<strong>The difference between a marketer and an engineer is very much their attitudes with what can and can't be done and the time frame for making things possible; engineers are pessimistic while marketers are optimistic. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you just pinpointed the difference between many people on these boards... The people who imagine "glove" and other "off the cuff" ideas are, at heart, marketers and visual people (optimists)... Those who tell them that their ideas are bogus for some technical reason are more like engineers (pessimists)...
P.S.--To go even more off topic. Admins: the "quote window" thing that lets you see the thread when you are typing up a reply isnt working like it should... Instead of getting a "browser window in a browser window" Im getting the old-school style of people's replies in tables... just lettin you know...
What I ment was that there were comparable cards for the PC at the time, just not the mac.
I'm not saying it's Apple's fault per say. It's just that it hasn't been until recently Apple has incouraged different card companies ( besides ATI ) to design for the Mac.
And that wouldn't have happened when it did if ATI hadn't opened their big mouth right before a previous MW.
I'm getting a kick out of this rogue27 guy. He's trying to be a smartass across the boards and keeps getting shut up <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>I'm getting a kick out of this rogue27 guy. He's trying to be a smartass across the boards and keeps getting shut up <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do I?
If so, that's great. I'm glad I can unintentionally entertain somebody who doesn't even know how to shift a char into alpha channel.
However, as the starter of this thread, I'd like if we could stay on topic. You can go create an "Apple sucks" thread somewhere else if you want.
With all the *****ing about QE, and how Apple intentionally dropped support for less powerful video cards to force people to upgrade their hardware, I think what is lost in the discussion is an appreciation for how impressive an achievement QE actually is.
Remember that at AI, xlr8yourmac, and several other forums, the consensus among programmers and those with technical expertise was that GPU acceleration of Quartz was impossible to do with current technology. Everyone agreed that it could not be done.
Now Apple's programmers have done the impossible and is there an eruption of praise on the internet? No, instead people whine because Apple could only accomplish GPU acceleration of Quartz using high end Video chipsets. While previously, Apple was stupid to use Quartz because it is too far ahead of video card tech, and impossible to offload to video cards, now Apple is stupid because they've INTENTIONALLY used only high end GPUs to accelerate Quartz. Now it's possible to use an old Rage pro video chipset with 8 MB vRAM to accelerate Quartz, but out of greediness and mean spiritedness, Apple chooses not to.
This thread comes as a relief amid such whining. Thanks for pointing out how amazingly cool it is that Apple found a way to dump Quartz onto the video card, freeing upt he CPU to do other tasks. This goes to prove how incredibly talented those who brought us OS X are. Apple is sure to continue to dazzle us with such clever programming.
<hr></blockquote>
OK, I probably started this one, asking questions about whether current (pre-700) iBooks could do QE. But I just wanted to know. Rogue27 and JD, you tend to be general and gloss over very technical details, which Programmer still hasn't filled us in on.
Amorph pointed out that reading out of main memory instead of VRAM (AGP supports reads out of main memory, I don't know if the R128 M4 does??) might end up not being worth it, with all that traffic. Still, I just wanted to know. Proof is in the pudding, etc.
So, if T&L aren't needed (Programmer? "Textures" keep getting thrown around here, I thought you said T&L was irrelevant), it may be technically possible to do QE on an old iceBook. Cool.
I am most certainly not whining, I understand progress, and I understand that Apple is a business. They have to sell new computers, even if that means intentional underhanded crippling. I understand this an evil, neccessary evil. Like the way they cripple computers to differentiate them so they "won't compete" (ie iBook can't have faster G3 than PBG4, or IIsi can't be as fast as IIci)
I agree 100% with Gambit and Programmer's posts! QE will rock, when I eventually get a PowerBook or new PowerMac, for sure.
On a side note: in the new developer tools from Apple Dev Connection is a beta of the new GC3 compiler which optimizes the performance of software code by about 10% (also includes better support for C++ and ObjC++ code). So, apps recompiled with this compiler should see added performance gains.
GC3 or is it GCC3, is the GNU compiler. Cocoa apps are mostly written in Obj C (which I like BTW).
<strong>I'm getting a kick out of this rogue27 guy. He's trying to be a smartass across the boards and keeps getting shut up <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
That was an absolutely uncalled for attack on a new member here.
