Current iBooks and eMacs do not support Core Image

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 84
    ionyzionyz Posts: 491member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jade

    expecting your computer to handle upgraded software in the first year is reasonable.



    It will handle it. My 500MHz iBook handles Exposé and it was released long after we purchased the machine.
  • Reply 62 of 84
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jade

    ordinarily i would agree a service pack is a bug fix, but the xp service pack is a real upgrade to hold off until longhorn. and well we all know longhoren will be out in 2006, 2 years from now. and tiger will be out in less than a year.

    expecting your computer to handle upgraded software in the first year is reasonable.




    It's not as if Tiger won't support your laptop... if Core Image is requiring the use of pixel shaders to do the work that it does (which I'm guessing is the case based on the card list), then the iBook/eMac/iMac 15" currently won't handle it. I assume the Core Image call would just take an alternate path to complete the operation rather than pipe it off to the GPU.



    IMO it's similar to saying that your iBook won't play Halo properly because you don't have pixel shaders... Halo will play, you just can't have pixel shaders enabled.
  • Reply 63 of 84
    jadejade Posts: 379member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MCQ

    It's not as if Tiger won't support your laptop... if Core Image is requiring the use of pixel shaders to do the work that it does (which I'm guessing is the case based on the card list), then the iBook/eMac/iMac 15" currently won't handle it. I assume the Core Image call would just take an alternate path to complete the operation rather than pipe it off to the GPU.



    IMO it's similar to saying that your iBook won't play Halo properly because you don't have pixel shaders... Halo will play, you just can't have pixel shaders enabled.




    Most of the current product lineup doesn't even support core image. hello?!?!?!? You spend $1800 on a 17" imac and it will be outdated before it ships?!?!?!?

    The point is, low end apple products aren't cheap. The least apple can do is ship hardware that will support new stuff for a year. I still irritated that garage band only runs well on dual g5s.
  • Reply 64 of 84
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Only if you have beyond the lowend model. This isn't an Apple issue. What people are in essence saying is that Apple should have OEM'd a more expensive graphics chip and ate the costs to appease the budget minded. Apple has a price point and a set margin range they want to hit. This doesn't afford them to opportunity to purchase as the nice whizbang stuff. People who have opted for the entry models and are now complaining are doing so from an irrational and emotive standpoint.



    Just curious, but how much do you think Apple saves per unit by going with a ATI Radeon 9200 instead of a GeForce 5200? $10?



    Like it or not, this is classic Planned Obsolence.
  • Reply 65 of 84
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Here: http://www1.us.dell.com/content/prod...=19&l=en&s=dhs



    Other companies are doing the same thing Apple is. Low and mid range computers don't get the high end gear. Its that simple. Why buy high end if the same equipment can be had from a lower tier computer?



    The above Dell is very similar to my iBook in stats and guess what--its video chip is only dx8.1 compliant.



    Man alive!!! What do you people actually expect? Do you people complain like this when you go to TGIFridays (or insert whatever mid grade restaurant) and get slightly poor service or your food isn't cooked exactly the way you wanted it? In most cases for minor problems you simply tip less. If you go to Aquas in Honolulu and get bad service then you complain. The difference between the two restaurants (besides the guys with swords at Aquas) is the level of expected service and associated price. If you pay for an iBook don't bitch because it will be almost obsolete in a year and a half (from now that is). That's the way the entire computer industry works. Go to dell and see for yourself. Go to gateway and see for yourself. Go to HP and see for yourself. If you want longevity of hardware buy highend. If you don't buy high end don't whine because of a shorter life span...



    PS. The iMac was outdated before it rolled off the designing board. Its not the high end system. Its designed to do the basics and then a little more. That's it. All computer equipment is outdated before you buy it. Look at how fast video cards develop. Look at how fast intel/amd update their lineups. look at how fast PC motherboards change. Look at how fast FSB clock speeds have increased.



    Carry on.
  • Reply 66 of 84
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jade

    The reason people are upset. If you by a new Apple consumer machine today, you will not people to run core image and undisclosed key features of the OS that is due in 6 months or so.



    From all I read, this is simply not true. You will not have your GPU do the heavy-lifting, but will tax your CPU. Quite likely, some effects will be slow or somewhat choppy. But software-plugin will take over where hardware is not available.



