I remember going through this with my TiBook-500. The video wasn't able to handle Quartz Extreme when it came out and I eventually upgraded to an AlBook last Fall.
I'm psyched that this time, my video card will be supported.
1. Still 12 months to go: 1st half of is basically in time for WWDC 05
2. We will definitely see updated machines across the board that are up to the task: My guess is iMacs (in whatever form) at Apple Expo Paris and Power stuff (notebooks and desktops) with all the trimmings (PCI-Express, DDR2, SATA2, G5 PowerBooks etc.) in January.
3. The GeForce 5200 is a pretty decent standard card: Dell does it, too, and what would be the alternative without going straight to the high-end (9800?). Prices and cooling issues are unreasonable for an AIO consumer product.
4. My guess is that CoreImaging and CoreVideo share the same requirements with Longhorn's Aero Glass. They rely on the programmable PixelShaders that are part of the DirectX 9 specs. Aero Glass won't be available to those without a DX9 compliant card and I guess this will also be true for CI/CV.
And this is one of the reasons why mainstream professional software (especially Adobe's Photoshop) will not be ready to take advantage of CI/CV until OS X 10.5 or .6
We must have so many new users here, because all these debates about older machines not being able to use the newest and most demanding technology in the new OS is old news. It's *just* like Quartz Extreme, *just* like the G3 issue with OS X, etc. Get used to it finally. It's not going to stop. Such is the cost of pushing technology. The alternatives are far, far worse for users and Apple.
Anybody who is doing Photoshop or video editing on an iBook or eMac isn't doing it in a production environment. Apple's core is professionals willing to shell out $7,000 for a Dual 2.5GHz G5 with a nVidia 6800 Ultra with a 30" LCD Display. And thats not exactly a shocking price when someone lays out $7g's for Maya Unlimited to run on it.
This is for professionals who decide what entire corporate wide platforms they use based on how much money the hardware saves, not costs. When you are on a realtime machine getting charged $500/hr for its use, you can see how fast 10.4 and Final Cut 5 will will pay for itself.
$900 iBooks and $800 eMacs are not pro editing machines.
Core Imaging/Video will do more than just affect Pro level software. Besides, Photoshop & FCP runs on eMacs & iBooks already. It's not like today's abilities disintegrate once 10.4 is released.
I imagine much greater advancements to software. Imagine realtime video transitions in a movie player that zooms in the video when the movie starts. Cheesy? Maybe so, but this kind of stuff wows consumers and sells software.
What about programs that use CI to manipulate its main window in some way for alerts and whatnot. CI/CV will allow programmers to unlock their imaginations as far as UI is concerned. I truly believe we'll see some amazing applications born from this technology.
I also bet scientific types could write 'CI' plugins to manipulate data. After all, it's all just bits. It's how we add meaning to those bits that determines what they represent. You could write a program to use the CPU & GPU at the same time, making a PowerBook effectively a dual processor system.
I also bet scientific types could write 'CI' plugins to manipulate data. After all, it's all just bits. It's how we add meaning to those bits that determines what they represent. You could write a program to use the CPU & GPU at the same time, making a PowerBook effectively a dual processor system.
Yup. Someone here at UNC just got his doctorate in this, he's now at nVidia, London. Bastard.
His dissertation was in using the GPU to run cloud simulations. Not just the 'look' of them, but actual honest to god scientific simulations of cloud formation and turburlence... that the output was simply made to be part of a texture voxel in memory, and displayed like any other. Was simply beautiful. The CPU use was basically zero.
Yup. Someone here at UNC just got his doctorate in this, he's now at nVidia, London. Bastard.
His dissertation was in using the GPU to run cloud simulations. Not just the 'look' of them, but actual honest to god scientific simulations of cloud formation and turburlence... that the output was simply made to be part of a texture voxel in memory, and displayed like any other. Was simply beautiful. The CPU use was basically zero.
