[B]well, i have make the test with and without q2de:
powerbook 1.33 radeon 9700 (64 mb) with \t 21.59 seconds
without 19.34 seconds,
Which test?
I performed an Xbench once on a 1.8GHz iMac/Geforce5200 and I saw a little improvment in the quartz tests w/ Q2DX enabled. Moving a big photo in iPhoto with the hand tool (space-clic) was also far smoothier. I didn't see any difference in the overall system repsonsivness though.
I performed an Xbench once on a 1.8GHz iMac/Geforce5200 and I saw a little improvment in the quartz tests w/ Q2DX enabled. Moving a big photo in iPhoto with the hand tool (space-clic) was also far smoothier. I didn't see any difference in the overall system repsonsivness though.
So, according to macosXrumors (not MOSR), the update will show up very soon. "So we may expect the update to Mac OS X 10.4.3 to arrive at any time from now" is their statement. However it looks like Apple did not address the Power Mac G5 single 1.8 GHz freezing issue.
This test reveals some bugs in Q2DX, however it doesn't really measure quartz' performance.
Of course it measures performance.
Switch it on and the scripts run a lot slower. Since the only thing you've done is switch on Q2DE then that is the cause of the slowdown.
It also shows some odd 'trails' in moving the characters about the screen but that could be a WebKit bug rather than a Quartz bug, or even a script bug if they've assumed IE did it correctly.
When I said "quartz' performance", (not performance only) I meant drawing stuff to the screen, because it's quatz' job. Javascript is something else.
The slow down in java script (in some tests, not all) is indeed due to a bug in Q2DX, but it doesn't say anything about the impact of Q2DX on the UI speed.
The quartz tests in Xbench do, so do the ones apple performed. See the results on arstechnica.
Resolution independence won't be a user level feature in tiger and I don't remember apple promising it either.
You'll probably have to wait for leopard.
Regarding resolution independence; they stated at the conference that they have the infrastrcture setup in Tiger; its up to developers to start testing their software and kicking out any bugs that may cause issues with scaling their GUI - they showed an example of Safari and possibly scalability bugs that could be faced.
It isn't about switchig to resolution independent interfaces NOW but getting developers ready so that everyone is ready for the move once it is require - it might not be until 1/2 through the next release of MacOS X that resolution independent interfaces become a must, but atleast if everyone is ready, there won't be any pains in the transfer.
As for the performance woe, I think there are more things at stake than just performance issues; let Apple sort out the bugs; it isn't as though not having QE2D is causing major performance issues - for me, I've never seen MacOS X so fast; it is rocketing along on my G3 600Mhz iBook and fabulously great on my iMac G5; no complaints from this camper.
QE2D on an iBook G3? So, it doesn't require more than 8MB VRAM?
Actually, I think the G3 600 has 16MB of VRAM but yes, still not powerful enough to run Q2DE. It'll run Quartz Extreme unlike the 8MB 500Mhz G3 iBooks but not the newer Q2DE AFAIK.
QE2D on an iBook G3? So, it doesn't require more than 8MB VRAM?
The problem is not as much the VRAM as is the programmability of the GPU. There were many graphics cards with 32 or 64 MB VRAM that are completely incapable to run QE2D because they are not programmable. Any GPU better than a Geforce 5200 FX or Radeon 9550 meets at least the minimum requierements for QE2D.
Quartz - in Mac OS X 10.0 - the window manager, etc
Quartz Extreme - in Mac OS X 10.2 - used OpenGL for the display
Quartz 2D Extreme moves the acceleration into more features. From http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme/ (btw was anybody else disappointed by House of Flying Daggers?) you can see that Quartz encapsulates several things, one of which is Quartz 2D, which currently does things like UI widgets, canvases, etc. Q2DE will OpenGL accelerate these.
Note that Longhorn's interface on DirectX also has Q2DE-like features as well as the QE style features.
Yes, I was mistaken. Blame Apple for naming two things with such similar names and not really explaining what's going on. After re-reading the Ars Technica article a few times I understand the difference between the two.
Yes, I was mistaken. Blame Apple for naming two things with such similar names and not really explaining what's going on. After re-reading the Ars Technica article a few times I understand the difference between the two.
It's not as bad as the way Canon named its two top digital cameras.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
Apple has given us all the features we have paid for. This is an extra, and when it's ready, we'll get it too.
i like tiger very much, but i remember thath apple promise me that feature (and resolution independent ui too), so i want it
Originally posted by gelosilente
[B]well, i have make the test with and without q2de:
powerbook 1.33 radeon 9700 (64 mb) with \t 21.59 seconds
without 19.34 seconds,
Which test?
