Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple Prevents G3 Owners From Upgrading to G4 395

Posted by Roblimo from the keeping-it-proprietary dept.
sammy baby writes "Wired News is reporting that Apple deliberately wrote the firmware in the Apple G3 computers to prevent owners from upgrading them using the G4 CPU. Damn shame - I would have considered buying a G4, but I don't want to give my money to a company that resorts to tactics like this."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Prevents G3 Owners From Upgrading to G4 More

Apple Prevents G3 Owners From Upgrading to G4

Comments Filter:
  • You don't care about anything but Linux (or, dare I say, DOS?) anyway, so why are you commenting?

    I've used the MacOS almost my entire computing life and, true, a CLI is a useful thing, but I can get FAR more done with the MacOS GUI than I could with a CLI.

    I've done many useful things without a CLI, you apparently don't know how to fully use a GUI. I'm not saying this as a flame or flame-bait, but seriously, if you can't do anything without a CLI, you don't have GUI-using skills and you're baised against them. You won't even acknowledge the usefulness of a GUI.

    And as for the G3 vs P2, that's true. It was twice as fast, in integer benchmarks. But the G4 was tested using Intel's tests and came out twice as fast. The side by side demos during Jobs' keynote were quite impressive.

    The Happy Blues Man
  • Fuck Apple...fuck them right in the ear.

    Don't listen to this MacMoron...listen to me...

    A different Mac Moron.

    Points:

    1) The present G4 works perfectly in the G3. Well, it *did* at one point.

    2) These things (the cpus) were ready back in May. Apple was not. Apple asked Moto to hold off shipping the CPU's till Apple was ready, so that 3rd parties wouldn't get the jump on Apple. Moto Laughed.

    3) many people (*many*) Knew the chips were ready and were complaining, so Apple A)changed the firmware in the Rev2 G3's and B) issued a firmware update trojan.

    4) Anyone who didn't get sucked in to the initial round was sucked in when Apple issued and upgrade to OSX Server which "required" the firmware "patch".

    5) As the final blow, OS9 will *not* install on a G3 without this firmware "upgrade". Fortunatly, this has gotten out, so that Rev1 G3 owners can be made aware of this latest trick.

    The fact of the matter is, regardless of what the majority of you all believe, Apple makes good stuff. I use it, its alright. Runs Linux great.

    But there is no way in hell *anyone* can justify or evangelize this predatory bullshit behavior on their part...and if you look around on Mac Sites, you'll find most aren't.

    This is a Steve Jobs production, plain and simple, and he going to get his hand spanked quite hard for it. There are legions of folks pulling their G4 orders on General Principle until the block is reversed.

    I spend a lot of my web time here on /. and swallow a lot of Anti-mac shit without comment. But I wanted to just pipe in and point out that A) All of us aren't into getting ass-rammed like a jailhouse bitch by Steve Jobs and B) most *pros* that *use* macs (web/design/graphics/science) as opposed to highschoolers that *brag* about them have learned to walk the thin line between Mac The Computer and Apple the Dicks that Make it.

    We like our Macs but could do without Apple...especially *this* Apple.

    -K
  • ...because you head is so far up Steve's ass you can check for colon cancer...

    OR

    As I said in another post...

    Fuck Apple...fuck them right in the ear.

    Don't listen to this MacMoron...listen to me...

    A different Mac Moron.

    Points:

    1) The present G4 works perfectly in the G3. Well, it *did* at one point.

    2) These things (the cpus) were ready back in May. Apple was not. Apple asked Moto to hold off shipping the CPU's till Apple was ready, so that 3rd parties wouldn't get the jump on Apple. Moto Laughed.

    3) many people (*many*) Knew the chips were ready and were complaining, so Apple A)changed the firmware in the Rev2 G3's and B) issued a firmware update trojan.

    4) Anyone who didn't get sucked in to the initial round was sucked in when Apple issued and upgrade to OSX Server which "required" the firmware "patch".

    5) As the final blow, OS9 will *not* install on a G3 without this firmware "upgrade". Fortunatly, this has gotten out, so that Rev1 G3 owners can be made aware of this latest trick.

    The fact of the matter is, regardless of what the majority of you all believe, Apple makes good stuff. I use it, its alright. Runs Linux great.

    But there is no way in hell *anyone* can justify or evangelize this predatory bullshit behavior on their part...and if you look around on Mac Sites, you'll find most aren't.

    This is a Steve Jobs production, plain and simple, and he going to get his hand spanked quite hard for it. There are legions of folks pulling their G4 orders on General Principle until the block is reversed.

    I spend a lot of my web time here on /. and swallow a lot of Anti-mac shit without comment. But I wanted to just pipe in and point out that

    A) All of us aren't into getting ass-rammed like a jailhouse bitch by Steve Jobs and B) most *pros* that *use* macs (web/design/graphics/science) as opposed to highschoolers that *brag* about them have learned to walk the thin line between Mac The Computer and Apple the Dicks that Make it.

    We like our Macs but could do without Apple...especially *this* Apple.
  • Then why is the fix an "easy work around?"

    The same folks who claimed that Apple "broke" the G4 are also claiming that they found an easy fix for the problem. If Apple wanted the aftermarket G4s locked out, do you thing they would have done something simple, or something long and complicated?

    Not to mention that, out of a number of ROM changes over the last couple of months, *one* (and only one) broke the G4 upgrades designed by *one* company...

  • >And the people complaining are not Mac users, they are Mac haters.

    Really? How bizarre. I have an entire advertising department that uses nothing but G3 Macs. They've clutched them to their breast and given me evil stares everytime I've made half-hearted attempts to take them away. I was under the impression that they liked them, but since they are upset about this whole G4 thing, they must be secret Mac haters! Time for another talk on Tuesday!

  • Re:Big corporations -- whaddaya expect? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Except Red Hat of course??? Red Hat just went public, sapsuckah... Expect shady tactics shortly.... In fact, aren't they suing someone right now? And you think Mac users are biased....

  • WARNING WARNING WARNING: Total flaming, fact-impoverished rant follows:

    Oy, what a love/hate relationship with the Mac I have. For a tech writer who just wants to pound out a user manual, it's to die for.

    OTOH, Jobs is the worst sort of arrogant control freak -- he looks on the "share your toys" philosophy with total contempt, plus he suffers from the "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

    If he suffered clones to exist, his company would still be an industry leader and moneymaker because it would become more efficient, and the expanded market base would be more likely to spur innovation. It just might not all emerge from the labs of Apple.

  • No that is not the reason. Intel was putting the L2 cache on the die (but not the chip which is why the chips were so much larger and more expensive)

    As Cache sizes grew it became impossible to fit them on the chip and the costs became prohibitive. Slot 1 came out as a way to keep the cache close to the chip and allow larger caches without putting them on the die itself and without having to put it on the motherboard which would have caused a bandwidth and speed bottleneck while accessing the cache.

    Now that the die sizes are shrinking again and newer chips are using a .18 micron process it is once again possible to go back to putting the cache onto the processor. However with these smaller sizes the cache doesnt have to be stuck into another area on the die they can actually put it into the chip area of the die thus keeping sizes and costs down.

    -sirket
  • Aside from the fact that there are third parties that have used/made G4 upgrades in those "tampered" Blue & Whites, this doesn't dismiss the fact that a G4 put on a Yosemite (Blue & White) motherboard does not give you much of a perceptible speed gain. In FPS's like Quake and Unreal, you get about 10% and that's it. The 400mhz G4 Apple is shipping now proves that (of course, there isn't much AltiVec-enabled software to test that yet.

    To get the real power out of the G4, you need a Sawtooth motherboard, which takes advantage of all the G4's new features (increased memory bandwidth, etc.), and also gives AGP, btw. If I were to get a G4 upgrade and slap it into my Beige G3 system, I wouldn't get much of a difference than if I bought a similar-speed G3 upgrade.

    Although, yes, I would still see a large speedup with AltiVec-enabled programs, but until I got some of those (Q3 probably isn't one of them, and I don't do much video editing right now) it's not much of a difference. You could see this as Apple making sure that the ones who want the best processor they can buy also get the system that will let them use it to the fullest. I would feel gipped if I have a hugely fast processor and find out that I'm not using a lot of what it can do because my older architecture is preventing the processor for really churning out numbers.

