QUARTZ HARDWARE ACCEL!!

2456710

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 191
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member
    [quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:

    <strong>I'm a bit anxious about this too... I mean, really... that's a whole lot of people to be all but orphaning... i mean it'll still work, but it better be speeded up some on machines with &lt;32 mb VRAM....</strong><hr></blockquote>



    All but Orphaning? C'mon Jonathan. is it really that bad for you? Even on my G4 400 it is not that bad. It is not a speed demon, but it is more than just usable, it works, it works well, if a bit slower than I would like. The nice part is though, I now have an excuse to buy a new Video card!
  • Reply 22 of 191
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>



    Class Action won't work. Apple never promised you blazing Video Performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I was making a reference to the existing class action being taken against Apple who appear to have promised suport for G3 onwards in adverts for OS X. But this statement is confirmation of the SUBSEQUENT statement on the Apple web site that they were not looking to support older video cards. I have shortened this quite a lot, I am not going to type out the whole issue verbatum.
  • Reply 23 of 191
    doobdoob Posts: 4member
    Absolutely appauling! I am disgusted with Apple! I mean they can't even support there current users with this Quartz Extreme thing! Not going to make X on my brand new iBook any faster, it's ridiculous! there is no reason a UI needs to be a sluggish as OSX's is, where has their design ethic gone?!! Was going to sacrifice working the way I want to work in 9, just for a little stability... but i think I'll continue to put up with the crashes, thankyou very much, at least i can use 9 without getting so frustrated i want to kick the proverbial out of it. well done Apple. lots of whizzy new things, but the user experience is still crap... beginning to sound alot like another OS manufacturer we all know and &lt;i&gt;love&lt;/i&gt;...
  • Reply 24 of 191
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    Ummmm. what about the previous powerbooks? My 667 ti, less than 2 months old can't use this? You've got to be kidding me Absolutely ridiculous. Not only have all G3 users been left in the dust, a ton of others have too.
  • Reply 25 of 191
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    [quote]Originally posted by doob:

    <strong>Absolutely appauling! I am disgusted with Apple! I mean they can't even support there current users with this Quartz Extreme thing! Not going to make X on my brand new iBook any faster, it's ridiculous! there is no reason a UI needs to be a sluggish as OSX's is, where has their design ethic gone?!! Was going to sacrifice working the way I want to work in 9, just for a little stability... but i think I'll continue to put up with the crashes, thankyou very much, at least i can use 9 without getting so frustrated i want to kick the proverbial out of it. well done Apple. lots of whizzy new things, but the user experience is still crap... beginning to sound alot like another OS manufacturer we all know and &lt;i&gt;love&lt;/i&gt;...</strong><hr></blockquote>





    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Histrionics Extreme!
  • Reply 25 of 191
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    It seems odd that quartz acceleration will be restricted to AGP 2X or better. The multi-card set-up is fairly common in the high-end worlds of mac based video editing, graphic design, and publishing.



    I wonder if AGP is actually neccessary (cause it can write directly to memory?) or if was just Apple's way of drawing the line on standard configs that would be able to support these features?



    I would think that a fast card with 32-64MB and the neccessary level of OpenGl compliance would probably be able to do the same OpenGL feats as an AGP card.



    Maybe all of the originally spec'd PCI cards aren't quartz extreme compatible in their own right (regardless of AGP) and this was a nice way to make the distinction clear? Then again, maybe not: maybe AGP is specifically needed (anybody who understands this stuff care to venture why?). If that's strictly the case, it' still not so bad. You can get two CinemaHD's running off one AGP slot. Do you really need more real-estate than that.



    Ok, so that's an insanely expensive set-up, but evenif you've got a hybrid AGP/PCI dual video set-up, you can put your best and biggest display on the AGP and lesser stuff on the PCI. How much accceleration do you need for platelettes?





    BTW,



    Is anyone here now going to buy an iBook unless it gets updated first?
  • Reply 27 of 191
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    From Apple's preview page, it doesn't look like 32MB is required, just "recommended for optimum performance."
  • Reply 28 of 191
    scott f.scott f. Posts: 276member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>Ok, so that's an insanely expensive set-up, but evenif you've got a hybrid AGP/PCI dual video set-up, you can put your best and biggest display on the AGP and lesser stuff on the PCI. How much accceleration do you need for platelettes?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I use both displays to their fullest... both are 19" flat CRTs running at 1600 x 1200 and in some cases running Lightwave modeler in one and Layout in the other... or Pshop in one w/ Illustrator in the other...



    FCP uses BOTH displays... and I was on the verge of adding a 3rd just for video preview trough the accellerated Matrox RT-Mac.
  • Reply 29 of 191
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    You may be fvcked then.



