Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Apple to Accept Returns of Mac OS X on Some G3s 398

Posted by pudge from the things-are-gonna-change-i-can-feel-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A class-action lawsuit was filed over Mac OS X not working correctly on some of the older G3's, and Apple has tentatively agreed to refund the purchase price of the OS ($129) to people who purchased it for use on those computers, and wish to return it." The agreement is not final. If you wish to continue using the OS on your computer, despite it not working fully, you can instead receive a $25 coupon. The deal will, apparently, apply to the iMacs through the fruit-colored models; the pre-chiclet iBooks; the PowerBook G3s; the first three Power Mac G3 models; and the all-in-one Power Mac G3.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple to Accept Returns of Mac OS X on Some G3s More

Apple to Accept Returns of Mac OS X on Some G3s

Comments Filter:

  • the pre-chiclet iBooks? (Score:5, Funny)

    by FryGuy1013 ( 664126 ) * on Friday August 15, 2003 @10:51AM (#6705776) Homepage
    ...you mean the toilet-seat cover iBooks?
    • I think the nicer term is "clam-shell"

    • Re:the pre-chiclet iBooks? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Perl-Pusher ( 555592 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @10:59AM (#6705847)
      Cute! But I like mine alot, it also matches my iPod. Now thats a chiclet!

      So let me get this straight, if I connect a chiclet to the toilet seat, I can transfer a buch of crap?

    • Which models are covered, by codename: (Score:5, Informative)

      by frankie ( 91710 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @01:08PM (#6706769) Journal
      Any G3 with hardware DVD playback (unsupported in X) and/or less than Rage 128 video [apple.com]:
      • iBook: P1 (aka ToiletSeat, 1999), unsure about P1.5 (ToiletSeat2, 2000).
      • iMac: Bondi (aka RevA & RevB, 1998), LifeSavers (aka RevC & RevD, aka 5 Flavors, 1999).
      • PowerBook G3: Hooper (aka original, 1997), MainStreet/WallStreet (aka G3 Series, 1998), Lombard (aka Bronze, 1999).
      • PowerMac G3: Beige (aka Gossamer, 1997), All-in-One (aka Artemis, 1998),
      Not covered:
      • iBook: Dual USB (aka iceBook, aka Chiclet, 2001) and newer.
      • iMac: Slot Loading (aka Kihei, 1999) and newer.
      • PowerBook: Pismo (aka Firewire, 2000) and any G4.
      • PowerMac: Blue & White (aka Yosemite, 1999) and any G4.

  • Arm Twisting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by newt_sd ( 443682 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @10:52AM (#6705781) Homepage
    How come you have to class action these companies to be responsible. Isn't there laws that say they need to deliver on their product claims. I am about ready for some tougher legislation I pretty much feel powerless as a consumer and I doubt I am alone. Although this particular mac issue doesn't affect me.

    • Re:Arm Twisting (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DarkBlackFox ( 643814 )
      Wouldn't a more elegant solution be to attempt to fix the issue? Rather than hand out cash to disgruntled customers (who will probably make copies of the OSX cd's before returning them), why not invest the money in developing a patch to allow the older Rage cards to function properly?

      • Re:Arm Twisting (Score:2, Informative)

        by itomato ( 91092 )
        That was supposed to be incorporated in the first point release.

        It wasn't. Neither was the DVD player.

      • Re:Arm Twisting (Score:4, Informative)

        by krisp ( 59093 ) * on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:45AM (#6706170) Homepage

        Wouldn't a more elegant solution be to attempt to fix the issue? Rather than hand out cash to disgruntled customers (who will probably make copies of the OSX cd's before returning them), why not invest the money in developing a patch to allow the older Rage cards to function properly?


        From the article (i sugest you read it):
        Ferlauto noted that after the lawsuit was filed, Apple releases an update to Mac OS X, version 10.1.5, that offered improved graphics performance for machines that use the ATI Rage graphics card.

    • It gets even worse (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I do PC support and a very close friend of mine does Mac support and Mac warranty fulfilment. We're constantly trading horror stories and he has told me of a few hardware related problems that Apple still has to resolve:

      Powerbook power supplies that not only burn out prematurely but are a fire and electrical hazard.

