Why Macintosh's SUCK

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Edward, Feb 21, 2006.

  1. Edward

    Edward Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. Edward

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, Edward
    <> wrote:

    > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6553260189868317794



    How bizarre.
    Most of his complaints are more true of Windows than of Mac OS, and
    most of the rest are complaints that it doesn't work exactly like
    Windows. Two were outright lies, and three points were practically
    valid, but unimportant.
    Another complaint was simply that he did something that made no sense
    to do. Nothing to do with Mac, just shouldn't have done it.
    No sign of why he thinks the Windows way is a better one. And although
    he beats up the hardware, he doesn't seem to have any problem with it.
    He's just getting upset for drama.
    Mitch, Feb 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Edward

    Rich Guest

    Edward wrote:
    > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6553260189868317794


    Here's a more true-to-life opinion from my own personal experience that
    happened less than a month ago:

    I bought a brand new iMac with the Rosetta "Intel Core Duo" processor
    because I was sold on how Apple touted how fast the processor was, how
    great it is, etc., so on and so forth. In the same instance I bought
    Final Cut HD Express and the Apple miniDVI-to-video adapter.

    This is what happened:

    First: Final Cut HD Express does not work with Rosetta processor based
    Macs - and Apple wouldn't let me send the software back because it had
    been opened one time (even though it couldn't install). How is it that
    Apple can build computers that won't run they're own software? Oh sure,
    they're offering a "patch" later - and CHARGING for it. What's the deal
    with that?

    Second: Connectivity to Samba shares on Windows machines are so slow
    it's pathetic. When I would try to copy files over my local network, it
    was so slow I thought I was on dialup - ON MY OWN NETWORK. And yes, it's
    programmed correctly. I can copy/move/whatever files in Windows and
    Ubuntu Linux very easily. The Mac was the only one that absolutely
    refused to "play nice" with it.. which was very weird considering Ubuntu
    Linux worked and OSX (Unix based) would somewhat work.

    Third: The "mighty mouse" is an absolute piece of garbage. To do
    something as simple as a right click you have to literally adjust your
    hand every time you want to do it.

    Fourth: Any app not specifically programmed by Apple has choppy video
    performance. I use Firefox and Thunderbird like a lot of people out
    there do, so I downloaded it and installed it. Every time I wanted to
    click/drag a window it was like trying to work on a 386!!

    Fifth: Mac uncrashable? I proved that wrong. The thing crashed the first
    day when I tried to copy a large file over my network. Black screen, no
    way out, kernel panic.

    I spoke with several Mac guys who have been using Macs for years. Some
    of them said I must have had a hardware problem. Some said "You should
    have got a G5 instead of the Rosetta". Whatever the problem was, I was
    very disappointed by my Mac experience. Fortunately, Apple took back the
    iMac and refunded me, but they won't take back Final Cut or the adapter
    I bought since they were opened.

    So I'm out over $300 bucks and I'm trying to sell Final Cut HD Express
    and the adapter on eBay to try to get some of my money back.

    I was totally sold on the "Mac Experience", but it turned out to be
    nothing but a nightmare.

    Seriously speaking, to anyone reading this, I don't bash Macs. I know
    they're supposed to be fantastic computers. I followed the advice of
    "Try a Mac, you'll like it!" Well, I did. The thing just didn't work
    like it was supposed to.

    I'm staying with Windows and Linux.

    -Rich
    Rich, Feb 21, 2006
    #3
  4. Edward

    Trax Guest

    Mitch <> wrote:

    |>In article <>, Edward
    |><> wrote:
    |>
    |>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6553260189868317794
    |>
    |>
    |>How bizarre.
    |>Most of his complaints are more true of Windows than of Mac OS, and
    |>most of the rest are complaints that it doesn't work exactly like
    |>Windows. Two were outright lies, and three points were practically
    |>valid, but unimportant.

    I second that thought, and did a search for "Hunter Cressall"

    " In 2003, Hunter (with Happy Nowhere's Brad and Shannon Hodson and
    Leo Ticheli's Chris Nuccio) shot an iMac switch spoof that has been
    getting more than its fair share of attention. The spoof has been
    featured on Rochess.net and Other World Computing (eshop.macsale.com),
    and has produced email both positive and outraged from literally all
    around the globe." http://www.happynowhere.net/hc.htm

    Key words being Spoof and Parody

    But the clip got him work :)
    " Because of this spoof, Hunter was hired to direct and appear in a
    series of commercials for The Bluezone Wireless Internet - based in
    Utah of all places."





    --
    pedestrian meets destiny
    http://homepage1.seed.net.tw/web@5/wychomepage/mygod.gif
    Trax, Feb 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Edward

    Margolotta Guest

    On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:50:05 +0000, Mitch wrote
    (in article <210220060450054755%>):

    > In article <>, Edward
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6553260189868317794

    >
    >
    > How bizarre.
    > Most of his complaints are more true of Windows than of Mac OS, and
    > most of the rest are complaints that it doesn't work exactly like
    > Windows. Two were outright lies, and three points were practically
    > valid, but unimportant.
    > Another complaint was simply that he did something that made no sense
    > to do. Nothing to do with Mac, just shouldn't have done it.
    > No sign of why he thinks the Windows way is a better one. And although
    > he beats up the hardware, he doesn't seem to have any problem with it.
    > He's just getting upset for drama.


    My sentiments exactly. I've never had work disappear on me, or applications
    freeze, or close for no reason (okay, Safari used to crash about once a week
    but Apple seem to have fixed that with the last two service releases - I'm
    running Tiger).

    I hope he's very happy on whatever planet he happens to inhabit. It should be
    pointed out that it was 3 years old, but even G3s were more stable and
    reliable than equivalent Windows boxes. I know of people still running Color
    Classics and older with absolutely no issues).
    Margolotta, Feb 21, 2006
    #5
  6. Edward

    Rich Guest

    > Er, yes there is a damned good reason - one which you'd have discovered had
    > you researched. You have an INTEL based Mac. All current software is written
    > for PowerPC based systems and there is quite a bit that will not run under
    > Rosetta. You should have waited a fortnight and you could have bought the
    > universal binary version which will run on both G5s and Intel based systems.
    > The system requirements clearly state "...not supported to run on Intel-based
    > Macintosh computers with Rosetta."


    Final Cut Pro will work on Intel based Macintosh computers with the
    "Universal" release, but there are no plans by Apple to make a Universal
    version of Final Cut HD Express. When I called them (as in Apple) and
    asked about it, that's what they told me. Yes, I did call when I first
    encountered the issue. They directly said to me there are no plans for
    Final Cut HD Express to have a Universal version released.

    So it doesn't matter how long I would have waited. The Universal version
    is not going to happen (at least not for Final Cut HD Express).

    > It was not personal opinion, it was a statement and an erroneous one at that.
    > *YOU* may not like it, but to say "it's a bean-shaped piece of trash" is just
    > complete and utter, well, trash. And if you didn't like it, why didn't you
    > just hook up the mouse you have with your PC? No one's forcing you to use
    > Apple's mouse...
    >


    The Mighty Mouse is supposed to take advantage of specific features in
    OSX that other mice do not. It's also supposed to be part of the whole
    Mac experience thing. My other USB mouse does not have the side
    scrolling or "squeeze" buttons on the sides.

    When you use another mouse you are literally taking away features, so I
    decided to stick with it for as long as I had it. I stand by what I said
    before, it's trash.

    >>>> I was totally sold on the "Mac Experience", but it turned out to be
    >>>> nothing but a nightmare.
    >>> Which was *ENTIRELY* of your own making.
    >>>

    >> Nah, the iMac did that on its own.

