<strong>Well, if I am in the discussion and I don't know what you are trying to say [ie where you want to take the discussion/point/goal/motive/whatever then you are failing at getting your point across, that is just common sense.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you didn't know what I was trying to get across after I had repeated it many times? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
I haven't tried to justify their actions. I have asked if there were any other possible reasons other than Apple choosing to harm its own customers, you haven't shown me that those reasons are invalid.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I said it doesn't matter the reasons. It's moot. Apple made claims.. Apple isn't backing them up. Apple needs to rectify the customers it hurt in this move. No matter who's fault it is.
[quote]<strong>
You do if you want me to agree with you, and if you could give me the type of evidence it is likely I would agree with you.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
See here is where you are making the mistake I care less if you agree with me. I am not trying to get you to agree with me. You can believe what you want.
So now are you saying you don't think Apple lied? I am curious.
[quote]<strong>
You skipped over my criticism that you admitted your only "information" is "guesses and speculation."
I would be happy to hear you address it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
My guesses as to why Apple did it is only guesses or speculation. The fact that Apple did indeed do it is not under speculation. As it has been stated in all the news sites. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
"See here is where you are making the mistake I care less if you agree with me. I am not trying to get you to agree with me. You can believe what you want."
Well that explains it. But I still don't understand why if you believe you are right and others are mistaken and you are convinced of a misjustice, that you wouldn't want to convince people other by "you said this ... the facts are the same ... but I say that." ... unless you believe things are hopeless and won't change anyway.
"See here is where you are making the mistake I care less if you agree with me. I am not trying to get you to agree with me. You can believe what you want." - Sinewave
So then why are you still posting, I don't get it. If you are not trying to convince anyone, what is the point of sharing your opinion in the manner you are doing so in?
"So now are you saying you don't think Apple lied? I am curious." -Sinewave
I have never said that I thought Apple lied, I have asked over and over for more conclusive evidence that they did so, or that they did not. I have chosen to hold off making a judgment until I have better information than your opinion.
It is very possible that their contract with ATi is preventing them from fixing the problem, I do not know if that is true or not, right now I am not blaming ATi or Apple because without information about that contract I can't determine for sure who I should be blaming.
Its nice of you to share your opinion that Apple is screwing us all but if you are wrong then any efforts to get Apple to fix the graphics support would be in vain. I would prefer to know, not just suspect, that Apple is the wrong doer. Just as I have not yet criticized ATi for not supporting OS X in old Rage chipsets better, I will not criticize either company until I know whose fault it really is.
Your opinion and argument, logical as though it may be, does not rule out the possibility that Apple may not be able to do it.
Should Apple take a hand in fixing it? Of course, I just want to know if they can fix it and your assumption that they can does not mean it is fact.
According to your logical argument Apple should fix it, I agree, but your argument does not account for their ability to do so, if ATi is not supplying the necessary information for Apple to write the needed drivers then Apple physically can not do what you want and you should be bitching about ATi. The second possibility is that the contract between ATi and Apple prohibits or does not give Apple the right to develop the drivers and therefore Apple is contractually kept from fixing the graphics issue. Last possibility is that Apple is in complete control of the situation and is choosing not to spend the money.
If it is the first one I would be mad at ATi, if it is the second I would be mad at both ATi and Apple for not coming to an agreement in some way to support their customers better, and if it is the third then I would mad at Apple.
But as I, and everyone else who has voiced disagreement with you, has said its not whether we should be mad at Apple for doing us wrong, its a question of was it Apple or ATi who did us wrong.
I know your take is that Apple did us wrong, but your single argument is weak as I pointed out above and you have declared openly that as you are not trying to convince me you have no reason to give better evidence.
Eh, fine. But why keep posting if you are not trying to persuade people of your point of view?
<strong>Well that explains it. But I still don't understand why if you believe you are right and others are mistaken and you are convinced of a misjustice, that you wouldn't want to convince people other by "you said this ... the facts are the same ... but I say that." ... unless you believe things are hopeless and won't change anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does it really matter? This is a discussion forum. I didn't know I had to have a "reason" Why do you care what my reasons are? Why do you care I think Apple is wrong?
"Does it really matter? This is a discussion forum. I didn't know I had to have a "reason" Why do you care what my reasons are?
Mostly cause you won't shutup and so I thought you were trying to share information or convince me of something that I obviously wasn't understanding.
"Why do you care I think Apple is wrong?"
At first I wanted to understand your opinion, now I don't care what your opinion is, but you keep posting it over and over with seemingly no purpose. Now you have started to declare over and over that you are not willing to tell us your purpose, so basically it have just increased in annoyance. I honestly can't figure out why you are still posting. I am still posting because I want more evidence and I am hoping someone might provide it, you claim you don't want more evidence and you don't want to convince others ... so ... why are you still talking?
<strong>So then why are you still posting, I don't get it. If you are not trying to convince anyone, what is the point of sharing your opinion in the manner you are doing so in?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Hey I just stated my opinions and I am replying to the people who reply to my posts.
[quote]<strong>
I have never said that I thought Apple lied, I have asked over and over for more conclusive evidence that they did so, or that they did not. I have chosen to hold off making a judgment until I have better information than your opinion
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And I said they either
1. Lied
2. Pruposably misled
Either way they did wrong and need to compensate it's customers.
[quote]<strong>
It is very possible that their contract with ATi is preventing them from fixing the problem, I do not know if that is true or not, right now I am not blaming ATi or Apple because without information about that contract I can't determine for sure who I should be blaming.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
So are you saying that ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them? Isn't that a option? I mean I hope your not trying to say ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them.
[quote]<strong>
Its nice of you to share your opinion that Apple is screwing us all but if you are wrong then any efforts to get Apple to fix the graphics support would be in vain. I would prefer to know, not just suspect, that Apple is the wrong doer. Just as I have not yet criticized ATi for not supporting OS X in old Rage chipsets better, I will not criticize either company until I know whose fault it really is.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
ATI isn't the one making the claim for these machines. Apple is. That is all you SHOULD have to know. You guys are making it more complicated than it is to somehow try to justify Apple's wrong doing. Again it isn't ATI's responsibility to back up Apple's claims. They are not even suspect to be blamed.
[quote]<strong>
Your opinion and argument, logical as though it may be, does not rule out the possibility that Apple may not be able to do it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again are you saying Apple isn't able to pay ATI to do it?
[quote]<strong>
Should Apple take a hand in fixing it? Of course, I just want to know if they can fix it and your assumption that they can does not mean it is fact.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Of course they can fix it. It doesn't matter what little it may help.. it will still be supported. If there was no way to do it Apple would have stated so from the get go.
