[quote]You mean the same modern operating system called OS X would have been possible 10 years ago on 10 year old hardware. Please.<hr></blockquote>*cough* NeXT *cough*
[quote]qt acceleration has been a feature of all ati chips since at least the rage pro and I think the rage IIc. I don't see how you never had it. OpenGL from apple has worked on the rage pro as well.<hr></blockquote>
My G3 and iMac have Rage II+/IIc graphics. All you Pro owners try disabling your ATI extensions and playing QT video. You won't notice a difference. The only difference I've noticed is window redraw.
[quote]you're dvd player uses the 1.x versions of dvd player and updates were made to the 1.x series even after 2.0 was released. the number differentiation was meant to show the difference in the processing of decoding hardware vs software not neccessarily as a replacement<hr></blockquote>
I am not aware of any updates made to DVD Player 1.1 after 2.0 was released. And it is extremely hard to find on Apple's website.
It was last updated before the PowerMac G3 smurf towers were released.
[quote]did they make andd sell you the SCSI CD-R? no. the things mentioned are basic things to consider a machine "supported". Yes you can sue if software functionality is taken away if the features were promised or expected to be there.<hr></blockquote>
Roxio provided SCSI support for Toast Titanium for OS 9. They have taken it away in OS X. Can I sue Intel because they announced and later recalled 1 GHz and 1.13 GHz PIIIs? Yes, i can, but I won't win. This man just wants publicity.
[quote]...would have been possible 10 years ago on 10 year old hardware....<hr></blockquote>You asked, I answered. [quote]NeXT? Are you kidding? For maybe 10 grand.<hr></blockquote>
$10k or not, the fact is that it is 10 year old hardware that ran a modern OS.
Seems to me that Apple certainly could make an OS that runs well on hardware that is 7 years older than the NeXT boxen.
[quote]qt acceleration has been a feature of all ati chips since at least the rage pro and I think the rage IIc. I don't see how you never had it. OpenGL from apple has worked on the rage pro as well.<hr></blockquote>
My G3 and iMac have Rage II+/IIc graphics. All you Pro owners try disabling your ATI extensions and playing QT video. You won't notice a difference. The only difference I've noticed is window redraw.
[quote]you're dvd player uses the 1.x versions of dvd player and updates were made to the 1.x series even after 2.0 was released. the number differentiation was meant to show the difference in the processing of decoding hardware vs software not neccessarily as a replacement<hr></blockquote>
I am not aware of any updates made to DVD Player 1.3 after 2.0 was released. And it is extremely hard to find on Apple's website...if it's there at all.
[quote]did they make andd sell you the SCSI CD-R? no. the things mentioned are basic things to consider a machine "supported". Yes you can sue if software functionality is taken away if the features were promised or expected to be there.<hr></blockquote>
Roxio provided SCSI support for Toast Titanium for OS 9. They have taken it away in OS X. Can I sue Intel because they announced and later recalled 1 GHz and 1.13 GHz PIIIs? Yes, i can, but I won't win. This man just wants publicity.
$10k or not, the fact is that it is 10 year old hardware that ran a modern OS.
Seems to me that Apple certainly could make an OS that runs well on hardware that is 7 years older than the NeXT boxen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You miss the point. Apple can give us that technology now at an affordable price. Look how far they did come since NeXT. Cheaper hardware thats faster and runs better software, I am not complaining.
<strong>What a pathetic lawsuit. These G3 computers are several years old, and yet these people expect them to run OS X optimally? That's absurd.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I have an rev-a iBook. Not long after I got it OS-X was previewed. I got OS 9 right away (iBook came with 8.6) so that I could upgrade cheaper (or so I thought) to OS-X right away. A year later the public beta was out. So came G4's... I wasn't thrilled with what I heard about it not running great on G4's.
Overall, I don't feel screwed by Apple. Sure I can run OS X if I want, but the performance won't be great. OS 9 runs great. So why change?
PCs and Windows have the same issues. No PC from three years ago runs Windows XP great (Well, unless you bought a XEON processor with a crap load of RAM). It's eye-candy and junk that basically forces you to buy a new machine. If you can live without that stuff you can save yourself some money.
For Macs OS-X is more than eye candy, but I can live without it for now.
