G3/Mac OS X Settlement [Archive]

MacRumors

Oct 30, 2003, 03:21 PM

ZDNet reports (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5099616.html) that there has been preliminary approval on a settlement for a class-action suit based on claim that "the company had failed to fully support Mac OS X on some G3-based Macs".

Many readers noted that Apple had posted a link (http://appleosx.rosenthalco.com/) to the settlement site on their corporate homepage (Apple.com (http://www.apple.com))

The settlement terms for affected G3 owners provide a refund for Mac OS X or a $25 coupon off a $99 purchase at the Apple Store. The G3 machine must have been specific models sold between Nov 1997 and Sept 2000 and Mac OS X must have been purchased on or before May 15, 2003. Details at settlement site (http://appleosx.rosenthalco.com).

FelixDerKater

Oct 30, 2003, 03:24 PM

It would have been funnier if they had to pay out the price nedded to upgrade to a least a low-end G4.

Either that or supply them all with acceptable graphics cards. Maybe 1st generation TiBook owners could sue for similar reasons on grounds that the included 8MB Rage128 Mobility does not allow OS X to be used to its fullest since it is not compatible with QuartzExtreme...

Le Big Mac

Oct 30, 2003, 03:26 PM

seems like a pretty reasonable settlement.

you get your money back if you don't like OS X.

Oirectine

Oct 30, 2003, 03:30 PM

There's a tiny link near the bottom of Apple.com's main page. I saw it today, didn't know what it was, thought I just hadn't noticed it before.

nagromme

Oct 30, 2003, 03:30 PM

Before there are a lot of ignorant posts about people--like me--who think this is a legitimate issue, please understand EXACTLY what the issue is BEFORE you make assumptions and post :)

This is about machines Apple DID claim to support, losing fundamental hardware capabilities that both the machines and the OS advertised as working.

Even Panther still doesn't tell me that I'll lose my video board if I install X. No hardware acceleration, no OpenGl, no DVD. Yet Apple still says my Lombard is supported by OS X.

What a lot of trouble a simply footnote could save. Or better yet, some drivers from ATI!

(This is not in reference to anything posted above--its a PREemptive strike against the inevitable flood of posts about machines Apple never CLAIMED to support. Which I have no problem with, and is not the subject of this case.)

reh

Oct 30, 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Macrumors
G3 machines must have been purchased on or before May 15, 2003.
Not true. From http://appleosx.rosenthalco.com/notice.html
TO: ALL END USER PERSONS OR ENTITIES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WHO BOTH (1) OWN OR OWNED CERTAIN APPLE G3 COMPUTER MODELS SOLD BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1997 AND SEPTEMBER 2000 ("COVERED PRODUCTS") AND (2) ALSO PURCHASED ANY VERSION OF MAC OS X FOR A COVERED PRODUCT ON OR BEFORE MAY 15, 2003:

ITR 81

Oct 30, 2003, 03:42 PM

Well if they get a free OS out of it or refund it's not that bad of a deal.

The final outcome comes on Jan of 2004.

jayscheuerle

Oct 30, 2003, 03:44 PM

As long as this costs Apple more than it would have to write the damn drivers in the first place, it's fair.

$25 off a $99 purchase from the Apple Store? Apple's still making money off you!

At least they stated flat out that beige boxes and non-native USB laptops aren't supported in Panther, so even if a hack gets them to work, they're in the clear (for those machines at least)...

pgwalsh

Oct 30, 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by nagromme
Before there are a lot of ignorant posts about people--like me--who think this is a legitimate issue, please understand EXACTLY what the issue is BEFORE you make assumptions and post :)

This is about machines Apple DID claim to support, losing fundamental hardware capabilities that both the machines and the OS advertised as working.

Even Panther still doesn't tell me that I'll lose my video board if I install X. No hardware acceleration, no OpenGl, no DVD. Yet Apple still says my Lombard is supported by OS X.

What a lot of trouble a simply footnote could save. Or better yet, some drivers from ATI!

(This is not in reference to anything posted above--its a PREemptive strike against the inevitable flood of posts about machines Apple never CLAIMED to support. Which I have no problem with, and is not the subject of this case.) I think Apple got away with a lot on this one. However, I can't think of a more reasonalbe solution. Maybe a fat discount on upgrading your machine if you send in your old one... Ha fat chance.

Phil Of Mac

Oct 30, 2003, 04:05 PM

IANAL, and neither are you.