    This is absolutely no different from DirectX on the Windows side of the fence. I have developed software that required the customer to install DX9 for visualizations - yet since it did not require the full real-time power of highest-end gfx-cards, it ran on a 5 year old Dell notebook. Calculations were provided by the software-fallback units provided by DX9.



    The exact same is going to happen with Core*. Yes, the next version of iPhoto will likely tap into its power to make brightnes/contrast corrections instantanous on high-end graphics cards. But this doesn't mean it won't run on my Tibook 400 - it will. Only it will calculate the corrections with the G4, just like it does today.
  • Reply 67 of 84
    mmmpiemmmpie Posts: 628member
    Core Image and Core Video ( and the new Quartz 2D ) use OpenGL Shader Language. Filters are written in that language, and when you apply a filter ( or multiple filters ) they are compiled into a custom shader program for that specific request ( add a filter and the shader program gets recompiled ).



    Because the filters are compiled on demand ( ATI and nVidia cards require different shader programs ) it is also possible to compile the program for the cpu instead of the gpu, and, in fact, this is supported.



    The only problem is that the developer can tell what hardware is availble and can choose not to use core image/video if a gpu isnt present. So, the net effect is that some applications will work on older hardware, and others wont.



    I predict that you will see iMovie and iPhoto running CI/CV in realtime on GPUs, and as a 'render' process on slower hardware ( ie: just like they do now, only using a general purpose, layerable, plugin architecture ).
  • Reply 68 of 84
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Moral of the story is as it's always been people. Buy a fast computer.
  • Reply 69 of 84
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wizard69

    Take a look at the word "CORE" that should explain things in a significant manner. Core implies to me just that a central feature of the OS, it is not something that will be limited to Graphics workstations. Core Imaging will impact every program running on that revision of the OS or later.



    Indeed.



    And, as has been pointed out, CoreImage will in fact run on much more than just graphics workstations. It's been clarified that it doesn't get "disabled," because it's a core technology - it adapts to whatever hardware is available on the fly. This means that its performance scales to match your hardware. Imagine that!



    People using older hardware will be able to take advantage of Core Image and Core Video, and all the effects they offer. They won't run in real time, but since there's no possible way that they could, it's enough that they'll work and work well.



    It's not about whether you're able to use new capabilities at all. It's about how well they'll perform, and obviously the latest and greatest high-end kit will run anything better than last year's low-end kit. I'm looking forward to installing Tiger on my old Cube, and on my mom's 500MHz iBook, and having the new features run as well as they can. Neither machine is obsolete, as far as I can discern. They don't have to run everything as well as a tricked out PMG5, they just have to run what their users want them to. When they don't, they'll be truly obsolete.
  • Reply 70 of 84
    rolandgrolandg Posts: 632member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mmmpie

    ( ATI and nVidia cards require different shader programs )



    If so, are CI/CV some sort of abstraction layers that compile shader programms for whatever GPU is in your PC? What will the performance hit compared to GPU-native Shader code be?



    And to whoever was complaining about GarageBand being too slow on anything less than a Dual G5. There are two possible points of view:



    1. Apple's consumer hardware is way to slow to even run consumer-level apps or these apps are poorly written.



    2. (and that's how I see it) Apple dares to gives consumers bleeding edge (as in: has previously only been available to professionals at "professional" prices) software and - furthermore - makes it easy to use. And those two factors - pro-grade and ease of use - require a lot of horse power as soon as you use it in a "near-professional" way which you quickly will because you now can.
  • Reply 71 of 84
    ollebolleollebolle Posts: 28member
    I would be ever so happy if the instructions would still go through my GPU(that still would provide a speedup i guess) in other words: i completely accept it if it wouldn't be in real time.



    but like the cards are now.... it seems that it will not run any faster at all. an that is what bothers me.



    I know it's a consumer machine, so i expect it to not run in real time, to run slower, naturally.
  • Reply 72 of 84
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Actually that's not necessarily true. Core Image/Video is highly dependent on the shaders in certain GPUs(usually directx9 capable). If you don't have a capable GPU that doesn't mean you won't see a speedup in GUI functions. Apple has made some changes to Quartz 2D that won't require shader support and even your iBook will benefit from this.



