Let me get this straight - everything can be solved if Applenut and Sinewave take over the openGL and 3D acceleration projects from Apple and ATi?
Cause that is what I am hearing.
Just pay em and they will do it eh? Ever think ATi might have said no to this? What is in it for them, 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.
What about IX Micro? I hear no one whining that Apple is not accelerating their hardware. And it is supported according to Apple. Supported does not mean what we want it to. It means whatever the party saying it wants it to.
Sucks, I don't like it, yet it is reality.
Now ... please explain how it is that Apple should support every product that ships with a Mac and that the supplier does not have responsibility.
Lets take a trip down that road.
That would meant that everyone can make Mac hardware for Apple. Cause there is nearly no difference in 75% of the hardware used between platforms right?
So the problem is not that 3rd parties don't support Apple it's that Apple doesn't spend more time and money writing drivers for 3rd party stuff.
Why should I expect any third party vendor to write Mac software for their hardware? Why can't Apple do it all?
See thing is, there is a contract between Apple and ATi, and if it states that ATi writes the drivers, then that implies Apple can not, not practically, and not legally.
Apple isn't outsourcing graphics in terms of having someone make a chipset for them. Apple is buying a ready made solution from a third party, when you buy an off the shelf ATi card from CompUSA it is little different from Apple buying truck loads of them.
Apple brought this mess upon themselves by not communicating clearly and up front the things that people want to know, and have a right to expect from their computer supplier. It is one thing to be secretive about new products. Hey, it even adds to the excitement. But don't be sly about support and system requirements. The compatibility page gives the impression that all these Macs will be fully functional. It says nothing about limitations, except that processor upgrades are not supported by Apple. (Most of us already realize that any third party hardware add-ons would not be supported.} Why is this kind of information withheld from those considering an upgrade. Of course people will get upset when they only find out these facts later on. Sure it might lose a few sales to be open about it, but many will still upgrade to OS X knowing what the limitation are, and they won't be ticked off after they install it.
<strong>Let me get this straight - everything can be solved if Applenut and Sinewave take over the openGL and 3D acceleration projects from Apple and ATi?
Cause that is what I am hearing.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Who said that? Can anyone say bizarro extremes? Do you hear voices son?
[quote]<strong>
Just pay em and they will do it eh? Ever think ATi might have said no to this?
What is in it for them, <hr></blockquote></strong>
Uh money?
[quote]<strong>
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.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
3-5 years old? try newer than that And it doesn't matter what you think Apple is willing to do. They made statements. They need to back them up. The ****ed up big time. They lied to the consumer. They pulled the bait and switch. Why are you trying to justify Apple's actions? Are you that much of a Apple zealot?
[quote]<strong>
What about IX Micro? I hear no one whining that Apple is not accelerating their hardware. And it is supported according to Apple. Supported does not mean what we want it to. It means whatever the party saying it wants it to.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Apple never said OS X would support the Machines IX Micro came with did it? No. Your point is moot.
[quote]<strong>
Sucks, I don't like it, yet it is reality.
Now ... please explain how it is that Apple should support every product that ships with a Mac and that the supplier does not have responsibility.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Cause when they make promises that the hardware they are shipping will be OS X ready they need to make sure it is? How big of a no-brainer is this one folks? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Again Apple is the only one that made this claim.. Apple is the only that needs to make sure to back it up. It's on their shoulders. How many times am I going to have to repeat myself on this one? What part of that is confusing you?
[quote]<strong>
Lets take a trip down that road.
That would meant that everyone can make Mac hardware for Apple. Cause there is nearly no difference in 75% of the hardware used between platforms right?
So the problem is not that 3rd parties don't support Apple it's that Apple doesn't spend more time and money writing drivers for 3rd party stuff.
Why should I expect any third party vendor to write Mac software for their hardware? Why can't Apple do it all?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Depends If companies want to support Apple they will write drivers for their platform. But the difference is here this hardware COMES BUNDLED with the Mac. This is apart of the Mac computer they sold. They are responsible to make sure that hardware works. And when they make claims about support on this hardware it is up to THEM to back it up. Again why do I feel like I keep repeating myself? If a 3rd party wants to write drivers for hardware that doesn't ship on Macs cool deal! If they want to make it OS X ready good deal! We are talking about hardware Apple ships with it's computers. Hardware Apple is responsible for.
[quote]<strong>
See thing is, there is a contract between Apple and ATi, and if it states that ATi writes the drivers, then that implies Apple can not, not practically, and not legally.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Please show me this contract. I want to see it <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> ANd that doesn't mean Apple can't pay ATI to write them does it? No again it falls back into Apple's lap.