    >
    > Really? Wow! That's some computer you've got there! So you're telling me it
    > ripped the shrinkwrap off the FCE box all by itself, opened the box, all by
    > itself, opened the jewel case all by itself, took the CD out of the jewel
    > case all by itself, opened the drive tray all by itself, put the CD in the
    > tray all by itself and closed the drive tray all by itself? Then it
    > attempted to copy massive files over an unsupported network ALL BY ITSELF -
    > without any intervention from you WHATSOEVER?! Wow, you really must tell me
    > how you did that!
    >


    When Apple shipped me FCE (I bought from them directly), it came in a
    box (obviously) that had the FCE actual retail box in it. It was not
    shrinkwrapped. FCE did not have a jewel case in the box to hold its
    discs either - they were paper sleeves. As a matter of fact, the only
    difference between an open and unopened box is the small plastic circle
    sticker that covers the top flap.

    The iMac does not have any drive trays. It has one slot.

    On Apple's iMac page http://www.apple.com/imac/ one of the "features" is
    "Connect to a Windows Network" so it would appear it is in fact
    supported. Now granted, I'm not running an NT or 2000 server, but I
    believe connecting to a Windows share via TCP/IP does count.

    And to note - I connected to a Windows share following the exact
    instructions stated here:

    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106471

    ...and it was slow. Very slow. All the other computers on my network
    (Windows and Linux based) connected to the Windows share just fine. The
    iMac was the only one that would not establish a fast connection.

    The largest of those "massive files" you're referring to was 5MB. Last
    time I knew, 5MB was not "massive".

    >>>> I'm staying with Windows and Linux.
    >>> Yeah, I would do - Macs are for intelligent people with common-sense.
    >>> You've
    >>> yet to display either...
    >>>

    >> Not really. I think you've just shown everyone how completely
    >> non-supportive and outright rude Mac users truly are.

    >
    > We're actually really rather nice - we just don't much care for idiots
    >


    Damn, you almost made it through without a personal jab. Close. Real
    close. And who's this "we" you're referring to?
    Rich, Feb 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Edward

    Senti Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > Edward wrote:
    >
    >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6553260189868317794

    >
    > First: Final Cut HD Express does not work with Rosetta processor based
    > Macs - and Apple wouldn't let me send the software back because it had
    > been opened one time (even though it couldn't install). How is it that
    > Apple can build computers that won't run they're own software? Oh sure,
    > they're offering a "patch" later - and CHARGING for it. What's the deal
    > with that?


    All Rosetta does is translate the Mac-based instructions to something an
    Intel processor can understand. In order to use Mac software on an
    INtel-based Mac you need to get a version that comes as a "universal
    binary" (meaning it will run on both a PowerPC-based Mac and an
    Intel-based Mac). Without this Rosetta can't translate anything and the
    software won't work. All the universal software is marked with it's own
    logo which looks liek a yin-yang symbol on it's side. See it here:

    http://images.apple.com/universal/images/universaltop20060109.jpg


    > Third: The "mighty mouse" is an absolute piece of garbage. To do
    > something as simple as a right click you have to literally adjust your
    > hand every time you want to do it.


    There have been lots of complaints about the Mighty Mouse, but I've yet
    to have an issue with it. When I right click I just click a little bit
    more on the upper-right-edge of where the button would normally be. The
    capacitor underneath seems to recognize that just fine.

    > I spoke with several Mac guys who have been using Macs for years. Some
    > of them said I must have had a hardware problem. Some said "You should
    > have got a G5 instead of the Rosetta".


    I'd go with the G5 over the Intel as well, except for the fact that
    Apple is transitioning all of their Macs over to using Intel by the end
    of 2007. I'm not sure if this means that they're dropping the PowerPC
    core or not.

    As for not being able to run Final Cut, I don't think you can blame that
    on Apple as the system requirements for it state that it needs a PowerPC
    G4 or G5 (some features need the G5 specifically). And not being able
    to return opened software is an industry standard so assuming it was MS
    software that you couldn't use, they wouldn't have taken it back, either.

    ~S
    Senti, Feb 22, 2006
    #7
  8. Edward

    Senti Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > Margolotta wrote:
    >


    >>
    >> You could even have saved yourself a whole lot of grief had you
    >> bothered to search *APPLE'S* site before purchasing. That's right,
    >> you'd have $300 more in your bank account had you spent a nanosecond
    >> searching the company's website. But you didn't. Again, could you
    >> please enlighten me how your chronic stupidity and lack of forethought
    >> is, in any way, shape or form, Apple's fault?

    >
    >
    > Excellent point - I have an excellent answer for you. It is totally
    > Apple's fault because any software made by Mac is supposed to work on a
    > Mac, period. No ifs, ands or buts about it. There should be absolutely
    > no reason whatsoever for the consumer to check whether a BRAND NEW Mac
    > will run CURRENT software made by Apple themselves.


    When you buy software for your non-Mac computer, do you ever consider
    the system requirements for it? Unless you're totally clueless you do.
    Why would it be any different for a Mac?

    And where did you get the idea that "any software made by Mac is
    supposed to work on a Mac, period. No ifs, ands or buts about it"? Did
    you happen to see Apple ever claim that? No. In fact, if you were to do
    a little research (try http://www.apple.com/intel/ or
    http://www.apple.com/rosetta/ or http://www.apple.com/universal/ for
    starters) you'd see that Apple tells you that not all Apple software
    will run on an Intel-based Mac. In the case of purchasing Final Cut,
    the mistake was yours, pure and simple.

    >>> Second: Connectivity to Samba shares on Windows machines are so slow
    >>> it's pathetic.

    >>
    >>
    >> Yes, this is also well documented. How much research *DID* you do
    >> before purchasing a $1700+ machine and spending another $300 or so on
    >> software? I'll tell you how much - zip, nada, nothing.
    >>

    >
    > And again, I'll tell you - Mac software is supposed to work on Macs.


    Mac software does work on Macs... It's just that not ALL Mac software
    works on ALL Macs. Do you expect Final Cut to run on a G3? A G3 is a
    Mac. Final Cut is Mac software. According to you, it should work.

    >>
    >> When I would try to copy files over my local network, it
    >>
    >>> was so slow I thought I was on dialup - ON MY OWN NETWORK.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> You don't dial-up to a LAN, dickwad.
    >>

    >
    > I love you too, man. Share the love. I was just using that as an example
    > of the speed (or lack thereof) when the iMac was connected to the network.


    Margolotta likes to insult so ignore the obvious stuff like that. ;)

    >>> Seriously speaking, to anyone reading this, I don't bash Macs.

    >>
    >>
    >> Yes you do. You just have done. So you're a liar as well as a dickwad.

    >
    >
    > Well, at least I can have intelligent conversation without the childish
    > name calling. If all Mac users are like you - then I'm totally pleased I
    > sent the piece of crap back where it came from.


    All Mac users are like Margolotta the way all Windows users are like
    Bill Gates. ;)

    >> I know
    >>
    >>> they're supposed to be fantastic computers. I followed the advice of
    >>> "Try a Mac, you'll like it!" Well, I did. The thing just didn't work
    >>> like it was supposed to.


    To each their own. Some people like green, others like pink. (I'm one
    of the likers of green. :) I'm sorry your experience didn't turn out
    well, but sometimes that's the way it works. *shrug*

    >>
    >>
    >> No, the Mac worked perfectly. It was the user who "didn't work like it
    >> was supposed to".
    >>
    >>
    >>> I'm staying with Windows and Linux.

    >>
    >>
    >> Yeah, I would do - Macs are for intelligent people with common-sense.
    >> You've yet to display either...
    >>

    >
    > Not really. I think you've just shown everyone how completely
    > non-supportive and outright rude Mac users truly are.


