or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mac OS X 10.3.7 build 7S214 improves graphics performance
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac OS X 10.3.7 build 7S214 improves graphics performance

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
Apple offers developers a more recent seed of Mac OS X 10.3.7, along with a training video on Dashboard widget development.

Apple Computer on Thursday seeded its developers with Mac OS X 10.3.7 build 7S214, a pre-release copy of a forthcoming upgrade to its "Panther" operating system.

Currently weighing in at 25.4 MB, the maintenance update focuses on audio, printing, graphics, OpenGL intensive games, and FireWire storage and audio devices.

The Mac OS X 10.3.7 update is also highly rumored to include support for the initial release of Xsan, Apple's storage area network file system, as well as new products to be introduced in early 2005.

In a set of developer notes accompanying the software, the company said the latest build delivers "improved graphics performance affecting ATI and NVIDIA cards."

Last week Apple seeded Mac OS X 10.3.7 build 7S210, which bundled improved compatibility for FireWire drives that have previously failed to mount.

According to sources, Mac OS X 10.3.7 is slated to debut in the next three weeks.

Along with Thursday's seeding of Mac OS X 10.3.7, Apple posted a 55MB, 28 minute instructional QuickTime movie on developing Dashboard Widgets. The company also officially kicked-off its second Dashboard Widget Contest.

"Apple is pleased to announce a second Apple Dashboard Widget Contest," says a note on the company's developer site. "Now through January 5, developers have another chance to win a 40GB iPod and receive public recognition for their work. Enter the Apple Dashboard Widget Contest today to take advantage of this terrific opportunity to begin developing Widgets for Tiger. Entries will be judged on technical excellence, innovation, and ease of use."

Dashboard will officially debut alongside Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" in early 2005. Earlier this week Apple seeded the latest known build of Tiger, build 8A323.
post #2 of 39
I hope we get all the functionality of the PC version of these drivers and similar performance.

<-- optimist.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #3 of 39
^
|----- uninformed

When Windows has the same amount of computing happening in the graphics system, then you can complain about lack of performance. It's easy to be fast when you're not doing much.

Which features do you see missing?
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #4 of 39
Let me see, I have no control over things like FSAA. It is supported by my card, but OS doesn't let me configure it.
post #5 of 39
I am not complaining about the performance of the GUI. I am complaining about full screen gaming performance. *cough* WoW *cough*
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #6 of 39
Kickaha are you kidding. OS X can't do basic things like rotate the screen (NV Rotate.) And we all know the performance has a huge gap.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #7 of 39
No, not in the least bit. Performance? Of what? The GUI in general? Fact: Windows asks very little of its GPU for the general GUI. MacOS X puts it through its paces, even with Terminal. It's going to seem slower simply because it's doing more. This falls under the 'duh' category.

Full screen games? Well, how are they rendered? OpenGL? CoreGraphics? QuickDraw(shudder)? OGL will see the best performance in most cases. What's the bus bandwidth for the GPU? How much RAM does that bad boy have? etc, etc, etc

I'm not claiming that MacOS X drivers are 100% on par with their Windows counterparts... only that the average load on the GPU is much higher under MacOS X, and the graphics card more highly tasked as a result. Claiming that performance sucks, or is badly lagging, without taking this into account is just lunacy.

(And really - care to explain why rotating the entire display 90deg is a *BASIC* feature??? I mean, WTH? It's a gee-whiz neato trick, and braindead simple with OGL, but... 1) why? 2) who the hell would do this?)
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #8 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha

(And really - care to explain why rotating the entire display 90deg is a *BASIC* feature??? I mean, WTH? It's a gee-whiz neato trick, and braindead simple with OGL, but... 1) why? 2) who the hell would do this?)

It's not a basic feature, or one that's often used. However, if it's braindead simple with OGL, then it should be implemented. I'd imagine that people who want to view long documents may need it.
What the problem is?
Reply
What the problem is?
Reply
post #9 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by schmidm77
Let me see, I have no control over things like FSAA. It is supported by my card, but OS doesn't let me configure it.