[quote]<strong>
Apple isn't outsourcing graphics in terms of having someone make a chipset for them. Apple is buying a ready made solution from a third party, when you buy an off the shelf ATi card from CompUSA it is little different from Apple buying truck loads of them.
Yes and the difference in buying a card in CompUSA and having a card that came with your Mac that Apple shipped is Apple is responsible for the card they ship with their product.
Again you made no point. Just more apologistic zealot behavior.
I have a dual monitor system at home. Its an upgraded Beige G4/500 minitower w/a Radeon driving my main monitor and the stock ati on the second. In OS9, the difference in grapic quality is not really evident in the finder...both monitors are set to millions and things work fine.
In OSX, the difference is dramatic. The monitor which uses the stock chip is barely usable. Windows jump by 10-20 px at a time as I move them around. Sreen redraws are visible and all of this while running at thousands of colors.
I could not work like this if it were my only monitor. For those of you who think that this is simply an issue for people who play games, you are wrong. Because Apple has dropped full support for these machines, they have rendered them unusable.
I am sure a court would agree with this. OGL & QT are shown as core technologies on both the OSX box and Apples web site. Because core elements of the OS are not supported, the entire OS becomes bogged down.
The beigew is the least of my worries. I bought an iBook for my mom. Now her machine will not be able to perform at the levels she has become accustomed to under OS9. This iBook JUST turned 2. C'mon, dont tell me this is an old machine. Its not the latest, but Apples have always had long life spans. Until recently, we were using 2 6100s as local servers here at work.
Apple needs to be taken to task on this. They have the ability to write drivers for the older cards. ATi and Apple are business partners, not buddies. If Apple wanted to support the old Macs, they could easily purchase whatever they needed from ATi.
What really pisses me off here is the fact that this is a thinly veiled attempt to force people to buy new machines.
I would be happy to fully support any legal action that is taken against Apple in this situation.
If my iMac or iBook CAME with a SCSI card installed I'd be bitching if it didn't have SCSI support in OS X. See these cards CAME with the computer that was SUPPOSED to be OS X ready. If Joe Blow PCI card wont work with your Mac it isn't up to Apple to make it work. However Apple IS responsible in the hardware it ships with it's computers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, but your Mac didn't come with a 3D graphics chip sufficient to make it run OpenGL. The Rage2 and RagePro are not OpenGL-compliant 3D accelerators. Just because you thought they were doesn't mean Apple is accountable for it.
Ah, but your Mac didn't come with a 3D graphics chip sufficient to make it run OpenGL. The Rage2 and RagePro are not OpenGL-compliant 3D accelerators. Just because you thought they were doesn't mean Apple is accountable for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny they ran OpenGL in OS 9. ANd you keep forgetting the fact Apple said this hardware would run it. Apple is accountable for it's own statements indeed. More silly apologist arguments.
<strong>OK, whatever, you people want to argue and complain?
Fine, like Fran, I am taking leave of this thread, and you know what, go ahead and reply to this post claiming you proved your point or something ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
We DID prove something. Apple indeed made statements then changed them later after it was too late. Apple DID lie to the consumers. There is NO rebutting this. This is what is known as a fact.
[quote]<strong>
Cause when it comes down to it, you still won't get what you are complaining about.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You know this how? ANd how does us not getting what we want justify Apple doing this?
[quote]<strong>
And on the off chance that someone does release OS X drivers for those chipsets, I still win [heehee] cause I would benefit.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Everyone wins. Not just you.
[quote]<strong>
[oh, and try reading the ReadMe with Mac OS X - it includes IX Micro cards on the support list, sigh, so silly]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but These cards DID NOT come with the computers that Apple claimed where OS X ready. The cards we are talking about DID. There lies the difference.
Boy, this thread has been busy since the last time I was here
Obviously this issue has become rather heated, with many people taking different points of view; I can understand that. What I don't understand are the cries of "Apple apologist" when someone of a differing opinion offers up their view of the situation.
Remember, we only learn and grow if our minds are open to the possibility of change; doesn't mean you have to (change that is), but when your mind is obviously closed shut (like some on this board) people won't take your arguments/points to seriously...
Have a great day!
PS - Programmer, nice to see a fellow engineer that had a grasp of what I was trying to say earlier in the thread! Of course, you explained it much better than I.
While I don't claim to have the background to explain why Apple could / couldn't make this happen (because I don't) I can understand basic business.
Do you think Apple made this choice for the fun of it?
Do you think Apple DIDN'T know they would hear about it?
Do you think if Apple could throw $50k or $100k at the problem for it to go away they'd choose not to?
If you believe any of the above then you have every right to leave the platform... I on the other hand don't think any of the above is true.
Do you think ATI is being less than helpful and maybe even holding some things over Apples head due to Nvidia moving into their space?