    Before you all start smacking Apple for something, think about what it means in some other terms than your anti-corporation (they only want money), free-everything view.

    The Happy Blues Man
  • This is typical Zealot spew.

    FIRST OFF, Comparing the various x86 processor jumps is PURE BS. The G4 is not the next step up, regardless of Apple marketing fu-fu...it's more akin to the +MMX step, just done a bit better.

    Now, for some reality:

    1) The present G4 works perfectly in the G3. Well, it *did* at one point.

    2) These things (the cpus) were ready back in May. Apple was not. Apple asked Moto to hold off shipping the CPU's till Apple was ready, so that 3rd parties wouldn't get the jump on Apple. Moto Laughed.

    3) many people (*many*) Knew the chips were ready and were complaining, so Apple A)changed the firmware in the Rev2 G3's and B) issued a firmware update trojan.

    4) Anyone who didn't get sucked in to the initial round was sucked in when Apple issued and upgrade to OSX Server which "required" the firmware "patch".

    5) As the final blow, OS9 will *not* install on a G3 without this firmware "upgrade". Fortunatly, this has gotten out, so that Rev1 G3 owners can be made aware of this latest trick.

    The fact of the matter is, regardless of what the majority of you all believe, Apple makes good stuff. I use it, its alright. Runs Linux great.

    But there is no way in hell *anyone* can justify or evangelize this predatory bullshit behavior on their part...and if you look around on Mac Sites, you'll find most aren't.

    This is a Steve Jobs production, plain and simple, and he going to get his hand spanked quite hard for it. There are legions of folks pulling their G4 orders on General Principle until the block is reversed.

    I spend a lot of my web time here on /. and swallow a lot of Anti-mac shit without comment. But I wanted to just pipe in and point out that

    A) All of us aren't into getting ass-rammed like a jailhouse bitch by Steve Jobs and B) most *pros* that *use* macs (web/design/graphics/science) as opposed to highschoolers that *brag* about them have learned to walk the thin line between Mac The Computer and Apple the Dicks that Make it.

    We like our Macs but could do without Apple...especially *this* Apple.

  • Let's bag the two of 'em with butterfly nets and put 'em adrift on a raft in the Pacific or something...

  • I'm sure right next to the rom patch download there was a big warning message that said:
    "WARNING, DOWNLOADING THIS PATCH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW YOU TO UPGRADE YOUR G3 CHIP TO A G4 WHEN THEY ARE RELEASED!"
  • And you think a G3 fits in the processor "socket" in a Performa 6100?

    There will always be companies like Evergreen who make socket-adapted upgrade products, and there's almost always an "Overdrive" processor. They suck compared to the real thing, and they cost more than replacing the motherboard, but the price points are about the same as G3 cards for lesser powermacs. So are the performance specs, for that matter.

    Apple is just trying to make sure there's no such thing as a "G4" card you can slide into a 6100 you picked up for $100. If you want a G4, you buy the whole tamale.
  • in the AIM (Apple IBM Motorala) Aliance and contributes.

    They can still suck my ass, either way. I'm not amused by this crap AT ALL.

    -K
  • And I might want to use it again, it's to bad you posted as AC so I can't credit you, however.
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • What a horrible business tactic. I think a lot of people are going to realize this flaw and just not bother upgrading. Sort of reminds me of their brilliant closed-architecture policy back in the 80's.....
  • It is now a known fact that this was intentional.

    What a maroon!

    -K
  • I'd also like to add that Apple has to compete. Unlike intel, which sells it's own set of upgrades for older computers, Apple has to fight for money from the hardware upgrade vendors.

    This is just more bitching and moaning by a bunch of immature people. The upgrade companies were able to find a way to upgrade "unupgradeable" Macintoshes that didn't have a ZIF slot and required the upgrade in the L2 cahce slot or a PDS slot. If they can figure that out, I'm sure that they can figrue out a simple ROM fix. However, like somebody said before, this will probably change.

    I wish this soap opera would end sometime.

    remy

    http://www.mklinux.org

  • Any public company (except Red Hat, of course) is populated by sheep shaggers and well poisoners. This move should surprise no-one.
    The interesting this is now that the cat's out of the bag, will apple recant and release a firmware patch? My guess is... no.

    Having said that, the unfortunate mac user quoted in the article over-reacted; "It's like a computer date rape by slipping a drug in my Mac!" Stupid similes like that do no-one any good.

  • Oh? (Score:1)

    by MrKai ( 5131 )
    >And the people complaining are not Mac users, they are Mac haters.

    Could you be any more stupid? I believe as one of thefolks that bought one of those 750,000 1999 G3's I can hardly be classified as a 'Mac Hater'.

    Apple, OTOH, can kiss my *entire* ass.

    -K

  • You want something that runs MacOS?

    It's called "emulation." Look into it sometime. It's slow, G*d knows it's unstable, but it's cheap and it mostly works.

  • They're two different OSs (assuming you're comparing Mac OS with Linux or *BSD).

    Oh, so you are saying that the Mac is not technologically superior?!? :->

    It seemed like he was bragging about no crashes in a month. I have a dual boot Linux-Win98 system. I am usually in Linux for long periods so I too can say that my Win98 system hasn't crashed in a month. Of course I haven't used it in a month, so it would be an overt lie to say that Win98 is crash-proof!!!
  • Compaq used to tinker with hardware such that you couldn't use standard IDE drives. They probably had a reason, such as increased performance. They lost a lot of potential customers. They managed to get enough customers to still be around...
  • Your case idea sounds like you are drunk. I hate sharp edges, and knobs are obsolete. Cars were MEANT to be visually pleasing, as well as comfortable. But what happens with the iCrack is that you get a nice case, with curves and a rainbow of colors is a total loss of performance, and ability, and requires totally proprietary designs. My beige box can run circles around the iCrack. But if i could do nice things with my case, I would. But it had better fit standard designs. The G3 case is sorta what we should be able to get for PCs.
  • It would run, it would just be very, very hot. (I had a frend *melt* his fan beacuse his CPU voltage was configured wrong.)
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Isn't all of this speculation about the release of firmware to support G4's on Yosemite (the motherboard in Blue and White Macs) a little bit premature? I'm nowhere near being able to understand the detailes of firmware and processors but...

    The low-end G4 that was just announced is a Yosemite motherboard (the Yikes! project, right?). Won't this mean that Apple will have to release firmware to support G4 on Yosemite?

    This may be a little bit simplistic, but can't the firmware from the G4 Yosemite (grey) be pushed back to Blue and White Yosemite?
  • From friday:

    PC's have 16 irq's: 0-15
    of them about 6 are free on the modern pc (maybe one or two more)

    So I was repairing some grad student's generic pc, installed the ethernet card and his sound stopped working.

    Started by disabling LPT1 saving the needed irq, but PnP wouldn't rearrange the IRQ's properly. I finally noticed an option deep in the bios to disable the AGP IRQ, so no APG graphics for that grad student.

    Sucky huh?
  • Call xlr8 and ask them...they will tell you that they were mistaken.

    Apple did it. Period. They did it intentionally. Period. It was underhanded, anticompetitive and just plain wrong.

    Deal with it.

    The fact the the G4 400 uses the Yose Mobo minus ADB should make it *real obvious*

    The fact the Yose MB supports the G4, on the board via a re-jumpering should make it fairly obvious as well.

    The fact that the G4 cpus were reeady before Apple was ready to sell them back in May should bring it all to gether for ya'

    But the fact that OS9 has now been fiddled with to disallow installation on unflashed Yose G3s (this is a *recent* development, and one that has cause the accell companies great concern) should be the icing on the cake for you.

    It's REAL OBVIOUS at this point. Any company that put R&D into jiggering around this latest bump in the road knows that Apple can easily render their method, and products moot.

    So they have all pulled back and revised their original "we can get around it" PRs because in reality, they cannot.

    -K
  • Some of you (other) Mac Users should be ashamed of yourselves for moderating the 'pro Apple' posts on this story up.

    This is wrong, wrong, WRONG.

    As much as folks are predjudiced against mac hardware, and Apple in general, they are even *more* predjudiced against doe-eyed Mac users and Apologists for these EXACT REASONS.

    Face it. Apple pulled a fast on, and it STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN.

    Y'all might feel it is your personal duty to be unpaid employees for a Multi-Billion Dollar Multi-National Corporation, but it does NOT change the fact that this is singlehandedly the WORSE thing Apple has *ever* done.