With the latest ATI update, you can customize OpenGL settings for individual applications and more. I don't know about NVidia cards though. \
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
post #10 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by MCQ
It's not a basic feature, or one that's often used. However, if it's braindead simple with OGL, then it should be implemented. I'd imagine that people who want to view long documents may need it.

Because so many monitors pivot 90degrees... \ (And yes, I'm sure someone will point out one that does - I know they exist - none are common.)

Just because something *can* be done, does not mean it *should* be done, from a systems design point of view.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #11 of 39
Kickaha, can you please explain something to me in regard to GPU performance of the Mac being that you seem to know so much about it? I have 1.25 GHz PB with 1GB ram. I bought the professional line because I believed (mistakenly so) that the professional line would offer professional performance. While I do not work for CNN or some graphics company, I do enjoy making small movies for the family and the occasional game now and then when I'm bored. Why is it, that a low-tech game like Age of Empires 2, with all the updates installed, lags when I try to use the Regular sized map and 100 people? Why is it that Real Myst is so choppy that it's unplayable? Why is it when I use iDVD that motion menues become choppy when I add a few small videos as motion menus? Even during this reply, in this little window, the fan turns on and the cursor can't follow my typing (lags) and I'm not a fast typer like you.

I understand that the GPU is doing more in Mac's than PC's, but is it too much to ask that a professional model computer be able to do such simple tasks? It feels to me that Apple is letting me down by selling me a professional laptop that doesn't perform in a professional manner. The games I listed above are hardly the most hardcore, even iDVD written by Apple doesn't impress me because it's so choppy. Please explain how their little rewrites are going to help me enjoy my computing experience.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #12 of 39
They won't. The Achilles heel of laptops is the bus, and no amount of programming is going to change that.

A PowerBook is a professional *laptop*... which is by necessity a whole other beast than a desktop. The desktop bus allows for massive data flow to the GPU, but on a laptop, not so much. Hence, no reason to put in a GPU that can handle many times the data its fed - it'd just be wasted.

Laptops aren't geared for graphics in many cases. They work okay, but you'll never get the kick-ass graphics you'd find on a desktop. (Yes, I'm aware that there are some Wintel 'laptops' that do offer amazing graphics performance - they weigh a ton, and have insane power requirements. They're closer to a 15" form iMac G5 with an attached keyboard.)

The slow typing in Safari is a bug in WebKit, and has nothing to do with the graphics system.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #13 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
The slow typing in Safari is a bug in WebKit, and has nothing to do with the graphics system.

So are his questions about performance. I think they have much more to do with the weak CPU infrastructure of the Powerbook than with the very strong graphics chip in the latest Powerbooks.
post #14 of 39
Kickaha and PB, I appreciate your comments. The sad thing is that I'm stuck with limited performance that can't be fixed with an update from Apple. It's depressing really, but thank you for your honesty.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #15 of 39
Yup, you're likely getting near the top performance for your hardware... it's just that laptop mobos are simply not geared for top performance, they have other requirements like battery life and weight to take into consideration.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #16 of 39
Kickaha, I don't think it's disputed that OpenGL performance in many 3D apps lag their windows counterparts - C4D has half the screen redraw performance on macs of similar hardware to their PC counterparts. While C4D makes this stark, other 3D apps have similar lag, and this has got to be addressed. I don't dispute your GUI point.

Brian, I have a powerbook too and though for a great many pro activities (Quicktime video, Flash, Photoshop, driving very large screens etc) it's fantastic, I'm sure it's not optimised for games (or they for it). It's a weakness of the platform, but one which doesn't reflect a powerbook's all-round performance. The overall balance of hardware performance - graphics, CPU, network connections, optical drives - I find exceptional.

