Apple sued over G3 support

Wow, this really gives bad press I feel almost inadvertently. These guys are "zeal filled" Mac users who feel they really got shafted. I would tend to agree in this case.

Let's change the situation a little. Say you buy a '99 Honda civic, and Honda says "Hey! great new engines for your car, fully ready for '99 civics and up!" Then you buy the engine just to find that your AC, windshield washers and radio don't work. I'd certainly be pissed.

Apple said it was good for all G3's and it turned out not to be. The "inadvertently" part comes in here. The guy said he'll possibly buy another macs later, and also is suing only for the cost of the G3's and OS. (As opposed to trillions of dollars in boo-hoo-poor-little-ol-me money.) I think that people should always upgrade their equipment, but IMO these folks did get the shaft...
 
...because downward compatability was always one of Apple's strengths, and certainly the reason I've converted so many people to Mac over the years. Until I got my Ti, I was still running 8.6 on my PB1400cs, and could do most of the stuff I needed to do for work on it (albeit more slowly). I'd like to hear someone who was successfully using a similar-aged PC up until 18 months ago!
 
I think it's important that Apple (and other companies) work hard to make good driver support for scanners,printers,cameras,video-cards etc in OS X especially when they want the mac to be "the center of the digital hub". That will make osx a good os.

and

*ahem* SCSI burner support *cough*
 
I used a Power Mac 7100/66 until 1999 when I bought a iMac DVSE...

It originally shipped with system 7.1.2... and when I stopped using it I had OS 8.6 on it and it still well for web browsing and word processing...

How about that! 5 years out of that baby! :D



The iMac however, didn't fare as well... Within two years I needed to upgrade and now have a G4 733. I anticipate that this G4 will last around 2.5-3 years (hopefully)
 
I've still got an old beige G3 on the floor in the basement running as a server. And despite all the incompatibility problems it has with MacOS X, it can still run it, and in fact is. Hell, it's been able to run MacOS X since DP3. It isn't easy to get some older G3s running (example, I had to partition the Hard Drive to get OS X on the first 8GB), although it is possible. Of course older machines are going to have significant trouble running such a modern OS though... although to be honest having 256MB of RAM helps far more than having a G4 over a G3.

When Apple said OS X would be "fully optimized" for the G3 it was when they were stating that all the legacy 68k code was being dropped. This is a Good Thing. In fact OS X *is* optimized for the PowerPC architecture, specifically the G3 (the Finder contains no AltiVec code). So that part of the claim is BS. And this in itself should be enough to throw the case out.

However, the claim also goes on to state "the failure to write the drivers for the hardware video accelerators in these computers degraded performance to severely that OS X is rendered an realistic option..." Well, Apple fully publishes (in many visible places to the public... on marketing material, on the OS X box, on their web site, etc) what computers will work with OS X. They are quite careful in their claims (my beige G3 is listed as a machine that won't work). On top of that, Apple has been trying quite hard to improve compatibility with older computers... it's listed as one of their top 10 goals (and has been for over a year). In fact, Apple reached an agreement with ATI recently in which ATI will write the drivers for older graphics cards. This agreement was reached BEFORE the suit was filed, and nullifies this complaint.

It's no secret Apple has at times been struggling with MacOS X. It's a massive effort in poor economic times and at times there will be legitimate stumbles. This isn't because of neglect, it's because of real world technical issues. However, Apple has come a long way with support and optimization for OS X and is proving to make solid progress. They're not perfect, and expecting them to be (although often quite common) is ridiculous. They're making progress, that's what matters.

Cheers,
Dak
 
I believe the case will be thrown out, because (and show me otherwise if I'm wrong), Apple never touted any of the beige G3, B&W G3's, etc. as being "OS X Ready". I don't remember ever seeing that phrase on any marketing when those machines were sold.

When OS X was released, those machines are listed on the compatability chart, although Apple doesn't state that certain parts of the OS (DVD playback, OpenGL) may not be available on some models.

So since Apple never stated when those machines were originally sold that they were OS X ready, the best the people bringing this suit against Apple can hope for is a refund for the cost of OS X.

The machines were sold as is with whatever OS came with it. Since the classic Mac OS can do everything it was advertised to do at the time of sale, there is no way a judge can make Apple liable for new hardware costs.

Think about this for a second. Apple was very careful not to make the same PPC upgrade fiasco promises they did years back.

If this logic was adopted, Microsoft would have to support every feature in every computer ever made for each new OS, regardless of age.

I can empathize with the anger this plaintiff feels about his hardware not being fully supported in OS X, but he would have been better off saving his legal fees and dumping his current machine on eBay, and then buying a new Mac which can take advantage of all the stuff OS X has to offer...

Some people are just litigation happy I guess....
 
