Translucency and lighting. Believe it or not, it's a fairly recent advance in GPUs. Note that first word... now, why do you think it might be necessary for Quartz Extreme?
Face it folks, there are some good solid looking technical reasons why they have the specs they do. Deal with it... no one's out to get you.
<strong>This is the main cause for todays trouble and for alienating Mac users.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. I think the non-platinum GUI is causing a lot more frustration for these "alienated" users.
[quote]<strong>What I still am failing to see are the benefits of Quartz/Aqua. We still run all 2D aspects of X 400% slower than under 9 and I see no advantage for doing so. Could someone point out any benefit gained by using Quartz compared to any other 2D drawing technology? I.e, Quickdraw(full graphics card support and acceleration), OpenGL(dito).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thnk it's amatter of seeing applications of Quartz. Obviously, part of it was for eye-candy to, as you point out, move hardware. But Applications (appropriate choice of terms) such as iPhoto and the coming Universal Access rely heavily on the technology. For me, the new Universal Access options are the biggest boon to Quartz so far. I think the point of all of this, OS X in general, is to open door where there were nonoe before. You couldn't even consider that stuff before unless you wrote your own engine that supported it, and then got it avbailable to everyone else -- well, Apple did just that. So I think there are only a handful of examples (see also toolbar graphics scripts from the Applescript site) that really show the positive benefits of Quartz right now, but the potential above and beyond QuickDraw et al is the ultimate benefit. It's up to developers and Apple to find more applications for the rendering engine (and I suspect Apple has more up their sleeve).
I thnk the real danger is to stand in place, to say that something is good enough as is. It's like when 480k on an IBM PC was considered to be good enough for anyone, why would you ever need more?
Translucency and lighting. Believe it or not, it's a fairly recent advance in GPUs. Note that first word... now, why do you think it might be necessary for Quartz Extreme?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, with respect to 3D video cards T&L stands for Transform and Lighting, not translucency and lighting.
why not? put a radeon or gf2 in there! hell, slap in a geforce3 and dual gig that sucker! although then you'd need a fan too... while you're at it 120GB that hard drive, weeeeee! 1.5GB that ram!
the cube is massively upgradeable and a hardware hackers dream, a challenge <hr></blockquote>
yeah just found that out, notice my post where i say: does anyone know where i can get one for a decent price.
Live postscript composition rendered in OpenGL providing beautiful onscreen effects that enhance and extend the user-experience in everything from development to games to high-volume digital production.
Mathematica LOVES Quartz and can do things in it that are unavailable anywhere else.... And that is only one example.
I am sure there are many more examples (amongst them WYSIWYG fonts etc.)
Keep in mind that there has been a paradigm shift in how things are going to be in modern operating systems. No your Quadra will not be able to run it. Hell, given the advancement of technology the machine your bought yesterday will tomorrow have problems with bleeding edge technologies. That is reality.
BTW, I find myself productively using a beige Artemis tower (333 MHz) running OS 9.2.2 in addition to my Pismo 500 running X 10.1.4.
Difference? One catches eyes and is a powerful little workhorse. One is a clunky POS that still can crank out the goodness. Difference is attributable almost solely to OS X being great and OS 9.2 being the good ol' ace-up-sleeve. Point: Both still very functional. If your machine can't hang in X, don't make it or you are wasting your time.
Listen: games became so powerful that they NEEDED hardware acceleration just to become playable, and now you can't find a game that doesn't use hardware acceleration. I remember everyone flipping out then, too, but now it's commonplace. Months from now, when Jaguar is released, all the bitching will stop (more or less), and people will use what they have. You should be thankful Apple is a forward looking company that isn't held back by legacy like MS is.
sc_market, that's what I'd like to know. As well as why friggin' VPC has nvver used video cards that come with Macs. Why doesn't VPC use Mac video cards?
