[gumby5647]

i edited one and posted one during class. they were showing us how to use the library databases. fun stuff...

[TNproud2b]

Installing it is one thing.

Supporting the hardware is the responsibility of the company that manufactured (or spec'd it from an OEM supplier) the hardware - which in this case is the very same people who make the operating system. If this wasn't true, who is responsible for making the IDE port driver? How about the built-in soundcard driver? The modem? There is literally no end in sight when you view things in this manner. So it's up to Apple to provide support for the hardware and core technologies that the machine is capable of - especially if they claim exactly that. Hell, they claim it's faster in bold text. Nobody is bothering to sue them for that statement...mostly because it's difficult to prove one way or the other - it's subjective. What's easy to prove is the fact that Apple (still to this day) lists OS_X's 'core technologies' on the side of the box, while listing certain machines as 'supported' when all of the 'core technologies' are not supported.

If Apple's operating systems do not have to support hardware or core technologies, wtf is their definition of 'operating system'? If it ain't providing an interface between hardware and the user - then it can hardly be an operating system.

"But it's a slow video card, anyway.."

All the more reason to give it every advantage you can (openGL).

"It's ATi's responsibility"

Funny. 3dfx didn't give a sh*t about creating Windows2000 drivers for my Voodoo Banshee. And IBM still hasn't bothered to support my webCam pro, either. Guess those companies suck.

Nobody sells a computer with an OS that doesn't support all of the hardware. Nobody. Not even Compaq or Dell.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Xeo:
<STRONG>The part that confused me was that he specifically replied to your topic title and no content of your post. This implied to me that he was calling you the apologist which I didn't see. That's why I didn't (and still don't) know where that came from.</STRONG>

I think he just found the subject funny. Cipher might volunteer to clarify though. And if he called me an apologist I'll kick him to the dirt like the mangy dog he is.

[moki]

Originally posted by Boondoggle:
<STRONG>This is a waste of time. Anyone dumb enough to think that X was going to rock on old G3 hardware deserved what they got. I've got a Bondi rev. B and I'm satisfied with X on it because I've known from day one that X would not really rock until it was the default OS on new hardware. Guess what, that day is here.</STRONG>

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.

[jblakeh1]

if he called me an apologist I'll kick him to the dirt like the mangy dog he is.

Well, if you have anything positive to say about Apple in the very least, you are an apologist in these forums. That's my experience, anyway.

[moki]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>I voted with my wallet and bought a PC. Apple made quite a big thing about how java was going to have hardware accelerated Aqua swing components etc, but, if it has, I haven't noticed it. I like Macs and would rather have one than a PC, but with a PC, in the case of Linux, which I mostly use, I know what I'm getting generally.</STRONG>

Apple is indeed working on hardware-accelerated widgets for Java -- I don't think it is released, though.

As for knowing what you get with Linux, yes, that is true -- which is why I don't use it for anything other than two servers we have. Linux on the desktop... ::shiver::

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by jblakeh1:
<STRONG>

Well, if you have anything positive to say about Apple in the very least, you are an apologist in these forums. That's my experience, anyway.</STRONG>

On the whole, I have very positive things to say about Apple, and I've never regretted my decision to toss my PC in the closet. I probably have been called an apologist now and then. On this issue, though, my sympathy is with the whiners. I don't think Apple was sufficiently forthcoming about their intentions re: OSX and G3 support. Even if they manage to demonstrate that their claims are factual in the strictest, most parsiminous "definition of 'is'" sense of the word, they still amount to a lie of omission. I know I'd feel that way if I were running an older G3 machine.

[MasonMcD]

Performance, for the most part, on a G3 is excellent. It's the GUI performance that sucks. Networking? A snap, and blazingly fast (aside from CIFS browsing). Use it for anything other than Photoshop or DTP, and it rocks pretty hard, even on my bondi rev B.

And for those of you who haven't already, upgrade your RAM to 512 or something. Don't neglect your RAM out of spite due to your "supported out of the box" machine. Yeesh.