There seems to be quite a lot of focus on supporting OpenGL hardware acceleration with regards the older ATI graphics cards used in the earlier iMac models, et al

So what happened? In this very forum I remember discussing the fact that neither Apple nor ATI seemed inclined to design OS X drivers for the older ATI cards, yet a few posters found "hidden" drivers in OS X which worked for them... suggesting that Apple were developing such drivers, they just weren't ready for prime time.

Either way, I think this is an area that should be addressed by Apple, though a lawsuit is probably pretty strong...!
 
Originally posted by tismey
I'd like to hear someone who was successfully using a similar-aged PC up until 18 months ago!
Click to expand...

Well, since you wanted to hear about, I used a linux machine for 5 years and upgraded the OS many times. After a while it was simply too slow but it still ran and the drivers were optimized.

As you probably know, backwards compatibility is a software problem, not a hardware problem. Let's blame msft, not the PC industry.
 
Sheesh. It seems like everyone's trampling everyone else just to be a person who's suing Apple.

I totally disagree with the lawsuit. As someone pointed out, being "fully optimized" for the G3 simply means that they are dropping out all of the legacy code (since they are totally rewriting it), so that they don't have to make any compromises. Plus, OS X wasn't released until March 2001, and I don't think a skimpy little press release that says that OS X will be "fully optimized for G3 processors" means that Apple must deliver OS X so it can run awesomely on all G3 machines. Apple NEVER, EVER claimed or guaranteed that if you bought one of the first G3 machines that you would be able to run OS X on it.

As far as I'm concerned, the guys in this lawsuit are being a little whiny. While I understand that backwards compatibility is important, there is a point where you have to forget about legacy hardware and software and move on with development. And with OS X, because it is a total rewrite, I commend Apple for not making ANY compromises and designing OS X for the future. Had Apple concentrated on making OS X work really well on original G3 machines and PowerBooks, they wouldn't have been able to add all of the powerful features and awesome GUI that make it OS X. I'm sorry to all of you with old machines, but Apple has got to drop support somewhere. OS X wouldn't be what it is today without this compromising of backwards compatibility.

Plus, OS X isn't even totally awesome on a machine like mine, which is a G4 450 MHz. It works fairly well, and I'm satisfied with it... I'm sure Apple could probably make some more optimizations, but I'm not running out to sue Apple because window resizing isn't up to par with Mac OS 9!! Like I said, Apple has made no compromises, and as such, it won't be as fast even on fairly recent machines -- OS X will really shine on new machines, and that's where Apple intended it to shine, which is why Apple is boosting their iMacs to a much more powerful level. Like Jack Miller from appleturns.com said after buying a Dual 800 MHz G4, he finally got what OS X was all about -- it screamed on his machine -- you can't understand the power of OS X until you get a truly powerful machine, and while most of Apple's machines have always been powerful, OS X is no doubt a taxing operating system.

With that said, I again have to reiterate that OS X is not painfully slow on my machine, but many things like window resizing and genie effects aren't as smooth as silk because I don't have a dual GHz G4 Macintosh. So just because Apple chooses not to support 5-year old G3 Macs with OS X doesn't mean you need to extort money from them because of that.
 
I'd just like to point out that Apple probably never intended for OSX to be run on an older machine, and this is why they have continued to release updates to OS9. OS 9 just absolutely files :)
 
Originally posted by rinse
I anticipate that this G4 will last around 2.5-3 years (hopefully)
Click to expand...

     2.5-3 years?? I'm planning a good 5-8 from my G4 (DP 800). The way I see it, If your computer is powerful enough to serve a website getting 50000 hits a day, then it still will be in 5 years time, when we're all playing of G6's

Bernie :eek:)
 
Except in 5 years we'll all be using G7s and anticipating G8s ;) Apple wants to move the life cycle of each processor to 18 months, hehe.

Cheers,
Dak
 
on May 11, 1998, i watched the downlink keynote of WWDC 98, where Steve Jobs announced Mac OS X. He said

We are targeting Mac OS X for the G3, which means all the products we are shipping will run OS X
Click to expand...

Also Steve Jobs said that Mac OS X would ship in Fall of 1999. based on that information, when my slow PowerBase 180 was dieing (only after 18 minths), I decided to beg my mom to let me use the rest of my trust fund to get a new Mac. This was now late May 1998. I could have gotten a new old stock 7200, but I went for broke and got the Beige G3 266, becuase it would run Mac OS X (and it was supposed to be out in less then 15 months at the time).

I am also on permament disability, which means that finding work that I can do it extremely dificult to impossible. So I am still on this computer, and on a an extremely low income of $500/month which needs to cover rent, food, phone, etc.

Mac OS X on this machine can be brought to a hault. Mac OS X is barely exectpable. Why don't i run OS 9 full time? well it doesn't have the stabability of Mac OS X, Apache, PHP, MySQL, premptive multitasking etc.

last year I upgraded from 160MB RAM to 416MB which did help a bit (would going to 768MB make a difference?).

