They were not announced then because they didn't need to announce them then. Apple finally woke up and realized they do not need a big hoopla for every little thing. The fact that this is a small bump would have taken lines of text in press reviews of the show away from the iMac.
Uh, no. Don't believe me? Then ask John Carmack. Mhz does matter for games. If it didn't then the huge fps discrepancies between Macs and PCs for UT and Q3 wouldn't exist.
[well written argument snipped since I agree with most of it]
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is another factor, possibly a major one, other than raw MHz. Most of these games were written on the PC and optimized to take advantage of all the speed tricks that could be squeezed out of the x86 architecture. In porting to the Mac, we don't know how much PowerPC optimization they did (if any). I suspect Quake and UT would scream on a G4 is they had been written from scratch to take advantage of AltiVec.
So, yes, current Mac hardware runs x86 native games more slowly, and MHz and memory bandwidth certainly don't help. But programming quality makes a big difference, too. The bottom line is still poorer performance on the Mac, which is enormously frustrating.
For Quake 3 to take advantage of altivec, the engine would have had to be totally remade, would they do this for a specfifc x86 processor? no.
Also, with games, the G4s a much more steady with their fps. Changing the resolution I've found doesn't make much of a difference to a macs performance, i.e 5fps difference, but on PCs, like my mates 2Ghz P4 with GF3 drops BADLY. Hell, my iMac 233Mhz rev.a runs runs Quake 3 faster with some settings turned higher than off, and it can do 28fps on 640x480 on with 5 players, not bad at all I say.
Also, my mates P4 2Ghz with a GeForce3 rips through games like no-ones business, he gets 100fps stable with 1152xsomething resolution (I've forgotten height) EVERYTHING max, all players in room at once etc. But because of the display that comes with his PC, he only 'sees' up to 70fps, it also has a bad 'chopping' effect. He got this PC for £1900, with 512MB RDRAM, but its crashed, on little things, not processor intensive tasks, the mac doesn't.
On the speed bump agenda, I will be very dissapointed if they do this quietly and don't release G5s in the Tokyo Expo. I mean hell, they've had 2 whole years developing the DAMN thing, and a couple of months of production time too.
The main reason why people are expecting high clock rates with the G5 is because it is a much BETTER chip than the G4, this is a FACT. The G4 is just a souped up G3, no more, no less. If 1Ghz G4s come out, I would think they would be apollos, but it makes sense to have separate processors for different models. The apollos are themselves based on the G5s, they are the so called '32bit versions' of the G5 that people have been banging on about.
If motorola don't bring out proper pro models out soon, ie G5s in MW Tokyo, then Apple will begin to topple. The few faithful to the mac platform won't be enough to keep Apple afloat. Motorola better get off their a$$ and do something soon, or I dread to think what could happen.
<strong>For Quake 3 to take advantage of altivec, the engine would have had to be totally remade, would they do this for a specfifc x86 processor? no.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true -- existing engines could have AltiVec support retrofitted into them as key optimizations. The matrix & vector math is a prime candidate for this kind of optimization. It is done on the x86 as well to add MMX, 3DNow! and SSE support to existing games. AltiVec is in fact the easiest to add because of the extensions available in the C/C++ compilers so that AltiVec code can be written in a high level language -- something simply not possible in the x86 variants.
BTW: running better at higher resolutions is only a factor of the graphics card. The CPU doesn't have to do any more work. If the CPU is the thing holding the framerate down, however, then you won't notice a change if you increase the resolution (causing the graphics chip to work harder). Things get a little confused if the graphics card falls behind and the CPU starts having to wait for it, but in general it holds.
The point about having 100+ FPS is not that you can see those 100FPS, but that you never drop below a certain FPS level, currently 60-80 FPS are the lowest level Pro PC gamers want a game to drop to.
The human eye aparently can't recognize more than about 75FPS anyway, so if you had an engine that put out constant 75FPS with no varying at all, it would be as good as any other engine topping out at 500FPS or whatever you like.
Last but not least, even if you get 300 FPs in Quake 3, there is currently no screen I know of that supports more than 160Hz refresh rate, so you see 160FPS, of which you realize maybe 75 and need 25-30 to be able to play.
Do the last couple of posts mean there is some logic behind at least a few of the points I tried to make earlier? I certainly hope so. The truth is finally starting to spread around... and brace yourselves, great news are coming. Soon.
