quote:
Sure, it's "FUD", whatever you say, buddy boy. After all, you didn't sink $1200 into a Mac, after being promised "full support by 10.1" only to learn that AltiVec was the dividing line between first-class and second-class citizen.
Before I begin let's have a look at your original post, where you stated that Apple, "[expects] you to buy a new machine every year to run the recent upgrade of their OS!"
Throughout Apple's history they've tended to support machines for a reasonable amount of time. Machines like the IIx (manufactured in 1988) can run up to OS 7.5 (released in I believe 1995). That's a machine supported with an up to date OS for about 7 years; not bad. Or take the Quadra 700, a 68k machine released in 1991, that supports up to OS 8.1 (released in 1998). So that machine (and similar models) were supported for 7 years as well, and during a major architectural shift from 68k to PPC -- when Apple could have easily abandoned them.
Your claim, as interpreted by most, is that Apple releases OS updates and then forces its users to purchase new hardware, on a regular (you claimed yearly) basis. Something any seasoned Mac user knows is untrue.
Now, if you're upset because your early G3 system was partially supported by early versions of OS X, then perhaps you should have stated that, and not exaggerated your claims beyond it.
And for the record, I have an 800mhz G4 and an 800mhz G3 machine. For most tasks I notice no difference between the two, so AltiVec is hardly the dividing line between first-class and second-class citizens. There's plenty of people perfectly happy with OS X on their B&W G3s.
quote:
Sorry, but I remember the promise of "Rhapsody for all PCI Power Macs". Hell, I remember the promises of Copland for all Power Macs.
The shift from classic to OS X was drastic. In those days MacOS was beginning to lag behind even Windows. Big changes had to be made, and they also had to be made fast (Windows 2000 was around the corner; NT already existed). It's unfortunate that some machines did not receive full support during this transition, but it was necessary due to time constraints and a lack of resources. Apple may have made promises, but I'm doubtful that even they realized the exact path they were going to take with OS X -- Rhapsody and Copland are just prime examples of that. In the end, if scrapping complete support for a few machines meant a quality OS, then it was worth it.
quote:
I felt disappointed, felt that I'd been ripped off by Apple, and that my computer had been depreciated faster than it should have been.
Just to clear this up for non-Mac users who may not know: There's a group of G3 Macs (beige PowerMacs, clamshell iBooks, iMacs, and early PowerBooks) manufactured between 1997 and 1999 that did not have hardware DVD playback, or graphics acceleration in OS X. That meant to watch a DVD you'd need to boot into OS 9, and that Aqua was a bit sluggish on machines with only 2MB of VRAM. Put this into perspective though: a PC from 1997-98 with 2MB of onboard video and a low mhz rating probably wouldn't make a great XP machine either. I think it's unrealistic to expect Apple to completely support some of these machines in OS X.
[ August 12, 2004: Message edited by: bedouin ]
