Throw up half a dozen transparent terminal windows and start dragging and tell me if it still feels hardware accelerated. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Seriously, though, Apple would have to (and perhaps is) rewrite a huge chunk of code to get Aqua OpenGL-accelerated. There were rumors that the GeForce 4 (NOT the GeForce 4 MX) had some hooks into the UI, but I haven't heard much more about that lately.
You know, as I think about this, using OpenGL to speed up Quartz (it's Quartz not Aqua) is dumb. Think about it. If the graphics card has some feature that OpenGL uses to speed up Quartz when not just write Quartz to do it directly? Why bother with a platform independent API, OpenGL, to speed up 2D graphics rendering using specific hardware.
<strong>I thought OpenGL was a 3D API? Why would Quartz have anything at all to do with OpenGL?</strong><hr></blockquote>Because Quartz is a 2.5D display layer. Well, some call it "third-generation" also. <a href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/macos-x-gui/macos-x-gui-2.html"; target="_blank">Siracusa explains it pretty well here</a>. There have been similar discussions on MacNN as well.
<strong>Because Quartz is a 2.5D display layer. Well, some call it "third-generation" also. <a href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/macos-x-gui/macos-x-gui-2.html"; target="_blank">Siracusa explains it pretty well here</a>.</strong><hr></blockquote>He doesn't say anything relevant to this question about the relationship between OpenGL and Quartz.
I still haven't seen any evidence that Quartz has any hooks into OpenGL.
<strong>He doesn't say anything relevant to this question about the relationship between OpenGL and Quartz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean to imply that Siracusa explained how Quartz and OpenGL hooked together; I just meant for that article to be used as reference to show how Quartz works as a vector-based display layer. Because it is vector based, there's the possibility that OpenGL or some similar API could be used to offload the processing to a GPU rather than the CPU.
From the way I understood it, Quartz is it's own screen rendering system based on Display PostScript. In order to "accelerate it using OpenGL" is, from my understanding, impossible, no?
You wouldn't have to stitch OpenGL calls into Quartz... you would sort of have to completely toss Quartz out the window and rebuild the screen rendering engine using OpenGL.
I think a good case in point is a freeware Terminal replacement called <a href="http://www.pollet.net/GLterm/"; target="_blank">GLTerm</a>. It is a terminal replacement that uses OpenGL for rendering, and as such, can't take advantage of all the features given to windows that use Quartz.
At any rate, I'm sure Apple had good reasons for choosing Display PostScript over OpenGL, but I really don't think it is possible to accelerate Quartz by attempting to make it an OpenGL/Display PostScript hybrid
Comments
Throw up half a dozen transparent terminal windows and start dragging and tell me if it still feels hardware accelerated. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Seriously, though, Apple would have to (and perhaps is) rewrite a huge chunk of code to get Aqua OpenGL-accelerated. There were rumors that the GeForce 4 (NOT the GeForce 4 MX) had some hooks into the UI, but I haven't heard much more about that lately.
Also, you may want to <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=000444"; target="_blank">see this thread</a> in the Mac OS X forum.
[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
Daniel
It doesn't make any sense.
Quartz could use the 2D acceleration of a graphics card, but I don't think it would employ OpenGL.
<strong>I thought OpenGL was a 3D API? Why would Quartz have anything at all to do with OpenGL?</strong><hr></blockquote>Because Quartz is a 2.5D display layer. Well, some call it "third-generation" also. <a href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/macos-x-gui/macos-x-gui-2.html"; target="_blank">Siracusa explains it pretty well here</a>. There have been similar discussions on MacNN as well.
[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
<strong>Because Quartz is a 2.5D display layer. Well, some call it "third-generation" also. <a href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/macos-x-gui/macos-x-gui-2.html"; target="_blank">Siracusa explains it pretty well here</a>.</strong><hr></blockquote>He doesn't say anything relevant to this question about the relationship between OpenGL and Quartz.
I still haven't seen any evidence that Quartz has any hooks into OpenGL.
<strong>He doesn't say anything relevant to this question about the relationship between OpenGL and Quartz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean to imply that Siracusa explained how Quartz and OpenGL hooked together; I just meant for that article to be used as reference to show how Quartz works as a vector-based display layer. Because it is vector based, there's the possibility that OpenGL or some similar API could be used to offload the processing to a GPU rather than the CPU.
You wouldn't have to stitch OpenGL calls into Quartz... you would sort of have to completely toss Quartz out the window and rebuild the screen rendering engine using OpenGL.
I think a good case in point is a freeware Terminal replacement called <a href="http://www.pollet.net/GLterm/"; target="_blank">GLTerm</a>. It is a terminal replacement that uses OpenGL for rendering, and as such, can't take advantage of all the features given to windows that use Quartz.
At any rate, I'm sure Apple had good reasons for choosing Display PostScript over OpenGL, but I really don't think it is possible to accelerate Quartz by attempting to make it an OpenGL/Display PostScript hybrid