You miss the point. Apple can give us that technology now at an affordable price. Look how far they did come since NeXT. Cheaper hardware thats faster and runs better software, I am not complaining.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No doubt. My Powermac 7100/66 was $3500 back in 1994 with a 15" CRT. Look at what you can get now for that much $$$..
When I bought my Beige G3, which was needed, I bought it TO RUN MAC OS X.
I am reviewing the May 11, 1999 WWDC keynote, and Jobs said
"We are targeting Mac OS X for the G3, which means, all of the products we are shipping will run Mac OS X."
I pushed extra hard to get the G3, instead of a older new stock model cuase IT would run Mac OS X while a 604 based system wouldn't.
I used that last of my Trust fund to get it. Due to me being disabled and not being able to work, I am unable to afford a new Mac.
My Beige G3 does run OS X. It is that OS X sometimes can bog it down. So all you guys out there with rich parents who will buy you a new computer every 12 months shut up, and realize that over 70% of the people out there can't afford a new computer every 1-3 years.
Do you people who have beige G3s, old iBooks, do you really think that some video drivers are going to make OS X usable on your systems??? I sure as hell don't .
I have a G4 400 MHz Sawtooth, and OS X is just barely fast enough for everyday use. I've tried OS X on a 400 MHz G3 iMac, and based on that experience, I would opt to stick with OS 9 if I owned such a computer.
Which brings up the next question: what's wrong with using OS 9 on these systems? You do realize that way back when, in the old days when OS 9 was released, there were people with older Macs that couldn't run OS 9 very well, so they had to stick with some variant of OS 8. I bet these people were jealous of you all because you got to run the almighty OS 9...but now that's not enough, you want to be able to update not one but two full Mac OS updates, one an entire rewrite of their OS. You sure don't ask for much do you?
Interestingly, the majority of Mac users never update the OS that came with their Mac. Most of the Macs I've seen, I'd say about 90% of them, are still running the exact same OS version that their computer shipped with. Apple knows this, and Apple knows that they are catering to a minority of Mac users by even developing OS X to work on the older Macs that it can run on. I don't know where you all got this guarantee that OS X would run on your old beige G3s, because when I bought my Sawtooth G4, there was no documentation at all that made any promises about the hardware being "OS X ready" or "Built for OS X". If your computers came with such documentation, then please scan it and post the image here, I would love to see it. Court exhibit A: Apple's guarantee that shipped with 266 MHz Beige G3 Powermacs: "These computers will run OS X, no matter when we finish it and no matter how demanding OS X is at said time."
It just proves that some people will whine and complain about anything, it's their nature to do so. One of the unfortunate traits of the current economy is that it's based on consumerism, so companies cannot stay in business unless they continually sell new systems to people. To justify new systems to their customers, corporations add new features to the new systems. That's why Powermacs can be found today with dual 1 GHz G4s, compared to the beige G3s that had a single 266 MHz G3 processor.
To think that OS X will run as well on a 266 MHz beige G3 as it does on a fast G4 Powermac is preposterous. I swear some people here have brain damage or something. The ugly truth is that even if they got an OS X update tomorrow with drivers for their video cards, in a few days they would sink back into their normal mood and begin ruminating over some other flaw in their Macs, some other shortcoming that was Apple's responsibility to have addressed, and upon ruminating over this shortcoming, the rants and whining would begin all over the internet.
Support for video cards: As I already posted, ATI will probably be writing drivers for these (according to think secret, a fairly reliable rumor site). And I beet good money that the new drivers don't do sh!t for OS X performance. I don't care if you stick a PCI GeForce 4 Titanium with 256 MB DDR vRAM into one of those beige G3s, fact of the matter is that a 266 MHz G3 is going to be swamped by OS X. This is probably the reason Apple decided not to bother with video drivers for these Macs....OS X performed so bad on them that it isn't worth Apple's time to write video drivers that do no good.
I hope that rumor site is correct, because I can't wait for you all to get your video drivers, and then the very same day you get them, I know I'm going to see you back here, whining about how OS X STILL won't run "snappily" on your beige G3s. I know this will happen, I've foreseen it. And via some twisted, contrived logic that had been festering in your minds, you would lay it all out to us about how Apple has violated trust, guarantees, promises, and common decency by releasing a version of OS X that does not run well on your computers.