Do you think Apple might have been forced to do things with the OS that may have prevented the older cards from working to support future (yet unseen) technologies?
I can come up with a ton of other reasons but I think you see where I'm going with this...
Apple doesn't want to make their users/customers upset... And it isn't always easy for them to explain each and every choice they make due to a host of other reasons (politics and/or complexities). I really do believe that if Apple could throw some cash (even a few hundred grand) at this problem and make it go away they would have... But I have a feeling the underling issues are bigger than a 6 figure signoff.
Apple can/has done some pretty amazing things over the years... They have shown that they can stay in business against a MEGA corp known as Microsoft so don't you think they could churn out a silly driver?
Would you have Apple kill Nvidia as a graphics card option in order to get your old ATI drivers? Would you have Apple make OS X less usable with tomorrows technology in order to get your old ATI driver?? Those are just some questions for you to ponder...
Like I said, I'm not a driver programmer but I do know business and sometimes decisions aren't as cut and dry as some would lead you to believe... Ask some of the developers (that work for larger companies), they will tell you... Just because something 'could be done' isn't always the full story.
In the end you're gonna believe what you want anyway but make sure you take into account all of the posibilities...
Most notably with the DVD Player that shipped with early PowerMac G4s and iMac slot loaders.
Guess what? It took a lawsuit to get Apple's attention. and guess what? We won. Apple had to pay the damages and offer discounts to all affected users.
same thing with lack of hardware decoding in OS X for people with B/W G3s and Lombards. Apple didn't support it until people started making petitions.
I don't know how to explain why they continuously try to do things like that but they do
Most notably with the DVD Player that shipped with early PowerMac G4s and iMac slot loaders.
Guess what? It took a lawsuit to get Apple's attention. and guess what? We won. Apple had to pay the damages and offer discounts to all affected users.
same thing with lack of hardware decoding in OS X for people with B/W G3s and Lombards. Apple didn't support it until people started making petitions.
I don't know how to explain why they continuously try to do things like that but they do</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know who won that VICTORY? It was the lawyers... They got their fee's and you got a coupon... Apple had money it could have put to use on better hardware/software and instead gave it to lawyers... The problems were fixed with free OS updates... At no time did Apple say those users were SOL (shucks outta luck) but now instead of the problem just going away via the software updates that followed Apple lost a ton of cash...
Way to go guys!
Dave
You being from the Bronx explains a lot... (inside NY joke but the short of it is even Osama would be found inocent in a 'bronx jury' - aka liberal to the bone)
I can see what you are saying, and I do not expect very much from Apple. They have a right to change their mind about how much they will do for the older Macs. I may not like it, but I will try to understand. My complaint is that they conceal the facts from customers who are considering an upgrade to OS X. To read their compatibility page you would believe that any of the mentioned Mac models will be fully functional running OS X. The fact that parts of the original hardware does not work is something that potential customers have a right to know about. Why should people have to pay their money and install OS X before they know what works, and what does not? This is the issue I find inexcusable. I said all this earlier, but I believe most folks are so ticked off by now that nothing will satisfy them but to fix the hardware problem completely. Apple could have avoided this ugly situation by being candid about changes in support.
Well, I suppose both sides will use these statements to support their own side, but I'm just wondering why some people continue to talk off the tops of their heads without doing a little bit of research.
Q3: Which ATI graphics products have 2D and 3D support under OS X?
ATI and Apple® have worked together to provide built-in 2D, 3D, and QuickTime? acceleration support on OS X for all RADEON?, RAGE? 128 PRO, and RAGE? 128 based products (this includes RAGE? ORION, NEXUS 128?, XCLAIM? VR 128, RADEON? MAC EDITION AGP and RADEON? MAC EDITION PCI). It is not ATI?s intention to provide OS X support for RAGE? PRO based products.
Q4: When and where will future OS X graphics software be available?
ATI will continue to work with Apple® to provide enhancements to the graphics software of future releases of OS X. For information on the OS X update release schedule, check the Apple® web site at <a href="http://www.apple.com."; target="_blank">www.apple.com.</a> As OS X matures, ATI intends to provide updated drivers for our customers. ATI drivers are posted on the corporate website at <a href="http://www.ati.com."; target="_blank">www.ati.com.</a>
Q6: 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.
After reading this thread, this is what I found after about three minutes of looking. I'm not an engineer, but what do people think of the following?:
"It is not ATI?s intention to provide OS X support for RAGE? PRO based products."
So, it seems Apple is on its own for this, and the question remains, does Apple have the authorization to do this on their own, or are their proprietary concerns? (as in "Apple won't release the specs for the PPC, so BeOS can't support it")
"As OS X matures, ATI intends to provide updated drivers for our customers."