[SirCastor]

This won't make it to court.. it'll be an outside settlement. Probably ending up with a settlement similar to the DVD playback one we had a bit ago (I got a letter for that) You get copies of OS's or discounts on keyboards, and random software..

If it goes to court... beware. Apple's legal team bears teeth and claws..

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by MasonMcD:
<STRONG>Use it for anything other than Photoshop or DTP, and it rocks pretty hard, even on my bondi rev B.
</STRONG>

That's a pretty big 'other,' though.

[dawho9]

Originally posted by The Ginger Rat:
<STRONG>

There was discussion on MacCentral about this. Apparently it *is* Apple's responsibility to write the drivers.

P.S. I wonder if this is also a possible cause for the Que drives fiasco.

(edited for typos, etc)

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: The Ginger Rat ]</STRONG>

Huh? Are you saying that I can sue Microsoft for not writing drivers that work with my Targus USB to Serial Adapter under WindowsXP.

If so, I need to find myself a lawyer.

dw9

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>If they were suing the people actually responsible for ATI drivers in OSX, I would join in (I still have a Beige G3, after all). But the company responsible is not Apple; it's ATI. And we already know they're writing drivers for the older chipsets. So there is no reason at all for this lawsuit. I hope it gets laughed out of court.</STRONG>

Nope, it was Apple who supplied the OEM Rage chips and it's Apple that's responsible for supporting them, at least legally.

[The Ginger Rat]

Originally posted by dawho9:
<STRONG>

Huh? Are you saying that I can sue Microsoft for not writing drivers that work with my Targus USB to Serial Adapter under WindowsXP.

If so, I need to find myself a lawyer.

dw9</STRONG>

If it is in the agreement b/w Microsoft and Targus that MS is supposed to write the drivers, then theoretically, yes.

Quoted from Peter Cohen's posting (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0201/31.g3osx.php):
<STRONG>All you have to do is ask ATI at the next Macworld Expo, and they'll tell you the same thing they've told every journalist since they first started working in the Mac space. It's the same thing Nvidia tells people when they ask: They make the chips, design reference boards and drivers, they'll certainly provide assistance when asked, but when push comes to shove, it's incumbent upon Apple to do its own work.

That, for example, is why ATI's drivers have always been explicitly just for their retail cards -- you can't find Apple video drivers on ATI's Web site, just drivers for Mac-compatible retail ATI cards. They can't and don't want to do Apple's job for them.</STRONG>

[gumby5647]

Originally posted by Millennium:
And we already know they're writing drivers for the older chipsets. So there is no reason at all for this lawsuit.

Actually, we don't know 100% for sure if they are. They said they are planning to write them. now whether they do or not is another story....

[lenkman]

Originally posted by gumby5647:
<STRONG>

Actually, we don't know 100% for sure if they are. They said they are planning to write them. now whether they do or not is another story....</STRONG>

Also, please remember that this report came from a rumor site. I personally won't believe it until either ATI or Apple themselves announce in a press release that the drivers are forthcoming. Rumors sites are too unreliable to trust. If those rumor sites were accurate, I would be using my tablet mac g5 running at 1.6 ghz right now . . .

[lenkman]

edit . . . double post.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: lenkman ]

[dawho9]

Originally posted by The Ginger Rat:
<STRONG>

If it is in the agreement b/w Microsoft and Targus that MS is supposed to write the drivers, then theoretically, yes.

Quoted from Peter Cohen's posting (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0201/31.g3osx.php):
[qb]All you have to do is ask ATI at the next Macworld Expo, and they'll tell you the same thing they've told every journalist since they first started working in the Mac space. It's the same thing Nvidia tells people when they ask: They make the chips, design reference boards and drivers, they'll certainly provide assistance when asked, but when push comes to shove, it's incumbent upon Apple to do its own work.

