Jaguar vs. Blackcomb?

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
after reading <a href="http://www.avault.com/articles/getarticle.asp?name=paradox"; target="_blank">this article</a> at the Adrenaline Vault, linked from MacGamer, i was wondering about this new MS OS called "Blackcomb" mentioned on page 4.



one new feature sounds like Quartz Extreme, where desktop rendering is offloaded onto the graphics card.



which came first? or which will come first? and who thought of it first? and what's going on here? :confused: hehe



[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: gerardiki ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Does it really matter who came up with this kind of acceleration first? As long is it makes my computing experience faster and more pleasant, I don't care who thought of it or implemented it first.



    The catch here, though, is that Microsoft has not seeded *any* builds of Blackcomb outside of Redmond so no one can say for certain how or if this acceleration will work in it.
  • Reply 2 of 17
    low-filow-fi Posts: 357member
    ...and Blackcomb is miles off too...at least a year. Too lazy too look up quite how long it will be...



    lowfi
  • Reply 3 of 17
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Yeah, I forgot to add that Blackcomb is the NT release *after* Longhorn, which people still don't know much about either! This would be like people here discussing Puma back in the Public Beta days.



    Don't worry, Blackcomb won't be here any time soon. Apple will have a "3d accelerated" interface out long before Microsoft.



    [ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
  • Reply 4 of 17
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 5 of 17
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,428member
    A Genius this guy is NOT. I just had to read through 5 pages telling me how Microsoft, Creative yadda yadda yadda are leading the way when Apple already has QE working in Beta form. I also disagree about 2yr product cycles...not going to happen. Nvidias stock is where it's at because it continutes to generate sales rushes every 6 months with nexgen chips. Despite the difficulties of developing GPU's Nvidia is in no rush to sit on designs for 2 years unsure of where the competition is. Nice try..but it ain't gonna happen.





    On an aside...I hope Microsith isn't planning on REALLY betting their company on .Net/Web Services...if so plan to see the biggest Debacle coming in Computer History.
  • Reply 6 of 17
    stevesteve Posts: 523member
    Blackcomb isn't due 'til 2005 at the very soonest. The end of 2002 will see Windows XP: Second Edition, and 2003/2004 will yield Longhorn. Blackcomb is just a dream right now. I wouldn't even go so far as to call it an OS. It seems to be just an extension of Microsoft's .NET strategy.
  • Reply 7 of 17
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Nevertheless, you can be sure that the mainstream press is going to hype Blackcomb's hardware acceleration as a brilliant, industry-leading innovation.



    I still read about how OS X "copied" the Window's taskbar, and how the Apple Menu is a rip-off of the Start Menu. The media has no qualms about rewriting history to paint large mega-corporations in the best light--what it comes down to is that Micro$oft's advertising money has more pull than the truth among lazy, dim-witted journalists.



    Ahhh, this is the same media that did not report a MAJOR gaff made my Dubya in Brazil recently: when a Brazilian official mentioned blacks, Dubya was shocked, and said something like, "Oh, you have to deal with blacks here, too?". But of course our media would never give Dubya a hard time about his intelligence or past and present personal life. That would be un-American.
  • Reply 8 of 17
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Ha, the article says that Blackcomb will include:

    [quote]the dumping of remaining legacy technologies like VGA.<hr></blockquote>



    I think this would then be the first OS to require LCDs for use. Nice move...
  • Reply 9 of 17
    Blackcomb = Copland



    Meaning, they will most likely have the same fate. Given the information in this topic, Blackcomb is NT. If that is actually so, M$ will only put the technology in its Pro edition.



    I could be wrong; this is just speculation.



    This does, however, make me feel grrrreat! about using OS X.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    low-filow-fi Posts: 357member
    [quote]Originally posted by Xidius:

    <strong>Ummmm... One question.



