Oh please... From what this guy wrote, he sounds like he has pulled this all out of his ass or what? Come on...<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes I agree it DOES sound like that.
[quote]<strong>
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?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Have we not been over this over and over again. Apple DID say these machines are were going to be OS X ready. That OS X would support these machines. Having a graphics card that isn't nor ever was supported by OS X makes the machine not supported by OS X. Making Apple liars.
How many times do I have to state simple facts as this? How many more times are you going to ignore it and try the same tired apologetic twist to your argument?
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><hr></blockquote>
Well does that mean if I had a 9600 with 128m of RAM it would also be OS X Ready? No. The RAM amount wasn't what made it "OS X Ready" And again they said OS X would support those computers. Having no OpenGL drivers for those computers is NOT support. Nor it it "OS X Ready"
well since none of the people bashing Apple can seem to answer the questions I asked, I have a new plan:
Clearly and shortly tell me and everyone else you are arguing with, degrading, fighting with, calling names, etc. . . what your goal in this thread is.
Just a short statement of purpose. All I want to know.
Oh, and Sinewave, you aren't old enough to call me son, but I hope it makes you feel better.
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You make a point but you're too dumb to get the real message. Yea, I haven't posted in several pages. Why then did the thread continue? Hummm? Maybe because this is a real issue that Apple needs to deal with. Maybe more people than just ->me<- are interested in this issue.
So it's not just me throwing a "tantrum". But feel free to continue your blind support of Apple and try to mitigate this issue as a ?tantrum? of a hand full of isolated users.
What about Altivec support in OSX? Since anything with a G3 or a 604 doesn't have a hardware vector unit, does this make them less than "OSX ready"? Should Apple decline from any further G4 enhancements because such code would not be functional on anything below a G4-based desktop, thus making formerly "OSX ready" computers into "not ready". Should Apple not code for any new hardware tweaks that will come in future hardware since that functionality can't be shared on the first gen iMac and 1+ yr old Powerbooks, just to maintain some vague "OSX ready" status on older hardware.
Clearly, Apple must continue to progress the state of OSX as new hardware comes to light. Inevitably, this will leave a lot of older Apple hardware behind, or more precisely, recent Apple hardware with unarguably older components. These units do run OSX (if you care to do so), drivers or not, but it is inevitable that some functions will not run fully. This does not change the fact that OSX does run on them, and you can still do 98% of anything you care to do in OSX on them. OpenGL is an add-on, not an integral part of the OS- bottomline. A computer can most certainly be "OSX ready", be able to run OSX, and not run OpenGL.
(I just dropped in on page 6 to see what's up, so it's quite possible this has been rehashed already.)
"Just a short statement of purpose. All I want to know."
Thanks for trying to get us on track. OK, here's my summary again (also on MacNN, but no one goes to that thread anymore):
The Apple TIL was originally written in March of 2001 and was revised in December 2001. (I don't know what it said originally, and no one else offered any insight.) If you go to the ATI website, it says that it is not their intention to provide OS X support for RAGE? PRO based products." I believe the Apple TIL was revised in response to this ATI statement, although I cannot back that up because I do not know when they posted it.
Furthermore, ATI states that "As OS X matures, ATI intends to provide updated drivers for our customers." This leads me to speculate that while Apple and ATI work together to provide hardware drivers, there is some code of a proprietary nature which requires ATI involvement.
The Apple TIL says for best results to use the current version of OS X. The Apple TIL does not say "Future" development is not planned. It says "further" development is not planned. It is probably a stretch, but this may not preclude the release of new drivers in the current version of OS X, but it might mean that "further" development (i.e., by ATI) will not be available.
It is interesting to note that the same situation exists with Rage Pro drivers and Windows XP. There is discussion on the <a href="http://www.opengl.org"; target="_blank">www.opengl.org</a> site that the Rage Pro does not seem to support OpenGL on Windows XP and the ATI seemed to indicate the only way Rage Pro was supported was via the generic driver.
It is also interesting (to me, at least) that the situation seems to be completely different with NVIDIA. NVIDIA does not say they are responsible for the driver, but that the user must go to Apple for the driver.
I know my interpretation of the TIL differs from the MacCentral columnist, but I'm not a trained industry analyst. But, no, I am not exonerating Apple. I mean to state
1) the situation with older ATI drivers may be more complex than petitioning Apple to write drivers
2) if Apple cannot write the drivers independently from ATI, they may not be able to pay ATI a reasonable amount to write drivers if ATI does not want to write drivers
3) related to 2) given the problems with older ATI chipsets in both OS X and Win XP, it does not look like ATI wants to support the older hardware
4) Apple may not be stating that they will not update the ATI PRO drivers,
and, for those who have not abandoned the platform,
5) it seems to me that anyone getting a Mac in the future might find better support with NVIDIA graphics rather than ATI graphics, if the choice is available.
