Confirmed: Older graphics card not supported by OSX

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Check the link below:



<a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0112/21.graphics.php"; target="_blank">MacCentral Story</a>



I personnaly think this is really stupid. I mean, for beige G3 owners, they do have the option to upgrade their graphics cards, but for iMac owners, it's a completely different story.



Apple, If you're going to ship a system, at least continue to support it's hardware, or at least give it the ability to upgrade the hardware!
«13456718

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 357
    I'm boxing up my copy of OS X and sending it back for a refund. This is really just fucking ridiculous. I'll never buy Apple again. They've lost me.
  • Reply 2 of 357
    Bye.



    Scratch one less Republican for the mac platform.
  • Reply 3 of 357
    imacfpimacfp Posts: 750member
    [quote]Originally posted by erbium:

    <strong> but for iMac owners, it's a completely different story.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's only the early iMacs. All DVs support it. I'm not saying I agree with it though.



    Chris
  • Reply 4 of 357
    I don't see why this is an issue at all - I have an iBook 500 with a supported graphics card and it's STILL slow. Supporting older graphics cards would be like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
  • Reply 5 of 357
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    [quote]Originally posted by imacSE:

    <strong>



    It's only the early iMacs. All DVs support it. I'm not saying I agree with it though.



    Chris</strong><hr></blockquote>





    There are hundreds of thousands of people who own those iMacs. I may be wrong but i thought the original imac was the first mac designed with os X in mind. Why the hell wouldn't apple have programmed support for this mac first?!



    Very annoying.
  • Reply 6 of 357
    I think this statement from Apple is very disappointing, as I own a Beige G3, and was expecting some form of hardware acceleration in OS X. I don't expected very good performance, but at least QuickTime acceleration and some OpenGL.



    But, assuming that this situation isn't going to change in the near future, what are the options for Beige G3 owners out there? (unfortunately, older iMacs and iBooks/PowerBooks haven't got any options)



    1- ATI Radeon Mac (PCI) $230.00- I think for someone wishing just a better accelerated graphics display for working purposes (Aqua screen redraws, scrolling, etc), Video display (QuickTime and DVD) and some casual gaming, this card is too expensive.



    2- ATI Radeon VE Mac (PCI) $130.00- With support for dual displays, DVD playback, QuickTime and OpenGL acceleration, this card is much less expensive than the other Radeon, while only lacking in 3D power for gamers. I actually find it much more useful than the original Radeon due to the support for 2 dislplays.

    This card was first announced at MacWorld last July (I think), and was ment to be selling by late September, but to date, hasn't been released and I've found no information about it anywhere. I'm waiting to buy this card but I guess it would probably never be released, because the new chips from ATI (the new Radeons 8500,7500,etc) are already out and maybe they're working on a new card with the new generation chips. After all, the Radeon VE for PCs came out a year ago, and launching the Mac card with this delay doesn't make much sense...



    Are there any more alternatives to work with a well supported card (optimized drivers) in OS X?



    Link:

    <a href="http://www.ati.com/na/pages/sitemap/sitemap_index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.ati.com/na/pages/sitemap/sitemap_index.html</a>;

    <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 7 of 357
    erbiumerbium Posts: 354member
    I say somebody oughta start a petition, and send it to Apple.



    How hard would it be for Apple to support the machines left out in the cold!? I mean all they have to do is write proper drivers, and bam!



    To me, a computer made in early '99 (iMac 333) should be fully supported under MacOSX. This is totally unacceptable.



    If this is Apple's way of getting people to buy new machines, then I'm really ashamed.
  • Reply 8 of 357
    fluffyfluffy Posts: 361member
    I'm curious as to what, exactly, people expect out of these cards? The current drivers make little or no attempt to optimize quartz using any hardware. I do think that in the future the 3D hardware will be used to accelerate certain features of quartz, but I have serious doubts as to whether the Rage 2 or Pro cards could handle it or, more to the point, be faster than software alone. Especially when the limited amount of VRAM that these cards contained is taken into account I can't see how they could even be used at all. Consider an original iMac with 2MB of VRAM; OS X needs at least an 800 x 600 screen at 16 bits to present a decent interface, and that already is using half of the memory for display purposes only. When the fact that every window and layer in the display system is double buffered, 2 or 4 MB of VRAM would simply cause too much swapping across the system bus to be feasible for acceleration. The 6MB versions would handle it a little better, but then the limitations of the chips themselves have to be considered. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if 16 or 32 MB of VRAM is a requirement for future acceleration options.



