[MacDV] Re: The 20inch LCD Conspiracy

[Mike Stanley]

On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 04:36 AM, KathyMac! wrote:

> Macintosh Digital Video List1/31/03 2:17 
> AMMacDV at lists.themacintoshguy.com
>
>> Apple's made it no secret that as far as it is concerned, OS 9 is 
>> dead.
>> Yet people keep finding all these "sneaky" things they're doing to
>> "trick" poor little OS 9 users to switch to OS X.
>>
>
> So what do you call advertising and marketing a 20 inch LCD that boldly
> proclaims it REQUIRES Jaguar, yet as we have all discovered truly does 
> run
> in OS9 just fine?

What do I call it?  I call it honest pragmatism.  I call it Apple 
knowing exactly what the thing will and will not do in OS 9 and being 
honest about it.  I call it them making it clear to everyone "don't buy 
this and expect support if you use it with OS 9".

>  A little "friendly persuasion" to finally buy one of the
> OSX machines? Cleverly crafted manipulation? A partial truth? Whatever 
> you
> want to call it there's no escaping this fact: It was misleading. 
> Period.

Gee, you "faithful" Mac users are so amazingly willing to see nothing 
but bad in a company you all supposedly love so much.

How about this - maybe it will be perceived as an *incentive* to buy 
one of those OS X machines?  Is there anything wrong with that?

It isn't misleading either.  You're referring to a few notices on the 
web from people who say that *their* machines work just fine with this 
monitor in OS 9 - except you can't adjust the brightness - which may be 
an important thing for all I know.  And yet someone else has already 
posted info after yours that claims that various older cards in 
machines running OS 9 will NOT drive this 20" panel at the appropriate 
resolution.

So maybe, just maybe, Apple said "we can guarantee any machine running 
OS X will have (or maybe already does have) updated drivers that will 
fully support this 20" Cinema Display.  Some (maybe many) machines 
running OS 9 may not fully support it.  Therefore we're saying it 
requires OS X."

I just don't get what some of you guys expect from Apple.  You praise 
them for offering you a kind of cradle-to-grave support - everything 
just works because it all comes from Apple and its all good and we 
don't have to worry about drivers from here or DLLs from there, etc.  
Then when they do something you don't link - something that doesn't fit 
*your* idea of what they should be doing but something that still fits 
into their "offer our customers something that just *works* - plug it 
in and it *works*" philosophy - you crucify them for it and whine about 
them being manipulative or selfish or whatever.

>> Switch or don't switch - Apple probably won't care.  But expecting
>> Apple to keep sitting on the fence just because some others do is
>> pointless.
>
> Who asked Apple to sit on the fence? What does that have to do with the
> legitimate complaint that the information released to the public is 
> not 100%
> accurate?

So you can say without a shadow of a doubt that every single OS 9 
machine that these new 20" Cinema Displays are plugged into will 
absolutely work?  No, you can't.  So you want to adopt your own 
definition of what is required and what isn't even though you simply 
must have far less actual knowledge of the situation than Apple.

Apple says 10.2 is required.  You're mad because the model seems to 
work on some OS 9 machines, albeit with reduced functionality.  Seems 
to me Apple made a pragmatic decision based on needing to support their 
customers in the best way.  Can you even imagine the complications they 
would heap onto us and themselves by putting some disclaimer like 
"Definitely works 100% with 10.2.  Will probably work 95% with many OS 
9 machines, but may run at a really crappy resolution on many more" ?

> OSX is the wave of the future. We'll all be there eventually. No one is
> faulting Apple for being brilliant, creative, and always on the cutting
> edge. However, if you're going to make a display that is OSX only, 
> then make
> it so. And if you're going to make one that runs on both systems don't 
> lie
> about it and lead people to believe they can't have one unless they 
> run OSX!

So you'd be happier if it were true that it didn't work at all under OS 
9?

Apple did make a display that will only work on OS X - they're selling 
it that way.

> Yes - that's a wee bit shady.

That's your interpretation of the situation - and it seems more than a 
wee bit paranoid and reaching - especially given the limited amount of 
information you had on the subject when you posted this.