My goals here follow:
To find out if anyone knows for sure the relationship between ATI and Apple as far as driver development goes and if Apple can proceed independently. (My concern is that since there are so many more Wintel machines with ATI graphics and since there have been the same complaints about Windows XP support for the Rage Pro chipset, ATI involvement may be necessary due to proprietary code, and that ATI has chosen to no longer support the Rage Pro chipset.)
To find out if anyone sees another interpretation to the Apple TIL beyond the sensationalism of the news media. (At least one other person has agreed that there is not definitive evidence that Apple will no update the drivers.)
And to solicit opinions on whether the same situation is likely to happen with other ATI products and since the relationship between ATI and NVIDIA and Apple seem to be completely different, whether it would be wise to choose NVIDIA graphics if the choice is available.
This is an example of why you have no credibility in this argument. You have said things and then denied saying them several times.
quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
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.
quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)
3-5 years old? try newer than that And it doesn't matter what you think Apple is willing to do.
quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
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.
quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)
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.
<strong>What about Altivec support in OSX? Since anything with a G3 or a 604 doesn't have a hardware vector unit, does this make them less than "OSX ready"? Should Apple decline from any further G4 enhancements because such code would not be functional on anything below a G4-based desktop, thus making formerly "OSX ready" computers into "not ready". Should Apple not code for any new hardware tweaks that will come in future hardware since that functionality can't be shared on the first gen iMac and 1+ yr old Powerbooks, just to maintain some vague "OSX ready" status on older hardware.
Clearly, Apple must continue to progress the state of OSX as new hardware comes to light. Inevitably, this will leave a lot of older Apple hardware behind, or more precisely, recent Apple hardware with unarguably older components. These units do run OSX (if you care to do so), drivers or not, but it is inevitable that some functions will not run fully. This does not change the fact that OSX does run on them, and you can still do 98% of anything you care to do in OSX on them. OpenGL is an add-on, not an integral part of the OS- bottomline. A computer can most certainly be "OSX ready", be able to run OSX, and not run OpenGL.
(I just dropped in on page 6 to see what's up, so it's quite possible this has been rehashed already.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple never made anyone think their G3 was going to be Altivec enhanced.
This is an example of why you have no credibility in this argument. You have said things and then denied saying them several times.
quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
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.
quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)
3-5 years old? try newer than that And it doesn't matter what you think Apple is willing to do.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
He said "3-5 year old stuff" He didn't specify the graphics chip
[quote]<strong>
quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
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.
quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)
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.
Both you - I was the one that made the 3-5 year statement and as the statement was regarding ATi writing drivers for "stuff" it is easy to tell from the context that it referred to ATi graphics cards, nice of you to side step that Sinewave.
Also, you and Scott are not addressing my request for a statement of purpose, but I have a feeling I could conclude why easily.
<strong>Scott, you've lost my respect. You are a child. God help you, loser.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure I didn't have it in the first place. But, you know, if I become unpopular because I stand my ground then so be it. If people like you want to suck Apple's cock and dirty your nose with Job's backside be my guest.
I'll stand by and call Apple a chump when I see it. Keep my nose clean and not go down on my boyfriend.
[quote]quote of Mac OS Product Marketing Ken Bereskin
...
He explained that Mac OS X was designed to work with models across the power range. "Our benchmark platform is one of the first- or second-generation iMacs that have 233- or 266MHz [G3] processors," Bereskin said. "We are ensuring that Mac OS X works well on that kind of platform.<hr></blockquote>
Name-calling is childish. Calling me a cock-sucker merely reflects on your level of intelligence and maturity. It's what little boys do in self defense. I wanted to see how you liked it, of course knowing you can't take what you dish out.
That's what this is about. It's not your opinions on anything in particular which I object to but the way in which you conduct yourself. You're a baby. I'm sucking cock, you're sucking your own thumb. And all is well in your little world.
Apple never made anyone think their G3 was going to be Altivec enhanced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
??? Similarly, Apple never made anyone think that they [Apple] were going to swap their Rage Pro for a Rage128 free of charge out of the kindness of their hearts. So what has that got to do with anything?