      Some recent Powerbook units that refuse to come out of sleep mode.

      IPODs that refuse to allow flash upgrades and units that continue to have problems with charging the batteries even with the n

      • Re:It gets even worse (Score:4, Informative)

        by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @01:52PM (#6707099) Journal
        Yes, your friend is quite correct. Regarding those power supplies on the Powerbooks though - I think some of the problem has more to do with how they're handled by the users.

        From what I've read and observed, the most common issue is the thin, somewhat fragile cable with the barrel plug on the end (that goes into the notebook itself) gets twisted and stretched/flexed until the wires inside break. When this happens, sometimes they short together, causing the power supply to burn out or in a worse-case scenario, possibly even catch fire.

        If people were a little more careful with their AC adapters (and didn't insist on wrapping the cords around the power "brick" tightly, stressing the wires in the cables - they would probably get much better service out of their adapters.

        Apple didn't exactly show much interest in helping reduce the problem though. (Last I heard, they added a 3 prong plug to the adapters instead of a non-grounded 2 prong plug. That might save their butt in a lawsuit over someone getting shocked on a shorted power adapter - but it's not nearly as good as using better, thicker wire that won't break as easily!)

    • Re:Arm Twisting (Score:4, Interesting)

      by blazer1024 ( 72405 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:02PM (#6706294)
      You see, the class action lawsuit is how the law is applied.. You can't send the police after a company based on civil laws. It isn't a crime, but it does make them responsible. The class action lawsuit is how the law is enforced, the consumer who was effected by the bad product sues the company, and they get their money back, thus the company is responsible for not delivering on their promises.

  • if only (Score:3, Funny)

    by rczyzewski ( 585306 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @10:53AM (#6705784)
    ...all companies would stand behind their products. I know plenty of people who would like a refund for Windows Me *@&!#
    • They're not "standing behind their product" so much as reacting to a class-action lawsuit. In other words, it's cheaper to cut a deal and say that they'll accept OSX returns for users of these particular machines than go through court (with the possibility of losing).
      This way, they'll only lose a little money on the returns of OSX by users that actually bother to bring it it. It's likely that a lot of G3 users won't even know they have the option of a return anyhow.
    • I like how avoiding a lawsuit is considered "Standing by a product" by Apple apologists.

      They didn't spontaniously come up with this. They were SUED and decided to settle before it cost them even MORE money.

      That is anything BUT standing behind their product. In fact the fact that they refused to ever make it work on the G3 LIKE THEY PROMISED is actively NOT standing behind the product.

      Once again the Mac universe, overwhelmed by doublethink manages to flip a story completely upside down.

  • A "news that doesn't require discussion" section with comments disabled. Is there really anything worthwhile to say about this article? Apple's doing the right thing, roughly. Sure you can nit-pick details, but what a waste.

    • I would like to comment on your comment about needing comments. :) Whats the harm in discussing this issue. Maybe it is just a catalyst to a larger discussion on product agreements. Company responsibility or maybe just maybe you have been involved with the legal fight to get a refund and finally the fruits of your labor are paying off but by all means if this particular article doesn't mean much in your life then by all means lets not discuss it for there are precious few bits left on the internet and we

      • And although it may seem excessive, I think a further comment on your comment about my comment about comments is necessary.

        Surely there is no harm... :-)

        I never expected my comment to be rated up so quickly tho. :-/

    • Or... you could just avoid the discussion section. Original articles ARE linked from the front page. Nobody is forcing you to join discussion.
    • Is there really anything worthwhile to say about this article? Apple's doing the right thing, roughly. Sure you can nit-pick details, but what a waste.

      But if they have the choice to disable comments for certain articles or not, won't we just see a lot more whiny postings along the lines of "Is there really anything worthwhile to say about this article? Apple's doing the right thing, roughly. Sure you can nit-pick details, but what a waste."?

    • Re:Slashdot really needs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rasta Prefect ( 250915 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:11AM (#6705933)
      A "news that doesn't require discussion" section with comments disabled. Is there really anything worthwhile to say about this article? Apple's doing the right thing, roughly. Sure you can nit-pick details, but what a waste.

