Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Judge_Fire · Aug 14, 2003, 07:53 AM

More hardware than OS related:

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/08/12/g3osx/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/32333.html

J

jeanlouis · Aug 14, 2003, 07:57 AM

I am very sorry to put it like this, but I think you'd have to be pretty fu**ing stupid to believe that OS X would run on hardware as slow as a 233Mhz or something. And only in America someone would be stupid enough to actually begin a lawsuit against Apple for this 'misleading information'. (Could this be the same person that put her dog in the microwave to dry it?)

AssassyN · Aug 14, 2003, 07:58 AM

I agree, anyone still using a 233Mhz processor to actually get work done seriously needs to upgrade. And you're right about the lawsuit, that's so insane. That's like suing McDonald's for them not making you smile, though their window says "We love to see you smile!"

macvillage.net · Aug 14, 2003, 08:18 AM

They did say all G3's except the old powerbooks were supported.

What they should have done was say that it's "supported, but unoptimized". Which is the truth.

-Q- · Aug 14, 2003, 09:07 AM

I'm not a fan of class actions (or stupid lawsuits in general) but Apple did say that the OS would run on those machines (and don't forget, this was two years ago when the fastest machine around was a G4/800. So while the 233 wasn't a speed demon, it also wasn't unreasonable to expect full support if Apple said they were going to provide it.

If you expected OS X to run on a 233 today without a performance hit, I'd laugh at you. But two years ago, it does seem more reasonable to me.

NYCFarmboy · Aug 14, 2003, 09:09 AM

I think this also had something to do with OS X disabling DVD drives on older G3s.

OS X uses a software solution to view DVD's or something and it is not possible to view DVD's using OS X on some older G3's..

or something like that.

-Q- · Aug 14, 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I think this also had something to do with OS X disabling DVD drives on older G3s.

OS X uses a software solution to view DVD's or something and it is not possible to view DVD's using OS X on some older G3's..

or something like that.

Actually, I'm not sure which update, but for awhile now I've been able to view DVDs on my Beige. They don't look great, nor do they play perfectly, but it is possible now.

Spliffdaddy · Aug 14, 2003, 10:35 AM

Wait two years after the fact to admit what was obvious back then.

yay.

goto11 · Aug 14, 2003, 10:54 AM

I have Jaguar running on a blueberry iBook 300. While certainly not speedy by any measure, it's definitely functional. I never expected it to run very well on that machine. Apple promised it would run. It does. YMMV.

macvillage.net · Aug 14, 2003, 12:25 PM

I use OS X on a Beige as a file server.

Works great.

Would make an OK desktop, for casual use.

MilkmanDan · Aug 14, 2003, 01:33 PM

Apple said it would run, and it does run. Just not very well. I have it running on a 233 beige and a 266 beige, both as file servers. They sit out in the living area and there are those who are known to use them regularly for e-mail and internet. Thats it.

My parents own a 233 iMac, and I'd NEVER install 10.2 on it. I've done it on other 233 iMacs, and its not a pretty sight.

Some people were just ticked because they expected a lot, but got little.

Hell, Windows XP will install on a 233 Pentium. But its not going to run very well. Maybe we should sue Microsoft.

Kenneth · Aug 14, 2003, 01:55 PM

I tended to like upgrading the system software within spec.
All my G3-supported Mac are loaded with Mac OS X 10.2.6 (including the Bondi Blue iMac 233Mhz and original iBook 300Mhz). They both run fine, I'm not playing games or anything involved with video on them.

I am sure some people will suit about that..

WinXP is another thing.. it runs better on my 6-yr old AMD K6/200 PC compared to the shaddy Windows 95.

Link · Aug 14, 2003, 03:06 PM

Whoaaaaaa.... before you peeps grab the char-roil for some roasting...

Do remember that when the original imac and such were in existence apple marketed everything as if they would be the perfect machines for OS X.

Most people got hosed twice as well.. the first time for OS X and the second time because apple promised it would run better...

Now calm down.. besides that most of the people posting here to flame 'stupid old computers' change their computers more often then they change their oil...

Graymalkin · Aug 14, 2003, 03:40 PM

This sort of situation is really ridiculous. Not only from the standpoint of the people suing Apple but also from Apple. It is pretty retarded to sue Apple for OSX "not supporting" your old hardware. It was pretty safe to say that three year old hardware was not going to run a brand new piece of software snappily. Especially a piece of software as processor hefty as OSX. It should have been plainly obvious to anybody that a PDF graphics subsystem and fully OO environment is going to take a hefty toll on your computer. However slowly the software has run on older Macs. There's really no room for the users to complain, they should have been planning an upgrade anyhow.

I however am a bit incensed about Apple's position regarding old hardware. Yes OSX has a ton of new technologies, it does stuff older versions of MacOS couldn't even dream of. It is a fine OS and has made a very happy customer out of me. That being said, Apple's position of support for older systems is a little insulting. It wouldn't have been terribly difficult to include Rage Pro drivers in the initial release of OSX. That would have provided support for four iMac revisions, two lines of Powerbooks, the original iBooks, and likely lots of Beige G3s. It wasn't until 10.2.5 IIRC that a Rage Pro driver was added to OSX.

It would have seemed to me Apple should have made more of an effort to support older systems, especially the iMac. They had sold a metric bajillion iMacs by the time OSX was released. If owners of older Macs would have seen the same responsiveness in OSX they got in OS9 I'm sure scores more would have ran out and bought it. Performance of 10.0 was so horrible on my Powerbook (333MHz Lombard) that I went back to OS9 for several months until 10.1 was released and even then I couldn't use OSX full time.

I think Apple did realize their mistake however because Jaguar gave new life to my Lombard. It wasn't quite as "snappy" as OS9 had been but it was capable and gave me all the OSXiness I'd been craving. It's new owner is a very happy OSX user and switcher.