Quartz Extreme an VirtualPC

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Now here is a hopefully simple question. Will a piece of software like VirtualPC be able to use this somehow to take some of the graphics load it places on the processor away too?



If it can wouldn't this allow VirtualPC to gain an incredible performance boost?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    I've always wondered why VPC doesn't use the damn video cards in Mac. How hard would this be to implement!? Windoze drivers are already made!



    Plus, games would be its biggest market. I can't tell you how many kids I've seen ask if VPC will let them play PC games on the Mac. Games are one of the biggest reasons families buy PeeCees anyway. Then I have to tell them, no, they can't play PC games, because VPC is stupid.
  • Reply 2 of 19
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    [quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:

    <strong>I've always wondered why VPC doesn't use the damn video cards in Mac. How hard would this be to implement!? Windoze drivers are already made!



    Plus, games would be its biggest market. I can't tell you how many kids I've seen ask if VPC will let them play PC games on the Mac. Games are one of the biggest reasons families buy PeeCees anyway. Then I have to tell them, no, they can't play PC games, because VPC is stupid.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It has something to do with the size of Indians! ...no, wait...that's not right...I meant; it's an endian issue!
  • Reply 3 of 19
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    No.



    That is why Virtual is half the speed of your PPC when you do normal calculations (001 is 100). I am talking about using the damn video card, which has Windows drivers already.

    But, it was funny.

    I'm just so fed up with VPC's lack of using the video card.

    You're still making plastics, right? For the G5 hypergyrational rhombocuboid?
  • Reply 4 of 19
    scott_h_phdscott_h_phd Posts: 448member
    00100001 1000010

    is

    1000010 00100001
  • Reply 5 of 19
    x704x704 Posts: 276member
    Actually, "Longhorn", M$'s next OS apparently will use Video Hardware accelleration. Since this is the case I believe Connectix will now have no choice but to impliment VIdeo acceleration in some form or another. Afterall Win XP goes at a crawl on my G4, could you image if it was as demanding as OS X's Aqua? It wouldn't be able to run at all ... it'd take 20 minutes just to open a folder ...



    What choice does connectix have? None unless they don't want to support future Windows versions ...
  • Reply 6 of 19
    fuzz_ballfuzz_ball Posts: 390member
    Go to Connectix's site and read their FAQ. There are some legitimate issues regarding the support of video hardware.



    Besides, VPC was never meant to run games. It is an emulator, and by definition emulators always suffer a performance hit: they're emulating foreign hardware!



    Given that games (and some notable graphics arts software) push the limits of hardware more than anything else, how can you expect an emulator to allow you to play games like MOH:AA or RtCW???
  • Reply 7 of 19
    quaremquarem Posts: 254member
    [quote]Originally posted by fuzz_ball:

    <strong>Go to Connectix's site and read their FAQ. There are some legitimate issues regarding the support of video hardware.



    Besides, VPC was never meant to run games. It is an emulator, and by definition emulators always suffer a performance hit: they're emulating foreign hardware!



    Given that games (and some notable graphics arts software) push the limits of hardware more than anything else, how can you expect an emulator to allow you to play games like MOH:AA or RtCW???</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Especially since Macs lag behind PCs in game performance.
  • Reply 8 of 19
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 9 of 19
    But ignoring 3D game acceleration in the PC enviroment (which ain't happening) could VirtualPC itself benefit from faster screen redraws courtesy of Quartz Extreme? I mean the issue is not the copy of Windows running inside the Virtual PC enviroment rather it is the VirtualPC program itself drawing the screen.
  • Reply 10 of 19
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 11 of 19
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    AirSluf, is the endian issue is null (dang, I'm going to be doing VPC on my iBook), then I would think games would be viable if Connectix could solve the "ownership" issue of the video board. But, yes, a second video card would be a better option. I wonder if all the new cards Apple ships, with inherent twin-head capability, could split up the work to the two monitors, for each OS. I think it would be worth it; a monitor is cheaper than a PC, and Windows on a Mac at close to full speed (no endian issue, and graphics card accelerated) is better than a PC, in my opinion, because sharing etc., everything, is simplified.



