PDA

View Full Version : New PB's and Tiger query


Vanilla
Feb 22, 2005, 11:05 AM
Hi
I'm looking at getting a new 15" PowerBook to replace my existing 17" but I'm a little nervous on one key point.

My local dealer is very understanding with regards to dead pixels and faults in general, which is why I went with him when I took the plunge and bought my first PowerBook. However, this largesse is restricted to stock configurations only, which means that if I decided to go with him I would lose the opportunity to go for the 128VRam and 100GB HD option.

The extra HD I can live without as I am intending on getting an iMac anyway, but I'm concerned about missing out on the 128Vram with regards to the forthcoming Tiger release.

I've read two main conflicting viewpoints, one saying that the amount of Video Ram is critical and therefore you should really go for 128 for Tiger and one saying that its not the VRam per se its the graphic card itself that determines the performance of Tiger and so 64 vram will be fine.

I know its dificult in the absence of specs but can anyone shed a little light on this subject? In short, if I buy a stock 15" current specced PowerBook am I buying something that will handle Tiger fine or should I really bite the bullet, pray I get a "good'un" and order a BTO?

Vanilla

Logik
Feb 22, 2005, 11:26 AM
Hi
I'm looking at getting a new 15" PowerBook to replace my existing 17" but I'm a little nervous on one key point.

My local dealer is very understanding with regards to dead pixels and faults in general, which is why I went with him when I took the plunge and bought my first PowerBook. However, this largesse is restricted to stock configurations only, which means that if I decided to go with him I would lose the opportunity to go for the 128VRam and 100GB HD option.

The extra HD I can live without as I am intending on getting an iMac anyway, but I'm concerned about missing out on the 128Vram with regards to the forthcoming Tiger release.

I've read two main conflicting viewpoints, one saying that the amount of Video Ram is critical and therefore you should really go for 128 for Tiger and one saying that its not the VRam per se its the graphic card itself that determines the performance of Tiger and so 64 vram will be fine.

I know its dificult in the absence of specs but can anyone shed a little light on this subject? In short, if I buy a stock 15" current specced PowerBook am I buying something that will handle Tiger fine or should I really bite the bullet, pray I get a "good'un" and order a BTO?

Vanilla

let's just say that tiger will work on a nvidia 5200 FX... that's a pretty crappy card.. make note that tiger will rock fine on all machines.. but the eye candy will be affected by the video card.. tiger will run fine on 64mb.. 128 would be better but 64 is perfectly fine... you realize that all that eye candy will lower your battery life when unplugged anyway right? these video cards eat battery like mad.. i really wish i could setup profiles for "eye candy" based on whether the machine is plugged in or not. either way though, 64 will be fine.. unless you plan to do final cut pro and massive video editing type stuff where core image and core video will be used.. 64 will work just great

Demon Hunter
Feb 22, 2005, 11:47 AM
When deciding if VRAM is important, there are a few key factors:


Are you a gamer?
Will you be running two monitors frequently?
Will you be using professional video apps?


If none of the above, don't worry. Be pixel perfect. :)

Demon Hunter
Feb 22, 2005, 11:49 AM
Hi
I'm looking at getting a new 15" PowerBook to replace my existing 17" but I'm a little nervous on one key point.


If you are interested, I am selling my 15" PB (mint). It's the gen before last, 1.5 GHz 128 VRAM with zero dead pixels... PM if you like!

Koodauw
Feb 22, 2005, 12:15 PM
Can someone please explain what some of this "eyecandy" is? It may help determine wether the features neccesitate going with the better video card.

Logik
Feb 22, 2005, 01:20 PM
Can someone please explain what some of this "eyecandy" is? It may help determine wether the features neccesitate going with the better video card.

you have panther? expose is eye candy.. the zooming and shuffling of windows is anyway... the actual function is useful... but the inbetween of making things look pretty is eye candy...

tiger has some new effects, such as a water ripple when dashboard is summoned.

also... to take full use of tiger... that is.. to get core image and core video to render using the video card you need one that supports pixel shaders... that is the supported list on their website ... somewhere on there anyway.. if you don't have one of those supported cards you will be defaulted back to using CPU for rendering. which will obviously be slower

Vanilla
Feb 22, 2005, 02:56 PM
you have panther? expose is eye candy.. the zooming and shuffling of windows is anyway... the actual function is useful... but the inbetween of making things look pretty is eye candy...

