<strong>"OS X Ready" means OS X support the hardware and runs no it. If Apple meant anything other than that they where trying to deceive the consumers. And that is just as bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, what can I say. OS X runs on my unsupported 9500 (G3/400). Sorry it doesn't run on your whatever. If that's your argument, you're wrong. You were doing better with your "Apple won't write drivers" argument.
I really don't want to enter back into this argument cause Sinewave is being just too bitchy, sorry man but most of your replies consist of replying over and over [like 7-10 times on the last page of this thread] that the person is wrong.
But anyway, I think its funny how this thread is going, its a one guy shouting at everyone else that know you are wrong this is how it is, and everyone else is saying - uhm, how is that? to which he replies - no you're wrong, its like this.
Heehee, its funny.
Anyway.
Just to try and give some direction, not to argue for either side any more [gave that up], I have two things:
Sinewave-
First - can you post your evidence that Apple or ATi will never provide drivers [please include it for both, links are best].
Second - could you please backup your claim that Apple is solely responsible for providing the drivers with some sort of agreement or policy that Apple and/or ATi have rather than just saying "Apple said, Apple said."
Third - on the matter of "supported" and "OS X ready" can you show me Apple's endorsement of what you take this to mean? "Ready" in technology normally means that something can be added - like being AirPort ready, it means you can add an AirPort card. Simply meaning that "ready" is taken to mean a wide variety of things, so if you take it to mean that Apple will make everything on those Macs work at 100% please show where they say that.
Everyone arguing with Sinewave-
Be nice if anyone else can show any evidence of ATi/Apple policy that clearly states responsibilities of each.
Or if anyone can show what Apple's meaning of "ready" and "supported" is.
Normally I don't like this whole "what is so and so's definition of this word" stuff, but I think words are being put in Apple's mouth.
Hey, what can I say. OS X runs on my unsupported 9500 (G3/400). Sorry it doesn't run on your whatever. If that's your argument, you're wrong. You were doing better with your "Apple won't write drivers" argument.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I really don't want to enter back into this argument cause Sinewave is being just too bitchy, </strong><hr></blockquote>
So I just just sit there and bite the pillow and take the screwin?
[quote]<strong>
sorry man but most of your replies consist of replying over and over [like 7-10 times on the last page of this thread] that the person is wrong.<hr></blockquote></strong>
If the shoe fits..
[quote]<strong>
But anyway, I think its funny how this thread is going, its a one guy shouting at everyone else that know you are wrong this is how it is, and everyone else is saying - uhm, how is that? to which he replies - no you're wrong, its like this.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
One guy? I am not the only one in this thread that are telling the apologists that they are being morons son.
[quote]<strong>
Sinewave-
First - can you post your evidence that Apple or ATi will never provide drivers [please include it for both, links are best].
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Did you not read this thread? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Apple stated those cards would NO LONGER BE SUPPORTED. ATI says Apple is responsible for the Cards they ship with.
How hard is that to comprehend? Read ----> Comprehend -----> Reply
[quote]<strong>
Second - could you please backup your claim that Apple is solely responsible for providing the drivers with some sort of agreement or policy that Apple and/or ATi have rather than just saying "Apple said, Apple said."
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Apple is the only one that made the "OS X ready" claim is it not? Apple is the only one responsible for making those claims. (I feel like I am repeating myself over and over again for you guy. PLEASE comprehend it this time.) ATI didn't make this claim. ATI isn't responsible for Apple's words. Apple is responsible to make sure these cards are support by OS X.
[quote]<strong>
Third - on the matter of "supported" and "OS X ready" can you show me Apple's endorsement of what you take this to mean? "Ready" in technology normally means that something can be added - like being AirPort ready, it means you can add an AirPort card. Simply meaning that "ready" is taken to mean a wide variety of things, so if you take it to mean that Apple will make everything on those Macs work at 100% please show where they say that.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And here is where your apologist argument comes in. If a computer says it's AirPort ready and you add a Airport card and it 100% works it's Airport ready I agree. If a computer says It's "OS X Ready" and you add OS X to it and not all of it works that computer IS NOT OS X ready.