    Anyway, if Connectix could solve the acceleration conundrum, they would sell a hell of a lot more copies of VPC. Of that at least, I'm sure.
  • Reply 12 of 19
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    You know guys, Windows machines aren't *that* expensive. If you're a gamer, you buy a Windows box, but you're never going to emulate it to your satisfaction on a Mac, and I honestly don't think there is any way that Connectix could take advantage of Quartz Extreme. From the way Apple put it, it sounds like it's heavily optimized and implemented for their OS only, and that it isn't really something open to letting other developers exploit for their applications.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    wfzellewfzelle Posts: 137member
    [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:

    <strong>



    PPC G4 is bi-endian with a negligible speed hit for mode swapping. That was one of the major architecture changes from G3 to G4.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    All PowerPC's are bi-endian. This is too slow on pre-G3 PPC's though:



    One of the challenges in emulating a Pentium processor is that Intel chips store multi-byte data in reverse order from the PowerPC. This difference in endianness must be taken into account when executing Pentium code. The PowerPC has a special mode which allows it to simulate little endian mode (the native mode of Intel-compatible processors). However, on PowerPC Processors prior to the G3, this mode came at a high performance cost, especially when the data in memory was misaligned (i.e. not stored to memory locations that are divisible by the size of the data). The G3 and G4 processors removed these performance bottlenecks, allowing Connectix engineers to finally take advantage of this previously ignored feature.

    Because of Virtual PC 4.0's reliance on this little endian mode, support for processors older than G3's had to be dropped. Users who own Macs based on 601, 603 or 604 will have to either upgrade their processors to G3's or continue to use Virtual PC 3.0.


    C. Lee Graham

    Moderator@Connectix Forum
  • Reply 14 of 19
    powerbookpowerbook Posts: 22member
    [quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:

    <strong>I've always wondered why VPC doesn't use the damn video cards in Mac. How hard would this be to implement!? Windoze drivers are already made!



    Plus, games would be its biggest market. I can't tell you how many kids I've seen ask if VPC will let them play PC games on the Mac. Games are one of the biggest reasons families buy PeeCees anyway. Then I have to tell them, no, they can't play PC games, because VPC is stupid.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    But they *had* native graphiccard support back in VPC2 and 3... IIRC you could use (some) Banshee cards in the G3/G4 and even this 3D accelerator for the iMac. One could get quite some fps out of these combinations...

    They dumped in again in v4, claiming people demanded 1:1 PC performance (HalfLife anyone?) and that issue got on their nerves.



    Hm. Maybe it'll come back.

    PB



    [ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Powerbook ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 19
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Well, it better show up, in light of wfzelle's post! What is holding them back? Just the ownership issue, which with the incentive involved, seems worthy of solving.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    tomahawktomahawk Posts: 134member
    Wasn't the whole idea behind previewing the next OS X update to allow developers time to implement the new features.



    Why would Apple release a new technology and not puch developers to use it as was suggested above?



    If Apple truely wants Extreme to make a difference they need to make it as broad and useful as possible.



    Also, I don't need the true speed of a PC but I like being able to run some of the programs occasionally. That might be less important once I'm out of school (I graduate with a BBA in two days!).



    My question, and hope, was does anyone actually know if Extreme *could* be used to generate Windows windows (tell me that doesn't sound funny). I guess it is more of a hope for some additional speed than anything else.



    Finally, what is up with everyone wanting to play PC games on a Mac. Buy a PS2 for crying out loud. Heck, it's even a hundred bucks cheaper now.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    eyedeaeyedea Posts: 20member
    I can play games on Stella the Atari emulator.



    /me ducks the tomatoes
  • Reply 18 of 19
    x704x704 Posts: 276member
    [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:

    <strong>The main issue IS windows drawing the screen--THEN VPC translating it to a MacOS window afterwards. The slow part is the Windows internal draws.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Thankyou! People seem to keep missing this! Quartz Extreme has nothing to do with the emulation that MUST take place internally in VPC (since it's not offloaded to a vid card), before its sent to your monitor.



    Quartz Extreme Offloads part of the rendering to the Video Card (through OpenGl) rather then having the CPU process it all. Quartz Extreme will not effect your fps in Quake III (or whatever)! They already use OpenGl for rendering! It benefits the finder & windows because they currently do not offload any of the processing to the video card. VPC does not even see the video card. If it did it would utilize OpenGl already ... which would mean there'd be no reason for Q.E. to help it out (becuase again, all Q.E. does is offload rendering from the CPU to the Videocard through OpenGl).



    Got it? It's really not that difficult.
  • Reply 19 of 19
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    I am not missing this fact, anyone sentient wouldn't. I just wonder why Connectix doesn't want the ca$h from gamers seeking hardware acceleration. I'm not as hardcore a gamer and I don't usually bitch about it. I don't really care since most games are better on the Mac anyway, and get ported in decent time (Blizzard!)



    But, lots of people want to play games that are PC only or released very late, and I'm sure they would pay the $$$ for it. Does Connectix like $$$?
Sign In or Register to comment.