So if Apple is responsible for the drivers, why would ATI need to provide drivers?
"Because Classic has different kernel than OS 9, some hardware features that are accessible in Mac OS 9.1 are not accessible in Classic."
This seems ambiguous. What is the difference between the kernel in Classic and the kernel in OS X? Aren't they layers on the same kernel? And if so, does that mean there are some hardware features not available to OS X?
This seems ambiguous. What is the difference between the kernel in Classic and the kernel in OS X? Aren't they layers on the same kernel? And if so, does that mean there are some hardware features not available to OS X?</strong><hr></blockquote>
MacOS X is a completely different operating system from MacOS Classic, from the kernel up. Some things cannot be done because MacOS X works differently.
Thanks for doing your 3 minutes of research, by the way. It shows the ATI doesn't want to do the work either, even if Apple can be held responsible for things they OEM'd.
[quote]You know who won that VICTORY? It was the lawyers... They got their fee's and you got a coupon... Apple had money it could have put to use on better hardware/software and instead gave it to lawyers... The problems were fixed with free OS updates... At no time did Apple say those users were SOL (shucks outta luck) but now instead of the problem just going away via the software updates that followed Apple lost a ton of cash...
Way to go guys!<hr></blockquote>
awe. big old apple got sued from screwing over their customers and they lost and now dumbass mac users like yourself blame the people who sued for the lack of "new exciting hardware". how low are you going to go?
[quote]Dave
You being from the Bronx explains a lot... (inside NY joke but the short of it is even Osama would be found inocent in a 'bronx jury' - aka liberal to the bone)<hr></blockquote>
wait. you just got lower. lower than shit. what kind of inside joke is that? that is just sick and out of place and was not needed in this thread. You have lost any respect in my eyes. stooping so low to insult where I live and then insulting the bronx as a hole and then bringing in the fact that we would even find Bin laden innocent. what kind of "inside joke" is that because I'm sure not "in" on it. Some criticize me for not being mature at times but this. You disgusted me with that
I can see what you are saying, and I do not expect very much from Apple. They have a right to change their mind about how much they will do for the older Macs. I may not like it, but I will try to understand. My complaint is that they conceal the facts from customers who are considering an upgrade to OS X. To read their compatibility page you would believe that any of the mentioned Mac models will be fully functional running OS X. The fact that parts of the original hardware does not work is something that potential customers have a right to know about. Why should people have to pay their money and install OS X before they know what works, and what does not? This is the issue I find inexcusable. I said all this earlier, but I believe most folks are so ticked off by now that nothing will satisfy them but to fix the hardware problem completely. Apple could have avoided this ugly situation by being candid about changes in support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Listen,
I don't disagree that Apple did THINK they could/would support OS X 'fully' when they sold the systems they did... I'm sure they really thought they could... But, in a word *($# happend along the way. I know this is hard for some of you to understand but software (and more to the point OS) development ISN'T always as cut and dry and you'd like to believe.
People who respect the law or love sauage never see either being made... Well folks, it seems the same hold true for software and/or OS development...
wait. you just got lower. lower than shit. what kind of inside joke is that? that is just sick and out of place and was not needed in this thread. You have lost any respect in my eyes. stooping so low to insult where I live and then insulting the bronx as a hole and then bringing in the fact that we would even find Bin laden innocent. what kind of "inside joke" is that because I'm sure not "in" on it. Some criticize me for not being mature at times but this. You disgusted me with that </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry applenut but as a fellow New Yorker I will always call em like I see em... (it's a New Yorkers god given right as you well know) and the Bronx has let more trash back out onto the city streets than all of the other boroughs combined...
Are you new to NYC and need me to explain the concept of "a bronx jury" to you?
For our non-NYC readers here is a perfect example... (found via goole in under 10 seconds with a 'bronx jury' keyword search) but please as a warning don't read too many of the hits as you may become very upset.
"Despite such statements, a jury made up of 12 women saw enough evidence to acquit Waldermar in the murder of Gordon, a mother of five, who was killed shortly after celebrating the birthday of her twin sons."
Sorry applenut you WILL lose this fight... I have tons of trials to back me up... The scum of the earth WISH their trial were held in the bronx for a reason....
Oh and here goes another for the 'old bronx cheer'...
"Huge tort claims, especially when they involve horrific injuries and rest on novel or complex legal theories, naturally tend to garner the most attention from the general public and the news media. So do cases that feature outrageous disparities between the size of the verdict and the severity of injuryÂ?such as a Bronx juryÂ?s recent award of $4.2Â*million in damages to a woman who sued New York City after she slipped on a snowy sidewalk and damaged a knee joint while chasing her dog. "
Way to go Bronx! keep those innocents safe sound and the lawyers even richer!