I performed an Xbench once on a 1.8GHz iMac/Geforce5200 and I saw a little improvment in the quartz tests w/ Q2DX enabled. Moving a big photo in iPhoto with the hand tool (space-clic) was also far smoothier. I didn't see any difference in the overall system repsonsivness though.
Originally posted by french macuser
Which test?
I performed an Xbench once on a 1.8GHz iMac/Geforce5200 and I saw a little improvment in the quartz tests w/ Q2DX enabled. Moving a big photo in iPhoto with the hand tool (space-clic) was also far smoothier. I didn't see any difference in the overall system repsonsivness though.
the javascript test posted above, sorry
This test reveals some bugs in Q2DX, however it doesn't really measure quartz' performance.
Originally posted by gelosilente
i like tiger very much, but i remember thath apple promise me that feature (and resolution independent ui too), so i want it
Resolution independence won't be a user level feature in tiger and I don't remember apple promising it either.
You'll probably have to wait for leopard.
Originally posted by french macuser
Resolution independence won't be a user level feature in tiger and I don't remember apple promising it either.
You'll probably have to wait for leopard.
They didn't promise it.
Originally posted by french macuser
Thanks.
This test reveals some bugs in Q2DX, however it doesn't really measure quartz' performance.
Of course it measures performance.
Switch it on and the scripts run a lot slower. Since the only thing you've done is switch on Q2DE then that is the cause of the slowdown.
It also shows some odd 'trails' in moving the characters about the screen but that could be a WebKit bug rather than a Quartz bug, or even a script bug if they've assumed IE did it correctly.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Of course it measures performance.
When I said "quartz' performance", (not performance only) I meant drawing stuff to the screen, because it's quatz' job. Javascript is something else.
The slow down in java script (in some tests, not all) is indeed due to a bug in Q2DX, but it doesn't say anything about the impact of Q2DX on the UI speed.
The quartz tests in Xbench do, so do the ones apple performed. See the results on arstechnica.
Originally posted by french macuser
Resolution independence won't be a user level feature in tiger and I don't remember apple promising it either.
You'll probably have to wait for leopard.
Regarding resolution independence; they stated at the conference that they have the infrastrcture setup in Tiger; its up to developers to start testing their software and kicking out any bugs that may cause issues with scaling their GUI - they showed an example of Safari and possibly scalability bugs that could be faced.
It isn't about switchig to resolution independent interfaces NOW but getting developers ready so that everyone is ready for the move once it is require - it might not be until 1/2 through the next release of MacOS X that resolution independent interfaces become a must, but atleast if everyone is ready, there won't be any pains in the transfer.
As for the performance woe, I think there are more things at stake than just performance issues; let Apple sort out the bugs; it isn't as though not having QE2D is causing major performance issues - for me, I've never seen MacOS X so fast; it is rocketing along on my G3 600Mhz iBook and fabulously great on my iMac G5; no complaints from this camper.
Originally posted by kaiwai
for me, I've never seen MacOS X so fast; it is rocketing along on my G3 600Mhz iBook and fabulously great on my iMac G5
QE2D on an iBook G3? So, it doesn't require more than 8MB VRAM?
Originally posted by sjk
QE2D on an iBook G3? So, it doesn't require more than 8MB VRAM?
Actually, I think the G3 600 has 16MB of VRAM but yes, still not powerful enough to run Q2DE. It'll run Quartz Extreme unlike the 8MB 500Mhz G3 iBooks but not the newer Q2DE AFAIK.
Originally posted by sjk
QE2D on an iBook G3? So, it doesn't require more than 8MB VRAM?
The problem is not as much the VRAM as is the programmability of the GPU. There were many graphics cards with 32 or 64 MB VRAM that are completely incapable to run QE2D because they are not programmable. Any GPU better than a Geforce 5200 FX or Radeon 9550 meets at least the minimum requierements for QE2D.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme/
Originally posted by Jeff Leigh
Pretty sure it was a promised feature:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme/
QuartzExtreme != Quartz 2D Extreme
I think.
Quartz - in Mac OS X 10.0 - the window manager, etc
Quartz Extreme - in Mac OS X 10.2 - used OpenGL for the display
Quartz 2D Extreme moves the acceleration into more features. From http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme/ (btw was anybody else disappointed by House of Flying Daggers?) you can see that Quartz encapsulates several things, one of which is Quartz 2D, which currently does things like UI widgets, canvases, etc. Q2DE will OpenGL accelerate these.
Note that Longhorn's interface on DirectX also has Q2DE-like features as well as the QE style features.
Originally posted by Jeff Leigh
Yes, I was mistaken. Blame Apple for naming two things with such similar names and not really explaining what's going on. After re-reading the Ars Technica article a few times I understand the difference between the two.
It's not as bad as the way Canon named its two top digital cameras.
1D
1Ds
One is the sports model. Guess which?