Quartz Extreme: what does this mean for iBooks?

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 81
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by macXusr:

    <strong>so we should get minimal support from Quartz Extreme, but not like the Radeon 7500 in the powerbooks...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    how about "geforce 2 go"?
  • Reply 22 of 81
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:

    <strong>doesn't the iBook (dual USB) have AGP?



    Are you all sure iceBooks can't do Quartz extreme, even a little bit, with their paltry memory?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    iBooks have Rage 128 (M4) based graphics. ATI support for Quartz Extreme stops at the Radeon level cards.



    [quote]No typo. GeForce4 has been announced for the Mac since January, was supposed to be shipping now but has been moved back to the summer just in time for the NEXT nVidia card to be shipping. Only on Apple, go figure!<hr></blockquote>



    Yes typo...

    "GeForce4" seems a little redundant since they refer to both the GeForce4 Ti and GeForce4 MX in the same statement.



    [ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
  • Reply 23 of 81
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Eugene, Nostradamus, are you sure?



    I heard it offloads the work of Aqua. Thus, it isn't merely for accelerating Aqua, but for accelerating everything else too, since the CPU has less to do! So, Eugene, do you mean that it physically (you know what I mean) can't do it? Literally, it's impossible? Or, that Apple merely recommends the "requirements". Hey, after all, the iPod "requires" OS 9.2. Um... I had my iPod working flawlessly with 9.1 for months. Or, maybe Apple will put a "CheckForVideoCard" in the Essentials Folder Seriously, I would think even the measly Rage 128 Mobility w/ 8 megs of VRAM could offload some of Aqua from the G3, and help speed up my iBook??
  • Reply 24 of 81
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    [quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:

    <strong>Eugene, Nostradamus, are you sure?



    I heard it offloads the work of Aqua. Thus, it isn't merely for accelerating Aqua, but for accelerating everything else too, since the CPU has less to do! So, Eugene, do you mean that it physically (you know what I mean) can't do it? Literally, it's impossible? Or, that Apple merely recommends the "requirements". Hey, after all, the iPod "requires" OS 9.2. Um... I had my iPod working flawlessly with 9.1 for months. Or, maybe Apple will put a "CheckForVideoCard" in the Essentials Folder Seriously, I would think even the measly Rage 128 Mobility w/ 8 megs of VRAM could offload some of Aqua from the G3, and help speed up my iBook??</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Software requirements are usually too complex to be distilled down to a 2 second sound byte or a label on the back of the box. SJ stated that AGP and 32 megs of VRAM were required... the Rage128 meets the AGP requirement, and that is a hard requirement because it provides certain capabilities. The VRAM requirement is a lot softer -- how much is needed depends on what is being done. If you are running in 640x480x16 mode then you need one heck of a lot less VRAM than 1280x1024x32 mode. I would guess that nothing less than a Rage128 w/ AGP has the capability to run Quartz Extreme, but there may be situations in which 16 megabytes of VRAM would be enough. Whether Apple chooses to let the software try to use the hardware in this situation is another question -- they might just try to avoid the weird issues that inevitably come up on marginal configurations, and only enable the optimizations on 32 meg VRAM cards.



    We won't really know until it ships, but I'd bet that 8 megs of VRAM isn't going to cut it. 16 megs might on low res displays.
  • Reply 25 of 81
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    You can't let your rage 128 on the iBook accelerate Quartz "just a little bit".



    It is all or nothing. There will be two seperate gui rendering engines in 10.2 and you will use one or the other. One will be faster but won't work unless you have the right video card.



    Also, everyone thinking they can do this on their Rage 128 is probably dead wrong. I think the video processor on the Rage 128 just doesn't have the programmability to do the things that are required here. It's not that it's too slow or doesn't have enough memory, the ability just doesn't exist. It would be like trying to make a G3 do altivec. The hardware doesn't have the ability to do it.
  • Reply 26 of 81
    majormattmajormatt Posts: 1,077member
    Something strange is amidst.