I thnk it's amatter of seeing applications of Quartz. Obviously, part of it was for eye-candy to, as you point out, move hardware. But Applications (appropriate choice of terms) such as iPhoto and the coming Universal Access rely heavily on the technology. For me, the new Universal Access options are the biggest boon to Quartz so far. I think the point of all of this, OS X in general, is to open door where there were nonoe before. You couldn't even consider that stuff before unless you wrote your own engine that supported it, and then got it avbailable to everyone else -- well, Apple did just that. So I think there are only a handful of examples (see also toolbar graphics scripts from the Applescript site) that really show the positive benefits of Quartz right now, but the potential above and beyond QuickDraw et al is the ultimate benefit. It's up to developers and Apple to find more applications for the rendering engine (and I suspect Apple has more up their sleeve).
I thnk the real danger is to stand in place, to say that something is good enough as is. It's like when 480k on an IBM PC was considered to be good enough for anyone, why would you ever need more?
< < <
I think there is a flaw in this reasoning. Namely, in iPhoto, what is it that Quartz allows this program to do that is so special? Just the scaling of icons in real time? That's nice, but... it's slow unless your hardware is really fancy. I mean, the thing about extra RAM is that programs can use it to do stuff you want them to do. But, giving a drop shadow to a window, or a fake 3D look to a scroll bar button, it doesn't improve the actual functionality of that interface element. We had Kaleidescope for OS 9, and we could install all that junk if we wanted to, but it just slows your computer down. So I never used it.
Why does it take 32 MB of VRAM and the ability to do lighting and shadows to render a basic GUI? It doesn't. See, Apple's philosophy is not to make something useful and fast. Their philosphy has become the same philosophy that video game designers have -- write your graphics to take advantage of the latest hardware, so that the game's graphics will be the best possible. But with games, that's OK, because you understand that your computer might not run the latest games as fast as possible. But with the OS, and its GUI, we would not expect the same design philosophy as goes into video games; we would expect them to write the software for the lowest common denominator, so that it runs well on all current systems.
You see, with a video game, you do not have a current customer base that you have to please. But Apple has a huge current customer base that wants to be pleased, including me. And I'm very displeased that Apple is not designing its OS to run well on the very computers that it is expecting its customers to run the OS on. I mean, my computer came with Mac OS X already installed, and it lacks hardware acceleration, but should have it. Same with the iBooks, same with the iMacs.
What will Apple gain by continuing to provide its customers with inferior products, or even worse, by obviously catering only to those customers which purchase its most high-end systems, while leaving "the rest of us" in the dust? That is offensive and it doesn't make me feel like staying with the platform. It's about customer service, not about "keeping ahead of the curve." Behind technology, are the people who use it. That's what the original Mac was about.
But I get the distinct impression that Apple today is less concerned with its end users, and more concerned with making the most high-tech advanced thing out there. Apple should not get too far ahead of itself, and of its own customers.
Think of Quartz Extreme as being like AltiVec: If it's there, you get a speed boost. If it's not, you don't. But all the panicking about whether your computer is not supported is silly. Almost all iBook owners - and all iceBook owners - bought their machines knowing that they were trading off a major software accelerator (AltiVec) for a small, cool, efficient laptop. This is just more of the same. Jaguar should still be an unambiguous improvement to any iBook.
< < <
I have to say, this is a bunch of B.S. Why? Because Apple should have hardware acceleration for all GUI functions in OS X on all computers that have hardware accelerators, like the iBook. They should milk it for what it has. But instead, they go for the gold and alienate these users. Sure, they'll see a little speed improvement from code optimization, but their GPU's will sit unused by the Finder, by scrolling programs, etc. forever because Apple was too LAZY to write hardware acceleration drivers for all their computers, which is a problem caused by the fact that their GUI is unnecessarily processor instensive to begin with, due to ephemera like transparency and drop shadows that does nothing to help you get your work done faster.
<strong>But, giving a drop shadow to a window, or a fake 3D look to a scroll bar button, it doesn't improve the actual functionality of that interface element.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, drop shadows make it possible to where windows began and ended, and what they were on top of. Which is why every window in every MacOS has had a drop shadow (the Aqua ones are just prettier).
The 3D-ish scrollbars aren't slowing anything down. The really meaty stuff - double-buffering, PDF rendering, compositing - is where Quartz takes a speed hit. But all of those bring obvious advantages as well. Not all of those advantages are obvious to users, but that doesn't make them less significant (think developers).
