Actually that depends on Apple. How they decide to design the graphics system around their intel boards is the biggest leap, or mistake they will ever make. If you could plug the majority of standard PC graphics cards into a Mac without a fuss it would completely change the way people thought about Macs. If not. Well, not much would change.
If I were in charge of hardware at Apple I would put everything into making that a possibility.
Actually that depends on Apple. How they decide to design the graphics system around their intel boards is the biggest leap, or mistake they will ever make. If you could plug the majority of standard PC graphics cards into a Mac without a fuss it would completely change the way people thought about Macs. If not. Well, not much would change.
If I were in charge of hardware at Apple I would put everything into making that a possibility.
It's really not that. ATI just came out with a board that plugs into either a Mac or a PC. It can be done even now. It's not a matter of software. It certainly isn't a matter of hardware.
It's a decision purely based on marketshare. Apple doesn't have it.
No matter what Apple does with their graphics subsystems in the OS, there will still be a need for drivers - just as there is now. That's it!
It's really not that. ATI just came out with a board that plugs into either a Mac or a PC. It can be done even now. It's not a matter of software. It certainly isn't a matter of hardware.
It's a decision purely based on marketshare. Apple doesn't have it.
No matter what Apple does with their graphics subsystems in the OS, there will still be a need for drivers - just as there is now. That's it!
I'm not going to go into it deeply, but PC graphics drivers could be hardware/software emulated (Rosetta for PC Graphics) to make it possible, and I have doubts that there would be any perforance hit. We are taking about emulating a driver. How much of a hit could it take? My guess is 0%.
I'm not going to go into it deeply, but PC graphics drivers could be hardware/software emulated (Rosetta for PC Graphics) to make it possible, and I have doubts that there would be any perforance hit. We are taking about emulating a driver. How much of a hit could it take? My guess is 0%.
kind of like, "ndiswrapper" for osX86, to wrap around the standard windows graphics drivers? that would be tight.
I'm not going to go into it deeply, but PC graphics drivers could be hardware/software emulated (Rosetta for PC Graphics) to make it possible, and I have doubts that there would be any performance hit. We are taking about emulating a driver. How much of a hit could it take? My guess is 0%.
Perhaps you could explain your perspective on this a bit more.
The only difference between a graphics board for the Mac or the PC is a driver, and possibly a slight change in the firmware. It really isn't such a big problem to implement. Nevertheless most board manufacturers haven't seen the sales potential as being worth their while.
These boards have to work through the OS. A different OS means different drivers. Linux on x86 has the same problem.
I have no idea what you mean by "emulation". Emulation will slow this down considerably. It's just another layer the board will have to work through. Rosetta doesn't handle something like a graphs board driver anyway. That's internal to the system. Rosetta will have enough trouble dealing with the program's it's being fed even if someone could figure out a way for it to translate a driver.
Besides, what are you saying? If we are talking about Mactel's, then you would be talking about translating MAC drivers over. Isn't this the problem in the first place, not enough boards? PC boards are already x86 oriented and work through Windows. There isn't anything for Rosetta to do there even if it could be made to.
Also, each board needs drivers that work with it. Nvidia's and ATI's drivers work with a large number of boards because they are written to do that. Where is Apple going to get the drivers to do that?
I can't understand this argument. The reasoning seems backwards to me.
No your just argumentative, and looking for it., It was generalization not an answer. By looking at what I wrote why you thought I meant "use the existing rosette" . baffles me. It was used as an example. Maybe I should have said "A Virtual PC for the driver", but then you probably would have said "Why would Microsoft write a Virtual PC just for drivers on Apple machines."
Needless to say. Both Boards will be x86 which cuts 70 to 90%% of the problem away right there. If Apple can't get 70% of standard x86 graphics cards to be plug, and play from day one now that they will be running on basically standard x86 motherboards they are a lot less innovative than I thought.
No your just argumentative, and looking for it., It was generalization not an answer. By looking at what I wrote why you thought I meant "use the existing rosette" . baffles me. It was used as an example. Maybe I should have said "A Virtual PC for the driver", but then you probably would have said "Why would Microsoft write a Virtual PC just for drivers on Apple machines."
