or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › QUARTZ HARDWARE ACCEL!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

QUARTZ HARDWARE ACCEL!! - Page 3

post #81 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by Hayden:
<strong>Geez you guys, do you want Apple to advance the OS or not? They can't make it run great on every piece of old hardware. It's not like it WON'T WORK on a PowerBook with 16 MB of video RAM - it just won't work as FAST.

If you have one, you'll still see improvement. If you happen to have a new one with 32 MB, you'll see maximum improvement.

It's the price of innovating and advancing, people. Get used to it. (spoken in the nicest tone possible) </strong><hr></blockquote>

OLD...???

I just bought my G4 tower LESS than a year ago... I just bought my NEW Radeon PCI card a few MONTHS ago... I was just ABOUT TO BUY a Matrox RT-Mac PCI card when the NEW drivers come out.

Old hardware...? My point is... if they're gonna do this AGP-Only thing for hrdwr accelleration... then give us MULTIPLE AGP Slots...!!!

I am (was?) on the verge of a 3-Display setup and now to find out only ONE display will reap the benefits of this Quartz-a-holic engine...?

Phuck... OF COURSE we want them to keep advancing the OS... of COURSE we want them to shoot for cutting edge... but c'mon. I'd rather see underlying CORE functionality accellerated through better optimization or compilation for MY CURRENT machine before speeding-up the eye-candy on NEWER TECHNOLOGIES!!!

I'm not a cry-baby, but I'm not a millionaire either. I cannot afford to keep shelling-out top dollar to try to reach an equilibrium with my hardware & software.

Before bumping to OSX... I got a kick-ass 64MB 3dfx VooDoo 5500 PCI card for my G4... I move to OSX... no support for it... after waiting and waiting I bite the bullet for the Radeon top-o-the-line PCI card... now I find that IT won't be good enough...?

sorry... but the wallet is thinning out too fast here. If this OS is going to be "so advanced" and so "kick-ass"... then HOLD OFF on releasing it until you make machines that BLOW AWAY THE COMPETITION... I'm talking 3X the speed of the intel, athlon world...


- breathe -

sorry... I truly am... I just get bitter at times...
peace...
- insert witty comment here, summing my personality and beliefs into a nice, simple package for others to understand -
Reply
- insert witty comment here, summing my personality and beliefs into a nice, simple package for others to understand -
Reply
post #82 of 192
[quote]give us MULTIPLE AGP Slots...!!!<hr></blockquote>
No can do. The AGP standard allows for only one AGP port.
post #83 of 192
If your G4 tower is less than a year old, then it has an AGP slot. Why on Earth would you buy a PCI Radeon for it? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
post #84 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>If your G4 tower is less than a year old, then it has an AGP slot. Why on Earth would you buy a PCI Radeon for it? :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Did you not read my post...?

3 Monitors
1 AGP Slot
2 PCI cards needed to run other 2 displays.

the 3rd display is to be (I HOPE) run from a Matrox RT-Mac for Final Cut Pro accelleration and full-screen preview. The Matrox RT-Mac does NOT support FireWire output in real-time... hence the third monitor. I use my NTSC Monitor for FireWire preview(s).

I am a multi-monitor guy. One display will not cut it... and I doubt there's an AGP board that'll run TWO 19" monitors at 1600 x 1200 75hz millions of colors.

hence me being "S-O-O-L"
- insert witty comment here, summing my personality and beliefs into a nice, simple package for others to understand -
Reply
- insert witty comment here, summing my personality and beliefs into a nice, simple package for others to understand -
Reply
post #85 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by starfleetX:
<strong>I'm surprised anyone thinks software from Apple with the word "EXTREME" in the title will work on computers older than two years. Sheesh.</strong><hr></blockquote>

My iBook is a couple of months old. Is it even supported in some way? No.

Thank you Apple.
iBook 800 with 10.2.6 - Various PC's with OpenBSD 3.3
Reply
iBook 800 with 10.2.6 - Various PC's with OpenBSD 3.3
Reply
post #86 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by Fobie:
<strong>My iBook is a couple of months old. Is it even supported in some way? No.</strong><hr></blockquote>Will your iBook run "Jag-wire"?
Of course! Quite fine and dandy. So, yes, it is supported.

Will it run Jaguar faster than 10.1?
Yes, it certainly should. The Finder and other things will be much more optimized plus the gcc 3.1 recompile will provide a faster experience even without the "extreme" hardware acceleration.