[quote]<strong>Why does it take 32 MB of VRAM and the ability to do lighting and shadows to render a basic GUI? It doesn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it doesn't.
If it did, Quartz wouldn't work on anything with less than 32MB of VRAM. So, uh...
[quote]<strong>[Apple's] philosphy has become the same philosophy that video game designers have -- write your graphics to take advantage of the latest hardware, so that the game's graphics will be the best possible. But with games, that's OK, because you understand that your computer might not run the latest games as fast as possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, this is 100% wrong. A few games with relatively small markets push the envelope, but most games target 1 or 2 video card generations behind, so that they can sell more games. Any game that can get away with it eschews hardware acceleration altogether. The Mac porting houses target iMacs.
[quote]<strong>But with the OS, and its GUI, we would not expect the same design philosophy as goes into video games; we would expect them to write the software for the lowest common denominator, so that it runs well on all current systems. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It runs well on all current systems. Come Jaguar, it'll run even better. Quartz Extreme just means that it'll run especially well on higher end systems.
[quote]<strong>I mean, my computer came with Mac OS X already installed, and it lacks hardware acceleration, but should have it. Same with the iBooks, same with the iMacs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What can be accelerated is being accelerated. Quartz Extreme is not an all or nothing proposition. You've been told this several times now. It's an enhancement, not a baseline. It's harder to accelerate Quartz than QuickDraw because Quartz is doing a lot more work.
[quote]<strong>What will Apple gain by continuing to provide its customers with inferior products, or even worse, by obviously catering only to those customers which purchase its most high-end systems, while leaving "the rest of us" in the dust?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait for 10.2, install it on your machine, and tell me if you feel "left in the dust." This rhetoric is hopelessly overblown.
Apple is pushing into higher-end markets than it has ever tried to enter before. That means that they'd better be able to exploit high-end hardware. That means that they'll offer features that only exploit high-end hardware. That doesn't mean they're forgetting everyone else, it means that they're hoping you're smart enough to realize that an iBook is not intended to be a fire-breathing workstation.
[quote]<strong>But I get the distinct impression that Apple today is less concerned with its end users, and more concerned with making the most high-tech advanced thing out there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny; Apple seems to be picking up end users at a much higher rate these days.
Somewhat on-topic... just placed my order for the AGP nVidia GeForce4 Ti 4600 for $337. As far as I know... this is the "Best" you can get currently... right...?
EDIT: Actually... I just cancelled the order. Another thread stated that this card will NOT work in my G4 because it is not a "Mac" card... something about needing to get it from Apple... the retail versions are all PC... is this true...? Either way... I cancelled to be safe.
I have to say, this is a bunch of B.S. Why? Because Apple should have hardware acceleration for all GUI functions in OS X on all computers that have hardware accelerators, like the iBook. They should milk it for what it has. But instead, they go for the gold and alienate these users. Sure, they'll see a little speed improvement from code optimization, but their GPU's will sit unused by the Finder, by scrolling programs, etc. forever because Apple was too LAZY to write hardware acceleration drivers for all their computers, which is a problem caused by the fact that their GUI is unnecessarily processor instensive to begin with, due to ephemera like transparency and drop shadows that does nothing to help you get your work done faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jesus Christ, do you realize how offensive you are being? Not to mention ignorant! I'm not saying you are stupid or unintelligent... I can say completely honestly that I'm positive there are subjects where you are considerably more knowledgable than I. However, right now you are talking out of your a**. First, the graphics accelerator in the iBook is being used! Right now! Don't you remember the big hoopla over RagePro not being supported in the older iMacs, and only the Rage128 being accelerated? Well, guess what? The iceBook has a Rage128, and its 2D acceleration capabilities are fully used by Mac OS X Public Beta or higher. Its 3D capabilities are fully used by any OpenGL-compatible software you care to run. However, it physically lacks certain features, in the hardware, necessary for Quartz Extreme. Apple could assign one million programmers and work on it from now until the year 40,000AD and it still wouldn't work with Quartz Extreme. Laziness has nothing to do with it. You are literally asking for the impossible, and showing off your ignorance of computer science in the process. I don't know what you do for a living (but I'm going to guess it has something to do with graphic arts...), but I don't lecture you about it. Don't lecture the people at Apple (and no, I don't work for Apple, but I am a developer) about their job when you know nothing about it. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine... why does everyone think they know everything about software development? Sorry if I sound a bit snappy.