tiger has some new effects, such as a water ripple when dashboard is summoned.

also... to take full use of tiger... that is.. to get core image and core video to render using the video card you need one that supports pixel shaders... that is the supported list on their website ... somewhere on there anyway.. if you don't have one of those supported cards you will be defaulted back to using CPU for rendering. which will obviously be slower

Okay, so it seems that the Radeon mobility 9700 does have pixel shader support (http://mirror.ati.com/products/mobilityradeon9700/features.html)

Okay, so panic over. Thanks for all the advice guys.
Vanilla

Vanilla
Feb 25, 2005, 02:59 PM
So just to update: The store I buy my gear from (MR Systems in Islington, great people, great service) had a delivery of stock today, which contained one 15" 1.67 with SuperDrive. So after a moments thought, which took all of 5 nanoseconds I whipped out my CC and took ownership of it, spending the time back home on the tube to figure out how to break the news to my wife.....I've also reached an amicable agreement with them with regards my original 17" pbook which I'll be selling to them next week so good news all round; well thats the spin to the missus.

So quick first impressions:
1. It does seem 'snappier' in general compared to the 17"

2. The backlit effect is SIGNIFICANTLY brighter than my old pbook, its very impressive, actually being genuinely useful now, rather than simply an effect to show-off to PC guys

3. The two-fingered scroll effect is very nice and for me works well.

4. The screen is pixel perfect (praise the lord) and wonderfully bright.

One other thing I must mention is the setup process. Simply having to connect my old powerbook with the new one via a firewire cable and going off to make a cup of tea while the new pbook copied everything over was just brilliantly easy. Very impressive.

It's a great machine, a nice mix of portability and desktop replacement strength. The next phase is to wait for the scars to heal from the 'chat' I had with the wife, wait for the next version of the iMac and buy a 20" to become the main computer for our house.

In the meantime, I'm having a lot of fun playing with my new friend!
cheers
Vanilla

Vanilla
Feb 25, 2005, 04:29 PM
Aah well, that didn't last long....
I was playing some Radiohead through iTunes when I began to realise that the sound was very much biased towards the left-hand speaker. I went into preferences and played with the balance and found out the following:

When balance was set fully to the left, all sound came out of the left speaker only.

When balance was set fully to the right, sound came out of both speakers.

So there you go. Unfortunately my shop is closed on the weekend so I have to wait until Monday to have a chat with them.

Shame, it was going so well....
Vanilla

Vanilla
Feb 25, 2005, 06:32 PM
Aah well, that didn't last long....
I was playing some Radiohead through iTunes when I began to realise that the sound was very much biased towards the left-hand speaker. I went into preferences and played with the balance and found out the following:

When balance was set fully to the left, all sound came out of the left speaker only.

When balance was set fully to the right, sound came out of both speakers.

So there you go. Unfortunately my shop is closed on the weekend so I have to wait until Monday to have a chat with them.

Shame, it was going so well....
Vanilla

Well this appears to be a common problem, with some regarding it as a "feature", I need to do some more research on this!

BigDogg
Feb 25, 2005, 07:31 PM
Heres to hoping you get all the kinks worked out on your new pb.I know that feeling when you get something new like that and there ends up being a problem.At least it is nothing major and is probably a minor fix.Wish I had me a brand spankin' new PB! I may have to come off the back pocket here pretty soon, I will probably wait for the next release though before I make a purchase.

Demon Hunter
Feb 25, 2005, 09:26 PM
I'm sorry to hear that... hopefully not another famous 15" flaw. The other being the sticky keyboard... does it stick at all when you type?

Vanilla
Feb 26, 2005, 01:48 AM
I'm sorry to hear that... hopefully not another famous 15" flaw. The other being the sticky keyboard... does it stick at all when you type?

No, the keyboard is fine. The trackpad also seems good (to me anyway), its quiet, the HD operates in silence and the backlight works as expected, these being the main issues I had read about.

The issue with the speakers appears to be a design flaw and is more irritating than disturbing. I'm going to cross-check with my dealer on Monday to confirm whether what I'm saying is true or not, but the story goes as follows:

The new 15" has three speakers: A left, centre and Right.
The "centre" speakers is actually positioned nearer to the left speaker.
The net effect is that when you shift the sound balance fully to the left, you hear all sound coming out the left speaker, but when you shift it fully to the right, you still hear sound coming out of the left speaker, which is in fact leakage from the centre speaker. When you play music with the balance centred there is a definite left bias accordingly.
Its possible that there could be a software fix that disabled that controlled the centre speaker better I guess, but this explanation is what I have read.