Will it run extreme Jaguar?
No. Your computer wasn't a powerhouse compared to the desktops when you bought it a couple months ago. So, don't expect Apple to turn it into one now. You should have known that the iBook wasn't as powerful and capable as the desktop line. If you wanted the power, you should have gotten a PowerBook or a desktop model. Simple as that. Realize that notebook computers are built for *portability* and this often comes at the cost of raw power. This has been true for years and I don't think you should be surprised by it today unless you simply don't understand the technology inside.


Remember, folks, asking for this kind of acceleration on low-end hardware is like asking FCP to do real-time effects on a G3. There's a technological minimum that *has* to be met for these things to even be possible. You people should at least be a little satisfied that Apple found ways to support most current cards without having to develop completely new, custom "4th generation" GPUs like the rumors had been saying for the past year.

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
post #87 of 192
Ok, maybe I am mistaken but the way I understood it was that Quartz Extreem doesnt really "accelerate" any graphical functions persay. Instead it offloads graphical commands(specifically dealing with Quartz) to the GPU so that the CPU is freed from the task and can therefore be used more efficiently in other areas. In other words, speed improvements for all tasks.

I could be wrong. This was just my interpretation of what Job's said. But it seems trivial to me to "accelerate" or speed up Quartz when it really isnt slow on even my old iMac DVSE 500. However, if Quartz is really hogging the CPU, then this will mean that Quartz Extreem will be a significant speed improvement for OSX.

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: 4fx ]</p>
post #88 of 192
I'm accually glad i didn't buy a PowerBook since it would cost me more than twice what I paid for the iBook and still it woudn't be fully supported.

Apple is still selling the same iBook that i bought today, but Jaguar isn't out today and won't be for a while. At the time Jaguar is out my iBook should be close to a year old, so I guess its obvious that it isn't supported.

I hope all their machines will support Quartz Extreme when 10.2/5/whatever will be out.
iBook 800 with 10.2.6 - Various PC's with OpenBSD 3.3
Reply
iBook 800 with 10.2.6 - Various PC's with OpenBSD 3.3
Reply
post #89 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by Scott F.:
<strong>
Old hardware...? My point is... if they're gonna do this AGP-Only thing for hrdwr accelleration... then give us MULTIPLE AGP Slots...!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. As far as I understand, AGP (at least up to the 4x specs) only allows for one single AGP slot per computer.


[quote]<strong>I am (was?) on the verge of a 3-Display setup and now to find out only ONE display will reap the benefits of this Quartz-a-holic engine...?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

So? Also "only ONE display will reap the benefits" of AGP (faster data rates, access to main RAM, ...), too. If you need to displays on AGP, get a dual head card.


[quote]<strong>Before bumping to OSX... I got a kick-ass 64MB 3dfx VooDoo 5500 PCI card for my G4... I move to OSX... no support for it...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, you can't blame Apple for 3Dfx going belly up...


[quote]<strong>
after waiting and waiting I bite the bullet for the Radeon top-o-the-line PCI card... now I find that IT won't be good enough...?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Would probably have made a lot more sense to get an AGP Radeon (which is the fastest card), and a PCI card for your secondary monitor.


[quote]<strong>sorry... but the wallet is thinning out too fast here. If this OS is going to be "so advanced" and so "kick-ass"... then HOLD OFF on releasing it until you make machines that BLOW AWAY THE COMPETITION... I'm talking 3X the speed of the intel, athlon world...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Seeing Motorola, that would probably mean holding off just as long as they did with Copland...

Bye,
RazzFazz

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
post #90 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by Scott F.:
<strong>
I am a multi-monitor guy. One display will not cut it... and I doubt there's an AGP board that'll run TWO 19" monitors at 1600 x 1200 75hz millions of colors.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Shouldn't be a problem on any recent dual head card with &gt;32MB VRAM.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #91 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by 4fx:
<strong>Ok, maybe I am mistaken but the way I understood it was that Quartz Extreem doesnt really "accelerate" any graphical functions persay. Instead it offloads graphical commands(specifically dealing with Quartz) to the GPU so that the CPU is freed from the task and can therefore be used more efficiently in other areas.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And the difference between those two is...? I mean, that's exactly what graphics acceleration is all about.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #92 of 192
Scott F writes: [quote]

Before bumping to OSX... I got a kick-ass 64MB 3dfx VooDoo 5500 PCI card for my G4... I move to OSX... no support for it.. <hr></blockquote>

Why in HELL would you do that? You added new hardware before knowing if it would be suported? Oh, good idea.