    Besides, Apple is not saying that X will not run on these systems (it obviously does) but only that the realities of the display layer and the memory and speed required for it precludes the successful utilization of these particular cards. It is unfortunate that they will not be used for acceleration, but I am not willing to accept the theory that Apple is simply trying to make users upgrade. These chips and memory configurations have serious shortcomings that, apparently after investigation by Apple, simply make them untenable.



    The point must also be forwarded that, even were acceleration enabled, X still would be a painful experience on any configuration that uses a Rage 2/Pro.



    And before anyone raises the question... yes, I probably would crucify microsoft for the same transgression. Oh well, I'll have to deal with my own hypocrisy.
  • Reply 9 of 357
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    this is ridiculous and anyone who backs up apple on this decision like countless people in the MacNN "talkback" thread are idiots.



    games such as Cro mag Rally run just fine in OS 9.x on these machines yet in OS X there are no open gl drivers so they can't be used. its inexcusable. the damn screensavers Apple ships don't even run well because they use OpenGL and these machines don't have it.



    It's possible, they are just lazy.
  • Reply 10 of 357
    [quote]Originally posted by Fluffy:

    <strong>I'm curious as to what, exactly, people expect out of these cards?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It used to work in OS 9. Sure it wasn't that hot but it was there. I even played Q3A on my little iMac. It worked. I wasn't expecting much more in OS X than what I got in 9. That assumes crApple supported my machine. They say they do but they don't.



    Blame the user will be the major theme of the Apple Apologists (TM). It's my fault for buying the iMac. It's my fault for being and "early adopter". It's my fault that my hardware is "old". It's my fault for expecting something. It's my fault for not upgrading. No matter what it's my fault. Not Apple's.



    Isn't it Apple that claims a major advantage from making both the hardware and software. What good has that done me?
  • Reply 11 of 357
    fluffyfluffy Posts: 361member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>



    It used to work in OS 9. Sure it wasn't that hot but it was there. I even played Q3A on my little iMac. It worked. I wasn't expecting much more in OS X than what I got in 9. That assumes crApple supported my machine. They say they do but they don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I didn't really address the 3D issue, as I agree with you and Applenut on that point, at least for the Rage Pro. Apple should at least provide basic OpenGL functionality for 4+ MB Pro users.
  • Reply 12 of 357
    The original iMacs were not designed to run OS X.



    Jobs has said from day 1 from his return at Apple, when he introduced the iMac, and when he introduced OS X that revamping the system software takes more time than revamping the hardware side. They were never intended to be in synch, never planned on the same time line even when one ignores the continuous delay of the OS.



    PS: doesn't capitalism suck?



    [ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 357
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>The original iMacs were not designed to run OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Why is it on the supported list then? What's stopping crApple from just writing a driver?
  • Reply 14 of 357
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    OS X uses Quartz. Quartz uses OpenGL for 3D. The cards Apple listed it will no longer support, lack full OpenGL acceleration. The machines these cards are found in, also lack the CPU power neccissary to deliver acceptable OpenGL performance in software. It's a case of tough luck. Apple can't dwell on the fact that these machines have poor OS X performance. What are they going to do? Go back and recode Quartz to accommodate legacy hardware? Give me a break! If Apple did that, they'd screw every Mac owner with a modern machine. OS X is designed to get the most out of tomorrow's hardware, not yesterday's. That's why it requires OpenGL for 3D. Apple still supports legacy hardware with its Carbon spec. A rev A. iMac running OS 9, will still be able to run the next version of Photoshop. You don't have to run OS X, and by the time Apple forces you to, you'll have a new computer anyway.
  • Reply 15 of 357
    Then they shouldn't have put it on the supported list and they should offer refunds to those of us the lied to. If OS 9 can go OpenGL OSX can too. crApple is just too lazy to do it. **** them. I will upgrade but not to Apple.
  • Reply 16 of 357
    I think the main problem with Apple is that they just make these statements without supporting them with reasons. If there is a good reason, like the one explained here, why 4mb or less cards can never be able to accelerate OSX then tell us that and we will live with it...but by just making a declaration that they won't be supported it gives rise to frustration and speculation as to Apple's motives that can't be good for the company.
  • Reply 17 of 357
    Ick, I don't like my previous reply at all. What I meant to say is that the iMac was not designed around OS X. Poorly stated, sorry.