Needless to say. Both Boards will be x86 which cuts 70 to 90%% of the problem away right there. If Apple can't get 70% of standard x86 graphics cards to be plug, and play from day one now that they will be running on basically standard x86 motherboards they are a lot less innovative than I thought.
No, it wasn't argumentative. No matter how you try to emulate a graphics driver, you will slow the process down considerably. You mentioned Rosetta. It was certainly fair to point out that it wouldn't work. And then to explain why. By saying that you are not going into it too deeply you are telling us that you know more than you are saying. I'm simply trying to see why you think that something I don't see working, will work.
You're being silly now. I understood what you were saying. Certainly if you had said that 'A Virtual PC for the driver" I wouldn't have responded that MS wouldn't write one. I can tell that that wasn't what you would be thinking.
But that doesn't mean that I would agree that it was a workable proposition.
And saying; "Perhaps you could explain your perspective on this a bit more."
is a legitimete question. I'm simply asking you to expand on your point. You now know mine. It's not a challange.
No, it wasn't argumentative. No matter how you try to emulate a graphics driver, you will slow the process down considerably. You mentioned Rosetta. It was certainly fair to point out that it wouldn't work. And then to explain why. By saying that you are not going into it too deeply you are telling us that you know more than you are saying. I'm simply trying to see why you think that something I don't see working, will work.
You're being silly now. I understood what you were saying. Certainly if you had said that 'A Virtual PC for the driver" I wouldn't have responded that MS wouldn't write one. I can tell that that wasn't what you would be thinking.
But that doesn't mean that I would agree that it was a workable proposition.
And saying; "Perhaps you could explain your perspective on this a bit more."
is a legitimete question. I'm simply asking you to expand on your point. You now know mine. It's not a challange.
Someone with brains? On an Apple forum? THE SKY IS FALLING< THE SKY IS FALLING!
Anyways, I have to agree with you, emulating a driver is just stupid, it slows the process down too much. And there is no real point (i dont think, correct if wrong), as emulation would take just as much time as building two new drivers.
EDIT: Two drivers, one for nvidia, one for ATI, just to clarify.
Someone with brains? On an Apple forum? THE SKY IS FALLING< THE SKY IS FALLING!
Anyways, I have to agree with you, emulating a driver is just stupid, it slows the process down too much. And there is no real point (i dont think, correct if wrong), as emulation would take just as much time as building two new drivers.
EDIT: Two drivers, one for nvidia, one for ATI, just to clarify.
I thought you were actually getting the point until you edited. Multiple drivers is the clear easy solution. A standard graphics driver, a quadro driver, and specialized drivers as they are needed; but when has Apple ever done anything the easy way? I (like many) have been so frustrated with graphics options on Macs for so long I am unable to think that Apple would compile more than one driver. Now that they are x86 it's more than reasonable to have graphics standardized across the board between all x86 computers with the exception of individual OS drivers, and specialty drivers for some specific cards, but the hardware could be. It's all up to Apple how difficult they decide it to be when it comes to graphics options for their users. So call me a pessimist, but I am just so used to them making things difficult in this area for us I can't imagine them doing anything else. The most extreme, and difficult solutions are all that seem to pop into my when it comes to this subject. \
I thought you were actually getting the point until you edited. Multiple drivers is the clear easy solution. A standard graphics driver, a quadro driver, and specialized drivers as they are needed; but when has Apple ever done anything the easy way? I (like many) have been so frustrated with graphics options on Macs for so long I am unable to think that Apple would compile more than one driver. Now that they are x86 it's more than reasonable to have graphics standardized across the board between all x86 computers with the exception of individual OS drivers, and specialty drivers for some specific cards, but the hardware could be. It's all up to Apple how difficult they decide it to be when it comes to graphics options for their users. So call me a pessimist, but I am just so used to them making things difficult in this area for us I can't imagine them doing anything else. The most extreme, and difficult solutions are all that seem to pop into my when it comes to this subject. \
But other than to provide the "hooks" that drivers would have to work with, why do you think that Apple would do this for any boards other than the ones they offer for sale?
In the PC world as well it has always been the business of the board or chip manufacturer (as in Nvidia who doesn't supply boards themselves) to supply the drivers for good or for ill.
But other than to provide the "hooks" that drivers would have to work with, why do you think that Apple would do this for any boards other than the ones they offer for sale?