The point I was trying to make was that both G3 and G4 computers can run OSX and are essentially "OSX ready". However, OSX also has and will include further enhancements that utilize the Altivec unit in only G4-equipped machines. By your strict definition of what counts as "OSX ready", how can any G3 computer be labeled as "OSX ready" when they are fundamentally unequipped with an Altivec unit. Nevertheless, they do run OSX just fine (according to some). They certainly meet the basic "OSX ready" qualification as they are functional to do work on. They just don't meet your strict definition of "OSX ready". In the end, it is largely inconsequential save for a bit of speed- hardly enough to get so upset over, hardly enough to accuse others of "sucking Apple's cock", and hardly enough to accuse others of "happily taking it in the rear by Apple", etc.
<strong>Name-calling is childish. Calling me a cock-sucker merely reflects on your level of intelligence and maturity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it doesn't.
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>It's what little boys do in self defense. I wanted to see how you liked it, of course knowing you can't take what you dish out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well? I'm not defending myself.
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>That's what this is about. It's not your opinions on anything in particular which I object to but the way in which you conduct yourself. You're a baby. I'm sucking cock, you're sucking your own thumb. And all is well in your little world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea. Right. Apple's right I'm wrong blame the user blame ATI blame everyone but Apple. Apple can do no wrong. I have to see it from their perspective. I don't understand blah blah blah.
My disrespect towards you has nothing to do with this OpenGL fiasco. You've claimed that three posts in a row so I have to conclude you don't understand. I just want everyone else to understand this. I support your anger and frustration towards Apple for the situation. But you have been nothing short of a complete ass to anyone who does have the "balls" to disagree with you.
In shorttOpenGL unsupported = bad. We agree.
\t\t\tYour attitude = worse. Me no like.
PS: Regarding the "get some balls" comment. Those are big words, boy. Please, again. Be sure to get that final word in so you feel like you've won.
<strong>Both you - I was the one that made the 3-5 year statement and as the statement was regarding ATi writing drivers for "stuff" it is easy to tell from the context that it referred to ATi graphics cards, nice of you to side step that Sinewave.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It was easy to tell from the context? AHahah lets see here
"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."
Yeah it's pretty obvious you was talking about the graphics chip there Bogie. No you didn't make yourself clear as to what "stuff" (a generic term) you was referring to.
I took it to mean.
"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 computers"
Notice how that too works in place of "stuff" and since we was talking about these unsupported computers.. it would only make sense. It wasn't "easy to tell" what you meant or obviously I would have known.
Comments
<strong>
Oh please... From what this guy wrote, he sounds like he has pulled this all out of his ass or what? Come on...<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes I agree it DOES sound like that.
[quote]<strong>
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?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Have we not been over this over and over again. Apple DID say these machines are were going to be OS X ready. That OS X would support these machines. Having a graphics card that isn't nor ever was supported by OS X makes the machine not supported by OS X. Making Apple liars.
How many times do I have to state simple facts as this? How many more times are you going to ignore it and try the same tired apologetic twist to your argument?
<strong>
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><hr></blockquote>
Well does that mean if I had a 9600 with 128m of RAM it would also be OS X Ready? No. The RAM amount wasn't what made it "OS X Ready" And again they said OS X would support those computers. Having no OpenGL drivers for those computers is NOT support. Nor it it "OS X Ready"
sure are convincing people here.
well since none of the people bashing Apple can seem to answer the questions I asked, I have a new plan:
Clearly and shortly tell me and everyone else you are arguing with, degrading, fighting with, calling names, etc. . . what your goal in this thread is.
Just a short statement of purpose. All I want to know.
Oh, and Sinewave, you aren't old enough to call me son, but I hope it makes you feel better.
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You make a point but you're too dumb to get the real message. Yea, I haven't posted in several pages. Why then did the thread continue? Hummm? Maybe because this is a real issue that Apple needs to deal with. Maybe more people than just ->me<- are interested in this issue.
So it's not just me throwing a "tantrum". But feel free to continue your blind support of Apple and try to mitigate this issue as a ?tantrum? of a hand full of isolated users.
Apple Apologist (TM)
Clearly, Apple must continue to progress the state of OSX as new hardware comes to light. Inevitably, this will leave a lot of older Apple hardware behind, or more precisely, recent Apple hardware with unarguably older components. These units do run OSX (if you care to do so), drivers or not, but it is inevitable that some functions will not run fully. This does not change the fact that OSX does run on them, and you can still do 98% of anything you care to do in OSX on them. OpenGL is an add-on, not an integral part of the OS- bottomline. A computer can most certainly be "OSX ready", be able to run OSX, and not run OpenGL.
(I just dropped in on page 6 to see what's up, so it's quite possible this has been rehashed already.)
"Just a short statement of purpose. All I want to know."