    *nVidia: GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX. ATI: any AGP Radeon card. 32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance.



    There is no GF2, GF3, GF4, Radeon below 32 megs of VRAM. So why would Apple write the last line?
  • Reply 27 of 81
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by MajorMatt:

    <strong>Something strange is amidst.



    *nVidia: GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX. ATI: any AGP Radeon card. 32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance.



    There is no GF2, GF3, GF4, Radeon below 32 megs of VRAM. So why would Apple write the last line?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    A generation of TiBooks shipped with 16MB RADEON chipsets...
  • Reply 28 of 81
    naepstnnaepstn Posts: 78member
    Does PCI really not have the necessary throughput to do this? I mean if it has the throughput to be able to do the OpenGL processing in the first place, why wouldn't it be able to keep up with Aqua?



    Do you think it's a hardware issue, or Apple felt it was more economical to just implement it for AGP cards?
  • Reply 29 of 81
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    It's a hardware issue. If Apple was aiming for money, they wouldn't be supporting 2 year old video cards, they would ONLY support new, shipping cards.



    I would wait until JagWIRE is out before worrying about it...it may turn out that JagWIRE is considerably faster even without Quartz Extreme.
  • Reply 30 of 81
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by naepstn:

    <strong>Does PCI really not have the necessary throughput to do this? I mean if it has the throughput to be able to do the OpenGL processing in the first place, why wouldn't it be able to keep up with Aqua?



    Do you think it's a hardware issue, or Apple felt it was more economical to just implement it for AGP cards?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The big benefit of AGP over PCI, as has been mentioned before (aside: That's the real problem with allowing so many threads on one topic - information is scattered everywhere), is that AGP allows direct access to main memory. In order to use a PCI graphics card for acceleration, OS X would first have to copy the area of memory it wanted to accelerate across the PCI bus, and it only could if that area of memory was smaller than the capacity of the RAM on board the PCI card. An AGP card can cache what it needs (at least twice as fast, because AGP 2x is twice as fast as PCI at copying large amounts of contiguous data - which window buffers are), and for the rest it can just look in main memory. This feature greatly reduces the amount of copying across the bus, and it guarantees that the bus is a lot faster as well.



    Of course it's technically possible to adapt Quartz Extreme to use PCI video cards, or cards with small amounts of onboard RAM, just as it's technically possible to write an AltiVec emulator for G3s. It's also just as pointless.
  • Reply 31 of 81
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    [quote]Originally posted by naepstn:

    <strong>Does PCI really not have the necessary throughput to do this? I mean if it has the throughput to be able to do the OpenGL processing in the first place, why wouldn't it be able to keep up with Aqua?



    Do you think it's a hardware issue, or Apple felt it was more economical to just implement it for AGP cards?</strong><hr></blockquote>





    i'm positive that my 66mhz pci slot has the thoroughput, when combined with the processing power of my radeon 32mb ddr, to handle quartz extreme - i'm sure it will be able to be enabled from the command line, so *official* support isn't really necessary...
  • Reply 32 of 81
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    [quote]Originally posted by janitor:

    <strong>i'm positive that my 66mhz pci slot has the thoroughput, when combined with the processing power of my radeon 32mb ddr, to handle quartz extreme - i'm sure it will be able to be enabled from the command line, so *official* support isn't really necessary...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It may have the throughput, but it doesn't have the bus mastering capability that AGP provides to the graphics chip. One of the key features that AGP added over PCI was the ability for a graphics chip to suck data straight out of system memory. Theory: since a fair bit of the rasterizing may still be done by the CPU (all those fancy bezier curves) in main memory, the graphics chip needs access to this memory in order to display it. Some windows could be drawn and sent to the card's VRAM, but that would be slow and VRAM would quickly fill up once there were a few large windows being drawn.