Remember that before you post.

the_dalex

Oct 30, 2003, 04:29 PM

As a reseller, I received one of the class-action letters saying I am a participant unless I request exemption.

Interestingly, anyone who claims a refund from Apple has to make a declaration saying that they have not used OS X, under penalty of perjury:

"I have not regularly used Mac OS X on my Covered Product. I agree not to use Mac OS X on this computer in the future and I am returning the Mac OS X disk containing this version of Mac OS X to the address designated in the Claim Form. I agree not to reinstall the returned version of Mac OS X on my Covered Product in the future."

They also have to send in the discs, or declare that the discs are lost or destroyed. I'm amazed people are so upset about this, unless OS X doesn't run on their computer in any usable fashion. I'd give up DVD playback for OS X features any day...

besson3c

Oct 30, 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by FelixDerKater
It would have been funnier if they had to pay out the price nedded to upgrade to a least a low-end G4.

Either that or supply them all with acceptable graphics cards. Maybe 1st generation TiBook owners could sue for similar reasons on grounds that the included 8MB Rage128 Mobility does not allow OS X to be used to its fullest since it is not compatible with QuartzExtreme...

Is the first generation TiBook the 550Mhz machine? Those machines are actually QE enabled, I just discovered this today.

CraigMiami

Oct 30, 2003, 04:34 PM

lawsuit worthy? i think not. we live in a culture where it has become common place for people who if they're not getting what they want, when they want it, and how they want, or that they're getting screwed in any way, take it to court.
While i do agree that apple should have said those machines were *NOT* supported, i also think this lawsuit could be lumped with the overweight kids who sued McDonald's a few months ago because it caused them to be obese.
Lawsuits are not the way to solve all of our problems. Courts are not where all of our conflicts should be corrected.

jamesatzones

Oct 30, 2003, 04:35 PM

This would seem to be a good way to be black listed by Apple... My thought: if you are using a machine that can't run Panther, beige G3 or Wallstreet, (even though they a good machines) it's time to upgrade. Those machines don't even support USB, now an industry standard. You can pick up Blue and Whites for cheap on Ebay. Now, if the OS 9 holdout would just give in we would have a close to perfect Apple world...

the_dalex

Oct 30, 2003, 04:38 PM

I think it's ridiculous for people to expect that old systems will be able to take 100% advantage of new OS features. I also think Apple handled this badly, and should have just offered refunds to the affected people. This should never have gotten into a courtroom.

If OS X ran at 90% capacity, meaning 90% of the features worked as advertised, then I would be happy. Heck, in my opinion, 75% of OS X is much better than 100% of OS 9.

I don't know the history, did this guy try to get a software refund from Apple and was denied, then brought up the lawsuit? Or, did he go straight to the lawsuit to try to cash in?

pgwalsh

Oct 30, 2003, 04:40 PM

I think it's funny how everyone always sticks up for Apple even thought they're having to pay for something they did wrong.... Simple mistake.. but sheesh Mac people are so freaking protective... If this was MS.. you'd be all over them.. funny stuff.

prismfinder

Oct 30, 2003, 04:42 PM

I can't believe you people. Complaining that a 4mb, 8mb, or even 16mb video card isn't supported by a fully Open GL composited GUI...what are you thinking? And then having the nerve to tie-up our court systems (for which the public pays) and Apple's Attorney fees (for which all Mac users pay) all so you can have your little $25 gift certificate. PATHETIC! So what if Apple said your rinky-dink 3,4, or 5 year old machine would be supported...is it ever a good idea to install a state-of-the-art OS on a machine that's that old? I don't even try to get use out of sneakers that old and people are bitching about Open GL not working. I'll bet all you bitchers and moaners who actually cash in your gift certificate are the same ones who whine about Apple's prices. Thanks alot...all of us realists really appreciate the price hike on our next machines.

jamesatzones

Oct 30, 2003, 04:46 PM

Try running OS9 on a classic, like an SE or 512k, I think I should file a lawsuit because I have those machines sitting in my closet and I paid good cash for them.

The nerve some people have to waste the tax payers money on pointless lawsuits...

Phil Of Mac

Oct 30, 2003, 04:47 PM

It's amazing how many people who aren't lawyers and who haven't read the case in question feel like they can make better rulings than the judge and/or jury.

There's a reason we have courts and lawyers. They're not just a formality.

FelixDerKater

Oct 30, 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by besson3c
Is the first generation TiBook the 550Mhz machine? Those machines are actually QE enabled, I just discovered this today.