    I hope that some reasonable folks moderate this trash DOWN, because it really casts a shameful dull yellow glow on reasonable and thinking mac persons everywhere.

    -K
  • The G4 400s are Yose G3s w/ No ADB and new skin. Nothing new has been added...not even AGP

    -K
  • No tiresome IRQ or compatibility messes.
    That's true, but it's getting better

    That's why it's a lot easier to get video editing stuff working on the Mac, and it keeps on working once installed.
    I didn't have any trouble, and I don't know anyone who has (granted I only know one other person with video stuf, but on the other hand, I used to love it when Premiere would crash the Macs at school and I would loose a couple hours worth of work)

    A Mac is still a lot more fun to use than a PC, because it has a far more aesthetically pleasing look and feel.
    maybe for you, but I hate it. what you just said was not a fact but an oppinion. You like the mac, beacuse you're used to it. I've used both macs and PCs, and I prefer the PC. I actualy started out using macs, and switched over, so it can't be *that* great.

    Did you ever read John Carmack's .plan update about starting to program the macs? He didn't like the interface ether. Many people find it ugly

    The Windows(tm) interface is both ugly and byzantine
    Again, an unqualified opinion, I think the Mac interface is ugly, windows 3.1 was ugly, but the 95 shell looks pretty nice to me (not as cool as E or something on linux, though). An appropriate thing to say would be "many Mac zealots find The Windows(tm)interface both ugly and Byzantine"

    (compare what it takes to get TCP/IP networking work on each platform, for instance).

    Hrm, lets see...
    1) Plug in Ethernet card
    2) plug in cable
    3) turn on computer

    that's all it took to get *me* on the net (DHCP is nice :)) Getting it to work over a modem, generally requires you to enter a phone number, an L/P, and nothing else. I know, I've done it.

    Whenever I need to use mainstream software such as Photoshop, I go gladly to my Mac. I'm glad it's there - and I have Irix, Linux, BeOS and Windows systems.
    That's fantastic, I will not, and if software isn't available for windows (or linux) I won't use it.

    Remember, Macs may have nice hardware setups, but they are by far overpriced (an Imac for $1200 when at the the time you could get an equivalent PC for $600 or less).
    a lot of people on /. like to mention how much 98 and NT crash. I don't know about NT, but 98 doesn't crash that often (the original 95 was pretty bad though)

    In Mac OS is the most unstable Operating System I have ever used. If given a choice, I wouldn't run anything like photoshop, given that I might loose all my work in a system crash.
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Yeah, that's the point. Why would you want to reboot after every minor change.
    Mac OS --> Control panels-TCP/IP then
    either manual enter ip, gateway etc,
    or DHCP

    less steps and no reboot like in your precious windows
    .
    The point was how much easier the Mac is to config for TCP/IP. If you don't know anything about it please stop spreading your pro windows FUD
  • Actually, if you had a clue about computer architectures, you would realize very little is different between chips such as the G3 and the G4. Nothing on board the motherboard deals with "sending ... instructions", only reading memory. I assume speed is a real issue because of different clock speeds that may not be supported on the motherboard. The data and address bus widths have reamined the same.

    Similarly, very little is different between a Pentium and PII the the pin level. However, Intel purposefully redesigned the connection to fight AMD and the like. By patenting the Slot 1, they prevented other companies from making chips that could work in Intel compatible motherboards.

    Don't be fooled by the marketing. The capability is in there.
  • you don't know what you are talking about. you can update the firmware just like any other piece of software. it is software not hardware. please do your research before you assume.
  • It's more reasonable to compare Windows with MacOS since you can't go out and buy a PC with Linux installed at major retailers,

    does Dell count?
    also, windows *does* have a very usefull CLI, it's called command.com. you can't do much network stuf, but you can pipe output from one app to another, use command line options, and interface with programs in text mode. I'ts not as cool as Bash though
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Apple is alive and kicking.
    The only people pissed off are the people who
    have a need for the speed. They bought the G3, now
    they cant upgrade. WAWAWAWAW! It is brilliant, Apple is going to hold out on making a patch for an upgrade as long as possible. If they can sell
    100 more G4's because of this, it will be worth it. And the people complaining are not Mac users, they are Mac haters.
  • Superior ?? Who told you that ? Mac bigots, perhaps.
  • Now, for those of you still spouting the rhetoric about apple's prices, I'd like to remind you that the new G4, classified as a supercomputer by the government, thus a weapon (and as of yet, unexportable to other countries), is available for a starting price of 1599. If anyone out there tells me that is too much money to pay for a computer with a top of the line processor, Modem, Ethernet, Firewire, USB, 128-bit video card, and more, plus the wonderful support of Apple (rated very highly every year) and the ease of use and increase in productivity it brings, well, then they really don't know a good deal when they see one.

    Pentium IIs aren't exportable either (to the 7 countries, mind you. Same as the G4.) Non-exportability does not a supercomputer make.

    You can get an Intel-based system with similar hardware for about $800, so yes, $1599 is way too
    much, Especially if you're planning to run Linux on it anyway. Knock off a hundred or so if you really don't need the Firewire. Granted, the G4 looks like it will have better CPU performance than the $800 PC, but if you're really worried about that, spend another $200 and add a second CPU.

    I used to support Macs. Apple support sucks. Their software is no easier for support people to support than any other. People who say that haven't spend an entire day troubleshooting incompatible inits, rebooting in between each combination. Why should I have to blow away the PRAM periodically for an unknown reason? How is that better than Windows?
  • Uh, no. Why would I keep my computer on that long?

    It never ceases to amaze me how Linux people find pleasure in bragging about how long their computer has been on. Unless you're running a web server or something mission critical, I have no idea why you would want to leave your computer on all day; especially with a terrible (I'm talking about energy saving here, people) OS like Linux. My computer goes to sleep after an hour and the screen shuts off after 15 minutes. Today's computers use so much power, I find it disgusting that people would waste that much energy and then have the nerve to brag about it.

    So, no, I haven't had the computer on the entire time, but I've used it intensively (i.e. Photoshop, Netscape, GoLive, IE, Word, Acrobat, MacAmp all open at the same time) for 12+ hours at a time and STILL have never had a crash.

    Anyway, I only mentioned that point to head off the losers who start coming down on MacOS when they realize that the hardware is superior.
  • The PII and the PIII are the same chip, retard. That's why it was so easy.

    Oh, all you have to do is get a new Motherboard and CPU??? Gee, isn't that basically like getting a new computer? All you have to do to upgrade from G3 to G4 is get a G4 motherboard, then, which apparently IBM has released.

    Just out of curiosity, how much $ IS a quality PIII motherboard?
  • The side by side demos during Jobs' keynote were quite impressive.

    wow, the side by side benchmarks at *my* keynote, proved that the G4, 8 times slower then a athlon.

    I was comparing winzip to stuffit.

    it's not to hard to make somthign 'impressive' when real benchmarks come out, from reputible sources, I'll buy it. so far, just about every benchmark to come out of apple has been bogus
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • And the people complaining are not Mac users, they are Mac haters.

    True, I don't use a Mac but I actually kinda of like them (except for the stupid one mouse button). I keep hearing good things about PPC Linux, which makes me wish I could afford one!
  • So that all the "What's the Big Deal?/3rd Parties" mac folk in denial will be up to speed and stop looking like complete boobs to those in the know, let me tell you what this 3rd Party Upgrade maker did, and why they are now saying "Ooops! heheh...sorry"

    They basically figured out how to roll the firmware revision back, hence allowing the G4 ZIF cards to function, pretty much proving there is a processor check.

    Now, the problem w/ this is, well, this: OS9 has quite suddenly *required* that the Firmware update be in place or it won't install.

    There is no way around this.

    Since OS9 will be out in about a month and new releases of MacOS are always hot sellers, there is no way they can back up their claim the said ZIF upgrade will work, because it effectivly means freezing the machine at 8.6

    This has, BTW, been verified by many people who are supposed to be keeping their mouth shut about such things (NDA) but are frankly too pissed to care.

    So, would you people please do the right thing and fall in line now? If you keep up this "Who's to say it was intentional" nonsense there will be nothing us sane Mac using persons can do to save you.

