Microsoft doesn't make computers, so, Microsoft has no obligation whatsoever to make sure Windows supports some facet of any computer.
Apple does because Apple makes both the hardware and the OS.
The age of the chipset is irrelevent. If Apple isn't going to provide support for the most basic piece of hardware in a class of machines, then, that class of machines must be excluded from the official "support" list.
PC users aren't in a quandry like this because as long as a chipset supports DirectX, it doesn't matter whether or not the chipset supports OpenGL because the DirectX API provides needed hardware video acceleration.
Apple gets off the hook on the desktop machines because the graphics can be upgraded. This is one major reason why a machine like the iMac is fundamentally flawed because there's no way to bypass or upgrade the onboard video.
TheRoadWarrior? Give it up. I've made that same point about 100 times here. The Apple Apologist (TM) don't want to listen. Shit in the ears I suspect. Hazard of wedging your head up SJ's ass.
<Maczealot mode>It's a 3 year old computer. Time to get a faster machine with faster graphics! Apple's just trying to do us all a favor!</Maczealot mode>
Even though, in another thread, same person would say:
<Maczealot mode>Macs are better because they last longer and have longer lives than PCs that have to be updated every year for the latest version of Windoze.</Maczealot mode>
OK, this is going to be the longest reply I have ever made by far ...
First from Sinewave-
"Nor will they be according to Apple."
They haven't stated this although it is implied in their TILs.
"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"
From what that guy says that you quote it doesn't sound hard but who is he? Random boy, if some other guy made up a reason that it was really, really hard I wouldn't believe him either.
"If that was the case Apple would have stated as much."
I don't agree, Apple generally keeps their mouth shut even when they should clear the air about something that isn't their fault, so you can't determine if it is or isn't their fault from the fact that they haven't issued a press release calling shanagans on someone else.
"and brushing things under the rug transmits the look of guilt if you ask me."
Yes, it does make them look bad, but the look of guilt doesn't make them guilty.
"They payed for it out of our wallets did we not? Or did they just pay for a lie?"
Ooooh a slight at dark humor? OK, you opened the door - how much is too much? Any amount?
"I don't think ATI would ask for a unreasonable amount"
And you know this how? You have a mindmel with the CEO of ATi?
"again more bizarro extremes. "Oh what if the world exploads?!?!""
You are comparing ATi turning down a contract to write drivers for chips they sold 3-5 years ago to the world exploding. Wow.
"lol do you want me to call up ATI and asked them myself? This is pretty much a good guess that they would."
Email or fax would be better so that it was documented but hell, sure, I will take you up on that. ;-)
"Apple delayed.. then decided not to show up. There is the difference."
Actually not sure if they are coming yet, already started serving dinner but the guests haven't left yet, I am hoping they still make it because there is a lot of food. :-)
"But it's bizarre to think ATI wouldn't code these under any condition!"
Oh, so is that what you convinced yourself I said, well congrats, it took some effort to get that out of what I did say, which was that ATi might have better things to do.
"That ATI is just not coding them to be mean!"
You are right, that does not make sense, funny, its also what you are claiming about Apple. Hmm, still doesn't make sense, still want to say that?
"Cause it was a bizarro situation."
Under that clause I wouldn't ever be replying to you and this would have ended long ago.
"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."
So wait, you are willing to say that ATi is more than willing to write the drivers, that it is easy to do, that basically there is nothing holding them back. Obviously it wouldn't cost much under that assumption either right? But you also claim that Apple is obviously not willing to pay this small amount of money because they want to screw their customers.
Oh yeah, that makes sense, Apple must want to hurt their customer base, nothing else could be in the way, its not possible and we should not even look into it.
From TheRoadWarrior [cool name by the way]
"Don't forget, OpenGL is a CORE technology of OS X."
Yeah I know just how you feel, CD Burning is a CORE technology too, and my Beige G3 doesn't seem to burn CDs under X, lets sue, maybe if we take more money from Apple the resources they have to correct this will increase.
One more from Sinewave just for posterity
"they will come back with "You can't prove Apple lied!" or "It might not be Apple's fault!""
Do me a favor and try and quote me on that, I am pretty sure I never said either. Did say that you are blowing off other possibilities without consideration, but that is a bit reasonable for you to quote.
Scott's turn [Ahead of time, this is 99% reactionary, argumentative, and bashing cause well, that also happens to be what I am responding to. If you care about the actual topic and trying to determine who is responsible for holding up Rage drivers, just skip this whole section.]
"Which is why I hold the Apple Apologist feet the fire."
I am not sure what you mean here, I think I am too tired, or misreading, don't know that it matters but would you rephrase for my curiosity?