    If this theory is correct, then whether the Rage128 can be used will probably depend on whether the Rage128 supports AGP system memory reads. Offhand I can't remember if it does. Other than that the main feature missing from the Rage128 is the hardware transform & lighting pipeline, which isn't likely to be required by the 2D Quartz engine.
  • Reply 33 of 81
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Exactly, Programmer! Most of what you said is gibberish to me, I was wondering why T&L was so important for Quartz. If you could recall whether the Rage 128 supports reads out of RAM, maybe we could come to a conclusion as to whether the Rage 128 may be able to support Quartz Extreme. After all, with reading out of RAM, the crappy 8meg of VRAM may become a non-issue, and from your post, it sounds like the lack of T&L may be a non-issue too!



    Looking forward to hearing from you again Programmer!
  • Reply 34 of 81
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    Some of you seem to be having a hard time believing that Apple would leave you out of such an important technology. The fact is they would. They are being sued over that very thing right now. if they had said low end graphics cards would work, that would have been suspect. But now that they are telling you up front that such cards won't work, you are trying to convince yourself that they are just kidding.



    When some of us point out the travesty of Apple useing such low end hardware components in their systems, Mac users circle the wagons and claim that their systems have plenty of power and ignor the warning signs. Well this is the problem with useing low end components for so long. They can't support new technology, period. Most PCs would not be adversely affcted by this. Apple needs to do a better job of keeping hardware updated to industry standard specs so that their loyal base does not wake up one morning to find that G3 500MHz 128 ram 8MB vid card 4200 rpm HD 66MHz sys bus system that they just bought yesterday can't handle the technology that comes out today.
  • Reply 35 of 81
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Mac Voyer, look deeper into the technicalities of this problem before posting a knee-jerk response. I am aware iBooks are crippleware, and BTW, it's a 3400 rpm hard drive! And, I have a nice big Star Trek "Warp Drive" Icon for it, too!



    Look at Programmer's post. iBooks may be able to squeak by. I'm not whining that they don't have performance on par with the top of the line tower. I'm just wondering whether it will squeak by on support. Again, see Programmer's post, and then my reply.



    Also, I'm sure everyone here recognizes how ridiculous current iBooks are, especially in light of Jaguar. New iBooks! Hooray, for everyone else
  • Reply 36 of 81
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Okay... I'm gonna post this but I have a feeling those who are without AGP will totally ignore it...



    [quote]

    Yes, unfortunately it only supports AGP, so PCI Radeons do not get Quartz Extreme acceleration. The problem does boil down to 'bandwidth' since it's compositing window context buffers straight out of AGP space. The issue with PCI is not about the rendering performance of the chip, but of getting the data to the 3D engine. With many large windows layered on top of each other, the memory footprint can be quite huge. This is why there isn't support for PCI. It was tried, and the performance sucked.



    Just to clarify what Mike was speculating on, yes this acceleration does work on PBG4's using M6, including those with only 16MB of VRAM.



    Regards,



    Arshad

    ATI Technologies

    <hr></blockquote>



    Enough said?!?!?!



    Dave
  • Reply 37 of 81
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    Aquatik,



    Because I am a Star Trek fan, I will cut you some slack. I read all of the posts and I understand the issue at hand. If QE works at all on your hardware, more power to you. I have my doubts. The real crime is not that Apple is releasing an OS with such high requirements. It is that they continue to sell crippleware (as you call it) for so long, pretending that everything is AOK while knowing all along that their new machines have substandard specs. Techies and geeks like us know what we're getting. Ma and Pa Sixpack don't. They just have to trust that Apple is delivering on the promises implied by their marketing. Noone should even be in the position of wondering if their recent computer purchase will support today's technology.



    The next time Apple releases crippleware onto the market, just pass on it. Apple supporters can best support their company by not enableing this behavior.