      How about just not reading the comments if you don't feel theres anything worthwhile to say?

      • How about just not reading the comments if you don't feel theres anything worthwhile to say?

        That's what I do. I'm reading this one just because I figured it would provoke interesting discussion on the accountability of corporations with regard to the products they produce.

        But I would say I probably only click through to the comments on about 40% of the Slashdot articles, the news alone is enough for me.

    • Re:Slashdot really needs (Score:5, Funny)

      by NotAnotherReboot ( 262125 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:12AM (#6705944)
      I applaud this insightful comment. This is the very reason that every news post needs to allow comments. If this had been locked, we would have never realized that it should be locked.

    • Slashdot really needs A "news that doesn't require discussion" section with comments disabled. Is there really anything worthwhile to say about this article?

      So you were sure from the start that this article doesn't require discussion, because nothing worthwhile could be said about it. In spite of this, you wasted your time by first reading some superfluous comments and then complaining about them and demanding to gag users whose comments you don't want to read.

      I wonder what the people who modded this "5

  • Hmm, fairly typical? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by randyest ( 589159 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @10:55AM (#6705812) Homepage
    so . . .

    Apple said in Tuesday's court filing that it "continues to vigorously deny all of the material allegations" of the lawsuit but is willing to settle to avoid the costs of continuing to fight the legal action. An Apple representative declined to comment further.

    . . . but . . .

    "If you are completely dissatisfied (with Mac OS X), you can return it and get your money back," Ferlauto said. "If you want to keep OS X, but are kind of annoyed that you don't have full support, you can get (a $25) coupon."

    . . . and of course, the winner is . . .

    Apple has also agreed to pay up to $350,000 in legal fees to King & Ferlauto.

    • Oh, GET OVER IT! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mekkab ( 133181 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:14AM (#6705961) Homepage Journal
      They way I see it, the consumer is definitely coming out on top with this one.

      ANd I don't see any issue with the lawyers getting some money for their "win" (qualified, of course, because Apple vigorously denies all the material allegations... but hey, I like to save face in public, too).

      Let see, without those lawyers and their legal fees (who only work on contigency) let me calculate what you and the average consumer would get back. Let's see, add for the user base, divide by 2, carry the 1.... ah yes. ZERO DOLLARS and zero cents.

      You can get all of your money back! Or if you still want to use it, you can get some money back!
      That is what I like to call having your cake and eating it too.

  • Lawyers come out ahead (again) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dubstop ( 136484 ) * on Friday August 15, 2003 @10:55AM (#6705814)
    So, the customers get their money back, and the legal weasels get $350,000. That seems like par for the course, nowadays.

    • Re:Lawyers come out ahead (again) (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Malcontent ( 40834 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:13AM (#6705953)
      If it wasn't for the lawyers nobody would get anything.

      They did all the work they should get most of the money.
      • I don't really care about the money -- the upshot of this lawsuit is that OS X is actually usable on my old "Bronze" G3 PowerBook.

        Backstory:
        OS X 10.0 shipped with a 2D/3D accelerated driver for the RagePro in this machine. Apple dropped all 2D/3D hardware acceleration in 10.1, making the machine essentially unusable under OS X. They also issued a technote which basically said "Too Bad, Sucker".

        It wasn't until after the lawsuit that Apple backtracked and 2D Rage Pro accelerated driver appeared. I can live

    • Better than par (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jault ( 147271 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:22AM (#6706024)
      It seems better than par to me. The usual outcome to this type of suit is the lawyers getting millions rather than a few hundred K, and the customers getting no cash, only a rebate on a future purchase (ie, an inducement to give more money to the folks who ripped them off). The Zip disk "Click of Death" lawsuit, for example, ended up like that.

      Under the circumstances, a refund seems like a reasonable outcome for the customers involved. I'm not bothered by the lawyers' fee, either. It's much smaller than I expected, and they appear to have earned it by really representing their clients, rather than just throwing them a bone & running off with all the money.

  • Apple.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by devphaeton ( 695736 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @10:58AM (#6705839)
    ....It just works!

