Professional Web Applications Themes

Apple agrees to some OS X refunds - Mac Applications & Software

C|Net article of interest: http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-5063290.html?tag=fd_top -- -John Steinberg email: invalid ....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere...

  1. #1

    Default Apple agrees to some OS X refunds

    C|Net article of interest:

    http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-5063290.html?tag=fd_top

    --
    -John Steinberg
    email: invalid

    ....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.
    --Sir Bedevere
    John Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Apple agrees to some OS X refunds

    In article <srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, John
    Steinberg <invalid> wrote:
     

    Excellent. Pity the subsidiary action had to be dropped in order to
    negotiate the main G3 agreement:

    "The suit also sought damages for those customers who bought Macs that
    performed worse when running OS X than when running Mac OS 9."

    I would have just loved seeing Apple eat humble pie on that one.

    As it is, the G3 OsX refund (or compensation payment) will get some
    very prominent exposure:

    "Apple will publicize the details of the deal in newspaper
    advertisements and carry a link to the settlement terms on the front
    page of its Web site."

    Great work by the class action people. Maybe Apple will come down a few
    steps from its ivory tower now. Maybe we'll see a class action to
    extract compensation from Apple for forgetting to label Os X as a beta.

    Stan
    Stan Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Apple agrees to some OS X refunds

    John Steinberg: 

    *****

    I don't fault in any way those who sued; indeed, I think that I qualify
    in the $25 category. I was disappointed that my WallStreet 300's DVD
    player was not supported, but not so much that I gave up on OS X. I'm
    unlikely to claim my $25, however, because I don't carry grudges for
    very long; I'm more a get-over-it-and-move-on kind of guy. I'm using
    the WallStreet at the moment, and even though it's pretty sluggish
    sometimes, even compared to my TiBook 667, it's adequate for its
    purpose,

    It's a good thing for Apple that the performance issue wasn't
    addressed. Where would the burden of proof fall? How would performance
    be measured? I still have a Power Computing clone with a 45MHz system
    bus (albeit with a G3/450MHz upgrade) that has better finder
    performance and faster application launching under OS 9 than a 1GHz G4
    has under OS X.

    Davoud

    --
    usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
    Davoud Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Apple agrees to some OS X refunds

    In article <140820030936176981%com>,
    Stan The Man <com> wrote:
     
    >
    > Excellent. Pity the subsidiary action had to be dropped in order to
    > negotiate the main G3 agreement:
    >
    > "The suit also sought damages for those customers who bought Macs that
    > performed worse when running OS X than when running Mac OS 9."[/ref]

    Sorry, but IMNSHO that's just stupid. First you start getting into huge
    debates about what aspects of behavior count toward "performance" and
    how they're weighted. Then on top of that is the whole question about
    who, in 2000 and beyond, really expects a major OS release to not
    degrade performance in at least some measures over the prior version.
    I've not seen anything other than a subjective slowdown result from a
    major OS release regardless of platform.

     

    That would be even more stupid, considering that "beta" is jargon and
    there's no common definition of the term that would apply to any public
    release of OS X past the one that was explicitly labelled "Public Beta."

    G
    Gregory Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Apple agrees to some OS X refunds

    Davoud <net> wrote:
     

    I have a beige G3 upgraded to a 400MHz G4 and a faster hard drive and a
    half gig of memory. In general, I am quite happy with the perfomance of
    OS X. My only performance gripe is that opening a folder with a lot of
    files and moving or deleting large numbers of files is excessively slow.

    I was not happy with the lack of support for the floppy disk as I found
    it convenient to move a few files between work and home. I changed to
    using a couple of Syquest EZ 135's instead for moving Mac files, but for
    PC files I used e-mail.

    The biggest problem was the lack of support for the serial ports. No
    printer port support and no Appletalk over the serial port. This meant
    my Apple Personal Laserwriter NTR would no longer work. The workaround
    was an Ethernet to Appletalk bridge. For those with many other printers,
    there was no workaround, so at least I was lucky in that.

    Moving to using Ethernet has had some advantages in other areas that
    offsets the initial irritation of the printer situation.

    Overall, I am satisfied with OS X. It does quite a lot and as a result
    it does require some horsepower to run well. Then again so do most
    equivalently powerful operating systems with complex graphic interfaces.

    Ross Bernheim

    Ross Guest

Similar Threads

  1. apple
    By abc in forum Adobe Acrobat Macintosh
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 18th, 09:12 AM
  2. North Asset Managment, Cellution Inc. SavesCorporations Millions in Federal Excise Tax Refunds
    By North_Asset_Managment@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Acrobat Macintosh
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 24th, 01:54 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 13th, 02:03 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139