My $0.02.

post #17 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by bathgate
Kickaha, I don't think it's disputed that OpenGL performance in many 3D apps lag their windows counterparts - C4D has half the screen redraw performance on macs of similar hardware to their PC counterparts. While C4D makes this stark, other 3D apps have similar lag, and this has got to be addressed. I don't dispute your GUI point.

Nor do I dispute yours. The question is... is the problem in the driver(s), the bus, the card implementation (remember, an Apple card of any stripe is not *exactly* the same as the PC one in almost every case... close, but not exact), the OpenGL implementation... what? Depending on the particular machine, particular card, OS version, etc, it can be any one of these that is the overwhelming factor, but it is always some mix of them.

Quote:
Brian, I have a powerbook too and though for a great many pro activities (Quicktime video, Flash, Photoshop, driving very large screens etc) it's fantastic, I'm sure it's not optimised for games (or they for it). It's a weakness of the platform, but one which doesn't reflect a powerbook's all-round performance. The overall balance of hardware performance - graphics, CPU, network connections, optical drives - I find exceptional.

I wholeheartedly agree.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #18 of 39
10.3.7 is supposed to be improving graphics as it has been stated in this thread. Why can't Apple produce drivers for the Powerbook that perform better than "reasonably"?

I know that the first argument everyone thrusts into my face is that the "average" users (the ones Apple actually focuses on) only type college papers, perhaps have 300 photos in iPhoto, have never made more than a handful of 5 minute movies in iMovie, have maybe 2000 songs in iTunes, and don't really use iDVD or Garage Band at all. I know Apple is always concerned about them, and rightly so, provided that they are using iBooks or iMac's because they are bare-bones computers with minimalistic components in order to run what mom and pop need to do (write letters, email, surf the web, import some pics).

But the professional line seems entirely unprofessional in my view. Many times I'm in places I don't have the luxury of having a desktop Mac. I'm out in the middle of the desert half a world away, or deep in a jungle somwhere I've never heard of. I don't believe I'm asking too much for my money to be able to use this Powerbook for iLife and a few non-intensive games. Listen to this - "System requirements for RealMyst : Power Macintosh G3 300 MHz, Mac OS 8.6 or later / 64 MB RAM, Mac OS 10.1 or later / 128 MB RAM, 3D Video Card / 16 MB Memory" Given that knowledge, am I to believe that my 1.25 GHz Powerbook with 1GB of RAM is being bested by a 300 MHz G3 with a 16MB GPU? That, my friends is the very definition of "Professional" to me.

I'm terrified to spend more money on other professional applications such as Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Soundtrack, or Photoshop (right now I use Gimp which seems to work fine) when iLife underwhelms in performance on my laptop.

All that said, is Apple concerned about it's professional users doing professional things on their professional laptops, by doing something to make their graphics perform far better than reasonably? 10.3.7 is supposed to make OpenGL better and provide some better drivers, most likely for PowerMacs. Who tests these releases? Do they just write letters and not do anything demanding of their computers? Are all the testers using desktops? Or is it that they don't want to tell Apple just how bad the situation really is? I sometimes wish I had the luxury of being a consumer rather than a professional user, but I have demands that simply aren't being met with the current OS release.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #19 of 39
Quote:
"System requirements for RealMyst : Power Macintosh G3 300 MHz, Mac OS 8.6 or later / 64 MB RAM, Mac OS 10.1 or later / 128 MB RAM, 3D Video Card / 16 MB Memory" Given that knowledge, am I to believe that my 1.25 GHz Powerbook with 1GB of RAM is being bested by a 300 MHz G3 with a 16MB GPU? That, my friends is the very definition of "Professional" to me.

Anyone who makes assumptions about the performance of a pro laptop based on a game isn't a pro. Hysteric perhaps, but not a pro.

