Well, especially for companies, the whole affair isn't really that much of a deal - in regards to office work, the iMac in question *is* (given enough RAM) "OS X ready".
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am talking about multimedia houses. Places that do graphic and video work. All keep seeing from you is excuses and justifications. Has Steve's RDF gotten to you?
I am talking about multimedia houses. Places that do graphic and video work.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, I though we were talking about iMacs and iBooks. I don't really think any self-respecting company would consider those valid choices as OpenGL or NLE workstations.
Oh, I though we were talking about iMacs and iBooks. I don't really think any self-respecting company would consider those valid choices as OpenGL or NLE workstations.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know tons of newspapers using iMacs for page layout and design.
I'll be redundant for most of this has already been covered, but:
hehe...of course I'm blaming the user. But am I apologizing on behalf of apple that they didn't do anything wrong? nope. Of course Apple made a big boo boo in false promises and not communicating clearly to their customers.
But oh wells...life goes on. I wish my Rev. A iMac had some drivers to accel it in OS X... but seriously, get this fact straight in your head.
The Rage II is a piece of junk. I know it cause I own one. Even with all the support and drivers in OS 8.1 through 9.2.2
Think practically. The new 3D applications coming out for OSX require a helluva lot more power than a RAGE II for decent performance.
The applications that used to run or even work on the RAGE II or Pro in classic mac os, will most likely still stay in classic mac os. I can play starcraft and broodwars w/out a prob in OSX on the Rev A iMac. But those games were desiged for the power that was out there--then. Now a days...most people would want a Geforce 2 or 3 for the new apps coming out...
Stick with 9. B*tch all you want about not having the drivers for OS X... but, clearly communicated letters, phonecalls, petitions, and marketing of your problem to the people around you, directed at Apple are going to give you the support that WE, you and I, need to get drivers.
I'm in the same ball park as you, and would definitely like to have some drivers. However, all the moaning and groaning here won't do us much good. Goto that petitiononline place. Encourage other iMac users around us to send emails to apple, and make phonecalls to them. Let's send Apple letters of request for drivers.
Personally, I'm not happy that drivers are not available for the older Rage's but that's not on the top of my priority list, nor my other acquaintances that use iMacs by the masses. Why? because to move on to OS 10, means money. And that means a helluva lot of money. That means purchasing Mac OS 10, upgrading their applications to the latest release that is out for OS 10. troubleshooting the new differences between the old and the new stuff. It means hours and hours of of time and effot that must go into upgrading. Definitely not what companies want to do for 20 computers or maybe 50 or 100 or more... They aren't going to fix it if it isn't broken. While working at Schwab, I know they still stick with Windows NT 4. Apple knows that, and they know that Rage II drivers are not as important to these large publishing firms that purchase many macs a year. However, they believed that the end users would just bite the bullet, (like I did) and move on to purchase new gear. It is very important to you and I, and Apple needs to know. So why don't we take a step forward in letting apple know in a positive light that we really do care, and we really are in need.
And those need OpenGL or QuickTime acceleration for what exactly?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Do you actually know what all QT handles?
[quote]<strong>
(Besides: Are you serious? Professional layouting on a 15" screen that can hardly do 1024x768? In a real newspaper company?)
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aren't the rage pro 128 chips also effected? Yes real newspapers use iMacs. Most newspapers use Multi-Ad creator to create ads then they get paginated into Quark. Photoshop is used to edit the pictures. It doesn't take a 800mhz G4 to do these things. The two I worked at was using Beige 233mhz G3s and it was more than enough.
The areas where the RagePro drivers lack acceleration are, AFAIR, mainly related to video playback (thus "for some codecs, switching to lower color depths should help"). Can't see where those would affect DTP use.
Also, QuickTime handles much less non-multimedia-related stuff in OS X (which uses CoreGraphics and others instead) than it used to in OS 9.
[quote]<strong>
Aren't the rage pro 128 chips also effected?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, they are not. Besides, there's no "Rage Pro 128" chip. The Rage 128 was the successor to the Rage Pro, but is a new chip design, and the Rage 128 Pro was just a clock-bumped version of the Rage 128.
[quote]<strong>
Yes real newspapers use iMacs. Most newspapers use Multi-Ad creator to create ads then they get paginated into Quark. Photoshop is used to edit the pictures. It doesn't take a 800mhz G4 to do these things. The two I worked at was using Beige 233mhz G3s and it was more than enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, if you re-read my post, you'll find that it was not the G3's horsepower that made me doubt it would be suitable for layout work, but rather the iMac's screen.
Well, for the record, I'd like to say that I think the responsibility lies SOLELY with Apple.