No. the 550MHz is a Rev. B model.

They include a 16MB RADEON card, which allows for QE support...

prismfinder

Oct 30, 2003, 05:07 PM

-----------------------------------------------------
It's amazing how many people who aren't lawyers and who haven't read the case in question feel like they can make better rulings than the judge and/or jury.

There's a reason we have courts and lawyers. They're not just a formality-----------------------------------------

How do you know who is/is not a lawyer and who has/has not "read the case"...it's public domain you know. Besides, more than likely it was a bunch of luddite jurors who run Windows and know nothing about graphic subsystems that found Apple at fault. If the judge had thought Apple had truly screwed over it's customers, he would have mandated more than a $25 gift certificate. The jury system is a joke...they'll offer any jack-off with a bruised knee a settlement.

Lawyers and judges may know the law, but they generally don't know technology. Look at the Microsoft rulings that "ordered" them to load millions of classrooms with it's software.

Phil Of Mac

Oct 30, 2003, 05:14 PM

They must have read the case pretty damn fast ;)

If they did read the case, that's fine, I'm not complaining about them.

And the jury system is as much of a joke as elections are.

sethypoo

Oct 30, 2003, 05:19 PM

That, and if you have a 6 year old system, isn't it time to upgrade?

:) :rolleyes: :D

Tuttle

Oct 30, 2003, 05:34 PM

Ok, so these folks have had their public tantrum.

Congrats. What a victory.

mrsebastian

Oct 30, 2003, 05:56 PM

is it just me or is this whole thing really silly?! i mean i'm all for getting a settlement when you get screwed, but come on. can i get a refund too, for trying to isntall osx on my old mac se?

what's really funny is that apple had to pay $350k to the blood-suckin' lawyers. they could have voluntarily put together a refund program that though i don't know the actual number of returns, probably would have cost apple half of that. while they're at it, they could have offered a refund or $100 towards any hardware purchase so people would be more inclined to upgrade.

tsugaru

Oct 30, 2003, 06:30 PM

and I live in Canada. Will this settlement reach north?

If OS X 10.0 ran at all well on my iMac A as Panther does on my Quicksilver, I wouldn't complain. However, I don't think 10.0 even really qualified as an OS worth paying for, as a lot of things were not working in it (my modem drivers, video drivers, CD burning, et al.)

At least Apple is doing this. I can't see Microsoft refunding everyone for XP every time their OSes screw up, or don't fulfill.

banzaiman

Oct 30, 2003, 06:44 PM

You have to read the notice.

TO: ALL END USER PERSONS OR ENTITIES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WHO BOTH (1) OWN OR OWNED CERTAIN APPLE G3 COMPUTER MODELS SOLD BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1997 AND SEPTEMBER 2000 ("COVERED PRODUCTS") AND (2) ALSO PURCHASED ANY VERSION OF MAC OS X FOR A COVERED PRODUCT ON OR BEFORE MAY 15, 2003:

No Canucks apply.

jayscheuerle

Oct 30, 2003, 06:57 PM

1) Apple says in writing that people's machines are supported.

2) People whose machines are supposedly supported buy OSX and finds out that their machine isn't supported, even though the box says it is.

3) They get upset and complain until Apple is forced to refund their money for a product that doesn't work as advertised.

4) Forum boneheads call them "whiners".

Seems to me that all Apple had to do was just list the machines that they knew couldn't take full advantage of OSX as "partially supported", but Apple took a gamble. They knew that this would cannibalize thousands of sales, so they let it slide, hoping that people would just "grin and bear it". Unfortunately, they underestimated the passion of their user base (silly them) and are now paying the price.

Apple's always been big with education. Looks like they got educated this time! :p

banzaiman

Oct 30, 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by sethypoo
That, and if you have a 6 year old system, isn't it time to upgrade?

:) :rolleyes: :D

Lombard was only 2 years old, and iBook SE only 1 year old, when Mac OS X came out. They are 5 years old now, but that's not what this settlement is about.

pgwalsh

Oct 30, 2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
1) Apple says in writing that people's machines are supported.

2) People whose machines are supposedly supported buy OSX and finds out that their machine isn't supported, even though the box says it is.

3) They get upset and complain until Apple is forced to refund their money for a product that doesn't work as advertised.

4) Forum boneheads call them "whiners".