That, for example, is why ATI's drivers have always been explicitly just for their retail cards -- you can't find Apple video drivers on ATI's Web site, just drivers for Mac-compatible retail ATI cards. They can't and don't want to do Apple's job for them.</STRONG>[/QB]

I agree and disagree. I think the manufacturer is somewhat responsible to produce the drivers. For instance, Intel. Creates the Intel 845 Motherboard. They make only the motherboard (integrated video, nic, etc). Dell uses that board in its computers, who makes the driver. Not dell. Intel does. You want updates, the drivers you download from Dell's website, Intel drivers they created.

I do not think you can only blame Apple for it. I think you have to blame both for it.

dw9

[K++]

I dunknow if you guys are paying attention but law is about semantics and what happends here is that Apple said in May 1998 that Mac OS X would be fully optimized for PowerPC chips. Then in March 2000 Apple released Mac OS X on the masses. And Mac OS X was fully optimized for G3 machines, all of its features too, I mean my 7600 is running it and all the ADB devices work, the floppy drive works, and the built in zip drive works.

Now here is the catch Mac OS X v10.1, an update was released in September 2000 and was even more optimized for the G4 chip, they G3 was and is still suported however the features of 10.1 arent all written to support these G3 machines. Apple didnt lie to you Mac OS X v. 10.0 is fully optimized for the G3, 10.1 is not. So dont blame apple for leaving you behind with a 3/4 year old machine, its time for you to update anyway. It just so happens that this new version wasnt optimized for G3s nor was it ever promised that it would be, it was promised that it would be more optimized and unfortunately for G3 folk AltiVec was the only place they could pull this optimization out of, so no false claims were made.

So in closing, sucks to be you.

[MemeTransport]

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.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
<STRONG>

I think he just found the subject funny. Cipher might volunteer to clarify though. And if he called me an apologist I'll kick him to the dirt like the mangy dog he is. </STRONG>

To clarify, I was laughing at the very title of the post; not for the title, but for its implications.

Apple is getting sued for being the bastards they are... haha!!

Originally posted by Xeo:
<STRONG>Where did that come from? </STRONG>

The first part: the general tone of many replies, as implied by its placement before the quote...
The second: referring to the threads topic. Awesome stuff

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by jblakeh1:
<STRONG>How fast was the beige G3? 233?</STRONG>

The beige G3 (Desktop and Tower models) included 233, 266, 300 and 333 MHz incarnations.

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by dawho9:
<STRONG>

I agree and disagree. I think the manufacturer is somewhat responsible to produce the drivers. For instance, Intel. Creates the Intel 845 Motherboard. They make only the motherboard (integrated video, nic, etc). Dell uses that board in its computers, who makes the driver. Not dell. Intel does. You want updates, the drivers you download from Dell's website, Intel drivers they created.

I do not think you can only blame Apple for it. I think you have to blame both for it.

dw9</STRONG>

wrong.

While Intel may have written the Windows driver for their integrated chipset - they don't support the chipset on the consumer level. Dell chose to use the Intel reference driver...they didn't have to. It is Dell's responsibility to offer a driver for any subsequent OS upgrades. Major manufacturers like Dell don't offer OS upgrades on machines after they are purchased - JUST SO they won't have to support all of the hardware AGAIN. If Dell were to offer an OS upgrade and claimed it supported certain machines they previously sold, and it didn't - they would get sued.

See how that works?

What if the Intel chipset driver was faulty? Would Dell tell you to call Intel and ask for a revised driver? Nope.

It isn't the responsibility of the anyone except Apple to do what they promised.

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: TNproud2b ]

[michaelb]

Apple should settle this suit as quickly as possible to prevent the negative publicity.

I suggest:

All purchasers of the afflicted machines should be offered a 25% discount on a new iMac G4 (which reportedly runs OS X at the sort of performance levels as it was supposedly hyped to run at).

This would kill Apple's margin on the new product for those customers. That is the punishment.

The large discount would however attract a lot of loyalty to the company from the many disgruntled users of early "unsupported" G3s and hopefully stop them from carrying out their threats to migrate to Windows XP.