Also, I agree with pretty much everything RoadWarrior has posted.
Apple stated (on the side of the box) that OpenGL is a core technology of OSX. Not supporting OpenGL would therefore mean not supporting OSX (IMHO).
The argument then is whether OpenGL needs to be hardware accelarated to be supported. I cannot tell as I don't have one of the affected systems on hand - but essentially if OpenGL is "unusable" I'd suggest that it's not supported.
If, by the above definition, OSX is not supported by those machines, then Apple must bear the responsibility - no argument. They made a claim about the abilities of THEIR hardware AND THEIR software and they have to back it up, whatever the cost, or compensate the customer. They should never have assumed that their relationship with ATi would continue smoothly.
In hindsight, Apple should have:
1) Never stated that OGL is a core technology of OSX
2) Never stated the old machines would support OSX
or 3) Just give us the damn drivers (if possible)
Over and out.
Flipped
P.S. I'd like to thank Programmer and RoadWarrior for bringing a touch of sanity, real information and rational argument to this thread.
P.P.S. Sinewave - for what it's worth, I think you'd be doing your side a favour by not posting anymore. Initially in this thread I would have happily agreed with you, but now after more of your posts the thought of being associated with your "reasoning" and childish abuse makes me cringe a little. Your certainly not the only one - we're all guilty of this to a certain extent - only you seem to stand out from the crowd. Sorry.
<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/features/atimacosx.html"; target="_blank">Think Secret</a> is reporting future support for the Rage2 and Rage Pro. Not sure just how much speed they'll be getting out of them though, if this is true.
Of course we'll never hear from Apple about this. Telling its user base that it will support the hardware they said they would support would give Apple's competitors and unfair advantage if they were to have this insider information.
I wouldn't put it past them. Doesn't bother me thought. My next box will be a fast Linux one. **** Apple. You can't count on them. They take your money and then screw you without so much as a reach around.
Comments
<strong>
Well, especially for companies, the whole affair isn't really that much of a deal - in regards to office work, the iMac in question *is* (given enough RAM) "OS X ready".
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am talking about multimedia houses. Places that do graphic and video work. All keep seeing from you is excuses and justifications. Has Steve's RDF gotten to you?
<strong>
A fresh new Apple Apologist (TM) with the same old bull shit arguments. This one falls under the "blame the user" category.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah I noticed this too.
The official picture of the Apple apologist.
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<strong>
I am talking about multimedia houses. Places that do graphic and video work.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, I though we were talking about iMacs and iBooks. I don't really think any self-respecting company would consider those valid choices as OpenGL or NLE workstations.
(other stuff snipped)
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Oh, I though we were talking about iMacs and iBooks. I don't really think any self-respecting company would consider those valid choices as OpenGL or NLE workstations.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know tons of newspapers using iMacs for page layout and design.
<strong>
I know tons of newspapers using iMacs for page layout and design.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And those need OpenGL or QuickTime acceleration for what exactly?
(Besides: Are you serious? Professional layouting on a 15" screen that can hardly do 1024x768? In a real newspaper company?)
Bye,
RazzFazz
I'll be redundant for most of this has already been covered, but:
hehe...of course I'm blaming the user. But am I apologizing on behalf of apple that they didn't do anything wrong? nope. Of course Apple made a big boo boo in false promises and not communicating clearly to their customers.
But oh wells...life goes on. I wish my Rev. A iMac had some drivers to accel it in OS X... but seriously, get this fact straight in your head.
The Rage II is a piece of junk. I know it cause I own one. Even with all the support and drivers in OS 8.1 through 9.2.2
Think practically. The new 3D applications coming out for OSX require a helluva lot more power than a RAGE II for decent performance.
The applications that used to run or even work on the RAGE II or Pro in classic mac os, will most likely still stay in classic mac os. I can play starcraft and broodwars w/out a prob in OSX on the Rev A iMac. But those games were desiged for the power that was out there--then. Now a days...most people would want a Geforce 2 or 3 for the new apps coming out...
Stick with 9. B*tch all you want about not having the drivers for OS X... but, clearly communicated letters, phonecalls, petitions, and marketing of your problem to the people around you, directed at Apple are going to give you the support that WE, you and I, need to get drivers.
I'm in the same ball park as you, and would definitely like to have some drivers. However, all the moaning and groaning here won't do us much good. Goto that petitiononline place. Encourage other iMac users around us to send emails to apple, and make phonecalls to them. Let's send Apple letters of request for drivers.