"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 they should what then, use the force to create driver references to use?
"NO! I have already you stupid tool. If you want to read my point go back and read the thread you ****ing half wit."
Impressive, you an english major? I reread your posts, mostly you deride people, like, uhm, oh yeah, the example I just quoted. I was giving you benefit of a doubt that you were trying to say something more intelligent, but we all make our choices right?
"The proof is in the ATi page. They put that up a long ass time ago."
Ah, that one ATi page, that one right ... the one next to the other one, the one with the graphic on it right? Which one was that again?
"I think we know now that Apple put drivers on the bottom of the ?to do? list and never looked back (down the list)."
Well, if "we" all knew this I wouldn't be asking for more information would I. Oops, logical conclusions sneak up on people.
"How ****ing blind can you be? I guess it?s dark up SJ?s ass huh?"
Don't like blind people or something? I wouldn't think he would keep it there, but since you are so familiar with it could you take a look for me just in case. ;-)
"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."
OK, you just said that they are in the wrong because they don't talk about new updates, that is well, immaterial and so, basically unimportant to this discussion. But thanks for sharing.
"Maybe if they had a policy of giving out the best information they have at the time the question is asked?
Or maybe they do and it just happens that their information sucks, easy to believe that their information sucks from your point of view that they suck, in fact it only follows that naturally if they suck their information should suck also.
"In the long run it will mean NO sales for Apple to me."
And while that does suck for Apple the sales guy you might have worked with is probably over-joyed.
"Bogie you are the gold start Apple Apologist (TM)."
Man, my own title and I never even had to claim it wasn't Apple's fault, which, it might very well be. ;-)
More RoadWarrior
"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."
Well, they have shown to some extent that they do, the whole fiasco of bringing in nVidia and deriding ATi in the public eye has caused ATi not to repeat old mistakes. But we never can tell the true extent and implications of this move.
"The biggest loser here is the consumer"
True.
"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."
Hmm, Microsoft and RedHat don't live up to that, not sure who does. But they are in a different situation. However, it isn't hard to envision some situations where some things just can not be supported. I mean Programmer brought up the point several pages ago that many Rage chips aren't actually OpenGL compliant if that is the case, it is very simple that no one could write the drivers we are talking about.
"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."
Yeah, I see your point, one instance of screw up that could have been caused by chipset limitation or outsourced work really blows that whole hardware/software integration thing to crap huh. Man, if only this one problem hadn't happened it would all be perfect ... or something.
I agree this sucks and I do think Apple needs to be involved in fixing it, I am still just curious as to whether they have the means.
"Apple gets off the hook on the desktop machines because the graphics can be upgraded. This is one major reason why a machine like the iMac is fundamentally flawed because there's no way to bypass or upgrade the onboard video."
Good point, doesn't help me on my quest to determine the nature of the Apple/ATi arrangement but still a valid point.
On more shot at Scott
"The Apple Apologist (TM) don't want to listen."
Work on your grammar, it would either be a plural noun or change the tense of don't to doesn't.
"Shit in the ears I suspect. Hazard of wedging your head up SJ's ass."
What is your obsession with Steve Job's ass? Jeez man, go see a counselor or do something, at least get a better buzz phrase to degrade with.
RoadWarrior
"<Maczealot mode>It's a 3 year old computer. Time to get a faster machine with faster graphics! Apple's just trying to do us all a favor!</Maczealot mode>"
Yeah, I don't agree with that, for people who complain that the graphics suck, yeah its valid but for people who just want full support, they should not have to buy a new Mac, that is just BS.
Summary of my thoughts:
Well, basically Sinewave seems to think that I shouldn't need anything more than "Apple made a promise" to condemn them. Scott is obsessed with ass and claims I am making excuses for Apple when I haven't defended them yet and just want to explore the possibilities that it could be something other than Apple's great need to screw their own customer. And RoadWarrior doesn't seem to be able to show any more evidence than anyone else of anyone being responsible for this situation but does continue with original thought instead of repeating himself [aka Sinewave] or just calling people rude things [aka Scott].
So everyone knows, I could really care less if it is Apple's fault or ATi's but I am not going to blame either until I can find out who I should be blaming.
All I'm saying is that if Apple is going to abandon a core OS X technology on certain Macs, then, the box and system requirements ought to reflect the reality. Better to do that then blatantly lie about what they are selling.
A computer is fairly crippled if the video chipset cannot function properly. Ironically, Microsoft seems to have enough influence to get XP drivers written for "ancient" ATI chipsets.