It would also push sales of the new iMac to even higher stratospheric levels which in the long term would be good for the platform, and allow developers to sell more Mac OS X targeted software.

Result:
- a chastened Apple that longer would no longer make promises it couldn't possibly keep
- increased Mac sales, and the viral "man that iMac's cool" marketing that comes with it
- retention of the sort of loyal users Apple's survival depends on
- more Mac OS X capable machines in the market to attract developers to make X-only software

Just my 2 worthless Australian cents.

[JLL]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>
Nobody sells a computer with an OS that doesn't support all of the hardware. Nobody. Not even Compaq or Dell.</STRONG>

And neither does Apple - Mac OS X wasn't sold with the unsuppported Macs.

Though I would like to have drivers for my iBook SE I don't think they would make the machine that much faster - I can't even play most games in Mac OS 9 because of the lousy amount of VRAM.

QuickTime acceleration would be nice though.

[NeilCharter]

I guess there are a lot of reasons that people dislike OS X. Speed of the system concerns most of them. I personally would prefer OS X to be as nippy as OS 9 was, but in reality that will never happen.

I've installed Mac OS's on multiple macs and EVERY upgrade of the system has hit the performance of older machines. To me, that OS X is a laggard on the older G3's is no surprise, but then when OS 9 was installed it slowed down those machines too.

So to say boys (and girls) that that is what happens to computers. They have a useful life span of some small furry animal.

Personally if I wanted to improve the performance, then I would upgrade the processor, ram, the drive, ATA card and possibly even the graphics card.

But really is it worth it? Most of that would take you back $800.

Apple may have said that OS X would support all G3's - and it does to some extent. But I think I remember that they also said it would be released in 2000. And that didn't happen.

Maybe as a gesture, Apple could refund registered early G3 and OS X owners the cost of OS X. But that's all they should get and I think that is being generous.

Flame me if you can.

Neil

[gumby5647]

Originally posted by michaelb:


I suggest:

All purchasers of the afflicted machines should be offered a 25% discount on a new iMac G4 (which reportedly runs OS X at the sort of performance levels as it was supposedly hyped to run at).

Yes, because all of us, even me the college student, has enough money for a new G4 iMac. and who says i want one of those? Id rather have a cube.

or what they could do is just write the freaking drivers for my chip. That would make a lot more people happy than a 25% discount.


GUMBY

[CaseCom]

A couple of people here have said Apple is planning to write drivers ... in fact Apple has said they won't:

Further Mac OS X support for the graphic accelerator chipsets listed above is not planned.

As far as the ThinkSecret report that ATI is planning to write drivers, even though the OEM cards are Apple's responsibility: that's a little hard to believe. They're gonna bail out Apple out of the goodness of their hearts? Riiiight...

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: CaseCom ]

[Boondoggle]

Moki Wrote:

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.

I would not call it naive, but maybe unrealistically hopeful, given the great tradition of new OS's rarely being faster than their predecessors. And we all know the original iMac are basically the minimum system that will run OSX. And we all also know that "minimum" system means "barely adequate, but horrible" from Apple or MS.

Sure "a" fully PPC native modern OS could outperform OS9 on the same hardware, but as you alluded it would not have been OSX. When OSX is the default OS, the hardware will make up the bulk of the speed difference, and you get to keep all the new features. That is the way it has pretty much always worked.

I think OSX does work well on my Bondi rev. b considering how old and slow it is. I've got it serving web pages on my static DSL, I can log in to it easily from across the country and manage that web space, and even download large files to it remotely using FTP, thus taking advantage of the DSL line. My girlfriend then can burn me a disk of what I've downloaded and mail it to me if I can't wait to get home for it. And it has never crashed. It is up 24/7. My girlfriend uses it for her email, web and word processing without a problem, simultaneously with me.