  • Whoa (Score:5, Interesting)

    by starseeker ( 141897 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:01AM (#6705867) Homepage
    A software maker granting a refund for a product (even if it is under threat)? I can hear the fuses popping in certain brains in a nameless northwestern city.

    Seriously though, this tells you a lot about the both the Mac community and Apple. The machines are so good that people are able to file a lawsuit due to expecting X performance on a machine and not getting it, and expect to have a case. Wow.

    Personally, I doubt Apple deserves this (I mean, come on - older machines tend to not be supported as well, and early releases of software are know to be less solid than later ones.) But it does say a lot about the Apple World.

    • Re:Whoa (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Firehawke ( 50498 )
      I think it was more along the lines that Apple had promised G3 owners that this would work fine even on the older ones, then didn't support the video properly. The lawsuit was purely around not delivering on promises made. Now, had Apple not made the promises in question, then I'd be calling this a frivolous lawsuit.

    • No... (Score:4, Informative)

      by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:07AM (#6705908) Homepage
      Seriously though, this tells you a lot about the both the Mac community and Apple. The machines are so good that people are able to file a lawsuit due to expecting X performance on a machine and not getting it, and expect to have a case. Wow.

      It's because Apple said it would work on all G3's as mentioned in a higher thread. Had they not done so, plaintiffs would have had no case. So no precedent set, except that things won't be guaranteed to run on any older platform from now on.

      • It's because Apple said it would work on all G3's as mentioned in a higher thread. Had they not done so, plaintiffs would have had no case. So no precedent set, except that things won't be guaranteed to run on any older platform from now on.

        Which is as it should be ... marketers should be held accountable for what they say and imply (i.e. what the communicate, be it explicit or implicit through lies of omission). Indeed, marketers (and their clients) should be held accountable for what they say and imply
        • Microsoft's products, for example, contain a clause in their license essentially saying that the product they sold you may not work at all. While honest (their software is after all notorious for not working properly ... add to that the security issues and that fact really begins to kick you in the face), the fact that their marketing people are constantly telling the world the opposite, and sticking the little factoid that their product really doesn't work in a seldom read document, and thereby stripping t
    • Apple controls both the hardware and software platform. If they claimed that the software was fully functional on some particular Apple hardware and it isn't, then they are guilty of false advertising. They can either fix the hardware, fix the software, or offer some other compensation to consumers.
    • Let's go back to 1998, shall we? This is when the original announcements were made about OS X. Come about 1999, OS X made it into public beta, and soon after, it was released. Apple's hype wave crashed down on its customers when the product failed to deliver.

      Think about it: You run a Mac shop - graphics, prepress, video, audio, whatever. You're constantly stop-starting in regards to X, its release date, whether it will run on your machine, what software will be available/ready/usable. You buy a Beig

  • Actually.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by devphaeton ( 695736 )
    I'm glad to see that apple is doing this. Good for them.

    However,

    I'm still skeptical for some of their other things, involving Warranty Return items. Example: Boss has brand new Powerbook. Within 3 weeks the LCD dies. Apple is still trying to collect $700-something dollars for the repair, when IMHO it should be a warranty item. FWIW the guy has been a super-loyal Apple Fanatic since the Apple ][

    This eMac i'm typing on was purchased with 1Gb of ram, but arrived with 512 only. Also, the OS was complet

    • Re:Actually.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thedbp ( 443047 )
      a CRT with dead pixels? i would love to see that.

      How did the LCD "die?" If it just up and died with no outside event causing it to, Apple WOULD cover it. Something tells me there were other extraneous circumstances that you're not telling us.

      Trooolllllll
      • Actually, one of my CRTs does have a dead pixel. I was as incredulous as you are at first, but the black dot is clearly behind the monitor glass.
    • You have dead pixels on the eMac? THE ONLY CRT-BASED COMPUTER APPLE SELLS? Smells like a faker to me.

      The repair bill for a 3-week old laptop would be $0 unless your boss broke it himself or he took it to a shop that isn't really working with Apple (or is cheating Apple).

  • Super deal! (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:07AM (#6705906) Homepage Journal

    I'll put the $125 from Apple towards the $700 SCO says I owe them!