I have to say that the idea of Quartz Extreme is a rahter good idea. People who are irritated by it seem to be irritated by the fact that it will not be available to more machines.
Usually, a machine's GPU is used primarialy for games. When you buy your new GeForce board, you get some great gaming performance. People do not look forward to scrolling when they get a new video card, they look forward to a higher Quake frame count. Quartz Extreme leverages the hardware that is already in (most) computers- hardware that is mostly unused by the standard OS GUI. When we sit down and look at what Apple is doing, we realize that they just managed to speed up many of the things in OS X that users complain about, with no additional hardware and with no faster CPU's.
People who say that there should be a standard graphics chip that is in every Mac are speaking nonsense. There is ALREADY a graphic chip that can make Quartz fly (it is made by either Nvidia or ATI). Having ATI or Nvidia design and fab a Quartz accelerator saves Apple an enormous ammount of money.
Yes, it is a pain that not all OSX boxes will support this new feature, but you need to remember that it is an accelerator on a future release of OS X, not a standard feature on previous versions of OS X. It is also a feature that will not be available until the release of Jaguar.
I think that the only sticking point is that the current iBooks will not be able to use it, but this may be a clue as to what is coming up in the iBook line (esp. since it needs a refreshing- my GUESS would be before the next school year starts).
I don't know what metrics you're using to determine "half functionality", but I find OS X window widgets to be more functional than their OS 9 counterparts. Here's why: you can close a background window without first having to click on it to give it focus. That's one click in OS X versus two in OS 9. So I say that OS X widgets are twice as functional as OS 9 ones are. </strong><hr></blockquote>
EXACTLY! This is great for closing those little popups and whatnot. Classic windows also don't have the hide toolbar button. I love the X window widgets. (They also look much better IMHO, if you don't like the color set it to graphite. Color doesn't make it half as functional by any metric.)
"When we sit down and look at what Apple is doing, we realize that they just managed to speed up many of the things in OS X that users complain about, with no additional hardware and with no faster CPU's."
<strong>All this "extreme" (LOL) business would be void if Apple had not opted for the Quartz/Aqua thing. This is the main cause for todays trouble and for alienating Mac users.
What I still am failing to see are the benefits of Quartz/Aqua. We still run all 2D aspects of X 400% slower than under 9 and I see no advantage for doing so. Could someone point out any benefit gained by using Quartz compared to any other 2D drawing technology? I.e, Quickdraw(full graphics card support and acceleration), OpenGL(dito) .
The only pay off of Quartz seen by anyone is that it pays off for Apples hardware sales. There is neither a need nor a payoff nor any usable advantage by using a suchlike drawing model IMHO. Any help or insight? Only disadvantages weigh in so far as I am concerned and Apple is trying to cure the sickness by rising minimum hardware specs, which in my view is admitting that the decision for Quartz was premature.
It is sad that Apple delivered tech is a drawback rather than a move forward. But I would be less disappointed if anyone could provide a list of current and future advantages of Quartz that really outweigh all this hassle and pain. Anyone? </strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no advantage for current users, other than to feel like an ass for buying a current machine that can't even properly handle Apples new OS. There aren't many 3D GAMES that require a 32Mb Video card. Its almost unfathomable that an OS would have that requirement for optimal performance. I don't mind the AGP requirement, but to not support ATI 128 cards with 16 Mb is ludicrous. Try buying anything other than an ATI Radeon Card for a Mac. I don't see any Nvidia Cards out there for a Mac in the $100 range at all. If Apple were smart they would put a $100 Nvidia 32mb Card on their Web Site for all us shmucks who didn't think Apple would abandon us. And don't tell me that 10.2 will be faster even if our cards aren't 32Mb-they explicitly state that Quartz Extreme requires certain Graphics cards. Its ridiculous.