[quote]<strong>
According to your logical argument Apple should fix it, I agree, but your argument does not account for their ability to do so,<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure it did. I mentioned MANY times that Apple could pay ATI to do it.
[quote]<strong>
if ATi is not supplying the necessary information for Apple to write the needed drivers then Apple physically can not do what you want and you should be bitching about ATi.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes all except Apple can pay ATI to do it. Apple doesn't need to know any information.
[quote]<strong>
The second possibility is that the contract between ATi and Apple prohibits or does not give Apple the right to develop the drivers and therefore Apple is contractually kept from fixing the graphics issue. Last possibility is that Apple is in complete control of the situation and is choosing not to spend the money.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sense Apple could indeed pay ATI to do it I am guessing the last option.
[quote]<strong>
If it is the first one I would be mad at ATi, if it is the second I would be mad at both ATi and Apple for not coming to an agreement in some way to support their customers better, and if it is the third then I would mad at Apple.
But as I, and everyone else who has voiced disagreement with you, has said its not whether we should be mad at Apple for doing us wrong, its a question of was it Apple or ATi who did us wrong.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again for the MILLIONTH time. ATI isn't the one that claimed these machines would be OS X ready. ATI is not to be held responsible for claims another company makes. This rests on Apple. Cause Apple made the claim.
If I make mouse pads and sell them to my roomate then he goes and sells the same mouse pads as being "Indestructible" even though I made no such claim, is it my fault cause I didn't make them indestructible or is it my roomate's fault for making a false claim?
[quote]<strong>
I know your take is that Apple did us wrong, but your single argument is weak as I pointed out above and you have declared openly that as you are not trying to convince me you have no reason to give better evidence.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
My argument is weak? Ahahaha you deserve the big ones here
My argument isn't weak if your not a apologist.
[quote]<strong>
Eh, fine. But why keep posting if you are not trying to persuade people of your point of view?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Cause I find it proper to respond to anyone that responds to one of my posts. BTW why are you so concerned with why I am posting here. What business is it of yours anyhow? And since when are you the "Reason" police?
"Hey I just stated my opinions and I am replying to the people who reply to my posts."
So as long as I reply to your posts you will reply to mine and this will continue indefinitely?
"And I said they either
1. Lied
2. Pruposably misled
Either way they did wrong and need to compensate it's customers."
I don't get this, you asked question, I replied and then you made this statement, which doesn't really communicate anything new, not sure why you did that.
"So are you saying that ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them? Isn't that a option? I mean I hope your not trying to say ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them."
This one actually has some meat to it. I said several pages ago that I thought it is possible that either ATi refused to code the drivers for payment because it is not important to them [new products are more important and worth more money] or ATi wanted more money to code them than Apple could afford to pay for it. I know that Apple has enough money but openGL drivers for those Macs may not be worth as much as ATi wanted. Don't know and while I have asked no one has addressed this possibility. Now, if it is the case that ATi wanted more money that Apple was willing to pay or could afford I can understand that, if it was an exorbitant amount then I would not have paid it either. But regardless, this is just one possibility which you have disregarded up to this point, without evidence or cause.
"That is all you SHOULD have to know."
Sorry, I have higher standards for the information I need to have before I pass judgments. High standards are important when making decisions like who is at fault for something.
"Of course they can fix it."
What is this based on?
"If there was no way to do it Apple would have stated so from the get go."
How do you know this?
"Again for the MILLIONTH time. ATI isn't the one that claimed these machines would be OS X ready. ATI is not to be held responsible for claims another company makes. This rests on Apple. Cause Apple made the claim."
I am not holding ATi responsible - I even stated that in the post which you replied to here - I said that it is possible that for whatever reason ATi is preventing Apple from fixing the graphics support problem. You have not addressed the possibility that ATi could be preventing Apple from fixing it.
"If I make mouse pads and sell them to my roomate then he goes and sells the same mouse pads as being "Indestructible" even though I made no such claim, is it my fault cause I didn't make them indestructible or is it my roomate's fault for making a false claim?"
This argument is horrible, it doesn't equate tho the possibility that I mentioned. What I said was that if ATi had technical information that they did not give to Apple and not having that information prevents Apple from being able to write the drivers, then its not really in Apple's control. I don't know if this is the case, but it is a possibility that you rule out without cause.
"BTW why are you so concerned with why I am posting here. What business is it of yours anyhow? And since when are you the "Reason" police?"
Funny, but a bit too argumentative for my taste.
[EDIT ADDED: that all quotes belonged to Sinewave.]
On a side note, so far I have not yet apologized for Apple. I have stated that if Apple is at fault they should correct the problem. Lastly I have asked for evidence that would rule out the possibility that it is not in Apple's control to provide the necessary update for the graphics chips in question. Getting such evidence would actually strengthen your claim, not sure why you have argued against my requests for more evidence.
Never said Apple was not responsible, never said they should not fix it, never said they should not be held accountable.
Just want to make sure you are right before I go off.
I prefer to have the whole story rather than go off with just an opinion and make an ass out of myself by not having any evidence besides my opinion, hence why I keep asking for evidence and have not made any claims of my own.
<strong>So as long as I reply to your posts you will reply to mine and this will continue indefinitely
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure..
BTW why are you arguing things that are off topic? Didn't you just get on to me about being off topic?
[quote]<strong>
I don't get this, you asked question, I replied and then you made this statement, which doesn't really communicate anything new, not sure why you did that.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It states either Apple lied.. or if it didn't they pruposably misled. Either way they did wrong.
[quote]<strong>
This one actually has some meat to it. I said several pages ago that I thought it is possible that either ATi refused to code the drivers for payment because it is not important to them [new products are more important and worth more money]
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Worth more money? Heh money is money. If Apple is going to play ATI to do this they will do it. Of course Apple would have to pay ATI enough to compensate them .. duh.
[quote]<strong>
or ATi wanted more money to code them than Apple could afford to pay for it. I know that Apple has enough money but openGL drivers for those Macs may not be worth as much as ATi wanted.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not worth it to who? T the consumers that wanted it and was promised compatibility? Not worth Apple's reputation?
[quote]<strong>
Don't know and while I have asked no one has addressed this possibility. Now, if it is the case that ATi wanted more money that Apple was willing to pay or could afford I can understand that, if it was an exorbitant amount then I would not have paid it either. But regardless, this is just one possibility which you have disregarded up to this point, without evidence or cause.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I have not disregarded anything. If Apple offered ATI enough to compensate their time they would do it. Your not thinking in business terms. Money is Money. And I am sure Apple has enough money to pay for a little extra driver support.
[quote]<strong>
Sorry, I have higher standards for the information I need to have before I pass judgments. High standards are important when making decisions like who is at fault for something.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again. the fault can only lay in the people that made the claim.