I disagree, about 25 fps being ok for gaming. When my system drops to the 20s things begin to get choppy, and aiming with weapons like the rail gun is difficult.
But thankfully, someone set the record straight on the importance of the CPU in gaming:
[quote] There is another factor, possibly a major one, other than raw MHz. Most of these games were written on the PC and optimized to take advantage of all the speed tricks that could be squeezed out of the x86 architecture. In porting to the Mac, we don't know how much PowerPC optimization they did (if any). I suspect Quake and UT would scream on a G4 is they had been written from scratch to take advantage of AltiVec.
<hr></blockquote>
However, this is not true of Altivec, nor of the PPC.
Id is one of the only gaming companies I can think of that actually makes their own PPC port (they don't farm it out to some other company). Carmack and Devine (both Id employees) both worked on the Mac port, and Mr. Devine is an ardent Mac user, a true Mac fan. He has spent time optimizing Quake 3 for the PPC, and I think it shows because Quake performs well on a Mac, much better IMHO than UT.
But with respect to Altivec, it doesn't help in quake. Devine made an announcement that he was optimizing Quake for Altivec, but nothing ever came of it. Later, we found out why: Carmack made a post at slashdot explaining that Altivec didn't add to Quake's performance on the G4, because of the sorts of calculations required.
But at least Id has optimized Quake for dual processor Macs. If more games were optimized for dualies, then Macs would be a viable gaming platform for sure.
True, anyone serious about games buys a Wintel, because they are cheaper and better at games than Macs. The reason for Macs to be good at gaming isn't to beat Wintels, it's to satisfy those customers who are casual gamers. For instance, I want to be able to play Quake 3 on my Mac from time to time, but my main use of the Mac is for writing, data analysis, graphic arts (making diagrams and drawings), and creating presentations. I don't need a great gaming machine, but I want a computer that plays Quake well..and if Macs couldn't play games at all, then I would have thought twice about buying one. It's nice to take a 20 minute break now and then to frag someone! Luckily I think Apple understands the needs of people like me, and that's why we've seen cards like the Radeon, and the GeForce 3 for the Mac. Even the new iMac has a decent gpu chipset, the GeForce 2MX with DDR RAM (the GeForce 2 MX in the powermacs use SDR RAM, much slower).
But about the rumors of a 133 MHz speed bump....if this occurs then it can only mean that no new processors will be ready before MWNY. It also suggests to me that Apple is devoting all of the Powermac R&D towards a new powermac, and that this update would serve only to bridge the time between now and MWNY, and also so that Apple can introduce a G5 low end machine at 1 GHz. Remember the last iMac update prior to the G4 iMac? It was pathetic, just like this rumored powermac update. I suppose that's one way to put a positive spin on this rumor...but if we must wait until MWNY for G5 powermacs, then they had better be damn fast. At the very least, MWNY should bring:
Powermac G5
GHz
1.4
1.6
1.8
Dual 1.8 or 1.6.
Apple can round out the low end of the Pro desktops by keeping the Powermac G4s clocked around 1.0 and 1.2 GHz.
This is serious. Already there will be a mass defection to Wintel if Apple hoists such a pathetic speed bump on us. Professionals are restless for more speed, and with the OS X transition forcing them to buy new software, now is a great time to just buy all new Windows software, and buy a 2.5 GHz Wintel this summer that gets work done faster than any Powermac available.
What a sad day for Apple if they cannot deliver on the G5. They have all their sh!t together with software, hardware design, everything....and all is lost because Motorola cannot manufacture a contemporary CPU. I really feel sorry for the people at Apple who bust their asses to make Macs the best computers in the world, only to be undermined by Motorola, who don't give a rat's ass about Macs.
News is begging to flood the net of this DP 1Ghz top PM. Looks like things are going to get ugly. And its all Motorollas fault. Apple needs to do something now, anything.
They were not announced then because they didn't need to announce them then. Apple finally woke up and realized they do not need a big hoopla for every little thing. The fact that this is a small bump would have taken lines of text in press reviews of the show away from the iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree, the towers are a big thing for Apple. Steve like to unviel new stuff and get appluase.
There is no applause for this lame speed bump. The towers have never been quietly updated. There's more to it. Apple is buying time for the G5 or a major speed bump/mobo revision that simply isn't ready yet.