1GHZ, 1GB RAM running Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign (with hires image display turned on), C4D and the odd incident of Word vX. Word lags, and C4D render times suck, but its a portable. Adobe's suite runs fine, but what do I know, I don't get paid to run games on my laptop.
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #20 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Brian Green
10.3.7 is supposed to be improving graphics as it has been stated in this thread. Why can't Apple produce drivers for the Powerbook that perform better than "reasonably"?

Because as I pointed out above, even 100% perfect drivers wouldn't be able to overcome the hardware limitations. It's just that simple.

Quote:
But the professional line seems entirely unprofessional in my view. Many times I'm in places I don't have the luxury of having a desktop Mac. I'm out in the middle of the desert half a world away, or deep in a jungle somwhere I've never heard of. I don't believe I'm asking too much for my money to be able to use this Powerbook for iLife and a few non-intensive games. Listen to this - "System requirements for RealMyst : Power Macintosh G3 300 MHz, Mac OS 8.6 or later / 64 MB RAM, Mac OS 10.1 or later / 128 MB RAM, 3D Video Card / 16 MB Memory" Given that knowledge, am I to believe that my 1.25 GHz Powerbook with 1GB of RAM is being bested by a 300 MHz G3 with a 16MB GPU? That, my friends is the very definition of "Professional" to me.

You aren't doing something silly like running it at full detail, etc, etc, are you?

And you do realize that those specs are the 'barely limping along at the lowest possible settings' list, right? You're not going to convince anyone that a 300MHz G3 can beat your PB. (Wait - is that a *Classic* game??)

I really don't know what to say - it sounds like either your expectations are unrealistic, based on assumptions more geared to the desktop line, or something is wrong with your system, because iLife kicks along just grand on my PB G4.

Quote:
I'm terrified to spend more money on other professional applications such as Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Soundtrack, or Photoshop (right now I use Gimp which seems to work fine) when iLife underwhelms in performance on my laptop.

All that said, is Apple concerned about it's professional users doing professional things on their professional laptops, by doing something to make their graphics perform far better than reasonably? 10.3.7 is supposed to make OpenGL better and provide some better drivers, most likely for PowerMacs. Who tests these releases? Do they just write letters and not do anything demanding of their computers? Are all the testers using desktops? Or is it that they don't want to tell Apple just how bad the situation really is? I sometimes wish I had the luxury of being a consumer rather than a professional user, but I have demands that simply aren't being met with the current OS release.

If you need that kind of power, you need a desktop, period. You bought something that isn't going to provide you with the kind of power you're apparently seeking.

That being said, I know several professionals who use FCP and DV cameras for professional work on PBs in the field, and are quite happy with them... but they all have desktops in the office for the demanding tasks.

It's called being a realist about the hardware.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #21 of 39
cowerd, I am a pro user and I was using the game to make a point. A 1.25 GHz Powerbook ought to be able to blaze through a game made for a 300 MHz G3. Please don't make assumptions about me or my profession just because I use a game to illustrate a point. While all people may not get paid to play games on their computers, I use mine for both business and personal use.

As Kickaha pointed out, I'm simply demanding too much from a laptop that can't overcome it's own hardware limitations, though I didn't believe I was.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #22 of 39
Kickaha, as always, I appreciate your perspective. After reading your post, I agree that I'm demanding too much from a laptop when a Powermac is going to be needed for my projects. I'll deal with the limitations I have in my Powerbook and look forward to purchasing a new Powermac in the near future. Thanks for your insight.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #23 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Brian Green
Kickaha, as always, I appreciate your perspective. After reading your post, I agree that I'm demanding too much from a laptop when a Powermac is going to be needed for my projects. I'll deal with the limitations I have in my Powerbook and look forward to purchasing a new Powermac in the near future. Thanks for your insight.

You're welcome - on rereading I was afraid I came off as slamming you, which wasn't my intention. Thanks for not taking it that way.

The video pros I know use the PB as a 'sketchbook' in the field - good for quick basic edits to get a feel for how things will go once back at the office, and to determine if further shoots need to be made while still onsite. Then, once back at the office, the fine detail (and more demanding) work is done.