As an Apple fan.... I'd say that Apple NOT having their home offices in the BRONX is a pretty good thing wouldn't you say?
Comments
Cause that is what I am hearing.
Just pay em and they will do it eh? Ever think ATi might have said no to this? What is in it for them, 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.
What about IX Micro? I hear no one whining that Apple is not accelerating their hardware. And it is supported according to Apple. Supported does not mean what we want it to. It means whatever the party saying it wants it to.
Sucks, I don't like it, yet it is reality.
Now ... please explain how it is that Apple should support every product that ships with a Mac and that the supplier does not have responsibility.
Lets take a trip down that road.
That would meant that everyone can make Mac hardware for Apple. Cause there is nearly no difference in 75% of the hardware used between platforms right?
So the problem is not that 3rd parties don't support Apple it's that Apple doesn't spend more time and money writing drivers for 3rd party stuff.
Why should I expect any third party vendor to write Mac software for their hardware? Why can't Apple do it all?
See thing is, there is a contract between Apple and ATi, and if it states that ATi writes the drivers, then that implies Apple can not, not practically, and not legally.
Apple isn't outsourcing graphics in terms of having someone make a chipset for them. Apple is buying a ready made solution from a third party, when you buy an off the shelf ATi card from CompUSA it is little different from Apple buying truck loads of them.
But I bet they get a bulk rate.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>Let me get this straight - everything can be solved if Applenut and Sinewave take over the openGL and 3D acceleration projects from Apple and ATi?
Cause that is what I am hearing.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Who said that? Can anyone say bizarro extremes? Do you hear voices son?
[quote]<strong>
Just pay em and they will do it eh? Ever think ATi might have said no to this?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
What is in it for them, <hr></blockquote></strong>
Uh money?
[quote]<strong>
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.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
3-5 years old? try newer than that
[quote]<strong>
What about IX Micro? I hear no one whining that Apple is not accelerating their hardware. And it is supported according to Apple. Supported does not mean what we want it to. It means whatever the party saying it wants it to.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Apple never said OS X would support the Machines IX Micro came with did it? No. Your point is moot.
[quote]<strong>
Sucks, I don't like it, yet it is reality.
Now ... please explain how it is that Apple should support every product that ships with a Mac and that the supplier does not have responsibility.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Cause when they make promises that the hardware they are shipping will be OS X ready they need to make sure it is? How big of a no-brainer is this one folks? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Again Apple is the only one that made this claim.. Apple is the only that needs to make sure to back it up. It's on their shoulders. How many times am I going to have to repeat myself on this one? What part of that is confusing you?
[quote]<strong>
Lets take a trip down that road.
That would meant that everyone can make Mac hardware for Apple. Cause there is nearly no difference in 75% of the hardware used between platforms right?
So the problem is not that 3rd parties don't support Apple it's that Apple doesn't spend more time and money writing drivers for 3rd party stuff.
Why should I expect any third party vendor to write Mac software for their hardware? Why can't Apple do it all?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Depends If companies want to support Apple they will write drivers for their platform. But the difference is here this hardware COMES BUNDLED with the Mac. This is apart of the Mac computer they sold. They are responsible to make sure that hardware works. And when they make claims about support on this hardware it is up to THEM to back it up. Again why do I feel like I keep repeating myself? If a 3rd party wants to write drivers for hardware that doesn't ship on Macs cool deal! If they want to make it OS X ready good deal! We are talking about hardware Apple ships with it's computers. Hardware Apple is responsible for.
[quote]<strong>
See thing is, there is a contract between Apple and ATi, and if it states that ATi writes the drivers, then that implies Apple can not, not practically, and not legally.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Please show me this contract. I want to see it <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> ANd that doesn't mean Apple can't pay ATI to write them does it? No again it falls back into Apple's lap.
[quote]<strong>
Apple isn't outsourcing graphics in terms of having someone make a chipset for them. Apple is buying a ready made solution from a third party, when you buy an off the shelf ATi card from CompUSA it is little different from Apple buying truck loads of them.
But I bet they get a bulk rate.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and the difference in buying a card in CompUSA and having a card that came with your Mac that Apple shipped is Apple is responsible for the card they ship with their product.
Again you made no point. Just more apologistic zealot behavior.
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
In OSX, the difference is dramatic. The monitor which uses the stock chip is barely usable. Windows jump by 10-20 px at a time as I move them around. Sreen redraws are visible and all of this while running at thousands of colors.
I could not work like this if it were my only monitor. For those of you who think that this is simply an issue for people who play games, you are wrong. Because Apple has dropped full support for these machines, they have rendered them unusable.