    -K

  • Re:Be (Score:1)

    by Ashen ( 6917 )
    Okay, you're right, I agree completely, the victims are the people who now don't have any alternatives to MacOS besides linux. Be's move to x86 was probably the best move they could've made.

    And I can't blame them for not wanting to reverse engineer. It isn't worth their time when they could move all their focus to x86 architecture.

  • You missed the handout Zac (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As of this weekend all the upgrade companies are saying that the G4 cpu will not boot in Yosemites that have the latest boot ROM. If you have an early B&w boot rom v1.0f* then you're Ok to put in a G4. If you bought a later G3, you're SOL.

    At the center of this blowup are those people who had a v1.0 Yosemite and TRUSTED Apple and installed the boot rom "update". Their Yosemites are now blocked from receiving a G4 upgrade.

    Even those with the early boot rom who didn't get suckered by the rom "update" have a gripe: If they upgrade their cpu to G4, immminent MacOS upgrades apparently will not install on their machine. They must update the boot rom to the "blocked" versions to install OS-9, or OSX. Then their cpu won't boot. They're being Steved. Get it? You buy everything all over again or you're out.

    Please read this week's G3/G4 articles at xlr8yourmac.com and the most recent press releases at newertech.com and xlr8.com to bring yourself up to speed.

  • You said that they did it to be anticompetitive, but you have yet to mention what Apple has to gain by doing it. Think about it, nobody who just bought a several month old G3 is about to replace it just b/c G4s are out! They *might* upgrade if they really need the speed, but that's it. Apple doesn't even make upgrades, they aren't competing with companies like XLR8!

    The fact that there is a G4 with a Yose motherboard should make it obvious that a ROM update already exists (or will by the time they start shipping, which wasn't really the day they were announced). And if they don't make that update available to everyone, what will they do when it's time to upgrade the G4 Yose ROMs to stop a G3 owner from using it? Any roadblocks they would put up could be circumvented.

    As for the OS 9 ROM requirement, it is not uncommon for Apple to ensure that firmware updates are in place when making an upgrade. This frees them from testing with every single ROM version ever made. G4 issues aside, there's no reason not to have the latest ROMs.

    Judging by your user info, I would venture a guess that you're really pissed off at the problem. I will be too - if it isn't fixed. But for now, I'd suggest you calm down.

    Btw, Apple _can't_ say that any of their machines are upgradable due to a fiasco involving Performa upgrades a while ago that led to a class action suit.


    -Rafi

  • While I would never touch a mac with a ten foot pole I do know several people who own macs and upgraded their firmware for the exact reason Apple released the patch. These people were having pci problems (or what seemed like pci issue) and the patch did in fact repair this problem. The fact that it also took away g3 upgradeability was not published and wasnot discovered until after they had applied the patch.



    -sirket
  • This is old news...when people started getting their hands on g4s somehow (motorola ones, no altivec I think?) they worked fine, until people did the mac equiv of bios flashing, and found OPS no boot. Thanks to apple, new revisions said "Hey! you're breaking one of the ten commandments, 'thou shalt not modifieth thine hardware beyond apple approved *cough*overpriced*cough stuff' no soup for you!" ;)

    This is months old. I know this, and I'm not even a mac guy!

    Ok, now I'll read the posts.



    Anonymous Coward, get it? :)
  • If you really do care the least bit, rather then trying to play the "I am smarter than group x!" game, you could spen maybe 2 hours of your
    life reading up on it a bit. Understanding the world and people in it is actually a good thing.

    Yah, but I find blind hatred so much more rewarding than being nice and understanding. Where would this world be without hate? No guns, no holocaust, no denial of service attacks. Hate makes the world go round.

    Plus veg[etari]ans suck at driving, and don't know the different between the fast lane and the slow lane... and lanes all together.

    Kill 'em all!
  • The feds classify it as a supercomputer, but they're the only ones.

    Of course, in the age of beowulf clusters, the idea of supercomputers is obsolete.

    (And clusters have been possible for as long as computers have been around.)

    Yup. It makes as much sense as the crypto export laws.
  • My bet is that the Mac OS 8.6 CD that ships with the G4s will install an "Enabler" to allow it to run. They always do that with brand-new hardware.

    PCM2
  • Actually, I did hear all the rumors a while ago. XLR8 has the first confirmation I've seen, however. XLR8 is NOT the only entity working on a fix - vMac is working on one as well (if I can find the link I'll post it), and says it isn't much of a problem.

    I already read what you CP'ed, and it is no indication that Apple will not fix the problem. And, as I pointed out to MrKai, Apple has nothing to gain by doing this. Nobody who just bought a G3 computer will replace it so quickly! Instead, they would only cause the anger that is being displayed now. Apple could figure that out easily.


    -Rafi

  • Nobody is saying Jobs didn't do those things.. because he did.. more than 10 years ago. He was booted out of Apple, and has since returned. Lots of people had really questioned the move when they asked him back, but he has proven to have turned over a new leaf.. gotten Apple's stock from a 10 year low to an all-time high. What you wrote is only a half-truth, like the fact that the G3's aren't upgradeable. They are. Check out:

    http://www.xlr8.com/

    XlR8 antipated releasing G4 upgrades to G3 machines shortly. They just have to do a little more software tweeking to get them to work than previous models needed. This does not mean that Apple will not modify the existing ROMs to make it simpler to upgrade.. they respond well to user feeback.. just look at their Open Source Darwin license, which they modified within the first few weeks due to feedback from users.

  • What a horrible business tactic.

    Woa, wait a sec. Actualy its not, with the exception of (the few) people like you who see it like you do (I think a lot of people are going to realize this flaw and just not bother upgrading), most people will end up buying a g4, that makes a lot more $$ for apple.
  • Please send me, FedEx overnight, at least one ounce of whatever you're smoking.

    The products that made 3d graphics take off on the PC are most definately based on closed, proprietary API's like Glide and Direct3D - OpenGL, for that matter, isn't exactly open either. See the disclaimer in the Mesa docs where it explains that they can not legally make the statement that it is "OpenGL Compatible" as that would require having run the OpenGL compatibility tests, which you can only do after having signed a pricey license agreement with SGI.

    Even so, while Quake uses OpenGL, the vast majority of games use D3D, or, when taking for instance Descent 3, they support both, but the D3D support is far superior.

    Why? Because Microsoft goes out of their way to make sure people can and do use D3D effectively, and SGI has neither the money nor the pull to do the same with OpenGL. At least not on the Windows platform.

    The 3D graphics industry has taken off due to intense competition and price wars. Openness had little to nothing to do with it.

  • and BeOS with the pervasive multi-threading.

    Ummm... 'Cuse me. But, umm... When hasn't Linux had this. I'd hardly call this "new ground".

    Don't get me wrong. I love BeOS, but there is very little truly new in them. SGI's have had journaling file systems, pervasive multithreading, and such for a long time. Now the rest of the world gets to play with it.

    Not so much a technology, but a result of starting from scratch, the BeOS API is the most beautiful API on the planet. They had a well defined design from the beginning that allowed them to implement everything really, realy well.

  • Ok,

    I'm not defending apple here, but Intel is far from guilty in this arena. Anyone heard of slot1, slot 7, slot foo? They changed it so that people couldn't just stick an AMD or Cyrix into their old machine to make it a much faster machine. They crippled the x86 upgrade market to make more $$$. If apple does the same thing, then that makes the just as guilty.
    moral of the story : companies _will_ do whatever they feel is necessary to survive. period

    BTW, my stupid winmodem won't work with linux. I love all these wonderful "innovations" in the x86 market.

  • the g3 was sold as "the most upgradable machine ever..."
    the g4, unlike your argument for 486/pentium or p2/pentium... fits in the same slot. uses the same bus speed. etc... there is NO engineeering reason for it not being upgradable.
    Apple has turned evil, and as much as I would like to have one... no thanks. I will wait and buy one from an oem instead. I will never give apple a dime after seeing this.
  • > You said that they did it to be anticompetitive, but you have yet to mention what Apple has to gain by doing it.

    No, what I said was they did and it *is* anticompetitive.
    The reason is simple: To get folks to put money in Apple's pocket, not anyone elses.

    And quite frankly, I do not feel morally oblicated to swell AAPL's bottom line.

    Why would I pay $1600 now to upgrade to a G4 400, when I can pop one in my machine (or rather could) for half the price in 6 months?