Still curious, since I'm looking at buying the entire Myst line once I finish my dissertation... *is* Myst Real a Classic app?
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #24 of 39
Kickaha, REAL Myst doesn't need to be played in classic. I don't even have classic on my laptop. I would love to play it on a desktop someday. I'll bet it's awesome. Even at the 1024x768 resolution it's choppy as can be on my PB.

The problem I ran into, as everyone else does at some point, is cash limitations in regard to getting a good laptop for extended field use. I use it for everything. I don't have a home computer because I have it, but I guess it's time to break the bank for a dual 2 GHz Powermac. I was just hoping that Apple hadn't gotten around to implimenting something on the GPU that would increase performance. Now that I see that won't be the case, I'll have to look at options and just use it for rough-cut work as you suggested earlier.

When I'm out in the middle of nowhere, seeing desert from horizon to horizon, Myst is a welcome escape. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do, after you complete your dissertation naturally. 8)
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #25 of 39
Even when you compare the dual 2.5s with the AMD 64 CPUs, the same graphics card doesn't do well with OpenGL games. Bus speed is a non-issue with those machines. I did read a few posts on the WoW message board where the developer states it was a bug in the implementation with OS-X drivers. But since Blizzard released the game and screwed their old message boards, I can't post a link where they specifically mention the issue. With Doom 3 coming out for the Mac, it will be intresting to see the results.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #26 of 39
Quote:
I am a pro user and I was using the game to make a point.

Yeah sorry, I always get confused when people's stories change in the middle of a thread.
Quote:
While I do not work for CNN or some graphics company, I do enjoy making small movies for the family and the occasional game now and then when I'm bored.
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #27 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by talksense101
Even when you compare the dual 2.5s with the AMD 64 CPUs, the same graphics card doesn't do well with OpenGL games. Bus speed is a non-issue with those machines. I did read a few posts on the WoW message board where the developer states it was a bug in the implementation with OS-X drivers. But since Blizzard released the game and screwed their old message boards, I can't post a link where they specifically mention the issue. With Doom 3 coming out for the Mac, it will be intresting to see the results.

Indeed. No arguments from me that there are still issues in the drivers - only that they aren't the entire picture, especially on laptops.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #28 of 39
Kickaha, man, I'm glad there's non of that disputing stuff between us!!

Just on an associated note - I'm often amazed at the amount of apps/peripherals which run flawlessly both simultaneously and on old hardware. I don't know if this is just a mac thing (I use a pc only for rendering and checking sites).

Case in point - I have an Audiomedia III card from Digidesign (ca. 6 years old) running on a DP800 - quite an old combination, but have I ever had a driver/application issue with it? No. Same machine drives a wacom tablet, Microteck slide scanner, epson scanner and printer, zip drive - again, different vintages but with never a problem. Runs the most demanding, modern programs - albeit a little slowly - without a hitch. Will drive all of them simultaneously without a hitch if I need it.

Anyone got experience of XP's multi-app/peripheral stability? I don't but I'm not sure I want to go there either.
post #29 of 39
On a general note, I don't think we should get our hopes up for any extraordinary advances in OpenGL with 10.3.7. I'd guess it's more of a maintenance release while the real work goes into Tiger and (maybe) a really cool OpenGL 2.0 implementation. I have hopes for Tiger!
post #30 of 39
Ah yes, hope. Many of us used to have that. You get over it.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #31 of 39
i wonder when they'll finally release this...
since 10.3.6 my SMB connectivity is totally screwed..
not only with me..also with my girlfriend who i've adviced
to get an ibook because it's so much better than windows...
I have to admit that i have been ashamed lately...
No printing, no filesharing

fix your errors apple!
post #32 of 39
If I spend $3,000 on a laptop it better have mind blowing performance! I know the $3k PC laptop I use at work has fantastic graphic performance compared to MY MORE EXPENSIVE slower powerbook. Have you ever ran photoshop on a 3,000 PC? It screams!