Comments
Translucency and lighting. Believe it or not, it's a fairly recent advance in GPUs. Note that first word... now, why do you think it might be necessary for Quartz Extreme?
Face it folks, there are some good solid looking technical reasons why they have the specs they do. Deal with it... no one's out to get you.
This time.
Muahahahaha.
<strong>This is the main cause for todays trouble and for alienating Mac users.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. I think the non-platinum GUI is causing a lot more frustration for these "alienated" users.
[quote]<strong>What I still am failing to see are the benefits of Quartz/Aqua. We still run all 2D aspects of X 400% slower than under 9 and I see no advantage for doing so. Could someone point out any benefit gained by using Quartz compared to any other 2D drawing technology? I.e, Quickdraw(full graphics card support and acceleration), OpenGL(dito).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thnk it's amatter of seeing applications of Quartz. Obviously, part of it was for eye-candy to, as you point out, move hardware. But Applications (appropriate choice of terms) such as iPhoto and the coming Universal Access rely heavily on the technology. For me, the new Universal Access options are the biggest boon to Quartz so far. I think the point of all of this, OS X in general, is to open door where there were nonoe before. You couldn't even consider that stuff before unless you wrote your own engine that supported it, and then got it avbailable to everyone else -- well, Apple did just that. So I think there are only a handful of examples (see also toolbar graphics scripts from the Applescript site) that really show the positive benefits of Quartz right now, but the potential above and beyond QuickDraw et al is the ultimate benefit. It's up to developers and Apple to find more applications for the rendering engine (and I suspect Apple has more up their sleeve).
I thnk the real danger is to stand in place, to say that something is good enough as is. It's like when 480k on an IBM PC was considered to be good enough for anyone, why would you ever need more?
<strong>More to the point, T&L.
Translucency and lighting. Believe it or not, it's a fairly recent advance in GPUs. Note that first word... now, why do you think it might be necessary for Quartz Extreme?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, with respect to 3D video cards T&L stands for Transform and Lighting, not translucency and lighting.
why not? put a radeon or gf2 in there! hell, slap in a geforce3 and dual gig that sucker! although then you'd need a fan too... while you're at it 120GB that hard drive, weeeeee! 1.5GB that ram!
the cube is massively upgradeable and a hardware hackers dream, a challenge <hr></blockquote>
yeah just found that out, notice my post where i say: does anyone know where i can get one for a decent price.
Live postscript composition rendered in OpenGL providing beautiful onscreen effects that enhance and extend the user-experience in everything from development to games to high-volume digital production.
Mathematica LOVES Quartz and can do things in it that are unavailable anywhere else.... And that is only one example.
I am sure there are many more examples (amongst them WYSIWYG fonts etc.)
Keep in mind that there has been a paradigm shift in how things are going to be in modern operating systems. No your Quadra will not be able to run it. Hell, given the advancement of technology the machine your bought yesterday will tomorrow have problems with bleeding edge technologies. That is reality.
BTW, I find myself productively using a beige Artemis tower (333 MHz) running OS 9.2.2 in addition to my Pismo 500 running X 10.1.4.
Difference? One catches eyes and is a powerful little workhorse. One is a clunky POS that still can crank out the goodness. Difference is attributable almost solely to OS X being great and OS 9.2 being the good ol' ace-up-sleeve. Point: Both still very functional. If your machine can't hang in X, don't make it or you are wasting your time.
You're right.
Mea culpa.
I've had under four hours of sleep, and not nearly enough caffeine.
I'm just gonna go crawl back in my latte mug now...
Some people are frustratingly stubborn.