    Anyway, I sincerely hope that noone is left behind. Good luck.
  • Reply 38 of 81
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac Voyer:

    <strong>The next time Apple releases crippleware onto the market, just pass on it. Apple supporters can best support their company by not enableing this behavior. - Anyway, I sincerely hope that noone is left behind. Good luck.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Umm could you explain to me in simple terms what you mean by 'crippleware'. Unless I'm reading you totally wrong I think you are refering to low priced Apple hardware. I'm not sure how you could call that 'crippleware'... You get exactly what you pay for. TANSTAAFL <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    Also when you said "Anyway, I sincerely hope that noone is left behind. Good luck."... You must have been kidding right?!?! You'd have to know EVERYONE WHO BUYS ANY HARDWARE FROM ANY VENDOR will be left behind soon after he/she has made their purchase. In fact you can apply that fact to just about anything you buy that has any type of electronics in it.



    Companies don't get rich by selling some something that will last... They want and need you to re-buy the stuff over and over and over again. The bottom line is... 'the bottom line' and if a company doesn't continue to sell they will die.



    Finally I still can't understand why iBook owners have their panties in such a knot?!?!



    Apple has been optimizing for Altivec and been pretty vocal about the power it provides... iBook owners ignore it and buy a G3 based machine anyway... It's quite clear the people who purchased iBooks didn't care as much about speed as they did about money... (that's okay) but then don't b*tch about your system not being powerful enough to make 'full use' of all the power OS X provides...



    The fact is from the day you purchased it it could have NEVER been able to make 'full use' of all the power OS X provides... The altvec-less G3 should have told you that from the start.



    Dave



    [ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
  • Reply 39 of 81
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Probably one of the reasons that Steve brought up the specifics of what is required for Quartz is the current lawsuit against Apple. If Apple had said "10.2 has accelerated Quartz", then many people would probably want to sue Apple when it was revealed that it did not accelerate Quartz on all machines.



    I agree with Dave that iBooks users should not be so upset- they were not buying top of the line hardware that was intended to support FUTURE software advances. iBooks are all about running the current version of OS X tolerably well.



    [ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Yevgeny ]</p>
  • Reply 40 of 81
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    Dave,



    Since my name is David, I'll cut you some slack too.



    "Umm could you explain to me in simple terms what you mean by 'crippleware'. Unless I'm reading you totally wrong I think you are refering to low priced Apple hardware. I'm not sure how you could call that 'crippleware'... You get exactly what you pay for."



    Look at Aquatik's post before mine to see what is meant by crippleware. I didn't invent the term. I was simply repeating Aquatik. As far as getting exactly what you pay for, how so? Find me any PC with the hardware specs of the iBook or iMac clasic. The price would probably be half if indeed you could find a PC with such antiquated hardware at all. I doubt it. Or if you prefer, take the price of the low end iBook and compare it too any PC notebook at that price and see if the PC has even two of the low end components that are in the Mac. I contend that you are not getting what you pay for.



    "You'd have to know EVERYONE WHO BUYS ANY HARDWARE FROM ANY VENDOR will be left behind soon after he/she has made their purchase."



    No I didn't know that. believe it or not, any brand new PC you buy today will have technology in it that will be compatable with current and future technology for years to come. Bringing older systems up to date can usually be accomplished with a $50 add on card from any computer store.



    Has Apple conditioned you to believe that you should expect your new purchases to be outdated soon after you buy? Man they really did a number on you. In the case of the iBook and iMac clasic, you will be hard pressed to even find some of those parts on the market. I'm not talking about parts that aren't "top of the line". I'm talking about parts that don't even make it up to "bottom of the line status". You should not expect that in any modern day system. Expecially one that claims to be sooo much better than everything else.



    "Companies don't get rich by selling some something that will last... They want and need you to re-buy the stuff over and over and over again. The bottom line is... 'the bottom line' and if a company doesn't continue to sell they will die."



    Well, I must say that this marks the first time I have seen a defense of the practice of selling outdated junk to trusting consumers. I'm sure you lost many Apple partisans with that one. Perhaps you should leave the defense of Apple's products and practices to someone else.
Sign In or Register to comment.