I have been around here as long as you have (although my post-count is not as high), and I have seen how you went from extreme Apple-can-do-no-wrong fanboy to one of the biggest whiners. So be it, but don't go around acting like your the "king" of AppleInsider, patronising new members like that. You Sir, are no King!
Don't forget that!
(Damn, I may be overreacting, but I REALLY don't like Applenut's attitude lately )
I only started this thread out of appreciation for how brilliant I find the concept of QE to be.
As for glossing over technical details, the complex workings of motherboards is something I only understand conceptually, not technically, and much of my information comes from things I pick up here and there which I believe to be true, but there's a good chance I get some misinformation considering the number of conflicting posts on these boards from a bunch of people who all claim to really know how something works.
In reality, I'm a web designer and web programmer. I also write little applications as a hobbyist, but I only have a conceptual understanding of the more in-depth programming concepts. I'm slowly working to change that.
I'm capable of complaining about Apple as well as anybody, and I've done it many times, but it just happens that I really like the concept of Quartz Extreme, and I think their current laptop offerings are very nice. I don't really buy into the "conspiracy theories" of how Apple's trying to screw us all, but I do believe their market strategy forces them to cripple the speeds of their other products because the PowerMac line cannot move ahead fast enough. I think that last thing really sucks, and I definitely hope to see a change in that arena real soon.
I've been using Macs since 1995, and from the release of 8.0 up until 8.6 finally came out, I would have bought a PC had I bought a computer in that time period. 8.6 and 9 made me happy again, but after a while I started leaning towards AMD, Windows, and Linux, but then OS X came out and has me pleasantly sedated, and I believe that effect will last through the release of Jaguar and probably much beyond that since Win XP doesn't do anything for me. Now that was a run-on sentence.
Just thought I'd say that so people don't think I fall into the "apple can do no wrong" crowd. In fact my bro is in that crowd and we argue a lot when he blindly accepts Apple's stuff as the best. However, just because the PMs are underpowered doesn't change the fact that their laptops are slick little machines.
<strong>The thing about the whiners is that they don't know enough about how it all works to know any better, so they just accuse apple of being greedy. They also don't know enough to understand how complex and brilliant it is of Apple to have done this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, QE really is not complex and or brilliant. As a matter of fact, QE is incredibly rudimentary.
Apple has, more ot less, placed the quartz compositing engine on the GPU as opposed to the CPU. Many of us have been asking Apple to do this via a OpenGL wrapper for quite some time now. However, Apple's response to Mac developers has typically been "...we have more important things to get into OS X first."
Placing the quartz compositing engine on the GPU is by no means going to give your Mac super powers. Macs without QE will be able to render the exact same effects as macs with QE, yet they will not be allowed to exploit the unused processing power of a graphics card.
Furthermore, the concept of an OpenGL wrapper for the quartz compositing engine is not a stroke of genius. It's emulation... we've seen stuff like this before. We've seen x86 emulators emulate x86 operating systems on a PPC Macs, and even DirectX OpenGL wrappers emulate the DirectX API set on Linux and OS X machines.
I'm glad to see QE finally here, but don't worship it like a god. Until mac developer understand that quartz has limitations (as well as strengths), and these limitations are going to be here for years until a hardware solution is found for upgradable macs, we're still going to have slow browser resizes .
Aquatick: my post wasn't directed at you. It's aimed at the whiners, most of which are at places like MacNN, but there are a few here. They have no interest in technical details, all they know is that they want more than what they have, no matter what they have.
That was an absolutely uncalled for attack on a new member here.
I have been around here as long as you have (although my post-count is not as high), and I have seen how you went from extreme Apple-can-do-no-wrong fanboy to one of the biggest whiners. So be it, but don't go around acting like your the "king" of AppleInsider, patronising new members like that. You Sir, are no King!
Don't forget that!
(Damn, I may be overreacting, but I REALLY don't like Applenut's attitude lately )
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you read what you want personally. I'm still a huge apple fan boy. probably bgger than anyone here. I don't see others wating online at Macworlds at 1am being first on line.
I don't whine. I'm honest. some people have a problem with that. apparantly you do. I guess you find it amazing that someone who loves Apple could also find things to complain about. Let's be honest. There is a lot to complain about. It would get pretty boring here if it were just an Apple can't do wrong forum like some others (Macnet, Macaddict, etc)
I don't go around acting like the king of AppleInsider and I don't think anyone here does. (maybe Jonathon ).
I have every right to say what I have said and will say.
and what attitude would that be that is going around lately oh Power Apple?