You could, presumably, get a twin view video card then offload one of the displays onto PCI.
That's two of three, no?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #93 of 192
[quote]On Apple's Website:
<strong>
Quartz Extreme
Jaguar dramatically improves the performance of Mac OS X with Quartz Extreme. Jaguar lets Quartz offload compositing tasks to a supported* video card, using OpenGL to accelerate the drawing and compositing of graphics. As with the benefits 3D games get from a video co-processor, the main CPU chip(s) can then focus on application-specific needs.

That means your shadows will drop quickly, your genies will appear slicker and your transparencies will layer faster — and Mac OS X can do more processing in the background while you move the foreground.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
And the difference between those two is...? I mean, that's exactly what graphics acceleration is all about.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

All I am saying is that the primary purpose of Quartz Extreem seems to be releaving the CPU from the burdoning task or dealing with Quartz not speeding up GUI tasks(although it will do that too). As I was saying, my old iMac does GUI tasks such as the genie effect without hitch, so it isnt that important to improve speed in this area, just efficieny. And this is exactly what Quartz Extreem will do. Anyway, it hopefully will mean a significant improvement in speed for all OSX tasks.
post #94 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by shetline:
<strong>

I'm feeling even happier that I bought a new 800 MHz TiBook last week. My 667 was only four months old, but I'd been wanting a Cinema Display, and when I heard that the newer TiBooks had DVI, I broke down and dropped a whole lot of money on both a new TiBook and a new 22" display.

For anyone who isn't all that worried about Quartz Extreme, I know where you can get a great bargain on a nearly-new 667 MHz TiBook on eBay

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2022308296" target="_blank">eBay item 2022308296 - Titanium PwrBk 667/30G/512M CD-RW/DVD Airport</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

I should have added, of course, that I fully expect that within 3-6 months something new will come along that makes me wish I'd waited another 3-6 months. Something that turns my bright, shiny toy into yesterday's news. That's how it always works :eek:

At least I know now I'll be able to run Quartz Extreme with full hardware acceleration... even if I'm kicking myself because I'm missing out on Quartz Holography acceleration by the end of the year
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #95 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>Scott F writes:

Why in HELL would you do that? You added new hardware before knowing if it would be suported? Oh, good idea.

You could, presumably, get a twin view video card then offload one of the displays onto PCI.
That's two of three, no?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Think, before you reply. I am not a psychic. I needed to buy a computer... I run dual displays which I already owned... the G4 CAME with the AGP card and I needed a SECOND one to drive the 2nd display. I bought the best that was available (at the time) at Micro Center...

How was I to know that:

a) 3dfx would die a horrible death
b) OSX would not support it in the FUTURE... it wasn't OUT yet.

EDIT: I just realized the disconnect: I earlier stated that I bought my G4 LESS than a year ago... it's actually just OVER a year now... I got it a few weeks before OSX was released

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Scott F. ]</p>
- insert witty comment here, summing my personality and beliefs into a nice, simple package for others to understand -
Reply
- insert witty comment here, summing my personality and beliefs into a nice, simple package for others to understand -
Reply
post #96 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by Scott F.:
<strong>
Think, before you reply. I am not a psychic. I needed to buy a computer... I run dual displays which I already owned... the G4 CAME with the AGP card and I needed a SECOND one to drive the 2nd display. I bought the best that was available (at the time) at Micro Center...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, still, not putting your most powerful card into the most capable slot (i.e. AGP) is not a good idea to begin with. PCI just doesn't offer quite a lot of features available via AGP.


[quote]<strong>
How was I to know that:
a) 3dfx would die a horrible death
b) OSX would not support it in the FUTURE... it wasn't OUT yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why does everyone claim that the old cards are "not supported"? Mac OS X will use your new card to the full extent this specific card offers. You will still be able to use OpenGL, enjoy QuickTime acceleration, etc., but it's just not possible to use it for Extreme Quartz because your card lacks the necessary AGP support. This is the cards fault not OS X', since Extreme Quartz seems to need AGP in order to function at all.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #97 of 192
From what I've read, everyone complaining is absolutely POSITIVE that the Jaguar update won't speed up their machines without supported hardware, and that's crap. Guys, two days ago you were saying you'd give ANYTHING to have OS X speed up. Apple has given you a faster, better, Finder, with speed optimizations across the board. You got what you want, fellas, relax. Jaguar WILL be faster for you, one way or the other, supported hardware or not. Why do you still find the need to complain? It's the nature of the business: non-supported hardware can't be supported, nothing you can do, but you still have your speed increase.
post #98 of 192
Sorry for starting this, but I meant for my first question to be of a technical nature. Unfortunately I was overly vague.