In the PC world as well it has always been the business of the board or chip manufacturer (as in Nvidia who doesn't supply boards themselves) to supply the drivers for good or for ill.
#1 reason I can think of is that Apple driver updates always come from Apple system updater, and I think Apple likes it that way.
Apples nvidia drivers are tweaked, and compiled by Apple to run on their systems. If a PNY QuadroFX 4400 could be used on a Mac; the chances of Apple selling it from their store are slim. The reason is that nobody would buy one from Apple because of the infamous Apple markup. So Apple probably wouldn't bother selling it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't compile the Nvidia QuadroFX driver code for Mac users. It is certainly a good way to break through into some new territory, while breaking the stigma that Macs can't compare to perform as well as a windows, or linux workstation in 3D, and have no real Pro options in this arena to begin with.
Although you have a valid point about PNY (example) providing compiled Mac drivers themselves. Maybe they have an intel/Mac developer kit. (although I doubt it) It would take one large, or a number of smaller 3DFX houses requesting Mac drivers to get such a push. Or for Apple to donate them one in their best interest. (not a bad idea) I know there are plenty of Mac 3D pro's looking, and wanting to continue use Mac's at their jobs, not just at home, and plenty of others like myself waiting for such a miracle.
I don't think Apple compiling the driver is out of the question knowing how they like to have control over their systems updates. I would take anything at this point, but I do hope I have a chance to upgrade to a Pro level 3D card with intel/Mac's. It would be a shame to not have that chance after All this time.
#1 reason I can think of is that Apple driver updates always come from Apple system updater, and I think Apple likes it that way.
Apples nvidia drivers are tweaked, and compiled by Apple to run on their systems. If a PNY QuadroFX 4400 could be used on a Mac; the chances of Apple selling it from their store are slim. The reason is that nobody would buy one from Apple because of the infamous Apple markup. So Apple probably wouldn't bother selling it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't compile the Nvidia QuadroFX driver code for Mac users. It is certainly a good way to break through into some new territory, while breaking the stigma that Macs can't compare to perform as well as a windows, or linux workstation in 3D, and have no real Pro options in this arena to begin with.
Although you have a valid point about PNY (example) providing compiled Mac drivers themselves. Maybe they have an intel/Mac developer kit. (although I doubt it) It would take one large, or a number of smaller 3DFX houses requesting Mac drivers to get such a push. Or for Apple to donate them one in their best interest. (not a bad idea) I know there are plenty of Mac 3D pro's looking, and wanting to continue use Mac's at their jobs, not just at home, and plenty of others like myself waiting for such a miracle.
I don't think Apple compiling the driver is out of the question knowing how they like to have control over their systems updates. I would take anything at this point, but I do hope I have a chance to upgrade to a Pro level 3D card with intel/Mac's. It would be a shame to not have that chance after All this time.
While I agree that it would be nice if Apple did do that, and I would like to have them do it also, I don't think they will. They haven't shown an inclination to do it in the past. As a matter of fact, ATI has been much better at supporting Apple's OEM boards than the other way around.
The other problem here is that Apple, in writing its drivers, has shown a definate lack of interest in supporting anything other than the most basic features of the boards they sell. No control panel, not ability to adjust the functioning of the board, etc.
What bothers me about Apple's attitude here is that I've been told that for very little cost to Apple (but significant income for the board manufacturers), they could finance the writing of those drivers. Other companies have done that, and so can they.
I'm ticked that I can't get a pro level board.
I've been around long enough to remember the days when ALL the pro boards were not only available on the Mac, but most of them were ONLY available on the Mac.
seeing Apples love for frameworks I am willing to venture that they will comeup with a framework that will do a good job of supporting all of the boards, then it will be easier for Apple to add drivers, or for Apple to make such a framework available to the board makers. If you question my logic, witness the acceleration framework that was built to work on either hardware.
i'm going to be an ass and ask why has no one responded to my question about the possibility of ndiswrapper-equivalent for using windows graphics drivers on mac os x86 ??
good point about a framework eg. accelerate.framework
i will call it nvidia-rulz.framework which apple might come up with. seriously though, this still leaves us at the mercy of apple yet again w.r.t. GPU driver compatibility.
so again, is it possible for something like an ndiswrapper-equivalent for using windows gpu drivers on mac os x86* ??