  • Why I think this is (partly) fair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Buran ( 150348 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:08AM (#6705913)
    I'm in partial agreement with this case. While I currently use Jaguar on a Powerbook DVI, formerly I used earlier versions of OS X (10.0 and 10.1) on a Powerbook Lombard (the model with the bronze keyboard). While DVD players were an option with that model, the one I purchased (or rather, the university I work for purchased for me) was the model with the DVD reader. Thus, I used it quite a bit to watch DVDs in OS 9 and was pleased that I could do so. I took it on a few trips and carried entertainment with me.

    When 10.1 came out it was quite a big deal that it finally added DVD viewing support, and there was no mention of the fact that it was not going to work fully as advertised on all systems. In fact, Apple made a big deal of the fact that you could run OS X on a lot of older systems going back to some of the old beige towers (I'm pretty sure about that) and implied in the "usable on older systems" was the fact that all features would work as they were advertised to on all of those systems. I was in full expectation that all of the features would work, and I can't possibly have been alone.

    I was quite disappointed to discover that apparently hardware acceleration, which I have long been told from many sources is actually better because it offloads a lot of the processing tasks onto the video system instead of the CPU, was actually the reason why DVD playing did NOT work. I couldn't play DVDs -- if I tried I'd get a message stating that my system wasn't compatible -- even after Apple released a DVD player update! How was I supposed to fix this? "Go buy a new Powerbook". That was unacceptable given the fact that Apple had always given the impression that OS X would be fully supported on G3 systems. That apparently meant "some G3 systems" even though no qualifiers were printed on any preview materials.

    I'll be returning my discs for a refund since it didn't work as advertised (which did bother me) and because I don't use OS X on that old Powerbook anymore. It's just relegated to Photoshopping in OS 9. It sounds like what I've seen so far is indicating a full refund, which I won't argue with if true ... we'll have to see. A partial refund was more my expectation since a lot of other features DID work as advertised, but hey, I can use the cash for a discount on a new iPod (I want the backlit-buttons version in part because I plan to use it in my Volkswagen, and the red illumination of the controls in the car matches. It'll look really spiffy. :) )

    The point of this case was (rightfully) that if there are going to be exclusions for "it works with existing stuff" the exceptions need to be listed so nobody ends up disappointed like I was. It's just fair. It's a real shame there had to be a lawsuit to make it happen.

  • Minimum Specs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OfficerNoGun ( 686128 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:10AM (#6705924)
    ...are the minimum specs for a reason. I wouldn't expect much out of Windows Xp with its minimum specs [microsoft.com] of running a 233mhz Celeron with 128mb ram. Newer OS run faster on faster equipment. Trying to run the latest and greatest OS on older equipment is a trying experience. In general I would recomend sticking with the OS the computer came with, its cheaper, and most likely beter suited for the machine. It may sound like Apple is being all great by refunding all or part of the purchase price, but they're only doing that 'cause they got sued.

    • Re:Minimum Specs (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mughi ( 32874 )

      ...are the minimum specs for a reason.

      But it's not about minimum specs at all. The PowerBook I run it on is well above the minimum specs.

      From Apple's "System Requirements" [apple.com] page:

      Mac OS X Version 10.2 requires a Power Mac G3, G4, G4 Cube; iMac; PowerBook G3, G4; iBook; or eMac computer; at least 128MB of physical RAM and a built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card. Mac OS X does not support the original PowerBook G3 or processor upgrade cards.

      There was [lowendmac.com] the original G

    • I have a laptop sitting next to me running XP. It's a Dell Latitude CP (purchased a month before they came out with PII laptops). Pentium (regular, unleaded) 233, 96MB RAM, 4 GB HD.

      Minimum specs are designed for people like me. My desktop is almost as out-of-date as my laptop. Is it FAST? Nah. Does it get the job done? Sure.

  • This is an outrage... (Score:5, Funny)

    by joto ( 134244 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:11AM (#6705929)
    You mean Apple actually has to accept returns of it's product, when it doesn't work? Like, if there was a warranty or something? This is a sad and black day for the software industry, maybe one day we will even have to act responsively...