I am sure a court would agree with this. OGL & QT are shown as core technologies on both the OSX box and Apples web site. Because core elements of the OS are not supported, the entire OS becomes bogged down.
The beigew is the least of my worries. I bought an iBook for my mom. Now her machine will not be able to perform at the levels she has become accustomed to under OS9. This iBook JUST turned 2. C'mon, dont tell me this is an old machine. Its not the latest, but Apples have always had long life spans. Until recently, we were using 2 6100s as local servers here at work.
Apple needs to be taken to task on this. They have the ability to write drivers for the older cards. ATi and Apple are business partners, not buddies. If Apple wanted to support the old Macs, they could easily purchase whatever they needed from ATi.
What really pisses me off here is the fact that this is a thinly veiled attempt to force people to buy new machines.
I would be happy to fully support any legal action that is taken against Apple in this situation.
<strong>
If my iMac or iBook CAME with a SCSI card installed I'd be bitching if it didn't have SCSI support in OS X. See these cards CAME with the computer that was SUPPOSED to be OS X ready. If Joe Blow PCI card wont work with your Mac it isn't up to Apple to make it work. However Apple IS responsible in the hardware it ships with it's computers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, but your Mac didn't come with a 3D graphics chip sufficient to make it run OpenGL. The Rage2 and RagePro are not OpenGL-compliant 3D accelerators. Just because you thought they were doesn't mean Apple is accountable for it.
Fine, like Fran, I am taking leave of this thread, and you know what, go ahead and reply to this post claiming you proved your point or something ...
Cause when it comes down to it, you still won't get what you are complaining about.
And on the off chance that someone does release OS X drivers for those chipsets, I still win [heehee] cause I would benefit.
[oh, and try reading the ReadMe with Mac OS X - it includes IX Micro cards on the support list, sigh, so silly]
<strong>
Ah, but your Mac didn't come with a 3D graphics chip sufficient to make it run OpenGL. The Rage2 and RagePro are not OpenGL-compliant 3D accelerators. Just because you thought they were doesn't mean Apple is accountable for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny they ran OpenGL in OS 9. ANd you keep forgetting the fact Apple said this hardware would run it. Apple is accountable for it's own statements indeed. More silly apologist arguments.
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<strong>OK, whatever, you people want to argue and complain?
Fine, like Fran, I am taking leave of this thread, and you know what, go ahead and reply to this post claiming you proved your point or something ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
We DID prove something. Apple indeed made statements then changed them later after it was too late. Apple DID lie to the consumers. There is NO rebutting this. This is what is known as a fact.
[quote]<strong>
Cause when it comes down to it, you still won't get what you are complaining about.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You know this how? ANd how does us not getting what we want justify Apple doing this?
[quote]<strong>
And on the off chance that someone does release OS X drivers for those chipsets, I still win [heehee] cause I would benefit.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Everyone wins. Not just you.
[quote]<strong>
[oh, and try reading the ReadMe with Mac OS X - it includes IX Micro cards on the support list, sigh, so silly]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but These cards DID NOT come with the computers that Apple claimed where OS X ready. The cards we are talking about DID. There lies the difference.
Obviously this issue has become rather heated, with many people taking different points of view; I can understand that. What I don't understand are the cries of "Apple apologist" when someone of a differing opinion offers up their view of the situation.
Remember, we only learn and grow if our minds are open to the possibility of change; doesn't mean you have to (change that is), but when your mind is obviously closed shut (like some on this board) people won't take your arguments/points to seriously...
Have a great day!
PS - Programmer, nice to see a fellow engineer that had a grasp of what I was trying to say earlier in the thread! Of course, you explained it much better than I.
While I don't claim to have the background to explain why Apple could / couldn't make this happen (because I don't) I can understand basic business.
Do you think Apple made this choice for the fun of it?
Do you think Apple DIDN'T know they would hear about it?
Do you think if Apple could throw $50k or $100k at the problem for it to go away they'd choose not to?
If you believe any of the above then you have every right to leave the platform... I on the other hand don't think any of the above is true.
Do you think ATI is being less than helpful and maybe even holding some things over Apples head due to Nvidia moving into their space?
Do you think Apple might have been forced to do things with the OS that may have prevented the older cards from working to support future (yet unseen) technologies?
I can come up with a ton of other reasons but I think you see where I'm going with this...
Apple doesn't want to make their users/customers upset... And it isn't always easy for them to explain each and every choice they make due to a host of other reasons (politics and/or complexities). I really do believe that if Apple could throw some cash (even a few hundred grand) at this problem and make it go away they would have... But I have a feeling the underling issues are bigger than a 6 figure signoff.