    No, Margolotta has shown how outright and rude one individual can be.
    Avoid generalities like "All Mac (or Windows or Linux or...) are the
    same" and like "All Macs run all Mac software equally" and you should do
    fine. ;P

    ~S
    Senti, Feb 22, 2006
    #8
  9. Edward

    Rich Guest

    Senti wrote:

    > When you buy software for your non-Mac computer, do you ever consider
    > the system requirements for it? Unless you're totally clueless you do.
    > Why would it be any different for a Mac?


    > And where did you get the idea that "any software made by Mac is
    > supposed to work on a Mac, period. No ifs, ands or buts about it"? Did
    > you happen to see Apple ever claim that? No. In fact, if you were to do
    > a little research (try http://www.apple.com/intel/ or
    > http://www.apple.com/rosetta/ or http://www.apple.com/universal/ for
    > starters) you'd see that Apple tells you that not all Apple software
    > will run on an Intel-based Mac. In the case of purchasing Final Cut,
    > the mistake was yours, pure and simple.
    >


    It's not as clueless as you might think if you see it from this point of
    view:

    In the Windows world, there is not a single manufacturer that builds
    computers solely for the Windows OS. You have manufacturers such as
    Dell, Gateway, HP and Alienware just to name a few. All these
    manufacturers build computers differently and have different components
    (sound cards, video cards and so on). There is very little consistency
    when you compare how one manufacturer builds a computer compared to
    another. So yes, I always check system requirements before purchasing
    software for my computer running Windows.

    Concerning Apple: Part of Apple's marketing (as it always has been) is
    that Macs are supposed to be easy to use. Furthermore, only one company
    makes Macs. Apple. It would stand to reason that software programmed by
    the company who makes the computers in the first place would make
    software that work on everything they make. When you buy a new Mac and
    buy current (read: current) software made by Apple - it should be a safe
    assumption that yes, it will work. Why wouldn't it? All their computers
    are supposed to have consistency to them because only one company makes
    them - and that's where my "Any software made by Mac (by Apple) is
    supposed to work on a Mac, period" comes from.

    > Mac software does work on Macs... It's just that not ALL Mac software
    > works on ALL Macs. Do you expect Final Cut to run on a G3? A G3 is a
    > Mac. Final Cut is Mac software. According to you, it should work.


    Clarification: What I expected was a brand new Macintosh computer that
    would run current software offered by the company who makes them. It's
    not an issue of "Is the computer enough powerful enough to run [this]",
    it's an expectation that the company (Apple) would make current software
    that would run on its own current computers (Macs). The fact that they
    make computers that will not run certain software they currently make is
    just not good - and I was very soured by that fact. I'm sure it will be
    fixed in the future, but I honestly do not have the time to wait around
    for that to occur.

    > All Mac users are like Margolotta the way all Windows users are like
    > Bill Gates. ;)


    I have my gripes about Windows XP like anyone else. Who doesn't? This is
    why I also use Linux.

    >>>> they're supposed to be fantastic computers. I followed the advice of
    >>>> "Try a Mac, you'll like it!" Well, I did. The thing just didn't work
    >>>> like it was supposed to.

    >
    > To each their own. Some people like green, others like pink. (I'm one
    > of the likers of green. :) I'm sorry your experience didn't turn out
    > well, but sometimes that's the way it works. *shrug*


    That was my whole point. I really, *really* wanted this Mac to work. I
    was very much looking forward to using it as my main computer for all my
    needs. I was so anxious to receive it. When I did, I was astonished at
    how awesome the picture was, the color, the ease of setup and everything
    inbetween. When I tried to installed Final Cut Express, it was like a
    kick in the teeth. I just bought a brand new computer, only to find out
    that the one thing I wanted to do (pro video editing) it couldn't do.
    And iMovie just didn't have enough functionality.

    I tried like hell for a week straight to fix the issues I encountered
    with it. I read mountains of online documentation (especially concerning
    my own network) but I just couldn't get the iMac to do what I wanted it
    to do. Friends of mine that have been using Macs for years couldn't
    believe the problems I was encountering with it - stating (and I quote),
    "They're not supposed to do that."

    > No, Margolotta has shown how outright and rude one individual can be.
    > Avoid generalities like "All Mac (or Windows or Linux or...) are the
    > same" and like "All Macs run all Mac software equally" and you should do
    > fine. ;P
    >
    > ~S


    Yes, I should clarify a bit more in the future. As far as Margolotta is
    concerned, there's nothing he's said that I haven't heard at least five
    times before. I take no offense to what he said, but if he's trying to
    make a point or two, he can do it without the childish insults, else his
    point of view holds no weight with me at all (or anyone else).

    -Rich
    Rich, Feb 22, 2006
    #9
  10. Edward

    Senti Guest

    Renamed: Why research is important before buying a computer

    Rich wrote:
    > Senti wrote:
    >
    >> When you buy software for your non-Mac computer, do you ever consider
    >> the system requirements for it? Unless you're totally clueless you
    >> do. Why would it be any different for a Mac?

    >
    >
    >> And where did you get the idea that "any software made by Mac is
    >> supposed to work on a Mac, period. No ifs, ands or buts about it"?
    >> Did you happen to see Apple ever claim that? No. In fact, if you were
    >> to do a little research (try http://www.apple.com/intel/ or
    >> http://www.apple.com/rosetta/ or http://www.apple.com/universal/ for
    >> starters) you'd see that Apple tells you that not all Apple software
    >> will run on an Intel-based Mac. In the case of purchasing Final Cut,
    >> the mistake was yours, pure and simple.
    >>

    >
    > It's not as clueless as you might think if you see it from this point of
    > view:
    >
    > In the Windows world, there is not a single manufacturer that builds
    > computers solely for the Windows OS. You have manufacturers such as
    > Dell, Gateway, HP and Alienware just to name a few.


    Which of these manufacturers include any OS *other* than Windows? Which
    of these manufacturers ships their product out with Linux for example?
    For all intents and purposes, those computers are built for Windows.
    Will any of them provide support if you throw another OS on it? No.
    You'll find they say "I'm sorry but we can't help you install your
    bundled software on Linux" (for example). All those manufacturers make
    computers that are capable of running WIndows. They will not guarantee
    that any other OS will work on them. Call and ask.

    All these
    > manufacturers build computers differently and have different components
    > (sound cards, video cards and so on). There is very little consistency
    > when you compare how one manufacturer builds a computer compared to
    > another. So yes, I always check system requirements before purchasing
    > software for my computer running Windows.


    First, Apple doesn't use the exact same components in every computer,
    either. Powermac G5's, for example, can come with either a Radeon or
    Nvidia graphics card. Plus you are free to use another video card if you
    want, and it won't even void your warranty (unless it causes physical
    damage). What kind of graphics card does Final Cut need? Do the 4
    different cards you can get with a Powermac G5 meet it's requirements?
    Something you should check with *any* computer when buying any video
    editing software.

    >
    > It would stand to reason that software programmed by
    > the company who makes the computers in the first place would make
    > software that work on everything they make.


    No... it wouldn't. That's called an "assumption" and according to my
    high school teacher "When you assume you make an ass out of u and me".
    OS X is a totally different OS than OS 9, for example, but the majority
    of OS 9 apps won't run on OS X unless you install the Classic
    environment (which doesn't come with every Mac).