    What would be a technical reason why PCI couldn't work? I would think that a Radeon or 2/4MX or better would be good enough on any bus as long as it had enough memory not to have to write back to main memory all the time.



    Are there other issues? I don't know anything about this stuff, someone please esplain it to me.
  • Reply 30 of 191
    macommentarymacommentary Posts: 196member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>You're telling me that the UI requires more horsepower than most FPSs require?



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    meet OSX
  • Reply 31 of 191
    x704x704 Posts: 276member
    [quote]Originally posted by deliverator:

    <strong>I see that I will need to replace my video card in my dp/450. I can't seem to find out if it is agp 2x or not though. Anyone know?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Any G4 450Mhz or higher that shipped that way from Apple are AGP. Most G4 400's are too (although some are not)
  • Reply 32 of 191
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    [quote]Originally posted by torifile:

    <strong>Ummmm. what about the previous powerbooks? My 667 ti, less than 2 months old can't use this? You've got to be kidding me Absolutely ridiculous. Not only have all G3 users been left in the dust, a ton of others have too.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You have my sympathy here. Apple should have upgraded these well in advance of this anouncement. It just isn't professional for someone to buy the TOP of the range Powerbook to find that it isn't supported by software after 2 months. The decision to use open GL for acceleration would have been taken a LONG time ago, all machines should have been upgraded as soon as that decision was made. It stinks and Apple would do well not to chese off it's supporters.
  • Reply 33 of 191
    It says on there demo page that all ATI radeon agp cards supported,

    32mb reccommended,



    I'm taking that as my Ti 550 mhz Radeon mobility is supported.



    I bloody hope so!!!!!

    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 34 of 191
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by Addison:

    <strong>



    You have my sympathy here. Apple should have upgraded these well in advance of this anouncement. It just isn't professional for someone to buy the TOP of the range Powerbook to find that it isn't supported by software after 2 months. The decision to use open GL for acceleration would have been taken a LONG time ago, all machines should have been upgraded as soon as that decision was made. It stinks and Apple would do well not to chese off it's supporters.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, upon further examination of the announcement, it looks like either SJ is wrong or the published docs on apple's site are incorrect. It says that any ATI Radeon card is supported, but 32 megs is for optimal performance. Both the 550 and 667 (previous incarnations of the TiBook) have radeon cards w/ 4X AGP graphics. They do only have 16 megs of VRAM, but that's ok as long as I can see SOME benefit from it. Still sucks for others, though.
  • Reply 35 of 191
    Are there real techincal problems with getting this stuff to work over PCI Video card, or is Apple simply saying what they will and will not support?



    Can we expect a hack to allow PCI Radeon and Radeon 7000 cards to work?
  • Reply 36 of 191
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>It seems odd that quartz acceleration will be restricted to AGP 2X or better. The multi-card set-up is fairly common in the high-end worlds of mac based video editing, graphic design, and publishing.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, at least nowadays, the multi-head-on-a-card thing seems to be the preferred way of doing multi-screen setups anyway.





    [quote]<strong>

    I wonder if AGP is actually neccessary (cause it can write directly to memory?) or if was just Apple's way of drawing the line on standard configs that would be able to support these features?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think the former is correct.

    Being able to directly access a part of the system RAM was the killer advantage AGP offered over PCI when it was first introduced (PCI32/66 or 64/33 both offered the same bandwidth as AGP1x). As far as I understand, all the windows in OS X get rendered to an off-screen buffer in system RAM first, and the graphics chip can only directly access that buffer over AGP, not over PCI.





    [quote]<strong>Is anyone here now going to buy an iBook unless it gets updated first?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Agreed, the iBooks' popularity probably hasn't exactly increased after those announcements...



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 37 of 191
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by Arty50:

    <strong>OK so what happens if you have a dual monitor setup that runs through a PCI card (say a Radeon). Your main display gets hardware acceleration and you secondary gets umm...uhhhh...anyone see the problem here?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is not really a problem. in fact, this is exactly how it works for 2D and video acceleration in OS9 and Windows. Different cards can (and do) accelerate different sets of functions, and both only provide their specific sets on the screen(s) they are connected to, respectively.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 38 of 191
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    All the graphics card supporting Quartz extreme are listed on the Apple site : nVidia: GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX. ATI: any AGP Radeon card. 32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance.
  • Reply 39 of 191
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    c'mon apple, this is a piece of cr*p. are they saying this will be standard? correct me if im wrong, but does this mean my cube is unsupported under osx?
  • Reply 40 of 191
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    torifile,



    don't get too excited yet.



    the radeon mobility lacks hardware T&L. All the supported cards have hardware T&L. The new radeon 7500 mobility has it. we may be getting screwed here if that's what make the difference
Sign In or Register to comment.