  • iBook (Score:5, Insightful)

    by photoblur ( 552862 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:16AM (#6705975) Homepage
    I use one of the "pre-chicklet" iBooks. (I'm running OSX 10.3 Jaguar on a 466mHz G3 iBook SE with 384MB RAM) Other than it being a tiny bit slow, OSX works great.

    I think this is really a statement about how Apple's customers have come to expect so much from the fruit company... yeah, Apple said they would support G3's. And they do. It's just when you try and scrape by with the minimum recommended requirements, things don't usually work as well as you'd like.

    Sure, refunding the purchase price on a product that didn't work as expected is understandable, but it's too bad it had to happen in court. I guess that's just the way of doing things these days. Too bad.

    • Re:iBook (Score:3, Interesting)

      by carpe_noctem ( 457178 )
      I'm on a powerbook g3, 233Mhz, 160Mb of RAM. It runs a bit slow, but it's fast enough that I was able to give my 650Mhz Acer laptop away to my sister, who needed a machine. I have to say, I've had really -no- problems at all using this laptop, and I have to wonder what type of technical problems people are experiencing. OS X even runs fast enough for pretty much everything that I do, and although I plan to buy a faster machine in the future, this one is more than sufficient to run OS X in the time being.
  • Can I get my money back for that certain WinXP not working on my IBM clone?

    I thought so, nevermind ...

  • Amazing! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:17AM (#6705989) Homepage Journal
    A hardware/software vendor actually taking responsibility for the code they write?! Is this a joke?

    Microsoft would NEVER do this.

    Everyday it looks more and more like my next machine will be an Apple. What Microsoft fails to understand is that their customers hate Microsoft's "Screw the customer" attitude more than the bugs in their products.

    • Re:Amazing! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zak3056 ( 69287 )
      A hardware/software vendor actually taking responsibility for the code they write?! Is this a joke?
      Microsoft would NEVER do this.

      Everyday it looks more and more like my next machine will be an Apple. What Microsoft fails to understand is that their customers hate Microsoft's "Screw the customer" attitude more than the bugs in their products.

      You must have missed the fact that it took a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT to acheive this end.

      Apple ATTEMPTED to utilize the "Screw the customer" attitude, but failed.
      • True, but Microsoft would settle for millions of dollars of "coupons" toward "future purchases" from Microsoft and whatever software companies were in its bed at the time. (At least, that's what's happened with every Microsoft settlement thus far.)

    • Re:Amazing! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 )
      Microsoft would NEVER do this.

      Let me remind you the sad and long story of the USB support in Windows 95. To cut the long story short, it never went beyond alpha quality, even in the last OSR patch for Win 95. Microsoft's only answer for all the complaints was: upgrade to Windows 98! And they did what Apple never did with OpenGL for the older ATI cards - they promised explicitly it will work. I can still remember a Windows 95 CD with "USB support" written explicitly on the label...
    • Microsoft would NEVER do this.

      Right, in most cases (rare exceptions notwithstanding), Microsoft actually fixes the OS. Apple definitely has a sort of arrogance about them when it comes to "old" hardware. They've always had a tight tie between OS versions to their current hardware.

  • Models OS X does not run well on (Score:5, Informative)

    by iJed ( 594606 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:24AM (#6706035) Homepage
    OS X does not run well (in my opinion) on the following models:
    1. Clam shell iBooks. These have 800*600 screens making them pretty horrible to use under X. Maybe its just because I'm use to my 19" Sony though.
    2. Beige G3s. There are various unsupported things on the Beige G3. These include hardware DVD acceleration, 2D acceleration (on some graphics cards), 3D acceleration (again on some graphics cards) and even internal floppy drive support (although they are long dead on the Mac). However the beige G3 is still better of than the original iBook range.
    3. Early PowerBook G3s. Like the beige G3s these have unsupported hardware DVD and graphics cards. However, unlike the beige G3, you cannot upgrade the graphics card.
    4. Revision A iMac. These were not made for all that long but they have the unsupported (I think) Rage II graphics chip with only 2M video memory. All other iMacs are pretty much OK if you can endure the UI latency.

  • Is it cheaper for Apple (Score:3, Insightful)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) * <teamhasnoi@[ ]oo.com ['yah' in gap]> on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:37AM (#6706115) Journal
    to pay for the software returns, or to write some drivers for the video and DVD issues?