This is all too much. I cant wait until next week. Speculation has now boiled to a high in which the majority feel that the new line of PM's will be 800,933, and DP 1 Ghz.
Nothing is ugly about a DP 1 Ghz IMHO.
At compusa they have a banner over top of the DP 800 which proclaims, "Fastest computer in the store."
I disagree, the towers are a big thing for Apple. Steve like to unviel new stuff and get appluase.
There is no applause for this lame speed bump. The towers have never been quietly updated. There's more to it. Apple is buying time for the G5 or a major speed bump/mobo revision that simply isn't ready yet <hr></blockquote>
I agree with Kid Red. Steve Jobs is an attention slut, he never misses an opportunity for applause unless there is a very good reason. I think he knows that standing up on a stage and presenting the new 1 GHz Powermacs will more likely get shoes thrown at him than applause.
But a cheesy speed bump of 133 MHz on the Powermacs would be quick, easy, and cost Apple nothing in terms of R&D. Just fill the CPU bin at the assembly line with the faster processors, and solder the bus multiplier in a different pattern. Easier than chicken sh!t through a tin funnel.
Then at MWNY, we get entirely new Powermacs. New mobos, new CPUs (G5s), new case, everything. The case will address every single shortcoming of the current towers, while keeping the best attributes. Front USB/FW ports, extra optical drive bay, top made for stacking peripherals, it will rock harder than any other computer tower case in existence.
If the register's and Architosh's reports are true, then the G5 powermac prototypes have been being field tested for about 6 months already. MWNY is more than enough time to complete testing and build enough G5 powermacs so that Jobs can announce "immediate availability". MWNY is also far enough away that it gives Motorola time to scale the G5s. Reports indicate that 1.4-1.6 GHz are the highest speeds that can be reliably fabbed, but this is back in December, by the time MWNY comes around, Moto should be able to push the G5s up to 1.8, maybe even 2.0 GHz. Then the GHz gap really will be closed.
Apple needs to realize that if the GHz gap grows too wide, then they are doomed. No matter how cool and amazing OS X is, no matter how awesome OS X apps are compared to their Windows counterparts, none of this will matter if Macs are considerably slower than Wintels in everyday use. Unless there is an abrupt change in PPC development trends, Apple is essentially looking down the double barrels of a fully loaded shotgun, and Motorola has got their finger on the trigger. All Moto has to do is pull the trigger until we hear Apple's stock implode on itself, until we hear the sound of consumers laughing at Macs because of their obsolete hardware...until we hear the ravings of a lunatic, Steve Jobs pushed over the edge, his mental stability disintegrating in public before our very eyes. Ranting about two brains being better than one, about the astounding speed a Powermac can run a handful of filters in Photoshop, about how the dual 1.2 GHz Powermac G4 REALLY is three times as fast as a 3.5 GHz Pentium 4.
[quote]This is serious. Already there will be a mass defection to Wintel if Apple hoists such a pathetic speed bump on us. Professionals are restless for more speed.<hr></blockquote>
Is there any actual evidence of this, or are people simply projecting their own frustrations? Has some Mac site posted a "Will you jump to Wintel if Apple doesn't release a >Ghz machine?" poll? Have designers somewhere issued an ultimatum?
I understand why people are frustrated by this situation, but this stock portent of doom is getting tiring. I don't doubt some users will move to Wintel--there's probably a small amount of movement between the platforms at any given time--but all this talk of "mass defections" strikes me as a little hysterical.
<strong>But with respect to Altivec, it doesn't help in quake. Devine made an announcement that he was optimizing Quake for Altivec, but nothing ever came of it. Later, we found out why: Carmack made a post at slashdot explaining that Altivec didn't add to Quake's performance on the G4, because of the sorts of calculations required. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have a link to this .plan file? If AltiVec didn't help then it must be because they are already memory bound, which wouldn't surprise me because the Quake engine isn't very smart about how it uses memory.
As for mass defections, I don't think it'll happen overnight but the current PowerMacs aren't currently a very good value. This will contribute to the gradual erosion of market share, and it won't inspire current Mac owners to replace their existing machines. Apple does need a powerful high end machine, there should be no doubt about that!