Wow, that sounds amazing! Did he publish his dissertation and if so, could I view a copy of it?
I suppose it depends on whether you have high or low expectations of the Macs you pay premium prices for...
Lemon Bon Bon
Amen. Noe I don't expect my ibook g4 to be a stellar performer on FCP, but it is a littl bit ridiculous, that a year after i purchase my machine, i won't even people to run the new OS in its entirety. I mean I understand if Apple wants to drop support for rev 1 imacs, bu any person who purchases a computer with in 2 years of a new OS release should be fully up to spec. Bottom line. Especially if you pay more.
Now if we were talking about $400 imacs, then none of us will be complaining, but explain to me how you can spend 2k for a pro computer and be at the bottom edge of support for a new OS.
Anybody who is doing Photoshop or video editing on an iBook or eMac isn't doing it in a production environment...
$900 iBooks and $800 eMacs are not pro editing machines.
Bite me. That's the same B.S. as "Macs are just good for graphics, if you are going to run a business you need a PC running Excel" crap that we hate so much coming from Wintel people. Last thing we need is intra-Macintosh FUD.
I did $150,000 worth of pro work on my iBook last year. G3 iBook. Is it a performance monster? No. it needn't be. It is none-the-less very capable.
I'm assuming machines not capable of Core* will simply backpedal to something. Kinda like how I can use Exposé on a 500MHz iBook (and love it!), it may not be the prettiest thing around but it works and thats all I need.
My Power Mac has a 9800 in it, which was a HUGE mistake. No way that card is even breaking a sweat in that thing. But with Apple focusing on DVI now, can we perhaps count on ATI to release some decent retail cards?
No, their NEW 128MB 9000 does NOT count.
Oh... and pretty please don't add a fan... and erm allow it to fit in a Cube. Mwahaha, I'm insane I tell yoU!
Bite me. That's the same B.S. as "Macs are just good for graphics, if you are going to run a business you need a PC running Excel" crap that we hate so much coming from Wintel people. Last thing we need is intra-Macintosh FUD.
I did $150,000 worth of pro work on my iBook last year. G3 iBook. Is it a performance monster? No. it needn't be. It is none-the-less very capable.
How's the weather up there?
your wrong and he is right.
get over it.
yeah your ibook is capable,but no one buys ibooks for professional graphic applications...get real.
i think the proposed improvements in 10.4 will make almost everyone WANT to upgrade.
599 for a graphic card?
thats nothing.
and considering what you will soon be able to do with those 599 dollar graphic cards i say "thank you".
its ABOUT time that apple starting using GPU's a lot more and now they will.
i wanted a laptop but now thats out of the question.......ill wait for the next imac and if it doesnt have at LEAST a video slot then Powermac it is.
there is a price for progress and that appears to be 599 dollars.
We must have so many new users here, because all these debates about older machines not being able to use the newest and most demanding technology in the new OS is old news. It's *just* like Quartz Extreme, *just* like the G3 issue with OS X, etc.
No, it's not, unless I misunderstand something. My iMac DV+ at home (miserable 450MHz with ATIRage 'Pro', he-he) is living without QE quite alright. I can dispense with a cursor shadow and the rotating cube because it doesn't limit the functionality of my computer. If it turns out that I can't launch (as opposed to poor performance) an image editing app only because it uses CoreImage, that's a different thing. Of course it's silly to expect real-time video effects from CoreVideo on a 4-year-old iMac, but hell, this very iMac is capable of running Photoshop CS with mere 256 MB of RAM. Slow, but definitely possible.
All I want is that if CoreImage doesn't detect a qualifying GPU, it should tax my CPU. I guess it might not be very trivial, but is there anything an NVidia chip can do while a G3 can't? There are kernel extensions. You might load one if your GPU rulez and load another if it sucks, and the latter will direct the same API to a framework, implemented in CPU alone. Does it sound too ridiculous?