    1: If im using a tray loading, 333 - &gt; 600 mhz tangerine imac, with 380 mb of ram, which obviously has $hit for a graphics card (which even worse, is built into the board = non-upgradable) then is it possible that quartz extreem may in fact slow DOWN my OSX experience????????</strong><hr></blockquote>



    er, no.
  • Reply 11 of 17
    fotnsfotns Posts: 301member
    [quote]Originally posted by speechgod:

    <strong>Given the information in this topic, Blackcomb is NT. If that is actually so, M$ will only put the technology in its Pro edition.



    I could be wrong; this is just speculation.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    You're wrong in that both the home and pro versions of Windows XP are based on NT technology, so Blackcomb would not be reserved only for pro.
  • Reply 12 of 17
    whisperwhisper Posts: 735member
    [quote]Originally posted by agent302:

    <strong>I think this would then be the first OS to require LCDs for use. Nice move...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    How can the OS not support VGA? Can't the video card output in whatever standard it wants?
  • Reply 13 of 17
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Errmm, I'm not sure what some of the different posters above are trying to say; so, let me clear something up.



    Both home and pro versions of Windows XP use the NT kernel.



    The differences between home and pro are that home is limited to one CPU (no SMP), does not include remote desktop, does not have EFS, can not control or restrict access to files/programs, lacks multi-language switching on the fly, doesn't allow full participation in NT Domain or Active Directory, and lacks the ability to sync offline files and folders.



    Windows XP is code named Whistler.

    The next version is code named Longhorn.

    Then the next version is code named Blackcomb.



    Xidius:

    No, your Mac will *not* run any slower because it can't use QE. QE is *not* required for Jaguar. In fact, even thought your Mac may not support QE, you likely will still get a speed boost just from the other optimizations in the code -- just like how you probably got a boost from 10.0 to 10.1.



    [ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 17
    gerardikigerardiki Posts: 35member
    :o i realize now that this has kinda maybe turned into PC (vs. Mac) talk, and i'm sorry.



    i just wanted to know if people on the PC side knew about Jaguar desktop rendering, and if people on the Mac side knew about Blackcomb desktop rendering.



    &lt;semi-soapbox&gt;

    i myself AM a PC-Mac fence sitter (tho i jump off the fence as often as i hop back on ), but i suppose i only heard of Blackcomb as a result of clicking on a PC-geared article from Macgamer. i then realized that some people (including myself) have no real idea about what's going on with regards to PC vs. Mac stuff, and that we better just not say anything at all OR say something, with the proper information to back it. and stuff. &lt;/semi-soapbox&gt;
  • Reply 15 of 17
    [quote]Originally posted by gerardiki:

    <strong>i realize now that this has kinda maybe turned into PC (vs. Mac) talk</strong><hr></blockquote>It has? Where? :confused:



    [quote]Originally posted by gerardiki:

    <strong>i just wanted to know if people on the PC side knew about Jaguar desktop rendering, and if people on the Mac side knew about Blackcomb desktop rendering.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, just remember this:



    Quartz Extreme is already working *today* in the developer seeded Jaguar builds.



    On the other hand, this "desktop rendering" you refer to in Blackcomb is literally, I kid you not, nothing more than a *concept* that may or may not be real when Blackcomb actually comes out in two or three years. For all we know (that is, everyone outside of Redmond's MS HQ), someone just came up with that idea on the spot and tossed it in as an extra bullet in one of MS's presentations. There is no public information regarding this type of acceleration for Windows because it simply doesn't exist yet and isn't planned to be implemented for at least another year.



    [ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 17
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>Ahhh, this is the same media that did not report a MAJOR gaff made my Dubya in Brazil recently:</strong><hr></blockquote>





    The reason for the media not reporting this is that it, in fact, may not be true:



    <a href="http://www.snopes2.com/quotes/brazil.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.snopes2.com/quotes/brazil.htm</a>;



    Not trying to start a political debate, just clearing up things.
  • Reply 17 of 17
    posterboyposterboy Posts: 147member
    I'd also like to point out that in addition to DirectX9 being required for the graphics offloading to work in BlackComb, the graphics offload is required for the system to run according to some of the reports I have read.

    QE compatability is not required for OS X Jaguar to run on a system.



    Big difference.



    --PB
Sign In or Register to comment.