Seems to me that all Apple had to do was just list the machines that they knew couldn't take full advantage of OSX as "partially supported", but Apple took a gamble. They knew that this would cannibalize thousands of sales, so they let it slide, hoping that people would just "grin and bear it". Unfortunately, they underestimated the passion of their user base (silly them) and are now paying the price.

Apple's always been big with education. Looks like they got educated this time! :p hehe I agree.

DidnÕt a law office initiate the lawsuit? I remember reading about this a while back.

Tuttle

Oct 30, 2003, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
1) Apple says in writing that people's machines are supported.

2) People whose machines are supposedly supported buy OSX and finds out that their machine isn't supported, even though the box says it is.

3) They get upset and complain until Apple is forced to refund their money for a product that doesn't work as advertised.

4) Forum boneheads call them "whiners".

Seems to me that all Apple had to do was just list the machines that they knew couldn't take full advantage of OSX as "partially supported", but Apple took a gamble. They knew that this would cannibalize thousands of sales, so they let it slide, hoping that people would just "grin and bear it". Unfortunately, they underestimated the passion of their user base (silly them) and are now paying the price.

Apple's always been big with education. Looks like they got educated this time! :p

Let's finish that list for you:

5) Apple never agains gives any indication as to how or if future versions of their OS will run on older hardware.

Once again. Congrats.

banzaiman

Oct 30, 2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Tuttle
Let's finish that list for you:

5) Apple never agains gives any indication as to how or if future versions of their OS will run on older hardware.

Once again. Congrats.

Why, thank you. Businesses should be held accountable for what they promise to their customers; businesses should not be allowed to make written sales pitches and then fail to deliver. Imagine Dell coming out now and say that their current lineup of hardware will run Longhorn flawlessly in 2006. If this doesn't hold water when it does come out, they should be ready for a similar lawsuit.

Why should Apple be any different? One may even argue that Apple is even less ethical because they sell both software and hardware (so they have better control over what can and cannot run on their computers). When I made the decision to buy a Lombard back in September 1999, I gathered all the information I could like any informed consumer. One key piece of the information was Apple's unconditional promise that it will run Mac OS X. If Apple had not made such promise, no doubt I would have held off the purchase until Mac OS X came out. I want my $3600 laptop to be as valuable as possible. Don't you?

tsugaru

Oct 30, 2003, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by banzaiman
You have to read the notice.

No Canucks apply.

I know that right now that non-US citizens are not entitled to this settlement, however I feel that Apple will honor out of US claims (unless they want class action suits from every other country.)

They should pay $350K US once, or other countries will think about this.

thogs_cave

Oct 31, 2003, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by the_dalex
They also have to send in the discs, or declare that the discs are lost or destroyed. I'm amazed people are so upset about this, unless OS X doesn't run on their computer in any usable fashion. I'd give up DVD playback for OS X features any day...

Not true, you can also keep OS X and get the $25 from the Apple Store. I'm one of the people named on the class action, and I think it was worth it. Usually, I despise lawyers, but the one who worked this with us is also a Mac user and was also affected. For my part, I had my iBook SE less than a year (from new) when I was told that many video features would not be supported.

I believe the speedup in 10.1.5 and beyond for some of the "legacy" (I hear my iBook whimpering in the corner) Macs is due to the pressure we put on Apple. I'm a faithful Mac user, having bought a *lot* of Macs over the years. (I just took delivery of my G5 DP today.) This was one of the more memorable screwings, and one that I thought went a bit too far. Many of us went out and bought systems at a time when Apple needed us, and we did it based partly on the promise that we would be supported in future releases. "Crippled support" was kind of an insult to the faithful.

I'm hapy with the results. I did buy a G5, after all. :D

prismfinder

Oct 31, 2003, 12:14 AM

My point has not been that Apple should "not be held accountable," but that this lawsuit is not effective. Those of you who think "Now Apple will pay" just don't get the big picture. A financial loss for Apple is a financial loss for its customers. It is we who will ultimately pay for your gift certificates. You don't honestly think Uncle Steve is canceling the family vacation over this one, do you?

Now, I'm no lawyer, but I do think there are more contructive ways of Apple settling this without handing out money.

ssamani

Oct 31, 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by FelixDerKater

Maybe 1st generation TiBook owners could sue for similar reasons on grounds that the included 8MB Rage128 Mobility does not allow OS X to be used to its fullest since it is not compatible with QuartzExtreme...

I think the difference is that it was made very, very clear what the min hardware requirements for QE were.