    I do sympathize with you Scott, but I think we all know what's going on: Apple does not see a big economic advantage to taking time and money from other areas of OS development to write the drivers. Plus, it's about the usual upgrade time for these computers: 3 years, typically. hence, my "capitalism" comment. It's the nature of this economy to drop older support and try to force upgrades and new purchases. I didn't mean to be insensitive; I thought I was being clever, but then again it was 2 in the morning.



    The one thing I do *not* take your side on (I'm not sure if this is even something you're arguing though) is whether Apple designs the OS to support legacy software at the (apparent) expense of future code and hardware. I think that aspect is a no-brainer.



    I have an iMac that I don't bother to upgrade to OS X, knowing that while it can run OS X, it will not run it well. The supported list is for machines that will run OS X, but there is no qualification for how they run the OS. But, again, I'm into Apple for OS X, not my older hardware, so if push comes to shove I know which will give.



    The one possibility at this point is that someone can write OpenGL drivers for those cards since OpenGL is, well, open. You're at the mercy of the Darwin community at that point. However I wouldn't necessarily take much solace in that since I can't write code myself.



    Again, I apologize for the dumb post above.
  • Reply 18 of 357
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by Codename:

    <strong>Bye.



    Scratch one less Republican for the mac platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Don't tell me your such a political zealot that you keep track of such things
  • Reply 19 of 357
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Well that's fantastic.



    We've got about a dozen beige G3s in "my" department with people waiting on better graphics acceleration before they switch to OSX. Looks like Apple gets 10+ orders for new machines.



    Nice MS-like move, Apple, planned obsolescence is the way to go. Well, I don't think anyone has accused Apple of being pro-customer over pro-dollar.







    (If it works on OS9, it should work on The Most Advanced Operating System in the World)



  • Reply 20 of 357
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Keeksy:

    <strong>OS X uses Quartz. Quartz uses OpenGL for 3D. The cards Apple listed it will no longer support, lack full OpenGL acceleration. The machines these cards are found in, also lack the CPU power neccissary to deliver acceptable OpenGL performance in software. It's a case of tough luck. Apple can't dwell on the fact that these machines have poor OS X performance. What are they going to do? Go back and recode Quartz to accommodate legacy hardware? Give me a break! If Apple did that, they'd screw every Mac owner with a modern machine. OS X is designed to get the most out of tomorrow's hardware, not yesterday's. That's why it requires OpenGL for 3D. Apple still supports legacy hardware with its Carbon spec. A rev A. iMac running OS 9, will still be able to run the next version of Photoshop. You don't have to run OS X, and by the time Apple forces you to, you'll have a new computer anyway. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    quartz doesn't use OpenGL for 3d.



    OS X uses OpenGL for 3d. quartz isn't the controller of all visual activities.



    what the hell are you talking abpout when you say these cards don't support full OpenGL acceleration and the CPU is not powerful enough? Am I not making it clear than games such as Quake 3 and Cro Mag rally run fine in 9.x on these machines with the use of OpenGL but Apple hasn't released OpenGL OS X drivers and therefore they don't work. And the clim of 30 percent faster OpenGL in OS X due to optimization of OpenGL and the fact that its at the core of OS X could make huge improvements of OpenGL performance on these machines if Apple's claims are true



    And OpenGL is only part of the problem. Apple even refuses to support QT acceleration on these cards. and yes these cards do support QT acceleration. In fact the QT acceleration for ATI cards only chnaged in the Radeon series when they implemented more codecs. there is no reason not to support it.



    1999 hardware is not legacy hardware. a performa is legacy hardware. these machines werre part of the "new Apple" of the late 90s and were released AFTER OS X started development. there is no reason not to fully support them. But dumbasses like you and the other apologists here let Apple do whatever they want. the response in the mac community is now, "buy a new mac" or "buy a pc if you don't like it". Wha's to like about Apple if they don't appreciate and value their customers? and what's the mac community worth being in if its members are jsut going to turn on you and say so what, buy a newer mac or pc.



    [ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: applenut ]



    [ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.