On Oct 27, 2003, at 11:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 20:25 -0800 on 10/27/03, you (Doug Hinschberger), wrote:
Called the local Apple repair store, and they suspect the sound card.
I
found some fairly good instructions on the internet for taking the
thing
apart, but it appears I'll really
Quick summary:
If you sign an affidavit that you bought OS X for that machine, did not
use it regularly on that machine due to support issues, and promise to
never run OS X on your machine again, you can send back your CDs and get
the purchase price of your OS X purchase back.
Otherwise, you are
Quick summary:
If you sign an affidavit that you bought OS X for that machine, did not
use it regularly on that machine due to support issues, and promise to
never run OS X on your machine again, you can send back your CDs and get
the purchase price of your OS X purchase back.
Otherwise,
I received the full settlement report from the lawyers. As a mac
supporter, I threw the hole thing in the trash. Class action suits
benefit the law offices that file more than the actually participants
since they get there cut from the over-all settlement amount, or their
high fees are paid on
I have to agree. In the end, class action suits only hurt both the
company and the end user. Received information on another one against
Apple many years ago. Forget what it was, but the originator got around
$1000 or so, lawyers got millions, and I (along with several thousand
others) was
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
G-Books is sponsored by http://lowendmac.com/ and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks | CDRWs on Sale! |
Support Low End Mac http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html
The first class-action suit I recall against Apple was the over the
Performa series, which was advertised as PowerPC-upgradeable. Of course,
the upgrade was to replace the logic board for about $1K. The
class-action suit brought it down to the $600-$700 range.
And who can forget the
In a message dated 10/28/03 4:30:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will not add to Apple's cost for this one, since, in the end,
we all pay for it in higher costs to the company.
Wow... APPLE could not have said it better themselves.
Craig W.
(One of those lawyers you hatin' on!)
--
Bingo, Ditto, 100% agreed..
IMHO, if you decide to jump on the lawsuit, please do the rest of us a favor
and throw your Mac in the trash. This sort of rubbish should be deleted from
existence, not recommended for the public.
Tom
In a message dated 10/28/03 4:30:37 PM, you wrote:
I
Look, I really appreciate all the corporate ass kissing and lawyer
bashing, but I just wanted to know what exactly is claimed in the
lawsuit? That Apple didn't offer support for G3 users? Falsely
advertised compatibility for computers that weren't and then didn't
offer refunds to customers who
I totally dissagree with this.
THe issue was that SOME powerbooks didn't do EVERYTHING that OSX was supposed
to provide. YES, one or two folks may legitimately have been put out by this
issue. Do you REALLY think that it's worth $20-50 MILLION dollars in legal
fees to have this go into a
The lawsuit started off with the Beige G3 support and grew from there
(IIRC). The basic premise is that when apple stated that the computers
in question met the minimum requirements for OS X, and that they
(Apple) would support the OS on those computers that they were somehow
making a claim
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: G-Books [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:10:19 EST
To: G-Books [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: G3/Mac OS X Settlement
I totally dissagree with this.
THe issue was that SOME powerbooks didn't do EVERYTHING that OSX was supposed
to provide.
I have generally found that most large corp's (despite what your
left-wing idiots in CA think) ARE interested in the little guy.
I find this entire statement confusing, because (a.) I've never heard
anyone claim that large corporations really do have the little guys'
best interest at heart, and
I did follow the thread at the beginning before it turned into a class
action. I think the original intent was to force Apple to complete the
ATI
RageLT driver so that those users would benefit from video hardware
acceleration. I did drop the ball when I moved to a Pismo, so I don't
really
what
I've searched the web and can not find a freebie for what I would like. So,
if I have a folder with 34 jpgs in it, i would like to have each jpg
grabbed, then the exif file sent to a separate printable file and then the
next one and so on.
I would think that someone would have written a script
Wayne Schneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I received the full settlement report from the lawyers. As a mac
supporter, I threw the hole thing in the trash. Class action suits
benefit the law offices that file more than the actually participants
since they get there cut from the over-all
Right,
I was an iBook SE 2000 owner and was a bit miffed about no hardware
acceleration for my video card when X came out. My iBook was really
almost unusable in X with the slow video redraws. I too bought a Pismo
that I upgraded with the G3 900 upgrade and a gig of RAM so I am not
complaining
It was in 10.1.5 that they did it.