    >The fact that there is a G4 with a Yose motherboard should make it obvious that a ROM update already exists.

    No, what it makes obvious is that fact that the machines Apple *wants* to have G4s in them do. These would be ones you buy from them, as opposed to getting the G4 from another vendor.

    >As for the OS 9 ROM requirement, it is not uncommon for Apple to ensure that firmware updates are in place when making an upgrade.

    ROTFLMAO...

    Please point to Flashable bios firmware havin' Pro Macs before 1999. What's this? They don't exist? Do tell.

    >This frees them from testing with every single ROM version ever made. G4 issues aside, there's no reason not to have the latest ROMs.

    Riiiight...are you aware that Apple presently make 4 machines, not 24? This assertion is no longer relevant.

    > Judging by your user info, I would venture a guess that you're really pissed off at the problem. I will be too - if it isn't fixed. But for now, I'd suggest you calm down.

    And I'd like to suggest that you wake up and smell the coffee? BTW...Do *you* have a Yose G3, or some old assed Mac? Have you recently contributed to the large amount of cash that Apple has sitting in the bank, or are you just blowin' smoke?

    >Btw, Apple _can't_ say that any of their machines are upgradable due to a fiasco involving Performa upgrades a while ago that led to a class action suit.

    For the Love of God, man...

    Apple can say any machine is upgradable providing that it is. *That* particular case had to do with them not providing an upgrade they said they would, or that upgrade not working.

    I was THERE...I bought one of those machines, and when I found out that the upgrade wouldn't work in a machine they said it would, without bloking the slots and reducing the functionality, they took it back and gave me a 6100.

    Those were the days...but this crap...oh hell no.

    -K
  • The chips weren't ready (not in volume, anyway). AltiVec issues, mainly. Second, didn't you hear what I said? The block doesn't function on a new OS.

    So, it's either a block against upgrading a processor, or it's to force people to upgrade their OS. Which one is more likely to generate money?

    best to you.

  • Whatever comes off as ethical to the consumer most likely ties into marketing of some kind.

    Unfortunatly, that is all too often exactly what is going on. It does not relieve big corperations of their obligations to society (even if society's stewards (legislators and courts) are also shirking their duty)

    I have no problem with a company giving me what I want (a great product) in return for what they want (some of my money) as long as they stay within ethical bounds. It IS possable to do that. It is the basis of ALL trade since before there was money (barter).

    Reasons why corperations need to be concerned about ethics:

    • Ethics are the basis of a functional society
    • Some way or another, you get what you give
    • If you go too far for too long, society will destroy you at any cost. (Ask the French aristocracy). Failing that, you'll have disgruntled nuts shooting up your board room (and you).

    Note that for corperations, the last item can include boycotting your product and cheering as some politition who needs votes (or your competition's dollars) goes after you.

    Personally, I believe that if corperations want to enjoy the legal fiction of personhood, they should also face the same consequences as a person. Forget fines for criminal acts (which often don't add up to the profits from those acts). Substitute forced closure of the company for jail time, and forced disolution of charter for the death penalty.

  • (and if you believe somehow the humans are superior...that is plain specieism.

    aaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaahAHHAAHHAHAAH AHAHAH

    people think some species are better then others beacuse some species *are* better then others! are cock roaches on the same level humans? no they are not. Are you trying to shame someone for being a speciest? geez Other anmials have no problems eating, even brutaly killing other kinds of anmials (even for fun sometimes) why should we?

    and what about those poor plants?
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Can I plug an Athlon into the P100 I am using?
    no, but you could plug a 400mhz k6-3, if your using a socket 7 board. if you're using a socket 5 board, you can get a super7 for less then $60

    Did Intell release an official PI-PII upgrade
    Yes they did. it's call a P-Pro overdrive, I belive.



    the thing is, g3's and g4 use the same socket, so while you can't upgrade your 386 to an Athlon, do to physical restrictions. you Can take a celeron 266 up to a pIII 600, a p66 up to a k6-3 450 and so on. If a PC chip uses the same interface it *can* be used. there are no software locks
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • >The reason is simple: To get folks to put money in Apple's pocket, not anyone elses. And to this I keep asking: Would anyone who bought a computer no more than 9 months ago just go out and replace it??? I don't think so. And a few years down the road, it will probably pay to buy a new one as opposed to upgrading anyway. >No, what it makes obvious is that fact that the machines Apple *wants* to have G4s in them do. These would be ones you buy from them, as opposed to getting the G4 from another vendor. But if they're the same motherboard, then once the next ROM update comes out for Yose, G3 owners will get the same ROMs are Yose G4 owners! >And I'd like to suggest that you wake up and smell the coffee? BTW...Do *you* have a Yose G3, or some old assed Mac? Have you recently contributed to the large amount of cash that Apple has sitting in the bank, or are you just blowin' smoke? Actually, I have a Rev.A iMac, not to mention that I'm a shareholder in the company. So while the issue doesn't effect me directly, I am concerned by it. >Apple can say any machine is upgradable providing that it is. *That* particular case had to do with them not providing an upgrade they said they would, or that upgrade not working. But they have to cover their behinds. If some some strange reason nobody makes an upgrade for a particular model computer (VERY unlikely I know) and they say it can be upgraded, they can be sued. The only way it would work is if they say "Well it could theoretically be upgraded if someone made an upgrade" - and that's not a good idea either b/c if some roadblock is encountered (not a ROM thing, some technical glitch) that can't be fixed, the upgrade makers could sue Apple.


    -Rafi
  • When was the last time you saw a 486 motherboard that was upgradeable to a pentium?

    Well, a few years ago on my first job as computer technician, I had upgraded a few 486 to Pentium. These where equipped with the very latest 486 mobo before the Pentium come out and where labelled "Pentium Ready". Basically, they where PCI-based motherboard, with the 486 soldered on board and equiped with an empty Socket 7. You dropped a low-end Pentium (60, 66 Mhz), set a few jumper and tada! you got a Pentium machine.

    I highly doubt the upgrade was significant (from 486 DX4/100 to Pentium 60 ?), but we had a few customer who asked for it. If my memory is correct, only mobo from Intel had this feature.

    Beside that Evergreen, Intel and a few other manufacture CPU upgrade that could be used as drop-in replacement. Yes, you're stuck with the limitation of bus, chipset, etc. but so are you with the different Mac CPU upgrade.

    And how much a CPU upgrade for Mac cost ? A few hundreds $, last time I check. For 200$, I can buy a brand new mobo and AMD K6-2 processor and upgrade those aging 486/Pentium, while getting all the benefit of newer chipset and speedier bus. Is this possible on Apple hardware?
  • what the fuck is that? a supercomputer with just one CPU? hahaha! that's a joke. if your just talking about performance, then the Pentum 75 I got in 1995 was as fast as a supercomputer from a few years ago. The only conclusion I can come to from your post is that you are brainless mac luser. sorry.
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • (compare what it takes to get TCP/IP networking work on each platForm, for instance).
    Control Panel/Network/Add/TCP-IP/
    enter ip#,sUbnet,Dns/reboot (ok thats the pathedic step).
  • Sorry, didn't format the original reply correctly:

    >The reason is simple: To get folks to put money in Apple's pocket, not anyone elses.

    And to this I keep asking: Would anyone who bought a computer no more than 9 months ago just go out and replace it??? I don't think so. And a few years down the road, it will probably pay to buy a new one as opposed to upgrading anyway.

    >No, what it makes obvious is that fact that the machines Apple *wants* to have G4s in them do. These would be ones you buy from them, as opposed to getting the G4 from another vendor.

    But if they're the same motherboard, then once the next ROM update comes out for Yose, G3 owners will get the same ROMs are Yose G4 owners!

    >And I'd like to suggest that you wake up and smell the coffee? BTW...Do *you* have a Yose G3, or some old assed Mac? Have you recently contributed to the large amount of cash that Apple has sitting in the bank, or are you just blowin' smoke?

    Actually, I have a Rev.A iMac, not to mention that I'm a shareholder in the company. So while the issue doesn't effect me directly, I am concerned by it.

    >Apple can say any machine is upgradable providing that it is. *That* particular case had to do with them not providing an upgrade they said they would, or that upgrade not working.