As for the speed of Aqua on MacOSX vs the speed of XP's interface... Windows has had effective graphics hardware acceleration of the GUI since Win95 arrived. Apple has never had a good architecture for accelerating the GUI, and Aqua's massive use of translucency and animation just makes this much worse. They rely too heavily on the CPU, something that I personally find unforgivable in this day-and-age of hardware accelerated graphics. From day 1 the Aqua interface should have been based on OpenGL in order to leverage the power of these 3D accelerators (and would have forced the Rage2/Pro issue out into the open much much sooner). Sure AltiVec can optimize all those fancy draws, but so can OpenGL and then the processor isn't tied up pushing pixels around. I continue to hope that the next version of OSX will do this and all the complaints about the interface's speed will evaporate. If games can run at high frame rates in high resolutions, why the hell can't the graphics guys at Apple make some goofy little anims run at a decent pace? Shameful.
As for the speed of Aqua on MacOSX vs the speed of XP's interface... Windows has had effective graphics hardware acceleration of the GUI since Win95 arrived. Apple has never had a good architecture for accelerating the GUI, and Aqua's massive use of translucency and animation just makes this much worse. They rely too heavily on the CPU, something that I personally find unforgivable in this day-and-age of hardware accelerated graphics. From day 1 the Aqua interface should have been based on OpenGL in order to leverage the power of these 3D accelerators (and would have forced the Rage2/Pro issue out into the open much much sooner). Sure AltiVec can optimize all those fancy draws, but so can OpenGL and then the processor isn't tied up pushing pixels around. I continue to hope that the next version of OSX will do this and all the complaints about the interface's speed will evaporate. If games can run at high frame rates in high resolutions, why the hell can't the graphics guys at Apple make some goofy little anims run at a decent pace? Shameful.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quartz and its PDF-based nature doesn't lend itself to OpenGL hardware acceleration.
I think the idea was to have made a GUI that did translate well into OpenGL. It makes sense to me too. I think Quartz is one of the most amazing aspects of OS X, but the inability to accelerate it kills its usefulness. If nothing changes, 2 years from now all machines will run it fine (assuming Apple doesn't bog it down) but hopefully they have improved this for 10.2.
Quartz and its PDF-based nature doesn't lend itself to OpenGL hardware acceleration.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bah, I don't believe that -- anything can be broken down into triangles, and modern hardware can spit out millions per second. 2D scrolling text is not exactly ideal OpenGL content either, and yet the fastest terminal program on OSX is OpenGL based. At worst Apple could define a few addition driver entry points to support the GUI acceleration.
What, in particular, makes the PDF nature of Quartz a problem for OpenGL?
Comments
They were not announced then because they didn't need to announce them then. Apple finally woke up and realized they do not need a big hoopla for every little thing. The fact that this is a small bump would have taken lines of text in press reviews of the show away from the iMac.
<strong>
Uh, no. Don't believe me? Then ask John Carmack. Mhz does matter for games. If it didn't then the huge fps discrepancies between Macs and PCs for UT and Q3 wouldn't exist.
[well written argument snipped since I agree with most of it]
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is another factor, possibly a major one, other than raw MHz. Most of these games were written on the PC and optimized to take advantage of all the speed tricks that could be squeezed out of the x86 architecture. In porting to the Mac, we don't know how much PowerPC optimization they did (if any). I suspect Quake and UT would scream on a G4 is they had been written from scratch to take advantage of AltiVec.
So, yes, current Mac hardware runs x86 native games more slowly, and MHz and memory bandwidth certainly don't help. But programming quality makes a big difference, too. The bottom line is still poorer performance on the Mac, which is enormously frustrating.
Also, with games, the G4s a much more steady with their fps. Changing the resolution I've found doesn't make much of a difference to a macs performance, i.e 5fps difference, but on PCs, like my mates 2Ghz P4 with GF3 drops BADLY. Hell, my iMac 233Mhz rev.a runs runs Quake 3 faster with some settings turned higher than off, and it can do 28fps on 640x480 on with 5 players, not bad at all I say.
Also, my mates P4 2Ghz with a GeForce3 rips through games like no-ones business, he gets 100fps stable with 1152xsomething resolution (I've forgotten height) EVERYTHING max, all players in room at once etc. But because of the display that comes with his PC, he only 'sees' up to 70fps, it also has a bad 'chopping' effect. He got this PC for £1900, with 512MB RDRAM, but its crashed, on little things, not processor intensive tasks, the mac doesn't.