Quote:
Get used to it finally. It's not going to stop. Such is the cost of pushing technology. The alternatives are far, far worse for users and Apple.
You're right, of course. I just wanted to remind the world that there are people who can't afford a new $3k PowerMac every year, but can afford software utilizing most recent technologies.
Edit:
Quote:
Originally posted by cremes from Ars Forums
According to twenty3, it will process in software if the GPU is missing the necessary functionality.
Bite me. That's the same B.S. as "Macs are just good for graphics, if you are going to run a business you need a PC running Excel" crap that we hate so much coming from Wintel people. Last thing we need is intra-Macintosh FUD.
I did $150,000 worth of pro work on my iBook last year. G3 iBook. Is it a performance monster? No. it needn't be. It is none-the-less very capable.
How's the weather up there?
I see somebody has an inferiority complex. Quit being a cheap a-hole and upgrade your machine, whiney. If you can't see the obvious time benefits of spending $2k on a G5 tower at the bottom end then you aren't much of a business man. I am sure your competition is happy to see your lack of desire to invest in your business. While they will gleefully upgrade their Radeon 9000 to a 9800 for $300 and vastly increase their productivity, you'll still be behind whining about how Apple "forgot" you.
$150k on a G3 iBook? Congrats. Would you have done more on a PowerBook? 200k? 250k?
Usually time is money.
I just hope that with the 'retirement' of the ADC on the new displays that a market for video cards will spring up for the Mac besides ATI. I'd love to get a refurb 1.8 and get a card cheaper than $350 for it.
All I want is that if CoreImage doesn't detect a qualifying GPU, it should tax my CPU. I guess it might not be very trivial, but is there anything an NVidia chip can do while a G3 can't? There are kernel extensions. You might load one if your GPU rulez and load another if it sucks, and the latter will direct the same API to a framework, implemented in CPU alone. Does it sound too ridiculous?
No. And Apple even addressed this, by stating that CoreImage will scale down on lesser hardware. Whether that means the effects no longer become real-time, or whether they're disabled, I do not know. But it will still be available in some form.
Comments
I'm psyched that this time, my video card will be supported.
Originally posted by discstickers
... No one is forcing you to get the 5200...
Unless you get a refurb.
1. Still 12 months to go: 1st half of is basically in time for WWDC 05
2. We will definitely see updated machines across the board that are up to the task: My guess is iMacs (in whatever form) at Apple Expo Paris and Power stuff (notebooks and desktops) with all the trimmings (PCI-Express, DDR2, SATA2, G5 PowerBooks etc.) in January.
3. The GeForce 5200 is a pretty decent standard card: Dell does it, too, and what would be the alternative without going straight to the high-end (9800?). Prices and cooling issues are unreasonable for an AIO consumer product.
4. My guess is that CoreImaging and CoreVideo share the same requirements with Longhorn's Aero Glass. They rely on the programmable PixelShaders that are part of the DirectX 9 specs. Aero Glass won't be available to those without a DX9 compliant card and I guess this will also be true for CI/CV.
And this is one of the reasons why mainstream professional software (especially Adobe's Photoshop) will not be ready to take advantage of CI/CV until OS X 10.5 or .6
iBook and eMac to be upgraded by first half 2005.
Anybody who is doing Photoshop or video editing on an iBook or eMac isn't doing it in a production environment. Apple's core is professionals willing to shell out $7,000 for a Dual 2.5GHz G5 with a nVidia 6800 Ultra with a 30" LCD Display. And thats not exactly a shocking price when someone lays out $7g's for Maya Unlimited to run on it.
This is for professionals who decide what entire corporate wide platforms they use based on how much money the hardware saves, not costs. When you are on a realtime machine getting charged $500/hr for its use, you can see how fast 10.4 and Final Cut 5 will will pay for itself.
$900 iBooks and $800 eMacs are not pro editing machines.