My initial impression was that the primary monitor (AGP) would recieve hardware acceleration and thus operate at a much faster rate than a second (PCI) monitor. This is turn would cause a huge UI problem in that the two monitors would behave very differently.

However, that's not necessarily the case. Like others have mentioned in this thread, Quartz Extreme merely offloads these tasks to the GPU in order to free up CPU cycles. So while the second monitor will still be using the CPU, it won't necessarily run slower than the first. It's conceivable that it would be more like a DP situation, with the GPU serving as one processor and the CPU serving as the second. And the operation of both monitors might then be synced. But this is a best case scenario.

More than likely, additional monitors (on PCI) will lag behind the main monitor. So then anyone who uses more than two monitors (on AGP dual-head) will have some interesting problems.

Thoughts?

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Arty50 ]</p>
post #99 of 192
I realize progress has a price, and again, I realize anything Beige is legacy. If you have a Beige computer, you should upgrade.

But, does anyone here think it's odd that Quartz Extreme doesn't apply to currently SHIPPING iBooks, CRT iMacs, and the just recently updated PBG4!?

This MUST mean updates for the iBook, at least.

I am not complaining, since I know Jaguar will still speed things up dramatically. And, if it doesn't, I haven't been using OS X anyway. OS 9 doesn't crash on me. (read: no M$ IE)

Shadow Knight, I am overclocking my iBook 500 to 600/100 in June. I'll post my results. But, on the 500, OS X is almost unusable. I do only have 128 megs of RAM, but you can tell when VM kicks in. I can't get my screw on the Airport riser out, I've tried everything! Glue w/ pin, etc. So I'm doing it when I overclock, going to 384 megs.

But, I thought the iBook had AGP!? Someone here said it was the first Mac to get AGP, in an argument about how sometimes portables get new tech first.

Oh, and Shadow Knight, ZO, I went to an Apple store and looked at the CPU monitor while mousing on the Dock. On the iBook 600 (14 inch, form factor is NOT a factor, no pun intended) I got the Dock to eat 100% (!) of the CPU, and on the PBG4 667 it was only 1 bar away from the doing the same thing. Nothing else running. Now, I'm not technically proficient with OS X yet, so I have a theory people may have to correct: OS X is dynamic. When it can use 100% of the CPU it will. But this doesn't sound very preemptive. I thought you'd have to nice it up to do that. Plus, apps like Word eat the CPU for breakfast, while they're just idling, just SITTING there, with no autosave, live word count, etc!
"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 #100 of 192
i have osx on my ibook 600 (640meg ram) and it rocks. seriously.

is your 500 the 66mhz bus or 100mhz bus. i think the older macs would make a differnence but trying to run osx with 128 is just not wise for more than one program.

I had 184 in an old ibook and it was going to vm all the time. my new ibook rocks though, as i mentioned before.

and i do not expect extreme to run on my ibook not because its 3 months old but becuase you give up something my buying a laptop. and full on AGP mega video card support is one of them.

no problems here apple.
post #101 of 192
I'm wondering about compliance with apps too, Leonis.