As for the release dates of OS X getting delayed, I don't see how Apple could be held liable for such a thing in court. Software development is riddled with uncertainties and because of this development almost always takes longer than originally planned, furthermore, Apple had to put extra effort into OS X to meet developer's demands for carbon and such. So of course if the release date is pushed back a year or two, the Macs that are supported are going to be pushed back as well! What do you expect, that since Apple began developing OS X in 97 or whatever, that computers from back then work on OS X?!?!?
Macwrite... I thought you were quoting somthing... but now that I see its what your really saying, I have this for you.
OPTIONS.
1. Keep bitching and moaning about the fact that you "need" OSX - umm, if you need it SO MUCH invest in it!
2. Buy a new G4 system, sell your old system and "live your life"
3. Screw the options! WTF makes you think that mummy and daddy buy the nice shiny Macs for all these guys and gals? huh? Bitching about the fact that you cannot upgrade your PC every 1-2years is a choice YOU make! I have friends who make ****all money, have a mortagage & kids and still manage to get what they NEED.
Sure they sacrifice some things, but tell me... DO YOU NEED OSX for business purposes perhaps? If the answers no STFU!
Millions of Apple Computers with millions of variations. With millions of various custom settings and set-ups. Millions with thousands of different OS's and software. Millions of problems either on the hardware end and OS/software end. Thousands of days of use and abuse...and this lawyer is suing Apple for not supporting his set-ups.
So what?
Apple should settle out of court and give them all new G4 PMs and iBooks...nuff said? Oh, and reword their "Upgrade to OS X" specs page...
Hey Zorans, read his post. Let me help you out: [quote]Due to me being disabled and not being able to work, I am unable to afford a new Mac. <hr></blockquote>There is a word for people like Zorans...hmmmm, I just had it....oh wait, I got it.....F*CKTARD!
Get over it, upgrade. If you cant dont complain about something that would just bog down your slow computer anyway.<hr></blockquote>
first you say you make your posts all pro-apple because "someone reading may get a bad impression of the mac if you don't" and then you post BS like this which makes mac users look like rich stuck up snobs who's response to everything is if you don't like it leave or upgrade. and that is a bad image and its a very popular image
[quote]My G3 and iMac have Rage II+/IIc graphics. All you Pro owners try disabling your ATI extensions and playing QT video. You won't notice a difference. The only difference I've noticed is window redraw.<hr></blockquote>
it's supported on all... just limited codecs... play a cinepak video fullscreen with the drivers installed and then without... you'll see a difference.
QT acceleration unfortunately isn't all that great and really wouldn't affect much of anything as it only affects a dozen or so codecs on those chipsets
[quote]I am not aware of any updates made to DVD Player 1.1 after 2.0 was released. And it is extremely hard to find on Apple's website.
It was last updated before the PowerMac G3 smurf towers were released.<hr></blockquote>
last update I believe is 1.3 released with 8.6/9 or so
[quote]Roxio provided SCSI support for Toast Titanium for OS 9. They have taken it away in OS X. Can I sue Intel because they announced and later recalled 1 GHz and 1.13 GHz PIIIs? Yes, i can, but I won't win. This man just wants publicity.<hr></blockquote>
again, Roxio did not sell you the integrated hardware with the software. They did not make promises. So much for making the whole widget advantage
BTW, does Toast for OS X really not support SCSI burners because I have read reports of people using scsi burners in OS X and can't see what software they would be using except for toast
[quote]Do you people who have beige G3s, old iBooks, do you really think that some video drivers are going to make OS X usable on your systems??? I sure as hell don't .<hr></blockquote>
it would certainly help and something like 3d acceleration and video acceleration or basic fundamental things. there is no reason a 466iBook can't be running OS X acceptably and be fully supported if it was selling when OS X was.
[quote]
Which brings up the next question: what's wrong with using OS 9 on these systems? You do realize that way back when, in the old days when OS 9 was released, there were people with older Macs that couldn't run OS 9 very well, so they had to stick with some variant of OS 8. I bet these people were jealous of you all because you got to run the almighty OS 9...but now that's not enough, you want to be able to update not one but two full Mac OS updates, one an entire rewrite of their OS. You sure don't ask for much do you? <hr></blockquote>
what's wrong? Apple promised OS X to G3 buyers and said it would showcase the power of the G3 architecture by being completely PPC native and specifically optimized for G3 systems.