Whether or not it's Apple's fault, ATI's fault, or the hotel janitor's fault is totally irrelevent. The responsbility lies solely on Apple to make things right, whether that's twisting ATI's arm or changing the system requirements for OS X.
BTW, I never had a problem CD burning on my Power Computing clone
So, Wintel uses DirectX or OpenGL. Of OS X only has to support OpenGL, it would seem that, on the surface, Apple should have an easier time in that, as suppliers of hardware and software, in ensuring proper support for their graphics. Is that the obvious conclusion, or am I missing something?
The reason for DirectX's superiority over OpenGL is that DirectX encompasses more than just 3d...it includes 2D and sound/music/audio as well.
This is a major reason why DVD playback on a PC is far superior to DVD playback on a Mac as it latches into the hardware abstraction layer created by DirectX.
In fact, typically, DVD playback on a Mac takes twice the processing time as it does on a PC, regardless of CPU speed.
How does this relate? Apple needs to work on something similar to DirectX for the Mac. That one set of APIs has done wonders for game development, in addition to giving video card manufacturers some other option besides Open GL. And, DirectX is backwards compatible, which is why "ancient" chipsets are easy to support in a new OS like XP.
BTW, that's an interesting debate, but, Open GL is supported in XP, otherwise, I couldn't play Quake III, RTCW, or Medal of Honor: Allied Assault in XP.
Likely the complainers' problems are that they are using generic Microsoft provided drivers for their video cards.
They would see if that they installed proper drivers for their video card, the proper OpenGL driver would be installed, as does the "nvOpenGL.dll" file when installing the XP drivers for any Nvidia card.
We were discussing a while back about who could write drivers. If, in the worst case, Apple abandons the owners of the machines in question, are there third party opportunities here, or is driver stuff proprietary. I remember a company, AppliedEngineering, that used to do some nice stuff for the Apple II series. Is it likely (well, maybe not likely, but possible) that there might be some saviour out there, or would that be impractical (due to royalties or whatever)?
Thank you for coming to this discussion. I have enjoyed reading your last few posts, and I didn't know the thing about DVD playback and the processor intensity. Very interesting, to be honest I am just happy to hear from someone who has something to add rather than just bash me for asking questions.
Sorry if I was kinda harsh in your direction in my last post, got wrapped up. The CDR comment was just that while my Beige G3 runs OS X, CD burning, which is a CORE feature of OS X, does not work on that Mac under OS X, for obvious reasons. Right now I am tending to agree with Programmer's earlier post that Rage chips just didn't comply with OpenGL as I could never run anything in OpenGL under 8.6 or 9.x on my Beige G3. But your last posts make it seem like it should have worked.
<strong>BTW, that's an interesting debate, but, Open GL is supported in XP, otherwise, I couldn't play Quake III, RTCW, or Medal of Honor: Allied Assault in XP</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you have OpenGL in XP you did not get it from Microsoft. Windows XP does not have OpenGL. You got it from a third party.
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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you'll have to understand that Apple is primarily a *company*, and as such wants to (and actually is obliged to try to) make *money*. So, from an economical point of view, it might not be sensible to pay ATi enough money so they devote some of their crew to writing RagePro drivers (instead of any next-generation stuff that ATi is currently working on, which is of course much more profitable for ATi) just for idealistic reasons, "doesn't matter what little it may help."
Of course, from the morale point of view, somebody *should* provide those drivers, but we're talking about businesses here, and morale is rarely the top priority in that field.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now look at your own statement, and consider the fact that Apple is a business too, and as such their primary concern is making money too, as it is for all businesses. Customer satisfaction and reputation are essential and all, but still the main point in any business is to make money, and if the guys at Apple decide that having those drivers written will, summarized up, not be the economical way to go, well, then they probably won't spend their money on it, even though they might have the cash.
The age of the chipset is irrelevent. If Apple isn't going to provide support for the most basic piece of hardware in a class of machines, then, that class of machines must be excluded from the official "support" list.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I guess a lot of people who bought that specific iMac back then didn't really see OpenGL as a "basic piece" of that system ('cos otherwise they wouldntt have bought that specific system in the first place), but that's probably another point.
[quote]<strong>
PC users aren't in a quandry like this because as long as a chipset supports DirectX, it doesn't matter whether or not the chipset supports OpenGL because the DirectX API provides needed hardware video acceleration.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but this is just nonsense.
For games that require HW-accelerated OpenGL (which seem to be one of the main problem areas with the iMacs in question), a given card can be as DirectX compatible as it wants, it will still not run that game. DirectX (well, Direct3D, to be specific) is just another 3D graphics API like OpenGL. DirectX compatibility doesn't just automatically appear, nor is it in any way inherent to any piece of hardware. Just like with OpenGL, you have to write drivers that support it.