Quote:
Originally posted by Brian Green
cowerd, I am a pro user and I was using the game to make a point. A 1.25 GHz Powerbook ought to be able to blaze through a game made for a 300 MHz G3. Please don't make assumptions about me or my profession just because I use a game to illustrate a point. While all people may not get paid to play games on their computers, I use mine for both business and personal use.

As Kickaha pointed out, I'm simply demanding too much from a laptop that can't overcome it's own hardware limitations, though I didn't believe I was.
post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
If I spend $3,000 on a laptop it better have mind blowing performance! I know the $3k PC laptop I use at work has fantastic graphic performance compared to MY MORE EXPENSIVE slower powerbook. Have you ever ran photoshop on a 3,000 PC? It screams!

Have you ever run PhotoShop on a PowerBook?

Come on, this was a silly comment to make.

As was already stated above, one can always find a 'laptop' with incredible performance that falls more into the 'luggable' category than 'portable'. If that's your only criteria, then sure, go for the $3k Wintel laptop. What the heck, you'll get a workout hauling it around.

What you need to find is a PC laptop with comparable hardware, size, weight, battery life, features, and price... *then* compare graphics performance on each. Outliers can always be found to prove a particular point - but what counts is the overall package, for most people.

Oh, and one other thing... the 17" PowerBook is $2800, pretty damned decked out. I'm not sure where you're getting the >$3k figure from, but it isn't from this plane of reality.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
^
|----- uninformed

When Windows has the same amount of computing happening in the graphics system, then you can complain about lack of performance. It's easy to be fast when you're not doing much.

Which features do you see missing?

I don't know about missing features, but I do know the 10.3.6 update borked OpenGL speed on my 20" iMacG5. Before the update I could actually play Diablo II. Since the update, whenever I face 5 or more monsters (not unusual), the play gets so slow and choppy the game becomes unplayable. This problem did not exist in 10.3.5 or previous OS X versions. I've repaired permissions, reinstalls, etc. etc but the problem still exists.

Hopefully the 10.3.7 update will fix this problem.
post #35 of 39
FWIW to people experiencing slow typing response while making a reply in a web browser window, do this little workaround- scroll the window so the animated smileys end up off screen. It makes a BIG difference. Yeah, it is lame you have to do that, but like I said, "fwiw".

WRT the discussion of slow laptops, Apple really needs to get its $hit together on the underlying hardware. They have decent external specs, but the actual performance seems to belie trouble deeper in the hardware (things that typically are not attended to with specs in marketing literature). If it's some sort of bus or cache, they need to make it better- plain and simple. It's really pointless to have certain specs that suggest performance on a product that achieves far less compared to another product with equivalent specs. Put a little extra money into the supporting architecture and trim back the specs a bit, if need be if only to attain a better balance of subsystems. Whatever it is, it shouldn't be where it is at now, which is possibly on par with some Apple product from 1996. I'll agree it need not be on par with a full-blown desktop of current age, but clearly it needs to be *much* closer than hardware that was obsoleted several generations ago. Something is "up", and I don't think Apple has been upstanding with the real issues that are throttling the "spec'd" hardware.

WRT the discussion on slow GUI performance, the "it's doing more" excuse is wearing thin. Window resizing is poor compared to other GUI accelerated features. There's just no way around this. If it is not getting hardware accelerated, they need to get on this. If it is, then they need to make it do less to speed it up. It's one thing to "do more" in the way of graphics benefits, but if it makes it nonfunctional in user speed with dubious added benefits, then this is a problem. Once again, the "balance" of choices hanging in balance for a feature seems to be askew, imo.