*(i've given up on "great new powerpc products with really fast graphics at a decent price")
EDIT: in fact, since nvidia and ati graphics drivers exist for linux, perhaps it would not be too hard to "ndiswrap" that instead of the windows drivers, so as to provide the required 2D and 3D functionality for mac os x86 with a minimum performance penalty...
seeing Apples love for frameworks I am willing to venture that they will comeup with a framework that will do a good job of supporting all of the boards, then it will be easier for Apple to add drivers, or for Apple to make such a framework available to the board makers. If you question my logic, witness the acceleration framework that was built to work on either hardware.
The "hooks" I mentioned earlier are part of the framework Apple has setup.
Apple has ALWAYS had unified graphics and sound frameworks for its developers to write to. That has been one of the areas that Apple has been superior to MS in. It's only been recently that MS has used the same concept.
Perviously each program on a PC had to write to each graphics board directly. What a mess. Then MS used Windows drivers. They worked but were lowest common denominator.
Apple avoided this mess from the beginning by having all programs write to Apple's frameworks. Then the board drivers would grab the unified data from there and drive the board.
So essentially your logic is fine because that's what Apple has been doing ever since the original Mac II.
But, as I keep on saying, the companies still have to write the drivers. Now we have Big Endian vs Little Endian issues as well. These aren't major issues, but they do exist.
New drivers will HAVE to be written for an x86 Mac. Can they use XCode to do it? I suppose they can if drivers are written that way. But the truth is; in that area I'm no expert.
i'm going to be an ass and ask why has no one responded to my question about the possibility of ndiswrapper-equivalent for using windows graphics drivers on mac os x86 ??
good point about a framework eg. accelerate.framework
i will call it nvidia-rulz.framework which apple might come up with. seriously though, this still leaves us at the mercy of apple yet again w.r.t. GPU driver compatibility.
so again, is it possible for something like an ndiswrapper-equivalent for using windows gpu drivers on mac os x86* ??
*(i've given up on "great new powerpc products with really fast graphics at a decent price")
EDIT: in fact, since nvidia and ati graphics drivers exist for linux, perhaps it would not be too hard to "ndiswrap" that instead of the windows drivers, so as to provide the required 2D and 3D functionality for mac os x86 with a minimum performance penalty...
I have no idea. Isn't this intended for use with wireless network cards?
Has anyone ever used it for graphics cards as well?
I have no idea. Isn't this intended for use with wireless network cards?
Has anyone ever used it for graphics cards as well?
yeah so ndiswrapper is for use with wireless network cards and is a real useful thing for linux users who have windows-only-drivers for their wifi cards.
AFAIK, it does not apply for graphics cards, since ati and nvidia make linux drivers. but i am wondering if a similar concept can be applied to graphics cards... for mac os x86
All this talk about emulated, wrapped, or cross-OS/platform drivers is just nonsense. Drivers are performance critical and intimately tied to how the particular OS works -- supporting somebody else's driver model ties your hands in how you implement your OS, and may run you into copyright/patent issues. Graphics drivers, in particular, are sensitive to the implementation details of the higher level OS graphical services. The new Windows Vista driver model is centered around D3D v10 which makes it impractical for Apple to try and map this to their OpenGL standard.
Really what should happen is that Apple should put together a crack team for building the outline of a GPU driver for their OS, and then work closely with the hardware vendors to rebuild their drivers on this from the ground up. They may have already done this, I don't know. Mostly I just want them to hurry up and get GLSL support into OSX.
All this talk about emulated, wrapped, or cross-OS/platform drivers is just nonsense. Drivers are performance critical and intimately tied to how the particular OS works -- supporting somebody else's driver model ties your hands in how you implement your OS, and may run you into copyright/patent issues. Graphics drivers, in particular, are sensitive to the implementation details of the higher level OS graphical services. The new Windows Vista driver model is centered around D3D v10 which makes it impractical for Apple to try and map this to their OpenGL standard.
Really what should happen is that Apple should put together a crack team for building the outline of a GPU driver for their OS, and then work closely with the hardware vendors to rebuild their drivers on this from the ground up. They may have already done this, I don't know. Mostly I just want them to hurry up and get GLSL support into OSX.
ok thx programmer, that was a thorough smackdown of my wrapping idea but yeah, i'll concede at this point, also due to limited knowledge of the area.
