All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Windows XP Service Pack 2 Build 2082
WMD:
But the thing is, still - how did OS X get slower for you when it got faster for so many others? Like bedouin's Power Mac from 2 years ago has gotten faster with each release. What is your machine missing?
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.
--- End quote ---
Why does that matter so much to you? The first Power Mac came out in 1995, why would an OS from 2001-2003 run on that? Especially from Apple, with their love of GUI and nothing else.
Your machine is from 2001...it probably has some feature missing that's killing it.
bedouin:
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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 ]
bedouin:
quote:Originally posted by WMD:
But the thing is, still - how did OS X get slower for you when it got faster for so many others? Like bedouin's Power Mac from 2 years ago has gotten faster with each release. What is your machine missing?
--- End quote ---
It's missing a decent graphics card. If the Mac he owns/owned is the original iMac, it had anywhere from 2-6 MB of video ram -- which given OS X's intense GUI, no amount of driver hacking can really make speedy. On top of that, the machine has a 266mhz CPU and a 66mhz bus. The beige G3s had similar problems, however you can upgrade the graphics card and CPU in those.
In all likelihood his machine would continue to get faster with each OS X update, but not as noticeably as one with a reasonable graphics card (since it can't take advantage of Quartz Extreme, which requires at least 16MB of video ram).
quote:Your machine is from 2001...it probably has some feature missing that's killing it.
--- End quote ---
You hit the nail on the head basically. But some people feel they were promised speedy OS X machines, when in reality I'm not sure that they were promised anything more than a machine capable of eventually running OS X, which they do.
Since Apple users are used to getting years out of their hardware, the shift from OS 9 to OS X took a lot of people by surprise. It's really a case of evolution, and I don't think Apple planned to screw anybody over.
[ August 12, 2004: Message edited by: bedouin ]
WMD:
quote:On top of that, the machine has a 266mhz CPU and a 66mhz bus.
--- End quote ---
Jimmy's iMac is 500Mhz.
hm_murdock:
quote:Throughout Apple's history
--- End quote ---
There you go... in the past. This is not the past. I still run my 7200 with OS 9.1... the OS released SEVEN YEARS after the machine.
As for my machine? It's hardly an "early G3"...
iMac Summer 2001 500MHz
Rage 128 Pro AGP4x graphics
1GB RAM
I also ran an 800MHz G4 (Quicksilver) until I sold it to buy a G5 (WORST MISTAKE EVER). The G4 was plenty pokey.
Let me point out that neither machine was *slow* in OS X. The UI was quite, quite pokey, though. Even with QE enabled on the G4 it was slow.
The G5 was unusually laggy, as well. Seems very telling.
Let me point out to you that I was a fan of OPENSTEP before anybody ever dreamed of Rhapsody, and I know how quick it was. The only real change with OS X was Quartz. The OS itself certainly didn't get slower.
And since the release of OS X, Apple has held graphics over our head like the 6th grade bully holding the candy that he stole from the 2nd grader way over his head. Then, when the crappy little free apps started requiring a 500MHz G4, and then a 1GHz G4... things got absurd.
In the last year, Apple has IMHO, gotten BAD. Yeah, they're just tryin' to make a buck, but here's their take on doing that from my point of view.
Get people to buy a Mac. Milk 'em for all they're worth before they realize that next month's software won't run on the computer they bought last month. Repeat process.
Before the end of the year, I plan on having me another Mac. Will it be new? No. Will I run OS X? Probably. Will I run Tiger? Probably not. I bought Jaguar and Panther. I'm not about to shell out again. I'll wait for the next release.
If it runs on the hardware I get.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version