Strange how OS X went from being expected to run fast on something as slow as a 132 Mhz 604e, then to a 233Mhz G3 but now people wouldn't reccomend anything less than a 400Mhz G4 to run it "decently". Somewhere along the line something got screwed up or apple just said **** optimization who cares we have faster computers and don't need to worry about anything else.
[quote]
Support for video cards: As I already posted, ATI will probably be writing drivers for these (according to think secret, a fairly reliable rumor site). And I beet good money that the new drivers don't do sh!t for OS X performance. I don't care if you stick a PCI GeForce 4 Titanium with 256 MB DDR vRAM into one of those beige G3s, fact of the matter is that a 266 MHz G3 is going to be swamped by OS X. This is probably the reason Apple decided not to bother with video drivers for these Macs....OS X performed so bad on them that it isn't worth Apple's time to write video drivers that do no good. <hr></blockquote>
there is no reason OpenGL performance would be any worse than before. if anything it should be better in OS X as OS X supposedly has a "25%" OpenGL performance advancement over OS 9. What system needs that advantage more than older ones.
[quote]first you say you make your posts all pro-apple because "someone reading may get a bad impression of the mac if you don't" and then you post BS like this which makes mac users look like rich stuck up snobs who's response to everything is if you don't like it leave or upgrade. and that is a bad image and its a very popular image<hr></blockquote>
Thanks for caring about me. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
wow... MacNN members are capable of discussing this lawsuit witout getting at each other's throats and making dumb bias statements like buy a pc or just upgrade... but we can't... that's sad.
2 quotes from MacNN
Moki said
[quote]Well, I disagree. When OS X was on the drawing board, I actually believed that it might offer *better* performance than OS 9. Why did I hold such a niave point of view?
Well, it wasn't exactly niave. There is lots of cruft in Mac OS 9, such as the non-preemptive multitasking, and the fact that the interrupt model is *still* emulated 68K code (and interrupts happen rather often and continuously on your computer). A fully PPC-native modern OS could have indeed outperformed Mac OS 9, and Apple was claiming that these machines would work well with Mac OS X when it was released.
Now that I know more about the underpinnings about Mac OS X, I understand why it is slower than Mac OS 9. It isn't because Apple did a bad job, it is because they architected it in such a way that it would be very forward-thinking (especially with regards to the imaging model). Certain design choices they made ensured that the performance would be less than OS 9 for most tasks.
That's fine, I understand the choices they made, and from the perspective of needing an OS that will scale well for years to come, I agree with them.
However, it wasn't just naive, stupid people who thought Mac OS X would perform well on their G3s when they bought them. And Apple did let people know that those machines would be great for OS X.
And so, despite the fact that it will cost Apple money if they lose this lawsuit, I agree with it in principle.<hr></blockquote>
MemeTransport said
[quote]Way back in the Rhapsody days SJ publically declared that every machine then being manufactured would be fully supported by the new OS (at a WWDC I think). He made the assurance so that Apple would keep selling machines in the near term. At the time that included everything back to the PPC 7200/120 (which had the 601 in it).
People took him at his word and kept buying machines. After all, public statements by a corporation's officers are legally binding.
After Rhapsody mutated into OSX (more or less Rhap + Carbon), the list of supported machines started to creep. Now yes, Apple can claim that OSX isn't Rhapsody but it's a pretty obvious cop-out. It seems that the supported list is still creeping.
I'm an owner of a 7200. I don't expect support for the machine: it's ancient and I'd think twice before running OS9 on it let alone OSX. Even with excellent HW support it'd run like a sloth on quaaludes.
However, G3 owners are quite right to be pissed off. Apple has engaged in deceptive sales practices and consumers are getting burned. People made buying decisions based on Apple's statements. Support for the graphics chip and the floppy drive is NOT a big demand. Apple has a responsibility to meet its obligations and Steven Jobs publically obligated Apple to supporting these machines. If they didn't want the obligation they shouldn't have made the statement.
As far as ATI goes: they may have a contractual obligation to Apple. But the primary obligation is with Apple: they used the chip and sold the machines as a package. The obligation for the package rests with Apple. If ATI does not have a contractual obligation to Apple to provide OSX drivers for these chips then Apple must pay them or do it themselves.