Thanks for trying to get us on track. OK, here's my summary again (also on MacNN, but no one goes to that thread anymore):
The Apple TIL was originally written in March of 2001 and was revised in December 2001. (I don't know what it said originally, and no one else offered any insight.) If you go to the ATI website, it says that it is not their intention to provide OS X support for RAGE? PRO based products." I believe the Apple TIL was revised in response to this ATI statement, although I cannot back that up because I do not know when they posted it.
Furthermore, ATI states that "As OS X matures, ATI intends to provide updated drivers for our customers." This leads me to speculate that while Apple and ATI work together to provide hardware drivers, there is some code of a proprietary nature which requires ATI involvement.
The Apple TIL says for best results to use the current version of OS X. The Apple TIL does not say "Future" development is not planned. It says "further" development is not planned. It is probably a stretch, but this may not preclude the release of new drivers in the current version of OS X, but it might mean that "further" development (i.e., by ATI) will not be available.
It is interesting to note that the same situation exists with Rage Pro drivers and Windows XP. There is discussion on the <a href="http://www.opengl.org"; target="_blank">www.opengl.org</a> site that the Rage Pro does not seem to support OpenGL on Windows XP and the ATI seemed to indicate the only way Rage Pro was supported was via the generic driver.
It is also interesting (to me, at least) that the situation seems to be completely different with NVIDIA. NVIDIA does not say they are responsible for the driver, but that the user must go to Apple for the driver.
I know my interpretation of the TIL differs from the MacCentral columnist, but I'm not a trained industry analyst. But, no, I am not exonerating Apple. I mean to state
1) the situation with older ATI drivers may be more complex than petitioning Apple to write drivers
2) if Apple cannot write the drivers independently from ATI, they may not be able to pay ATI a reasonable amount to write drivers if ATI does not want to write drivers
3) related to 2) given the problems with older ATI chipsets in both OS X and Win XP, it does not look like ATI wants to support the older hardware
4) Apple may not be stating that they will not update the ATI PRO drivers,
and, for those who have not abandoned the platform,
5) it seems to me that anyone getting a Mac in the future might find better support with NVIDIA graphics rather than ATI graphics, if the choice is available.
My goals here follow:
To find out if anyone knows for sure the relationship between ATI and Apple as far as driver development goes and if Apple can proceed independently. (My concern is that since there are so many more Wintel machines with ATI graphics and since there have been the same complaints about Windows XP support for the Rage Pro chipset, ATI involvement may be necessary due to proprietary code, and that ATI has chosen to no longer support the Rage Pro chipset.)
To find out if anyone sees another interpretation to the Apple TIL beyond the sensationalism of the news media. (At least one other person has agreed that there is not definitive evidence that Apple will no update the drivers.)
And to solicit opinions on whether the same situation is likely to happen with other ATI products and since the relationship between ATI and NVIDIA and Apple seem to be completely different, whether it would be wise to choose NVIDIA graphics if the choice is available.
My references are on the following websites:
Apple (TIL)
<a href="http://www.ati.com"; target="_blank">www.ati.com</a> (OS X FAQ)
<a href="http://www.nvidia.com"; target="_blank">www.nvidia.com</a> (FAQ)
<a href="http://www.opengl.org"; target="_blank">www.opengl.org</a> (Forums)
My complaint is with no specific person, but anyone who dilutes the subject matter and thus discourages anyone from trying to follow the discussion.
This is an example of why you have no credibility in this argument. You have said things and then denied saying them several times.
quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
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.
quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)
3-5 years old? try newer than that And it doesn't matter what you think Apple is willing to do.
quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
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.
quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)
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.
[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</p>
<strong>What about Altivec support in OSX? Since anything with a G3 or a 604 doesn't have a hardware vector unit, does this make them less than "OSX ready"? Should Apple decline from any further G4 enhancements because such code would not be functional on anything below a G4-based desktop, thus making formerly "OSX ready" computers into "not ready". Should Apple not code for any new hardware tweaks that will come in future hardware since that functionality can't be shared on the first gen iMac and 1+ yr old Powerbooks, just to maintain some vague "OSX ready" status on older hardware.
Clearly, Apple must continue to progress the state of OSX as new hardware comes to light. Inevitably, this will leave a lot of older Apple hardware behind, or more precisely, recent Apple hardware with unarguably older components. These units do run OSX (if you care to do so), drivers or not, but it is inevitable that some functions will not run fully. This does not change the fact that OSX does run on them, and you can still do 98% of anything you care to do in OSX on them. OpenGL is an add-on, not an integral part of the OS- bottomline. A computer can most certainly be "OSX ready", be able to run OSX, and not run OpenGL.