    We really must seperate what Core Image/Video does for you versus what Quartz does. Core Image/Video speeds up the processing of effects written for the shader within the GPU. Quartz is your entire windowing system. Apple will speed up Quartz for everyone and those that don't have GPUs for Core Image/Video just won't get the benefit of GPU processing for those apps that support Core Image/Video.



    We all should see a speedup of general graphics.
  • Reply 73 of 84
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    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.



    Well then what's your bitch?
  • Reply 74 of 84
    jadejade Posts: 379member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by RolandG

    If so, are CI/CV some sort of abstraction layers that compile shader programms for whatever GPU is in your PC? What will the performance hit compared to GPU-native Shader code be?



    And to whoever was complaining about GarageBand being too slow on anything less than a Dual G5. There are two possible points of view:



    1. Apple's consumer hardware is way to slow to even run consumer-level apps






    Ding Ding Ding. At the bare minimum any unit should be able to run the software that ships with computer acceptably. And it is disappointed that the vast majority of Apple's current lineup cannot handle the load that software currently requires. And that most current hardware will not support the next gen OS features natively.



    That spells update to me.
  • Reply 75 of 84
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    A very acurate description with respect to what I understand aobut the technology. The problem that is see is which way does performance scale when you don't have the right GPU. I could see Core Imagining having a negative impact. It is certainly to early to be sure about that but I could see some shader technology so swamping the CPU as to actually be a step back.



    A year or two down the road if this technology is heavely adopted I could see this as being significant. You would end up with applications performing dramatically differently depending on the hardware they run on.



    Frankly it is good to see Apple moving forward with technology! My concern is that many people make majore investments in their computers and expect a long life otu of them. It would be foolish to buy some of todays hardware knowing what is comeing down the line. Obviously not an issue of one buys hardware on an annual or two year cycle, but for the majority of hte people out there that is not the case. Certianly it is worth atleast speaking up if friends should iquire. It is not like there is a long wait for updates on some of these items.





    dave





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Indeed.



    And, as has been pointed out, CoreImage will in fact run on much more than just graphics workstations. It's been clarified that it doesn't get "disabled," because it's a core technology - it adapts to whatever hardware is available on the fly. This means that its performance scales to match your hardware. Imagine that!



    People using older hardware will be able to take advantage of Core Image and Core Video, and all the effects they offer. They won't run in real time, but since there's no possible way that they could, it's enough that they'll work and work well.



    It's not about whether you're able to use new capabilities at all. It's about how well they'll perform, and obviously the latest and greatest high-end kit will run anything better than last year's low-end kit. I'm looking forward to installing Tiger on my old Cube, and on my mom's 500MHz iBook, and having the new features run as well as they can. Neither machine is obsolete, as far as I can discern. They don't have to run everything as well as a tricked out PMG5, they just have to run what their users want them to. When they don't, they'll be truly obsolete.



  • Reply 76 of 84
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jade

    Ding Ding Ding. At the bare minimum any unit should be able to run the software that ships with computer acceptably. And it is disappointed that the vast majority of Apple's current lineup cannot handle the load that software currently requires. And that most current hardware will not support the next gen OS features natively.



    That spells update to me.




    I won't go into GarageBand since I haven't really used it and have no point of reference.



    As for updates, I'd imagine that the September iMac update will have all models CoreImage/Video ready (only the 15" iMac doesn't currently support it)... as far as the eMac, whenever that gets revised, I'd guess if they stuck with ATI then a Radeon x300 GPU would make that ready.



    I wouldn't expect the iBook to be ready anytime soon unless a Mobile Radeon x300 came out sometime in the future from ATI.
  • Reply 77 of 84
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,455member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Core Image functionality is important in that applications that use it will require these chipsets. For example, Steve said in his keynote he wants Adobe to implement Core Image in Photoshop. If that happened, any mac that does not have these graphics chipsets would not benefit from the massive resulting speed boost (the speed boost from the 5200 is probably not worthwhile).



    If you attended the Core Image sessions at WWDC you'd know that the CPU can take advantage of Core Image, you just cut your fps in half.
  • Reply 78 of 84
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wizard69

    My concern is that many people make majore investments in their computers and expect a long life otu of them.