Anyhoo, what percent of performance do we have now compared to OS9 with Jaguar?
post #102 of 192
Users that upgrade to Jag-wire will odo-matically get significant speed increases.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #103 of 192
In the June issue of German MacWorld there is an interesting comparison between OS 9 and OS X. They tested all current Macs plus the last generation and a few older ones (e.g. G4/350, iMac G3/500, ...).
Bottomline is: All processor-tasks are appr. 10-20% faster in OS X, harddisk-performance is much faster in OS X, 3-D graphics is only little slower in OS X but 2D-graphics is 4-times (!) slower than in OS 9.
This is the reason why I still work with OS 9, because although OS X is faster than OS 9, it feels so much slower. In OS X I sometimes feel like beeing set back to old times of multi-finder...
post #104 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:
<strong>
This MUST mean updates for the iBook, at least.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, yes, likely they'll be getting the Radeon Mobility at some point. Probably not 32MB of VRAM (but as the Apple page says, that's only necessary for full potential), though.
[quote]<strong>
Shadow Knight, I am overclocking my iBook 500 to 600/100 in June. I'll post my results. But, on the 500, OS X is almost unusable. I do only have 128 megs of RAM, but you can tell when VM kicks in. I can't get my screw on the Airport riser out, I've tried everything! Glue w/ pin, etc. So I'm doing it when I overclock, going to 384 megs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If your iBook has a 66MHz bus and 128MB of RAM, then that explains a lot. I wouldn't expect OS X to be "unusable" on such a system (it runs great on a 466/66 iBook with 192MB of RAM), but I would expect it to be relatively quite slow. The bus speed alone makes a huge difference, and OS X seems to magically improve if you have greater than 128MB of RAM. I suspect that overclocking and upgrading the RAM will make your complaints largely go away (it will still seem slower than Mac OS 9 for screen drawing, though processor intensive things will be much faster).
[quote]<strong>
But, I thought the iBook had AGP!? Someone here said it was the first Mac to get AGP, in an argument about how sometimes portables get new tech first.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It does have AGP, but that's not the only requirement for Quartz Extreme. The other requirement was a sufficiently advanced video card... the iBook is using the Rage128-based chipset, which doesn't have some hardware features that Quartz Extreme apparently needs. Quartz Extreme apparently will only work with Radeons, and GeForce2MX or better. So maybe then my 400MHz G4 (which I have put a GeForce2MX card in) will be faster than the iBook 600...
[quote]<strong>
Oh, and Shadow Knight, ZO, I went to an Apple store and looked at the CPU monitor while mousing on the Dock. On the iBook 600 (14 inch, form factor is NOT a factor, no pun intended) I got the Dock to eat 100% (!) of the CPU, and on the PBG4 667 it was only 1 bar away from the doing the same thing. Nothing else running. Now, I'm not technically proficient with OS X yet, so I have a theory people may have to correct: OS X is dynamic. When it can use 100% of the CPU it will. But this doesn't sound very preemptive. I thought you'd have to nice it up to do that. Plus, apps like Word eat the CPU for breakfast, while they're just idling, just SITTING there, with no autosave, live word count, etc!</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you are running nothing but CPU Monitor and the Dock, I'd expect it to easily peg at 100%. For one thing, CPU Monitor itself can eat a lot of CPU. For another, since no other process needs the CPU and drawing the Dock does, then the Dock gets all the cycles. If something else required CPU time, then they'd automatically split it up, still pegging the CPU at 100% whenever possible (that's a good thing, it means no wasted cycles). As for Word eating CPU even when idle, that's because it's a ported Carbon app... it's still using the WaitNextEvent loop instead of using the Events model. Hopefully they'll eventually port it to take advantage of all that Carbon offers (which is a lot, but it's hairy and ugly, as opposed to Cocoa, which is sleek and pretty (just talking about code, here, not necessarily the finished application)).

later,
Shadow Knight
post #105 of 192
Ah yes, Shadow Knight, I remember now. Amorph kindly explained how the old WaitNextEvent system keeps polling, looking for input. Cocoa revisions of all our apps next year (!) or in 2004 is going to be shweet.

And yes, mine's a 66mhz bus. Apple crippleware. I really love everything about the iceBook, except the bus (you're right, I hear that's more a factor than even the CPU's clock speed, and at 350 w/ 100mhz bus, it gets 105% the performance, with more battery of course!)

Still, for those who can use it, we'll be anxiously awaiting news of Quartz Extreme. This is definitely going to be the hottest item on Hotline
"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 #106 of 192
Well, despite what I have said in other posts, let us wait and see before we pass judgement on Jaguar and sell our PowerBooks on Ebay...

... still, I do not think that any GUI ought to require the hardware Apple is designing Aqua to demand. It's slow and unnecessary. I don't know what they hope to be accomplishing here. It ought to be a feature that you can turn off, in any case.

This is an argument that is very old and predates OS X's commercial release, but I still find myself often restarting and running under OS 9 because frankly, Platinum is a far superior interface to Aqua in many respects. There is less nesting of folders. Windows, dialog boxes, menus etc. take up less screen real estate. It runs faster. It's prettier to look at. Fonts look better rendered by ATM than by Quartz. Etc. ad infinitum.
-philter-
Reply
-philter-
Reply
post #107 of 192
loving my new iMac more and more, and can't wait for jag to come out....by then (sept. 2002?) my kids can use iChat, chimera should be freakin version .99 by then at the speed we are getting updates from them and i can throw out IE and maybe even entourage (though entourage has been nice to use)....if quark would come out with an os X version i could throw out word and have a microsoft free machine....g
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
post #108 of 192
&gt; &gt; &gt;
Remember, folks, asking for this kind of acceleration on low-end hardware is like asking FCP to do real-time effects on a G3. There's a technological minimum that *has* to be met for these things to even be possible. You people should at least be a little satisfied that Apple found ways to support most current cards without having to develop completely new, custom "4th generation" GPUs like the rumors had been saying for the past year.
&lt; &lt; &lt;