So we can't play some games, and QT movies are slow. For the most part the games I'd be playing like Q3A truly sucked on that machine in OS9 (Still waiting for EV Nova... They are marginal on my iMac DV for that matter. And QT does work albeit slower than OS9. Oh, yeah and the OGL screen savers don't work.


I'm not an Apple Apologist, the insult of last resort for those without arguments. I am pissed at apple for the Que! USB issue. I thought the Cube was a stupidly priced (but beautiful) box and said so all over the internet. I was not thrilled (or surprised) to be a $150 beta tester, and I'm freaking furious about the modem hang problem not being fixed in 10.1.2. But making a federal case out of missing enhancements to OSX on ancient hardware is petty. I would rather Apple spend time fixing the things that are still wrong with X on new hardware.

bd

[booboo]

Originally posted by jblakeh1:
<STRONG>How fast was the beige G3? 233?</STRONG>

233, 266 and 300MHz... but that's not the point ;-)

[graffix]

Gawd... it's amazing how an issue affecting Apple can so polarize it's users...
If you think Apple's right in this situation, you definitely need to do some more research...
EVERY MACHINE since the original iMac has been touted as being 'OSX-Ready', which means to me (and to most people with more than an 8th-grade education) that the ENTIRE computer works... otherwise it's 'Almost-OSX-Ready'.
The only reason OSX wasn't bundled with the original iMac (which it indeed was slated to be) was because development on OSX was going so goddamned slow... realize OSX was 2 YEARS LATE TO THE PARTY!
All along, people were buying the original iMacs, iBooks, etc. with the expectation that OSX would be out RSN� (Real Soon Now, the Apple mantra), and they could run the new-fangled OS on their new computer...
This lawsuit is mainly covering those users, not EVERY SINGLE USER with a G3 chip in their machine... jeezus christ... some people are real knee-jerkers when they don't have all the info.
Also, most people don't realize that the insane slowness they experience on their older machines is DIRECTLY RELATED to the fact that there is no hardware video acceleration... The processor is doing ALL the work of drawing the video to the screen at the same time it's doing calculations for other apps...
As a little experiment, launch the CPU Meter and then move a window a couple of times on a Mac without video acceleration, and then do the same thing on a Mac with accelerated video. The results are astonishing... on my unsupported video card, the CPU meter pegs out (90-100% CPU) when redrawing the window, while on the accelerated Mac, it's more in the 40-50% range (still a lot, but not THAT bad).
Also, in the iMac DVD fiasco lawsuit that Apple just settled a couple of months ago, people were given replacement DVD drives AND discounts on future purchases... not just some sort of wimpy peace offering like a coupon just to shut them up...
When are people gonna learn that Apple is not like a girlfriend, where you're supposed to view them through rose-colored glasses and believe that they'll always be virtuous and faithful (yea right)... sometimes companies screw up (actually probably a lot more than we know about), and it's their customers who are the ones that keep them in line, not government oversight or regulation (like that would ever happen in the Bush administration... you see where it's gotten MS)...
I also see that most of the people that don't give a crap about this situation are also those that aren't affected by this decision, or those that think Apple can do no wrong (like the aforementioned skanky girlfriend)...
At least some people get it... like moki, whom I gain more and more respect for all the time. (On an aside, moki, that was a fantastic article on the cost of piracy posted on your site the other day, a very good read, and really opened up my eyes).
Anyway...
/me puts back on the headphones to drown out the din of apologists...
cheers.
g.

[MikeM33]

Well I'm for the suit also mainly for those that purchased hardware under the assumption it was OSX ready, and for those that purchased OSX with the impression it would run well on said hardware.

As for myself I purchased OSX with the same impression (that it would run well on my Beige G3/266 Desktop). I can't say that when I purchased my system that I even knew about OSX, however. What I find annoying is the major difference between the performance level of OS 9.x and below on my hardware and OSX. Now if my system is supported I'd have expected a little better performance from OSX than what I actually get. The fact that it runs isn't enough. Add into that the lack of OEM hardware drivers and so-on. So what's left? Great it runs, but that's not enough.