> > >
I thnk it's amatter of seeing applications of Quartz. Obviously, part of it was for eye-candy to, as you point out, move hardware. But Applications (appropriate choice of terms) such as iPhoto and the coming Universal Access rely heavily on the technology. For me, the new Universal Access options are the biggest boon to Quartz so far. I think the point of all of this, OS X in general, is to open door where there were nonoe before. You couldn't even consider that stuff before unless you wrote your own engine that supported it, and then got it avbailable to everyone else -- well, Apple did just that. So I think there are only a handful of examples (see also toolbar graphics scripts from the Applescript site) that really show the positive benefits of Quartz right now, but the potential above and beyond QuickDraw et al is the ultimate benefit. It's up to developers and Apple to find more applications for the rendering engine (and I suspect Apple has more up their sleeve).
I thnk the real danger is to stand in place, to say that something is good enough as is. It's like when 480k on an IBM PC was considered to be good enough for anyone, why would you ever need more?
< < <
I think there is a flaw in this reasoning. Namely, in iPhoto, what is it that Quartz allows this program to do that is so special? Just the scaling of icons in real time? That's nice, but... it's slow unless your hardware is really fancy. I mean, the thing about extra RAM is that programs can use it to do stuff you want them to do. But, giving a drop shadow to a window, or a fake 3D look to a scroll bar button, it doesn't improve the actual functionality of that interface element. We had Kaleidescope for OS 9, and we could install all that junk if we wanted to, but it just slows your computer down. So I never used it.
Why does it take 32 MB of VRAM and the ability to do lighting and shadows to render a basic GUI? It doesn't. See, Apple's philosophy is not to make something useful and fast. Their philosphy has become the same philosophy that video game designers have -- write your graphics to take advantage of the latest hardware, so that the game's graphics will be the best possible. But with games, that's OK, because you understand that your computer might not run the latest games as fast as possible. But with the OS, and its GUI, we would not expect the same design philosophy as goes into video games; we would expect them to write the software for the lowest common denominator, so that it runs well on all current systems.
You see, with a video game, you do not have a current customer base that you have to please. But Apple has a huge current customer base that wants to be pleased, including me. And I'm very displeased that Apple is not designing its OS to run well on the very computers that it is expecting its customers to run the OS on. I mean, my computer came with Mac OS X already installed, and it lacks hardware acceleration, but should have it. Same with the iBooks, same with the iMacs.
What will Apple gain by continuing to provide its customers with inferior products, or even worse, by obviously catering only to those customers which purchase its most high-end systems, while leaving "the rest of us" in the dust? That is offensive and it doesn't make me feel like staying with the platform. It's about customer service, not about "keeping ahead of the curve." Behind technology, are the people who use it. That's what the original Mac was about.
But I get the distinct impression that Apple today is less concerned with its end users, and more concerned with making the most high-tech advanced thing out there. Apple should not get too far ahead of itself, and of its own customers.
posted 05-07-2002 04:41 PM Â*Â*Â* Â*Â* Â*Â* Â*Â* Â*Â* Â* Â* Â*Â*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Aquatik:
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!?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think of Quartz Extreme as being like AltiVec: If it's there, you get a speed boost. If it's not, you don't. But all the panicking about whether your computer is not supported is silly. Almost all iBook owners - and all iceBook owners - bought their machines knowing that they were trading off a major software accelerator (AltiVec) for a small, cool, efficient laptop. This is just more of the same. Jaguar should still be an unambiguous improvement to any iBook.
< < <
I have to say, this is a bunch of B.S. Why? Because Apple should have hardware acceleration for all GUI functions in OS X on all computers that have hardware accelerators, like the iBook. They should milk it for what it has. But instead, they go for the gold and alienate these users. Sure, they'll see a little speed improvement from code optimization, but their GPU's will sit unused by the Finder, by scrolling programs, etc. forever because Apple was too LAZY to write hardware acceleration drivers for all their computers, which is a problem caused by the fact that their GUI is unnecessarily processor instensive to begin with, due to ephemera like transparency and drop shadows that does nothing to help you get your work done faster.
<strong>But, giving a drop shadow to a window, or a fake 3D look to a scroll bar button, it doesn't improve the actual functionality of that interface element.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, drop shadows make it possible to where windows began and ended, and what they were on top of. Which is why every window in every MacOS has had a drop shadow (the Aqua ones are just prettier).