[quote]<strong>
This is one major reason why a machine like the iMac is fundamentally flawed because there's no way to bypass or upgrade the onboard video.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, in a way, yes, but that fact has been known right from the beginning (and in some cases isn't even true - Mezzanine et al.). If you need upgradeability, don't buy an integrated or portable computer.
The Evidence? Apple said the machines would be OS X ready. They are not. Nor will they be according to Apple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is *your* interpretation of the situation. You can call them Apologists as much as you want, but there are people who consider "is XY ready" to be synonymous with "can run XY".
Thousands of computers have been branded "designed for Windows NT 4.0" or "ready for NT", yet NT4 never supported their power management facilities nor their USB ports (bith of which worked just fine in Win98).
[quote]<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
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And who is that guy to be able to tell you that?
[quote]
OpenGL. Say it with me: OpenGL. There's just a few cards out there,
<hr></blockquote>
A *few*? Come on...
[quote]
an open standard,
<hr></blockquote>
Sure, OpenGL is, and guess what, OpenGL is already in OS X. THe difficult part, the one we're talking about here, is not buzilding an OpenGL implementation, but about having that OpenGL implementation talk to and use a certain piece of hardware (i.e. the RagePro). This is what drivers are all about, and unfortunately, this is not openly standardized at all (in fact, it's not even standardized across one manufacturer's line of products).
[quote]
and it would take Apple a very small amount of time to adapt drivers. They have the new card drivers,
<hr></blockquote>
In source form? Binaries are useless here.
[quote]
they have the old cards' OS9 drivers,
<hr></blockquote>
Which would even be all but useless in source form, since OS 9 had a completely different driver model and OpenGL implementation from OS X.
[quote]
there are virtually certainly OpenGL drivers for these for Linux on x86 and maybe even PPC.
<hr></blockquote>
"virtually certainly" as in "I don't know, I think so, but I'm too lazy to further inform myself"?
Sure, there is OpenGL on Linux (well, MESA), but again, even if one has access to the source code for the RagePro drivers, and even if they do support OpenGL, it would still be virtually useless as Linux, too, has a completely different driver and OpenGL architecture from OS X. A port would be nothing short of a near-complete rewrite (see the darwin-development mailing list recently for a similar topic (porting network drivers from BSD)).
[quote]<strong>
I don't think ATI would ask for a unreasonable amount again more bizarro extremes. "Oh what if the world exploads?!?!"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, depends on your definition of "unreasonable". In this thread, you have basically made clear that you feel Apple should be willing to pay as much as it takes to get those drivers written. Apple, on the other hadn, has to take economics into accoutn, so from a business point of view, there might be limits as to what is reasonable and what not.
[quote]<strong>
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><hr></blockquote>
As stated before, this is just a business decision. If Apple feels like it's more economical for them to "screw" some of their customers than to spend money on having those RagePro drivers written, then, as a business, they will probably do just that. Customer satisfaction and reputation are important, but in the end, running a business is all about making money.
<Maczealot mode>It's a 3 year old computer. Time to get a faster machine with faster graphics! Apple's just trying to do us all a favor!</Maczealot mode>
Even though, in another thread, same person would say:
<Maczealot mode>Macs are better because they last longer and have longer lives than PCs that have to be updated every year for the latest version of Windoze.</Maczealot mode></strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>All I'm saying is that if Apple is going to abandon a core OS X technology on certain Macs, then, the box and system requirements ought to reflect the reality. Better to do that then blatantly lie about what they are selling.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Apple certainly doesn't sell no RagePro-equipped computers any more, so what use would changeing the package be? Also, keep in mind that being "supported" or "unsupported" in Apple's terms has further implications - i.e. customer support will handle your problems with OS X only if your machine is supported. With unsupported machines, it's basically "if you get it to work, fine for you, but if not, don't bother us" - guess a lot of people would rather choose to have a "supported" iMac w/o HW-accelerated OpenGL than a completely "unsupported" machnine.
[quote]<strong>
A computer is fairly crippled if the video chipset cannot function properly.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, as stated elsewhere, it's not like the video chips wouldn't work under X at all, it's just the there's not OpenGL hardware acceleration, and some quicktime acceleration is lacking too.
[quote]<strong>
Ironically, Microsoft seems to have enough influence to get XP drivers written for "ancient" ATI chipsets.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahem, so it's ironical that Microsoft, being many orders of magnitude bigger than Apple, is actually more influential?
Comments
Apple does because Apple makes both the hardware and the OS.