On the speed bump agenda, I will be very dissapointed if they do this quietly and don't release G5s in the Tokyo Expo. I mean hell, they've had 2 whole years developing the DAMN thing, and a couple of months of production time too.
The main reason why people are expecting high clock rates with the G5 is because it is a much BETTER chip than the G4, this is a FACT. The G4 is just a souped up G3, no more, no less. If 1Ghz G4s come out, I would think they would be apollos, but it makes sense to have separate processors for different models. The apollos are themselves based on the G5s, they are the so called '32bit versions' of the G5 that people have been banging on about.
If motorola don't bring out proper pro models out soon, ie G5s in MW Tokyo, then Apple will begin to topple. The few faithful to the mac platform won't be enough to keep Apple afloat. Motorola better get off their a$$ and do something soon, or I dread to think what could happen.
<strong>For Quake 3 to take advantage of altivec, the engine would have had to be totally remade, would they do this for a specfifc x86 processor? no.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true -- existing engines could have AltiVec support retrofitted into them as key optimizations. The matrix & vector math is a prime candidate for this kind of optimization. It is done on the x86 as well to add MMX, 3DNow! and SSE support to existing games. AltiVec is in fact the easiest to add because of the extensions available in the C/C++ compilers so that AltiVec code can be written in a high level language -- something simply not possible in the x86 variants.
BTW: running better at higher resolutions is only a factor of the graphics card. The CPU doesn't have to do any more work. If the CPU is the thing holding the framerate down, however, then you won't notice a change if you increase the resolution (causing the graphics chip to work harder). Things get a little confused if the graphics card falls behind and the CPU starts having to wait for it, but in general it holds.
The human eye aparently can't recognize more than about 75FPS anyway, so if you had an engine that put out constant 75FPS with no varying at all, it would be as good as any other engine topping out at 500FPS or whatever you like.
Last but not least, even if you get 300 FPs in Quake 3, there is currently no screen I know of that supports more than 160Hz refresh rate, so you see 160FPS, of which you realize maybe 75 and need 25-30 to be able to play.
The machine rarely matters, see the sig.
G-News
<Edit: korrected zpelyng>
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Bill M ]</p>
But thankfully, someone set the record straight on the importance of the CPU in gaming:
[quote] There is another factor, possibly a major one, other than raw MHz. Most of these games were written on the PC and optimized to take advantage of all the speed tricks that could be squeezed out of the x86 architecture. In porting to the Mac, we don't know how much PowerPC optimization they did (if any). I suspect Quake and UT would scream on a G4 is they had been written from scratch to take advantage of AltiVec.
<hr></blockquote>
However, this is not true of Altivec, nor of the PPC.
Id is one of the only gaming companies I can think of that actually makes their own PPC port (they don't farm it out to some other company). Carmack and Devine (both Id employees) both worked on the Mac port, and Mr. Devine is an ardent Mac user, a true Mac fan. He has spent time optimizing Quake 3 for the PPC, and I think it shows because Quake performs well on a Mac, much better IMHO than UT.
But with respect to Altivec, it doesn't help in quake. Devine made an announcement that he was optimizing Quake for Altivec, but nothing ever came of it. Later, we found out why: Carmack made a post at slashdot explaining that Altivec didn't add to Quake's performance on the G4, because of the sorts of calculations required.
But at least Id has optimized Quake for dual processor Macs. If more games were optimized for dualies, then Macs would be a viable gaming platform for sure.
True, anyone serious about games buys a Wintel, because they are cheaper and better at games than Macs. The reason for Macs to be good at gaming isn't to beat Wintels, it's to satisfy those customers who are casual gamers. For instance, I want to be able to play Quake 3 on my Mac from time to time, but my main use of the Mac is for writing, data analysis, graphic arts (making diagrams and drawings), and creating presentations. I don't need a great gaming machine, but I want a computer that plays Quake well..and if Macs couldn't play games at all, then I would have thought twice about buying one. It's nice to take a 20 minute break now and then to frag someone! Luckily I think Apple understands the needs of people like me, and that's why we've seen cards like the Radeon, and the GeForce 3 for the Mac. Even the new iMac has a decent gpu chipset, the GeForce 2MX with DDR RAM (the GeForce 2 MX in the powermacs use SDR RAM, much slower).
