<strong>If your G4 tower is less than a year old, then it has an AGP slot. Why on Earth would you buy a PCI Radeon for it? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you not read my post...?
3 Monitors
1 AGP Slot
2 PCI cards needed to run other 2 displays.
the 3rd display is to be (I HOPE) run from a Matrox RT-Mac for Final Cut Pro accelleration and full-screen preview. The Matrox RT-Mac does NOT support FireWire output in real-time... hence the third monitor. I use my NTSC Monitor for FireWire preview(s).
I am a multi-monitor guy. One display will not cut it... and I doubt there's an AGP board that'll run TWO 19" monitors at 1600 x 1200 75hz millions of colors.
<strong>I'm surprised anyone thinks software from Apple with the word "EXTREME" in the title will work on computers older than two years. Sheesh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My iBook is a couple of months old. Is it even supported in some way? No.
<strong>My iBook is a couple of months old. Is it even supported in some way? No.</strong><hr></blockquote>Will your iBook run "Jag-wire"?
Of course! Quite fine and dandy. So, yes, it is supported.
Will it run Jaguar faster than 10.1?
Yes, it certainly should. The Finder and other things will be much more optimized plus the gcc 3.1 recompile will provide a faster experience even without the "extreme" hardware acceleration.
Will it run extreme Jaguar?
No. Your computer wasn't a powerhouse compared to the desktops when you bought it a couple months ago. So, don't expect Apple to turn it into one now. You should have known that the iBook wasn't as powerful and capable as the desktop line. If you wanted the power, you should have gotten a PowerBook or a desktop model. Simple as that. Realize that notebook computers are built for *portability* and this often comes at the cost of raw power. This has been true for years and I don't think you should be surprised by it today unless you simply don't understand the technology inside.
Remember, folks, asking for this kind of acceleration on low-end hardware is like asking FCP to do real-time effects on a G3. There's a technological minimum that *has* to be met for these things to even be possible. You people should at least be a little satisfied that Apple found ways to support most current cards without having to develop completely new, custom "4th generation" GPUs like the rumors had been saying for the past year.
Ok, maybe I am mistaken but the way I understood it was that Quartz Extreem doesnt really "accelerate" any graphical functions persay. Instead it offloads graphical commands(specifically dealing with Quartz) to the GPU so that the CPU is freed from the task and can therefore be used more efficiently in other areas. In other words, speed improvements for all tasks.
I could be wrong. This was just my interpretation of what Job's said. But it seems trivial to me to "accelerate" or speed up Quartz when it really isnt slow on even my old iMac DVSE 500. However, if Quartz is really hogging the CPU, then this will mean that Quartz Extreem will be a significant speed improvement for OSX.
I'm accually glad i didn't buy a PowerBook since it would cost me more than twice what I paid for the iBook and still it woudn't be fully supported.
Apple is still selling the same iBook that i bought today, but Jaguar isn't out today and won't be for a while. At the time Jaguar is out my iBook should be close to a year old, so I guess its obvious that it isn't supported.
I hope all their machines will support Quartz Extreme when 10.2/5/whatever will be out.
Old hardware...? My point is... if they're gonna do this AGP-Only thing for hrdwr accelleration... then give us MULTIPLE AGP Slots...!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. As far as I understand, AGP (at least up to the 4x specs) only allows for one single AGP slot per computer.
[quote]<strong>I am (was?) on the verge of a 3-Display setup and now to find out only ONE display will reap the benefits of this Quartz-a-holic engine...?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So? Also "only ONE display will reap the benefits" of AGP (faster data rates, access to main RAM, ...), too. If you need to displays on AGP, get a dual head card.
[quote]<strong>Before bumping to OSX... I got a kick-ass 64MB 3dfx VooDoo 5500 PCI card for my G4... I move to OSX... no support for it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you can't blame Apple for 3Dfx going belly up...