The important point is that it DOES not effect headphones, or external speakers, all of which work perfectly.

On Monday I'm going to ask my dealer just to check out a couple of new 15" Pbooks to see if they all exhibit the same effect, which would prove whether this is an unfortunate flaw on my pbook or a design issue.

A large part of this is clearly that its new and so I am sensitive to any perceived flaw at the moment. However in my defence, when I shifted the sound balance to the right it was patently clear that sound was coming out from both speakers, we're not talking about needing to be an audiophile or anything!

Still, headphones are fine and all other known issues with the pb that I have read about on the Apple support site appear to have missed this particular book - and I have a perfect screen, touch wood - so I'm still on balance a happy bunny, just hope I can find a solution for this particular issue.

Cheers
Vanilla

Platform
Feb 26, 2005, 02:39 AM
When deciding if VRAM is important, there are a few key factors:


Are you a gamer?
Will you be running two monitors frequently?
Will you be using professional video apps?


If none of the above, don't worry. Be pixel perfect. :)

I'am not no 1 nor 3 but will proberly use 2 monitor's if I could would that slow down the OS or other thing a lot :confused:

Vanilla
Feb 26, 2005, 01:38 PM
So as an update, I went to the Regent Street store this afternoon and checked 4 15" powerbooks all of which had the same symptoms I am experiencing, which in a perverse way made me feel better.
I then managed to (very luckily) collar a Genius bar guy and he confirmed what I had heard, namely that there is a third speaker which is positioned just under the Apple key on the left hand side. Its there to boost bass and mid range and is always on and he felt that this is what I am hearing. Bottom line he said there is nothing that can be done at present, though I guess there may be a software fix at some point to better control the speaker, who knows. As an aside he also said that he knew of one customer that changed his new purchase three times for the same reason to no avail, but that the vast majority of people simply do not notice it.

So there you go. As everything else is fine with my machine, I'll probably simply wear headphones from now on.
cheers
Vanilla

Demon Hunter
Feb 26, 2005, 09:38 PM
I'am not no 1 nor 3 but will proberly use 2 monitor's if I could would that slow down the OS or other thing a lot :confused:

No you'll be fine... but with 128 VRAM you'll have smoother desktop graphics like Expose and CoreImage, though (mostly eyecandy).

hechacker1
Feb 27, 2005, 05:41 AM
is apple that bad at programming when it comes to memory usage? I am planning to get the 12" powerbook after tiger comes out to see how it does with the new effects.

i ask because what kind of "eye candy" could tiger possible have to use up 64MB of VRAM. I can play Counter Strike with 2xAA and 8xAF on an older 8500le with 64MB of ram @ 1280x1024 without any problems. About 60fps on my windows machine.

i have been reading these forums lately and it seems that MacOS uses a lot of RAM too. Everybody seems to suggest 1GB or max it out. I find that strange because windows with 512MB is perfectly fine for pretty much anything except games and video editing. and linux only uses more than 512MB when I am compiling a huge package while doing heavy java programming.

Logik
Feb 27, 2005, 10:11 AM
is apple that bad at programming when it comes to memory usage? I am planning to get the 12" powerbook after tiger comes out to see how it does with the new effects.

i ask because what kind of "eye candy" could tiger possible have to use up 64MB of VRAM. I can play Counter Strike with 2xAA and 8xAF on an older 8500le with 64MB of ram @ 1280x1024 without any problems. About 60fps on my windows machine.

i have been reading these forums lately and it seems that MacOS uses a lot of RAM too. Everybody seems to suggest 1GB or max it out. I find that strange because windows with 512MB is perfectly fine for pretty much anything except games and video editing. and linux only uses more than 512MB when I am compiling a huge package while doing heavy java programming.

os x works fine on 512mb... however you need to read more of those threads since this will be the .. er... lost count... times i've said this.

OS X uses all available memory better than windows. it's got a very aggressive caching engine that loves ram. the more the better. my powerbook swaps, but i barely even notice it does, if at all. it's an amazing thing. my windows XP machine chokes like mad at has 512mb and simply having firefox open for more than a day starts slowing it down due to swapping. i'd say it's backwards.. windows needs a lot more ram than OS X does.