Apple definitely did give everyone the impression that OSX would kick ass over OS 9.x and below on all supported hardware. Many people jumped all over it from day 1 like myself and wound-up getting bit in the ass. This is the reason why OSX hasn't been adopted on a large scale yet. Business users are especially cautious of going to OSX so soon as they don't wish to sortee all thier hardware for all new systems that "might" run OSX a little better.

I'll admit that I'm not extremely pissed off as it's just no major surprise to me that OSX doesn't run so awesomely on my hardware. I see it as just another marketting scheme to force people to buy new hardware really. I'll just bite the bullet on my investment in OSX and just stick with OS 9.x until I decide to get a new Mac and then I'll just have to decide whether OSX is worth using.

And for those people saying "well you should have known it wouldn't run well on a 4 yr old mac" all I can say is that Apple shouldn't claim it would be optimized for those systems. I'll also add that a 2-4 yr old computer isn't really "old". Many of the legacy systems that preceded the G3's can run OS 9.x fairly well.

Mike

[moreno]

i like apple, but apple deserve its.

[BTP]

I can see some of the points some of you are making, though a few of you are just shy of retarted though.

My take is that this lawyer is not championing any of you that were/think you were decieved by Apple. This is entirely self-serving. If Apple said tomorrow that they would write video drivers, floppy and printer drivers, do you think this would go away? No, very unlikely. This is about money or self-promotion for the lawyer. Everything else is just noise.

What is certain is that as a collective group we cannot agree on anything. There is a constant whine and only the pitch changes. If in theory it would be nice to have OS X run better on my Beige G3 and rev. A iBook. The iBook is old and with the RAM maxed out and a new HD it runs acceptably even without turning off the Aqua animations and such. The Beige G3 is about 5 years old and while I'd like to have that running better, there is a list of things I'd rather them do before adding Rage support.

I know there are people that want their floppy drive to work or even their old printers, and I hope eventually Apple does it. Finally, maybe they will add support, but it has to wait its turn. It was already mentioned about the DVD playback was missing in X for months, maybe this is coming too, just not now.

This case will not do much for the disgruntled, except serve as a focal point for their dissatisfaction.

[laird]

Apple has pulled this trick twice.

When Rhapsody was formally announced, Steve Jobs and other company officers personally committed to supporting all currently shipping computers (PPC 601's and 603's) -- specifically in order to get people to continue to buy those computers. As a developer, I immediately bought a fairly expensive, high-end Mac to be prepared for Rhapsody. Rhapsody, even when it shipped as MacOS X, completely failed to support ANY of those machines. Apple's answer was to tell people to buy new G3 computers, rather than run on the hardware they sold as "ready for Rhapsody."

When MacOS X launched (and still on the box now!) it was advertised as running on any Mac that ships with a G3 or better. It's unusable on MOST of those machines.

The logic of demanding a refund for the computer, rather than just the copy of MacOS X is this: I was sold a computer based on the commitment that it would be able to run MacOS X. If it doesn't do what was specified to do, replace it with a computer that performs to spec.

I don't particularly want Apple to refund me the purchase price of my old computer. BUT, given that Apple is more interested in selling new hardware than honoring the commitments under which they sold old hardware, I think that it takes the threat of a massive lawsuit to get Apple to support older machines.

[cc_foo]

I support this suit. But don't think it will solve anything.

Apple implied that the legacy OS was filled with 68k code, and old technology that was holding the back modern processors (i.e. the G3 at the time). The revamped OS was meant to be fully PPC, be fully modern and unlock the potential of the G3.

Now, my Wallstreet II can't even play QuickTime movies smoothly. There is no excuse for this. If OS X cannot do something on the same hardware that OS 9 is perfectly capable of doing, then OS X is deficient.

Similarly, the Oni demo runs well on the Wallstreet II, but does not work on OS X. This is because Open GL under OS X somehow requires more resources than Open GL under OS 9. QuickTime and Open GL, according to Apple's OS X architectural map, is an "essential technology".