[quote]<strong>
after waiting and waiting I bite the bullet for the Radeon top-o-the-line PCI card... now I find that IT won't be good enough...?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would probably have made a lot more sense to get an AGP Radeon (which is the fastest card), and a PCI card for your secondary monitor.
[quote]<strong>sorry... but the wallet is thinning out too fast here. If this OS is going to be "so advanced" and so "kick-ass"... then HOLD OFF on releasing it until you make machines that BLOW AWAY THE COMPETITION... I'm talking 3X the speed of the intel, athlon world...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seeing Motorola, that would probably mean holding off just as long as they did with Copland...
I am a multi-monitor guy. One display will not cut it... and I doubt there's an AGP board that'll run TWO 19" monitors at 1600 x 1200 75hz millions of colors.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shouldn't be a problem on any recent dual head card with >32MB VRAM.
<strong>Ok, maybe I am mistaken but the way I understood it was that Quartz Extreem doesnt really "accelerate" any graphical functions persay. Instead it offloads graphical commands(specifically dealing with Quartz) to the GPU so that the CPU is freed from the task and can therefore be used more efficiently in other areas.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the difference between those two is...? I mean, that's exactly what graphics acceleration is all about.
Jaguar dramatically improves the performance of Mac OS X with Quartz Extreme. Jaguar lets Quartz offload compositing tasks to a supported* video card, using OpenGL to accelerate the drawing and compositing of graphics. As with the benefits 3D games get from a video co-processor, the main CPU chip(s) can then focus on application-specific needs.
That means your shadows will drop quickly, your genies will appear slicker and your transparencies will layer faster — and Mac OS X can do more processing in the background while you move the foreground.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
And the difference between those two is...? I mean, that's exactly what graphics acceleration is all about.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
All I am saying is that the primary purpose of Quartz Extreem seems to be releaving the CPU from the burdoning task or dealing with Quartz not speeding up GUI tasks(although it will do that too). As I was saying, my old iMac does GUI tasks such as the genie effect without hitch, so it isnt that important to improve speed in this area, just efficieny. And this is exactly what Quartz Extreem will do. Anyway, it hopefully will mean a significant improvement in speed for all OSX tasks.
I'm feeling even happier that I bought a new 800 MHz TiBook last week. My 667 was only four months old, but I'd been wanting a Cinema Display, and when I heard that the newer TiBooks had DVI, I broke down and dropped a whole lot of money on both a new TiBook and a new 22" display.
For anyone who isn't all that worried about Quartz Extreme, I know where you can get a great bargain on a nearly-new 667 MHz TiBook on eBay
I should have added, of course, that I fully expect that within 3-6 months something new will come along that makes me wish I'd waited another 3-6 months. Something that turns my bright, shiny toy into yesterday's news. That's how it always works :eek:
At least I know now I'll be able to run Quartz Extreme with full hardware acceleration... even if I'm kicking myself because I'm missing out on Quartz Holography acceleration by the end of the year
Why in HELL would you do that? You added new hardware before knowing if it would be suported? Oh, good idea.
You could, presumably, get a twin view video card then offload one of the displays onto PCI.
That's two of three, no?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think, before you reply. I am not a psychic. I needed to buy a computer... I run dual displays which I already owned... the G4 CAME with the AGP card and I needed a SECOND one to drive the 2nd display. I bought the best that was available (at the time) at Micro Center...
How was I to know that:
a) 3dfx would die a horrible death
b) OSX would not support it in the FUTURE... it wasn't OUT yet.
EDIT: I just realized the disconnect: I earlier stated that I bought my G4 LESS than a year ago... it's actually just OVER a year now... I got it a few weeks before OSX was released
Think, before you reply. I am not a psychic. I needed to buy a computer... I run dual displays which I already owned... the G4 CAME with the AGP card and I needed a SECOND one to drive the 2nd display. I bought the best that was available (at the time) at Micro Center...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, still, not putting your most powerful card into the most capable slot (i.e. AGP) is not a good idea to begin with. PCI just doesn't offer quite a lot of features available via AGP.