1. ms's new bollocks display thingy on vista puts openGL down the toilet and makes it very very different with apple's implementation
2. wrapping a graphics driver causes a whole bunch of issues way more challenging than wrapping a wifi card driver
3. patents etc.
i just hope that that crack team is ready to rock, if not already rockin' at cupertino, and schooling ATi and nVidia appropriately in the art of Pouncing Tiger Hidden Drivers
we will have to assume that the driver writing is aimed at a specific area: [consumer desktop/portable, pro 2d/video graphics]
...[games and pro-3D-creation] would be the icing on the cake but i think they gotta make the cake right first...
Comments
If I were in charge of hardware at Apple I would put everything into making that a possibility.
Originally posted by onlooker
Actually that depends on Apple. How they decide to design the graphics system around their intel boards is the biggest leap, or mistake they will ever make. If you could plug the majority of standard PC graphics cards into a Mac without a fuss it would completely change the way people thought about Macs. If not. Well, not much would change.
If I were in charge of hardware at Apple I would put everything into making that a possibility.
It's really not that. ATI just came out with a board that plugs into either a Mac or a PC. It can be done even now. It's not a matter of software. It certainly isn't a matter of hardware.
It's a decision purely based on marketshare. Apple doesn't have it.
No matter what Apple does with their graphics subsystems in the OS, there will still be a need for drivers - just as there is now. That's it!
Originally posted by melgross
It's really not that. ATI just came out with a board that plugs into either a Mac or a PC. It can be done even now. It's not a matter of software. It certainly isn't a matter of hardware.
It's a decision purely based on marketshare. Apple doesn't have it.
No matter what Apple does with their graphics subsystems in the OS, there will still be a need for drivers - just as there is now. That's it!
I'm not going to go into it deeply, but PC graphics drivers could be hardware/software emulated (Rosetta for PC Graphics) to make it possible, and I have doubts that there would be any perforance hit. We are taking about emulating a driver. How much of a hit could it take? My guess is 0%.
Originally posted by onlooker
I'm not going to go into it deeply, but PC graphics drivers could be hardware/software emulated (Rosetta for PC Graphics) to make it possible, and I have doubts that there would be any perforance hit. We are taking about emulating a driver. How much of a hit could it take? My guess is 0%.
kind of like, "ndiswrapper" for osX86, to wrap around the standard windows graphics drivers?
Originally posted by onlooker
I'm not going to go into it deeply, but PC graphics drivers could be hardware/software emulated (Rosetta for PC Graphics) to make it possible, and I have doubts that there would be any performance hit. We are taking about emulating a driver. How much of a hit could it take? My guess is 0%.
Perhaps you could explain your perspective on this a bit more.
The only difference between a graphics board for the Mac or the PC is a driver, and possibly a slight change in the firmware. It really isn't such a big problem to implement. Nevertheless most board manufacturers haven't seen the sales potential as being worth their while.
These boards have to work through the OS. A different OS means different drivers. Linux on x86 has the same problem.
I have no idea what you mean by "emulation". Emulation will slow this down considerably. It's just another layer the board will have to work through. Rosetta doesn't handle something like a graphs board driver anyway. That's internal to the system. Rosetta will have enough trouble dealing with the program's it's being fed even if someone could figure out a way for it to translate a driver.
Besides, what are you saying? If we are talking about Mactel's, then you would be talking about translating MAC drivers over. Isn't this the problem in the first place, not enough boards? PC boards are already x86 oriented and work through Windows. There isn't anything for Rosetta to do there even if it could be made to.
Also, each board needs drivers that work with it. Nvidia's and ATI's drivers work with a large number of boards because they are written to do that. Where is Apple going to get the drivers to do that?
I can't understand this argument. The reasoning seems backwards to me.
Needless to say. Both Boards will be x86 which cuts 70 to 90%% of the problem away right there. If Apple can't get 70% of standard x86 graphics cards to be plug, and play from day one now that they will be running on basically standard x86 motherboards they are a lot less innovative than I thought.
Originally posted by onlooker
No your just argumentative, and looking for it., It was generalization not an answer. By looking at what I wrote why you thought I meant "use the existing rosette" . baffles me. It was used as an example. Maybe I should have said "A Virtual PC for the driver", but then you probably would have said "Why would Microsoft write a Virtual PC just for drivers on Apple machines."