If Apple meant any other than 100% compatible with "OS X Ready" it was trying to deceive it's customers. I know plenty of people who would have waited had they would have known this was going to happen.
Hm, according to what Apple stated, further development of X might bring a full support of old ATI cards. They did not explicitly exclude this possibility.
But they gave strong hints to the opposite possibility, that they will never ever try to fully support this hardware.
This is a policy that Apple has since it started with its new OS. The supported hardware limits were most elastically shifted around during announcements and during the course of the development.
Eventually everything from a B&W G3 upwards turned out to be officially supported, some G3 (beige and others) formed a grey zone of doubt and older PowerMacs of the 9XXX-7XXX line were "out", despite able to run X after some (unsupported) tweaking.
Now a further drawback path seems to be paved. Anyone who purchased hardware based on Apples claims to officially support a certain hardware that was close to the grey zone now must fear to be left out too.
I can understand that this odd behaviour by Apple (certainly not a hall of fame worth stance) gets called lying. The task of supporting various hardware is hard, yes. Since new hardware comes up quickly the task gets tight when deadlines are to be reached. I can understand that.
However, running a business needs having an extremely elastic conscience, at least as elastic as the loose border line between supported and unsupported hardware. At least it seems so. You may fail to find a court to support the lying reproach, but within the relation between consumers and companies not everthing is sorted out by law.
If the same measures, like some of the above proposed, of what can be regarded as a product/service being up to its claims would be applied to medicine, the arguing here would have been not so different I guess.
But since it all affects computers and some money there is no need for bloodthurst.
However on a more personal side note I find this Apple policy of cheating and cunningly putting the tongue in the cheek and creeping very poor. It is not a new policy though. Maybe they have to react this way due to the American law, otherwise they could face severe financial difficulties?
Marketing wise these things are huge faults. If a sticker like "Mac OS X ready" isn't worth its paint and provokes a debate about its meaning, Apple already lost a case (and customer?) that never will go on trial whatever the semantics may turn out to be proven.
So I just just sit there and bite the pillow and take the screwin?
That's exactly what you are doing. You don't even want to try to understand the issues involved. Instead all you want to to is talk to empty air about nothing, just trying to shout down people who don't really care about what you are saying.
If you would care to try to understand the issues, you could do something constructive, like submit feedback to Apple or encourage people to sign some petition or another. You've been around long enough to know that Apple doesn't respond to posts on this or their own forum. But they sometimes respond to their feedback site. Wouldn't it be great if someone wrote to them, got a reply, and then posted it here to find out what their official position is? Perhaps if you would go to school, you'd find out how valuable listening to second-hand opinions is and the value of doing your own research from first-hand sources.
Talk about mindless responses. You are so blinded by your rage that you have ceased to do anything except state your unchanging position over and over and over. You don't even read what people say, but misinterpret it for your own purposes. Your signature is definately self-descriptive.
Boy I can't go away for a New Years get away with out a pack of idiots defending Apple at every turn. I don't know why I didn't put the "Blame ATI" apology up top Blame the user, blame the hardware, blame ATI ... blame everyone but Apple. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Scott, some of us try and explain what's going on and why Apple can't magically pull drivers out of it's butt, and you decide to call all of us idiots. Real nice.
Have you forgotten that your 'battle' is against Apple and not us?
Boy I can't go away for a New Years get away with out a pack of idiots defending Apple at every turn. I don't know why I didn't put the "Blame ATI" apology up top Blame the user, blame the hardware, blame ATI ... blame everyone but Apple. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah of course. Cause Apple can't do wrong. And if they do and you complain.. well your just being a whiner. Yipee
<strong>Scott, some of us try and explain what's going on and why Apple can't magically pull drivers out of it's butt, and you decide to call all of us idiots. Real nice.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple doesn't have to pull them out of any orifice. They can pay for them. Saying there is no way Apple can get these drivers is kinda silly.
<strong>Scott, some of us try and explain what's going on and why Apple can't magically pull drivers out of it's butt, and you decide to call all of us idiots. Real nice.