[quote]<strong>
I am not holding ATi responsible - I even stated that in the post which you replied to here - I said that it is possible that for whatever reason ATi is preventing Apple from fixing the graphics support problem. You have not addressed the possibility that ATi could be preventing Apple from fixing it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Your coming up with bizarro extremes as to why ATI may be at fault. This is the problem.
[quote]<strong>
This argument is horrible,
<hr></blockquote></strong> Surely it's just like this situation.
[quote]<strong>
it doesn't equate tho the possibility that I mentioned. What I said was that if ATi had technical information that they did not give to Apple and not having that information prevents Apple from being able to write the drivers, then its not really in Apple's control. I don't know if this is the case, but it is a possibility that you rule out without cause.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again If Apple can pay ATI then it wouldn't matter. And businesses are out to make money. That is the bottom line. If a company wants to pay you to develop something for your own product. More than likely your going to grab at it.
Also, being that the cards in quesition were included by Apple in Apple machines, it is Apple's decision to include such hardware, and, Apple's responsibility to support said hardware.
ATI's only responsiblity is to people who purchase RETAIL ATI products.
Even in the PC world, it is the OEM who must support any included ATI products or chipsets, not ATI.
Apple really ****ed up on this one. Instant obsolescense for a millions of Apple manufactured machines, all in one fell swoop. Machines that, according to the box, are "supported" by OS X.
Does it really matter? This is a discussion forum. I didn't know I had to have a "reason" Why do you care what my reasons are? Why do you care I think Apple is wrong?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is this a rhetorical question? OK, I'll bite. What if I didn't have a strong opinion but tried to do some research to form an opinion seeing as how some other people had strong opinions which they voiced in a forum and still didn't know why they had such a strong opinion and so was wondering if anyone else had any information which would help me to decide where I stood on an issue? Isn't that what fora are for? <-(rhetorical) But now that I know that is not your purpose, then it just doesn't matter and most of what I said in regard to your participation in this thread is garbage since it was aimed at a cross purpose for your being in this thread.
"It states either Apple lied.. or if it didn't they pruposably misled. Either way they did wrong."
No, it states "And I said they either 1. Lied 2. Pruposably misled." Above you make it sound like fact, its not, that is my main point, it is your opinion and you have even said you feel no need to back it up with evidence beyond your self fulfilling opinion argument.
"Worth more money? Heh money is money. If Apple is going to play ATI to do this they will do it. Of course Apple would have to pay ATI enough to compensate them .. duh."
No, in business money is not money. If ATi has potential to make more money by using all their resources for new products than they could make by splitting their resources between new products and work for Apple on old products. Potential is always worth more than contract work on old products, that is just a math equation and common sense.
"Not worth it to who?"
Not worth what is the question. And we can't answer that. Point is that it is entirely possible Apple made ATi an offer and ATi turned them down. Until someone rules that out your logical argument does not stand as it might not be in Apple's control according to this right here.
"T the consumers that wanted it and was promised compatibility?"
Aren't the ones paying for it so its not up to them to determine its worth in cash. ;-)
"Not worth Apple's reputation?"
What are you saying here? That if possible Apple should pay whatever it takes to get drivers for these graphics chips?
"If Apple offered ATI enough to compensate their time they would do it."
Back this up please, it might be logical but that alone doesn't mean its correct.
"Again. the fault can only lay in the people that made the claim."
OK, I'll take this on - if you promise to meet me at 4pm and you get delayed by someone else, whose fault is it that you are late? Yours' or the person who delayed you?
"Your coming up with bizarro extremes as to why ATI may be at fault. This is the problem."
Its not all that bizarre that ATi would not be interested in coding for chips of theirs that are 3-5 years old. And you did not address what I said.
"If a company wants to pay you to develop something for your own product. More than likely your going to grab at it."
Not true, if I can make more working on current or new products than it is reasonable to charge for work on legacy stuff I will work on newer stuff in order to make the most money.
No, it states "And I said they either 1. Lied 2. Pruposably misled." Above you make it sound like fact, its not, that is my main point, it is your opinion and you have even said you feel no need to back it up with evidence beyond your self fulfilling opinion argument.<hr></blockquote></strong>
The Evidence? Apple said the machines would be OS X ready. They are not. Nor will they be according to Apple.
[quote]<strong>
No, in business money is not money. If ATi has potential to make more money by using all their resources for new products than they could make by splitting their resources between new products and work for Apple on old products. Potential is always worth more than contract work on old products, that is just a math equation and common sense.<hr></blockquote></strong>
And from what I have been just told this job wouldn't be a large task for ATI. A total rewrite of the driver code is not needed. Let me quote this guy
[quote]OpenGL. Say it with me: OpenGL. There's just a few cards out there, an open standard, and it would take Apple a very small amount of time to adapt drivers. They have the new card drivers, they have the old cards' OS9 drivers, there are virtually certainly OpenGL drivers for these for Linux on x86 and maybe even PPC.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Not worth what is the question. And we can't answer that. Point is that it is entirely possible Apple made ATi an offer and ATi turned them down. Until someone rules that out your logical argument does not stand as it might not be in Apple's control according to this right here.<hr></blockquote></strong>
If that was the case Apple would have stated as much. That way Apple isn't in the fault. Being quiet about the whole issue.. and brushing things under the rug transmits the look of guilt if you ask me.
[quote]<strong>Aren't the ones paying for it so its not up to them to determine its worth in cash. ;-)
<hr></blockquote></strong>
They payed for it out of our wallets did we not? Or did they just pay for a lie?
[quote]<strong>
What are you saying here? That if possible Apple should pay whatever it takes to get drivers for these graphics chips?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I don't think ATI would ask for a unreasonable amount again more bizarro extremes. "Oh what if the world exploads?!?!"
[quote]<strong>
Back this up please, it might be logical but that alone doesn't mean its correct.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
lol do you want me to call up ATI and asked them myself? This is pretty much a good guess that they would.
[quote]<strong>
OK, I'll take this on - if you promise to meet me at 4pm and you get delayed by someone else, whose fault is it that you are late? Yours' or the person who delayed you?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You'd blame the person that delayed you. But if you don't show up at all you blame yourself. Apple delayed.. then decided not to show up. There is the difference.
[quote]<strong>
Its not all that bizarre that ATi would not be interested in coding for chips of theirs that are 3-5 years old.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I agree it's not bizarre. That is normal. That is unless Apple pays them enough to. Or Apple is able to code them themselves. But it's bizarre to think ATI wouldn't code these under any condition! That ATI is just not coding them to be mean! If ATI was payed they would more than likely code them. Of course we are talking about normal non-bizarre situations.
