[MacDV] Re: The 20inch LCD Conspiracy

[Michael Winter]

On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 01:18  PM, SLarsonIH at aol.com wrote:

Seems like I'm disagreeing on everything with you today : )

> To say, "Requires OS X", implies that it will not run in OS9, and as 
> reports
> have shown, and to me, that is an outright lie. It doesn't require 
> OSX. It
> should have said something like, "Requires OS X for full 
> functionality" or
> some such.

Wouldn't it be just as much of a lie to say it doesn't require OS X?

If you can't fully adjust the brightness or view at full native 
resolution (see macfixit.com and others), I call that not running. If 
you can't view at full native resolution, you've wasted your money IMO. 
By my definition of the word (though I'm not Webster) it requires OS X.

Maybe I'm just being contrary today, but lets say Apple did what some 
think they should have. That is advertise it as 1) Fully functional in 
OS X 2)Partially functional in OS 9 with 2a)this set of limitations for 
these graphics card/CPU combinations, 2b)this set of limitations for 
this other set of graphics card/CPU combinations, 2c) this other set of 
limitations....

How long do you think it would be before we saw angry messages on lists 
like this about people being tricked by Apple into buying expensive 
displays that don't fully function with their system? They'd be 
screaming about how greedy and opportunistic Apple is and that they 
should somehow be compensated. They may even run into new problems that 
Apple wasn't fully Apple to test for.

In the mean time, Apple is having to field tech support questions from 
angry customers who didn't know their computer actually had this 
graphics card instead of that one, or thought they had a G4 with AGP 
graphics, not PCI.... And they all want their money back or for Apple 
to fix the problem.

I really don't see how Apple could win this way either. IMO its simply 
clearer and more honest to simply say it requires OS X. Let the techies 
figure out the rough edges if so desired. I should also note that we 
(or at least I) have no idea what other issues may crop up by using an 
unsupported configuration.

-Mike