No, look, you fool... this is the WHOLE PROBLEM. Apple should not have a lame processor-intensive GUI in the first place! Aqua sucks!! Who cares about drop shadows, genies, and all that crap? Give me Platinum running over Darwin and I would cut off two of my fingers and be happy! Because despite the loss of two fingers the computer would still be more pleasurable to use than with this ridiculous excuse for a GUI. Whatever happened to Apple? Whatever happened to minimalist utilitarianism and form following function? Now the interface looks like a bad mushroom trip from Steve's days at Reed College! Look, the happy little red-yellow-green buttons that look like a traffic signal but are half as functional as their equivalents in OS 9! Look, the Apple menu that's only 1/4 as functional as its counterpart in OS 9! Look, the horrendous dock that has no hierarchicalness and takes up way too much screen real estate and besides that is not at all as helpful as spring loaded folders or the tear-off Applications Menu? Oh look, a new type of open/save dialog box that SUCKS!! compared to its OS 9 equivalent!

People say, "Well, when OS 9 first came out in 1984, well it was OS 1 back then, and it sucked then too. So lay off." But, why did Apple ditch all the great things about Platinum and all the great interface enhancements? I guess they just need time to add them all back in and make OS X as good as OS 9. But ... hurry up Apple! And don't charge me extra for it; I should have had it to begin with! Whatever happened to Copland? We should've had Copland in 1998! And can you hurry up and port OS X to run on Wintel hardware? I'm tired of using motherboards, RAM, and processors that are now 1.4 GHZ **SLOWER** THAN THE OTHER GUYS!!

sheeesh... they better not charge for Jaguar, I'm tellin' ya... not that I would pay for it, even if they did. That's what the old CD burner is for guys!! To say "f u" to companies like Apple when they pull crap like this!!
-philter-
Reply
-philter-
Reply
post #109 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:
<strong>
But, does anyone here think it's odd that Quartz Extreme doesn't apply to currently SHIPPING iBooks, CRT iMacs, and the just recently updated PBG4!?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Think of Quartz Extreme as being like AltiVec: If it's there, you get a speed boost. If it's not, you don't. But all the panicking about whether your computer is not supported is silly. Almost all iBook owners - and all iceBook owners - bought their machines knowing that they were trading off a major software accelerator (AltiVec) for a small, cool, efficient laptop. This is just more of the same. Jaguar should still be an unambiguous improvement to any iBook.

[quote]<strong>But, I thought the iBook had AGP!? Someone here said it was the first Mac to get AGP, in an argument about how sometimes portables get new tech first.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The iBook was indeed the first Apple product to sport AGP, and it shipped with AGP 2x. But Quartz Extreme also needs at least a RADEON or GeForce2-class chipset, and the iBook's Rage 128 Mobility doesn't cut it. It'll continue to accelerate OS X in those ways that it can, however.

Remember, most of the rumors on this site concentrated on nifty Raycer coprocessors to accelerate Quartz, a solution which would not have worked on any current Apple hardware at all, and which, in its proposed forms, couldn't have been added to any current machine via an upgrade, either. What Apple gave us was significantly better than that.

[quote]<strong>Oh, and Shadow Knight, ZO, I went to an Apple store and looked at the CPU monitor while mousing on the Dock. On the iBook 600 (14 inch, form factor is NOT a factor, no pun intended) I got the Dock to eat 100% (!) of the CPU, and on the PBG4 667 it was only 1 bar away from the doing the same thing. Nothing else running. Now, I'm not technically proficient with OS X yet, so I have a theory people may have to correct: OS X is dynamic. When it can use 100% of the CPU it will. But this doesn't sound very preemptive.</strong><hr></blockquote>

High CPU utilization by a user-level app (which the Dock is, AFAIK) means two things: 1) the code is tightly written, and 2) there's nothing else requiring anything of the CPU. If you start a Photoshop filter, rip a CD, play a DVD and render a DVD, then scrub the Dock, and the Dock still eats 100% of the CPU, then you can suspect that someone is doing an end run around the preemptive scheduler.