But about the rumors of a 133 MHz speed bump....if this occurs then it can only mean that no new processors will be ready before MWNY. It also suggests to me that Apple is devoting all of the Powermac R&D towards a new powermac, and that this update would serve only to bridge the time between now and MWNY, and also so that Apple can introduce a G5 low end machine at 1 GHz. Remember the last iMac update prior to the G4 iMac? It was pathetic, just like this rumored powermac update. I suppose that's one way to put a positive spin on this rumor...but if we must wait until MWNY for G5 powermacs, then they had better be damn fast. At the very least, MWNY should bring:
Powermac G5
GHz
1.4
1.6
1.8
Dual 1.8 or 1.6.
Apple can round out the low end of the Pro desktops by keeping the Powermac G4s clocked around 1.0 and 1.2 GHz.
This is serious. Already there will be a mass defection to Wintel if Apple hoists such a pathetic speed bump on us. Professionals are restless for more speed, and with the OS X transition forcing them to buy new software, now is a great time to just buy all new Windows software, and buy a 2.5 GHz Wintel this summer that gets work done faster than any Powermac available.
What a sad day for Apple if they cannot deliver on the G5. They have all their sh!t together with software, hardware design, everything....and all is lost because Motorola cannot manufacture a contemporary CPU. I really feel sorry for the people at Apple who bust their asses to make Macs the best computers in the world, only to be undermined by Motorola, who don't give a rat's ass about Macs.
<strong>KidRed -
They were not announced then because they didn't need to announce them then. Apple finally woke up and realized they do not need a big hoopla for every little thing. The fact that this is a small bump would have taken lines of text in press reviews of the show away from the iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree, the towers are a big thing for Apple. Steve like to unviel new stuff and get appluase.
There is no applause for this lame speed bump. The towers have never been quietly updated. There's more to it. Apple is buying time for the G5 or a major speed bump/mobo revision that simply isn't ready yet.
Nothing is ugly about a DP 1 Ghz IMHO.
At compusa they have a banner over top of the DP 800 which proclaims, "Fastest computer in the store."
There's also a sign at Disneyland that says
"Happiest Place on Earth." Whats your point?
I disagree, the towers are a big thing for Apple. Steve like to unviel new stuff and get appluase.
There is no applause for this lame speed bump. The towers have never been quietly updated. There's more to it. Apple is buying time for the G5 or a major speed bump/mobo revision that simply isn't ready yet <hr></blockquote>
I agree with Kid Red. Steve Jobs is an attention slut, he never misses an opportunity for applause unless there is a very good reason. I think he knows that standing up on a stage and presenting the new 1 GHz Powermacs will more likely get shoes thrown at him than applause.
But a cheesy speed bump of 133 MHz on the Powermacs would be quick, easy, and cost Apple nothing in terms of R&D. Just fill the CPU bin at the assembly line with the faster processors, and solder the bus multiplier in a different pattern. Easier than chicken sh!t through a tin funnel.
Then at MWNY, we get entirely new Powermacs. New mobos, new CPUs (G5s), new case, everything. The case will address every single shortcoming of the current towers, while keeping the best attributes. Front USB/FW ports, extra optical drive bay, top made for stacking peripherals, it will rock harder than any other computer tower case in existence.
If the register's and Architosh's reports are true, then the G5 powermac prototypes have been being field tested for about 6 months already. MWNY is more than enough time to complete testing and build enough G5 powermacs so that Jobs can announce "immediate availability". MWNY is also far enough away that it gives Motorola time to scale the G5s. Reports indicate that 1.4-1.6 GHz are the highest speeds that can be reliably fabbed, but this is back in December, by the time MWNY comes around, Moto should be able to push the G5s up to 1.8, maybe even 2.0 GHz. Then the GHz gap really will be closed.
Apple needs to realize that if the GHz gap grows too wide, then they are doomed. No matter how cool and amazing OS X is, no matter how awesome OS X apps are compared to their Windows counterparts, none of this will matter if Macs are considerably slower than Wintels in everyday use. Unless there is an abrupt change in PPC development trends, Apple is essentially looking down the double barrels of a fully loaded shotgun, and Motorola has got their finger on the trigger. All Moto has to do is pull the trigger until we hear Apple's stock implode on itself, until we hear the sound of consumers laughing at Macs because of their obsolete hardware...until we hear the ravings of a lunatic, Steve Jobs pushed over the edge, his mental stability disintegrating in public before our very eyes. Ranting about two brains being better than one, about the astounding speed a Powermac can run a handful of filters in Photoshop, about how the dual 1.2 GHz Powermac G4 REALLY is three times as fast as a 3.5 GHz Pentium 4.