I think its a fair settlement. If you don't like Mac OS X you can have your money back and return it and if you keep it, you get a $25 rebate.

I was more than happy with Mac OS X on my beige G3 tower and that was on 10.0.x when I sold it, before all the 10.1 and 10.2 optimisations for G3's. As I recall I never had any issue with DVD playback.

Sanjay

reflex

Oct 31, 2003, 04:50 AM

reflex

Oct 31, 2003, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by prismfinder
A financial loss for Apple is a financial loss for its customers. It is we who will ultimately pay for your gift certificates.

And deceiving your customers is not bad for them? Apple made money on them (hardware & software sales). And last I heard Apple had a huge amount of cash lying around, so they could conceivably pay this and not raise prices on anything. If Apple really cares about its customers, that is.

On the other hand, Sony plans to sack 20000 people, not because they're losing money but because they want more profit. So who knows what Apple will do.

stockscalper

Oct 31, 2003, 07:42 AM

The G3 Wallstreet is listed as one of the computers yet Jaguar runs just fine on it. What's up with that?

jayscheuerle

Oct 31, 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by prismfinder
Now, I'm no lawyer, but I do think there are more contructive ways of Apple settling this without handing out money.

Like writing the drivers that would have the OS work as advertised?

garfield2002

Oct 31, 2003, 11:42 AM

In 1998 I purchased a G3/300 Minitower for college completely decked out with A/V and everything. I was the first in line when OSX was released and installed it immediately. Not having features like DVD playback did not bother me, however in terms of speed, OSX was completely unusable. At the time I just chalked it off to OSX being a radically new version of the OS, it was bound to have problems. I also purchased 10.1 which was a huge improvement (useable), but the fact was I used OS 9 on this machine right untill I sold it in 2001. So in my opinion I paid 129 dollars for the first OSX which was supposed to work on my computer, but did not. Don't get me wrong folks, I love Apple, and OSX, having purchased 10.0, .1, .2, and .3, in fact I would gladly have taken a lesser compensation than a full refund as I buy Apple OS to support them. But am I the only one who feels insulted that the other option is a 25 dollar off a 99 dollar purchase. Those cupons were sent to random people who made regular purchases from the Apple store. Becuase of this I will be asking for a refund, it'll pay for the replacement battery in my Tibook.

jayscheuerle

Oct 31, 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by garfield2002
But am I the only one who feels insulted that the other option is a 25 dollar off a 99 dollar purchase.
Of course it's an insult. Assuming everything in Apple's store is marked up 100% (common), they're still making $25 off of you which you may have spent somewhere else.

At this point, my eyes roll in a "whatever" mode. I've come to terms with OSX on my beige box at home (it does what it does) and I can only hope that Apple takes these lessons as learning experiences and sees their own faults in this instead of blaming it on the consumers who only expected what was advertised. Knowing Apple, I'm not counting on it. They're supreme marketers and marketing is the art of just dodging the lie with hyperbole, which means sometimes you cross over it when you believe your own marketing too much. Steve didn't create the SJRDF, the Apple faithful did by taking it as gospel.

brhmac

Nov 2, 2003, 02:28 PM

The G3 Wallstreet is listed as one of the computers yet Jaguar runs just fine on it.

Same question here. I have a 1998 G3 PowerBook (Wallstreet) that runs great with 10.2.8. It's never been a finer machine -- except when the CD/DVD drive worked, but that's another story.

themadchemist

Nov 2, 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by CraigMiami
lawsuit worthy? i think not. we live in a culture where it has become common place for people who if they're not getting what they want, when they want it, and how they want, or that they're getting screwed in any way, take it to court.
While i do agree that apple should have said those machines were *NOT* supported, i also think this lawsuit could be lumped with the overweight kids who sued McDonald's a few months ago because it caused them to be obese.
Lawsuits are not the way to solve all of our problems. Courts are not where all of our conflicts should be corrected.

apples and oranges, buddy, apples and oranges. I believe the second suit you mentioned was actually thrown out, and it really has nothing to do with the class action against Apple.

I agree, this is an overly-litigious society, but this case doesn't show it. I love Apple, but it broke its promise. We can't let companies get away with making false claims in order to push their products. Apple didn't come out badly with this one. It could have done a lot worse. And the people were returned to their prior state, which is fair, since I doubt that a claim for loss of productivity or some such would have been justifiable.

mrid

Mar 13, 2004, 06:32 PM

So, what's the latest on this, guys? OS X ran like molasses on my Wallstreet, and I'd like to get a refund and go back to OS 9 or linux.

gopher

Mar 14, 2004, 06:29 AM

If Apple says that those machines are supported and in real life they're not, then Apple has done something wrong. Saying something like creates an obligation that has to be fulfilled.