The age of the chipset is irrelevent. If Apple isn't going to provide support for the most basic piece of hardware in a class of machines, then, that class of machines must be excluded from the official "support" list.
PC users aren't in a quandry like this because as long as a chipset supports DirectX, it doesn't matter whether or not the chipset supports OpenGL because the DirectX API provides needed hardware video acceleration.
Apple gets off the hook on the desktop machines because the graphics can be upgraded. This is one major reason why a machine like the iMac is fundamentally flawed because there's no way to bypass or upgrade the onboard video.
<a href="http://support.ati.com/drivers/winxp/winxp_5_1_2505_0_r2.html"; target="_blank">ATI's RAGE II Driver Support for XP</a>
<Maczealot mode>It's a 3 year old computer. Time to get a faster machine with faster graphics! Apple's just trying to do us all a favor!</Maczealot mode>
Even though, in another thread, same person would say:
<Maczealot mode>Macs are better because they last longer and have longer lives than PCs that have to be updated every year for the latest version of Windoze.</Maczealot mode>
First from Sinewave-
"Nor will they be according to Apple."
They haven't stated this although it is implied in their TILs.
"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"
From what that guy says that you quote it doesn't sound hard but who is he? Random boy, if some other guy made up a reason that it was really, really hard I wouldn't believe him either.
"If that was the case Apple would have stated as much."
I don't agree, Apple generally keeps their mouth shut even when they should clear the air about something that isn't their fault, so you can't determine if it is or isn't their fault from the fact that they haven't issued a press release calling shanagans on someone else.
"and brushing things under the rug transmits the look of guilt if you ask me."
Yes, it does make them look bad, but the look of guilt doesn't make them guilty.
"They payed for it out of our wallets did we not? Or did they just pay for a lie?"
Ooooh a slight at dark humor? OK, you opened the door - how much is too much? Any amount?
"I don't think ATI would ask for a unreasonable amount"
And you know this how? You have a mindmel with the CEO of ATi?
"again more bizarro extremes. "Oh what if the world exploads?!?!""
You are comparing ATi turning down a contract to write drivers for chips they sold 3-5 years ago to the world exploding. Wow.
"lol do you want me to call up ATI and asked them myself? This is pretty much a good guess that they would."
Email or fax would be better so that it was documented but hell, sure, I will take you up on that. ;-)
"Apple delayed.. then decided not to show up. There is the difference."
Actually not sure if they are coming yet, already started serving dinner but the guests haven't left yet, I am hoping they still make it because there is a lot of food. :-)
"But it's bizarre to think ATI wouldn't code these under any condition!"
Oh, so is that what you convinced yourself I said, well congrats, it took some effort to get that out of what I did say, which was that ATi might have better things to do.
"That ATI is just not coding them to be mean!"
You are right, that does not make sense, funny, its also what you are claiming about Apple. Hmm, still doesn't make sense, still want to say that?
"Cause it was a bizarro situation."
Under that clause I wouldn't ever be replying to you and this would have ended long ago.
"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."
So wait, you are willing to say that ATi is more than willing to write the drivers, that it is easy to do, that basically there is nothing holding them back. Obviously it wouldn't cost much under that assumption either right? But you also claim that Apple is obviously not willing to pay this small amount of money because they want to screw their customers.
Oh yeah, that makes sense, Apple must want to hurt their customer base, nothing else could be in the way, its not possible and we should not even look into it.
From TheRoadWarrior [cool name by the way]
"Don't forget, OpenGL is a CORE technology of OS X."
Yeah I know just how you feel, CD Burning is a CORE technology too, and my Beige G3 doesn't seem to burn CDs under X, lets sue, maybe if we take more money from Apple the resources they have to correct this will increase.
One more from Sinewave just for posterity
"they will come back with "You can't prove Apple lied!" or "It might not be Apple's fault!""
Do me a favor and try and quote me on that, I am pretty sure I never said either. Did say that you are blowing off other possibilities without consideration, but that is a bit reasonable for you to quote.
Scott's turn [Ahead of time, this is 99% reactionary, argumentative, and bashing cause well, that also happens to be what I am responding to. If you care about the actual topic and trying to determine who is responsible for holding up Rage drivers, just skip this whole section.]
"Which is why I hold the Apple Apologist feet the fire."
I am not sure what you mean here, I think I am too tired, or misreading, don't know that it matters but would you rephrase for my curiosity?
"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 they should what then, use the force to create driver references to use?
"NO! I have already you stupid tool. If you want to read my point go back and read the thread you ****ing half wit."