David
On Oct 28, 2003, at 4:42 PM, Hamlin Krewson wrote:
I did follow the thread at the beginning before it turned into a class
action. I think the original intent was to force Apple to complete
the ATI
RageLT driver so that those users would benefit from
Eric Morrison wrote:
I just put Panther on it to try it out (by the way, it runs GREAT
with Panther) and the strange thing is that it reports that the
machine
I can't really offer anything in the way of help to you, but can I ask
if you did a clean install (either reformat or archive install) or
Nope, sorry... don't buy that. There is an ATIRagePro.kext and
ATIRageProGA.plugin (2D acceleration) and the GA plug wasn't even
activated for the Lombard until 10.2.4, you needed a hack before that.
The RagePro.kext refers to a non-existant ATIRageProGL.bundle for
OpenGL acceleration. There
It's a moot point in any case, since Apple never promised graphics
acceleration (of any sort) on these older supported systems (nor was it
ever planned). It got added as a compromise (on Apple's behalf) as a
way of showing that they were willing to listen to user requests. Read
the original
On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 03:58 PM, Eric Morrison wrote:
Hi:
We have two (of our six) Pismos (9.2.2) recently exhibiting a problem
waking from sleep. Basically, whenever they go to sleep they won't
wake up. The green sleep light goes on when they go into sleep, and
when you press a
After the Time Remaining in the Control Strip goes down to 0:00, I still
get another 20 to 30 minutes of battery life. I'm running OS 9 on a 333mhz
Lombard. It's not really a problem but kind of annoying. I haven't noticed
any of that before, although it was probably just because I haven't been
on 28/10/03 18:53, Eric Morrison at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi:
Two questions actually.
First, I have a 333MHz Lombard (I know it's a 333 because that's what's
printed on the label on the bottom) which we purchased new several
years ago. I just put Panther on it to try it out (by the
On Oct 28, 2003, at 5:01 PM, Hamlin Krewson wrote:
It's a moot point in any case, since Apple never promised graphics
acceleration (of any sort) on these older supported systems (nor was
it ever planned). It got added as a compromise (on Apple's behalf) as
a way of showing that they were
On 10/28/03 11:03 PM, Krevnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spew into the
Cybertrough:
At the same time, they never said that features that were available
before would suddenly NEVER be supported again. Graphics chipset
support has come to be a very core part of basic OS functionality, and
Apple realized
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 03:18:57PM -0600, Hamlin Krewson wrote:
:
: On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 03:00 PM, Jacob Saariaho wrote:
:
: Does anybody know anything about this class action lawsuit against
: Apple? I'm not too good at legalese, so I'm hoping someone familiar
: with the case can
On Oct 28, 2003, at 6:20 PM, Krevnik wrote:
Nope, sorry... don't buy that. There is an ATIRagePro.kext and
ATIRageProGA.plugin (2D acceleration) and the GA plug wasn't even
activated for the Lombard until 10.2.4, you needed a hack before that.
The RagePro.kext refers to a non-existant
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 05:59:10PM -0600, David M. Ensteness wrote:
:
: Excuse me I just sent an email clarifying and I mistyped.
:
: Apple did provide Rage II and RagePro support it was in version 10.1.5
: and it included hardware 3D acceleration.
This is false, at least when it applies to
Thank you for your common sense Kyle. It was nice to read that someone
saw this in the same light I did.
David
This argument (and lawsuit) makes as much sense as people suing Apple
because OS 9.2 will not run on their Quadra 700. Apple may have
worded it
wrong (as far as supported machines
Apple never said it would support the stuff covered in the settlement
so that part of your post is simply false. On top of that, claiming
that I should get better performance out of my hardware [like the
RagePro chipset] than it is capable of simply because I think it should
be so - that is
Not entirely, go look it up. And no, I am not going to look it up for
you, I trust you can use Google just as well as I can.
David
On Oct 28, 2003, at 11:30 PM, Eugene Lee wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 05:59:10PM -0600, David M. Ensteness wrote:
:
: Excuse me I just sent an email clarifying
I'm trying to burn a DVD of about 2 hours of video. When I set it up in
Toast, it tells me that I need 5.6GB of space to burn it, and the blank
DVD-R only has 4.4GB. Has anyone used the more expensive double sided
(9.2GB) DVD blanks on a Mac? I'm using a Pioneer mechanism (DVR-105,
LaCie
34 matches
Mail list logo