Really, it is!
Is there any actual evidence of this, or are people simply projecting their own frustrations? Has some Mac site posted a "Will you jump to Wintel if Apple doesn't release a >Ghz machine?" poll? Have designers somewhere issued an ultimatum?
I understand why people are frustrated by this situation, but this stock portent of doom is getting tiring. I don't doubt some users will move to Wintel--there's probably a small amount of movement between the platforms at any given time--but all this talk of "mass defections" strikes me as a little hysterical.
<strong>But with respect to Altivec, it doesn't help in quake. Devine made an announcement that he was optimizing Quake for Altivec, but nothing ever came of it. Later, we found out why: Carmack made a post at slashdot explaining that Altivec didn't add to Quake's performance on the G4, because of the sorts of calculations required. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have a link to this .plan file? If AltiVec didn't help then it must be because they are already memory bound, which wouldn't surprise me because the Quake engine isn't very smart about how it uses memory.
As for mass defections, I don't think it'll happen overnight but the current PowerMacs aren't currently a very good value. This will contribute to the gradual erosion of market share, and it won't inspire current Mac owners to replace their existing machines. Apple does need a powerful high end machine, there should be no doubt about that!
As for the speed of Aqua on MacOSX vs the speed of XP's interface... Windows has had effective graphics hardware acceleration of the GUI since Win95 arrived. Apple has never had a good architecture for accelerating the GUI, and Aqua's massive use of translucency and animation just makes this much worse. They rely too heavily on the CPU, something that I personally find unforgivable in this day-and-age of hardware accelerated graphics. From day 1 the Aqua interface should have been based on OpenGL in order to leverage the power of these 3D accelerators (and would have forced the Rage2/Pro issue out into the open much much sooner). Sure AltiVec can optimize all those fancy draws, but so can OpenGL and then the processor isn't tied up pushing pixels around. I continue to hope that the next version of OSX will do this and all the complaints about the interface's speed will evaporate. If games can run at high frame rates in high resolutions, why the hell can't the graphics guys at Apple make some goofy little anims run at a decent pace? Shameful.
<strong>
As for the speed of Aqua on MacOSX vs the speed of XP's interface... Windows has had effective graphics hardware acceleration of the GUI since Win95 arrived. Apple has never had a good architecture for accelerating the GUI, and Aqua's massive use of translucency and animation just makes this much worse. They rely too heavily on the CPU, something that I personally find unforgivable in this day-and-age of hardware accelerated graphics. From day 1 the Aqua interface should have been based on OpenGL in order to leverage the power of these 3D accelerators (and would have forced the Rage2/Pro issue out into the open much much sooner). Sure AltiVec can optimize all those fancy draws, but so can OpenGL and then the processor isn't tied up pushing pixels around. I continue to hope that the next version of OSX will do this and all the complaints about the interface's speed will evaporate. If games can run at high frame rates in high resolutions, why the hell can't the graphics guys at Apple make some goofy little anims run at a decent pace? Shameful.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quartz and its PDF-based nature doesn't lend itself to OpenGL hardware acceleration.
<strong>Is there any actual evidence of this, or are people simply projecting their own frustrations? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I find myself quoting a website this week which appears to be requiring a couple of fiber channel 8 - 12 disk RAIDs.
Dell makes such an animal--Apple does not.
Would I *rather* host this MySQL database on Apple hardware?
For sure.
I'd even pay Apple $35,000 for what Dell wants $28,000 for, but I don't have the option.
I will still run the Lasso code on OS X on a G4 (or three) but that's $35k isn't small beans.
Do I count as "mass defection" ?
No, but: there must be more people like me out there, right?
<strong>
Quartz and its PDF-based nature doesn't lend itself to OpenGL hardware acceleration.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bah, I don't believe that -- anything can be broken down into triangles, and modern hardware can spit out millions per second. 2D scrolling text is not exactly ideal OpenGL content either, and yet the fastest terminal program on OSX is OpenGL based. At worst Apple could define a few addition driver entry points to support the GUI acceleration.
What, in particular, makes the PDF nature of Quartz a problem for OpenGL?