Apple can/has done some pretty amazing things over the years... They have shown that they can stay in business against a MEGA corp known as Microsoft so don't you think they could churn out a silly driver?
Would you have Apple kill Nvidia as a graphics card option in order to get your old ATI drivers? Would you have Apple make OS X less usable with tomorrows technology in order to get your old ATI driver?? Those are just some questions for you to ponder...
Like I said, I'm not a driver programmer but I do know business and sometimes decisions aren't as cut and dry as some would lead you to believe... Ask some of the developers (that work for larger companies), they will tell you... Just because something 'could be done' isn't always the full story.
In the end you're gonna believe what you want anyway but make sure you take into account all of the posibilities...
Dave
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
<strong>Let's think about this as adults shall we?
Do you think Apple made this choice for the fun of it?
Do you think Apple DIDN'T know they would hear about it?
Do you think if Apple could throw $50k or $100k at the problem for it to go away they'd choose not to?
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
uh... Apple has done this in the past.
Most notably with the DVD Player that shipped with early PowerMac G4s and iMac slot loaders.
Guess what? It took a lawsuit to get Apple's attention. and guess what? We won. Apple had to pay the damages and offer discounts to all affected users.
same thing with lack of hardware decoding in OS X for people with B/W G3s and Lombards. Apple didn't support it until people started making petitions.
I don't know how to explain why they continuously try to do things like that but they do
<strong>
uh... Apple has done this in the past.
Most notably with the DVD Player that shipped with early PowerMac G4s and iMac slot loaders.
Guess what? It took a lawsuit to get Apple's attention. and guess what? We won. Apple had to pay the damages and offer discounts to all affected users.
same thing with lack of hardware decoding in OS X for people with B/W G3s and Lombards. Apple didn't support it until people started making petitions.
I don't know how to explain why they continuously try to do things like that but they do</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know who won that VICTORY? It was the lawyers... They got their fee's and you got a coupon... Apple had money it could have put to use on better hardware/software and instead gave it to lawyers... The problems were fixed with free OS updates... At no time did Apple say those users were SOL (shucks outta luck) but now instead of the problem just going away via the software updates that followed Apple lost a ton of cash...
Way to go guys!
Dave
You being from the Bronx explains a lot... (inside NY joke but the short of it is even Osama would be found inocent in a 'bronx jury' - aka liberal to the bone)
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
I can see what you are saying, and I do not expect very much from Apple. They have a right to change their mind about how much they will do for the older Macs. I may not like it, but I will try to understand. My complaint is that they conceal the facts from customers who are considering an upgrade to OS X. To read their compatibility page you would believe that any of the mentioned Mac models will be fully functional running OS X. The fact that parts of the original hardware does not work is something that potential customers have a right to know about. Why should people have to pay their money and install OS X before they know what works, and what does not? This is the issue I find inexcusable. I said all this earlier, but I believe most folks are so ticked off by now that nothing will satisfy them but to fix the hardware problem completely. Apple could have avoided this ugly situation by being candid about changes in support.
<a href="http://www.ati.com/na/pages/faq/mac/mac_osx_faq.html"; target="_blank">http://www.ati.com/na/pages/faq/mac/mac_osx_faq.html</a>;
Q3: Which ATI graphics products have 2D and 3D support under OS X?
ATI and Apple® have worked together to provide built-in 2D, 3D, and QuickTime? acceleration support on OS X for all RADEON?, RAGE? 128 PRO, and RAGE? 128 based products (this includes RAGE? ORION, NEXUS 128?, XCLAIM? VR 128, RADEON? MAC EDITION AGP and RADEON? MAC EDITION PCI). It is not ATI?s intention to provide OS X support for RAGE? PRO based products.
Q4: When and where will future OS X graphics software be available?
ATI will continue to work with Apple® to provide enhancements to the graphics software of future releases of OS X. For information on the OS X update release schedule, check the Apple® web site at <a href="http://www.apple.com."; target="_blank">www.apple.com.</a> As OS X matures, ATI intends to provide updated drivers for our customers. ATI drivers are posted on the corporate website at <a href="http://www.ati.com."; target="_blank">www.ati.com.</a>
Q6: 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.
After reading this thread, this is what I found after about three minutes of looking. I'm not an engineer, but what do people think of the following?:
"It is not ATI?s intention to provide OS X support for RAGE? PRO based products."
So, it seems Apple is on its own for this, and the question remains, does Apple have the authorization to do this on their own, or are their proprietary concerns? (as in "Apple won't release the specs for the PPC, so BeOS can't support it")
"As OS X matures, ATI intends to provide updated drivers for our customers."
So if Apple is responsible for the drivers, why would ATI need to provide drivers?