    There's also the fact that all computer manufacturers make computers for
    different customer groups. Three that come to mind are regular
    consumers, professional consumers, and and large corporations that have
    special needs (usually servers and the like). Apple makes computers for
    all of these. And they make computers for differing budgets. The newest
    computer isn't always the fastest/best computer they have. Heck, you
    should have gone for the Quad-core Powermac G5 with 16GB of RAM and 1TB
    of disk storage if you wanted the best! iMacs are aimed towards your
    average home user (who will be using iMovie and iDVD from the iLife
    suite) and so are made to run software also aimed at that group.
    Powermacs are Apple's "Professional" line and so tend to be come with
    more "power"... and the price reflects this.

    Apple may say that Macs are easy to use (and I find them infinitely
    easier to use and troubleshoot than any Windows box I've used), but they
    have never claimed that *every* Apple computer will run *all* Apple
    software. They have released all the information (and more) that you
    need to make an informed purchase. Your failure to research does not
    mean Apple has been derelict in their duty.

    When you buy a new Mac and
    > buy current (read: current) software made by Apple - it should be a safe
    > assumption that yes, it will work. Why wouldn't it?


    Why *would* it? Because then you wouldn't have made an error? If Apple
    made computers that were capable of running *all* the software they
    make, then iMacs would be $1000-$2000 more than they are now. You're
    being totally unreasonable.

    All their computers
    > are supposed to have consistency to them because only one company makes
    > them - and that's where my "Any software made by Mac (by Apple) is
    > supposed to work on a Mac, period" comes from.
    >
    >> Mac software does work on Macs... It's just that not ALL Mac software
    >> works on ALL Macs. Do you expect Final Cut to run on a G3? A G3 is a
    >> Mac. Final Cut is Mac software. According to you, it should work.

    >
    >
    > Clarification: What I expected was a brand new Macintosh computer that
    > would run current software offered by the company who makes them. It's
    > not an issue of "Is the computer enough powerful enough to run [this]",
    > it's an expectation that the company (Apple) would make current software
    > that would run on its own current computers (Macs).


    And it *does* run on it's current computers... just not the one you bought.

    >> To each their own. Some people like green, others like pink. (I'm one
    >> of the likers of green. :) I'm sorry your experience didn't turn out
    >> well, but sometimes that's the way it works. *shrug*

    >
    >
    > That was my whole point. I really, *really* wanted this Mac to work. I
    > was very much looking forward to using it as my main computer for all my
    > needs. I was so anxious to receive it. When I did, I was astonished at
    > how awesome the picture was, the color, the ease of setup and everything
    > inbetween. When I tried to installed Final Cut Express, it was like a
    > kick in the teeth. I just bought a brand new computer, only to find out
    > that the one thing I wanted to do (pro video editing) it couldn't do.
    > And iMovie just didn't have enough functionality.
    >
    > I tried like hell for a week straight to fix the issues I encountered
    > with it. I read mountains of online documentation (especially concerning
    > my own network) but I just couldn't get the iMac to do what I wanted it
    > to do. Friends of mine that have been using Macs for years couldn't
    > believe the problems I was encountering with it - stating (and I quote),
    > "They're not supposed to do that."


    And, in all honesty, wouldn't the 20 minutes (tops) of research prior to
    buying and having avoided all that aggravation been worth the time?
    Heck, you don't even have to do any internet searching, either. Call
    the 1-800-MY-APPLE number and you could have been transferred to someone
    who would have answered any pre-sales questions you had. They would
    ahve been the first to tell you that to do what you wanted you'd *have*
    to buy a PowerPC-based Mac.

    >> No, Margolotta has shown how outright and rude one individual can be.
    >> Avoid generalities like "All Mac (or Windows or Linux or...) are the
    >> same" and like "All Macs run all Mac software equally" and you should
    >> do fine. ;P
    >>
    >> ~S

    >
    >
    > Yes, I should clarify a bit more in the future. As far as Margolotta is
    > concerned, there's nothing he's said that I haven't heard at least five
    > times before. I take no offense to what he said, but if he's trying to
    > make a point or two, he can do it without the childish insults, else his
    > point of view holds no weight with me at all (or anyone else).


    If you're willing to filter through the shit in Margolotta's posts, you
    sometimes find a some information in there. Just make sure you're
    wearing hip-waders and a nose-plug. ;)




    ~S
    Senti, Feb 22, 2006
    #10
  11. Edward

    Rich Guest

    Re: Renamed: Why research is important before buying a computer

    Senti wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    >> Senti wrote:
    >>
    >>> When you buy software for your non-Mac computer, do you ever consider
    >>> the system requirements for it? Unless you're totally clueless you
    >>> do. Why would it be any different for a Mac?

    >>
    >>
    >>> And where did you get the idea that "any software made by Mac is
    >>> supposed to work on a Mac, period. No ifs, ands or buts about it"?
    >>> Did you happen to see Apple ever claim that? No. In fact, if you
    >>> were to do a little research (try http://www.apple.com/intel/ or
    >>> http://www.apple.com/rosetta/ or http://www.apple.com/universal/ for
    >>> starters) you'd see that Apple tells you that not all Apple software
    >>> will run on an Intel-based Mac. In the case of purchasing Final Cut,
    >>> the mistake was yours, pure and simple.
    >>>

    >>
    >> It's not as clueless as you might think if you see it from this point
    >> of view:
    >>
    >> In the Windows world, there is not a single manufacturer that builds
    >> computers solely for the Windows OS. You have manufacturers such as
    >> Dell, Gateway, HP and Alienware just to name a few.

    >
    > Which of these manufacturers include any OS *other* than Windows? Which
    > of these manufacturers ships their product out with Linux for example?
    > For all intents and purposes, those computers are built for Windows.
    > Will any of them provide support if you throw another OS on it? No.
    > You'll find they say "I'm sorry but we can't help you install your
    > bundled software on Linux" (for example). All those manufacturers make
    > computers that are capable of running WIndows. They will not guarantee
    > that any other OS will work on them. Call and ask.
    >


    I don't have to call.

    http://www.dell.com/linux

    Dell n Series desktops will work with Linux and are designed to do so.
    Licensing is available for Red Hat and SuSE (Novell).

    http://www1.us.dell.com/content/top...ons/en/precision_linux?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz

    See header "Comprehensive Linux Support".

    They build 'em and support 'em, even with Linux.

    http://www.hp.com/linux

    HP offers it as well.

    http://www.hp.com/linux

    You can order workstations preloaded with Linux which are also supported
    (Red Hat or SuSE).

    > All these
    >> manufacturers build computers differently and have different
    >> components (sound cards, video cards and so on). There is very little
    >> consistency when you compare how one manufacturer builds a computer
    >> compared to another. So yes, I always check system requirements before
    >> purchasing software for my computer running Windows.

    >
    > First, Apple doesn't use the exact same components in every computer,
    > either. Powermac G5's, for example, can come with either a Radeon or
    > Nvidia graphics card. Plus you are free to use another video card if you
    > want, and it won't even void your warranty (unless it causes physical
    > damage). What kind of graphics card does Final Cut need? Do the 4
    > different cards you can get with a Powermac G5 meet it's requirements?
    > Something you should check with *any* computer when buying any video
    > editing software.
    >


    The error you get when attempting to install FCE on a Intel Core Duo Mac
    is that the card does not have AGP. The install halts at that point and
    will not let you go any further. My iMac had the best video card
    offerered by Apple, a 256MB ATI Radeon, but it doesn't have AGP and it's
    not offered on the Intel-based iMacs (on the G5's it is). It should also
    absolutely be not necessary for me to rip apart a brand new iMac just to
    get certain software to work correctly. That's ridiculous.

    >>
    >> It would stand to reason that software programmed by the company who
    >> makes the computers in the first place would make software that work
    >> on everything they make.

