Mac OS X 10.3.7 build 7S214 improves graphics performance

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    Kickaha, as always, I appreciate your perspective. After reading your post, I agree that I'm demanding too much from a laptop when a Powermac is going to be needed for my projects. I'll deal with the limitations I have in my Powerbook and look forward to purchasing a new Powermac in the near future. Thanks for your insight.
  • Reply 22 of 38
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brian Green

    Kickaha, as always, I appreciate your perspective. After reading your post, I agree that I'm demanding too much from a laptop when a Powermac is going to be needed for my projects. I'll deal with the limitations I have in my Powerbook and look forward to purchasing a new Powermac in the near future. Thanks for your insight.



    You're welcome - on rereading I was afraid I came off as slamming you, which wasn't my intention. Thanks for not taking it that way.



    The video pros I know use the PB as a 'sketchbook' in the field - good for quick basic edits to get a feel for how things will go once back at the office, and to determine if further shoots need to be made while still onsite. Then, once back at the office, the fine detail (and more demanding) work is done.



    Still curious, since I'm looking at buying the entire Myst line once I finish my dissertation... *is* Myst Real a Classic app?
  • Reply 23 of 38
    Kickaha, REAL Myst doesn't need to be played in classic. I don't even have classic on my laptop. I would love to play it on a desktop someday. I'll bet it's awesome. Even at the 1024x768 resolution it's choppy as can be on my PB.



    The problem I ran into, as everyone else does at some point, is cash limitations in regard to getting a good laptop for extended field use. I use it for everything. I don't have a home computer because I have it, but I guess it's time to break the bank for a dual 2 GHz Powermac. I was just hoping that Apple hadn't gotten around to implimenting something on the GPU that would increase performance. Now that I see that won't be the case, I'll have to look at options and just use it for rough-cut work as you suggested earlier.



    When I'm out in the middle of nowhere, seeing desert from horizon to horizon, Myst is a welcome escape. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do, after you complete your dissertation naturally. 8)
  • Reply 24 of 38
    Even when you compare the dual 2.5s with the AMD 64 CPUs, the same graphics card doesn't do well with OpenGL games. Bus speed is a non-issue with those machines. I did read a few posts on the WoW message board where the developer states it was a bug in the implementation with OS-X drivers. But since Blizzard released the game and screwed their old message boards, I can't post a link where they specifically mention the issue. With Doom 3 coming out for the Mac, it will be intresting to see the results.
  • Reply 25 of 38
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    Quote:

    I am a pro user and I was using the game to make a point.



    Yeah sorry, I always get confused when people's stories change in the middle of a thread.
    Quote:

    While I do not work for CNN or some graphics company, I do enjoy making small movies for the family and the occasional game now and then when I'm bored.



  • Reply 26 of 38
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by talksense101

    Even when you compare the dual 2.5s with the AMD 64 CPUs, the same graphics card doesn't do well with OpenGL games. Bus speed is a non-issue with those machines. I did read a few posts on the WoW message board where the developer states it was a bug in the implementation with OS-X drivers. But since Blizzard released the game and screwed their old message boards, I can't post a link where they specifically mention the issue. With Doom 3 coming out for the Mac, it will be intresting to see the results.



    Indeed. No arguments from me that there are still issues in the drivers - only that they aren't the entire picture, especially on laptops.
  • Reply 27 of 38
    Kickaha, man, I'm glad there's non of that disputing stuff between us!!



    Just on an associated note - I'm often amazed at the amount of apps/peripherals which run flawlessly both simultaneously and on old hardware. I don't know if this is just a mac thing (I use a pc only for rendering and checking sites).



    Case in point - I have an Audiomedia III card from Digidesign (ca. 6 years old) running on a DP800 - quite an old combination, but have I ever had a driver/application issue with it? No. Same machine drives a wacom tablet, Microteck slide scanner, epson scanner and printer, zip drive - again, different vintages but with never a problem. Runs the most demanding, modern programs - albeit a little slowly - without a hitch. Will drive all of them simultaneously without a hitch if I need it.