Needless to say. Both Boards will be x86 which cuts 70 to 90%% of the problem away right there. If Apple can't get 70% of standard x86 graphics cards to be plug, and play from day one now that they will be running on basically standard x86 motherboards they are a lot less innovative than I thought.
No, it wasn't argumentative. No matter how you try to emulate a graphics driver, you will slow the process down considerably. You mentioned Rosetta. It was certainly fair to point out that it wouldn't work. And then to explain why. By saying that you are not going into it too deeply you are telling us that you know more than you are saying. I'm simply trying to see why you think that something I don't see working, will work.
You're being silly now. I understood what you were saying. Certainly if you had said that 'A Virtual PC for the driver" I wouldn't have responded that MS wouldn't write one. I can tell that that wasn't what you would be thinking.
But that doesn't mean that I would agree that it was a workable proposition.
And saying; "Perhaps you could explain your perspective on this a bit more."
is a legitimete question. I'm simply asking you to expand on your point. You now know mine. It's not a challange.
Originally posted by melgross
No, it wasn't argumentative. No matter how you try to emulate a graphics driver, you will slow the process down considerably. You mentioned Rosetta. It was certainly fair to point out that it wouldn't work. And then to explain why. By saying that you are not going into it too deeply you are telling us that you know more than you are saying. I'm simply trying to see why you think that something I don't see working, will work.
You're being silly now. I understood what you were saying. Certainly if you had said that 'A Virtual PC for the driver" I wouldn't have responded that MS wouldn't write one. I can tell that that wasn't what you would be thinking.
But that doesn't mean that I would agree that it was a workable proposition.
And saying; "Perhaps you could explain your perspective on this a bit more."
is a legitimete question. I'm simply asking you to expand on your point. You now know mine. It's not a challange.
Someone with brains? On an Apple forum? THE SKY IS FALLING< THE SKY IS FALLING!
Anyways, I have to agree with you, emulating a driver is just stupid, it slows the process down too much. And there is no real point (i dont think, correct if wrong), as emulation would take just as much time as building two new drivers.
EDIT: Two drivers, one for nvidia, one for ATI, just to clarify.
Originally posted by pyriX
Someone with brains? On an Apple forum? THE SKY IS FALLING< THE SKY IS FALLING!
Anyways, I have to agree with you, emulating a driver is just stupid, it slows the process down too much. And there is no real point (i dont think, correct if wrong), as emulation would take just as much time as building two new drivers.
EDIT: Two drivers, one for nvidia, one for ATI, just to clarify.
I thought you were actually getting the point until you edited. Multiple drivers is the clear easy solution. A standard graphics driver, a quadro driver, and specialized drivers as they are needed; but when has Apple ever done anything the easy way? I (like many) have been so frustrated with graphics options on Macs for so long I am unable to think that Apple would compile more than one driver. Now that they are x86 it's more than reasonable to have graphics standardized across the board between all x86 computers with the exception of individual OS drivers, and specialty drivers for some specific cards, but the hardware could be. It's all up to Apple how difficult they decide it to be when it comes to graphics options for their users. So call me a pessimist, but I am just so used to them making things difficult in this area for us I can't imagine them doing anything else. The most extreme, and difficult solutions are all that seem to pop into my when it comes to this subject.
Originally posted by onlooker
I thought you were actually getting the point until you edited. Multiple drivers is the clear easy solution. A standard graphics driver, a quadro driver, and specialized drivers as they are needed; but when has Apple ever done anything the easy way? I (like many) have been so frustrated with graphics options on Macs for so long I am unable to think that Apple would compile more than one driver. Now that they are x86 it's more than reasonable to have graphics standardized across the board between all x86 computers with the exception of individual OS drivers, and specialty drivers for some specific cards, but the hardware could be. It's all up to Apple how difficult they decide it to be when it comes to graphics options for their users. So call me a pessimist, but I am just so used to them making things difficult in this area for us I can't imagine them doing anything else. The most extreme, and difficult solutions are all that seem to pop into my when it comes to this subject.
But other than to provide the "hooks" that drivers would have to work with, why do you think that Apple would do this for any boards other than the ones they offer for sale?