The 3D-ish scrollbars aren't slowing anything down. The really meaty stuff - double-buffering, PDF rendering, compositing - is where Quartz takes a speed hit. But all of those bring obvious advantages as well. Not all of those advantages are obvious to users, but that doesn't make them less significant (think developers).
[quote]<strong>Why does it take 32 MB of VRAM and the ability to do lighting and shadows to render a basic GUI? It doesn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it doesn't.
If it did, Quartz wouldn't work on anything with less than 32MB of VRAM. So, uh...
[quote]<strong>[Apple's] philosphy has become the same philosophy that video game designers have -- write your graphics to take advantage of the latest hardware, so that the game's graphics will be the best possible. But with games, that's OK, because you understand that your computer might not run the latest games as fast as possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, this is 100% wrong. A few games with relatively small markets push the envelope, but most games target 1 or 2 video card generations behind, so that they can sell more games. Any game that can get away with it eschews hardware acceleration altogether. The Mac porting houses target iMacs.
[quote]<strong>But with the OS, and its GUI, we would not expect the same design philosophy as goes into video games; we would expect them to write the software for the lowest common denominator, so that it runs well on all current systems. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It runs well on all current systems. Come Jaguar, it'll run even better. Quartz Extreme just means that it'll run especially well on higher end systems.
[quote]<strong>I mean, my computer came with Mac OS X already installed, and it lacks hardware acceleration, but should have it. Same with the iBooks, same with the iMacs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What can be accelerated is being accelerated. Quartz Extreme is not an all or nothing proposition. You've been told this several times now. It's an enhancement, not a baseline. It's harder to accelerate Quartz than QuickDraw because Quartz is doing a lot more work.
[quote]<strong>What will Apple gain by continuing to provide its customers with inferior products, or even worse, by obviously catering only to those customers which purchase its most high-end systems, while leaving "the rest of us" in the dust?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait for 10.2, install it on your machine, and tell me if you feel "left in the dust." This rhetoric is hopelessly overblown.
Apple is pushing into higher-end markets than it has ever tried to enter before. That means that they'd better be able to exploit high-end hardware. That means that they'll offer features that only exploit high-end hardware. That doesn't mean they're forgetting everyone else, it means that they're hoping you're smart enough to realize that an iBook is not intended to be a fire-breathing workstation.
[quote]<strong>But I get the distinct impression that Apple today is less concerned with its end users, and more concerned with making the most high-tech advanced thing out there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny; Apple seems to be picking up end users at a much higher rate these days.
EDIT: Actually... I just cancelled the order. Another thread stated that this card will NOT work in my G4 because it is not a "Mac" card... something about needing to get it from Apple... the retail versions are all PC... is this true...? Either way... I cancelled to be safe.
[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Scott F. ]</p>
<strong>
I have to say, this is a bunch of B.S. Why? Because Apple should have hardware acceleration for all GUI functions in OS X on all computers that have hardware accelerators, like the iBook. They should milk it for what it has. But instead, they go for the gold and alienate these users. Sure, they'll see a little speed improvement from code optimization, but their GPU's will sit unused by the Finder, by scrolling programs, etc. forever because Apple was too LAZY to write hardware acceleration drivers for all their computers, which is a problem caused by the fact that their GUI is unnecessarily processor instensive to begin with, due to ephemera like transparency and drop shadows that does nothing to help you get your work done faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jesus Christ, do you realize how offensive you are being? Not to mention ignorant! I'm not saying you are stupid or unintelligent... I can say completely honestly that I'm positive there are subjects where you are considerably more knowledgable than I. However, right now you are talking out of your a**. First, the graphics accelerator in the iBook is being used! Right now! Don't you remember the big hoopla over RagePro not being supported in the older iMacs, and only the Rage128 being accelerated? Well, guess what? The iceBook has a Rage128, and its 2D acceleration capabilities are fully used by Mac OS X Public Beta or higher. Its 3D capabilities are fully used by any OpenGL-compatible software you care to run. However, it physically lacks certain features, in the hardware, necessary for Quartz Extreme. Apple could assign one million programmers and work on it from now until the year 40,000AD and it still wouldn't work with Quartz Extreme. Laziness has nothing to do with it. You are literally asking for the impossible, and showing off your ignorance of computer science in the process. I don't know what you do for a living (but I'm going to guess it has something to do with graphic arts...), but I don't lecture you about it. Don't lecture the people at Apple (and no, I don't work for Apple, but I am a developer) about their job when you know nothing about it. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine... why does everyone think they know everything about software development? Sorry if I sound a bit snappy.