<strong>I have every right to say what I have said and will say.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, you do have a right to say these things, however that does not make it right... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
what power Apple said (at least innitially) is true... you really had no reason to say that...
but you know what, lets just drop it and try not to let it happen again... no sense in arguing over semantics are "rights" as it still wont change the fact that you will say stuff like that... you should just be called on it and you really should re-think your attatude on the subject... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
to sum up, why do you have to cause trouble? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
While we stand amazed and blinded by the shiny new clothes of the new king QE we tend to forget that this golden, AGPed, diamond and GPU and gem encrusted Apple technology is a crook, a well designed, worthy and esteemed crook to be frank, but nevertheless a crutch.
It helps the one-legged man that is Quartz to actually walk. By means of a scaffolding.
So my amazement for Apples technological craft is very small in this field, it would be better engineering to construct a two legged man in the first place and then teach him to run. Not to put heavy weight patches on a disabled man.
Apple can do better than that. There is no need to worship the Apple QE team. Their task was to provide a mechanism to patch the bad result of bad design decisions with regard to Quartz. It is no good use of engineering talent to waist it the Microsoft style for patching improper layouts. The Apple QE team succeeded it seems, but the Graphics Layer team failed IMO.
So this thread has a wrong name, it is a hardware solution to a software problem rather than the other way. If you failed to built a water pipe employ a thousand men with buckets? No. Nothing to praise or hail there.
So, Kate, you think that having a central compositor and window server is a bad idea to begin with? Not happy that they created an environment that handles screen drawing and RIPping in the exact same way, independently of device characteristics? Bad idea to have the software do all coordination among graphics APIs, file types on screen, anti-aliasing, buffering, and image manipulation on the fly? That true WYSIWYG isn't all it's cracked up to be?
To make my point clear: the hardware is the problem here, not the software. If you handicap the software technology you plan to develop over the next 10-15 years because of the hardware you plan to use for the 5, then your strategy is fundamentally wrong. If Apple handicaps Quartz due to their inferior hardware, they will be creating inferior software which only compounds their problems. Let's face it, if Apple had 1GHz processors on a 133 MHz bus then and 2+ GHz processors on at least 266 MHz busses, we would never have complained about the performance of Quartz in the first place, and yes, QE might be unnecessary (though still useful IMO). That's the whole point of this thread: that hardware forced a creative solution via software. The software isn't the weak link in the chain here.
Comments
<strong>The difference between a marketer and an engineer is very much their attitudes with what can and can't be done and the time frame for making things possible; engineers are pessimistic while marketers are optimistic. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you just pinpointed the difference between many people on these boards... The people who imagine "glove" and other "off the cuff" ideas are, at heart, marketers and visual people (optimists)... Those who tell them that their ideas are bogus for some technical reason are more like engineers (pessimists)...
P.S.--To go even more off topic. Admins: the "quote window" thing that lets you see the thread when you are typing up a reply isnt working like it should... Instead of getting a "browser window in a browser window" Im getting the old-school style of people's replies in tables... just lettin you know...
Gee I wonder what "group" i fall into...
<strong>hi
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
What I ment was that there were comparable cards for the PC at the time, just not the mac.
I'm not saying it's Apple's fault per say. It's just that it hasn't been until recently Apple has incouraged different card companies ( besides ATI ) to design for the Mac.
And that wouldn't have happened when it did if ATI hadn't opened their big mouth right before a previous MW.
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>I'm getting a kick out of this rogue27 guy. He's trying to be a smartass across the boards and keeps getting shut up <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do I?
If so, that's great. I'm glad I can unintentionally entertain somebody who doesn't even know how to shift a char into alpha channel.
However, as the starter of this thread, I'd like if we could stay on topic. You can go create an "Apple sucks" thread somewhere else if you want.
With all the *****ing about QE, and how Apple intentionally dropped support for less powerful video cards to force people to upgrade their hardware, I think what is lost in the discussion is an appreciation for how impressive an achievement QE actually is.
Remember that at AI, xlr8yourmac, and several other forums, the consensus among programmers and those with technical expertise was that GPU acceleration of Quartz was impossible to do with current technology. Everyone agreed that it could not be done.