[quote]<strong>I thought you'd have to nice it up to do that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

All background apps in UNIX (and UNIX-alikes) are automatically nice'd to a certain degree, because UNIXen have always placed the highest priority on interactive tasks. So even in the above scenario, where there are a lot of tasks running, the Dock will probably be the foreground task for as long as you're scrubbing the mouse over it, so it'll get preferential treatment from the scheduler. If you then foreground Photoshop, Photoshop will. And so forth.

[quote]<strong>Plus, apps like Word eat the CPU for breakfast, while they're just idling, just SITTING there, with no autosave, live word count, etc!</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's called a bad Carbon port.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #110 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by AppleCello:
<strong>From MacCentral:

"Quartz Extreme: Takes the compositing engine in Quartz, and accelerates it in graphics cards. Combines 2D, 3D and video in one hardware pipeline via OpenGL

It is not possible on older graphics cards like RAGE 128 cards, said Jobs -- that means it'll work on newer iMacs and eMacs, but not on older machines, he emphasized. AGP 2x and 32MB video RAM are required for this new technology."

HOT!

[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: AppleCello ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

It has occured to me the whiners are seeing this ALL wrong!

This is Apple unleasing the untapped potential of older PowerMacs, TiBooks and the new iMac.

To join the Quartz Extreme party the old AGP PowerMac/Cube users just need to grab a nVidia GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX or any AGP ATI Radeon card.

That's A LOT of machines with extra performance sitting around waiting to be set free.

The whiners can be contented knowing that they'll be able to run Jaguar at least as well as 10.1.4. They haven't shelled out for hardware which has sat under-utilized for a year or more! So there!
20" iMac C2D/2.4GHz 3GB RAM 10.6.5 (10H574) - 15" iMac G4/800MHz 1GB
Reply
20" iMac C2D/2.4GHz 3GB RAM 10.6.5 (10H574) - 15" iMac G4/800MHz 1GB
Reply
post #111 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by philter:
<strong>No, look, you fool... this is the WHOLE PROBLEM. Apple should not have a lame processor-intensive GUI in the first place! Aqua sucks!! Who cares about drop shadows, genies, and all that crap? Give me Platinum running over Darwin and I would cut off two of my fingers and be happy! </strong><hr></blockquote>Many Apple users have installed OS X in decidedly sub-optimal setups (like my Wallstreet, for example), simply because they prefer the new UI and don't mind sluggishness, if the benefits are, for example, more graphical cues and an infinitely superior file browser within applications (try organizing linking in a 1000-page plus website using the OS 9 file browser for a couple of hours and you'll see what I mean).

Your opinion on Aqua is just an opinion, y'know.
What, me worry?
<a href="http://www.mp3.com/guitarbloke" target="_blank">Me</a> <a href="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/336/poser_uk.html" target="_blank">Us</a>
Reply
What, me worry?
<a href="http://www.mp3.com/guitarbloke" target="_blank">Me</a> <a href="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/336/poser_uk.html" target="_blank">Us</a>
Reply
post #112 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by philter:
<strong>No, look, you fool... this is the WHOLE PROBLEM. Apple should not have a lame processor-intensive GUI in the first place! Aqua sucks!! Who cares about drop shadows, genies, and all that crap? Give me Platinum running over Darwin and I would cut off two of my fingers and be happy!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Replace Aqua with System 7 and Platinum with System 6 in your post and we're all the way back in 1990.

Come to think of it, I remember some grousing when the old MacOS UI was retired for the more chrome-heavy Platinum. I also remember some of that grousing came from yours truly.

Mileage varies. I, for one, only boot into OS 9 when I absolutely have to, for as long as I have to. Aqua to me is gorgeous and more Mac-like. I can't remember ever associating Mac interfaces with "minimalist utilitarianism." They've always been clean and pretty, and they've had drop shadows on windows since System 1.0.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #113 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by Scott F.:
<strong>

Think, before you reply. I am not a psychic. I needed to buy a computer... I run dual displays which I already owned... the G4 CAME with the AGP card and I needed a SECOND one to drive the 2nd display. I bought the best that was available (at the time) at Micro Center...

How was I to know that:

a) 3dfx would die a horrible death
b) OSX would not support it in the FUTURE... it wasn't OUT yet.

EDIT: I just realized the disconnect: I earlier stated that I bought my G4 LESS than a year ago... it's actually just OVER a year now... I got it a few weeks before OSX was released

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Scott F. ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


Well, (oh wait, I have to remember to to THINK BEFORE I REPLY....wait....hold on a sec....OK!)