In the PC world as well it has always been the business of the board or chip manufacturer (as in Nvidia who doesn't supply boards themselves) to supply the drivers for good or for ill.
Originally posted by melgross
But other than to provide the "hooks" that drivers would have to work with, why do you think that Apple would do this for any boards other than the ones they offer for sale?
In the PC world as well it has always been the business of the board or chip manufacturer (as in Nvidia who doesn't supply boards themselves) to supply the drivers for good or for ill.
#1 reason I can think of is that Apple driver updates always come from Apple system updater, and I think Apple likes it that way.
Apples nvidia drivers are tweaked, and compiled by Apple to run on their systems. If a PNY QuadroFX 4400 could be used on a Mac; the chances of Apple selling it from their store are slim. The reason is that nobody would buy one from Apple because of the infamous Apple markup. So Apple probably wouldn't bother selling it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't compile the Nvidia QuadroFX driver code for Mac users. It is certainly a good way to break through into some new territory, while breaking the stigma that Macs can't compare to perform as well as a windows, or linux workstation in 3D, and have no real Pro options in this arena to begin with.
Although you have a valid point about PNY (example) providing compiled Mac drivers themselves. Maybe they have an intel/Mac developer kit. (although I doubt it) It would take one large, or a number of smaller 3DFX houses requesting Mac drivers to get such a push. Or for Apple to donate them one in their best interest. (not a bad idea) I know there are plenty of Mac 3D pro's looking, and wanting to continue use Mac's at their jobs, not just at home, and plenty of others like myself waiting for such a miracle.
I don't think Apple compiling the driver is out of the question knowing how they like to have control over their systems updates. I would take anything at this point, but I do hope I have a chance to upgrade to a Pro level 3D card with intel/Mac's. It would be a shame to not have that chance after All this time.
Originally posted by onlooker
#1 reason I can think of is that Apple driver updates always come from Apple system updater, and I think Apple likes it that way.
Apples nvidia drivers are tweaked, and compiled by Apple to run on their systems. If a PNY QuadroFX 4400 could be used on a Mac; the chances of Apple selling it from their store are slim. The reason is that nobody would buy one from Apple because of the infamous Apple markup. So Apple probably wouldn't bother selling it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't compile the Nvidia QuadroFX driver code for Mac users. It is certainly a good way to break through into some new territory, while breaking the stigma that Macs can't compare to perform as well as a windows, or linux workstation in 3D, and have no real Pro options in this arena to begin with.
Although you have a valid point about PNY (example) providing compiled Mac drivers themselves. Maybe they have an intel/Mac developer kit. (although I doubt it) It would take one large, or a number of smaller 3DFX houses requesting Mac drivers to get such a push. Or for Apple to donate them one in their best interest. (not a bad idea) I know there are plenty of Mac 3D pro's looking, and wanting to continue use Mac's at their jobs, not just at home, and plenty of others like myself waiting for such a miracle.
I don't think Apple compiling the driver is out of the question knowing how they like to have control over their systems updates. I would take anything at this point, but I do hope I have a chance to upgrade to a Pro level 3D card with intel/Mac's. It would be a shame to not have that chance after All this time.
While I agree that it would be nice if Apple did do that, and I would like to have them do it also, I don't think they will. They haven't shown an inclination to do it in the past. As a matter of fact, ATI has been much better at supporting Apple's OEM boards than the other way around.
The other problem here is that Apple, in writing its drivers, has shown a definate lack of interest in supporting anything other than the most basic features of the boards they sell. No control panel, not ability to adjust the functioning of the board, etc.
What bothers me about Apple's attitude here is that I've been told that for very little cost to Apple (but significant income for the board manufacturers), they could finance the writing of those drivers. Other companies have done that, and so can they.
I'm ticked that I can't get a pro level board.
I've been around long enough to remember the days when ALL the pro boards were not only available on the Mac, but most of them were ONLY available on the Mac.
This turn-around is frustrating to say the least.
good point about a framework eg. accelerate.framework
i will call it nvidia-rulz.framework
so again, is it possible for something like an ndiswrapper-equivalent for using windows gpu drivers on mac os x86* ??
