[MacDV] Re: The 20inch LCD Conspiracy

[Adrian Smith]

>
>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?

Really? You are sure of that? You have one to test? On every machine 
that boots OS 9? (see the comments from Macintouch below)

>
>  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!
>
>Yes - that's a wee bit shady.

Hang on a minute - just slow down a bit before you go off on tirades like that.

The only official word from Apple is the following...

>The Apple Cinema Display requires Mac OS X v10.2 or later, and one 
>of the following systems:
>-	Power Mac G4 with an NVIDIA GeForce2 MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 
>MX or GeForce4 Titanium graphics card or ATI Radeon 7500, 9000 Pro, 
>or 9700 Pro graphics card
>-	PowerBook G4 with a DVI port and an Apple DVI to ADC Adapter


Then I read some interesting comments just now on Macintouch...

>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:37:28 -0800
>From: Paul Johnson
>Subject: 20" Cinema Display OS9 compatibility
>
>Just got off the phone with Apple. I asked, "I see that OSX 10.2 is 
>a requirement for this display--does that mean that the display will 
>not function when booting from OS9?" The answer seems to be this: 
>The 20" CD's odd native resolution of 1680x1050 is not supported by 
>all of Apple's OS9-bootable machines. That is, the video card in 
>your G4 may not support that resolution in OS9 even if it does in 
>OSX. And I assume from the wording of the answer that some cards may 
>support it while others do not; in fact it could be just one 
>particular card that does not support that particular resolution in 
>OS9 that would render the display "unsupported" in OS9.
>
>I was assured, however, that it would function to some degree. That 
>if I have a Mac that 1. can be connected to the display, and 2. can 
>be booted in OS9, there will be definitely be SOME sort of display 
>on the screen, thoughpossibly distorted (say, perhaps 1024x768 
>stretched to fill the space of the wider aspect ratio) or boxed 
>(say, perhaps, 1024x768 centered on the screen with black borders.)
>
>My conclusion from this conversation was that Apple is doing the 
>right thing to not advertise OS9 compatibility, even if it may have 
>been a conscious choice by Apple to NOT update OS9 support for the 
>required resolution compatibility. You won't get stuck in OS9 
>without a way of seeing how to get out, but if you wish to use OS9, 
>this is probably not the display for you unless you can live with 
>distorted or the relative blur of non-native-resolution display.


and then a few posts down...

>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:30:13 -0500
>From: Scott Spindler
>Subject: New 20" monitor and OS 9
>
>I ordered a new 20" display yesterday and received it today. After 
>seeing the posts here concerning OS 9, I immediately booted my G4 
>733 digital into OS 9 after initially booting into OS X. There were 
>no problems at all running OS 9 with this monitor. Not sure what Mac 
>Warehouse was talking about. The only draw back is that OS 9 doesn't 
>support the high resolution, but it does work in 1024x768. You can 
>also see the discussion in Apple's discussion area stating the same.


So, if by "runs fine" you mean at a resolution that is less than 45% 
of the native resolution then you can have you tirade. However, if 
you happen to want to use your monitor at the highest resolution 
(which is why you buy one of these right?) then maybe Apple was right 
(even had an obligation?) to tell you it requires OS X 10.2?

Of course, since I am in the same boat of not having used one or 
tested one on the all the possible array of machines that can run OS 
9 I can't vouch for the accuracy of the above comments - they might 
be wrong and there may indeed be a way to get it to run at its native 
resolution in OS 9 :)

The point is that none of really know just yet, so before you go off 
half-baked and start calling things a "conspiracy" maybe we should 
all just calm down a little...

Adrian