[quote]<strong>
How was I to know that:
a) 3dfx would die a horrible death
b) OSX would not support it in the FUTURE... it wasn't OUT yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why does everyone claim that the old cards are "not supported"? Mac OS X will use your new card to the full extent this specific card offers. You will still be able to use OpenGL, enjoy QuickTime acceleration, etc., but it's just not possible to use it for Extreme Quartz because your card lacks the necessary AGP support. This is the cards fault not OS X', since Extreme Quartz seems to need AGP in order to function at all.
From what I've read, everyone complaining is absolutely POSITIVE that the Jaguar update won't speed up their machines without supported hardware, and that's crap. Guys, two days ago you were saying you'd give ANYTHING to have OS X speed up. Apple has given you a faster, better, Finder, with speed optimizations across the board. You got what you want, fellas, relax. Jaguar WILL be faster for you, one way or the other, supported hardware or not. Why do you still find the need to complain? It's the nature of the business: non-supported hardware can't be supported, nothing you can do, but you still have your speed increase.
Sorry for starting this, but I meant for my first question to be of a technical nature. Unfortunately I was overly vague.
My initial impression was that the primary monitor (AGP) would recieve hardware acceleration and thus operate at a much faster rate than a second (PCI) monitor. This is turn would cause a huge UI problem in that the two monitors would behave very differently.
However, that's not necessarily the case. Like others have mentioned in this thread, Quartz Extreme merely offloads these tasks to the GPU in order to free up CPU cycles. So while the second monitor will still be using the CPU, it won't necessarily run slower than the first. It's conceivable that it would be more like a DP situation, with the GPU serving as one processor and the CPU serving as the second. And the operation of both monitors might then be synced. But this is a best case scenario.
More than likely, additional monitors (on PCI) will lag behind the main monitor. So then anyone who uses more than two monitors (on AGP dual-head) will have some interesting problems.
I realize progress has a price, and again, I realize anything Beige is legacy. If you have a Beige computer, you should upgrade.
But, does anyone here think it's odd that Quartz Extreme doesn't apply to currently SHIPPING iBooks, CRT iMacs, and the just recently updated PBG4!?
This MUST mean updates for the iBook, at least.
I am not complaining, since I know Jaguar will still speed things up dramatically. And, if it doesn't, I haven't been using OS X anyway. OS 9 doesn't crash on me. (read: no M$ IE)
Shadow Knight, I am overclocking my iBook 500 to 600/100 in June. I'll post my results. But, on the 500, OS X is almost unusable. I do only have 128 megs of RAM, but you can tell when VM kicks in. I can't get my screw on the Airport riser out, I've tried everything! Glue w/ pin, etc. So I'm doing it when I overclock, going to 384 megs.
But, I thought the iBook had AGP!? Someone here said it was the first Mac to get AGP, in an argument about how sometimes portables get new tech first.
Oh, and Shadow Knight, ZO, I went to an Apple store and looked at the CPU monitor while mousing on the Dock. On the iBook 600 (14 inch, form factor is NOT a factor, no pun intended) I got the Dock to eat 100% (!) of the CPU, and on the PBG4 667 it was only 1 bar away from the doing the same thing. Nothing else running. Now, I'm not technically proficient with OS X yet, so I have a theory people may have to correct: OS X is dynamic. When it can use 100% of the CPU it will. But this doesn't sound very preemptive. I thought you'd have to nice it up to do that. Plus, apps like Word eat the CPU for breakfast, while they're just idling, just SITTING there, with no autosave, live word count, etc!
i have osx on my ibook 600 (640meg ram) and it rocks. seriously.
is your 500 the 66mhz bus or 100mhz bus. i think the older macs would make a differnence but trying to run osx with 128 is just not wise for more than one program.
I had 184 in an old ibook and it was going to vm all the time. my new ibook rocks though, as i mentioned before.
and i do not expect extreme to run on my ibook not because its 3 months old but becuase you give up something my buying a laptop. and full on AGP mega video card support is one of them.