    >
    > No... it wouldn't. That's called an "assumption" and according to my
    > high school teacher "When you assume you make an ass out of u and me".
    > OS X is a totally different OS than OS 9, for example, but the majority
    > of OS 9 apps won't run on OS X unless you install the Classic
    > environment (which doesn't come with every Mac).
    >
    > There's also the fact that all computer manufacturers make computers for
    > different customer groups. Three that come to mind are regular
    > consumers, professional consumers, and and large corporations that have
    > special needs (usually servers and the like). Apple makes computers for
    > all of these. And they make computers for differing budgets. The newest
    > computer isn't always the fastest/best computer they have. Heck, you
    > should have gone for the Quad-core Powermac G5 with 16GB of RAM and 1TB
    > of disk storage if you wanted the best! iMacs are aimed towards your
    > average home user (who will be using iMovie and iDVD from the iLife
    > suite) and so are made to run software also aimed at that group.
    > Powermacs are Apple's "Professional" line and so tend to be come with
    > more "power"... and the price reflects this.
    >


    One of the reasons I bought the iMac was size. The fact it's put
    together in a pizza-box style was attractive. Professional videographers
    I know use G4's right now which are less powerful compared to the
    Intel-based Mac according to Apple. This means that the iMac should have
    run FCE with absolutely zero hassle whatsoever, I wouldn't need a
    super-duper Mac and the video memory provided should have been more than
    enough.

    > Apple may say that Macs are easy to use (and I find them infinitely
    > easier to use and troubleshoot than any Windows box I've used), but they
    > have never claimed that *every* Apple computer will run *all* Apple
    > software. They have released all the information (and more) that you
    > need to make an informed purchase. Your failure to research does not
    > mean Apple has been derelict in their duty.
    >
    > When you buy a new Mac and
    >> buy current (read: current) software made by Apple - it should be a
    >> safe assumption that yes, it will work. Why wouldn't it?

    >
    > Why *would* it? Because then you wouldn't have made an error? If Apple
    > made computers that were capable of running *all* the software they
    > make, then iMacs would be $1000-$2000 more than they are now. You're
    > being totally unreasonable.
    >


    Why is it not reasonable to assume (yes, I said assume) that software
    programmed by Apple wouldn't run on a computer made by Apple? FCE isn't
    a server application, nor is it anything that required power of a grand
    scale.

    I will agree to disagree on this point.

    > All their computers
    >> are supposed to have consistency to them because only one company
    >> makes them - and that's where my "Any software made by Mac (by Apple)
    >> is supposed to work on a Mac, period" comes from.
    >>
    >>> Mac software does work on Macs... It's just that not ALL Mac software
    >>> works on ALL Macs. Do you expect Final Cut to run on a G3? A G3 is
    >>> a Mac. Final Cut is Mac software. According to you, it should work.

    >>
    >>
    >> Clarification: What I expected was a brand new Macintosh computer that
    >> would run current software offered by the company who makes them. It's
    >> not an issue of "Is the computer enough powerful enough to run
    >> [this]", it's an expectation that the company (Apple) would make
    >> current software that would run on its own current computers (Macs).

    >
    > And it *does* run on it's current computers... just not the one you bought.
    >


    No, Final Cut HD Express will not run on the Intel-based iMac, or any
    other Intel-based Macintosh computer. Final Cut PRO will with the
    Universal release, but Final Cut HD Express will not, and (as I've said
    previously), Apple has no plans to release a Universal version of Final
    Cut HD Express - and I don't have the extra $1000 to spend just to have
    a "compatible" version (Final Cut Pro).

    >>> To each their own. Some people like green, others like pink. (I'm
    >>> one of the likers of green. :) I'm sorry your experience didn't turn
    >>> out well, but sometimes that's the way it works. *shrug*

    >>
    >>
    >> That was my whole point. I really, *really* wanted this Mac to work. I
    >> was very much looking forward to using it as my main computer for all
    >> my needs. I was so anxious to receive it. When I did, I was astonished
    >> at how awesome the picture was, the color, the ease of setup and
    >> everything inbetween. When I tried to installed Final Cut Express, it
    >> was like a kick in the teeth. I just bought a brand new computer, only
    >> to find out that the one thing I wanted to do (pro video editing) it
    >> couldn't do. And iMovie just didn't have enough functionality.
    >>
    >> I tried like hell for a week straight to fix the issues I encountered
    >> with it. I read mountains of online documentation (especially
    >> concerning my own network) but I just couldn't get the iMac to do what
    >> I wanted it to do. Friends of mine that have been using Macs for years
    >> couldn't believe the problems I was encountering with it - stating
    >> (and I quote), "They're not supposed to do that."

    >
    > And, in all honesty, wouldn't the 20 minutes (tops) of research prior to
    > buying and having avoided all that aggravation been worth the time?
    > Heck, you don't even have to do any internet searching, either. Call
    > the 1-800-MY-APPLE number and you could have been transferred to someone
    > who would have answered any pre-sales questions you had. They would
    > ahve been the first to tell you that to do what you wanted you'd *have*
    > to buy a PowerPC-based Mac.
    >


    I didn't have any pre-sales questions because yes, I assumed that a new
    Mac computer made by Apple would run current software also made by Apple.

    That's an error I won't be making again.
    Rich, Feb 22, 2006
    #11
  12. Edward

    Steve Guest

    Re: Renamed: Why research is important before buying a computer

    On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 03:35:16 GMT, Senti wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > If you're willing to filter through the shit in Margolotta's posts, you
    > sometimes find a some information in there. Just make sure you're
    > wearing hip-waders and a nose-plug. ;)
    >
    > ~S


    I think Margolotta is my ex-wife. I recognise the inability to say
    something *once* and the fallback to verbal abuse (repeated) that comes
    when they run out of steam.


    --
    Steve
    ?wollof ot drah yllaer sdaerht sekam gnitsop-pot taht erawa uoy ereW
    Steve, Feb 22, 2006
    #12
  13. Edward

    Mitch Guest

    Re: Renamed: Why research is important before buying a computer

    In article <v7SKf.62$>, Rich
    <> wrote:

    > The error you get when attempting to install FCE on a Intel Core Duo Mac
    > is that the card does not have AGP. The install halts at that point and
    > will not let you go any further.

    The requirements for the product specify that -- AGP card is necessary.

    > It should also
    > absolutely be not necessary for me to rip apart a brand new iMac just to
    > get certain software to work correctly. That's ridiculous.

    "Rip apart"? You don't think that description is a bit unreasonable?
    In any case, there isn't anything to change -- if your machine didn't
    have AGP, it will never have. You simply got the wrong version of Final
    Cut.

    > One of the reasons I bought the iMac was size. The fact it's put
    > together in a pizza-box style was attractive. Professional videographers
    > I know use G4's right now which are less powerful compared to the
    > Intel-based Mac according to Apple. This means that the iMac should have
    > run FCE with absolutely zero hassle whatsoever, I wouldn't need a
    > super-duper Mac and the video memory provided should have been more than
    > enough.

    Yes, except the difference wasn't about processing ability, but writing
    that version specifically for AGP cards. The next version will not be
    written so. The previous version was not written so. You can use both
    of those.

    > Why is it not reasonable to assume (yes, I said assume) that software
    > programmed by Apple wouldn't run on a computer made by Apple? FCE isn't
    > a server application, nor is it anything that required power of a grand
    > scale.

    I would think it would be reasonable, just from their track record. I
    had to look twice when that issue came up to make sure they'd really
    made that difference in Final Cut. But I'd probably still have looked
    at teh requirements, just to get an idea of what RAM it expected, for
    instance.