    I'm in need of a portable mac, and will be buying an iBook in the next week. Whether or not it supports Core Image next year is of little concern for me.



    If it works well for what I need now, it will continue to do so next year and 3 years from now. Whether or not I get fancy shmancy water ripple effects when invoking Dashboard... well, is that REALLY worth worrying about a year in advance.



    If you need an portable and can't afford a PowerBook, get an iBook, use the hell out of it, and when it can't do what you need, reassess.
  • Reply 79 of 84
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    There is little doubt in my mind that some will be happy with just the installed OS and applications that they purchased with the hardware and will be so for a number of years beyond the purchase. I do not believe that this is the majority of the users out there. For those interested in a new machine it would be foolish not to advise them of the issue if your opinion is requested.
    Quote:

    (As an aside I've been asked the question many times --which should I get?-- and have often found that people don't want an honest answer. What they want is confirmation that they are doing the right thing.)



    At this moment in time I believe that many people are going to be frustrated whit there old hardware when this new software technology come out.



    As to the issue of it being worth worring about a year ahead of time, I geuss that all depends on how one values their money and how sure you are that you will never upgrade your system. Personnally investing that much money in something that >"MAY"< not support new software features all that well down the road is not a good feeling. Getting at least 3 to 4 years service out of hardware is important to me. So it is wise to take Apples announcements about software as a buying guide to current hardware. That is really all I'm saying, if your into the hardware for the long term, it might be best to avoid the iBook at the moment.



    Dave





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Borborygmi

    I'm in need of a portable mac, and will be buying an iBook in the next week. Whether or not it supports Core Image next year is of little concern for me.



    If it works well for what I need now, it will continue to do so next year and 3 years from now. Whether or not I get fancy shmancy water ripple effects when invoking Dashboard... well, is that REALLY worth worrying about a year in advance.



    If you need an portable and can't afford a PowerBook, get an iBook, use the hell out of it, and when it can't do what you need, reassess.



  • Reply 80 of 84
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wizard69

    A very acurate description with respect to what I understand aobut the technology. The problem that is see is which way does performance scale when you don't have the right GPU. I could see Core Imagining having a negative impact. It is certainly to early to be sure about that but I could see some shader technology so swamping the CPU as to actually be a step back.



    There might be edge cases where it's worse, but the news trickling out of WWDC so far says it's actually faster, absent the GPU.



    Apple obviously did a whole lot of work on this layer.



    Let me put it this way: Panther was the first OS X to really start using the GPU, if it was powerful enough. Is Panther slower than Jaguar on hardware that doesn't have a QE-capable graphics chip? No. So we have a precedent within OS X for Apple simultaneously scaling performance up with hardware and making it run better at the low end.



    Quote:

    A year or two down the road if this technology is heavely adopted I could see this as being significant. You would end up with applications performing dramatically differently depending on the hardware they run on.



    And this would be different than the last 25 years... how? At one point Apple's pro hardware was distinguished by the presence of a floating point unit!



    Even without the last 5, sticking to Mac models: We have the G4 vs. G3 (AltiVec), dual vs. single processors, now the G5 vs. G4... "applications performing dramatically differently depending on the hardware" has been the norm.



    Flip it around: If you'd just sunk $3500 into a G5, would you not want it to perform dramatically differently than a G3 iBook?



    Quote:

    My concern is that many people make majore investments in their computers and expect a long life otu of them. It would be foolish to buy some of todays hardware knowing what is comeing down the line.



    I think you're far too nervous. First of all, a lot of people run with the applications they install at (or shortly after purchase) until they hand off the machine (or it dies), so future-proofing simply isn't an issue. For those who do update, like me, I've been cheerfully keeping my three and a half year old hardware up to date and getting more and more use out of it. My mom's three year old iBook is likewise fairly up to date, and continuously useful. I expect both machines to serve for many more years. Neither will be able to run DOOM MCMLXXXVIII at 4 billion FPS, but that means nothing. People who keep their machines for a long time do so because they use applications that can run on older hardware.



    And, again, the old hardware that can run OS X only becomes faster and more capable, to date, in my own experience.
Sign In or Register to comment.