Have you forgotten that your 'battle' is against Apple and not us?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's idiotic to think that Apple couldn't have come up with a driver over the past (what is it now) three years at least. They have had years and years to do this and now months and months AFTER it ships Apple pulls out the rug.
No they only put it next to the ones that they claimed where OS X ready. And at the time every computer they shipped was OS X ready.
What's your point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly what I said... the ones they claimed were OS X ready were the ones that were out at the time that had 128MB RAM.
All I was saying really was that Apple didn't seem to care if it ran well on that particular machine, they just put the Mac OS X ready thing next to all hardware that was shipping at the time with 128MB RAM.
Exactly what I said... the ones they claimed were OS X ready were the ones that were out at the time that had 128MB RAM.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I dont think it had anything to do with RAM
[quote]<strong>
All I was saying really was that Apple didn't seem to care if it ran well on that particular machine, they just put the Mac OS X ready thing next to all hardware that was shipping at the time with 128MB RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it put OS X ready on all hardware that was supposed to be Ready for OS X. OS X ready means it's ready for OS X. Having features of OS X not work in these computers makes them NOT OS X ready.
Jesus ****ing Christ, Scott finished his tantrum four pages ago! How long do we have to watch you throw a tantrum in here? You've been saying the exact same thing for six pages, and nobody cares any more. We understood you after 100th post in a row. Quit. For your own dignity, quit.
Heh it doesn't matter son. How is that the consumers fault? It isn't Apple needs to compensate for that. Why should I buy a new Mac when it might be outdated in a year?
Your reasoning amuses me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said, I WAS NOT TRYING TO IMPLY ANYTHING MORE THAN THE FACT THAT THE RAGE PRO CHIP WAS INDEED ALREADY 3-5 YEARS OLD, WHICH YOU CLAIMED WAS FALSE. Dammit, what's so hard to understand about that? I was neither giving resposibilites to anyone, nor taking them from anyone. I only, exclusively, withouth any further implications, noted that the Rage Pro was a stone-age chip even at the time you bought your machine. Blame it on whomever you want.
Ah so no proof.. no pudding. Next time don't state something fact that you can't back up
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please... From what this guy wrote, he sounds like he has pulled this all out of his ass or what? Come on...
[quote]<strong>
Apple didn't tell it's customers that functionality would be limited. Apple would not have sold as many machines had they done so. Apple committed false advertisement and didn't explain why. Too bad we are just supposed to take it up the ass and not complain. Bite the pillow and take the screwin. I don't think it's gonna happen that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hehe, since you seem to only accept arguments that are proven by links etc.: How about *you* proove that Apple promised OS X would fully support the RagePro?
Honestly though, maybe we should really leave it at that, guess this "discussion" won't get us any further (and I guess I doesn't really help too much in having a driver appear in one way or the other either).
No it put OS X ready on all hardware that was supposed to be Ready for OS X. OS X ready means it's ready for OS X. Having features of OS X not work in these computers makes them NOT OS X ready.</strong><hr></blockquote>
errm, just to point out, I'm quite sure that at the time Apple was plastering "OS X Ready" on it's products it deliberately left out the bottom-end iMac and iBook... and they had only 64Mb RAM. So I think it's pretty safe to say that 128Mb RAM and an "OS X Ready" accolade are correlated.
As I said, I WAS NOT TRYING TO IMPLY ANYTHING MORE THAN THE FACT THAT THE RAGE PRO CHIP WAS INDEED ALREADY 3-5 YEARS OLD, WHICH YOU CLAIMED WAS FALSE. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I claimed that was false? I did? Really? I claimed the computers Apple shipped that was supposed to be OS X Read was newer than that .Not once did I make a comment on the age of the Rage Pro chip.Not that it matters how old the Rage Pro chip as in this situation.
[quote]<strong>
Dammit, what's so hard to understand about that?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Seems to me *I* am not the one having a hard time comprehending.