    I know this is mainly to drive hardware sales, but it seems a little disingenuous to not take care of their customers.

    I've been looking at getting a PB, but stories like this where Apple just drops support on a whim, or doesn't 'make it right', make me look for a Latitude or Thinkpad. Couple that with hearing stories about the $500+ repairs on Apple laptops, and I'm getting more leery. I rarely hear about problems with other laptop makers.

    OS X is a powerful draw, but the 'closed-source' hardware and the constant ditching of support have me wondering. Make it easy, Apple!

    Maybe I'll go find a P2 to put Zeta on..

    • Is it cheaper for Apple to pay for the software returns, or to write some drivers for the video and DVD issues?

      It's not just drivers. Quartz Extreme is a quite complex graphics layer, using Postscript, OpenGL and QuickTime for all those fancy animations. It could be that this simply cannot be achieved on an old Rage card (at least not with satisfactory results).

      I've been looking at getting a PB, but stories like this where Apple just drops support on a whim, or doesn't 'make it right', make me look for

  • Not sure what the big deal is... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:51AM (#6706210) Homepage Journal
    I purchased a refurb Wallstreet G3/266 Powerbook, slapped 512 megs of RAM in it, and put OS X 10.2.6 on it, and it runs like a dream. Sure, it's a bit slow, particularly when OS X tries to do the funky window zoom effects that undoubtedly look stunning on faster Macs, and it doesn't play the more recent Quicktime movies flawlessly...but it's 266 frickin' megahertz, what do they expect?
    • 'Running like a dream' and 'sure its a little slow' are completely contradictory statements on the planet which I dwell opon. ...but it's 266 frickin' megahertz, what do they expect?

      I remember ads. They had turtles with Pentiums on their backs. Other ads had words like 'Supercomputer' and 'Megaflop' in them. I thought slow, way behind the times PPC chips were many times faster than their x86 cousins? Now is that not true?

      I dont get it? Which is it?

  • Comparing Apples to ....eh. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) * <teamhasnoi@[ ]oo.com ['yah' in gap]> on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:56AM (#6706241) Journal
    Why am I reading a pile of comments that say, "Win XP won't run on my 286, blah blah blah, why should Macs be any different?"

    The strength of the Macintosh comes from the fact that there is a limited range of hardware that needs to be supported from the factory. There isn't 34 different video cards to support.

    Apple doesn't have an excuse. They claimed that OS X would work on all the G3s. They should have written the drivers or refunded the $$$, or never wrote checks that their body couldn't cash.

    MS never claimed that Windows XP would work on your 386, 8086, 8088. IIRC, MS said that many would need to upgrade. Of course, MS isn't (fervently) trying to increase hardware sales.

    It's a little scary when the only computer your OS runs on is made by the same company. Look at Be Inc. and their BeOS/BeBox to 'Internet Appliance' focus shift. Whoops. Lets not develop our OS except for toasters. (I blame MS too, of course...)

    No, Apple isn't dying. In fact, I think Apple is poised to beat some stuffing out of MS.

    Apple does need to avoid vaporware claims, and treating their customers like two-dollar whores - we get enough of that elsewhere.

  • Too little, too late? (Score:3, Informative)

    by uninet ( 413687 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:12PM (#6706384) Homepage
    Considering that Mac OS X 10.2 is quite content to fry the analog card inside of an iMac G3 (Slotloading), if someone doesn't read the fine manual and upgrade the firmware first, I think $129 isn't enough in many cases. A system that is suppose to be ultra friendly shouldn't fry one's built-in monitor without big warnings on-screen first.

    Of course, if you do read the manual, like I did, I don't see any problems with the system on a G3. Mac OS X 10.2.6 runs quite decently on my iMac.