[quote]<strong>
And you did not address what I said.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Cause it was a bizarro situation.
[quote]<strong>
Not true, if I can make more working on current or new products than it is reasonable to charge for work on legacy stuff I will work on newer stuff in order to make the most money.</strong><hr></blockquote>\\
Again I said if Apple payed them enough to compensate they would do it. And since Apple is the one that made these claims. It is Apple that needs to take the initiative. Not get cheap and screw it's customers.
<strong>Don't forget, OpenGL is a CORE technology of OS X.
If Apple's not going to support a core technology on millions of Macs, then, Apple should not lie and claim that OS X is supported on those machines.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've been trying to say that for 8 pages now. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> they will come back with "You can't prove Apple lied!" or "It might not be Apple's fault!"
[QB]Also, being that the cards in quesition were included by Apple in Apple machines, it is Apple's decision to include such hardware, and, Apple's responsibility to support said hardware.
Hi, not to leave you out (since I don't know whether or not you really want a response), and assuming you have not read the entire thread:
"ATI's only responsiblity is to people who purchase RETAIL ATI products."
I don't dispute your screen shots. Some of us are confused because in the Mac OS X FAQ, ATI says it will provide drivers for OS X.
"Even in the PC world, it is the OEM who must support any included ATI products or chipsets, not ATI."
I understand that the maker of, for example, a single board computer will provide a CD-ROM with the necessary drivers on it, but who writes those drivers? Again on the ATI site, this example is given for the developer:
"A large PC Builder who is designing a new system with an ATI chip on the motherboard may decide to purchase ONLY the Windows 98 driver, and NOT our DVD Player."
To me, this implies that ATI writes the driver and the manufacturer purchases the driver. Having said that, I would speculate that the situation is different with Apple because if Apple wants drivers in its small market, ATI and Apple work together to provide the drivers, which is also stated on the ATI site.
So, this tangent of the thread was a speculation on whether Apple WILL HAVE TO write/improve the driver independently, or whether Apple WILL HAVE TO pay ATI to do so.
(Rewritten in the active vs. subjunctive text so Mr/Ms Sinewave doesn't have to emphasise that Apple will have to provide drivers, no matter how they do it. That is, if he/she doesn't want to.)
<strong>Thank you for bringing this point up. Just roughly, when did you find out about the ATi support change? Was this what the original TIL said? Or was the inclusion of "Further development ... not planned." not in response to a change in ATI policy but was indicative of a change in Apple's intent?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Back when ATi published that page. I think that was back during the DPs or maybe the public beta. Long time ago.
[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>(Not all of us have the answers. It's nice to share.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea I know. Which is why I hold the Apple Apologist feet the fire.
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
You'll probably turn this aside as another attempt at Apple-Apologizing, but has it ever occured to you that maybe the folks at Apple didn't actually know for certain whether they would at some point provide drivers for the RagePro? Maybe (most certainly) they didn't know in advance how everything relating to OS X would work out in the end, so they might actually not have known for sure so early that they'd completely drop HW-acceleration-support for these cards? I'm not saying this is the case, I just think this might be a possibility you'd have to consider before putting the blame on Apple like you did.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, More apologizing. Like I stated above. Apple knew for a long time (long meaning more than enough time to writer drivers three times over) that ATi crapped out on them. So ...
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>
You can't identify your own point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO! I have already you stupid tool. If you want to read my point go back and read the thread you ****ing half wit.
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>Unless you can provide me proof of this in terms of some sort of admission or policy statement it is just conjecture and caries no weight.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The proof is in the ATi page. They put that up a long ass time ago. I think we know now that Apple put drivers on the bottom of the ?to do? list and never looked back (down the list).
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>We don't know that they have dropped support, they sure haven't told us that they have dropped support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How ****ing blind can you be? I guess it?s dark up SJ?s ass huh?
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>We don't know if either of these conclusions are true. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Um? Maybe if Apple didn?t have an Iron Curtain policy when it came to talking about updates and support. Maybe if they had answered the question when it was asked a long ass ****ing time ago. Maybe if they had a policy of giving out the best information they have at the time the question is asked? Maybe that would have solved the problem. Of course it would have meant fewer sales for Apple. In the long run it will mean NO sales for Apple to me.
Bogie you are the gold start Apple Apologist (TM).
I understand that the maker of, for example, a single board computer will provide a CD-ROM with the necessary drivers on it, but who writes those drivers? Again on the ATI site, this example is given for the developer:
"A large PC Builder who is designing a new system with an ATI chip on the motherboard may decide to purchase ONLY the Windows 98 driver, and NOT our DVD Player."
To me, this implies that ATI writes the driver and the manufacturer purchases the driver. Having said that, I would speculate that the situation is different with Apple because if Apple wants drivers in its small market, ATI and Apple work together to provide the drivers, which is also stated on the ATI site.
So, this tangent of the thread was a speculation on whether Apple WILL HAVE TO write/improve the driver independently, or whether Apple WILL HAVE TO pay ATI to do so.
<hr></blockquote>
If Apple doesn't have the marketing power to twist ATI's arm to finish drivers for OS X, it's a sad statement of how small Apple's market share indeed is.
The biggest loser here is the consumer, and, since only Apple ships the operating system that comes with the Mac, it's Apple's responsibility to ensure that a "supported" operating system fully functions on "supported" machines.
In the PC world, even though Dell or Gateway may ship a system with an ATI board, ultimately, since they don't have to code the OS as well, their only responsibility to the end user is if they have ATI custom make the chipset for a particular system.
This is where Apple's responsibility lies. Not only does Apple give a person no choice of the graphic chipset in the iMac, likewise, there's no other alternative than ATI for mobile Macs.
Since Apple is limiting a person's choice, it's therefore Apple's responsiblity to support that hardware.
My God, you'd think that one computer company could support one OS using one chipset vendor. It's a disgrace.
So much for "tight intergration" being a Mac's strong point. In this case, it's a severe flaw.
If Apple doesn't have the marketing power to twist ATI's arm to finish drivers for OS X, it's a sad statement of how small Apple's market share indeed is.
I appreciate your comments, but what do you think of this (I hate to duplicate stuff, but this thread is getting hard to navigate).
One of the foci here has been the Rage Pro chipset, which is actually the basis for this thread. In looking at one of the fora at <a href="http://www.opengl.org,"; target="_blank">www.opengl.org,</a> I found a thread complaining about a similar lack of support in Windows XP.
Perhaps Apple has more pull here because the chip set is so old that most Wintel users have moved away from it (speculation) and so Apple negotiates for all the Apple users as a block. Do realistically do you believe that these drivers will be forthcoming or that this specific group of Mac users is out of luck? (Not meant to be a leading question, but is the Newton example all we have to consider or do you know of an instance when Apple has surprised us in a situation like this?)
