips can only read data from VRAM, so if you can't fit your frame buffer (i.e. the screen) and the current movie frame into VRAM at the same time then you can't use the chip to draw the movie. If the graphics chip can't do part of the work then your CPU has to do all of it, and this can get very expensive -- which seriously impacts playback performance. MacOS X has higher overhead and a single process can't monopolize the processor like it can in MacOS 9 (that's part of its advantage!) so there are times where MacOS 9 can do a better job of a single task.
The real problem here is that Apple used crappy graphics chips for too long. Even after ATI had better chips available, Apple continued to put the Rage2 (and later the RagePro) into their machines. The portables suffered with this even longer even though ATI had introduced better and better members of its "Mobility" series.
<strong>
Why is it on the supported list then? What's stopping crApple from just writing a driver?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Time?
Other things to do that are *way* more important to 99% of mac users than being able to play OpenGL-games on an almost stone-age graphics card to a (very) limited extent? Guys, get over it, that's the way the computer world goes - there's no incentive for manufacturers to make significant investments in very old out-of-sale hardware, and almost noone in the IT industry does.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm, let me guess, you did *not* experience the move from 68k to PPC first-hand, did you?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Oh please.. Apple claimed OS X would support this computer. OS X doesn't.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, I kinda wonder whether they actually officially said that partivular piece of hardware would be *fully supported* in OS X, or whether they just said it would *run* OS X (which it obviously does) - then again, I really don't know, maybe someone got links?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Time?
Other things to do that are *way* more important to 99% of mac users than being able to play OpenGL-games on an almost stone-age graphics card to a (very) limited extent? Guys, get over it, that's the way the computer world goes - there's no incentive for manufacturers to make significant investments in very old out-of-sale hardware, and almost noone in the IT industry does.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
yep. a billiondollar compay with several hundred software engineers doesn't have the time to write OpenGL hardware acceleration and QT accleration drivers for the rage pro
<strong>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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
By taking development resources away from other areas that are cosidered more important?
Bye,
RazzFazz
I see some major problems with this picture
<strong>yep. a billiondollar compay with several hundred software engineers doesn't have the time to write OpenGL hardware acceleration and QT accleration drivers for the rage pro
Sorry, but try to at least get a little trace of clue before posting stuff like that.
Why do you think it takes Apple quite some time to fix bugs, release updates, complete developer documentation, etc. pp.? Why do you think they still didn't manage to get full AltiVec support in GCC3? Why is the current OS X UFS implementation years behind FreeBSD (softupdates, anyone?)?
Damn, do you really think being "a billiondollar compay with several hundred software engineers" allow Apple to have tons of engineers just sitting around idly all day waiting to write drivers for anything that crosses their path? Do you really think Apple doesn't write drivers for other companies' legacy graphics chips just to deliberately piss of their own customers? Or because they are simply to *lazy* to so, and just spend their working time doing coffee breaks?
I do understand you guys are pissed because you have obsolete hardware right now, but that's the way the IT business goes, and Apple is as much a profit-oriented company as anybody else.
Bye,
RazzFazz
(Waiting for Scott to make yet another highly insightful posting giving me my "Apple Apologist (TM)" tag...)
<strong>Apple said these computers where OS X ready. Being OpenGL is a core component in OS X and it doesn't work right on these machines I'd say Apple has some explaining to do.
I see some major problems with this picture
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have a Mac with one of the old graphics cards, so I can't test it, but does OpenGL really not work *at all* on them? I remember that, on windows, OpenGL would also technically *work* on graphics cards that don't have any 3D capabilities at all, but it obviously would not be hardware-accelerated, and thus be awfully slow. Still, it technically *does* work. Is the same true for the MacOS on these older machines?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<hr></blockquote>
yes
if anything some quicktime acceleration would be nice. I don't enjoy having to quit everything else just to make a movie play w/otu being extremely choppy.
And as for there not being enough RAM to hold the frame buffer:
1) It works in OS9, how do you explain it magically fitting in a different OS?
2) AGP
If Aqua is hogging too many resources maybe they should have re-thought that when laying out the requirements for the OS. It's bad faith to pull the bait and switch, which is essentially what Apple has done.
Razz:
Usually you get your existing product working properly before going on to bigger and better things. That's the theory anyway.
What's the next excuse, will the TiBook not be supported by OSX.5 because the thin titanium design clashes with Aqua 2.0?
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
Check out this ATI url
<a href="http://support.ati.com/products/mac/motherboards/index.html"; target="_blank">http://support.ati.com/products/mac/motherboards/index.html</a>;
For those of you not wanting to go to the link it says
[quote]
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.
<hr></blockquote>
<strong>It's no use, Bogie. Rationality has left the (proverbial) building.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How is expecting one company to be responsible for another companies claims rational in any way? It's not.