    But they have to cover their behinds. If some some strange reason nobody makes an upgrade for a particular model computer (VERY unlikely I know) and they say it can be upgraded, they can be sued. The only way it would work is if they say "Well it could theoretically be upgraded if someone made an upgrade" - and that's not a good idea either b/c if some roadblock is encountered (not a ROM thing, some technical glitch) that can't be fixed, the upgrade makers could sue Apple.


    -Rafi

  • When was the last time you saw a 486 motherboard that was upgradeable to a pentium? Or even a pentium motherboard that was upgradeable to a pentium 2?

    I upgraded my old 486-33 to a Cyrix 5x86-120, which offered "pentium level performance", I'm currently using an AMD K6-2 300 on a super 7 motherboard - upgradable to a k6-3, which can beat a P3-500 in interger perfromance - and yes, you can plug in a pentium 166mmx into this motherboard if you feel like it, thus making it a pentium motherboard.

    available for a starting price of 1599. If anyone out there tells me that is too much money to pay for a computer with a top of the line processor, Modem, Ethernet, Firewire, USB, 128-bit video card, and more

    For $1599, you can also buy a top of the line DELL computer with a P3-500, more memory, more hard drive space, all those features except the firewire, and a better video card... oh wait, it comes with a MONITOR too! what about that G4? I don't see a monitor anywhere...




    _______________________________________________
    There is no statute of limitation on stupidity.
  • Only enough to know that you couldn't put the kernel into it (nowhere near enough space; even the floppy-based distro kernels are probably too large). Besides which, that would mean yet another rewrite of the kernel into portable fcode (the bright side of this is that the same kernel would then be able to run on any OF-based machine without ever being compiled on any of them).

    Problem is, there's nowhere near enough room in OF to do that. There are some other pretty cool things you can do with it, though. One guy even wrote a playable version of Pong for OF.
  • Hardly. Maybe to YOU, but who the hell are you to say what every computer should do?

    iMacs are the right computer for a whole lot of people. That's why Apple's selling a ton of them.

    If you don't think computers should be easy to use, you're part of the problem.
  • Hrm, lets see...
    1) Plug in Ethernet card
    2) plug in cable
    3) turn on computer

    that's all it took to get *me* on the net (DHCP is nice :)) Getting it to work over a modem, generally requires you to enter a phone number, an L/P, and nothing else. I know, I've done it.

    Really!? Well you're lucky then. I talk to countless people almost every day who canNOT get their ethernet card to work let ALONE their modems.

    Here at the University, there's just one extra step (get your network card "certified" or the DHCP won't assign you anything). Everything else should be easy, right? Put the card in, reboot, plug-n-pray detects it, drivers install, DHCP assigns, and away we go. Nope! Not in 9 cases out of 10.

    Most of the time, Plug-N-Pray doesn't detect the card (usually they're 3com EtherLink cards) which means a driver installation. Then there are the lovely times that there are hardware conflicts. Then, we get into the network configuration (adding tcp/ip for your network card at *least*). Then we reboot and MAYBE you have a network connection.

    Modems? Ha! Sure they're similar to the NIC to install (plug in, see if Plug-N-Pray detects, install drivers if not). We've had a LOT of cases where the modem conflicts with the ethernet card and won't dial up; remove the card's tcp/ip information and it magickally re-adds itself again!

    Then there's the dial-up configuration. It's "easy" if you have an ISP that doesn't have assigned DNS/WINS IPs (just enter the phone number and away you go), but what if you do? Then it's even MORE fun!

    So we look through our dial-up packet for the PC... about 10 pages (conservatively). Then we hit the Mac packet... 5 (generously). Yes, I said five and that's on the HIGH end. Given that both are recent systems (MacOS 7.something and win9x), the Mac system is MUCH easier to set up on the 'net.

    If you disagree, I welcome you to come down and work a busy afternoon doing phone helpdesk support for me. After it's done, you can let me know how many problems you had with the Windows TCP/IP garbage.

    -nicole

  • The firmware was broken for a reason... (Score:4)

    by base2_celtic ( 56328 ) on Saturday September 04, 1999 @12:07AM (#1705454) Homepage Journal
    Robert Morgan of RFI has seen Firmware 1.1 machines running with G4 chips. They were running Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X Client. These two OSes contain code to allow a machine to use a G4. The firmware was implemented to make sure that no non-OS 9/X G3 uses a G4 chip, because the machine will die... in a big way. The G4 does things really differently to the G3, and OS 8 of any version just cannot handle it. So it's not a block. It's a bug fix. Get a copy of Mac OS 9 or Mac OS X Client, and you'll be sweet. all the best, base2_celtic (pipeline 256)

  • Good links (Score:4)

    by crayz ( 1056 ) on Saturday September 04, 1999 @12:08AM (#1705457) Homepage
    http://discuss.info.apple.com/boards/powermac.nsf/ ccb088a1de6aac738525631c0067846b/79720ab 376a518ed862567e00068b29d?OpenDocument

    is a thread on an Apple message board, where supposedly Apple will post the info about whether they'll fix the ROM.

    http://discuss.info.apple.com/boards/powermac.ns f/by+Topic?OpenView

    That's a more general link to the PowerMac forum, where lots of people are complaining

    http://www.maccentral.com/forum/

    Is a forum on MacCentral.com, where I have put up lots of comments about this problem, and other users have also been talking about it.

    http://www.macintouch.com/bg3upgrade.html

    Is a link to a Macintouch area where user e-mails are posted.



    What it comes down to is that Blue G3 owners(like me) are extremely mad. We have been hearing daily about the amazing things some developers are going to be doing w/ the G4 and AltiVec and we want in.

    Apple got a lot of the early buyers(like me) to install a ROM update that was advertised as improving PCI performance(and probably did) that disabled G4 support. Apple did not tell us this and still has not admitted it.

    Many Blue G3 owners have already said they will never buy a Mac again, others are looking at legal alternatives(class action suit because Apple removed a feature that was in our machines when we bought them w/o our knowledge).

    Basically, Apple is in deep shit. If they don't know it by now, they've gotta be brain dead.

    Apple had better put out an explanation and a fix real fast.

  • That's the whole point, they will release a fix for it, but only after a couple of months, so that people who want the very latest and very best have to buy a whole new computer.

    This beats the never realized Intel plan to lock the clocks of their processors in lameness factor.

    -
    /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.

  • Sheesh (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Did any of you actually read the story? A simple firmware update solves the problem. Hell, they've put out a few of those already, to fix problems with the iMac cd-roms. Look people, just because you see the Apple logo, doesn't mean in you need to type some half assed tirade that Jobs is evil, Apple is the same as *insert company name here*, or complain about Apple being "closed".
    p.s. No one *cares* if you think color cases are ugly. They were not designed for you.
  • What I meant by 'pervasive multi-threading' is the integration of threading in the GUI. Under BeOS, if I have two browser windows open and one is loading a page, I can concurrently type into the other window and/or bring up a new window entirely. I've seen this in other Be programs, so I think it's a feature of the OS.

    I don't see that in Netscape for any platform, SGI and Linux included.

    D

    ----
  • No tiresome IRQ or compatibility messes.

    That's why it's a lot easier to get video editing stuff working on the Mac, and it keeps on working once installed.

    Both of those issues are probematical with the PC.

    A Mac is still a lot more fun to use than a PC, because it has a far more aesthetically pleasing look and feel. The Windows(tm) interface is both ugly and byzantine (compare what it takes to get TCP/IP networking work on each platform, for instance).

    Whenever I need to use mainstream software such as Photoshop, I go gladly to my Mac. I'm glad it's there - and I have Irix, Linux, BeOS and Windows systems.

    D

    ----
  • It'd help a lot of those both on /. and those that post to /. would research what they are talking about.

    The G3s are upgradeable. If Apple or a 3rd party company wishes to offer G4 upgrade cards they can, just a little more work. In fact, there is one company that already has working cards (can't remember the name right now). I'm not saying that the firmware decision was a good one, but they never said you could upgrade a G3 to a G4 in the first place. This "story" was out months ago in a number of places. Too bad it took wired.com and /. to proliferate half-truths.

    Cameroon
  • I think what hapined is that when Apple was testing this rom update, since they didn't ever claim that the machines would be G4 upgradable, they simply didn't test it with a G4 chip.