I imagine much greater advancements to software. Imagine realtime video transitions in a movie player that zooms in the video when the movie starts. Cheesy? Maybe so, but this kind of stuff wows consumers and sells software.
What about programs that use CI to manipulate its main window in some way for alerts and whatnot. CI/CV will allow programmers to unlock their imaginations as far as UI is concerned. I truly believe we'll see some amazing applications born from this technology.
I also bet scientific types could write 'CI' plugins to manipulate data. After all, it's all just bits. It's how we add meaning to those bits that determines what they represent. You could write a program to use the CPU & GPU at the same time, making a PowerBook effectively a dual processor system.
Originally posted by Existence
(these are essentialy DirectX9 capable chipsets in PC land)
I think we just found our cross-platform capability of QuickTime...
Layer it over Core* on the Mac, layer it over DirectX9 on Windows. One API to rule them all. Nice.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I also bet scientific types could write 'CI' plugins to manipulate data. After all, it's all just bits. It's how we add meaning to those bits that determines what they represent. You could write a program to use the CPU & GPU at the same time, making a PowerBook effectively a dual processor system.
Yup. Someone here at UNC just got his doctorate in this, he's now at nVidia, London. Bastard.
His dissertation was in using the GPU to run cloud simulations. Not just the 'look' of them, but actual honest to god scientific simulations of cloud formation and turburlence... that the output was simply made to be part of a texture voxel in memory, and displayed like any other. Was simply beautiful. The CPU use was basically zero.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yup. Someone here at UNC just got his doctorate in this, he's now at nVidia, London. Bastard.
His dissertation was in using the GPU to run cloud simulations. Not just the 'look' of them, but actual honest to god scientific simulations of cloud formation and turburlence... that the output was simply made to be part of a texture voxel in memory, and displayed like any other. Was simply beautiful. The CPU use was basically zero.
Wow, that sounds amazing! Did he publish his dissertation and if so, could I view a copy of it?
http://www.markmark.net/
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
I suppose it depends on whether you have high or low expectations of the Macs you pay premium prices for...
Lemon Bon Bon
Amen. Noe I don't expect my ibook g4 to be a stellar performer on FCP, but it is a littl bit ridiculous, that a year after i purchase my machine, i won't even people to run the new OS in its entirety. I mean I understand if Apple wants to drop support for rev 1 imacs, bu any person who purchases a computer with in 2 years of a new OS release should be fully up to spec. Bottom line. Especially if you pay more.
Now if we were talking about $400 imacs, then none of us will be complaining, but explain to me how you can spend 2k for a pro computer and be at the bottom edge of support for a new OS.
Ridiculous!
Originally posted by mooseman
Anybody who is doing Photoshop or video editing on an iBook or eMac isn't doing it in a production environment...
$900 iBooks and $800 eMacs are not pro editing machines.
Bite me. That's the same B.S. as "Macs are just good for graphics, if you are going to run a business you need a PC running Excel" crap that we hate so much coming from Wintel people. Last thing we need is intra-Macintosh FUD.
I did $150,000 worth of pro work on my iBook last year. G3 iBook. Is it a performance monster? No. it needn't be. It is none-the-less very capable.
How's the weather up there?
My Power Mac has a 9800 in it, which was a HUGE mistake. No way that card is even breaking a sweat in that thing. But with Apple focusing on DVI now, can we perhaps count on ATI to release some decent retail cards?
No, their NEW 128MB 9000 does NOT count.
Oh... and pretty please don't add a fan... and erm allow it to fit in a Cube. Mwahaha, I'm insane I tell yoU!
Originally posted by johnq
Bite me. That's the same B.S. as "Macs are just good for graphics, if you are going to run a business you need a PC running Excel" crap that we hate so much coming from Wintel people. Last thing we need is intra-Macintosh FUD.
I did $150,000 worth of pro work on my iBook last year. G3 iBook. Is it a performance monster? No. it needn't be. It is none-the-less very capable.