[quote]<strong>
I was neither giving resposibilites to anyone, nor taking them from anyone. I only, exclusively, withouth any further implications, noted that the Rage Pro was a stone-age chip even at the time you bought your machine. Blame it on whomever you want.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
And just because Apple choose to use a older chip Justifies what?
Comments
<strong>"OS X Ready" means OS X support the hardware and runs no it. If Apple meant anything other than that they where trying to deceive the consumers. And that is just as bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, what can I say. OS X runs on my unsupported 9500 (G3/400). Sorry it doesn't run on your whatever. If that's your argument, you're wrong. You were doing better with your "Apple won't write drivers" argument.
But anyway, I think its funny how this thread is going, its a one guy shouting at everyone else that know you are wrong this is how it is, and everyone else is saying - uhm, how is that? to which he replies - no you're wrong, its like this.
Heehee, its funny.
Anyway.
Just to try and give some direction, not to argue for either side any more [gave that up], I have two things:
Sinewave-
First - can you post your evidence that Apple or ATi will never provide drivers [please include it for both, links are best].
Second - could you please backup your claim that Apple is solely responsible for providing the drivers with some sort of agreement or policy that Apple and/or ATi have rather than just saying "Apple said, Apple said."
Third - on the matter of "supported" and "OS X ready" can you show me Apple's endorsement of what you take this to mean? "Ready" in technology normally means that something can be added - like being AirPort ready, it means you can add an AirPort card. Simply meaning that "ready" is taken to mean a wide variety of things, so if you take it to mean that Apple will make everything on those Macs work at 100% please show where they say that.
Everyone arguing with Sinewave-
Be nice if anyone else can show any evidence of ATi/Apple policy that clearly states responsibilities of each.
Or if anyone can show what Apple's meaning of "ready" and "supported" is.
Normally I don't like this whole "what is so and so's definition of this word" stuff, but I think words are being put in Apple's mouth.
<strong>
But with those OS X Ready signs they pretty much put it next to anything with the 128MB required RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No they only put it next to the ones that they claimed where OS X ready. And at the time every computer they shipped was OS X ready.
What's your point?
<strong>
Hey, what can I say. OS X runs on my unsupported 9500 (G3/400). Sorry it doesn't run on your whatever. If that's your argument, you're wrong. You were doing better with your "Apple won't write drivers" argument.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I ever say OS X wont run on a G3?
<strong>
I really don't want to enter back into this argument cause Sinewave is being just too bitchy, </strong><hr></blockquote>
So I just just sit there and bite the pillow and take the screwin?
[quote]<strong>
sorry man but most of your replies consist of replying over and over [like 7-10 times on the last page of this thread] that the person is wrong.<hr></blockquote></strong>
If the shoe fits..
[quote]<strong>
But anyway, I think its funny how this thread is going, its a one guy shouting at everyone else that know you are wrong this is how it is, and everyone else is saying - uhm, how is that? to which he replies - no you're wrong, its like this.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
One guy? I am not the only one in this thread that are telling the apologists that they are being morons son.
[quote]<strong>
Sinewave-
First - can you post your evidence that Apple or ATi will never provide drivers [please include it for both, links are best].
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Did you not read this thread? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Apple stated those cards would NO LONGER BE SUPPORTED. ATI says Apple is responsible for the Cards they ship with.
How hard is that to comprehend? Read ----> Comprehend -----> Reply
[quote]<strong>
Second - could you please backup your claim that Apple is solely responsible for providing the drivers with some sort of agreement or policy that Apple and/or ATi have rather than just saying "Apple said, Apple said."
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Apple is the only one that made the "OS X ready" claim is it not? Apple is the only one responsible for making those claims. (I feel like I am repeating myself over and over again for you guy. PLEASE comprehend it this time.) ATI didn't make this claim. ATI isn't responsible for Apple's words. Apple is responsible to make sure these cards are support by OS X.