Cuase I am not able to work, or find work easly (for every 1 job you get turned down for I get turned down for 500). cuase I am on disability, I am blacklisted by alot of compaies (and am in the black book of do no hire). So this computer has to last, and I need Mac OS X to run on it at OS 9 speeds for another 1.5-2.5 years. Any computer from time of being disconintued to not being able to run the latest OS well should last 5 years, not 1-2 years.

you guys can help me get a new Mac by making a donation at my web site, or by offering me work (5 years on the Mac, and 2 years as a content manager/webmaster).
 
Originally posted by serpicolugnut
I believe the case will be thrown out, because (and show me otherwise if I'm wrong), Apple never touted any of the beige G3, B&W G3's, etc. as being "OS X Ready"....
Click to expand...
No it was never in writing from Apple, but STEVE DID SAY exactly that at MacWorld '98!!!

I agree that Apple should not spend their time making OS X run on old hardware, but once they made this decision they should have done the right thing and offered these abandoned folks some token to say "sorry".

That's all they are really looking for... Some assurance that this was not malicious and that they will work hard to uphold their promises in the future...
 
Originally posted by serpicolugnut
I believe the case will be thrown out, because (and show me otherwise if I'm wrong), Apple never touted any of the beige G3, B&W G3's, etc. as being "OS X Ready"....
Click to expand...
No it was never in writing from Apple, but STEVE DID SAY exactly that at MacWorld SF '99!!!

I agree that Apple should not spend their time making OS X run on old hardware, but once they made this decision they should have done the right thing and offered these abandoned folks some token to say "sorry".

That's all they are really looking for... Some assurance that this was not malicious and that they will work hard to uphold their promises in the future...
 
While I am sympathetic to your disability and the impact it has on your financial situation, I still have to tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree.

Sure, Apple targeted the G3 for OS X to run on, and that promise is fullfilled. OS X runs just fine on the G3 processor. The only problem your machine has with OS X is the video chipset. If you were to put a Radeon in your machine, you would find that OS X will now support OpenGL just fine on your Mac. Sure, your 266 G3 procesor is going to be a bottleneck, but that can be upgraded too. G3/500's a pretty cheap now.

As for SJ making comments at MacWorld 98, 50% of "speculative" comments that he makes at these Expos never happen. OS X was continually pushed back at each expo up until MWSF 2001 when they announced it would ship in March. Also, half the time when they announced new hardware, it ships weeks/months after their "projected" ship date (although that has gotten much better in the last year). The point is - ship dates, projected hardware requirements, etc. - are all subject to change, and it's not the same thing as getting a written promise that your machine would run OS X at a level acceptable to you when it was released.

On to your feelings that OS 9 isn't acceptable for your work situation. I find this kind of funny. OS 9 has worked for you up to now, and will continue to work for you in the future. I have several friends who do graphic design who still use first & second generation PPC PowerMacs, with Photoshop 4, Illustrator 5.5, and Quark 3.3 - most of them haven't even upgraded to System 8! They continue to resist upgrades, and probably save a ton of money as a result.

My point is - Apple owes you nothing. They delivered on their promise to make OS X able to run on first generation G3 machines.

I feel a little more sympathy with those with non-upgradeable video chipsets (iMacs & Powerbooks), but you clearly have that option open to you. When you bought your machine their was never a written promise that OS X would run on it, let alone run to your expectations. OS 9 still works fine and supports just about everything you need. Sure, it's not as stable as OS X, but that's why Apple has developed it (OS X). To give people an incentive to buy new hardware, which in case you haven't noticed - is where Apple makes their money.
 
I did add a Radeon to my Mac along with upgrading to 416MB RAM.

I was egearly awaiting Mac OS X for Apache/PHP/MySQL. This year I would like to learn PHP/MySQL so I may be able to get work and work from home.

on my mom's 1999 iMac DV SE 400, it runs a bit slow (in fact slower in some cases then my Beige G3 266). She bought it in April 2000, 12 months before Mac OS X came out.

All I want is Apple to drop as much of the GUI as possible onto the Video Card, and Optimze Mac OS X as much as possible for the G3 and G4. this will improve preformance.

Oh one other thing they could do to really improve preformance, is have an installer that asks which Mac and hardware you have installed. Then the stuff you don't need (Airport, DVD, etc) won't be installed. This would make the install smaller and Mac OS X a bit faster.
 
bighairydog, et al.,

I'm impressed if you can keep a machine around for 5-8 years (and not just as a memento). I'm always amazed when I meet people like that. You know: content. =) My computers are on a 2-3 year cycle, but then, I'm pretty much a computer junky. It's a curse.

-Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top