Loki.Mephisto
Feb 27, 2005, 11:32 AM
is apple that bad at programming when it comes to memory usage? I am planning to get the 12" powerbook after tiger comes out to see how it does with the new effects.

i ask because what kind of "eye candy" could tiger possible have to use up 64MB of VRAM. I can play Counter Strike with 2xAA and 8xAF on an older 8500le with 64MB of ram @ 1280x1024 without any problems. About 60fps on my windows machine.

i have been reading these forums lately and it seems that MacOS uses a lot of RAM too. Everybody seems to suggest 1GB or max it out. I find that strange because windows with 512MB is perfectly fine for pretty much anything except games and video editing. and linux only uses more than 512MB when I am compiling a huge package while doing heavy java programming.

As Logik pointed out, MacOS uses RAM in a pretty aggressive way, a lot better than WinDOZe.

Concerning graphics, MacOS got some pretty nice feature: Quartz extreme. This means that rendering of windows is "sourced out" to the graphics card, what is a great thing. MacOS 10.4 Tiger is expected to make use of this feature in excessive manner.

The point is: itīs quick, but needs sufficient amount of graphics memory

This time for real: itīs not a bug, itīs a feature :cool:

hechacker1
Feb 27, 2005, 09:17 PM
i understand the whole memory caching thing, i do have gentoo linux installed with a tweaked kernel to take advantage of my 1GB of ram. The only thing is, even with 1GB i never actually see it use the 1GB. Right now for example I am compiling firefox in the background and have X and Opera going and I am using 384MB of ram in use. Then the rest is cache. But what use does cache provide if it isn't being used?

I have to say that my properly formated windows partition is much more efficent with 512MB of memory than either MacOS or Linux is (with full GUI and other necessary apps).

When my windows xp boots, I am using 90MB total with kernel/system caching enabled.

With linux I am looking at 120MB because X is horribly bloated. X has less effects than windows, yet takes more memory.

That is my point with MacOS. It seems like the only way to achieve top performance with it is to have at least a 1GB. Even for everyday stuff like having multiple windows open with simple programs. I am not talking about video editing or gaming.

I know that MacOS is pretty and all, but I see no reason for 1GB. How much ram does MacOS take intially on startup?

Platform
Feb 28, 2005, 03:49 AM
No you'll be fine... but with 128 VRAM you'll have smoother desktop graphics like Expose and CoreImage, though (mostly eyecandy).

Ok thanks

But I tought that the eyecandy was to do with the chip of the graphics card/ how advanced the chip is or is it VRAM too :confused:

Logik
Feb 28, 2005, 09:13 AM
i understand the whole memory caching thing, i do have gentoo linux installed with a tweaked kernel to take advantage of my 1GB of ram. The only thing is, even with 1GB i never actually see it use the 1GB. Right now for example I am compiling firefox in the background and have X and Opera going and I am using 384MB of ram in use. Then the rest is cache. But what use does cache provide if it isn't being used?

I have to say that my properly formated windows partition is much more efficent with 512MB of memory than either MacOS or Linux is (with full GUI and other necessary apps).

When my windows xp boots, I am using 90MB total with kernel/system caching enabled.

With linux I am looking at 120MB because X is horribly bloated. X has less effects than windows, yet takes more memory.

That is my point with MacOS. It seems like the only way to achieve top performance with it is to have at least a 1GB. Even for everyday stuff like having multiple windows open with simple programs. I am not talking about video editing or gaming.

I know that MacOS is pretty and all, but I see no reason for 1GB. How much ram does MacOS take intially on startup?

again, i don't know what you're talking about here. uneducated guesses suck.

i ran my powerbook on 256mb of ram. it was perfectly fine. it swapped a bit when i was using multiple apps, but it worked fine regardless and wasn't super slow. it did fine, in the beginning i barely noticed a single bit of difference when i added a 512mb stick in until i started opening multiple applications. so the have to have 512 or 1gig is a sham. however i didn't expect it to do a ton of things at once either.

next, X is a bit bloated, but it does it's job and it does it pretty well. the new X.org guys are making some pretty good steps in the right direction so keep an eye on that project.

no machine will EVER use all your ram. the idea is that you have 1 gigabyte. and it'll use 900 or so and you'll never see it go beyond that. Why? because it leaves that extra space open for when an application might need it suddenly or you open another application. it's there so that it doesn't have to swap IMMEDIATELY just to open another app or to push a button. it's that simple man, you will never see it used completely because it leaves that extra space.