People have discussed rumours of ATI making drivers for these chips: it may be at the request of Apple. Apple would have known that the law suit was coming and may now be trying to cover its butt. <hr></blockquote>
2 posts that sum it up quite well IMO.
but my favorite comment:
Cipher13
[quote]Apple is getting sued for being the bastards they are... haha!!<hr></blockquote>
Cipher13 is one of the MacNN personalities I despise the most. By quoting him, you are hurting your argument, as far as I cam concerned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) I'll try but I know its available. perhaps apple is willing to take stuff down to "help their case"
2.) I agree. don't care for him either, just thought he summed it up nicely
Comments
<strong>*cough* NeXT *cough*</strong><hr></blockquote>
NeXT? Are you kidding? For maybe 10 grand.
Lets be reasonable.
The point is Apple is in a position to deliver TODAY. Not 10 years ago. The hardware and the software are here now.
[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>
Everyone: Calm down. Be civil. It's not like you're suing each other.
My G3 and iMac have Rage II+/IIc graphics. All you Pro owners try disabling your ATI extensions and playing QT video. You won't notice a difference. The only difference I've noticed is window redraw.
[quote]you're dvd player uses the 1.x versions of dvd player and updates were made to the 1.x series even after 2.0 was released. the number differentiation was meant to show the difference in the processing of decoding hardware vs software not neccessarily as a replacement<hr></blockquote>
I am not aware of any updates made to DVD Player 1.1 after 2.0 was released. And it is extremely hard to find on Apple's website.
<a href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=59000"; target="_blank">http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=59000</a>;
It was last updated before the PowerMac G3 smurf towers were released.
[quote]did they make andd sell you the SCSI CD-R? no. the things mentioned are basic things to consider a machine "supported". Yes you can sue if software functionality is taken away if the features were promised or expected to be there.<hr></blockquote>
Roxio provided SCSI support for Toast Titanium for OS 9. They have taken it away in OS X. Can I sue Intel because they announced and later recalled 1 GHz and 1.13 GHz PIIIs? Yes, i can, but I won't win. This man just wants publicity.
[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]
[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
$10k or not, the fact is that it is 10 year old hardware that ran a modern OS.
Seems to me that Apple certainly could make an OS that runs well on hardware that is 7 years older than the NeXT boxen.
My G3 and iMac have Rage II+/IIc graphics. All you Pro owners try disabling your ATI extensions and playing QT video. You won't notice a difference. The only difference I've noticed is window redraw.
[quote]you're dvd player uses the 1.x versions of dvd player and updates were made to the 1.x series even after 2.0 was released. the number differentiation was meant to show the difference in the processing of decoding hardware vs software not neccessarily as a replacement<hr></blockquote>
I am not aware of any updates made to DVD Player 1.3 after 2.0 was released. And it is extremely hard to find on Apple's website...if it's there at all.
[quote]did they make andd sell you the SCSI CD-R? no. the things mentioned are basic things to consider a machine "supported". Yes you can sue if software functionality is taken away if the features were promised or expected to be there.<hr></blockquote>
Roxio provided SCSI support for Toast Titanium for OS 9. They have taken it away in OS X. Can I sue Intel because they announced and later recalled 1 GHz and 1.13 GHz PIIIs? Yes, i can, but I won't win. This man just wants publicity.
<strong>There is far too much rude language in this thread.
Everyone: Calm down. Be civil. It's not like you're suing each other.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank You, finally a voice of reason. This thread is getting ugly.
<strong>
$10k or not, the fact is that it is 10 year old hardware that ran a modern OS.
Seems to me that Apple certainly could make an OS that runs well on hardware that is 7 years older than the NeXT boxen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You miss the point. Apple can give us that technology now at an affordable price. Look how far they did come since NeXT. Cheaper hardware thats faster and runs better software, I am not complaining.
<strong>What a pathetic lawsuit. These G3 computers are several years old, and yet these people expect them to run OS X optimally? That's absurd.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I have an rev-a iBook. Not long after I got it OS-X was previewed. I got OS 9 right away (iBook came with 8.6) so that I could upgrade cheaper (or so I thought) to OS-X right away. A year later the public beta was out. So came G4's... I wasn't thrilled with what I heard about it not running great on G4's.
Overall, I don't feel screwed by Apple. Sure I can run OS X if I want, but the performance won't be great. OS 9 runs great. So why change?