Not that I'd go to court over that (and certainly not for a $25 discount).

Turns out those machines are supported, but require more optimization to appear to have the same speed. http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html should help at least on the speed end. I got my Powerbook G3/233 with 512k backside (the lowest end supported machine) running 10.2 as fast as 9 was running on my machine. Apple does have also a note in their knowledgebase http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60975 that machines without Firewire need not apply for DVD burner support, and at the bottom of

http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/

a footnote which says the same thing. The only two things I know of that aren't "supported" by Mac OS X on the "supported" machines are speed without optimization, and DVD Player playback on pre-Firewire machines. Most all the machines that needed support in other respects could get USB and Firewire cards to add support for peripherals that are Mac OS X compatible. Intriguingly one serial printer is supported by Mac OS X 10.2 when you download Gimp-print. Apple's Imagewriter!

So in essence, support exists, but requires extra effort if you have an older machine.

blue&whiteman

Mar 14, 2004, 06:51 AM

leftbanke7

Mar 14, 2004, 03:48 PM

I have to agree that there are too many silly a$$ed lawsuits tying up our systems. However, that isn't why I am writing.

There has been mention about how people with old machines should just upgrade. Not everybody has that kind of money. Me included. This is the reason I am going to run this Beige G3 into the ground. I have a very finite amount of money, none of which is earmarked for a new computer purchase.

Macs are expensive, plain and simple. You get high quality but you pay for it. Why do you think that this lawsuit even came about? Because people hold on to their Macs until they can't go on any longer. Should people realize that a 6 year old computer might not work with all new software? Absolutely. Should people have to shell out 2000.00 every 2-3 years to assure themselves that they can run the latest software. I don't believe so.

Think of it this way. People would get pissed if they took their 97 Civic into the Honda dealership to be told it is no longer supported and they should upgrade.

coolsoldier

Mar 14, 2004, 04:53 PM

I ran 10.1 10.2 and 10.3 on my blue and white when it had the original G3/350 and they all ran fine, a bit slow mind you but fine. panther was amazing when I first installed it.

this is all silly. all apple did was say what systems osx will RUN on. they never made claims that it would run like the wind on one.

although my G4/500 upgrade runs x much better than the old G3/350 cpu. it runs a lot better than just a 150mhz boost.

people complain way too much.

The problem with running OS X on the old G3s is not the processor, but the RAM. Apple shipped computers (G3 iMacs for instance) that had 64 or 128 MB of RAM, claiming that they would run OS X. For those of us that ordered our machines with more than the stock RAM, it isn't a problem, but for those that ordered the machines with no upgrades, OS X is not useable (OK maybe it will boot, but beyond that you're just SOL). The issue at hand is not that these machines should run OS X, but rather that Apple shouldn't have promised that they could.

gopher

Mar 14, 2004, 05:00 PM

leftbanke7

Mar 14, 2004, 09:08 PM

An eMac is $800 new. Even cheaper ones are available used that are able to boot into Mac OS 9. So no, you don't even have to shell out half the amount you specified.

http://www.macmaps.com/usedrefurbished.html

This is where I make my case for the "headless iMac".

I think that the eMac and iMac are really unattractive not to mention they have no expandability whatsoever so in another 6 years, I'll have another painfully out of date computer (I can at least slap a processor upgrade and some PCI slot goodies into my Beige G3). If I am going to spend any amount of money on something, I had better like looking at it on a daily basis. Plus as a film major, I need something a little bit more beefy than an eMac/iMac and why should I have to settle with an old refurbished G4 (as it will be out of date in 3 years and won't run OSX 10.whatever is out at that time)?

There is NO reason Apple can not make a QUALITY, expandable, cost friendly machine. Does their consumer line have to come with a monitor? I'm not asking for them to hack the prices of their current line but is it so impossible for them to slap a 1.6 Ghz G5 onto a motherboard with perhaps a 500 Mhz bus, 256 Mb of RAM, 2 PCI Slots and a 32 MB Video Card (just a random suggestion)? Throw it into an old beige case for all I care. But channeling people into either an eMac/iMac or their Pro line is not only very limiting but very frustrating to Mac lovers on a tight budget.