Comments
No can do. The AGP standard allows for only one AGP port.
<strong>If your G4 tower is less than a year old, then it has an AGP slot. Why on Earth would you buy a PCI Radeon for it?
Did you not read my post...?
3 Monitors
1 AGP Slot
2 PCI cards needed to run other 2 displays.
the 3rd display is to be (I HOPE) run from a Matrox RT-Mac for Final Cut Pro accelleration and full-screen preview. The Matrox RT-Mac does NOT support FireWire output in real-time... hence the third monitor. I use my NTSC Monitor for FireWire preview(s).
I am a multi-monitor guy. One display will not cut it... and I doubt there's an AGP board that'll run TWO 19" monitors at 1600 x 1200 75hz millions of colors.
hence me being "S-O-O-L"
<strong>I'm surprised anyone thinks software from Apple with the word "EXTREME" in the title will work on computers older than two years. Sheesh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My iBook is a couple of months old. Is it even supported in some way? No.
Thank you Apple.
<strong>My iBook is a couple of months old. Is it even supported in some way? No.</strong><hr></blockquote>Will your iBook run "Jag-wire"?
Of course! Quite fine and dandy. So, yes, it is supported.
Will it run Jaguar faster than 10.1?
Yes, it certainly should. The Finder and other things will be much more optimized plus the gcc 3.1 recompile will provide a faster experience even without the "extreme" hardware acceleration.
Will it run extreme Jaguar?
No. Your computer wasn't a powerhouse compared to the desktops when you bought it a couple months ago. So, don't expect Apple to turn it into one now. You should have known that the iBook wasn't as powerful and capable as the desktop line. If you wanted the power, you should have gotten a PowerBook or a desktop model. Simple as that. Realize that notebook computers are built for *portability* and this often comes at the cost of raw power. This has been true for years and I don't think you should be surprised by it today unless you simply don't understand the technology inside.
Remember, folks, asking for this kind of acceleration on low-end hardware is like asking FCP to do real-time effects on a G3. There's a technological minimum that *has* to be met for these things to even be possible. You people should at least be a little satisfied that Apple found ways to support most current cards without having to develop completely new, custom "4th generation" GPUs like the rumors had been saying for the past year.
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
I could be wrong. This was just my interpretation of what Job's said. But it seems trivial to me to "accelerate" or speed up Quartz when it really isnt slow on even my old iMac DVSE 500. However, if Quartz is really hogging the CPU, then this will mean that Quartz Extreem will be a significant speed improvement for OSX.
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: 4fx ]</p>
Apple is still selling the same iBook that i bought today, but Jaguar isn't out today and won't be for a while. At the time Jaguar is out my iBook should be close to a year old, so I guess its obvious that it isn't supported.
I hope all their machines will support Quartz Extreme when 10.2/5/whatever will be out.
<strong>
Old hardware...? My point is... if they're gonna do this AGP-Only thing for hrdwr accelleration... then give us MULTIPLE AGP Slots...!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. As far as I understand, AGP (at least up to the 4x specs) only allows for one single AGP slot per computer.
[quote]<strong>I am (was?) on the verge of a 3-Display setup and now to find out only ONE display will reap the benefits of this Quartz-a-holic engine...?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So? Also "only ONE display will reap the benefits" of AGP (faster data rates, access to main RAM, ...), too. If you need to displays on AGP, get a dual head card.
[quote]<strong>Before bumping to OSX... I got a kick-ass 64MB 3dfx VooDoo 5500 PCI card for my G4... I move to OSX... no support for it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you can't blame Apple for 3Dfx going belly up...
[quote]<strong>
after waiting and waiting I bite the bullet for the Radeon top-o-the-line PCI card... now I find that IT won't be good enough...?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would probably have made a lot more sense to get an AGP Radeon (which is the fastest card), and a PCI card for your secondary monitor.