Now Apple's programmers have done the impossible and is there an eruption of praise on the internet? No, instead people whine because Apple could only accomplish GPU acceleration of Quartz using high end Video chipsets. While previously, Apple was stupid to use Quartz because it is too far ahead of video card tech, and impossible to offload to video cards, now Apple is stupid because they've INTENTIONALLY used only high end GPUs to accelerate Quartz. Now it's possible to use an old Rage pro video chipset with 8 MB vRAM to accelerate Quartz, but out of greediness and mean spiritedness, Apple chooses not to.
This thread comes as a relief amid such whining. Thanks for pointing out how amazingly cool it is that Apple found a way to dump Quartz onto the video card, freeing upt he CPU to do other tasks. This goes to prove how incredibly talented those who brought us OS X are. Apple is sure to continue to dazzle us with such clever programming.
<hr></blockquote>
OK, I probably started this one, asking questions about whether current (pre-700) iBooks could do QE. But I just wanted to know. Rogue27 and JD, you tend to be general and gloss over very technical details, which Programmer still hasn't filled us in on.
Amorph pointed out that reading out of main memory instead of VRAM (AGP supports reads out of main memory, I don't know if the R128 M4 does??) might end up not being worth it, with all that traffic. Still, I just wanted to know. Proof is in the pudding, etc.
So, if T&L aren't needed (Programmer? "Textures" keep getting thrown around here, I thought you said T&L was irrelevant), it may be technically possible to do QE on an old iceBook. Cool.
I am most certainly not whining, I understand progress, and I understand that Apple is a business. They have to sell new computers, even if that means intentional underhanded crippling. I understand this an evil, neccessary evil. Like the way they cripple computers to differentiate them so they "won't compete" (ie iBook can't have faster G3 than PBG4, or IIsi can't be as fast as IIci)
I agree 100% with Gambit and Programmer's posts! QE will rock, when I eventually get a PowerBook or new PowerMac, for sure.
GC3 or is it GCC3, is the GNU compiler. Cocoa apps are mostly written in Obj C (which I like BTW).
<strong>I'm getting a kick out of this rogue27 guy. He's trying to be a smartass across the boards and keeps getting shut up <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
That was an absolutely uncalled for attack on a new member here.
I have been around here as long as you have (although my post-count is not as high), and I have seen how you went from extreme Apple-can-do-no-wrong fanboy to one of the biggest whiners. So be it, but don't go around acting like your the "king" of AppleInsider, patronising new members like that. You Sir, are no King!
Don't forget that!
(Damn, I may be overreacting, but I REALLY don't like Applenut's attitude lately )
As for glossing over technical details, the complex workings of motherboards is something I only understand conceptually, not technically, and much of my information comes from things I pick up here and there which I believe to be true, but there's a good chance I get some misinformation considering the number of conflicting posts on these boards from a bunch of people who all claim to really know how something works.
In reality, I'm a web designer and web programmer. I also write little applications as a hobbyist, but I only have a conceptual understanding of the more in-depth programming concepts. I'm slowly working to change that.
I'm capable of complaining about Apple as well as anybody, and I've done it many times, but it just happens that I really like the concept of Quartz Extreme, and I think their current laptop offerings are very nice. I don't really buy into the "conspiracy theories" of how Apple's trying to screw us all, but I do believe their market strategy forces them to cripple the speeds of their other products because the PowerMac line cannot move ahead fast enough. I think that last thing really sucks, and I definitely hope to see a change in that arena real soon.
I've been using Macs since 1995, and from the release of 8.0 up until 8.6 finally came out, I would have bought a PC had I bought a computer in that time period. 8.6 and 9 made me happy again, but after a while I started leaning towards AMD, Windows, and Linux, but then OS X came out and has me pleasantly sedated, and I believe that effect will last through the release of Jaguar and probably much beyond that since Win XP doesn't do anything for me. Now that was a run-on sentence.
Just thought I'd say that so people don't think I fall into the "apple can do no wrong" crowd. In fact my bro is in that crowd and we argue a lot when he blindly accepts Apple's stuff as the best. However, just because the PMs are underpowered doesn't change the fact that their laptops are slick little machines.
Now, back to Quartz Extreme...
<strong>QE may have been created to help Apple with its current problems with processor and bus speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IMO that isn't the main reason to why QE was made - Shake is.
<strong>The thing about the whiners is that they don't know enough about how it all works to know any better, so they just accuse apple of being greedy. They also don't know enough to understand how complex and brilliant it is of Apple to have done this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, QE really is not complex and or brilliant. As a matter of fact, QE is incredibly rudimentary.