(I just dropped in on page 6 to see what's up, so it's quite possible this has been rehashed already.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple never made anyone think their G3 was going to be Altivec enhanced.
<strong>Mr/Ms. Sinewave,
This is an example of why you have no credibility in this argument. You have said things and then denied saying them several times.
quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
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.
quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)
3-5 years old? try newer than that And it doesn't matter what you think Apple is willing to do.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
He said "3-5 year old stuff" He didn't specify the graphics chip
[quote]<strong>
quote: (Originally posted by RazzFazz)
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.
quote: (Originally posted by Sinewave)
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.
[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
And again.. since when does "stuff = Rage Pro Chip" ?
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
Also, you and Scott are not addressing my request for a statement of purpose, but I have a feeling I could conclude why easily.
My apologies for the wrong attribution. I tried to cut and paste the essential statements, but I edited too much.
<strong>Scott, you've lost my respect. You are a child. God help you, loser.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure I didn't have it in the first place. But, you know, if I become unpopular because I stand my ground then so be it. If people like you want to suck Apple's cock and dirty your nose with Job's backside be my guest.
I'll stand by and call Apple a chump when I see it. Keep my nose clean and not go down on my boyfriend.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
<a href="http://icq.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2638154,00.html"; target="_blank">Apple: OS X galvanizes modern Macs</a>
[quote]quote of Mac OS Product Marketing Ken Bereskin
...
He explained that Mac OS X was designed to work with models across the power range. "Our benchmark platform is one of the first- or second-generation iMacs that have 233- or 266MHz [G3] processors," Bereskin said. "We are ensuring that Mac OS X works well on that kind of platform.<hr></blockquote>
I wonder what happened?
That's what this is about. It's not your opinions on anything in particular which I object to but the way in which you conduct yourself. You're a baby. I'm sucking cock, you're sucking your own thumb. And all is well in your little world.
<strong>
Apple never made anyone think their G3 was going to be Altivec enhanced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
??? Similarly, Apple never made anyone think that they [Apple] were going to swap their Rage Pro for a Rage128 free of charge out of the kindness of their hearts. So what has that got to do with anything?
The point I was trying to make was that both G3 and G4 computers can run OSX and are essentially "OSX ready". However, OSX also has and will include further enhancements that utilize the Altivec unit in only G4-equipped machines. By your strict definition of what counts as "OSX ready", how can any G3 computer be labeled as "OSX ready" when they are fundamentally unequipped with an Altivec unit. Nevertheless, they do run OSX just fine (according to some). They certainly meet the basic "OSX ready" qualification as they are functional to do work on. They just don't meet your strict definition of "OSX ready". In the end, it is largely inconsequential save for a bit of speed- hardly enough to get so upset over, hardly enough to accuse others of "sucking Apple's cock", and hardly enough to accuse others of "happily taking it in the rear by Apple", etc.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>Name-calling is childish. Calling me a cock-sucker merely reflects on your level of intelligence and maturity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it doesn't.
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>It's what little boys do in self defense. I wanted to see how you liked it, of course knowing you can't take what you dish out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well? I'm not defending myself.
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>That's what this is about. It's not your opinions on anything in particular which I object to but the way in which you conduct yourself. You're a baby. I'm sucking cock, you're sucking your own thumb. And all is well in your little world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea. Right. Apple's right I'm wrong blame the user blame ATI blame everyone but Apple. Apple can do no wrong. I have to see it from their perspective. I don't understand blah blah blah.
Come back when you grow some balls.
My disrespect towards you has nothing to do with this OpenGL fiasco. You've claimed that three posts in a row so I have to conclude you don't understand. I just want everyone else to understand this. I support your anger and frustration towards Apple for the situation. But you have been nothing short of a complete ass to anyone who does have the "balls" to disagree with you.
In short
\t\t\tYour attitude = worse. Me no like.
PS: Regarding the "get some balls" comment. Those are big words, boy. Please, again. Be sure to get that final word in so you feel like you've won.
<strong>Both you - I was the one that made the 3-5 year statement and as the statement was regarding ATi writing drivers for "stuff" it is easy to tell from the context that it referred to ATi graphics cards, nice of you to side step that Sinewave.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It was easy to tell from the context? AHahah lets see here
"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."
Yeah it's pretty obvious you was talking about the graphics chip there Bogie. No you didn't make yourself clear as to what "stuff" (a generic term) you was referring to.
I took it to mean.
"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 computers"
Notice how that too works in place of "stuff" and since we was talking about these unsupported computers.. it would only make sense. It wasn't "easy to tell" what you meant or obviously I would have known.
Try Again.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>