Comments
<strong>Well, if I am in the discussion and I don't know what you are trying to say [ie where you want to take the discussion/point/goal/motive/whatever then you are failing at getting your point across, that is just common sense.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you didn't know what I was trying to get across after I had repeated it many times? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
I haven't tried to justify their actions. I have asked if there were any other possible reasons other than Apple choosing to harm its own customers, you haven't shown me that those reasons are invalid.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I said it doesn't matter the reasons. It's moot. Apple made claims.. Apple isn't backing them up. Apple needs to rectify the customers it hurt in this move. No matter who's fault it is.
[quote]<strong>
You do if you want me to agree with you, and if you could give me the type of evidence it is likely I would agree with you.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
See here is where you are making the mistake I care less if you agree with me. I am not trying to get you to agree with me. You can believe what you want.
So now are you saying you don't think Apple lied? I am curious.
[quote]<strong>
You skipped over my criticism that you admitted your only "information" is "guesses and speculation."
I would be happy to hear you address it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
My guesses as to why Apple did it is only guesses or speculation. The fact that Apple did indeed do it is not under speculation. As it has been stated in all the news sites. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
"See here is where you are making the mistake I care less if you agree with me. I am not trying to get you to agree with me. You can believe what you want."
Well that explains it. But I still don't understand why if you believe you are right and others are mistaken and you are convinced of a misjustice, that you wouldn't want to convince people other by "you said this ... the facts are the same ... but I say that." ... unless you believe things are hopeless and won't change anyway.
So then why are you still posting, I don't get it. If you are not trying to convince anyone, what is the point of sharing your opinion in the manner you are doing so in?
"So now are you saying you don't think Apple lied? I am curious." -Sinewave
I have never said that I thought Apple lied, I have asked over and over for more conclusive evidence that they did so, or that they did not. I have chosen to hold off making a judgment until I have better information than your opinion.
It is very possible that their contract with ATi is preventing them from fixing the problem, I do not know if that is true or not, right now I am not blaming ATi or Apple because without information about that contract I can't determine for sure who I should be blaming.
Its nice of you to share your opinion that Apple is screwing us all but if you are wrong then any efforts to get Apple to fix the graphics support would be in vain. I would prefer to know, not just suspect, that Apple is the wrong doer. Just as I have not yet criticized ATi for not supporting OS X in old Rage chipsets better, I will not criticize either company until I know whose fault it really is.
Your opinion and argument, logical as though it may be, does not rule out the possibility that Apple may not be able to do it.
Should Apple take a hand in fixing it? Of course, I just want to know if they can fix it and your assumption that they can does not mean it is fact.
According to your logical argument Apple should fix it, I agree, but your argument does not account for their ability to do so, if ATi is not supplying the necessary information for Apple to write the needed drivers then Apple physically can not do what you want and you should be bitching about ATi. The second possibility is that the contract between ATi and Apple prohibits or does not give Apple the right to develop the drivers and therefore Apple is contractually kept from fixing the graphics issue. Last possibility is that Apple is in complete control of the situation and is choosing not to spend the money.
If it is the first one I would be mad at ATi, if it is the second I would be mad at both ATi and Apple for not coming to an agreement in some way to support their customers better, and if it is the third then I would mad at Apple.
But as I, and everyone else who has voiced disagreement with you, has said its not whether we should be mad at Apple for doing us wrong, its a question of was it Apple or ATi who did us wrong.
I know your take is that Apple did us wrong, but your single argument is weak as I pointed out above and you have declared openly that as you are not trying to convince me you have no reason to give better evidence.
Eh, fine. But why keep posting if you are not trying to persuade people of your point of view?
<strong>Well that explains it. But I still don't understand why if you believe you are right and others are mistaken and you are convinced of a misjustice, that you wouldn't want to convince people other by "you said this ... the facts are the same ... but I say that." ... unless you believe things are hopeless and won't change anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does it really matter? This is a discussion forum. I didn't know I had to have a "reason" Why do you care what my reasons are? Why do you care I think Apple is wrong?
Mostly cause you won't shutup and so I thought you were trying to share information or convince me of something that I obviously wasn't understanding.
"Why do you care I think Apple is wrong?"
At first I wanted to understand your opinion, now I don't care what your opinion is, but you keep posting it over and over with seemingly no purpose. Now you have started to declare over and over that you are not willing to tell us your purpose, so basically it have just increased in annoyance. I honestly can't figure out why you are still posting. I am still posting because I want more evidence and I am hoping someone might provide it, you claim you don't want more evidence and you don't want to convince others ... so ... why are you still talking?
<strong>So then why are you still posting, I don't get it. If you are not trying to convince anyone, what is the point of sharing your opinion in the manner you are doing so in?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Hey I just stated my opinions and I am replying to the people who reply to my posts.
[quote]<strong>
I have never said that I thought Apple lied, I have asked over and over for more conclusive evidence that they did so, or that they did not. I have chosen to hold off making a judgment until I have better information than your opinion
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And I said they either
1. Lied
2. Pruposably misled
Either way they did wrong and need to compensate it's customers.
[quote]<strong>
It is very possible that their contract with ATi is preventing them from fixing the problem, I do not know if that is true or not, right now I am not blaming ATi or Apple because without information about that contract I can't determine for sure who I should be blaming.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
So are you saying that ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them? Isn't that a option? I mean I hope your not trying to say ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them.
[quote]<strong>
Its nice of you to share your opinion that Apple is screwing us all but if you are wrong then any efforts to get Apple to fix the graphics support would be in vain. I would prefer to know, not just suspect, that Apple is the wrong doer. Just as I have not yet criticized ATi for not supporting OS X in old Rage chipsets better, I will not criticize either company until I know whose fault it really is.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
ATI isn't the one making the claim for these machines. Apple is. That is all you SHOULD have to know. You guys are making it more complicated than it is to somehow try to justify Apple's wrong doing. Again it isn't ATI's responsibility to back up Apple's claims. They are not even suspect to be blamed.
[quote]<strong>
Your opinion and argument, logical as though it may be, does not rule out the possibility that Apple may not be able to do it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again are you saying Apple isn't able to pay ATI to do it?
[quote]<strong>
Should Apple take a hand in fixing it? Of course, I just want to know if they can fix it and your assumption that they can does not mean it is fact.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Of course they can fix it. It doesn't matter what little it may help.. it will still be supported. If there was no way to do it Apple would have stated so from the get go.
[quote]<strong>
According to your logical argument Apple should fix it, I agree, but your argument does not account for their ability to do so,<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure it did. I mentioned MANY times that Apple could pay ATI to do it.