This is why the PC market is so big. They have something for everybody.

gopher

Mar 14, 2004, 10:21 PM

This is where I make my case for the "headless iMac".

I think that the eMac and iMac are really unattractive not to mention they have no expandability whatsoever so in another 6 years, I'll have another painfully out of date computer (I can at least slap a processor upgrade and some PCI slot goodies into my Beige G3). If I am going to spend any amount of money on something, I had better like looking at it on a daily basis. Plus as a film major, I need something a little bit more beefy than an eMac/iMac and why should I have to settle with an old refurbished G4 (as it will be out of date in 3 years and won't run OSX 10.whatever is out at that time)?

There is NO reason Apple can not make a QUALITY, expandable, cost friendly machine. Does their consumer line have to come with a monitor? I'm not asking for them to hack the prices of their current line but is it so impossible for them to slap a 1.6 Ghz G5 onto a motherboard with perhaps a 500 Mhz bus, 256 Mb of RAM, 2 PCI Slots and a 32 MB Video Card (just a random suggestion)? Throw it into an old beige case for all I care. But channeling people into either an eMac/iMac or their Pro line is not only very limiting but very frustrating to Mac lovers on a tight budget.

This is why the PC market is so big. They have something for everybody.

Many have made the case for a headless Mac. Even so, Apple recognizes that the integration which makes their product so successful would be lost in a headless Mac. The difference with Apple is they make such a tightly close knit system, that their quality is able to stand out above the rest. Make it headless, and quality will go down. And the PC market doesn't have everything. It doesn't have the ease of use of a Mac. Macs that are 10 years old are still in use. Does that make them obsolete? No, because they are able to still be productive. How many PCs like that can you say are still productive?

blue&whiteman

Mar 14, 2004, 11:17 PM

I agree with leftbanke7 about the emac/imac. I myself only really like powermacs. its nice to be able to change your video card or add a new ata bus card or a second video card or another HD or 2. all things you could only ever do on a powermac. there is an elegance with a nice powermac old or new and the beige is one of the best ever made. you can now get 1GHz G4 upgrades for it. he just bought my old video card to throw in it also :)

a powermac says "I am a real mac... hear me roar!@#

leftbanke7

Mar 15, 2004, 09:53 AM

The difference with Apple is they make such a tightly close knit system, that their quality is able to stand out above the rest. Make it headless, and quality will go down.

How? Apple will make quality products regardless. Steve Jobs is just that way. So lopping a top off of an iMac won't change the stringent quality levels we have come to expect and love from Apple. It'll just give us one more product to choose from. I think the fear some Apple users have about a cost friendly product being a huge pile of crap is based solely on the PC world, nothing that Apple has actually done. I have more faith in Apple than that. I understand that they use top quality parts but do they only have to sell products with the biggest and fastest of the top quality parts? They release a cost friendly expandable product and you'd be surprised how many PC users would make the switch. PC users know that Apple is a quality product, they just are used to having more than 2 options to choose from and not having to pay an arm and a leg for it.

leftbanke7

Mar 15, 2004, 09:54 AM

he just bought my old video card to throw in it also :)

Looking forward to getting it. I have some ROM emulators I'd like to be able to play in real time!!!

blue&whiteman

Mar 15, 2004, 07:30 PM

Looking forward to getting it. I have some ROM emulators I'd like to be able to play in real time!!!

best idea I can give you for game performance on it is quake 3. the rage 128 would do 1024x768 in 32bit and get about 45 FPS under os9. you seem to need a very fast mac to play even lower end games under osx. tiger woods golf is about all my 32mb radeon 7000 in a faster 66mhz pci slot can handle under osx.

simX

Mar 15, 2004, 11:07 PM

Thomas Ferlauto

Mar 16, 2004, 02:03 PM

MacCentral reported back in January (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/01/26/ferlauto/index.php?redirect=1079384649000) that the settlement was approved. I had received a letter by snail mail alerting me to this fact, and said that I would receive another letter if the settlement was approved -- I haven't received any such letter yet, though.

It says I have 120 days (4 months) from the day the settlement is approved to file a claim. That would mean that if it was approved on Jan 26 (the day of the MacCentral article), I have until May 26th to file a claim.

Anybody know how to do so? The link (http://appleosx.rosenthalco.com/) originally posted in this article is broken, and there's now only a folder in which is web stats for the page.