    > No, Final Cut HD Express will not run on the Intel-based iMac, or any
    > other Intel-based Macintosh computer. Final Cut PRO will with the
    > Universal release, but Final Cut HD Express will not, and (as I've said
    > previously), Apple has no plans to release a Universal version of Final
    > Cut HD Express - and I don't have the extra $1000 to spend just to have
    > a "compatible" version (Final Cut Pro).


    I'd be surprised if they didn't offer an 'Express' package in the near
    future. Apple doesn't really like offering just Pro-level packages.

    > I didn't have any pre-sales questions because yes, I assumed that a new
    > Mac computer made by Apple would run current software also made by Apple.


    How much have you wrangled with their customer service?
    This issue has come up with other users, in several ways -- I wouldn't
    be surprised if Apple made some compromise about the product.
    Mitch, Feb 22, 2006
    #13
  14. Edward

    Rich Guest

    Re: Renamed: Why research is important before buying a computer

    Mitch wrote:
    > In article <v7SKf.62$>, Rich
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> The error you get when attempting to install FCE on a Intel Core Duo Mac
    >> is that the card does not have AGP. The install halts at that point and
    >> will not let you go any further.

    > The requirements for the product specify that -- AGP card is necessary.
    >


    Yes, I know that now. All too well. The Intel-based iMac has a PCI
    Express video card in it.

    When ordering the iMac from the Apple store it unfortunately does not
    state that the video card is PCI Express. It's nowhere to be found. All
    you have is the choice of whether to have 128MB or 256MB. When you click
    "Learn more" there isn't any further information on the subject. If you
    go *outside* the Apple Store
    (http://www.apple.com/imac/whatsinside.html), then you can see that it
    actually is a PCI Express video card.

    >> It should also
    >> absolutely be not necessary for me to rip apart a brand new iMac just to
    >> get certain software to work correctly. That's ridiculous.

    > "Rip apart"? You don't think that description is a bit unreasonable?
    > In any case, there isn't anything to change -- if your machine didn't
    > have AGP, it will never have. You simply got the wrong version of Final
    > Cut.
    >


    I bought the version I could afford. The Pro version is $1000 more. It
    wasn't a decision based on version. Had I the money, I would have
    dropped $1299 on Final Cut Pro in a heartbeat. Apple themselves stated
    to me on the phone that there are no plans to have the Express version
    of Final Cut as a Universal release, so there isn't any "correct"
    version (presently) to purchase unless you want to spend $1000 more.

    http://www.apple.com/rosetta/

    See the bottom right of that page. Express version isn't mentioned. When
    I noticed that, that's when I called them to confirm whether there would
    be an actual Universal release of FCE. They said "there are no plans to
    do so".

    >> One of the reasons I bought the iMac was size. The fact it's put
    >> together in a pizza-box style was attractive. Professional videographers
    >> I know use G4's right now which are less powerful compared to the
    >> Intel-based Mac according to Apple. This means that the iMac should have
    >> run FCE with absolutely zero hassle whatsoever, I wouldn't need a
    >> super-duper Mac and the video memory provided should have been more than
    >> enough.

    > Yes, except the difference wasn't about processing ability, but writing
    > that version specifically for AGP cards. The next version will not be
    > written so. The previous version was not written so. You can use both
    > of those.
    >


    It should not be necessary to hunt or wait for software to work on a
    brand new offering by Apple that they do not sell in their own online store.

    >> Why is it not reasonable to assume (yes, I said assume) that software
    >> programmed by Apple wouldn't run on a computer made by Apple? FCE isn't
    >> a server application, nor is it anything that required power of a grand
    >> scale.

    > I would think it would be reasonable, just from their track record. I
    > had to look twice when that issue came up to make sure they'd really
    > made that difference in Final Cut. But I'd probably still have looked
    > at teh requirements, just to get an idea of what RAM it expected, for
    > instance.
    >


    The iMac I bought was outfitted with the 20" screen, 1GB of RAM and the
    best video card offered by Apple. Most video apps for Apple require at
    least a minimum of 512MB RAM so I doubled that to be on the safe side.

    >> No, Final Cut HD Express will not run on the Intel-based iMac, or any
    >> other Intel-based Macintosh computer. Final Cut PRO will with the
    >> Universal release, but Final Cut HD Express will not, and (as I've said
    >> previously), Apple has no plans to release a Universal version of Final
    >> Cut HD Express - and I don't have the extra $1000 to spend just to have
    >> a "compatible" version (Final Cut Pro).

    >
    > I'd be surprised if they didn't offer an 'Express' package in the near
    > future. Apple doesn't really like offering just Pro-level packages.
    >


    I was sincerely hoping Apple would say "Yes! We have a Universal version
    of FCE and it will be available in March '06!", but the Apple rep on the
    phone said otherwise.

    And you're correct - it is unlike Apple to not offer an Express version,
    especially for their newer computer releases. It was surprising to hear
    when they told me directly there weren't any plans for FCE Universal
    version.

    >> I didn't have any pre-sales questions because yes, I assumed that a new
    >> Mac computer made by Apple would run current software also made by Apple.

    >
    > How much have you wrangled with their customer service?
    > This issue has come up with other users, in several ways -- I wouldn't
    > be surprised if Apple made some compromise about the product.


    I had to make numerous phone calls to Apple concerning this whole
    fracas. The compromise by Apple is that they were willing to take the
    computer back and give me a full refund - and I'm thankful for that. I
    could write about four screens worth concerning what I dealt with
    getting Apple to *process* that return - but that's a whole other story. :)
    Rich, Feb 22, 2006
    #14
  15. Edward

    Senti Guest

    Re: Renamed: Why research is important before buying a computer

    Rich wrote:
    > Senti wrote:
    >
    >> Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>> Senti wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> When you buy software for your non-Mac computer, do you ever
    >>>> consider the system requirements for it? Unless you're totally
    >>>> clueless you do. Why would it be any different for a Mac?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> And where did you get the idea that "any software made by Mac is
    >>>> supposed to work on a Mac, period. No ifs, ands or buts about it"?
    >>>> Did you happen to see Apple ever claim that? No. In fact, if you
    >>>> were to do a little research (try http://www.apple.com/intel/ or
    >>>> http://www.apple.com/rosetta/ or http://www.apple.com/universal/ for
    >>>> starters) you'd see that Apple tells you that not all Apple software
    >>>> will run on an Intel-based Mac. In the case of purchasing Final
    >>>> Cut, the mistake was yours, pure and simple.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> It's not as clueless as you might think if you see it from this point
    >>> of view:
    >>>
    >>> In the Windows world, there is not a single manufacturer that builds
    >>> computers solely for the Windows OS. You have manufacturers such as
    >>> Dell, Gateway, HP and Alienware just to name a few.

    >>
    >>
    >> Which of these manufacturers include any OS *other* than Windows?
    >> Which of these manufacturers ships their product out with Linux for
    >> example? For all intents and purposes, those computers are built for
    >> Windows. Will any of them provide support if you throw another OS on
    >> it? No. You'll find they say "I'm sorry but we can't help you install
    >> your bundled software on Linux" (for example). All those
    >> manufacturers make computers that are capable of running WIndows.
    >> They will not guarantee that any other OS will work on them. Call and
    >> ask.
    >>

    >
    > I don't have to call.
    >
    > http://www.dell.com/linux
    >
    > Dell n Series desktops will work with Linux and are designed to do so.
    > Licensing is available for Red Hat and SuSE (Novell).
    >
    > http://www1.us.dell.com/content/top...ons/en/precision_linux?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz
    >
    >
    > See header "Comprehensive Linux Support".
    >
    > They build 'em and support 'em, even with Linux.
    >
    > http://www.hp.com/linux
    >
    > HP offers it as well.
    >
    > http://www.hp.com/linux
    >
    > You can order workstations preloaded with Linux which are also supported
    > (Red Hat or SuSE).
    >


    I'm too lazy to follow the links provided so I'll take you at your word
    and concede the point. :)

    > The error you get when attempting to install FCE on a Intel Core Duo Mac
    > is that the card does not have AGP. The install halts at that point and
    > will not let you go any further. My iMac had the best video card
    > offerered by Apple, a 256MB ATI Radeon, but it doesn't have AGP and it's
    > not offered on the Intel-based iMacs (on the G5's it is). It should also
    > absolutely be not necessary for me to rip apart a brand new iMac just to
    > get certain software to work correctly. That's ridiculous.