[quote]<strong>sorry... but the wallet is thinning out too fast here. If this OS is going to be "so advanced" and so "kick-ass"... then HOLD OFF on releasing it until you make machines that BLOW AWAY THE COMPETITION... I'm talking 3X the speed of the intel, athlon world...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seeing Motorola, that would probably mean holding off just as long as they did with Copland...
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
<strong>
I am a multi-monitor guy. One display will not cut it... and I doubt there's an AGP board that'll run TWO 19" monitors at 1600 x 1200 75hz millions of colors.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shouldn't be a problem on any recent dual head card with >32MB VRAM.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>Ok, maybe I am mistaken but the way I understood it was that Quartz Extreem doesnt really "accelerate" any graphical functions persay. Instead it offloads graphical commands(specifically dealing with Quartz) to the GPU so that the CPU is freed from the task and can therefore be used more efficiently in other areas.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the difference between those two is...? I mean, that's exactly what graphics acceleration is all about.
Bye,
RazzFazz
Before bumping to OSX... I got a kick-ass 64MB 3dfx VooDoo 5500 PCI card for my G4... I move to OSX... no support for it.. <hr></blockquote>
Why in HELL would you do that? You added new hardware before knowing if it would be suported? Oh, good idea.
You could, presumably, get a twin view video card then offload one of the displays onto PCI.
That's two of three, no?
<strong>
Quartz Extreme
Jaguar dramatically improves the performance of Mac OS X with Quartz Extreme. Jaguar lets Quartz offload compositing tasks to a supported* video card, using OpenGL to accelerate the drawing and compositing of graphics. As with the benefits 3D games get from a video co-processor, the main CPU chip(s) can then focus on application-specific needs.
That means your shadows will drop quickly, your genies will appear slicker and your transparencies will layer faster — and Mac OS X can do more processing in the background while you move the foreground.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
And the difference between those two is...? I mean, that's exactly what graphics acceleration is all about.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
All I am saying is that the primary purpose of Quartz Extreem seems to be releaving the CPU from the burdoning task or dealing with Quartz not speeding up GUI tasks(although it will do that too). As I was saying, my old iMac does GUI tasks such as the genie effect without hitch, so it isnt that important to improve speed in this area, just efficieny. And this is exactly what Quartz Extreem will do. Anyway, it hopefully will mean a significant improvement in speed for all OSX tasks.
<strong>
I'm feeling even happier that I bought a new 800 MHz TiBook last week. My 667 was only four months old, but I'd been wanting a Cinema Display, and when I heard that the newer TiBooks had DVI, I broke down and dropped a whole lot of money on both a new TiBook and a new 22" display.
For anyone who isn't all that worried about Quartz Extreme, I know where you can get a great bargain on a nearly-new 667 MHz TiBook on eBay
<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2022308296"; target="_blank">eBay item 2022308296 - Titanium PwrBk 667/30G/512M CD-RW/DVD Airport</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
I should have added, of course, that I fully expect that within 3-6 months something new will come along that makes me wish I'd waited another 3-6 months. Something that turns my bright, shiny toy into yesterday's news. That's how it always works :eek:
At least I know now I'll be able to run Quartz Extreme with full hardware acceleration... even if I'm kicking myself because I'm missing out on Quartz Holography acceleration by the end of the year
<strong>Scott F writes:
Why in HELL would you do that? You added new hardware before knowing if it would be suported? Oh, good idea.
You could, presumably, get a twin view video card then offload one of the displays onto PCI.
That's two of three, no?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think, before you reply. I am not a psychic. I needed to buy a computer... I run dual displays which I already owned... the G4 CAME with the AGP card and I needed a SECOND one to drive the 2nd display. I bought the best that was available (at the time) at Micro Center...
How was I to know that:
a) 3dfx would die a horrible death
b) OSX would not support it in the FUTURE... it wasn't OUT yet.