PCs and Windows have the same issues. No PC from three years ago runs Windows XP great (Well, unless you bought a XEON processor with a crap load of RAM). It's eye-candy and junk that basically forces you to buy a new machine. If you can live without that stuff you can save yourself some money.
For Macs OS-X is more than eye candy, but I can live without it for now.
<strong>
You miss the point. Apple can give us that technology now at an affordable price. Look how far they did come since NeXT. Cheaper hardware thats faster and runs better software, I am not complaining.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No doubt. My Powermac 7100/66 was $3500 back in 1994 with a 15" CRT. Look at what you can get now for that much $$$..
:eek:
I am reviewing the May 11, 1999 WWDC keynote, and Jobs said
"We are targeting Mac OS X for the G3, which means, all of the products we are shipping will run Mac OS X."
I pushed extra hard to get the G3, instead of a older new stock model cuase IT would run Mac OS X while a 604 based system wouldn't.
I used that last of my Trust fund to get it. Due to me being disabled and not being able to work, I am unable to afford a new Mac.
My Beige G3 does run OS X. It is that OS X sometimes can bog it down. So all you guys out there with rich parents who will buy you a new computer every 12 months shut up, and realize that over 70% of the people out there can't afford a new computer every 1-3 years.
I have a G4 400 MHz Sawtooth, and OS X is just barely fast enough for everyday use. I've tried OS X on a 400 MHz G3 iMac, and based on that experience, I would opt to stick with OS 9 if I owned such a computer.
Which brings up the next question: what's wrong with using OS 9 on these systems? You do realize that way back when, in the old days when OS 9 was released, there were people with older Macs that couldn't run OS 9 very well, so they had to stick with some variant of OS 8. I bet these people were jealous of you all because you got to run the almighty OS 9...but now that's not enough, you want to be able to update not one but two full Mac OS updates, one an entire rewrite of their OS. You sure don't ask for much do you?
Interestingly, the majority of Mac users never update the OS that came with their Mac. Most of the Macs I've seen, I'd say about 90% of them, are still running the exact same OS version that their computer shipped with. Apple knows this, and Apple knows that they are catering to a minority of Mac users by even developing OS X to work on the older Macs that it can run on. I don't know where you all got this guarantee that OS X would run on your old beige G3s, because when I bought my Sawtooth G4, there was no documentation at all that made any promises about the hardware being "OS X ready" or "Built for OS X". If your computers came with such documentation, then please scan it and post the image here, I would love to see it. Court exhibit A: Apple's guarantee that shipped with 266 MHz Beige G3 Powermacs: "These computers will run OS X, no matter when we finish it and no matter how demanding OS X is at said time."
It just proves that some people will whine and complain about anything, it's their nature to do so. One of the unfortunate traits of the current economy is that it's based on consumerism, so companies cannot stay in business unless they continually sell new systems to people. To justify new systems to their customers, corporations add new features to the new systems. That's why Powermacs can be found today with dual 1 GHz G4s, compared to the beige G3s that had a single 266 MHz G3 processor.
To think that OS X will run as well on a 266 MHz beige G3 as it does on a fast G4 Powermac is preposterous. I swear some people here have brain damage or something. The ugly truth is that even if they got an OS X update tomorrow with drivers for their video cards, in a few days they would sink back into their normal mood and begin ruminating over some other flaw in their Macs, some other shortcoming that was Apple's responsibility to have addressed, and upon ruminating over this shortcoming, the rants and whining would begin all over the internet.
Support for video cards: As I already posted, ATI will probably be writing drivers for these (according to think secret, a fairly reliable rumor site). And I beet good money that the new drivers don't do sh!t for OS X performance. I don't care if you stick a PCI GeForce 4 Titanium with 256 MB DDR vRAM into one of those beige G3s, fact of the matter is that a 266 MHz G3 is going to be swamped by OS X. This is probably the reason Apple decided not to bother with video drivers for these Macs....OS X performed so bad on them that it isn't worth Apple's time to write video drivers that do no good.
I hope that rumor site is correct, because I can't wait for you all to get your video drivers, and then the very same day you get them, I know I'm going to see you back here, whining about how OS X STILL won't run "snappily" on your beige G3s.