How's the weather up there?
your wrong and he is right.
get over it.
yeah your ibook is capable,but no one buys ibooks for professional graphic applications...get real.
i think the proposed improvements in 10.4 will make almost everyone WANT to upgrade.
599 for a graphic card?
thats nothing.
and considering what you will soon be able to do with those 599 dollar graphic cards i say "thank you".
its ABOUT time that apple starting using GPU's a lot more and now they will.
i wanted a laptop but now thats out of the question.......ill wait for the next imac and if it doesnt have at LEAST a video slot then Powermac it is.
there is a price for progress and that appears to be 599 dollars.
CHEERS.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
We must have so many new users here, because all these debates about older machines not being able to use the newest and most demanding technology in the new OS is old news. It's *just* like Quartz Extreme, *just* like the G3 issue with OS X, etc.
No, it's not, unless I misunderstand something. My iMac DV+ at home (miserable 450MHz with ATIRage 'Pro', he-he) is living without QE quite alright. I can dispense with a cursor shadow and the rotating cube because it doesn't limit the functionality of my computer. If it turns out that I can't launch (as opposed to poor performance) an image editing app only because it uses CoreImage, that's a different thing. Of course it's silly to expect real-time video effects from CoreVideo on a 4-year-old iMac, but hell, this very iMac is capable of running Photoshop CS with mere 256 MB of RAM. Slow, but definitely possible.
All I want is that if CoreImage doesn't detect a qualifying GPU, it should tax my CPU. I guess it might not be very trivial, but is there anything an NVidia chip can do while a G3 can't? There are kernel extensions. You might load one if your GPU rulez and load another if it sucks, and the latter will direct the same API to a framework, implemented in CPU alone. Does it sound too ridiculous?
Get used to it finally. It's not going to stop. Such is the cost of pushing technology. The alternatives are far, far worse for users and Apple.
You're right, of course. I just wanted to remind the world that there are people who can't afford a new $3k PowerMac every year, but can afford software utilizing most recent technologies.
Edit:
Originally posted by cremes from Ars Forums
According to twenty3, it will process in software if the GPU is missing the necessary functionality.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Not getting a speed boost and not working at all are two very different things.
We went through this with Quartz Extreme, do we have to go through it every time Apple takes advantage of a modern hardware feature?
Looks like the answer is "yes".
Originally posted by johnq
Bite me. That's the same B.S. as "Macs are just good for graphics, if you are going to run a business you need a PC running Excel" crap that we hate so much coming from Wintel people. Last thing we need is intra-Macintosh FUD.
I did $150,000 worth of pro work on my iBook last year. G3 iBook. Is it a performance monster? No. it needn't be. It is none-the-less very capable.
How's the weather up there?
I see somebody has an inferiority complex. Quit being a cheap a-hole and upgrade your machine, whiney. If you can't see the obvious time benefits of spending $2k on a G5 tower at the bottom end then you aren't much of a business man. I am sure your competition is happy to see your lack of desire to invest in your business. While they will gleefully upgrade their Radeon 9000 to a 9800 for $300 and vastly increase their productivity, you'll still be behind whining about how Apple "forgot" you.
Usually time is money.
I just hope that with the 'retirement' of the ADC on the new displays that a market for video cards will spring up for the Mac besides ATI. I'd love to get a refurb 1.8 and get a card cheaper than $350 for it.
Originally posted by costique
All I want is that if CoreImage doesn't detect a qualifying GPU, it should tax my CPU. I guess it might not be very trivial, but is there anything an NVidia chip can do while a G3 can't? There are kernel extensions. You might load one if your GPU rulez and load another if it sucks, and the latter will direct the same API to a framework, implemented in CPU alone. Does it sound too ridiculous?
No. And Apple even addressed this, by stating that CoreImage will scale down on lesser hardware. Whether that means the effects no longer become real-time, or whether they're disabled, I do not know. But it will still be available in some form.