Buying a new GPU a few weeks before the official release of a major operating system upgrade that you were planning on getting, was, in a word DUMB.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #114 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>


Well, (oh wait, I have to remember to to THINK BEFORE I REPLY....wait....hold on a sec....OK!)

Buying a new GPU a few weeks before the official release of a major operating system upgrade that you were planning on getting, was, in a word DUMB.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why are you so rude...? You don't know all the facts... I HAD TO buy a new machine... my other Mac had crapped-out on me in the middle of a MAJOR project and I had to buy one THAT DAY to continue... hence taking the card that came with it and buying the PCI card for the second monitor.

Stop being such a know-it-all... sheesh!!!

Fine...! You're smart... I'm dumb... happy?

(idiot)
- insert witty comment here, summing my personality and beliefs into a nice, simple package for others to understand -
Reply
- insert witty comment here, summing my personality and beliefs into a nice, simple package for others to understand -
Reply
post #115 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by Scott F.:
<strong>

Did you not read my post...?

3 Monitors
1 AGP Slot
2 PCI cards needed to run other 2 displays.

the 3rd display is to be (I HOPE) run from a Matrox RT-Mac for Final Cut Pro accelleration and full-screen preview. The Matrox RT-Mac does NOT support FireWire output in real-time... hence the third monitor. I use my NTSC Monitor for FireWire preview(s).

I am a multi-monitor guy. One display will not cut it... and I doubt there's an AGP board that'll run TWO 19" monitors at 1600 x 1200 75hz millions of colors.

hence me being "S-O-O-L"</strong><hr></blockquote>

I thought there were some AGP video cards out recently that support two monitors: one ADC and one VGA? I could swear this is the case. If so then there's your answer.

Anyways, even without Quartz Extreme, Jag-WIRE is going to be faster than Puma. How can you complain if a new OS update speeds up your hardware?
post #116 of 192
[quote]To join the Quartz Extreme party the old AGP PowerMac/Cube users just need to grab a nVidia GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX or any AGP ATI Radeon card.
<hr></blockquote>

btw, does anyone know where i can get one for a decent price(under 200), even on ebay the lowest i can find is 255
post #117 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>cough..24.191.110.119... cough upload cough please cough

carracho

[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

So you run one too, eh? I'd be willing to trade accounts That is, after I dl the new Carracho (Frogblast all the way....)
post #118 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by philter:
<strong>&gt; &gt; &gt;
...Now the interface looks like a bad mushroom trip from Steve's days at Reed College! Look, the happy little red-yellow-green buttons that look like a traffic signal but are half as functional as their equivalents in OS 9...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know what metrics you're using to determine "half functionality", but I find OS X window widgets to be more functional than their OS 9 counterparts. Here's why: you can close a background window without first having to click on it to give it focus. That's one click in OS X versus two in OS 9. So I say that OS X widgets are twice as functional as OS 9 ones are.
post #119 of 192
[quote]Originally posted by CubeDude:
<strong>
nope i'm stuck with the Rage 128 Pro, too bad i can't upgrade</strong><hr></blockquote>

why not? put a radeon or gf2 in there! hell, slap in a geforce3 and dual gig that sucker! although then you'd need a fan too... while you're at it 120GB that hard drive, weeeeee! 1.5GB that ram!

the cube is massively upgradeable and a hardware hackers dream, a challenge
post #120 of 192
All this "extreme" (LOL) business would be void if Apple had not opted for the Quartz/Aqua thing. This is the main cause for todays trouble and for alienating Mac users.

What I still am failing to see are the benefits of Quartz/Aqua. We still run all 2D aspects of X 400% slower than under 9 and I see no advantage for doing so. Could someone point out any benefit gained by using Quartz compared to any other 2D drawing technology? I.e, Quickdraw(full graphics card support and acceleration), OpenGL(dito) .

The only pay off of Quartz seen by anyone is that it pays off for Apples hardware sales. There is neither a need nor a payoff nor any usable advantage by using a suchlike drawing model IMHO. Any help or insight? Only disadvantages weigh in so far as I am concerned and Apple is trying to cure the sickness by rising minimum hardware specs, which in my view is admitting that the decision for Quartz was premature.

It is sad that Apple delivered tech is a drawback rather than a move forward. But I would be less disappointed if anyone could provide a list of current and future advantages of Quartz that really outweigh all this hassle and pain. Anyone?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › QUARTZ HARDWARE ACCEL!!