Personally, I'm not happy that drivers are not available for the older Rage's but that's not on the top of my priority list, nor my other acquaintances that use iMacs by the masses. Why? because to move on to OS 10, means money. And that means a helluva lot of money. That means purchasing Mac OS 10, upgrading their applications to the latest release that is out for OS 10. troubleshooting the new differences between the old and the new stuff. It means hours and hours of of time and effot that must go into upgrading. Definitely not what companies want to do for 20 computers or maybe 50 or 100 or more... They aren't going to fix it if it isn't broken. While working at Schwab, I know they still stick with Windows NT 4. Apple knows that, and they know that Rage II drivers are not as important to these large publishing firms that purchase many macs a year. However, they believed that the end users would just bite the bullet, (like I did) and move on to purchase new gear. It is very important to you and I, and Apple needs to know. So why don't we take a step forward in letting apple know in a positive light that we really do care, and we really are in need.
<strong>
And those need OpenGL or QuickTime acceleration for what exactly?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Do you actually know what all QT handles?
[quote]<strong>
(Besides: Are you serious? Professional layouting on a 15" screen that can hardly do 1024x768? In a real newspaper company?)
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aren't the rage pro 128 chips also effected? Yes real newspapers use iMacs. Most newspapers use Multi-Ad creator to create ads then they get paginated into Quark. Photoshop is used to edit the pictures. It doesn't take a 800mhz G4 to do these things. The two I worked at was using Beige 233mhz G3s and it was more than enough.
<strong>
Do you actually know what all QT handles?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The areas where the RagePro drivers lack acceleration are, AFAIR, mainly related to video playback (thus "for some codecs, switching to lower color depths should help"). Can't see where those would affect DTP use.
Also, QuickTime handles much less non-multimedia-related stuff in OS X (which uses CoreGraphics and others instead) than it used to in OS 9.
[quote]<strong>
Aren't the rage pro 128 chips also effected?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, they are not. Besides, there's no "Rage Pro 128" chip. The Rage 128 was the successor to the Rage Pro, but is a new chip design, and the Rage 128 Pro was just a clock-bumped version of the Rage 128.
[quote]<strong>
Yes real newspapers use iMacs. Most newspapers use Multi-Ad creator to create ads then they get paginated into Quark. Photoshop is used to edit the pictures. It doesn't take a 800mhz G4 to do these things. The two I worked at was using Beige 233mhz G3s and it was more than enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, if you re-read my post, you'll find that it was not the G3's horsepower that made me doubt it would be suitable for layout work, but rather the iMac's screen.
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
Well, for the record, I'd like to say that I think the responsibility lies SOLELY with Apple.
Also, I agree with pretty much everything RoadWarrior has posted.
Apple stated (on the side of the box) that OpenGL is a core technology of OSX. Not supporting OpenGL would therefore mean not supporting OSX (IMHO).
The argument then is whether OpenGL needs to be hardware accelarated to be supported. I cannot tell as I don't have one of the affected systems on hand - but essentially if OpenGL is "unusable" I'd suggest that it's not supported.
If, by the above definition, OSX is not supported by those machines, then Apple must bear the responsibility - no argument. They made a claim about the abilities of THEIR hardware AND THEIR software and they have to back it up, whatever the cost, or compensate the customer. They should never have assumed that their relationship with ATi would continue smoothly.
In hindsight, Apple should have:
1) Never stated that OGL is a core technology of OSX
2) Never stated the old machines would support OSX
or 3) Just give us the damn drivers (if possible)
Over and out.
Flipped
P.S. I'd like to thank Programmer and RoadWarrior for bringing a touch of sanity, real information and rational argument to this thread.
P.P.S. Sinewave - for what it's worth, I think you'd be doing your side a favour by not posting anymore. Initially in this thread I would have happily agreed with you, but now after more of your posts the thought of being associated with your "reasoning" and childish abuse makes me cringe a little. Your certainly not the only one - we're all guilty of this to a certain extent - only you seem to stand out from the crowd. Sorry.
Outside influence can only come in when they break a law, which in this case they haven't.
What are you people, communist?
~Kuku
<strong>
What are you people, communist?
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>
No ****ing way. I'm 100% market driven guy. Apple has not provided me with what I paid for so I will buy something else.
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/features/atimacosx.html"; target="_blank">Think Secret</a> is reporting future support for the Rage2 and Rage Pro. Not sure just how much speed they'll be getting out of them though, if this is true.
[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
Rage drivers? Don't count on it.
*crosses fingers*
OK, that is about enough for me ...
"said that ATI is planning to write Mac OS X drivers for the Rage Pro and Rage II graphics chips."
Well, if that is right then maybe people should have learned to shut their faces when I asked if there couldn't be another possibility.
But you know, I am sure that Apple is going to pay ATi not to make em just to screw Scott and Sinewave ...
ahahahhahahahahahah [just for good measure].