[quote]<strong>
Third - on the matter of "supported" and "OS X ready" can you show me Apple's endorsement of what you take this to mean? "Ready" in technology normally means that something can be added - like being AirPort ready, it means you can add an AirPort card. Simply meaning that "ready" is taken to mean a wide variety of things, so if you take it to mean that Apple will make everything on those Macs work at 100% please show where they say that.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And here is where your apologist argument comes in. If a computer says it's AirPort ready and you add a Airport card and it 100% works it's Airport ready I agree. If a computer says It's "OS X Ready" and you add OS X to it and not all of it works that computer IS NOT OS X ready.
If Apple meant any other than 100% compatible with "OS X Ready" it was trying to deceive it's customers. I know plenty of people who would have waited had they would have known this was going to happen.
But they gave strong hints to the opposite possibility, that they will never ever try to fully support this hardware.
This is a policy that Apple has since it started with its new OS. The supported hardware limits were most elastically shifted around during announcements and during the course of the development.
Eventually everything from a B&W G3 upwards turned out to be officially supported, some G3 (beige and others) formed a grey zone of doubt and older PowerMacs of the 9XXX-7XXX line were "out", despite able to run X after some (unsupported) tweaking.
Now a further drawback path seems to be paved. Anyone who purchased hardware based on Apples claims to officially support a certain hardware that was close to the grey zone now must fear to be left out too.
I can understand that this odd behaviour by Apple (certainly not a hall of fame worth stance) gets called lying. The task of supporting various hardware is hard, yes. Since new hardware comes up quickly the task gets tight when deadlines are to be reached. I can understand that.
However, running a business needs having an extremely elastic conscience, at least as elastic as the loose border line between supported and unsupported hardware. At least it seems so. You may fail to find a court to support the lying reproach, but within the relation between consumers and companies not everthing is sorted out by law.
If the same measures, like some of the above proposed, of what can be regarded as a product/service being up to its claims would be applied to medicine, the arguing here would have been not so different I guess.
But since it all affects computers and some money there is no need for bloodthurst.
However on a more personal side note I find this Apple policy of cheating and cunningly putting the tongue in the cheek and creeping very poor. It is not a new policy though. Maybe they have to react this way due to the American law, otherwise they could face severe financial difficulties?
Marketing wise these things are huge faults. If a sticker like "Mac OS X ready" isn't worth its paint and provokes a debate about its meaning, Apple already lost a case (and customer?) that never will go on trial whatever the semantics may turn out to be proven.
my 2 cents.
[QB][/qb]
So I just just sit there and bite the pillow and take the screwin?
That's exactly what you are doing. You don't even want to try to understand the issues involved. Instead all you want to to is talk to empty air about nothing, just trying to shout down people who don't really care about what you are saying.
If you would care to try to understand the issues, you could do something constructive, like submit feedback to Apple or encourage people to sign some petition or another. You've been around long enough to know that Apple doesn't respond to posts on this or their own forum. But they sometimes respond to their feedback site. Wouldn't it be great if someone wrote to them, got a reply, and then posted it here to find out what their official position is? Perhaps if you would go to school, you'd find out how valuable listening to second-hand opinions is and the value of doing your own research from first-hand sources.
Talk about mindless responses. You are so blinded by your rage that you have ceased to do anything except state your unchanging position over and over and over. You don't even read what people say, but misinterpret it for your own purposes. Your signature is definately self-descriptive.
Boy I can't go away for a New Years get away with out a pack of idiots defending Apple at every turn. I don't know why I didn't put the "Blame ATI" apology up top
Have you forgotten that your 'battle' is against Apple and not us?
<strong>Now we have an official Apple Apologist.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple Apologist Coward.
[quote]<strong>
Boy I can't go away for a New Years get away with out a pack of idiots defending Apple at every turn. I don't know why I didn't put the "Blame ATI" apology up top
Yeah of course. Cause Apple can't do wrong. And if they do and you complain.. well your just being a whiner. Yipee
<strong>Scott, some of us try and explain what's going on and why Apple can't magically pull drivers out of it's butt, and you decide to call all of us idiots. Real nice.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple doesn't have to pull them out of any orifice. They can pay for them. Saying there is no way Apple can get these drivers is kinda silly.
