Forums | MacLife

beaverfever · 2009-09-12 9:49 am

rant on:

Yesterday I purchased an ipod touch, almost entirely to use as a PDA, not so much as a music or game device. Before buying I checked the tech requirements: "Mac OS X v10.4.11 or later", which is good, because my computer is old, and runs 10.4.11. There are no plans to upgrade, because I will certainly buy a new computer in the coming six months to a year.

Only after buying and attempting to use the touch did I learn that many of the functions of the touch require 10.5.7 to sync with one's computer.

This immediately reminded me of when I bought OS X 10.2 to install on my beige G3, which was within specs. Of course, OS X fried my beige G3, and this wasted a lot of my time and money. Apple's telephone support twisted words and rationalized that OS X 'may' work on 'some' G3s, so it was correct for Apple to say it was compatible with beige G3s (I countered that it would be irresponsible to say that mushrooms are safe to eat because 'some' mushrooms are safe to eat, while most are poisonous; the Apple rep wouldn't recognize a parallel between the two). Never mentioned was the ongoing class-action lawsuit over precisely this OS X/G3 misleading issue, which I learned of later when news reported Apple had reached a settlement that included refunds.

So, Apple has managed to piss me off again with misleading information.

rant off

zoees · 2009-09-12 10:14 am

"Of course, OS X fried my beige G3, and this wasted a lot of my time and money."

Wasn't 10.2 around $100.00 and took 40 minutes to install? Not exactly what I would call a lot of time or money, IMHO. I believe you had to hack a Beige G3 to get OS X to run at all.

My B&W G3 is running 10.3.9 wonderfully. It took about ten minutes of reading on this forum to learn this. Not trying to be a smartass- just sayin'.

So, it looks like your timeline has been bumped up a little.

beaverfever · 2009-09-12 10:34 am

At the time I was briefly living in Vancouver. I hazily recall the price being CAD199. At the contemporary exchange rate, that was well over $100.

Installation didn't take long, but it knocked out a bus and left a hard-drive and other hardware invisible. The solution was to reset the PMU on the motherboard. It took time to figure out how to fix that. "A few hacks" to do the install (that I learned of afterward) involved stripping out every hardware upgrade, including non-apple RAM, but ensuring that enough apple-approved ram was installed, then re-installing the hardware after 10.2 was running.

This wasn't on the box. The box said "compatible", not "compatible with hacks and resetting the PMU". Writing "I believe you had to hack a Beige G3 to get OS X to run at all" confirms what I am saying, as that was not the line Apple advertised. The class-action was launched by people who had near-identical experiences, and Apple came to terms with them.

Last edited by beaverfever (2009-09-12 10:34 am)

zoees · 2009-09-12 10:59 am

So- you did get 10.2 to run on that old Mac- impressive. It would be like installing Vista on a 486.

All I can say man, is before you go spending your hard earned cash on ANYTHING, research. This forum has been around for a very long time and I have seen many a person helped through situations just like yours.

Case in point- Circuit City was going out of business. I went in, saw a Belkin Wireless USB thing-a-ma-bob for a decent price to hook up to my old G3. I didn't bother doing much research and got home with it only to find out that I basically would have to rewrite a driver to get it to work. It's still sitting in the box- ran a hard line instead. Didn't bother me too much because I am typing this from a MacBook Pro Wireless. Had I posted the question here someone would have had that random knowledge and advised me against the purchase or told me how to do it.

Sorry about your new iPod. Apple is a business. It does *work with 10.4. You can see the obvious reasons for them not to advertise what will NOT work. As much as I love my Macs I can't say the same for Apple or any other company for all that matters.

So, when are you getting a new Mac?

robco · 2009-09-12 11:14 am

Apple should put a footnote at the bottom of the system specs page stating that while basic functions will work under Tiger, Leopard is needed for full functionality. They have similar disclaimers regarding capacity, connectivity, battery life and performance. They have a similar disclaimer for iTunes 9 - that some functions won't work under Tiger.

pottymouth · 2009-09-12 3:31 pm

So what's the deal with the iPod? What doesn't work?

beaverfever · 2009-09-12 3:46 pm

pottymouth wrote:
So what's the deal with the iPod? What doesn't work?

Off the top of my head, the two big ones for myself: address book and calendar won't sync. These were integral to my plans, hence my grumpiness.

zoees · 2009-09-12 8:26 pm

why?

is this a hardware fault?

sturner · 2009-09-12 9:06 pm

It's about the system software. sync with an iPod wasn't envisioned to function as it does with the iPod Touch.

beaverfever · 2009-09-12 10:53 pm

zoees wrote:
So, when are you getting a new Mac?

Yes, it is business, but as is well documented, business can sometimes go to far in protecting its short-term interests.

My plans for a new computer have not changed, so that purchase won't happen for some time. I won't be caught by the 'in for a penny, in for a pound' trap. I've accepted that I've made an error and I'll have to cope with it for a while. Posting the rant here did help me feel a bit better. smile

zoees · 2009-09-13 11:27 am

Excellent. Glad to be here for ya' man.

This is one of those "don't hate the player, hate the game situations".

On the bright side, you did get a shiny new iPod. Have fun with it.

Pariah · 2009-09-15 7:24 pm

10.2.8 ran fine on the AOI G/3 266 I had. Slow but steady.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2009-09-12 9:49 am

Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

#2 2009-09-12 10:14 am

Re: Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

#3 2009-09-12 10:34 am

Re: Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

#4 2009-09-12 10:59 am

Re: Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

#5 2009-09-12 11:14 am

Re: Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

#6 2009-09-12 3:31 pm

Re: Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

#7 2009-09-12 3:46 pm

Re: Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

pottymouth wrote:

#8 2009-09-12 8:26 pm

Re: Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

#9 2009-09-12 9:06 pm

Re: Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

#10 2009-09-12 10:53 pm

Re: Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

zoees wrote:

#11 2009-09-13 11:27 am

Re: Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

#12 2009-09-15 7:24 pm

Re: Apple rant: a history of misleading potential buyers

Board footer