I don't think that today's GPUs haven't the power for such works. Apps like InDesign or Illustrator are f***ing slow, that's the real problem. Look at Quark: it's a lot faster than ID. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of ID and I too think Quark's a loser, but the perfermonce is indisputable, even running Quark 4/5 in Classic. I think it will all be much better when the new optimized versions of them are out, bundled with the power of panther.
marone
Hi Marone,
you have to take into consideration how the software was programmed. Quark 6 is a MachO application, just about the sweetest kind of app you could write for X because it's very native to the OS. ID and even PS are carbonized, meaning they are somewhat emulated under X, not as badly as Classic, but they're still not optimized.
Quark said writing the MachO app was the biggest reason they took so long. I beta tested it, and I have to say, I'm a back-switcher. ID still has some nicer features, but Q6 is really sweet.
I'm curious what Adobe is gonna do in the (near) future. Will they keep building on carbonized versions or will they invest in a MachO app?
The responsiveness of X, which we are all not too fond of, is partly due to these carbonized apps, plus Quarz Extreme, which oviously will favour MachO apps as well.
you have to take into consideration how the software was programmed. Quark 6 is a MachO application, just about the sweetest kind of app you could write for X because it's very native to the OS. ID and even PS are carbonized, meaning they are somewhat emulated under X, not as badly as Classic, but they're still not optimized.
Not so.
Carbon vs. Cocoa has absolutely nothing to do with MachO vs. CFM. Carbon applications are not emulated in any way at all, they run as native as any other.
CFM vs. MachO has a lot to do with the way application data is stored on the hard disk, but nothing prevents a well written CFM-application to run faster than a poorly written MachO app (as least here, iTunes (Carbon, CFM) performs much better than iPhoto (Cocoa, MachO).
Are you using Mac OS X 10.2? Before 10.2 there was no Quartz Extreme and the CPU had to handle all screen redrawing. In 10.2, much of this is offloaded to the GPU. Also, is this Radeon an AGP or PCI card? Quartz Extreme is not supported by PCI cards.
Quote:
Something like scrolling in Photoshop, moving a full window or instructing a redraw in InDesign is painfully slow.
That's a problem specific to Adobe's apps. Since you claim you are aware of all the theory behind the windowing system, I will assume that you know that everything in Mac OS X is double buffered and all layers are composited in real time. That's a huge amount of work and a mammoth amount of memory being pushed around the bus. Fortunately, QE frees up the processor from a lot of these tasks, but it doesn't do everything.
However, did you know that Adobe uses its own buffering system inside document windows, outright ignoring the faculties that Mac OS X provides? Yes, that's right, when dealing with Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator or InDesign or such, the graphics are actually triple buffered. It's not only that, either. Adobe's buffering system also appears to not be accelerated by the GPU in OS X (though, on this part I could be mistaken). Regardless of GPU acceleration, that's still a lot more work with which the system has to cope.
Some great optimizations regarding this are expected to come with Photoshop 8 and the next round of major upgrades from Adobe.
Thanks Brad! I didn't know that Adobe (and apparently Macromedia apps, based on how slow they draw) ignore QE buffering and uses a slower implementation.
I'm also hoping the increased bus bandwidth and future PCI-X based graphics accelerators will help more in the future.
And yes, I'm using Jaguar of course + testing Panther builds where I work.
I'll have to keep an eye on the upcoming InDesing/Photoshop upgrades to see how they'll perform under Jag with G4 and AGP 4x.
Comments
Originally posted by amarone
I don't think that today's GPUs haven't the power for such works. Apps like InDesign or Illustrator are f***ing slow, that's the real problem. Look at Quark: it's a lot faster than ID. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of ID and I too think Quark's a loser, but the perfermonce is indisputable, even running Quark 4/5 in Classic. I think it will all be much better when the new optimized versions of them are out, bundled with the power of panther.
marone
Hi Marone,
you have to take into consideration how the software was programmed. Quark 6 is a MachO application, just about the sweetest kind of app you could write for X because it's very native to the OS. ID and even PS are carbonized, meaning they are somewhat emulated under X, not as badly as Classic, but they're still not optimized.
Quark said writing the MachO app was the biggest reason they took so long. I beta tested it, and I have to say, I'm a back-switcher. ID still has some nicer features, but Q6 is really sweet.
I'm curious what Adobe is gonna do in the (near) future. Will they keep building on carbonized versions or will they invest in a MachO app?
The responsiveness of X, which we are all not too fond of, is partly due to these carbonized apps, plus Quarz Extreme, which oviously will favour MachO apps as well.
Anyway, just my 0,02?
Originally posted by beanie
you have to take into consideration how the software was programmed. Quark 6 is a MachO application, just about the sweetest kind of app you could write for X because it's very native to the OS. ID and even PS are carbonized, meaning they are somewhat emulated under X, not as badly as Classic, but they're still not optimized.
Not so.
Carbon vs. Cocoa has absolutely nothing to do with MachO vs. CFM. Carbon applications are not emulated in any way at all, they run as native as any other.
CFM vs. MachO has a lot to do with the way application data is stored on the hard disk, but nothing prevents a well written CFM-application to run faster than a poorly written MachO app (as least here, iTunes (Carbon, CFM) performs much better than iPhoto (Cocoa, MachO).
Originally posted by halcyon
Isn't there any way to speed up these operations?
Are you using Mac OS X 10.2? Before 10.2 there was no Quartz Extreme and the CPU had to handle all screen redrawing. In 10.2, much of this is offloaded to the GPU. Also, is this Radeon an AGP or PCI card? Quartz Extreme is not supported by PCI cards.
Something like scrolling in Photoshop, moving a full window or instructing a redraw in InDesign is painfully slow.
That's a problem specific to Adobe's apps. Since you claim you are aware of all the theory behind the windowing system, I will assume that you know that everything in Mac OS X is double buffered and all layers are composited in real time. That's a huge amount of work and a mammoth amount of memory being pushed around the bus. Fortunately, QE frees up the processor from a lot of these tasks, but it doesn't do everything.
However, did you know that Adobe uses its own buffering system inside document windows, outright ignoring the faculties that Mac OS X provides? Yes, that's right, when dealing with Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator or InDesign or such, the graphics are actually triple buffered. It's not only that, either. Adobe's buffering system also appears to not be accelerated by the GPU in OS X (though, on this part I could be mistaken). Regardless of GPU acceleration, that's still a lot more work with which the system has to cope.
Some great optimizations regarding this are expected to come with Photoshop 8 and the next round of major upgrades from Adobe.
I'm also hoping the increased bus bandwidth and future PCI-X based graphics accelerators will help more in the future.
And yes, I'm using Jaguar of course + testing Panther builds where I work.
I'll have to keep an eye on the upcoming InDesing/Photoshop upgrades to see how they'll perform under Jag with G4 and AGP 4x.
regards,
Halcyon