    Anyone got experience of XP's multi-app/peripheral stability? I don't but I'm not sure I want to go there either.
  • Reply 28 of 38
    On a general note, I don't think we should get our hopes up for any extraordinary advances in OpenGL with 10.3.7. I'd guess it's more of a maintenance release while the real work goes into Tiger and (maybe) a really cool OpenGL 2.0 implementation. I have hopes for Tiger!
  • Reply 29 of 38
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Ah yes, hope. Many of us used to have that. You get over it.
  • Reply 30 of 38
    i wonder when they'll finally release this...

    since 10.3.6 my SMB connectivity is totally screwed..

    not only with me..also with my girlfriend who i've adviced

    to get an ibook because it's so much better than windows...

    I have to admit that i have been ashamed lately...

    No printing, no filesharing



    fix your errors apple!
  • Reply 31 of 38
    If I spend $3,000 on a laptop it better have mind blowing performance! I know the $3k PC laptop I use at work has fantastic graphic performance compared to MY MORE EXPENSIVE slower powerbook. Have you ever ran photoshop on a 3,000 PC? It screams!





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brian Green

    cowerd, I am a pro user and I was using the game to make a point. A 1.25 GHz Powerbook ought to be able to blaze through a game made for a 300 MHz G3. Please don't make assumptions about me or my profession just because I use a game to illustrate a point. While all people may not get paid to play games on their computers, I use mine for both business and personal use.



    As Kickaha pointed out, I'm simply demanding too much from a laptop that can't overcome it's own hardware limitations, though I didn't believe I was.




  • Reply 32 of 38
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by webmail

    If I spend $3,000 on a laptop it better have mind blowing performance! I know the $3k PC laptop I use at work has fantastic graphic performance compared to MY MORE EXPENSIVE slower powerbook. Have you ever ran photoshop on a 3,000 PC? It screams!



    Have you ever run PhotoShop on a PowerBook?



    Come on, this was a silly comment to make.



    As was already stated above, one can always find a 'laptop' with incredible performance that falls more into the 'luggable' category than 'portable'. If that's your only criteria, then sure, go for the $3k Wintel laptop. What the heck, you'll get a workout hauling it around.



    What you need to find is a PC laptop with comparable hardware, size, weight, battery life, features, and price... *then* compare graphics performance on each. Outliers can always be found to prove a particular point - but what counts is the overall package, for most people.



    Oh, and one other thing... the 17" PowerBook is $2800, pretty damned decked out. I'm not sure where you're getting the >$3k figure from, but it isn't from this plane of reality.
  • Reply 33 of 38
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    ^

    |----- uninformed



    When Windows has the same amount of computing happening in the graphics system, then you can complain about lack of performance. It's easy to be fast when you're not doing much.



    Which features do you see missing?




    I don't know about missing features, but I do know the 10.3.6 update borked OpenGL speed on my 20" iMacG5. Before the update I could actually play Diablo II. Since the update, whenever I face 5 or more monsters (not unusual), the play gets so slow and choppy the game becomes unplayable. This problem did not exist in 10.3.5 or previous OS X versions. I've repaired permissions, reinstalls, etc. etc but the problem still exists.



    Hopefully the 10.3.7 update will fix this problem.
  • Reply 34 of 38
    FWIW to people experiencing slow typing response while making a reply in a web browser window, do this little workaround- scroll the window so the animated smileys end up off screen. It makes a BIG difference. Yeah, it is lame you have to do that, but like I said, "fwiw".



    WRT the discussion of slow laptops, Apple really needs to get its $hit together on the underlying hardware. They have decent external specs, but the actual performance seems to belie trouble deeper in the hardware (things that typically are not attended to with specs in marketing literature). If it's some sort of bus or cache, they need to make it better- plain and simple. It's really pointless to have certain specs that suggest performance on a product that achieves far less compared to another product with equivalent specs. Put a little extra money into the supporting architecture and trim back the specs a bit, if need be if only to attain a better balance of subsystems. Whatever it is, it shouldn't be where it is at now, which is possibly on par with some Apple product from 1996. I'll agree it need not be on par with a full-blown desktop of current age, but clearly it needs to be *much* closer than hardware that was obsoleted several generations ago. Something is "up", and I don't think Apple has been upstanding with the real issues that are throttling the "spec'd" hardware.



    WRT the discussion on slow GUI performance, the "it's doing more" excuse is wearing thin. Window resizing is poor compared to other GUI accelerated features. There's just no way around this. If it is not getting hardware accelerated, they need to get on this. If it is, then they need to make it do less to speed it up. It's one thing to "do more" in the way of graphics benefits, but if it makes it nonfunctional in user speed with dubious added benefits, then this is a problem. Once again, the "balance" of choices hanging in balance for a feature seems to be askew, imo.