Impressive, you an english major? I reread your posts, mostly you deride people, like, uhm, oh yeah, the example I just quoted. I was giving you benefit of a doubt that you were trying to say something more intelligent, but we all make our choices right?
"The proof is in the ATi page. They put that up a long ass time ago."
Ah, that one ATi page, that one right ... the one next to the other one, the one with the graphic on it right? Which one was that again?
"I think we know now that Apple put drivers on the bottom of the ?to do? list and never looked back (down the list)."
Well, if "we" all knew this I wouldn't be asking for more information would I. Oops, logical conclusions sneak up on people.
"How ****ing blind can you be? I guess it?s dark up SJ?s ass huh?"
Don't like blind people or something? I wouldn't think he would keep it there, but since you are so familiar with it could you take a look for me just in case. ;-)
"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."
OK, you just said that they are in the wrong because they don't talk about new updates, that is well, immaterial and so, basically unimportant to this discussion. But thanks for sharing.
"Maybe if they had a policy of giving out the best information they have at the time the question is asked?
Or maybe they do and it just happens that their information sucks, easy to believe that their information sucks from your point of view that they suck, in fact it only follows that naturally if they suck their information should suck also.
"In the long run it will mean NO sales for Apple to me."
And while that does suck for Apple the sales guy you might have worked with is probably over-joyed.
"Bogie you are the gold start Apple Apologist (TM)."
Man, my own title and I never even had to claim it wasn't Apple's fault, which, it might very well be. ;-)
More RoadWarrior
"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."
Well, they have shown to some extent that they do, the whole fiasco of bringing in nVidia and deriding ATi in the public eye has caused ATi not to repeat old mistakes. But we never can tell the true extent and implications of this move.
"The biggest loser here is the consumer"
True.
"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."
Hmm, Microsoft and RedHat don't live up to that, not sure who does. But they are in a different situation. However, it isn't hard to envision some situations where some things just can not be supported. I mean Programmer brought up the point several pages ago that many Rage chips aren't actually OpenGL compliant if that is the case, it is very simple that no one could write the drivers we are talking about.
"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."
Yeah, I see your point, one instance of screw up that could have been caused by chipset limitation or outsourced work really blows that whole hardware/software integration thing to crap huh. Man, if only this one problem hadn't happened it would all be perfect ... or something.
I agree this sucks and I do think Apple needs to be involved in fixing it, I am still just curious as to whether they have the means.
"Apple gets off the hook on the desktop machines because the graphics can be upgraded. This is one major reason why a machine like the iMac is fundamentally flawed because there's no way to bypass or upgrade the onboard video."
Good point, doesn't help me on my quest to determine the nature of the Apple/ATi arrangement but still a valid point.
On more shot at Scott
"The Apple Apologist (TM) don't want to listen."
Work on your grammar, it would either be a plural noun or change the tense of don't to doesn't.
"Shit in the ears I suspect. Hazard of wedging your head up SJ's ass."
What is your obsession with Steve Job's ass? Jeez man, go see a counselor or do something, at least get a better buzz phrase to degrade with.
RoadWarrior
"<Maczealot mode>It's a 3 year old computer. Time to get a faster machine with faster graphics! Apple's just trying to do us all a favor!</Maczealot mode>"
Yeah, I don't agree with that, for people who complain that the graphics suck, yeah its valid but for people who just want full support, they should not have to buy a new Mac, that is just BS.
Summary of my thoughts:
Well, basically Sinewave seems to think that I shouldn't need anything more than "Apple made a promise" to condemn them. Scott is obsessed with ass and claims I am making excuses for Apple when I haven't defended them yet and just want to explore the possibilities that it could be something other than Apple's great need to screw their own customer. And RoadWarrior doesn't seem to be able to show any more evidence than anyone else of anyone being responsible for this situation but does continue with original thought instead of repeating himself [aka Sinewave] or just calling people rude things [aka Scott].
So everyone knows, I could really care less if it is Apple's fault or ATi's but I am not going to blame either until I can find out who I should be blaming.
A computer is fairly crippled if the video chipset cannot function properly. Ironically, Microsoft seems to have enough influence to get XP drivers written for "ancient" ATI chipsets.
Whether or not it's Apple's fault, ATI's fault, or the hotel janitor's fault is totally irrelevent. The responsbility lies solely on Apple to make things right, whether that's twisting ATI's arm or changing the system requirements for OS X.
BTW, I never had a problem CD burning on my Power Computing clone
[QB]Ironically, ATI supports the same chipsets in XP that are not being further supported by Apple in OS X.
Thanks, but I guess your prior post made my question moot.
In case you are at all interested in what I was looking at, it is here
<a href="http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000207.html"; target="_blank">http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000207.html</a>;
not that it matters anymore.