go ahead and think windows works great but i get more swapping on my <u>properly</u> formatted (what the hell is properly formatted anyway? i mean, you have 2 options, quick format, for format.. :rolleyes: ) windows machine than i do in OS X (hell, OS X runs for 39 days on my powerbook (going to sleep constantly due to classes and such)... i can barely get windows to run smoothly for more than a week or two.. hell even after 1 day of heavy use i get more swapping than i can stand. sure it's only got 512mb but i'm thinking you're trying to just argue for the sake of saying you miss your windows machine... OS X isn't for everyone... if you don't like it, sell your mac...

Logik
Feb 28, 2005, 09:16 AM
Ok thanks

But I tought that the eyecandy was to do with the chip of the graphics card/ how advanced the chip is or is it VRAM too :confused:

it's both. big effects require lots of memory.

someone else can explain this one but i'll state right now. Tiger will run FINE on a ATI Radeon 9700 mobility with 64mb ram. it will run FINE. so stop worrying. it might not run as optimially as it could but it will run fine and you might get some skipping and studdering here and there, and are guaranteed slowdowns on mutliple monitor setups when using expose or whatever.. it still functions fine, it just isn't as smooth in the animation department due to lack of memory. good luck getting perfect animation out of any apple laptop at the moment, they simply don't give the best bang for their buck in this department... an ibook would fare far worse than your powerbook. the 9200 isn't even a supported coreimage card.

bosrs1
Feb 28, 2005, 11:06 AM
let's just say that tiger will work on a nvidia 5200 FX... that's a pretty crappy card.. make note that tiger will rock fine on all machines.. but the eye candy will be affected by the video card.. tiger will run fine on 64mb.. 128 would be better but 64 is perfectly fine... you realize that all that eye candy will lower your battery life when unplugged anyway right? these video cards eat battery like mad.. i really wish i could setup profiles for "eye candy" based on whether the machine is plugged in or not. either way though, 64 will be fine.. unless you plan to do final cut pro and massive video editing type stuff where core image and core video will be used.. 64 will work just great
64 is more then fine for Tiger. Tiger can run on 32 and look crappy, but 64 it'll look just as it's supposed to.

hechacker1
Feb 28, 2005, 02:36 PM
when your windows struggles everyday with swapping, or crashes every week, that is what I meant by not having a properly formated windows. I guess I should have said tweaked/configured.

My windows XP partition can run for weeks with super heavy server usage (acting as a 4MB per second upload to bittorrent on multiple files).

I'll leave it on when I go out for a week and when I get back everything is still running as I left it.

So what I am learning is that I'll need a 1GB 15" powerbook with 128VRAM in order to get "what apple intended" or else i'll get "stutter and pausing" while just using the OS? That is not very good, hence my original question if MacOS programmers do a bad job with memory optimization.

I know what caching is. And I understand that it is a space for programs to use up ram when they need it. But that is nothing new, every OS can allow applications to acquire more RAM when they need it.

How much RAM does MacOS take up on a fresh start? (somebody with 1GB is probably best to answer this because they shouldn't be limited by their memory).

Thanx

Logik
Feb 28, 2005, 04:47 PM
when your windows struggles everyday with swapping, or crashes every week, that is what I meant by not having a properly formated windows. I guess I should have said tweaked/configured.

My windows XP partition can run for weeks with super heavy server usage (acting as a 4MB per second upload to bittorrent on multiple files).

I'll leave it on when I go out for a week and when I get back everything is still running as I left it.

So what I am learning is that I'll need a 1GB 15" powerbook with 128VRAM in order to get "what apple intended" or else i'll get "stutter and pausing" while just using the OS? That is not very good, hence my original question if MacOS programmers do a bad job with memory optimization.

I know what caching is. And I understand that it is a space for programs to use up ram when they need it. But that is nothing new, every OS can allow applications to acquire more RAM when they need it.

How much RAM does MacOS take up on a fresh start? (somebody with 1GB is probably best to answer this because they shouldn't be limited by their memory).

Thanx

ok you don't listen well.

i never said that you needed 1 gig of ram or a 128mb video card to get what apple intended. for the love of god. pay attention!

let's run through a few senarios just so you might grasp this concept.