[quote]<strong>
if ATi is not supplying the necessary information for Apple to write the needed drivers then Apple physically can not do what you want and you should be bitching about ATi.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes all except Apple can pay ATI to do it. Apple doesn't need to know any information.
[quote]<strong>
The second possibility is that the contract between ATi and Apple prohibits or does not give Apple the right to develop the drivers and therefore Apple is contractually kept from fixing the graphics issue. Last possibility is that Apple is in complete control of the situation and is choosing not to spend the money.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sense Apple could indeed pay ATI to do it I am guessing the last option.
[quote]<strong>
If it is the first one I would be mad at ATi, if it is the second I would be mad at both ATi and Apple for not coming to an agreement in some way to support their customers better, and if it is the third then I would mad at Apple.
But as I, and everyone else who has voiced disagreement with you, has said its not whether we should be mad at Apple for doing us wrong, its a question of was it Apple or ATi who did us wrong.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again for the MILLIONTH time. ATI isn't the one that claimed these machines would be OS X ready. ATI is not to be held responsible for claims another company makes. This rests on Apple. Cause Apple made the claim.
If I make mouse pads and sell them to my roomate then he goes and sells the same mouse pads as being "Indestructible" even though I made no such claim, is it my fault cause I didn't make them indestructible or is it my roomate's fault for making a false claim?
[quote]<strong>
I know your take is that Apple did us wrong, but your single argument is weak as I pointed out above and you have declared openly that as you are not trying to convince me you have no reason to give better evidence.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
My argument is weak? Ahahaha you deserve the big ones here
My argument isn't weak if your not a apologist.
[quote]<strong>
Eh, fine. But why keep posting if you are not trying to persuade people of your point of view?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Cause I find it proper to respond to anyone that responds to one of my posts. BTW why are you so concerned with why I am posting here. What business is it of yours anyhow? And since when are you the "Reason" police?
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
"Hey I just stated my opinions and I am replying to the people who reply to my posts."
So as long as I reply to your posts you will reply to mine and this will continue indefinitely?
"And I said they either
1. Lied
2. Pruposably misled
Either way they did wrong and need to compensate it's customers."
I don't get this, you asked question, I replied and then you made this statement, which doesn't really communicate anything new, not sure why you did that.
"So are you saying that ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them? Isn't that a option? I mean I hope your not trying to say ATI wouldn't code these drivers if Apple payed them."
This one actually has some meat to it. I said several pages ago that I thought it is possible that either ATi refused to code the drivers for payment because it is not important to them [new products are more important and worth more money] or ATi wanted more money to code them than Apple could afford to pay for it. I know that Apple has enough money but openGL drivers for those Macs may not be worth as much as ATi wanted. Don't know and while I have asked no one has addressed this possibility. Now, if it is the case that ATi wanted more money that Apple was willing to pay or could afford I can understand that, if it was an exorbitant amount then I would not have paid it either. But regardless, this is just one possibility which you have disregarded up to this point, without evidence or cause.
"That is all you SHOULD have to know."
Sorry, I have higher standards for the information I need to have before I pass judgments. High standards are important when making decisions like who is at fault for something.
"Of course they can fix it."
What is this based on?
"If there was no way to do it Apple would have stated so from the get go."
How do you know this?
"Again for the MILLIONTH time. ATI isn't the one that claimed these machines would be OS X ready. ATI is not to be held responsible for claims another company makes. This rests on Apple. Cause Apple made the claim."
I am not holding ATi responsible - I even stated that in the post which you replied to here - I said that it is possible that for whatever reason ATi is preventing Apple from fixing the graphics support problem. You have not addressed the possibility that ATi could be preventing Apple from fixing it.
"If I make mouse pads and sell them to my roomate then he goes and sells the same mouse pads as being "Indestructible" even though I made no such claim, is it my fault cause I didn't make them indestructible or is it my roomate's fault for making a false claim?"
This argument is horrible, it doesn't equate tho the possibility that I mentioned. What I said was that if ATi had technical information that they did not give to Apple and not having that information prevents Apple from being able to write the drivers, then its not really in Apple's control. I don't know if this is the case, but it is a possibility that you rule out without cause.
"BTW why are you so concerned with why I am posting here. What business is it of yours anyhow? And since when are you the "Reason" police?"
Funny, but a bit too argumentative for my taste.
[EDIT ADDED: that all quotes belonged to Sinewave.]
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Bogie ]</p>
Never said Apple was not responsible, never said they should not fix it, never said they should not be held accountable.
Just want to make sure you are right before I go off.
I prefer to have the whole story rather than go off with just an opinion and make an ass out of myself by not having any evidence besides my opinion, hence why I keep asking for evidence and have not made any claims of my own.
[EDIT: clarified first statement]
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Bogie ]</p>
<strong>So as long as I reply to your posts you will reply to mine and this will continue indefinitely
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure..
BTW why are you arguing things that are off topic? Didn't you just get on to me about being off topic?
[quote]<strong>
I don't get this, you asked question, I replied and then you made this statement, which doesn't really communicate anything new, not sure why you did that.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It states either Apple lied.. or if it didn't they pruposably misled. Either way they did wrong.
[quote]<strong>
This one actually has some meat to it. I said several pages ago that I thought it is possible that either ATi refused to code the drivers for payment because it is not important to them [new products are more important and worth more money]
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Worth more money? Heh money is money. If Apple is going to play ATI to do this they will do it. Of course Apple would have to pay ATI enough to compensate them .. duh.
[quote]<strong>
or ATi wanted more money to code them than Apple could afford to pay for it. I know that Apple has enough money but openGL drivers for those Macs may not be worth as much as ATi wanted.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not worth it to who? T the consumers that wanted it and was promised compatibility? Not worth Apple's reputation?
[quote]<strong>
Don't know and while I have asked no one has addressed this possibility. Now, if it is the case that ATi wanted more money that Apple was willing to pay or could afford I can understand that, if it was an exorbitant amount then I would not have paid it either. But regardless, this is just one possibility which you have disregarded up to this point, without evidence or cause.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I have not disregarded anything. If Apple offered ATI enough to compensate their time they would do it. Your not thinking in business terms. Money is Money. And I am sure Apple has enough money to pay for a little extra driver support.
[quote]<strong>
Sorry, I have higher standards for the information I need to have before I pass judgments. High standards are important when making decisions like who is at fault for something.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again. the fault can only lay in the people that made the claim.
[quote]<strong>
I am not holding ATi responsible - I even stated that in the post which you replied to here - I said that it is possible that for whatever reason ATi is preventing Apple from fixing the graphics support problem. You have not addressed the possibility that ATi could be preventing Apple from fixing it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Your coming up with bizarro extremes as to why ATI may be at fault. This is the problem.