So, Wintel uses DirectX or OpenGL. Of OS X only has to support OpenGL, it would seem that, on the surface, Apple should have an easier time in that, as suppliers of hardware and software, in ensuring proper support for their graphics. Is that the obvious conclusion, or am I missing something?
This is a major reason why DVD playback on a PC is far superior to DVD playback on a Mac as it latches into the hardware abstraction layer created by DirectX.
In fact, typically, DVD playback on a Mac takes twice the processing time as it does on a PC, regardless of CPU speed.
How does this relate? Apple needs to work on something similar to DirectX for the Mac. That one set of APIs has done wonders for game development, in addition to giving video card manufacturers some other option besides Open GL. And, DirectX is backwards compatible, which is why "ancient" chipsets are easy to support in a new OS like XP.
Likely the complainers' problems are that they are using generic Microsoft provided drivers for their video cards.
They would see if that they installed proper drivers for their video card, the proper OpenGL driver would be installed, as does the "nvOpenGL.dll" file when installing the XP drivers for any Nvidia card.
We were discussing a while back about who could write drivers. If, in the worst case, Apple abandons the owners of the machines in question, are there third party opportunities here, or is driver stuff proprietary. I remember a company, AppliedEngineering, that used to do some nice stuff for the Apple II series. Is it likely (well, maybe not likely, but possible) that there might be some saviour out there, or would that be impractical (due to royalties or whatever)?
Thank you for coming to this discussion. I have enjoyed reading your last few posts, and I didn't know the thing about DVD playback and the processor intensity. Very interesting, to be honest I am just happy to hear from someone who has something to add rather than just bash me for asking questions.
Sorry if I was kinda harsh in your direction in my last post, got wrapped up. The CDR comment was just that while my Beige G3 runs OS X, CD burning, which is a CORE feature of OS X, does not work on that Mac under OS X, for obvious reasons. Right now I am tending to agree with Programmer's earlier post that Rage chips just didn't comply with OpenGL as I could never run anything in OpenGL under 8.6 or 9.x on my Beige G3. But your last posts make it seem like it should have worked.
Like I have been saying, I still want more info.
<strong>BTW, that's an interesting debate, but, Open GL is supported in XP, otherwise, I couldn't play Quake III, RTCW, or Medal of Honor: Allied Assault in XP</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you have OpenGL in XP you did not get it from Microsoft. Windows XP does not have OpenGL. You got it from a third party.
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: erbium ]</p>
<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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you'll have to understand that Apple is primarily a *company*, and as such wants to (and actually is obliged to try to) make *money*. So, from an economical point of view, it might not be sensible to pay ATi enough money so they devote some of their crew to writing RagePro drivers (instead of any next-generation stuff that ATi is currently working on, which is of course much more profitable for ATi) just for idealistic reasons, "doesn't matter what little it may help."
Of course, from the morale point of view, somebody *should* provide those drivers, but we're talking about businesses here, and morale is rarely the top priority in that field.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now look at your own statement, and consider the fact that Apple is a business too, and as such their primary concern is making money too, as it is for all businesses. Customer satisfaction and reputation are essential and all, but still the main point in any business is to make money, and if the guys at Apple decide that having those drivers written will, summarized up, not be the economical way to go, well, then they probably won't spend their money on it, even though they might have the cash.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
The age of the chipset is irrelevent. If Apple isn't going to provide support for the most basic piece of hardware in a class of machines, then, that class of machines must be excluded from the official "support" list.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I guess a lot of people who bought that specific iMac back then didn't really see OpenGL as a "basic piece" of that system ('cos otherwise they wouldntt have bought that specific system in the first place), but that's probably another point.
[quote]<strong>
PC users aren't in a quandry like this because as long as a chipset supports DirectX, it doesn't matter whether or not the chipset supports OpenGL because the DirectX API provides needed hardware video acceleration.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but this is just nonsense.
For games that require HW-accelerated OpenGL (which seem to be one of the main problem areas with the iMacs in question), a given card can be as DirectX compatible as it wants, it will still not run that game. DirectX (well, Direct3D, to be specific) is just another 3D graphics API like OpenGL. DirectX compatibility doesn't just automatically appear, nor is it in any way inherent to any piece of hardware. Just like with OpenGL, you have to write drivers that support it.
[quote]<strong>
This is one major reason why a machine like the iMac is fundamentally flawed because there's no way to bypass or upgrade the onboard video.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, in a way, yes, but that fact has been known right from the beginning (and in some cases isn't even true - Mezzanine et al.). If you need upgradeability, don't buy an integrated or portable computer.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>Ironically, ATI supports the same chipsets in XP that are not being further supported by Apple in OS X.
