the graphic card of the new i mac is better

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Ventral:

    <strong>You're welcome.



    I guess it is a lot more mature to complain about a company not supporting OGL on OSX for ancient hardware that nobody except whiners, malcontents and anal retentive freaks care about.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    sorry but an iBook 466 SE released in 2000 is not ancient hardware. and its not just whiners, malcontents, etc complaining. hundreds of people have flooded Apple's disccusion boards but all their posts have been deleted because Apple would prefer to just sweep this all under the carpet instead of dealing with it.



    when you come up with some better arguements you can speak but until then you are just making yourself look like an ass
  • Reply 62 of 116
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    How many times do we have to discuss this?



    ATI won't write the drivers.
  • Reply 63 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Fran441:

    <strong>How many times do we have to discuss this?



    ATI won't write the drivers.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    OS X= Apple

    iBook=Apple

    ATI= refers you to Apple



    what is so hard to understand here fran.



    did you go to ATI to get drivers for your Pismo when you installed OS X? no, they were part of the system.
  • Reply 64 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by Ventral:

    <strong>You're welcome.



    I guess it is a lot more mature to complain about a company not supporting OGL on OSX for ancient hardware that nobody except whiners, malcontents and anal retentive freaks care about.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple Apologist (TM)
  • Reply 65 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>Bah. Apple could write drivers. They don't care enought too. They could also refund moeny to people that got the bait and switch. But they wont. Because Apple is a shity company. I wont be buying hardware from a company that can't write a friggen graphics card driver for their own computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    In case you hadn't noticed, Microsoft isn't writing drivers for those chips under DirectX 8+ either. Nor are any of the vendors that shipped that chipset (and there were plenty). Nor is ATI.
  • Reply 66 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>



    Quake 3 was held back because it supports the rage pro graphic chipset :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh please, you're not holding up Quake3 as an example of sophisticated real-time graphics, are you? Its years old now. And I'm sure they had to specifically pay attention to those chipsets to make sure thay ran properly.
  • Reply 67 of 116
    John Carmack has stated that Doom 3 will not run on anything less than a Geeforce 3.



    The Geeforce 2, especially the bargin-basement MX is simply not powerful enough to handle it.





    Are you sure of this? Im pretty sure that I remember reading that the GF2 will be able tp play it, but most likely at 640/480 without the GF3 effects (wont look ANYTHING like the previous shots).
  • Reply 68 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>



    In case you hadn't noticed, Microsoft isn't writing drivers for those chips under DirectX 8+ either. Nor are any of the vendors that shipped that chipset (and there were plenty). Nor is ATI.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    so, say you're right, and the rage pro does not meet the strict requirements Apple has set for OpenGL on OS X.



    why did they string us along into thinking there would eventually be support. more importantly, why don't they say there are technical reasons. the tech note article stating there reasoning makes it seem much more like its just their decision not to support it than there being any technical reason.
  • Reply 69 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>

    why did they string us along into thinking there would eventually be support. more importantly, why don't they say there are technical reasons. the tech note article stating there reasoning makes it seem much more like its just their decision not to support it than there being any technical reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm just explaining their behaviour, not apologizing for them.
  • Reply 70 of 116
    what a loser. Save your lunch money and go buy a real computer and support the economy instead of crying in your milk about OGL support on tinkertoy dislpay chipsets that sucked when they were released years ago.



    You need a strong dose of reality, preferably at the blunt end of a baseball bat.
  • Reply 71 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>



    Oh please, you're not holding up Quake3 as an example of sophisticated real-time graphics, are you? Its years old now. And I'm sure they had to specifically pay attention to those chipsets to make sure thay ran properly.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    how do games that use OpenGL and are Carbon run fine in OS X on supported machines and run fine in OS 9 on these ATI chipsets if these chips don't meet Apple's OS X requirements for OpenGL?
  • Reply 72 of 116
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:

    <strong>John Carmack has stated that Doom 3 will not run on anything less than a Geeforce 3.



    The Geeforce 2, especially the bargin-basement MX is simply not powerful enough to handle it.





    Are you sure of this? Im pretty sure that I remember reading that the GF2 will be able tp play it, but most likely at 640/480 without the GF3 effects (wont look ANYTHING like the previous shots).</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Doom 3 will not appear before late 2002 and it would be the ultimate Power eater 3 D game. However J Cormack said also that this game will be scheduled to work with basic graphic card but whitthout all the special effects. Thats logical : can you sell a game that can only be runned by 5 % of the PC.