    At some point, we have to realize "niggling problems" as something relevant to be addressed. Making endless apologies or excuses or promises that things would be better if we had a GPU from "the future" or other will not improve things.
  • Reply 35 of 38
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Randycat99

    FWIW to people experiencing slow typing response while making a reply in a web browser window, do this little workaround- scroll the window so the animated smileys end up off screen. It makes a BIG difference. Yeah, it is lame you have to do that, but like I said, "fwiw".



    WRT the discussion of slow laptops, Apple really needs to get its $hit together on the underlying hardware. They have decent external specs, but the actual performance seems to belie trouble deeper in the hardware (things that typically are not attended to with specs in marketing literature). If it's some sort of bus or cache, they need to make it better- plain and simple. It's really pointless to have certain specs that suggest performance on a product that achieves far less compared to another product with equivalent specs. Put a little extra money into the supporting architecture and trim back the specs a bit, if need be if only to attain a better balance of subsystems. Whatever it is, it shouldn't be where it is at now, which is possibly on par with some Apple product from 1996. I'll agree it need not be on par with a full-blown desktop of current age, but clearly it needs to be *much* closer than hardware that was obsoleted several generations ago. Something is "up", and I don't think Apple has been upstanding with the real issues that are throttling the "spec'd" hardware.



    WRT the discussion on slow GUI performance, the "it's doing more" excuse is wearing thin. Window resizing is poor compared to other GUI accelerated features. There's just no way around this. If it is not getting hardware accelerated, they need to get on this. If it is, then they need to make it do less to speed it up. It's one thing to "do more" in the way of graphics benefits, but if it makes it nonfunctional in user speed with dubious added benefits, then this is a problem. Once again, the "balance" of choices hanging in balance for a feature seems to be askew, imo.



    At some point, we have to realize "niggling problems" as something relevant to be addressed. Making endless apologies or excuses or promises that things would be better if we had a GPU from "the future" or other will not improve things.




    I couldn't agree more.



    IMO you've hit several nails squarely on the head with your post.
  • Reply 36 of 38
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    What is the point of a 'maintenance' release?



    Is it to fix stuff that's broken, or to break more stuff?



    I recently had to reinstall one of my G5s from scratch. I used the disks that came in the box and ended up with a 10.3.3 installation ? the machine absolutely FLIES compared to 10.3.6 and what I've seen of 10.3.7.



    It's funny that you don't particularly notice a slight drop in performance, but when you go back to an earlier version you certainly notice the boost in performance again!
  • Reply 37 of 38
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Messiah

    What is the point of a 'maintenance' release?



    Is it to fix stuff that's broken, or to break more stuff?



    I recently had to reinstall one of my G5s from scratch. I used the disks that came in the box and ended up with a 10.3.3 installation ? the machine absolutely FLIES compared to 10.3.6 and what I've seen of 10.3.7.



    It's funny that you don't particularly notice a slight drop in performance, but when you go back to an earlier version you certainly notice the boost in performance again!




    a reinstall will almost allways boost performance.
  • Reply 38 of 38
    katekate Posts: 172member
    The reason is an old one: Apple decided to introduce X and made a choice in favour of a newly designed GUI and graphics subsystem and had no true hardware support for this until today. Everything going onscreen taxes the CPU therefore heavily. GPU support is coming in several flavours, Quartz Extreme, etc. are all trying to circumvent this in one way or other. But this is no way likewise efficient like old school GPU usage. But there is no way back now. Apple indeed is bound to some sort of future GPU tech.



    This is an old horse beaten to death since the early days of X. Graphics on a Mac is since then a bit slow, demanding and inefficient. The progress of hardware never truly filled the gap Apple had opend then until today, IMHO.



    While the system GUI is not longer the molasses it had been in 10.1, general responsiveness and GUI performance still leaves much to be desired and Apple seems unable or unwilling to do anything about it. I am sure they tried and optimized everything, but the true bottlenecks seem to be inside the structure of the graphics subsystem and that is beyond change without altering too much and breaking most of the existing code base.



    The poor state of OpenGL however is another story.... 10.3.7 corrects the errors introduced by 10.3.6, but changes not much for the better there it seems.
Sign In or Register to comment.