    Again, that is something that would have been covered by researching
    your purchase prior to making it. And no matter how much "ripping
    apart" you do, it doesn't change the fact that you bought a computer
    that wouldn't run the software you wanted it to. The blame isn't with
    the computer, it performed exactly as advertised.
    >
    > One of the reasons I bought the iMac was size. The fact it's put
    > together in a pizza-box style was attractive. Professional videographers
    > I know use G4's right now which are less powerful compared to the
    > Intel-based Mac according to Apple. This means that the iMac should have
    > run FCE with absolutely zero hassle whatsoever, I wouldn't need a
    > super-duper Mac and the video memory provided should have been more than
    > enough.


    Their size os one of the benefits of owning an iMac. As for the
    professional videographers you mentioned, did you notice that their
    computers meet FCE's system requirements by using a PowerPC G4 (or
    better)? You're comparing apples (PowerPC-based, and no pun intended)
    to oranges (Intel-based). Apple does not guarantee that ALL their
    software will run on an Intel-based Mac. In fact they make it a point
    of saying that not all will. Again, this is where proper research on
    your part would have been handy. No matter how powerful your
    Intel-based Mac is, it can't run the program because the program was
    never coded to run on an Intel chip.

    > Why is it not reasonable to assume (yes, I said assume) that software
    > programmed by Apple wouldn't run on a computer made by Apple? FCE isn't
    > a server application, nor is it anything that required power of a grand
    > scale.
    >
    > I will agree to disagree on this point.


    For all the reasons I outlined in my last reply.

    >>> Clarification: What I expected was a brand new Macintosh computer
    >>> that would run current software offered by the company who makes
    >>> them. It's not an issue of "Is the computer enough powerful enough to
    >>> run [this]", it's an expectation that the company (Apple) would make
    >>> current software that would run on its own current computers (Macs).

    >>
    >>
    >> And it *does* run on it's current computers... just not the one you
    >> bought.
    >>

    >
    > No, Final Cut HD Express will not run on the Intel-based iMac, or any
    > other Intel-based Macintosh computer. Final Cut PRO will with the
    > Universal release, but Final Cut HD Express will not, and (as I've said
    > previously), Apple has no plans to release a Universal version of Final
    > Cut HD Express - and I don't have the extra $1000 to spend just to have
    > a "compatible" version (Final Cut Pro).


    You said: "What I expected was a brand new Macintosh computer that would
    run current software offered by the company who makes them."

    And they do make brand new computers that will run Final Cut HD Express.
    They all use the PowerPC processor. And the system requirements for
    the software state that a PowerPC is *required*. Ergo... you bought the
    wrong computer or the wrong software.

    > I didn't have any pre-sales questions because yes, I assumed that a new
    > Mac computer made by Apple would run current software also made by Apple.
    >
    > That's an error I won't be making again.


    So if you admit to making a wrong assumption, then how is it Apple's
    fault? Nothing Apple said or did led you to believe it would work. In
    fact, Apple stated quite clearly in every place you would normally look,
    that the software would *only* run on a PowerPC-based Mac. Also, you
    knew that all your professional videographer friends/acquaintances who
    were running FCE were running the software on PowerPCs. So again I ask,
    how is it Apple's fault?

    ~S
    Senti, Feb 23, 2006
    #15
  16. Edward

    Senti Guest

    Re: Renamed: Why research is important before buying a computer

    Rich wrote:
    > Mitch wrote:
    >
    >> In article <v7SKf.62$>, Rich
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> The error you get when attempting to install FCE on a Intel Core Duo
    >>> Mac is that the card does not have AGP. The install halts at that
    >>> point and will not let you go any further.

    >>
    >> The requirements for the product specify that -- AGP card is necessary.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, I know that now. All too well. The Intel-based iMac has a PCI
    > Express video card in it.
    >
    > When ordering the iMac from the Apple store it unfortunately does not
    > state that the video card is PCI Express. It's nowhere to be found. All
    > you have is the choice of whether to have 128MB or 256MB. When you click
    > "Learn more" there isn't any further information on the subject. If you
    > go *outside* the Apple Store
    > (http://www.apple.com/imac/whatsinside.html), then you can see that it
    > actually is a PCI Express video card.


    But it does state that the iMac uses an ATI Radeon X1600 which, if you
    had researched, you would know is a PCI-Express card. Once again, a
    minute or two of research would have saved a lot of aggravation.

    >
    >>> It should also absolutely be not necessary for me to rip apart a
    >>> brand new iMac just to get certain software to work correctly. That's
    >>> ridiculous.

    >>
    >> "Rip apart"? You don't think that description is a bit unreasonable?
    >> In any case, there isn't anything to change -- if your machine didn't
    >> have AGP, it will never have. You simply got the wrong version of Final
    >> Cut.
    >>

    >
    > I bought the version I could afford. The Pro version is $1000 more. It
    > wasn't a decision based on version. Had I the money, I would have
    > dropped $1299 on Final Cut Pro in a heartbeat. Apple themselves stated
    > to me on the phone that there are no plans to have the Express version
    > of Final Cut as a Universal release, so there isn't any "correct"
    > version (presently) to purchase unless you want to spend $1000 more.


    Price doesn't determine whether or not it's the right version for your
    system.

    You mentioned the Apple store earlier. Did you happen to read what it
    had to say about Final Cut HD Express in the Apple store online? It's
    all near the bottom at this link:

    http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP.../wo/StoreReentry.wo?productLearnMore=M9732Z/A
    or
    http://tinyurl.com/n55jc

    I'll quote it for you: "...not supported to run on Intel-based Macintosh
    computers with Rosetta."

    And a little further down: "The next feature release of Final Cut
    Express will be a Universal application, which will run natively on both
    PowerPC- and Intel-based Mac computers...For more information, go to the
    Final Cut Express HD website at: http://www.apple.com/finalcutexpress"

    So there you go... all the information you would have needed to know.
    You could have decided whether or not you were willing to wait for the
    Universal version before you bought your computer, or you could have
    decided to buy a G5.

    > It should not be necessary to hunt or wait for software to work on a
    > brand new offering by Apple that they do not sell in their own online
    > store.


    Whether or not it should or shouldn't be necessary to wait is
    irrelevant. What *is* relevant is that it has been, and currently is,
    *always* necessary to compare the software's system requirements to your
    computer. *You* chose not to do that. Apple had nothing to do with
    that choice. If they hadn't posted all the needed information, then I'd
    be siding with you. But they did. And it's incredibly easy to find.
    You made the choice not to look for it. Apple didn't force you not to look.

    >>> Why is it not reasonable to assume (yes, I said assume) that software
    >>> programmed by Apple wouldn't run on a computer made by Apple? FCE
    >>> isn't a server application, nor is it anything that required power of
    >>> a grand scale.

    >>
    >> I would think it would be reasonable, just from their track record. I
    >> had to look twice when that issue came up to make sure they'd really
    >> made that difference in Final Cut. But I'd probably still have looked
    >> at teh requirements, just to get an idea of what RAM it expected, for
    >> instance.
    >>

    >
    > The iMac I bought was outfitted with the 20" screen, 1GB of RAM and the
    > best video card offered by Apple. Most video apps for Apple require at
    > least a minimum of 512MB RAM so I doubled that to be on the safe side.