<strong>Scott, some of us try and explain what's going on and why Apple can't magically pull drivers out of it's butt, and you decide to call all of us idiots. Real nice.
Have you forgotten that your 'battle' is against Apple and not us?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's idiotic to think that Apple couldn't have come up with a driver over the past (what is it now) three years at least. They have had years and years to do this and now months and months AFTER it ships Apple pulls out the rug.
<strong>
No they only put it next to the ones that they claimed where OS X ready. And at the time every computer they shipped was OS X ready.
What's your point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly what I said... the ones they claimed were OS X ready were the ones that were out at the time that had 128MB RAM.
All I was saying really was that Apple didn't seem to care if it ran well on that particular machine, they just put the Mac OS X ready thing next to all hardware that was shipping at the time with 128MB RAM.
<strong>
Exactly what I said... the ones they claimed were OS X ready were the ones that were out at the time that had 128MB RAM.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I dont think it had anything to do with RAM
[quote]<strong>
All I was saying really was that Apple didn't seem to care if it ran well on that particular machine, they just put the Mac OS X ready thing next to all hardware that was shipping at the time with 128MB RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it put OS X ready on all hardware that was supposed to be Ready for OS X. OS X ready means it's ready for OS X. Having features of OS X not work in these computers makes them NOT OS X ready.
<strong>
Heh it doesn't matter son. How is that the consumers fault? It isn't Apple needs to compensate for that. Why should I buy a new Mac when it might be outdated in a year?
Your reasoning amuses me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said, I WAS NOT TRYING TO IMPLY ANYTHING MORE THAN THE FACT THAT THE RAGE PRO CHIP WAS INDEED ALREADY 3-5 YEARS OLD, WHICH YOU CLAIMED WAS FALSE. Dammit, what's so hard to understand about that? I was neither giving resposibilites to anyone, nor taking them from anyone. I only, exclusively, withouth any further implications, noted that the Rage Pro was a stone-age chip even at the time you bought your machine. Blame it on whomever you want.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Ah so no proof.. no pudding. Next time don't state something fact that you can't back up
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please... From what this guy wrote, he sounds like he has pulled this all out of his ass or what? Come on...
[quote]<strong>
Apple didn't tell it's customers that functionality would be limited. Apple would not have sold as many machines had they done so. Apple committed false advertisement and didn't explain why. Too bad we are just supposed to take it up the ass and not complain. Bite the pillow and take the screwin. I don't think it's gonna happen that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hehe, since you seem to only accept arguments that are proven by links etc.: How about *you* proove that Apple promised OS X would fully support the RagePro?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>[/qb]
Well your wrong on this one.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, cool, let's play:
"Noooo! You are wrong on this one!"
Honestly though, maybe we should really leave it at that, guess this "discussion" won't get us any further (and I guess I doesn't really help too much in having a driver appear in one way or the other either).
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
<strong>
No it put OS X ready on all hardware that was supposed to be Ready for OS X. OS X ready means it's ready for OS X. Having features of OS X not work in these computers makes them NOT OS X ready.</strong><hr></blockquote>
errm, just to point out, I'm quite sure that at the time Apple was plastering "OS X Ready" on it's products it deliberately left out the bottom-end iMac and iBook... and they had only 64Mb RAM. So I think it's pretty safe to say that 128Mb RAM and an "OS X Ready" accolade are correlated.
<strong>
As I said, I WAS NOT TRYING TO IMPLY ANYTHING MORE THAN THE FACT THAT THE RAGE PRO CHIP WAS INDEED ALREADY 3-5 YEARS OLD, WHICH YOU CLAIMED WAS FALSE. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I claimed that was false? I did? Really?
[quote]<strong>
Dammit, what's so hard to understand about that?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Seems to me *I* am not the one having a hard time comprehending.
[quote]<strong>
I was neither giving resposibilites to anyone, nor taking them from anyone. I only, exclusively, withouth any further implications, noted that the Rage Pro was a stone-age chip even at the time you bought your machine. Blame it on whomever you want.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
And just because Apple choose to use a older chip Justifies what?