    Consider that it is XLR8, not Apple, that is saying that it was intentional. Now when XLR8 comes out with their upgrade that gets around this, they will have that added 'cool' factor of having beaten the big evil Apple. Therefore I find anything that XLR8 says on this issue to be suspect.

    That being said, it is certainly possible that Apple did this intentionally, but I think that the scenerio described above is more likely. In any case, there will be a fix that will get around this, with or without Apple's help.

  • Upgrades (Score:3)

    by daviddennis ( 10926 ) <david@amazing.com> on Saturday September 04, 1999 @12:30AM (#1705514) Homepage
    I don't know about you, but for the most part I find that upgrades are not cost-effective - you won't spend much more if you buy a whole new machine and sell your old one.

    I think Mac users got into the habit of doing upgrades during Apple's darkest days, when they were just not responsive to consumer demand. Based on the reaction of people to the new G4, I don't think we can accuse them of that now.

    I'm not inclined to think of Apple's action as a good thing - I think it's a mildly bad one. But I'm not sure it warrants the extreme negative reaction it's received so far.

    D

    ----
  • The vMac people have been doing ROM patching for quite some time, and BasiliskII is practically built apon it.

    How hard could it be to write a G4 enabler via an OF-based bootloader?
  • Wired is a bit behind talking about this; it was discussed on MacOSRumors nearly a month ago, and concluded that if Apple's motivation were to keep people from upgrading, they'd have done a better job of it. Come on, like they could really stop Newer Technology and the others. These people found a way to put a G3 in a 5-year-old 6100/60. It wouldnt surprise me to hear that they can get around any damn firmware they please. When i can afford my G4 upgrade, my 7500 will be 6 years old. Try that with anyone else's hardware.
  • The video editing card for my beige G3 is a third-party card. The only thing closed about the hardware is that Apple's the only company that can make it.

    Open hardware tends to drive down prices very fast, but it doesn't seem to lead to innovation. I think this is because consumer demand is not for innovation, but lower prices above all.

    You know, it's interesting that the most intriguing hardware comes from closed or partially closed systems. We hear more "cools" and "awesome" when we talk about vendors of closed systems like Apple or SGI. When's the last time we featured an article like "HP comes out with new Pavilion line of PCs"?

    Granted, we may not be able to afford some of these "cool" systems. But I have yet to see proof that openness can create something "insanely great" like the Mac or BeOS. And - before you ask - I consider Linux "great". But not insanely so, because it's just an excellent copy of something that already existed. MacOS and BeOS both broke new ground in some way - Mac with the GUI and BeOS with the pervasive multi-threading.

    D

    ----
  • Not that Apple doesn't use cutthroat business techniques, (as do most other Big Money Corps) but I have to defend them here. They didn't 'Disable' anything. Can you upgrade a Pentium (586) to a Pentium II? Not really... not directly anyway. Sure, you can stick an 'upgrade' CPU in A PCI slot or retrofit it into the socket7(?), but there needs to be new hardware surrounding the 'upgrade' chip that makes it look like the OLD CPU to the motherboard's chip set. This has been done for years. In reality, it's usually a waste of money. No matter how fast your 'upgrade' CPU is, you're limited by the bus and by the chipset(s) that funnel data to and from the CPU. This is just common sense.

    The G4 has a different Architecture compared to the G3. And yes, you CAN upgrade a blue G3 with 1.1 firmware to a G4. But why? it will make the machine go a little faster, but you won't get the performance of the new G4, since the support chipset won't know that it can send 4 simultaneous instruction streams at the thing anyway. So what's the big deal. If you *really* want the G4 machine's performance, sell your G3, and buy a G4. The resale value on the G3's won't be much lower than what you paid, and the price difference would probably cost less than an upgrade card (Since you aren't wasting a G3 in the process)

    OR, save your pennies, and wait for the G5 :-)

  • To some extent. However, I'm typing this on a no-name PC running Linux. I like it much better than what the competition was offering. Want a good computer w/ a pretty package? Buy a good motherboard w/ Athelon and hire an air-brush artist to make it pretty.

  • True. Apple definitely hasn't done as well as one might like in making their systems accessible to the less moneyed.

    At the same time, I'm not convinced that PC upgrades are any more cost-effective if you want to get the same level of performance as you'd get with a new system. You can certainly upgrade individual components, as you did, but if you want the performance of a new PC, nothing beats wandering down to the store and buying a new one.

    D

    ----
  • Sadly, I've never owned a NeXT.

    Hopefully, MacOS X will be interesting.

    However, this actually bolsters my basic point - NeXT is a closed system, too. :-)

    D

    ----
  • Well, Apple's stock just broke its all-time high (which was from 1991). I'd venture to say that their death is not imminent.

    As for the G4 upgrades, Apple is trying to stop them because of the same reasons they killed the Mac clones: they want the third-party vendors to provide the low-end solutions, not the cutting edge stuff where the best profit margins are.

    This policy is obviously questionable, but you have to remember that Apple is not just yet-another-computer-maker, they are a systems company. There isn't any free competition in the RS/6000 or HP/UX markets either.

  • an you upgrade a Pentium (586) to a Pentium II? Not really... not directly anyway. Sure, you can stick an 'upgrade' CPU in A PCI slot or retrofit it into the socket7(?), but there needs to be new hardware surrounding the 'upgrade' chip that makes it look like the OLD CPU to the motherboard's chip set.
    That is the absolute worst way to upgrade. I've never quite understood those products, but anyways. Umm but anyways, You can buy a motherboard and a k6-2:450 for under $200.
    Though you will have to pay closer to $300 for a pentium II, thats not an architectual problem.

  • Please folks! (Score:4)

    by Laurion ( 23025 ) <laurion@l[ ]r.net ['ebo' in gap]> on Saturday September 04, 1999 @01:30AM (#1705601) Homepage
    • Ok, for starters, I am here to defend Apple. If you don't like that, go somewhere else. I've seen a lot of people complaining about Apple starting to use business tactics that they don't like. Well, let's see here. When was the last time you saw a 486 motherboard that was upgradeable to a pentium? Or even a pentium motherboard that was upgradeable to a pentium 2? On top of this, Apple has never ever said their G3 systems would be upgradeable to G4. For that matter, they never said any of their prior systems would be upgradeable to G3, but lots of third party companies made those upgrades, and believe me, there are companies that are making G4 upgrades, even for those G3 users who installed the ROM which purportedly makes them unupgradeable. No one really knows this for sure, as no one has tried AFAIK. All this hype is about mere rumor, and every last one of you fell into the media pitfall.

    • Now, for those of you still spouting the rhetoric about apple's prices, I'd like to remind you that the new G4, classified as a supercomputer by the government, thus a weapon (and as of yet, unexportable to other countries), is available for a starting price of 1599. If anyone out there tells me that is too much money to pay for a computer with a top of the line processor, Modem, Ethernet, Firewire, USB, 128-bit video card, and more, plus the wonderful support of Apple (rated very highly every year) and the ease of use and increase in productivity it brings, well, then they really don't know a good deal when they see one.

    • Those of you complaining about the death of clones: The clone idea was initially to help spread the Mac platform. It didn't. All it did was cut into Apple's own user base far deeper than they could have handled. If Apple didn't kill the clones, the clones would have killed Apple, and we wouldn't be having this debate.

    • For anyone complaining about the OS: Install LinuxPPC. Or, realize that the OS is getting better with every revision, and the OS X is going to put Microsoft, and particularly NT, to shame.


    Myself, I'm looking forward to purchasing a new G4, and selling my old Beige G3, as soon as I have the disposible income to do so. The price is right, the hardware offering more than tempting, and the OS better than ever.
  • One company has already figured out a way around the G4 lockout. Either others will follow, or that company will share its info with the upgrade companies (I hope it does this; while I'll never switch away from my Mac I'm quite pissed off at Apple right now, and certainly won't be buying a new one for some time).
  • (compare what it takes to get TCP/IP networking work on each platform, for instance).
    Control Panel/Network/Add/TCP-IP/
    enter ip#,subnet,dns/reboot (ok thats the pathedic step).
    If your talking about getting a network card to work, I'll have to admit that it can be a bitch sometimes. But any network card produced in the last year or so I havn't seen any problems, it was mainly the problem of hardware designers getting their drivers working properly. Most of that has been fixed as far as I can see.