[quote]<strong>
This argument is horrible,
<hr></blockquote></strong> Surely it's just like this situation.
[quote]<strong>
it doesn't equate tho the possibility that I mentioned. What I said was that if ATi had technical information that they did not give to Apple and not having that information prevents Apple from being able to write the drivers, then its not really in Apple's control. I don't know if this is the case, but it is a possibility that you rule out without cause.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again If Apple can pay ATI then it wouldn't matter. And businesses are out to make money. That is the bottom line. If a company wants to pay you to develop something for your own product. More than likely your going to grab at it.
And one reason why I have never purchased a new Mac from Apple since 1998 when the clones were killed.
ATI's only responsiblity is to people who purchase RETAIL ATI products.
Even in the PC world, it is the OEM who must support any included ATI products or chipsets, not ATI.
Apple really ****ed up on this one. Instant obsolescense for a millions of Apple manufactured machines, all in one fell swoop. Machines that, according to the box, are "supported" by OS X.
<strong>
Does it really matter? This is a discussion forum. I didn't know I had to have a "reason" Why do you care what my reasons are? Why do you care I think Apple is wrong?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is this a rhetorical question? OK, I'll bite. What if I didn't have a strong opinion but tried to do some research to form an opinion seeing as how some other people had strong opinions which they voiced in a forum and still didn't know why they had such a strong opinion and so was wondering if anyone else had any information which would help me to decide where I stood on an issue? Isn't that what fora are for? <-(rhetorical) But now that I know that is not your purpose, then it just doesn't matter and most of what I said in regard to your participation in this thread is garbage since it was aimed at a cross purpose for your being in this thread.
"It states either Apple lied.. or if it didn't they pruposably misled. Either way they did wrong."
No, it states "And I said they either 1. Lied 2. Pruposably misled." Above you make it sound like fact, its not, that is my main point, it is your opinion and you have even said you feel no need to back it up with evidence beyond your self fulfilling opinion argument.
"Worth more money? Heh money is money. If Apple is going to play ATI to do this they will do it. Of course Apple would have to pay ATI enough to compensate them .. duh."
No, in business money is not money. If ATi has potential to make more money by using all their resources for new products than they could make by splitting their resources between new products and work for Apple on old products. Potential is always worth more than contract work on old products, that is just a math equation and common sense.
"Not worth it to who?"
Not worth what is the question. And we can't answer that. Point is that it is entirely possible Apple made ATi an offer and ATi turned them down. Until someone rules that out your logical argument does not stand as it might not be in Apple's control according to this right here.
"T the consumers that wanted it and was promised compatibility?"
Aren't the ones paying for it so its not up to them to determine its worth in cash. ;-)
"Not worth Apple's reputation?"
What are you saying here? That if possible Apple should pay whatever it takes to get drivers for these graphics chips?
"If Apple offered ATI enough to compensate their time they would do it."
Back this up please, it might be logical but that alone doesn't mean its correct.
"Again. the fault can only lay in the people that made the claim."
OK, I'll take this on - if you promise to meet me at 4pm and you get delayed by someone else, whose fault is it that you are late? Yours' or the person who delayed you?
"Your coming up with bizarro extremes as to why ATI may be at fault. This is the problem."
Its not all that bizarre that ATi would not be interested in coding for chips of theirs that are 3-5 years old. And you did not address what I said.
"If a company wants to pay you to develop something for your own product. More than likely your going to grab at it."
Not true, if I can make more working on current or new products than it is reasonable to charge for work on legacy stuff I will work on newer stuff in order to make the most money.
<strong>All quotes from Sinewave.
No, it states "And I said they either 1. Lied 2. Pruposably misled." Above you make it sound like fact, its not, that is my main point, it is your opinion and you have even said you feel no need to back it up with evidence beyond your self fulfilling opinion argument.<hr></blockquote></strong>
The Evidence? Apple said the machines would be OS X ready. They are not. Nor will they be according to Apple.
[quote]<strong>
No, in business money is not money. If ATi has potential to make more money by using all their resources for new products than they could make by splitting their resources between new products and work for Apple on old products. Potential is always worth more than contract work on old products, that is just a math equation and common sense.<hr></blockquote></strong>
And from what I have been just told this job wouldn't be a large task for ATI. A total rewrite of the driver code is not needed. Let me quote this guy
[quote]OpenGL. Say it with me: OpenGL. There's just a few cards out there, an open standard, and it would take Apple a very small amount of time to adapt drivers. They have the new card drivers, they have the old cards' OS9 drivers, there are virtually certainly OpenGL drivers for these for Linux on x86 and maybe even PPC.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Not worth what is the question. And we can't answer that. Point is that it is entirely possible Apple made ATi an offer and ATi turned them down. Until someone rules that out your logical argument does not stand as it might not be in Apple's control according to this right here.<hr></blockquote></strong>
If that was the case Apple would have stated as much. That way Apple isn't in the fault. Being quiet about the whole issue.. and brushing things under the rug transmits the look of guilt if you ask me.
[quote]<strong>Aren't the ones paying for it so its not up to them to determine its worth in cash. ;-)
<hr></blockquote></strong>
They payed for it out of our wallets did we not? Or did they just pay for a lie?
[quote]<strong>
What are you saying here? That if possible Apple should pay whatever it takes to get drivers for these graphics chips?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I don't think ATI would ask for a unreasonable amount
[quote]<strong>
Back this up please, it might be logical but that alone doesn't mean its correct.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
lol do you want me to call up ATI and asked them myself? This is pretty much a good guess that they would.
[quote]<strong>
OK, I'll take this on - if you promise to meet me at 4pm and you get delayed by someone else, whose fault is it that you are late? Yours' or the person who delayed you?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You'd blame the person that delayed you. But if you don't show up at all you blame yourself. Apple delayed.. then decided not to show up. There is the difference.
[quote]<strong>
Its not all that bizarre that ATi would not be interested in coding for chips of theirs that are 3-5 years old.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I agree it's not bizarre. That is normal. That is unless Apple pays them enough to. Or Apple is able to code them themselves. But it's bizarre to think ATI wouldn't code these under any condition! That ATI is just not coding them to be mean! If ATI was payed they would more than likely code them. Of course we are talking about normal non-bizarre situations.
[quote]<strong>
And you did not address what I said.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Cause it was a bizarro situation.
[quote]<strong>
Not true, if I can make more working on current or new products than it is reasonable to charge for work on legacy stuff I will work on newer stuff in order to make the most money.</strong><hr></blockquote>\\
Again I said if Apple payed them enough to compensate they would do it. And since Apple is the one that made these claims. It is Apple that needs to take the initiative. Not get cheap and screw it's customers.