For those critical of the lawsuit, wait till Apple discontinues support for single processor Macs. Or wait till OS X 10.2 or OS 11 "somehow" makes QuickTime movies skippy on anything except G5 processors with Nvidia chips. Then apologist who have the latest machines will say, "the G4 so last century", or "ATI makes hopeless boards", or "Apple needs to move on...", or "You have the option not to upgrade beyond OS 10.1.2 you know..."

One day scrolling and resizing windows will take advantage of G5 processors. And G4 owners will be left waiting for Apple to update OS X to fully support their machine.

To be honest I am not surprised that OS X does not support floppies, or their own Apple serial printers. Apple simply does not have the experience that Microsoft has of executing an OS release aside from the legacy OS. Especially given the fact that OS X was already a mature OS running on a different platform. It is actually easier for them to add Aqua features and build on the NeXT architecture than to support serial ports, internal modem sounds, floppy drives, IRDA etc.

My prediction -- 1. Apple's OS will never significantly improve in speed on any G3-equipped machine. 2. In the not too distant future owners of the 800Mhz G4 iMac will start to find simple iApp features (you know, the iPhoto realtime zooming effect) that overwhelm their machine.

[Boondoggle]

All those who believe corporate hype please raise your right hand.

Now smack yourself briskly in the face with it.

Thank you.

[BTP]

Rhapsody! HS! That was late 1996 - early 1997!

One more reason why this will be a hard case to make it the subjectiveness of how OS X runs on any particular machine. Hell, they might be able to get by with just saying that it installs and runs.

But seriously, Boondoggle has a good point. It was hype, but do you really think that you are going to have any OS run well on 3 - 5 year old hardware? (Here I'll type "Apple apologist" for you, so you can cut and paste you non-thinking drone) Who here thinks that a computer bought in February 2002 is going to be fully supported in February 2005, or 2007? Hmmm. I wonder how XP would run on a 3,4 or 5 year old PC? I know that MS didn't promise that, just exercising a little common sense.

I know people that have upgraded to newer machines and others that have upgraded their old ones. The happier ones are those that bought new machines, but those old machines can run OS X, they just need more RAM and other upgrades too to make them run acceptably to most people. Adding a video card (those that can) and a faster HD makes a big difference too.

I can see both sides, but it is the job of the Apple hype machine to build excitement for OS X and it is the hope of some that bought hardware that the OS that Apple promises in a few years would run the new os perfectly.

My bottom line is to be a better informed consumer.

[moreno]

run acceptably to most people

ahahah!
OS X is slow on my Dual iBook 500...

[The Evener]

Originally posted by Boondoggle:
<STRONG>All those who believe corporate hype please raise your right hand.

Now smack yourself briskly in the face with it.

Thank you.</STRONG>

LOL! Funny, but cheap.

I'm not clinging to a yellowed press release about a future that never was. No, I'm one of those people who bought one of those funky, translucent, colourful iBook laptops that went with Apple's funky, translucent, colourful next generation OS. You know, the ones they demoed side-by-side at the MacWorld Tokyo Expo in February 2000:
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2000/02/mwtokyo/

OS X and the iBook (and iMacs) look pretty good together, don't you think? Too bad Steve Jobs didn't stride across that Tokyo stage when introducing OS X and the "original" iBooks to the Japanese and exclaim, "by the way, you won't be able to watch QuickTime movies without dropping frames or enjoy any semblance of video acceleration when redrawing windows on OS X with these great laptops we have here today." Would have done wonders for their sales, I'm sure.

What you dismissively call "hype" is actually a carefully crafted assurance for consumers to equate -- nay, rest assured -- that their Apple purchase was *tailor-made* for OS X. If you can't see that, then perhaps you should begin to put that right hand to use.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: The Evener ]

[BTP]

Originally posted by moreno:
<STRONG>

ahahah!
OS X is slow on my Dual iBook 500...</STRONG>

My point exactly..