As for the release dates of OS X getting delayed, I don't see how Apple could be held liable for such a thing in court. Software development is riddled with uncertainties and because of this development almost always takes longer than originally planned, furthermore, Apple had to put extra effort into OS X to meet developer's demands for carbon and such. So of course if the release date is pushed back a year or two, the Macs that are supported are going to be pushed back as well! What do you expect, that since Apple began developing OS X in 97 or whatever, that computers from back then work on OS X?!?!?
?Apache
?PHP
?MySQL
Then
?Protected memery
?better looking GUI
I upgraded my RAM and added a Radeon PCI.
Apple needs to dump more of the GUI off the CPU and onto the video card that will help preformance.
OPTIONS.
1. Keep bitching and moaning about the fact that you "need" OSX - umm, if you need it SO MUCH invest in it!
2. Buy a new G4 system, sell your old system and "live your life"
3. Screw the options! WTF makes you think that mummy and daddy buy the nice shiny Macs for all these guys and gals? huh? Bitching about the fact that you cannot upgrade your PC every 1-2years is a choice YOU make! I have friends who make ****all money, have a mortagage & kids and still manage to get what they NEED.
Sure they sacrifice some things, but tell me... DO YOU NEED OSX for business purposes perhaps? If the answers no STFU!
Signed
MR.Youmayhavesomevaildpointsbutimsicktodeathofpeop leclaimingtheyneedsomethingwhentherealwordthatshou ldbeusedisWANT
So what?
Apple should settle out of court and give them all new G4 PMs and iBooks...nuff said? Oh, and reword their "Upgrade to OS X" specs page...
Get over it, upgrade. If you cant dont complain about something that would just bog down your slow computer anyway.<hr></blockquote>
first you say you make your posts all pro-apple because "someone reading may get a bad impression of the mac if you don't" and then you post BS like this which makes mac users look like rich stuck up snobs who's response to everything is if you don't like it leave or upgrade. and that is a bad image and its a very popular image
[quote]My G3 and iMac have Rage II+/IIc graphics. All you Pro owners try disabling your ATI extensions and playing QT video. You won't notice a difference. The only difference I've noticed is window redraw.<hr></blockquote>
it's supported on all... just limited codecs... play a cinepak video fullscreen with the drivers installed and then without... you'll see a difference.
QT acceleration unfortunately isn't all that great and really wouldn't affect much of anything as it only affects a dozen or so codecs on those chipsets
[quote]I am not aware of any updates made to DVD Player 1.1 after 2.0 was released. And it is extremely hard to find on Apple's website.
<a href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=59000"; target="_blank">http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=59000</a>;
It was last updated before the PowerMac G3 smurf towers were released.<hr></blockquote>
last update I believe is 1.3 released with 8.6/9 or so
[quote]Roxio provided SCSI support for Toast Titanium for OS 9. They have taken it away in OS X. Can I sue Intel because they announced and later recalled 1 GHz and 1.13 GHz PIIIs? Yes, i can, but I won't win. This man just wants publicity.<hr></blockquote>
again, Roxio did not sell you the integrated hardware with the software. They did not make promises. So much for making the whole widget advantage
BTW, does Toast for OS X really not support SCSI burners because I have read reports of people using scsi burners in OS X and can't see what software they would be using except for toast
[quote]Do you people who have beige G3s, old iBooks, do you really think that some video drivers are going to make OS X usable on your systems??? I sure as hell don't .<hr></blockquote>
it would certainly help and something like 3d acceleration and video acceleration or basic fundamental things. there is no reason a 466iBook can't be running OS X acceptably and be fully supported if it was selling when OS X was.
[quote]
Which brings up the next question: what's wrong with using OS 9 on these systems? You do realize that way back when, in the old days when OS 9 was released, there were people with older Macs that couldn't run OS 9 very well, so they had to stick with some variant of OS 8. I bet these people were jealous of you all because you got to run the almighty OS 9...but now that's not enough, you want to be able to update not one but two full Mac OS updates, one an entire rewrite of their OS. You sure don't ask for much do you? <hr></blockquote>
what's wrong? Apple promised OS X to G3 buyers and said it would showcase the power of the G3 architecture by being completely PPC native and specifically optimized for G3 systems.