*(i've given up on "great new powerpc products with really fast graphics at a decent price")
EDIT: in fact, since nvidia and ati graphics drivers exist for linux, perhaps it would not be too hard to "ndiswrap" that instead of the windows drivers, so as to provide the required 2D and 3D functionality for mac os x86 with a minimum performance penalty...
Originally posted by Brendon
seeing Apples love for frameworks I am willing to venture that they will comeup with a framework that will do a good job of supporting all of the boards, then it will be easier for Apple to add drivers, or for Apple to make such a framework available to the board makers. If you question my logic, witness the acceleration framework that was built to work on either hardware.
The "hooks" I mentioned earlier are part of the framework Apple has setup.
Apple has ALWAYS had unified graphics and sound frameworks for its developers to write to. That has been one of the areas that Apple has been superior to MS in. It's only been recently that MS has used the same concept.
Perviously each program on a PC had to write to each graphics board directly. What a mess. Then MS used Windows drivers. They worked but were lowest common denominator.
Apple avoided this mess from the beginning by having all programs write to Apple's frameworks. Then the board drivers would grab the unified data from there and drive the board.
So essentially your logic is fine because that's what Apple has been doing ever since the original Mac II.
But, as I keep on saying, the companies still have to write the drivers. Now we have Big Endian vs Little Endian issues as well. These aren't major issues, but they do exist.
New drivers will HAVE to be written for an x86 Mac. Can they use XCode to do it? I suppose they can if drivers are written that way. But the truth is; in that area I'm no expert.
Originally posted by sunilraman
i'm going to be an ass and ask why has no one responded to my question about the possibility of ndiswrapper-equivalent for using windows graphics drivers on mac os x86 ??
good point about a framework eg. accelerate.framework
i will call it nvidia-rulz.framework
so again, is it possible for something like an ndiswrapper-equivalent for using windows gpu drivers on mac os x86* ??
*(i've given up on "great new powerpc products with really fast graphics at a decent price")
EDIT: in fact, since nvidia and ati graphics drivers exist for linux, perhaps it would not be too hard to "ndiswrap" that instead of the windows drivers, so as to provide the required 2D and 3D functionality for mac os x86 with a minimum performance penalty...
I have no idea. Isn't this intended for use with wireless network cards?
Has anyone ever used it for graphics cards as well?
Originally posted by melgross
I have no idea. Isn't this intended for use with wireless network cards?
Has anyone ever used it for graphics cards as well?
yeah so ndiswrapper is for use with wireless network cards and is a real useful thing for linux users who have windows-only-drivers for their wifi cards.
AFAIK, it does not apply for graphics cards, since ati and nvidia make linux drivers. but i am wondering if a similar concept can be applied to graphics cards... for mac os x86
just throwing out ideas here.
Really what should happen is that Apple should put together a crack team for building the outline of a GPU driver for their OS, and then work closely with the hardware vendors to rebuild their drivers on this from the ground up. They may have already done this, I don't know. Mostly I just want them to hurry up and get GLSL support into OSX.
Originally posted by Programmer
All this talk about emulated, wrapped, or cross-OS/platform drivers is just nonsense. Drivers are performance critical and intimately tied to how the particular OS works -- supporting somebody else's driver model ties your hands in how you implement your OS, and may run you into copyright/patent issues. Graphics drivers, in particular, are sensitive to the implementation details of the higher level OS graphical services. The new Windows Vista driver model is centered around D3D v10 which makes it impractical for Apple to try and map this to their OpenGL standard.
Really what should happen is that Apple should put together a crack team for building the outline of a GPU driver for their OS, and then work closely with the hardware vendors to rebuild their drivers on this from the ground up. They may have already done this, I don't know. Mostly I just want them to hurry up and get GLSL support into OSX.
Exactly. That's what I've been saying here.
1. ms's new bollocks display thingy on vista puts openGL down the toilet and makes it very very different with apple's implementation
2. wrapping a graphics driver causes a whole bunch of issues way more challenging than wrapping a wifi card driver
3. patents etc.
i just hope that that crack team is ready to rock, if not already rockin' at cupertino, and schooling ATi and nVidia appropriately in the art of Pouncing Tiger Hidden Drivers
we will have to assume that the driver writing is aimed at a specific area: [consumer desktop/portable, pro 2d/video graphics]
...[games and pro-3D-creation] would be the icing on the cake but i think they gotta make the cake right first...