  • Complete Nonsense (Score:3)

    by Herbmaster ( 1486 ) on Saturday September 04, 1999 @01:41AM (#1705616)
    Anyone who's afraid their Blue & White G3 Mac won't be upgradeable to a G4 is simply a victim of FUD.

    What apple did was release a firmware patch which makes the computer check to see if its using a G3 cpu before allowing startup (it's not a patch to the normal ROM - if it had been, any idiot would have been able to reverse the patch, as the MacOS ROM is a file on the disk on recent Macs).

    It was known before this batch of G3s even shipped that they'd be G4 upgradeable, but apple released a software patch which seems to prevent g4 upgrades. OH NO!! Not a software patch! The treachery! They'll never get around THAT! Apple knows the futility of this.

    Apple has not (in recent history) even marketed CPU upgrades for their computers. They've always been third party. XLR8 was quoted on MacInTouch [macintouch.com] on September 1: "A special fix will be needed to run G4 with the 1.1 firmware in a Blue and White. Users get 5 tones, like the emergency weather warning. We have a fix in hand, using DayStar magic." XLR8's press release [xlr8.com] on August 31 (the SAME DAY apple announced G4 products) says: "Additional AltiVec(TM) performance software with blue & white compatibility is being readied in our labs now." -Gary Dailey, Director of Marketing for XLR8.

    Lets look at what Apple actually has done for their customers, upgrade-wise. The long lived family of PCI powermacs, the [789][356]00 series, all have processor daughterboards, which are replaceable, all the way up to G3 or even potentially G4 CPUs. Earlier powermacs can be upgraded to G3s with "L2-cache" upgrades (a CPU on a card fits in where the L2 cache normally goes, and overrides the existing CPU). Apple's G3 desktops all have zif sockets for easy and cheap upgradability. Apple's entire line of desktops uses one type of socket. I think that's pretty good. How many different sockets do you get across the pentium/ppro/p2/p3/celeron/k6/k7-athlon? How many such cpus can be used as an upgrade for one of the other cpus?

    I own one of the first PowerMac G3/400s (Blue & White). I remain quite confident that by the time I want to upgrade it, G4 upgrades from third party companies like XLR8 [xlr8.com], newertech [newertech.com], and powerlogix [powerlogix.com] will be waiting for me.

  • It ain't gonna make a difference (Score:3)

    by RJ11 ( 17321 ) <serge@guanotronic.com> on Saturday September 04, 1999 @01:42AM (#1705620) Homepage
    Sure, all of us who just read this on /. are probably pretty anoyed with Apple. But this makes no difference to them whatsoever because we're not the market that they cater to. Apple's main demographic are those who buy them because of their ease of use. Just look at the iMac for instance: it's a piece of crap, yet at the same time Apple's made millions off of them because people buy them because "they're pretty" and not because they're good computers. Those Apple customers who are planning on buying a G4 (most of which won't know about the G4 until it hits the market or something like "Mac World") won't know nor care whther or not they can upgrade. They see a newer machine from Apple and decide they want it (of course it must look pretty). I really don't think this will make much difference.
  • This is not the first time this has happened with Apple.

    When the PowerPC chip first came out, Apple put out 3 systems, the 6100, 7100, and 8100, and pushed these heavily. (I myself upgraded an old mac to a 7100/66, an excellent performace for the price at that time). This was pushed to academia big time as well.

    However, Apple neglicated to mention that at that time, those systems would be the last NUBUS ones, and that further systems would be PCI based.

    This really hasn't been a big problem until recently: the Nubus machines will not be able to run some of the later mac software and such (And to upgrade to G3, they are the most as the G3 cannot run Nubus). Thus, everyone that got one of those first PPC machines got bit badly.

    Only recently has my faith in Apple been restored, but I am still bitter about this deception, even if it was unintentional. Apple should have not pushed the dead end line so hard when it first came out. And now, they're going to have G3 owners in a bind now, and start to go downhill.

  • Agreed... (Score:3)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Saturday September 04, 1999 @01:51AM (#1705639)
    This is one of those times I'm ashamed to be a Mac defender. Simply put, Apple has gone too far. This is a dirty trick, and Apple knows it.

    Still, there's hope. Several possible scenarios exist:

    1) This really is a dirty trick by Apple. I hope this isn't the case, but it sure looks that way at the moment.
    2) This is some sort of bug, which Apple is for some stupid reason not fixing (this is how I would approach Apple with the subject if you write them about it; don't be accusatory or you'll just piss them off).
    3) It's well-known that Apple asked Motorola to hold off on releasing the G4 until Apple had a system to put it in. Perhaps this was insurance against that policy, and once Apple has a ready supply of G4-based machines they'll undo the lock.

    Anyway, all is not lost; one company (XLR8, if I'm not mistaken) has already found a way around the bug, and may well be sharing it with the other upgrade companies.

    I certainly won't be buying a new G4 box. My Beige G3 is still upgradable to the G4, and I have no intention of letting that go. Hopefully by that time Apple will have seen the error of its ways.

    One other thought I had: something isn't right about this. Consider that Apple has been lowering its prices, opening parts of its system (and even its QuickTime Streaming Server), and all sorts of other trends towards a more open company. This would seem counterproductive. I never said Steve Jobs wasn't a jerk, but he isn't stupid either, and this doesn't seem to make much in the way of sense. I think he's up to something.

    Oh, and one other thing: what exactly is the nature of this lock? I've heard that it's in the Mac OS ROM file; if this is the case, then perhaps it is still possible to upgrade a Linux-only G4 box (anyone tried it?) If it's in OpenFirmware (the only other place it could be on the machine, since it has no hardware-based ROM that can be flashed), then it must be in the form of an OF patch, which means that getting the source to the lock ispossible.

  • Hey, all you Apple Bashers: (Score:3)

    by Evro ( 18923 ) <evandhoffman.gmail@com> on Saturday September 04, 1999 @02:30AM (#1705647) Homepage Journal
    Do you think Intel is going to make it possible to upgrade your Pentium XVI to a Merced or a McKinley? Unless Apple specifically said that the computer would be upgradable to a G4, they have done nothing wrong. Sure, it sucks for the G3 owners. But Apples' upgradability isn't one of the more touted features. It has been known for a while by those "in the know" that the B&W G3s were not upgradable to G4. If anybody wanted a G4 that bad, they would have waited. I don't think anybody said "let me buy this G3 so that I can upgrade to a G4 later."

    I'm not trying to say Apple can do no wrong, I'm saying that all the hypocrites out there need to go take a jump. The recurring theme I see on any Apple story posted to Slashdot is this inbred hatred of anything Apple does, with those who hate Apple saying "One more reason not to buy Apple's crap" or, my personal favorite, "When will Apple die?"

    Y'all just can't cope with the fact that the system you were sure would die and were taught to hate from such a young age is now simply better. That's right, it's BETTER, and you can't deal with that fact. Say whatever you want about the OS; I've had my PowerBook for over a month and it hasn't crashed yet. But in the hardware arena, you simply can't beat Apple. Maybe you gamers who need voodoo whatever graphics cards will poo-poo that, but for serious work, the design of the system as a whole is much better than, say, Dell. And while I'm not a fan of the new plastics for the G3s, They look infinitely better than the disgusting Dell boxes.

    Face it; Apple is here to stay. They may not make the right choices sometimes (see floppy drive, iMac mouse, etc.) but they're not going anywhere.
  • Did you actually read the story?

    I'll make it really simple and quote it for you:
    The fix is in the machine's firmware -- the built-in set of instructions that boots the machine. Apple introduced the disabling feature in Version 1.1 of the G3 firmware. Earlier models of the blue and white G3 computers with Version 1.0 of the firmware aren't affected, according to manufacturers of upgrade cards.

    So,

    Version 1.0 lets you use a G4 upgrade.

    Version 1.1 was released to improve PCI performance or somesuch with no mention of G4 upgrading being disabled.

    Version 1.1 doesn't let you use a G4 upgrade.

    You can't go from Version 1.1 to Version 1.0.


    Maybe you meant to say "a simple firmware update could solve the problem." That is, when and if Apple decides to release firmware to remove this seemingly arbitrary upgrade prevention mechanism.

  • Ok. What did cloning ever do for IBM, and how could it be beneficial for Apple?

    It vastly expanded the market for PCs. Would you rather have 100% of a million dollar market, or 5% of a billion dollar market?

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close