Thanks,
Shadow Knight
Usually, a machine's GPU is used primarialy for games. When you buy your new GeForce board, you get some great gaming performance. People do not look forward to scrolling when they get a new video card, they look forward to a higher Quake frame count. Quartz Extreme leverages the hardware that is already in (most) computers- hardware that is mostly unused by the standard OS GUI. When we sit down and look at what Apple is doing, we realize that they just managed to speed up many of the things in OS X that users complain about, with no additional hardware and with no faster CPU's.
People who say that there should be a standard graphics chip that is in every Mac are speaking nonsense. There is ALREADY a graphic chip that can make Quartz fly (it is made by either Nvidia or ATI). Having ATI or Nvidia design and fab a Quartz accelerator saves Apple an enormous ammount of money.
Yes, it is a pain that not all OSX boxes will support this new feature, but you need to remember that it is an accelerator on a future release of OS X, not a standard feature on previous versions of OS X. It is also a feature that will not be available until the release of Jaguar.
I think that the only sticking point is that the current iBooks will not be able to use it, but this may be a clue as to what is coming up in the iBook line (esp. since it needs a refreshing- my GUESS would be before the next school year starts).
<strong>
I don't know what metrics you're using to determine "half functionality", but I find OS X window widgets to be more functional than their OS 9 counterparts. Here's why: you can close a background window without first having to click on it to give it focus. That's one click in OS X versus two in OS 9. So I say that OS X widgets are twice as functional as OS 9 ones are.
EXACTLY! This is great for closing those little popups and whatnot. Classic windows also don't have the hide toolbar button. I love the X window widgets. (They also look much better IMHO, if you don't like the color set it to graphite. Color doesn't make it half as functional by any metric.)
Nah.
No point making a list Kate.
If you don't 'see' them, then anybody making a list isn't going to help you...
Lemon Bon Bon :eek:
Nice one, Apple!
Lemon Bon Bon :cool:
<strong>All this "extreme" (LOL) business would be void if Apple had not opted for the Quartz/Aqua thing. This is the main cause for todays trouble and for alienating Mac users.
What I still am failing to see are the benefits of Quartz/Aqua. We still run all 2D aspects of X 400% slower than under 9 and I see no advantage for doing so. Could someone point out any benefit gained by using Quartz compared to any other 2D drawing technology? I.e, Quickdraw(full graphics card support and acceleration), OpenGL(dito) .
The only pay off of Quartz seen by anyone is that it pays off for Apples hardware sales. There is neither a need nor a payoff nor any usable advantage by using a suchlike drawing model IMHO. Any help or insight? Only disadvantages weigh in so far as I am concerned and Apple is trying to cure the sickness by rising minimum hardware specs, which in my view is admitting that the decision for Quartz was premature.
It is sad that Apple delivered tech is a drawback rather than a move forward. But I would be less disappointed if anyone could provide a list of current and future advantages of Quartz that really outweigh all this hassle and pain. Anyone?
There is no advantage for current users, other than to feel like an ass for buying a current machine that can't even properly handle Apples new OS. There aren't many 3D GAMES that require a 32Mb Video card. Its almost unfathomable that an OS would have that requirement for optimal performance. I don't mind the AGP requirement, but to not support ATI 128 cards with 16 Mb is ludicrous. Try buying anything other than an ATI Radeon Card for a Mac. I don't see any Nvidia Cards out there for a Mac in the $100 range at all. If Apple were smart they would put a $100 Nvidia 32mb Card on their Web Site for all us shmucks who didn't think Apple would abandon us. And don't tell me that 10.2 will be faster even if our cards aren't 32Mb-they explicitly state that Quartz Extreme requires certain Graphics cards. Its ridiculous.