If Apple's not going to support a core technology on millions of Macs, then, Apple should not lie and claim that OS X is supported on those machines.
I think it's time for a class action lawsuit. There should civil penalties, and, possibly, criminal ones. It's outright fraud.
<strong>Don't forget, OpenGL is a CORE technology of OS X.
If Apple's not going to support a core technology on millions of Macs, then, Apple should not lie and claim that OS X is supported on those machines.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've been trying to say that for 8 pages now. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> they will come back with "You can't prove Apple lied!" or "It might not be Apple's fault!"
[QB]Also, being that the cards in quesition were included by Apple in Apple machines, it is Apple's decision to include such hardware, and, Apple's responsibility to support said hardware.
Hi, not to leave you out (since I don't know whether or not you really want a response), and assuming you have not read the entire thread:
"ATI's only responsiblity is to people who purchase RETAIL ATI products."
I don't dispute your screen shots. Some of us are confused because in the Mac OS X FAQ, ATI says it will provide drivers for OS X.
"Even in the PC world, it is the OEM who must support any included ATI products or chipsets, not ATI."
I understand that the maker of, for example, a single board computer will provide a CD-ROM with the necessary drivers on it, but who writes those drivers? Again on the ATI site, this example is given for the developer:
"A large PC Builder who is designing a new system with an ATI chip on the motherboard may decide to purchase ONLY the Windows 98 driver, and NOT our DVD Player."
To me, this implies that ATI writes the driver and the manufacturer purchases the driver. Having said that, I would speculate that the situation is different with Apple because if Apple wants drivers in its small market, ATI and Apple work together to provide the drivers, which is also stated on the ATI site.
So, this tangent of the thread was a speculation on whether Apple WILL HAVE TO write/improve the driver independently, or whether Apple WILL HAVE TO pay ATI to do so.
(Rewritten in the active vs. subjunctive text so Mr/Ms Sinewave doesn't have to emphasise that Apple will have to provide drivers, no matter how they do it. That is, if he/she doesn't want to.)
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</p>
<strong>Thank you for bringing this point up. Just roughly, when did you find out about the ATi support change? Was this what the original TIL said? Or was the inclusion of "Further development ... not planned." not in response to a change in ATI policy but was indicative of a change in Apple's intent?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Back when ATi published that page. I think that was back during the DPs or maybe the public beta. Long time ago.
[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>(Not all of us have the answers. It's nice to share.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea I know. Which is why I hold the Apple Apologist feet the fire.
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
You'll probably turn this aside as another attempt at Apple-Apologizing, but has it ever occured to you that maybe the folks at Apple didn't actually know for certain whether they would at some point provide drivers for the RagePro? Maybe (most certainly) they didn't know in advance how everything relating to OS X would work out in the end, so they might actually not have known for sure so early that they'd completely drop HW-acceleration-support for these cards? I'm not saying this is the case, I just think this might be a possibility you'd have to consider before putting the blame on Apple like you did.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, More apologizing. Like I stated above. Apple knew for a long time (long meaning more than enough time to writer drivers three times over) that ATi crapped out on them. So ...
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>
You can't identify your own point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO! I have already you stupid tool. If you want to read my point go back and read the thread you ****ing half wit.
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>Unless you can provide me proof of this in terms of some sort of admission or policy statement it is just conjecture and caries no weight.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The proof is in the ATi page. They put that up a long ass time ago. I think we know now that Apple put drivers on the bottom of the ?to do? list and never looked back (down the list).
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>We don't know that they have dropped support, they sure haven't told us that they have dropped support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How ****ing blind can you be? I guess it?s dark up SJ?s ass huh?
[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>We don't know if either of these conclusions are true. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Um? Maybe if Apple didn?t have an Iron Curtain policy when it came to talking about updates and support. Maybe if they had answered the question when it was asked a long ass ****ing time ago. Maybe if they had a policy of giving out the best information they have at the time the question is asked? Maybe that would have solved the problem. Of course it would have meant fewer sales for Apple. In the long run it will mean NO sales for Apple to me.
Bogie you are the gold start Apple Apologist (TM).
I understand that the maker of, for example, a single board computer will provide a CD-ROM with the necessary drivers on it, but who writes those drivers? Again on the ATI site, this example is given for the developer:
"A large PC Builder who is designing a new system with an ATI chip on the motherboard may decide to purchase ONLY the Windows 98 driver, and NOT our DVD Player."
To me, this implies that ATI writes the driver and the manufacturer purchases the driver. Having said that, I would speculate that the situation is different with Apple because if Apple wants drivers in its small market, ATI and Apple work together to provide the drivers, which is also stated on the ATI site.
So, this tangent of the thread was a speculation on whether Apple WILL HAVE TO write/improve the driver independently, or whether Apple WILL HAVE TO pay ATI to do so.
<hr></blockquote>
If Apple doesn't have the marketing power to twist ATI's arm to finish drivers for OS X, it's a sad statement of how small Apple's market share indeed is.
The biggest loser here is the consumer, and, since only Apple ships the operating system that comes with the Mac, it's Apple's responsibility to ensure that a "supported" operating system fully functions on "supported" machines.
In the PC world, even though Dell or Gateway may ship a system with an ATI board, ultimately, since they don't have to code the OS as well, their only responsibility to the end user is if they have ATI custom make the chipset for a particular system.
This is where Apple's responsibility lies. Not only does Apple give a person no choice of the graphic chipset in the iMac, likewise, there's no other alternative than ATI for mobile Macs.
Since Apple is limiting a person's choice, it's therefore Apple's responsiblity to support that hardware.
My God, you'd think that one computer company could support one OS using one chipset vendor. It's a disgrace.
So much for "tight intergration" being a Mac's strong point. In this case, it's a severe flaw.
If Apple doesn't have the marketing power to twist ATI's arm to finish drivers for OS X, it's a sad statement of how small Apple's market share indeed is.
I appreciate your comments, but what do you think of this (I hate to duplicate stuff, but this thread is getting hard to navigate).
One of the foci here has been the Rage Pro chipset, which is actually the basis for this thread. In looking at one of the fora at <a href="http://www.opengl.org,"; target="_blank">www.opengl.org,</a> I found a thread complaining about a similar lack of support in Windows XP.
Perhaps Apple has more pull here because the chip set is so old that most Wintel users have moved away from it (speculation) and so Apple negotiates for all the Apple users as a block. Do realistically do you believe that these drivers will be forthcoming or that this specific group of Mac users is out of luck? (Not meant to be a leading question, but is the Newton example all we have to consider or do you know of an instance when Apple has surprised us in a situation like this?)