    So you assumed that since older (or even other newer) similar software
    had certain system requirements that FCE would be the same? If you had
    been wrong and FCE needed 2GB of RAM to run, would that be Apple's fault?

    >>> No, Final Cut HD Express will not run on the Intel-based iMac, or any
    >>> other Intel-based Macintosh computer. Final Cut PRO will with the
    >>> Universal release, but Final Cut HD Express will not, and (as I've
    >>> said previously), Apple has no plans to release a Universal version
    >>> of Final Cut HD Express - and I don't have the extra $1000 to spend
    >>> just to have a "compatible" version (Final Cut Pro).

    >>
    >>
    >> I'd be surprised if they didn't offer an 'Express' package in the near
    >> future. Apple doesn't really like offering just Pro-level packages.


    According to the FCE page, the next feature release of it *will* be a
    Universal binary.

    > I was sincerely hoping Apple would say "Yes! We have a Universal version
    > of FCE and it will be available in March '06!", but the Apple rep on the
    > phone said otherwise.
    >
    > And you're correct - it is unlike Apple to not offer an Express version,
    > especially for their newer computer releases. It was surprising to hear
    > when they told me directly there weren't any plans for FCE Universal
    > version.


    I don't know when you asked, but at the time maybe they didn't have any
    plans to do it.

    >>> I didn't have any pre-sales questions because yes, I assumed that a
    >>> new Mac computer made by Apple would run current software also made
    >>> by Apple.

    >>
    >> How much have you wrangled with their customer service?
    >> This issue has come up with other users, in several ways -- I wouldn't
    >> be surprised if Apple made some compromise about the product.

    >
    > I had to make numerous phone calls to Apple concerning this whole
    > fracas. The compromise by Apple is that they were willing to take the
    > computer back and give me a full refund - and I'm thankful for that. I
    > could write about four screens worth concerning what I dealt with
    > getting Apple to *process* that return - but that's a whole other story.
    > :)


    So why didn't you just exchange it for a G5? A 20-inch iMac G5 is
    (currently) $200 cheaper than a 20-inch iMac Intel.

    ~S
    Senti, Feb 23, 2006
    #16
  17. Edward

    Rich Guest

    Re: Renamed: Why research is important before buying a computer

    > So why didn't you just exchange it for a G5? A 20-inch iMac G5 is
    > (currently) $200 cheaper than a 20-inch iMac Intel.
    >


    I asked Apple if they would exchange my Intel-based iMac for the G5.
    They refused and decided to refund instead stating it was a "complex
    order". I honestly don't know what was so "complex" about it.
    Rich, Feb 23, 2006
    #17
  18. Edward

    Mitch Guest

    Re: Renamed: Why research is important before buying a computer

    In article <3f2Lf.11$>, Rich
    <> wrote:

    > > I'd be surprised if they didn't offer an 'Express' package in the near
    > > future. Apple doesn't really like offering just Pro-level packages.
    > >

    >
    > I was sincerely hoping Apple would say "Yes! We have a Universal version
    > of FCE and it will be available in March '06!", but the Apple rep on the
    > phone said otherwise.
    >
    > And you're correct - it is unlike Apple to not offer an Express version,
    > especially for their newer computer releases. It was surprising to hear
    > when they told me directly there weren't any plans for FCE Universal
    > version.


    It is strange news. Maybe they'll be repackaging the whole thing as an
    iMovie Pro, or renaming their multimedia tools into a consumer package.
    I just can't see them leaving that segment completely.
    Nevertheless, the fact that the rep didn't know of anything suggests it
    isn't going to happen very soon. (But at Apple, that might just mean
    it'll be next month.)

    > >> I didn't have any pre-sales questions because yes, I assumed that a new
    > >> Mac computer made by Apple would run current software also made by Apple.

    > >
    > > How much have you wrangled with their customer service?
    > > This issue has come up with other users, in several ways -- I wouldn't
    > > be surprised if Apple made some compromise about the product.

    >
    > I had to make numerous phone calls to Apple concerning this whole
    > fracas. The compromise by Apple is that they were willing to take the
    > computer back and give me a full refund - and I'm thankful for that. I
    > could write about four screens worth concerning what I dealt with
    > getting Apple to *process* that return - but that's a whole other story. :)


    And not the response I would hope Apple to have.
    They're not often hard-nosed about sales issues -- I wonder how long
    it'll take someone there to offer a resolution for this software issue.

    In any case, I'd suggest holding fast if that's the only difficulty and
    you can wait. Someone at Apple probably has an offer or solution
    available to you.
    Mitch, Feb 23, 2006
    #18
  19. Edward

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>,
    Margolotta <> wrote:

    > Intel only software will have to be rewritten from the ground up, so you
    > won't see any for a couple of years at least. Universal binaries will come
    > first (and I reckon all software will be UB until at least 2009). I reckon
    > that it will be at least 2010 before we see Intel-only software.



    They don't really have to start that raw; about halfway, I think.
    And I'm not sure Intel Native is going to be a huge performance
    difference from Universal Binaries.

    And since Apple's Devleoper Toolkit is mostly up to speed, we'll see
    Intel-native apps before the end of the year, for sure.

    Curious readers can see Apple's plans and tools here:
    http://developer.apple.com/transition/

    And if you're curious that there is anything available in certain
    categories for Mac OS X:
    http://guide.apple.com/index.lasso
    (not a comprehesive guide, but a good list.)
    Mitch, Feb 23, 2006
    #19
  20. Edward

    Rich Guest

    Re: Renamed: Why research is important before buying a computer

    Mitch wrote:

    > In any case, I'd suggest holding fast if that's the only difficulty and
    > you can wait. Someone at Apple probably has an offer or solution
    > available to you.


    There is one shining ray of hope here.

    There's no way I'm going to be able to resell my copy of Final Cut HD
    Express for the price I paid for it, so.. the Apple Store is selling
    refurb'd iMac G5's for as low as $749 USD with the 17" screen (as of
    right now), free shipping and a one-year warranty. When the 20" model
    G5's get down to that price (as I'm sure they will) I will entertain the
    idea of getting one. I have had good luck with refurbished computers in
    the past. I have a Dell Dimension 4400 that I bought refurb'd for $625
    direct from Dell several years ago when the model was still current. The
    only thing that ever went wrong with it was a power supply (replaced for
    $25). I still have it and it's clicking right along. Hopefully I would
    have the same good luck with a used iMac.

    At the sub-800 dollar mark I could deal with the quirky (my opinion)
    nature of the box. ;-) If anything were to go wrong with it physically,
    it would most likely happen within the warranty's period.

    The 20" models may go down to that price mark in less than 6 months.
    Rich, Feb 23, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. David Postill

    Why suck hatred towards me

    David Postill, May 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    443
    Don Kelloway
    May 22, 2004
  2. Goth Loser

    Why do Marines call the USMC "The Suck"

    Goth Loser, May 19, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    152
    Views:
    9,994
    HMFIC-1369
    Aug 4, 2005
  3. Commander Lee Adama

    Why does Andromeda suck so much ass?

    Commander Lee Adama, Jul 3, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    451
    Hunter Rose
    Jul 3, 2006
  4. Nathan  Mercer

    Why Windows Vista Won't Suck

    Nathan Mercer, Feb 28, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    248
    Views:
    3,002
    Bette Noir
    Mar 18, 2006
  5. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Why Windows Vista will suck

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 3, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    79
    Views:
    1,124
Loading...

Share This Page