NVidia GeForce 5500 FX - I believe this has 32 to 64mb of video ram. slow as molasses but has pixel shader api built in. what this means is that on any typical machine running any normal stuff, including games (though your resolution and detail levels may have to be toned down to make it playable) will work FINE. it will WORK. you even get core image support, which offloads video related things that are typically done in the CPU to the video card. like image rendering and video compositing. this can be done in the video card now, the more video ram the better, the more ram the faster it works, the more ram the more eye candy (ie frivolious effects such as expose and dashboard) you can have.

ATI Radeon 9200 - 64mb video ram, no pixel shader support. no core image. this means all video related things are done in cpu for core image instead of on the video card. just means more work, this is typically what is done in windows anyway. nothing new, nothing changed. it's the same thing, you realize all windows related things (minus gaming and very high end video rendering apps) do not take advantage of that video card's capabilities right? that means all your window drawning is done IN CPU not in the video card. with a pixel shader supported video card, that can be offloaded to the video card freeing up your CPU to do other more important things than rendering windows and compositing images.

ATI Radeon 9700/9800 - NVidia 6000 series - these cards typically have 64mb to 256mb of video ram. they will run tiger as intended. same as above, pixel shader support means CoreImage support. window drawing and compositing is done in the video card rather than in the CPU (LIKE WINDOWS).

let's say you have 64mb video ram. say you run 2 monitors... this is not "a lot" of video ram, it takes a lot of video ram to hold enough information for 2 monitors, doesn't matter if you're using OS X or windows here. it's simply NOT A LOT OF RAM. period, nothing windows specific, nothing os x specific, it just isn't a lot of ram. it will run it fine normally (except gaming and VERY HIGH resolutions). now let's throw in some of the wonderful things OS X does.. Expose is one of them right now.. in a dual monitor machine on my powerbook .. 64mb radeon 9700 mobility.. i get some "skipping" meaning the expose window stuff isn't always smooth. it just depends on what i'm doing and how many windows i have open. it doesn't bother me because in the end once the windows are placed in expose i can still see what they are.. i just didn't see this super smooth animation.. *yawn* oh well, it's cool when you first see it, but the functionality is all that really matters to me, it can skip all it wants. in a single screen setup it works GREAT, no window skipping nothing, super smooth and crisp.. but 2 monitors will slow it down, it's just too much information for 64mb of video ram.

the same will apply to tiger, expose and dashboard both will require video ram to accomplish it's task. single screen setups will run smooth as a baby's bottom on 64mb but switch to dual screen setup and expect it to choke a bit under the pressure where 128mb will handle more and probably be smooth regardless of single or dual screen setup.

if you MUST have the eye candy on full blast and always working perfectly.. go with 128mb video ram.. if you just want functionality, 64 is fine.. if you're doing single screen, 64 is going to work perfect for you, don't waste your money on anything more.

now.. if you're a video editor or whatever.. 128 might be beneficial.. if you are going to use any of apples video apps (final cut pro, motion, dvd studio pro, shake, etc) then 128 will be to your advantage in the NEW version that will be coming out. they will support coreimage.. which uses the video card to render things... MORE RAM THE BETTER.. this is obviously a high end setup.. it's NOT for your average user..

think of it this way.. average user.. 64mb

super user (video, gaming, etc) 128mb ...

it's not rocket science.

OS X simply owns windows in the memory management abilities. and i didn't have to tweak anything.. why should i have to tweak my windows setup to get it function correctly when i'm barely a power user and just leave my machine on? it chokes ok... under normal not heavy usage... works great to start, but once that ram is used up it's GONE, it's a dead machine ... OS X just keeps going. that's my experience... you can take your "tweaked" XP machine and have a blast.. i shouldn't have to sit and tweak it for it function correctly.. if i wanted more than normal performance sure.. but chugging along is barely normal performance to me.. it's very POOR ... OS X is a more advanced OS (in a lot of ways).. in some windows is more advanced.. mostly in ways that don't really matter to me.. like the ability to switch the system font for EVERYTHING throughout the OS... 10.5 will have that if 10.4 doesn't already.

hechacker1
Mar 1, 2005, 12:33 AM
64MB is not a lot of VRAM? ha, most people don't even have that. Unless you have the 15" or 17" upgraded powerbook or at least a $70 decent desktop pci card (PC). Mac is probably more.