  • take the high-road, Apple... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Lynxpro ( 657990 ) <lynxproNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:38PM (#6706572)
    Just give these people new machines. First, you'll regain their goodwill. You have new machines coming out and they'll probably buy them later. Second, you'll increase the adoption rate of OS X, even if it would be with a soon-to-be older edition (hint: they'd probably buy the OS X Panther). Third, you get rid of probably excess inventory. Clearing out functioning G3 and G4 hardware is going to happen eventually, so why not take a write-down now when it will actually save you money in the long-run (by not losing longterm customers)? Fourth, you continue to prove you are better than Microsoft. Fifth -- and this is trolling -- if Best Buy can give customers brand new computers after theirs fail spectacularly providing they bought the $300 extended warranty (PSP) and continue to make money, so can you. I've seen plenty of times where Best Buy managers replaced ancient customer computers with mid to high-end units simply because the customer originally bought those blasted service plans. So if any of these customers bought your Apple Care Plans, just give them new machines with 10.2.6 installed. And just as a disclaimer, I never have owned a Mac, although I'm planning on buying one shortly (bring out a mid-range Firewire-based flatbed scanner too, by the way)...

  • Macs without an OS? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ogerman ( 136333 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:54PM (#6706679)
    So, what if I want to buy a Mac because of its nice hardware but don't want the proprietary OS that comes with it. Can I get Apple to rebate the price?

  • Whatever... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wirelessbuzzers ( 552513 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @01:09PM (#6706774)
    I've seen basically two kinds of posts in resoponse the the article. There's been Mac zealots who are lauding Apple for "taking responsibility," and there have been people slamming them for false advertising. There have also been several "OMG APPLE IS TEH SUX" trolls and jokes of various degrees of wittiness, but that's to be expected.

    First things first. Apple is not "taking responsibility" for all those users out there with poor OS X support. They are refunding them, and doing so to settle a lawsuit. Taking responsibility would be adding full support to OS X. Their settlement sounds pretty fair as far as class action suits go, but it's not done out of benevolence. As has been pointed out before, Apple is a company, and its motivation is primarily money.

    Second, Apple's advertising in this matter was not exceptionally shady. They said they'd support G3s, and it turns out that they do not fully support all of them. The OS runs on these G3s (which are below the recommended minimum specs), but poorly, and doesn't fully support their hardware.

    Fine. All companies advertise in language like this. Plenty of laptops are in various Linux distros' supported lists, but don't have power management support. If you think promising to support something and then doing a half-assed job is bad, look at advertisers that get away with what would be called a lie anywhere outside a court.

    This case is neither a big win nor a big loss for Apple. It does not show that their character is particularly good or evil. Give it a rest.

    • Re:Whatever... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NaugaHunter ( 639364 )
      They are refunding them, and doing so to settle a lawsuit. Taking responsibility would be adding full support to OS X.

      You've missed the posts they speculate that they tried at the time to add the support, but found that the systems in question were simply incapable of handling it.

      I don't have a perfect memory, but it was my impression that they said from the start that OS X wouldn't run on certain systems. It is possible that while that was known on the websites I frequented, it wasn't included on ad

  • Reminds me of my MacII (Score:4, Interesting)

    by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @01:18PM (#6706812) Homepage
    I remember that the MacII originally was advertised as supporting 128 meg of RAM, but when Apple release a version of MacOS that could support that much RAM, it would only support 68 meg on the II, and would not support virtual memory.

    However, if you bought Connectix's Mode32, that would patch MacOS to support 128 meg, and added virtual memory support.

    There was a consumer lawsuit, and eventually Apple agreed to buy a copy of Mode32 for any MacII owner who wanted 128 megs or virtual memory, and reimburse those who already had it.

    It's funny...one of the supposed points in favor of Macs over PCs is that since Apple controls the hardware and the software, the system will work better. Yet that is twice now Apple has had to be sued to actually make it work.

  • Clearing up the confusion (Score:3, Informative)

    by E'Laren ( 698347 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @01:38PM (#6706984)
    Read this: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106 470 Apple never said it would work on all G3s. Check the fine print and you'll see that firmware updates and SCSI card updates are required for some computers, but the PowerBook G3 (original with rainbow apple on the top) isn't supported at all. Again, read the fine print for Quartz Extreme and you'd find that only GeForce and Radeon 7500+ cards are supported not the Rages. Yes it would've been nice for the DVD Player to work on non-agp machines and that is probably why Apple made this submission rather than continuing this in court.

Slashdot Top Deals

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Close