"Because Classic has different kernel than OS 9, some hardware features that are accessible in Mac OS 9.1 are not accessible in Classic."
This seems ambiguous. What is the difference between the kernel in Classic and the kernel in OS X? Aren't they layers on the same kernel? And if so, does that mean there are some hardware features not available to OS X?
<strong>
This seems ambiguous. What is the difference between the kernel in Classic and the kernel in OS X? Aren't they layers on the same kernel? And if so, does that mean there are some hardware features not available to OS X?</strong><hr></blockquote>
MacOS X is a completely different operating system from MacOS Classic, from the kernel up. Some things cannot be done because MacOS X works differently.
Thanks for doing your 3 minutes of research, by the way. It shows the ATI doesn't want to do the work either, even if Apple can be held responsible for things they OEM'd.
Way to go guys!<hr></blockquote>
awe. big old apple got sued from screwing over their customers and they lost and now dumbass mac users like yourself blame the people who sued for the lack of "new exciting hardware". how low are you going to go?
[quote]Dave
You being from the Bronx explains a lot... (inside NY joke but the short of it is even Osama would be found inocent in a 'bronx jury' - aka liberal to the bone)<hr></blockquote>
wait. you just got lower. lower than shit. what kind of inside joke is that? that is just sick and out of place and was not needed in this thread. You have lost any respect in my eyes. stooping so low to insult where I live and then insulting the bronx as a hole and then bringing in the fact that we would even find Bin laden innocent. what kind of "inside joke" is that because I'm sure not "in" on it. Some criticize me for not being mature at times but this. You disgusted me with that
<strong>Hi DaveGee,
I can see what you are saying, and I do not expect very much from Apple. They have a right to change their mind about how much they will do for the older Macs. I may not like it, but I will try to understand. My complaint is that they conceal the facts from customers who are considering an upgrade to OS X. To read their compatibility page you would believe that any of the mentioned Mac models will be fully functional running OS X. The fact that parts of the original hardware does not work is something that potential customers have a right to know about. Why should people have to pay their money and install OS X before they know what works, and what does not? This is the issue I find inexcusable. I said all this earlier, but I believe most folks are so ticked off by now that nothing will satisfy them but to fix the hardware problem completely. Apple could have avoided this ugly situation by being candid about changes in support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Listen,
I don't disagree that Apple did THINK they could/would support OS X 'fully' when they sold the systems they did... I'm sure they really thought they could... But, in a word *($# happend along the way. I know this is hard for some of you to understand but software (and more to the point OS) development ISN'T always as cut and dry and you'd like to believe.
People who respect the law or love sauage never see either being made... Well folks, it seems the same hold true for software and/or OS development...
Business will always get in the way...
Dave
<strong>
wait. you just got lower. lower than shit. what kind of inside joke is that? that is just sick and out of place and was not needed in this thread. You have lost any respect in my eyes. stooping so low to insult where I live and then insulting the bronx as a hole and then bringing in the fact that we would even find Bin laden innocent. what kind of "inside joke" is that because I'm sure not "in" on it. Some criticize me for not being mature at times but this. You disgusted me with that
Sorry applenut but as a fellow New Yorker I will always call em like I see em... (it's a New Yorkers god given right as you well know) and the Bronx has let more trash back out onto the city streets than all of the other boroughs combined...
Are you new to NYC and need me to explain the concept of "a bronx jury" to you?
For our non-NYC readers here is a perfect example... (found via goole in under 10 seconds with a 'bronx jury' keyword search) but please as a warning don't read too many of the hits as you may become very upset.
<a href="http://www.bronx.com/red/11_22_01front.html"; target="_blank">http://www.bronx.com/red/11_22_01front.html</a>;
And I quote...
"Despite such statements, a jury made up of 12 women saw enough evidence to acquit Waldermar in the murder of Gordon, a mother of five, who was killed shortly after celebrating the birthday of her twin sons."
Sorry applenut you WILL lose this fight... I have tons of trials to back me up... The scum of the earth WISH their trial were held in the bronx for a reason....
Oh and here goes another for the 'old bronx cheer'...
"Huge tort claims, especially when they involve horrific injuries and rest on novel or complex legal theories, naturally tend to garner the most attention from the general public and the news media. So do cases that feature outrageous disparities between the size of the verdict and the severity of injuryÂ?such as a Bronx juryÂ?s recent award of $4.2Â*million in damages to a woman who sued New York City after she slipped on a snowy sidewalk and damaged a knee joint while chasing her dog. "
Way to go Bronx! keep those innocents safe sound and the lawyers even richer!
As an Apple fan.... I'd say that Apple NOT having their home offices in the BRONX is a pretty good thing wouldn't you say?
Dave,
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>