Strange how OS X went from being expected to run fast on something as slow as a 132 Mhz 604e, then to a 233Mhz G3 but now people wouldn't reccomend anything less than a 400Mhz G4 to run it "decently". Somewhere along the line something got screwed up or apple just said **** optimization who cares we have faster computers and don't need to worry about anything else.
[quote]
Support for video cards: As I already posted, ATI will probably be writing drivers for these (according to think secret, a fairly reliable rumor site). And I beet good money that the new drivers don't do sh!t for OS X performance. I don't care if you stick a PCI GeForce 4 Titanium with 256 MB DDR vRAM into one of those beige G3s, fact of the matter is that a 266 MHz G3 is going to be swamped by OS X. This is probably the reason Apple decided not to bother with video drivers for these Macs....OS X performed so bad on them that it isn't worth Apple's time to write video drivers that do no good. <hr></blockquote>
there is no reason OpenGL performance would be any worse than before. if anything it should be better in OS X as OS X supposedly has a "25%" OpenGL performance advancement over OS 9. What system needs that advantage more than older ones.
Thanks for caring about me. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
2 quotes from MacNN
Moki said
[quote]Well, I disagree. When OS X was on the drawing board, I actually believed that it might offer *better* performance than OS 9. Why did I hold such a niave point of view?
Well, it wasn't exactly niave. There is lots of cruft in Mac OS 9, such as the non-preemptive multitasking, and the fact that the interrupt model is *still* emulated 68K code (and interrupts happen rather often and continuously on your computer). A fully PPC-native modern OS could have indeed outperformed Mac OS 9, and Apple was claiming that these machines would work well with Mac OS X when it was released.
Now that I know more about the underpinnings about Mac OS X, I understand why it is slower than Mac OS 9. It isn't because Apple did a bad job, it is because they architected it in such a way that it would be very forward-thinking (especially with regards to the imaging model). Certain design choices they made ensured that the performance would be less than OS 9 for most tasks.
That's fine, I understand the choices they made, and from the perspective of needing an OS that will scale well for years to come, I agree with them.
However, it wasn't just naive, stupid people who thought Mac OS X would perform well on their G3s when they bought them. And Apple did let people know that those machines would be great for OS X.
And so, despite the fact that it will cost Apple money if they lose this lawsuit, I agree with it in principle.<hr></blockquote>
MemeTransport said
[quote]Way back in the Rhapsody days SJ publically declared that every machine then being manufactured would be fully supported by the new OS (at a WWDC I think). He made the assurance so that Apple would keep selling machines in the near term. At the time that included everything back to the PPC 7200/120 (which had the 601 in it).
People took him at his word and kept buying machines. After all, public statements by a corporation's officers are legally binding.
After Rhapsody mutated into OSX (more or less Rhap + Carbon), the list of supported machines started to creep. Now yes, Apple can claim that OSX isn't Rhapsody but it's a pretty obvious cop-out. It seems that the supported list is still creeping.
I'm an owner of a 7200. I don't expect support for the machine: it's ancient and I'd think twice before running OS9 on it let alone OSX. Even with excellent HW support it'd run like a sloth on quaaludes.
However, G3 owners are quite right to be pissed off. Apple has engaged in deceptive sales practices and consumers are getting burned. People made buying decisions based on Apple's statements. Support for the graphics chip and the floppy drive is NOT a big demand. Apple has a responsibility to meet its obligations and Steven Jobs publically obligated Apple to supporting these machines. If they didn't want the obligation they shouldn't have made the statement.
As far as ATI goes: they may have a contractual obligation to Apple. But the primary obligation is with Apple: they used the chip and sold the machines as a package. The obligation for the package rests with Apple. If ATI does not have a contractual obligation to Apple to provide OSX drivers for these chips then Apple must pay them or do it themselves.
People have discussed rumours of ATI making drivers for these chips: it may be at the request of Apple. Apple would have known that the law suit was coming and may now be trying to cover its butt. <hr></blockquote>
2 posts that sum it up quite well IMO.
but my favorite comment:
Cipher13
[quote]Apple is getting sued for being the bastards they are... haha!!<hr></blockquote>
<strong>
Try to find that version on the Apple website.
Cipher13 is one of the MacNN personalities I despise the most. By quoting him, you are hurting your argument, as far as I cam concerned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) I'll try but I know its available. perhaps apple is willing to take stuff down to "help their case"
2.) I agree. don't care for him either, just thought he summed it up nicely