    Concerning the choice of the geforce 2Mx card for the I mac , i will make a comparison with easy PC (from IBM , compacq, HP ...) all this computers have a terrible video card and cost nearly the same prize that a new i mac. The IBM for example has a rage 128 ATI card ! In fact the only model of easy PC of big companies that is correct is the Packard bell with a geforce 400 mx card on a AGP slop.(in this case it's an advantage compared to the I mac).



    Third , for those who still think that a geforce 2 mx suck, this is the graphic chip choose for the nforce mobo. The nforce mobo is not a basic mobo , because it is the only mobo for Athlon that have the gestion of 128 bits DDR RAM (up to 4,2 GB/s of Memory bandwitch.
  • Reply 73 of 116
    x704x704 Posts: 276member
    This is funny. Apple puts in a graphics card that's 3-4x better then the old one & 15" LCD, G4 700, for $1299 and people still complain. This is a major improvment (although some (read Scott H) apparently can't see that). Sure there are things that Apple could do better but I think all round the new iMac is a great machine. The only thing I'd change is an upgradable AGP card. But I'm not in the market for one anyway ... so why cry over it?
  • Reply 74 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>



    how do games that use OpenGL and are Carbon run fine in OS X on supported machines and run fine in OS 9 on these ATI chipsets if these chips don't meet Apple's OS X requirements for OpenGL?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    There is a lot more to OpenGL than Quake, and there is a lot more coming to OpenGL than is in the current implementation. Those games that work on those chipsets are also coded specifically around their limitations, which is a painful process and is what OpenGL is supposed to insulate the apps from. OSX also has to support a lot more in terms of resource sharing between applications, and insulating the apps from the hardware. By hacking off the dead weight it makes it a lot easier going forward -- for both OpenGL itself, and the apps which use it.
  • Reply 75 of 116
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    In fact, Carmack has complained publically about vendors only implementing the "Quake subset" of OpenGL, which restricts his ability to try new things in subsequent games.



    So he's probably glad to see a fully compliant implementation, even if it does rule out a certain number of existing machines.
  • Reply 76 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>



    There is a lot more to OpenGL than Quake, and there is a lot more coming to OpenGL than is in the current implementation. Those games that work on those chipsets are also coded specifically around their limitations, which is a painful process and is what OpenGL is supposed to insulate the apps from. OSX also has to support a lot more in terms of resource sharing between applications, and insulating the apps from the hardware. By hacking off the dead weight it makes it a lot easier going forward -- for both OpenGL itself, and the apps which use it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't understand why this would lead Apple not to implement OpenGL though. It seems the only "problem" is that in some rare cases developers would have to make specific optimizations/changes to support that graphic chipset.



    and I say to that, so what. if they have done it in the past why can't apple just implement the driver for basic things to work like they did in the past. we all know new games simply are to demanding for them so why should we expect new OpenGL features and everything to work on it? We are asking for basic hardware acceleration and there is no reason basic acceleration can not be implemented.



    you're reasons also don't provide an xcuse as to why Apple won't write a Quicktime acceleration driver for these chipsets either. QT acceleration in the rage pro is identical to the rage 128. the radeon is the only one that is slightly different
  • Reply 77 of 116
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 78 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:

    <strong>Apple does not write the drivers. The OEM card supplier does as has been noted many times before. Until ATI writes the driver, which it looks like Apple is not forcing them to do, Apple cannot and won't verify it as an OEM driver. While ATI says talk to Apple, that is just an easy ruse to get folks off their back in a "technically" correct fashion, even though it really is their responsibility to provide code.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm not saying ATI does not write the drivers or aid in writing the drivers. But this is Apple's responsibility. They have a contract with ATI. If ATI is indeed the one who needs the write the drivers than Apple should be forcing them to. And don't tell me Apple also isn't responsible for driver updates because they are. Even ATI employees have said they work with Apple on driver updates and Apple makes their own changes.



    And what are we supposed to do? go to ATI for drivers for Apple's hardware? we didn't buy the chipset from ATI. We bought it from Apple.
  • Reply 79 of 116
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    There are some nice GeForce 2 MX vs. GeForce 3 comparisions on the web, plug the two into google and let the results roll on by.
  • Reply 80 of 116
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    The geforce 2 mx card of the I mac is not a basic version of this card.

    I find this specifications on the nvidia site : "Combining NVIDIAÂ?s award winning GeForce franchise with the new iMacs make for a uniquely powerful multimedia platform.Â* The GeForce2 MX delivers razor-sharp, crystal-clear 2D graphics and 3D graphics in full 32-bit color and also offers advanced 3D performance by delivering over 25 million sustained triangles per second and 800 million texels per second."

    the basic version of the geforce 2 mx deliver only 20 million sustained triangles per second and only 700 millions texels per second.
Sign In or Register to comment.