<a href="http://support.ati.com/drivers/winxp/winxp_5_1_2505_0_r2.html"; target="_blank">ATI's RAGE II Driver Support for XP</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, read the page you linked to: Those drivers do *not* provide OpenGL support.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
The Evidence? Apple said the machines would be OS X ready. They are not. Nor will they be according to Apple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is *your* interpretation of the situation. You can call them Apologists as much as you want, but there are people who consider "is XY ready" to be synonymous with "can run XY".
Thousands of computers have been branded "designed for Windows NT 4.0" or "ready for NT", yet NT4 never supported their power management facilities nor their USB ports (bith of which worked just fine in Win98).
[quote]<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
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And who is that guy to be able to tell you that?
[quote]
OpenGL. Say it with me: OpenGL. There's just a few cards out there,
<hr></blockquote>
A *few*? Come on...
[quote]
an open standard,
<hr></blockquote>
Sure, OpenGL is, and guess what, OpenGL is already in OS X. THe difficult part, the one we're talking about here, is not buzilding an OpenGL implementation, but about having that OpenGL implementation talk to and use a certain piece of hardware (i.e. the RagePro). This is what drivers are all about, and unfortunately, this is not openly standardized at all (in fact, it's not even standardized across one manufacturer's line of products).
[quote]
and it would take Apple a very small amount of time to adapt drivers. They have the new card drivers,
<hr></blockquote>
In source form? Binaries are useless here.
[quote]
they have the old cards' OS9 drivers,
<hr></blockquote>
Which would even be all but useless in source form, since OS 9 had a completely different driver model and OpenGL implementation from OS X.
[quote]
there are virtually certainly OpenGL drivers for these for Linux on x86 and maybe even PPC.
<hr></blockquote>
"virtually certainly" as in "I don't know, I think so, but I'm too lazy to further inform myself"?
Sure, there is OpenGL on Linux (well, MESA), but again, even if one has access to the source code for the RagePro drivers, and even if they do support OpenGL, it would still be virtually useless as Linux, too, has a completely different driver and OpenGL architecture from OS X. A port would be nothing short of a near-complete rewrite (see the darwin-development mailing list recently for a similar topic (porting network drivers from BSD)).
[quote]<strong>
I don't think ATI would ask for a unreasonable amount again more bizarro extremes. "Oh what if the world exploads?!?!"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, depends on your definition of "unreasonable". In this thread, you have basically made clear that you feel Apple should be willing to pay as much as it takes to get those drivers written. Apple, on the other hadn, has to take economics into accoutn, so from a business point of view, there might be limits as to what is reasonable and what not.
[quote]<strong>
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><hr></blockquote>
As stated before, this is just a business decision. If Apple feels like it's more economical for them to "screw" some of their customers than to spend money on having those RagePro drivers written, then, as a business, they will probably do just that. Customer satisfaction and reputation are important, but in the end, running a business is all about making money.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>The typical response elsewhere is:
<Maczealot mode>It's a 3 year old computer. Time to get a faster machine with faster graphics! Apple's just trying to do us all a favor!</Maczealot mode>
Even though, in another thread, same person would say:
<Maczealot mode>Macs are better because they last longer and have longer lives than PCs that have to be updated every year for the latest version of Windoze.</Maczealot mode></strong><hr></blockquote>
So you don't agree 3 years is longer than 1 year?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>All I'm saying is that if Apple is going to abandon a core OS X technology on certain Macs, then, the box and system requirements ought to reflect the reality. Better to do that then blatantly lie about what they are selling.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Apple certainly doesn't sell no RagePro-equipped computers any more, so what use would changeing the package be? Also, keep in mind that being "supported" or "unsupported" in Apple's terms has further implications - i.e. customer support will handle your problems with OS X only if your machine is supported. With unsupported machines, it's basically "if you get it to work, fine for you, but if not, don't bother us" - guess a lot of people would rather choose to have a "supported" iMac w/o HW-accelerated OpenGL than a completely "unsupported" machnine.
[quote]<strong>
A computer is fairly crippled if the video chipset cannot function properly.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, as stated elsewhere, it's not like the video chips wouldn't work under X at all, it's just the there's not OpenGL hardware acceleration, and some quicktime acceleration is lacking too.
[quote]<strong>
Ironically, Microsoft seems to have enough influence to get XP drivers written for "ancient" ATI chipsets.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahem, so it's ironical that Microsoft, being many orders of magnitude bigger than Apple, is actually more influential?
Bye,
RazzFazz