Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is interesting "Apple agrees to some OS X refunds"
- Thread starter alphaone
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I say it before, OSX is crap, it comes with some features but is slow and the file managment just makes me waiste my time.
I do not eat funky icons and unix that I won't use, moving a file in OS 9 is 3 time faster than in OSX. Moving files from here to there is what people do all the time during the entire day and OSX make me waiste my time as well my Video Ram.
I do not eat funky icons and unix that I won't use, moving a file in OS 9 is 3 time faster than in OSX. Moving files from here to there is what people do all the time during the entire day and OSX make me waiste my time as well my Video Ram.
No, real users will copy files to a backup drive, while burning a CD, with iTunes playing and a news site up in the background refreshing every couple of minutes, while Mail connects once a minute and downloads sometimes several emails with attachments (filtering out spam, thank god), all while working in PS, switching into iCal whenever anyone calls or emails to make plans... OS 9 = This is not happening. OS X = Still runs very responsively.
And this is on an iMac/400.
pnw
They were just arrogant, apple never said all the features would run on every G3 ever made.
that is why I never installed it on my 233 iMac
a) It would run Slow
b) Some features would been to be disabled
If this logic was applied to windows, almost every new windows a consumer would have a problem.
Ech, lame.
that is why I never installed it on my 233 iMac
a) It would run Slow
b) Some features would been to be disabled
If this logic was applied to windows, almost every new windows a consumer would have a problem.
Ech, lame.
you guys are always talkin up apple about how inovative they are ..... well if you want to be inovative you need to leave old tech behind so quit bitchin
Runs well enough on an old Bondi Blue with 288MB of RAM. I do need to spend $20 and upgrade the video RAM to 6MB though.
I remember getting caught in something very similar to this when windows 95 came out. It said it would work on everything dating back to a 33mhz 386 processor. But damned if my 486 dx2 66 could work at all. Can only imagine the poor fool with the 386 machine that bought windows 95.
Anyway, this is a case of doing research before buying something for your computer. That's why i always wait for reviews of software or hardware.
Anyway, this is a case of doing research before buying something for your computer. That's why i always wait for reviews of software or hardware.
I like you already.
Even though I don't post much, I've been reading these boards for about a year and a half (give or take a little)... and even though you're a switcher (with a really nice machine btw) you're ok (so far) in my book.
welcome aboard (*thinks about "down periscope" and tatoos*)
Sounds like my memory has some anger issues... I love OS X and would never think of trading it for OS9... just pickin at you mymemory... BTW my brother-in-law is from Bolivia....
Like they don't already.
:sarcasm: Windows ME is much better than 98. No really. It is. And XP is better than 2000. What you don't believe me? :sarcasm:
Don't be too hard on mymemory. He's had issues with X, and since he does a lot of audio, 9 seems to be better for him. My sister had the same issue with Photoshop. Faster in 9, especially on older computers, with not much else running.
Though, I do say the same to you mymemory as I did my sister. Get with the times! 9 is dead. It's over. Move on. You will like 10.3.
I have a Mac SE30 I can send you if you would like , grandpa.
I remember being a hardcore Windows guy and walking up to my buddies OS9 machine and trying to open a few apps and getting greeted with the out of memory error.When I asked him what was wrong he said ti couldnt handle multiple apps open at the same time. I laughed so hard I almost lost my lunch...
Repeat after me ...
OS9 is dead...
OS9 is dead...
OS9 is dead...
Oh and by the way ...I dont eat funky icons either. I like the crunchy chocolate filled ones
Apple did not make it clear that Mac OS X would not run sufficiently well on certain early G3 machines, such as the beige G3s, original iMacs, and the WallStreet PB/233.
Many of you might remember a similar suit about being able to upgrade 68040 machines to PowerPC.
As far as Mac OS X being crap--it's not. Mac OS 9 is not that great and forces a lot of compromise. Considering that it was 17 years old, it should have been pretty refined, which is what Mac OS X is not. With Mac OS X, I have several things open at once and they're not just sitting there waiting for one thing to finish before I can continue. Mac OS X excels at working the way I do.
Many of you might remember a similar suit about being able to upgrade 68040 machines to PowerPC.
As far as Mac OS X being crap--it's not. Mac OS 9 is not that great and forces a lot of compromise. Considering that it was 17 years old, it should have been pretty refined, which is what Mac OS X is not. With Mac OS X, I have several things open at once and they're not just sitting there waiting for one thing to finish before I can continue. Mac OS X excels at working the way I do.
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
OSX disabled hardware features for certain machines. It did not just run slowly. Supported implies "completely supported", not partially. Apple could have avoided this mess if they just listed said machines as "partially supported" on the box and followed up with what wouldn't work. That's showing a basic respect for your customer base. Apple could have saved a lot of money just writing a handful of drivers instead of getting stuck with $350,000 in legal fees.
Seems to me that Apple was the arrogant, lying, deceiving one. - j
What features work so poorly on the G3s that OSX should not be considered "functional?".
I run a iMac DV (in a Marathon 1U rackmount case) and a couple of iBooks, and I've never noticed any performance problems.
m.
I run a iMac DV (in a Marathon 1U rackmount case) and a couple of iBooks, and I've never noticed any performance problems.
m.
I read this lawsuit was because of 10.0 not working on older macs. Install 10.2 on them, and you might get different results. I had a brand new ibook 500 back then and I couldn't use 10.0, it just wasn't finished. Even 10.1 wasn't great.
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
These were original hardware features that were not supported on my beige G3, which was listed under "supported" (with no caveats):
1) No floppy drive support (like I cared)
2) No serial support (my printer was old anyhow)
3) No OpenGL video card support
4) No A/V personality card support
5) Limited SCSI support
and that was my machine. None of these were ever resolved with even the most recent version of Jaguar.
Other machines lost CD burning ability and DVD playing ability while in OSX.
This wasn't an issue of speed with me. It was an issue of original hardware support.
Support means support, not partial support. A chair either supports your weight or it doesn't. You either support your friends or you don't. Some people would suggest that the mere running of OSX on a machine entails support. That's rubbish and I hope I never have to count on their "support" for anything. Apple apologists should just let this one go. Apple was deceitful and conniving in their list of supported machines. A few short sentences on their packaging or on their OSX page would have saved them a lot of trouble and money.
Apple DID say that a G3 processor was sufficient, BUT:
That was a MINIMUM requirement. Simple common sense suggests that your performance with the MINIMUM requirement is going to be merely passable.
In reality, Apple really only said that OS X would run on these machines, not that it would be super fast and super efficient. While the denial of certain features may have been contradictory to what Apple promised, the poor performance with a bare minimum processor is only to be expected.
That was a MINIMUM requirement. Simple common sense suggests that your performance with the MINIMUM requirement is going to be merely passable.
In reality, Apple really only said that OS X would run on these machines, not that it would be super fast and super efficient. While the denial of certain features may have been contradictory to what Apple promised, the poor performance with a bare minimum processor is only to be expected.