64MB is perfectly fine for almost anything in the real world. Whats the powerbooks resolution? Not very much, hence not very much ram. Even with the GUI effects galore that apple has, it shouldn't use up 64MB and then have "skipping" after that. I never mentioned dual monitors, so don't try to justify your argument using that. There have been dual monitor cards for years. It isn't special. My older ti4200 can run two screens of UT2004 at the same with only 64MB of ram without any lag or slowdown at a 1280x1024 resolution (PC). Why can't expose be smooth?

you obviously know little about windows, and I'll admit that i don't know that much about macOS. But in windows, the desktop is accelerated by the drivers. That includes effects, videos, and transparency. In fact, I don't think that is even unique to windows. Almost every modern OS takes advantage of the video card for rendering, or else it would simply be to slow. For Example, use the default VGA driver in windows. Now you are using purely CPU rendering, and you will see how slow it really is without the GPU.

True, windows doesn't have an Opengl desktop, but that doesn't exclude it from using the GPU.

and btw, your right, it's not rocket science. It's computer science.

Logik
Mar 1, 2005, 08:14 AM
But in windows, the desktop is accelerated by the drivers. That includes effects, videos, and transparency. In fact, I don't think that is even unique to windows. Almost every modern OS takes advantage of the video card for rendering, or else it would simply be to slow. For Example, use the default VGA driver in windows. Now you are using purely CPU rendering, and you will see how slow it really is without the GPU.


BSSSST WRONG... try again

you need to go educate yourself, my last reply to you here. have a nice day troll.

hechacker1
Mar 1, 2005, 03:22 PM
if you wish to be ignorant of the truth, then so be it. But almost every modern OS uses 2D gpu acceleration at least. Nvidia even has a checkbox option in windows drivers that lets you further accelerate the windows desktop (it litteraly speeds up windows/animations and provides transparency through hardware).

maybe you are still using windows 3.1 or something.

Logik
Mar 1, 2005, 04:09 PM
if you wish to be ignorant of the truth, then so be it. But almost every modern OS uses 2D gpu acceleration at least. Nvidia even has a checkbox option in windows drivers that lets you further accelerate the windows desktop (it litteraly speeds up windows/animations and provides transparency through hardware).

maybe you are still using windows 3.1 or something.

Windows won't get this until LONGHORN.. god you are a dumbass. Microsoft calls it Avalon. It will be available in a future version of XP but it is NOT available yet.

EDIT:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21077

hechacker1
Mar 1, 2005, 11:59 PM
sorry, your the one that doesn't have the right info. Either take this info from me, or go out and learn it yourself. Longhorn is going to introduce a 3D accelerated desktop with DirectX. Similar to the way Apple uses OpenGL. That is the only new thing in "Avalon"

But current windows uses 2D acceleration already. It still uses the videocard. I wish you would go and learn before you flame me.

Right now I am looking at my video options. I have serveral acceleration options.

1. "Hardware Acceleration" - it allows you to change from nothing to full. It specifically says it controlls acceleration of the desktop and mouse/windows. That's been around in windows since 95 in the video properties.

2. As mentioned already, the nvidia drivers have "Windows Drawing enhancements" Which include hardware transparency (which is also native to XP) and faster drawing of windows/menus.

3. In DxDiag there are "DirectDraw Acceleration" (2D - Desktop). "Direct3D Acceleration" and "AGP Texture Acceleration" Each can be enabled or disabled.

4. In my TV player there are options that use my videocard to help offload the video and processing. It's called "VMR9" A feature of DirectX9. Any directX 9 compatible card can do this. The older 9100 ATI cards could even do in hardware video enhancements (a rebaggaged 8500le). Newer nvidia cards have acceleration for HD video and processing.

5. Most video uses VMR9 if you have DX9 to help with video acceleration.

So in summary, there is no way that Windows is purely CPU driven when it comes to the GUI. Like I said before, the only way to achieve that is to change the video card driver in windows to "VGA STANDARD" which completely disables all forms of acceleration and relies purely on the CPU. Otherwise, all cards provide some sort of acceleration.

Furthermore, almost every other modern OS also takes advantage of hardware 2D and video acceleration if there are appropiate drivers for it. Or else, it has to default to the CPU rendering like you describe. I am not the one making uneducated guesses.

btw, how much ram does MacOS (newest) take up on a fresh boot? Like I said before, somebody with at least 1GB is probably best qualified to answer it because the OS won't hold back loading itself.