EDIT: I just realized the disconnect: I earlier stated that I bought my G4 LESS than a year ago... it's actually just OVER a year now... I got it a few weeks before OSX was released
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Scott F. ]</p>
<strong>
Think, before you reply. I am not a psychic. I needed to buy a computer... I run dual displays which I already owned... the G4 CAME with the AGP card and I needed a SECOND one to drive the 2nd display. I bought the best that was available (at the time) at Micro Center...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, still, not putting your most powerful card into the most capable slot (i.e. AGP) is not a good idea to begin with. PCI just doesn't offer quite a lot of features available via AGP.
[quote]<strong>
How was I to know that:
a) 3dfx would die a horrible death
b) OSX would not support it in the FUTURE... it wasn't OUT yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why does everyone claim that the old cards are "not supported"? Mac OS X will use your new card to the full extent this specific card offers. You will still be able to use OpenGL, enjoy QuickTime acceleration, etc., but it's just not possible to use it for Extreme Quartz because your card lacks the necessary AGP support. This is the cards fault not OS X', since Extreme Quartz seems to need AGP in order to function at all.
Bye,
RazzFazz
My initial impression was that the primary monitor (AGP) would recieve hardware acceleration and thus operate at a much faster rate than a second (PCI) monitor. This is turn would cause a huge UI problem in that the two monitors would behave very differently.
However, that's not necessarily the case. Like others have mentioned in this thread, Quartz Extreme merely offloads these tasks to the GPU in order to free up CPU cycles. So while the second monitor will still be using the CPU, it won't necessarily run slower than the first. It's conceivable that it would be more like a DP situation, with the GPU serving as one processor and the CPU serving as the second. And the operation of both monitors might then be synced. But this is a best case scenario.
More than likely, additional monitors (on PCI) will lag behind the main monitor. So then anyone who uses more than two monitors (on AGP dual-head) will have some interesting problems.
Thoughts?
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Arty50 ]</p>
But, does anyone here think it's odd that Quartz Extreme doesn't apply to currently SHIPPING iBooks, CRT iMacs, and the just recently updated PBG4!?
This MUST mean updates for the iBook, at least.
I am not complaining, since I know Jaguar will still speed things up dramatically. And, if it doesn't, I haven't been using OS X anyway. OS 9 doesn't crash on me. (read: no M$ IE)
Shadow Knight, I am overclocking my iBook 500 to 600/100 in June. I'll post my results. But, on the 500, OS X is almost unusable. I do only have 128 megs of RAM, but you can tell when VM kicks in. I can't get my screw on the Airport riser out, I've tried everything! Glue w/ pin, etc. So I'm doing it when I overclock, going to 384 megs.
But, I thought the iBook had AGP!? Someone here said it was the first Mac to get AGP, in an argument about how sometimes portables get new tech first.
Oh, and Shadow Knight, ZO, I went to an Apple store and looked at the CPU monitor while mousing on the Dock. On the iBook 600 (14 inch, form factor is NOT a factor, no pun intended) I got the Dock to eat 100% (!) of the CPU, and on the PBG4 667 it was only 1 bar away from the doing the same thing. Nothing else running. Now, I'm not technically proficient with OS X yet, so I have a theory people may have to correct: OS X is dynamic. When it can use 100% of the CPU it will. But this doesn't sound very preemptive. I thought you'd have to nice it up to do that. Plus, apps like Word eat the CPU for breakfast, while they're just idling, just SITTING there, with no autosave, live word count, etc!
is your 500 the 66mhz bus or 100mhz bus. i think the older macs would make a differnence but trying to run osx with 128 is just not wise for more than one program.
I had 184 in an old ibook and it was going to vm all the time. my new ibook rocks though, as i mentioned before.
and i do not expect extreme to run on my ibook not because its 3 months old but becuase you give up something my buying a laptop. and full on AGP mega video card support is one of them.
no problems here apple.
Anyhoo, what percent of performance do we have now compared to OS9 with Jaguar?