Apple has, more ot less, placed the quartz compositing engine on the GPU as opposed to the CPU. Many of us have been asking Apple to do this via a OpenGL wrapper for quite some time now. However, Apple's response to Mac developers has typically been "...we have more important things to get into OS X first."
Placing the quartz compositing engine on the GPU is by no means going to give your Mac super powers. Macs without QE will be able to render the exact same effects as macs with QE, yet they will not be allowed to exploit the unused processing power of a graphics card.
Furthermore, the concept of an OpenGL wrapper for the quartz compositing engine is not a stroke of genius. It's emulation... we've seen stuff like this before. We've seen x86 emulators emulate x86 operating systems on a PPC Macs, and even DirectX OpenGL wrappers emulate the DirectX API set on Linux and OS X machines.
I'm glad to see QE finally here, but don't worship it like a god. Until mac developer understand that quartz has limitations (as well as strengths), and these limitations are going to be here for years until a hardware solution is found for upgradable macs, we're still going to have slow browser resizes
My old 6200 wouldn't have played Marathon 2 very well unless hardware acceleration had been written into the program.
That CPU was really wimpy.
I have no idea of the technical details but just on the surface it sounds like a good idea.
[ 05-27-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
That was an absolutely uncalled for attack on a new member here.
I have been around here as long as you have (although my post-count is not as high), and I have seen how you went from extreme Apple-can-do-no-wrong fanboy to one of the biggest whiners. So be it, but don't go around acting like your the "king" of AppleInsider, patronising new members like that. You Sir, are no King!
Don't forget that!
(Damn, I may be overreacting, but I REALLY don't like Applenut's attitude lately )
I think you read what you want personally. I'm still a huge apple fan boy. probably bgger than anyone here. I don't see others wating online at Macworlds at 1am being first on line.
I don't whine. I'm honest. some people have a problem with that. apparantly you do. I guess you find it amazing that someone who loves Apple could also find things to complain about. Let's be honest. There is a lot to complain about. It would get pretty boring here if it were just an Apple can't do wrong forum like some others (Macnet, Macaddict, etc)
I don't go around acting like the king of AppleInsider and I don't think anyone here does. (maybe Jonathon
I have every right to say what I have said and will say.
and what attitude would that be that is going around lately oh Power Apple?
Get a room.
Signed, the king of AppleInsider.
<strong>I have every right to say what I have said and will say.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, you do have a right to say these things, however that does not make it right... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
what power Apple said (at least innitially) is true... you really had no reason to say that...
but you know what, lets just drop it and try not to let it happen again... no sense in arguing over semantics are "rights" as it still wont change the fact that you will say stuff like that... you should just be called on it and you really should re-think your attatude on the subject... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
to sum up, why do you have to cause trouble? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
It helps the one-legged man that is Quartz to actually walk. By means of a scaffolding.
So my amazement for Apples technological craft is very small in this field, it would be better engineering to construct a two legged man in the first place and then teach him to run. Not to put heavy weight patches on a disabled man.
Apple can do better than that. There is no need to worship the Apple QE team. Their task was to provide a mechanism to patch the bad result of bad design decisions with regard to Quartz. It is no good use of engineering talent to waist it the Microsoft style for patching improper layouts. The Apple QE team succeeded it seems, but the Graphics Layer team failed IMO.
So this thread has a wrong name, it is a hardware solution to a software problem rather than the other way. If you failed to built a water pipe employ a thousand men with buckets? No. Nothing to praise or hail there.
[ 05-28-2002: Message edited by: Kate ]</p>
To make my point clear: the hardware is the problem here, not the software. If you handicap the software technology you plan to develop over the next 10-15 years because of the hardware you plan to use for the 5, then your strategy is fundamentally wrong. If Apple handicaps Quartz due to their inferior hardware, they will be creating inferior software which only compounds their problems. Let's face it, if Apple had 1GHz processors on a 133 MHz bus then and 2+ GHz processors on at least 266 MHz busses, we would never have complained about the performance of Quartz in the first place, and yes, QE might be unnecessary (though still useful IMO). That's the whole point of this thread: that hardware forced a creative solution via software. The software isn't the weak link in the chain here.
[ 05-28-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
Excuse me, but did you see how jerky the restoring of the minimized movie playing in the movie was?
It was better than in 10.4.1, but still...
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 05-28-2002: Message edited by: a Martin ]
[ 05-28-2002: Message edited by: a Martin ]</p>