At some point, we have to realize "niggling problems" as something relevant to be addressed. Making endless apologies or excuses or promises that things would be better if we had a GPU from "the future" or other will not improve things.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
FWIW to people experiencing slow typing response while making a reply in a web browser window, do this little workaround- scroll the window so the animated smileys end up off screen. It makes a BIG difference. Yeah, it is lame you have to do that, but like I said, "fwiw".

WRT the discussion of slow laptops, Apple really needs to get its $hit together on the underlying hardware. They have decent external specs, but the actual performance seems to belie trouble deeper in the hardware (things that typically are not attended to with specs in marketing literature). If it's some sort of bus or cache, they need to make it better- plain and simple. It's really pointless to have certain specs that suggest performance on a product that achieves far less compared to another product with equivalent specs. Put a little extra money into the supporting architecture and trim back the specs a bit, if need be if only to attain a better balance of subsystems. Whatever it is, it shouldn't be where it is at now, which is possibly on par with some Apple product from 1996. I'll agree it need not be on par with a full-blown desktop of current age, but clearly it needs to be *much* closer than hardware that was obsoleted several generations ago. Something is "up", and I don't think Apple has been upstanding with the real issues that are throttling the "spec'd" hardware.

WRT the discussion on slow GUI performance, the "it's doing more" excuse is wearing thin. Window resizing is poor compared to other GUI accelerated features. There's just no way around this. If it is not getting hardware accelerated, they need to get on this. If it is, then they need to make it do less to speed it up. It's one thing to "do more" in the way of graphics benefits, but if it makes it nonfunctional in user speed with dubious added benefits, then this is a problem. Once again, the "balance" of choices hanging in balance for a feature seems to be askew, imo.

At some point, we have to realize "niggling problems" as something relevant to be addressed. Making endless apologies or excuses or promises that things would be better if we had a GPU from "the future" or other will not improve things.

I couldn't agree more.

IMO you've hit several nails squarely on the head with your post.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #37 of 39
What is the point of a 'maintenance' release?

Is it to fix stuff that's broken, or to break more stuff?

I recently had to reinstall one of my G5s from scratch. I used the disks that came in the box and ended up with a 10.3.3 installation the machine absolutely FLIES compared to 10.3.6 and what I've seen of 10.3.7.

It's funny that you don't particularly notice a slight drop in performance, but when you go back to an earlier version you certainly notice the boost in performance again!
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiah
What is the point of a 'maintenance' release?

Is it to fix stuff that's broken, or to break more stuff?

I recently had to reinstall one of my G5s from scratch. I used the disks that came in the box and ended up with a 10.3.3 installation the machine absolutely FLIES compared to 10.3.6 and what I've seen of 10.3.7.

It's funny that you don't particularly notice a slight drop in performance, but when you go back to an earlier version you certainly notice the boost in performance again!

a reinstall will almost allways boost performance.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #39 of 39
The reason is an old one: Apple decided to introduce X and made a choice in favour of a newly designed GUI and graphics subsystem and had no true hardware support for this until today. Everything going onscreen taxes the CPU therefore heavily. GPU support is coming in several flavours, Quartz Extreme, etc. are all trying to circumvent this in one way or other. But this is no way likewise efficient like old school GPU usage. But there is no way back now. Apple indeed is bound to some sort of future GPU tech.

This is an old horse beaten to death since the early days of X. Graphics on a Mac is since then a bit slow, demanding and inefficient. The progress of hardware never truly filled the gap Apple had opend then until today, IMHO.

While the system GUI is not longer the molasses it had been in 10.1, general responsiveness and GUI performance still leaves much to be desired and Apple seems unable or unwilling to do anything about it. I am sure they tried and optimized everything, but the true bottlenecks seem to be inside the structure of the graphics subsystem and that is beyond change without altering too much and breaking most of the existing code base.

The poor state of OpenGL however is another story.... 10.3.7 corrects the errors introduced by 10.3.6, but changes not much for the better there it seems.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mac OS X 10.3.7 build 7S214 improves graphics performance