The Court granted final approval for the settlement in January and signed a judgment to that effect. However, for legal reasons, the judgment does not become final for 60 days. That means the settlement/judgment will not be "final" until March 26, 2004. At that point in time, Apple will send out claims notices to everyone on their list of potential class members. If you received the first notice by mail, you are on the list and should receive a claims notice next month. If you did not receive the first mailed notice, you are not on the list and need to contact the claims administrator. My firm is not responsible for the administration of the settlement. Apple is responsible for the administration of the settlement. Apple has hired ROSENTHAL & COMPANY, LLC to administer the settlement. Their information is as follows:

ROSENTHAL & COMPANY, LLC
P.O. Box 6177
Novato, CA 94948-6177
Phone: 415-382-6565 or 800-211-5201
Fax: 415-382-6565
www.rosenthalco.com

Their Case Manager is a woman by the name of Tammie Schmidt. The claims notices have not yet gone out and should not go out until April. So, it should not be too late to get on the list to get a claims notice. Contact them to get on the list to receive a claims notice. Good luck.

G2Jim

Mar 29, 2004, 10:40 PM

Thank you Thomas. Great info. I wasn't ever notified, but qualify for the settlement. I'll write Rosenthal & Co.

TimDaddy

Mar 31, 2004, 09:51 AM

[QUOTE=Lawsuits are not the way to solve all of our problems. Courts are not where all of our conflicts should be corrected.[/QUOTE]

According to Ralph Nader, Americans filed more lawsuits per capita in 1840 than they are filing today. :) I don't know where that stat came from. Also, according to Nader, lawsuits filed by corporations are at an all-time high.

If you make a claim about your product, it should be true. I don't recall McDonald's ever saying that eating three meals a day at McDonald's will not make you fat, so I'm on their side about that. But, if Apple said the OS would run on a machine, it should run or your money back.

gopher

Apr 1, 2004, 06:05 PM

According to Ralph Nader, Americans filed more lawsuits per capita in 1840 than they are filing today. :) I don't know where that stat came from. Also, according to Nader, lawsuits filed by corporations are at an all-time high.

If you make a claim about your product, it should be true. I don't recall McDonald's ever saying that eating three meals a day at McDonald's will not make you fat, so I'm on their side about that. But, if Apple said the OS would run on a machine, it should run or your money back.
Define run? It does run on those machines. It may not run the way you personally like with all the bells and whistles of the newer computers, like it won't give those older machines USB 2, or Firewire, or AGP, or Quartz Extreme. There are features breaking at every cutoff point. The question I have for those complaining, have you considered just making use of your machine as is until you can afford a newer refurbished or used model?

Those who attempt to upgrade machines without regard for the actual capabilities of the machine will always be disappointed. You can't make a jet engine run on a chariot, without eventually crashing it. Yes it might move it forward a bit, and could be said to run it. But by the time it goes full steam, you'll be blown to bits. So the question is do you want to hold back the jet engines of today because they can't be put on chariots? Enough people claim Apples aren't fast enough. Apple has to push forward whether you like it or not. It doesn't mean you can't run a chariot just fine as is with a nice pair of horses. Why even in New York City there are horse drawn carriages in Central Park.

Detlev

Apr 5, 2004, 02:45 PM

That would mean that if it was approved on Jan 26 (the day of the MacCentral article), I have until May 26th to file a claim.

I just received the CLAIM FORM today. At the bottom it says, “Must Be Postmarked No Later Than July 31, 2004”

I don't think I'll be submitting anything but what was it I was missing? The Original Bondi Blue iMac died shortly after OS X came out. The Blueberry iMac didn't have dvd and has a funky monitor, and the iMac SE isn't listed as a covered product. I've got 3 or 4 copies of OS X around here. I've used the product and they seem fine.

ronhynes22@yaho

Apr 25, 2004, 08:19 AM

Did you do anything to receive the claim form for the Mac OS X settlement? I'm concerned that although a long-time Mac user, I've moved several times recently and the form may never find me.

I just received the CLAIM FORM today. At the bottom it says, “Must Be Postmarked No Later Than July 31, 2004”

I don't think I'll be submitting anything but what was it I was missing? The Original Bondi Blue iMac died shortly after OS X came out. The Blueberry iMac didn't have dvd and has a funky monitor, and the iMac SE isn't listed as a covered product. I've got 3 or 4 copies of OS X around here. I've used the product and they seem fine.