PDA

View Full Version : Quartz Extreme Clarification


arn
May 21, 2002, 12:37 AM
There appears to be an endless amount of confusion regarding Mac OS X (Jaguar) and Quartz Extreme acceleration.

According to Apple (http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/), a "supported" video card is the following:

*nVidia: GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX. ATI: any AGP Radeon card.

Then, they make this recommendation:

32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance.

In confirmation is this xlr8yourmac thread (http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/000106.html) in which an ATI employee notes that Quartz Extreme will work with 16mb.

Bottom line: the new iBooks will be able to take advantage of Quartz Extreme.

j763
May 21, 2002, 01:28 AM
Bottom line: Bottom line: the new iBooks will be able to take advantage of Quartz Extreme.This is exactly what i've been saying for a while now -- obviously some people can't tell the difference between "required" and "recommended".

Rower_CPU
May 21, 2002, 01:38 AM
This has been done to death.

The real question now is HOW it runs on unsupported hardware. Do we get old Quartz at faster/same speeds, or QE at horribly slow speeds?

All will be explained once we have Jaguar in our hands.

IamAzaezeL
May 21, 2002, 03:32 AM
Well i am running 10.2 and i have a standard ati 32 mb graphics card and you can definatley tell the difference without quartz... actions are smoother refreshes faster.. etc etc... i think it is a very big improvement.. and this is on a relatively meek video card... so i am guessing a 16 mb one would still be satifactory...

emdezet
May 21, 2002, 04:07 AM
Is the 10.2 finder cocoa or still carbon?

Tobsen
May 21, 2002, 04:38 AM
I think that 16MB is enough for 1024x768, for higher resolution you need more.

iGav
May 21, 2002, 04:50 AM
This is one area I fear my TiBook 500 will show it's age...... although by the time 'Jaguar' is released, i won't have long until my upgrade window..... :D so I'm not that fussed...... :D

mac15
May 21, 2002, 06:11 AM
It says 32mb for optimum performance
and it will probably be 16mb minimum.....minimum

MasterX (OSiX)
May 21, 2002, 09:16 AM
Some people may be confused, so i'll say what I know about Quartz:

Currently in MacOS X/10.1 Quartz is entirely rendered on the CPU, making it nice for DP G4s, but not good for older macs with Rage PRO/II graphics cards (not enough VRAM for smooth refresh during high CPU load) or most G3 macs with built in graphics under a Rage 128 (G3 B/W stocks, iBooks ESPECIALLY, older PowerBooks).

With Quartz Extreme all/most of the Quartz operations will be done using the existing 2D OpenGL video card acceleration. Thus any one with AGP 2x and a Radeon/GeForce2 can run the same as a DP Mac, with a lot less $. Of course DP G4 users can now get back precious loads of CPU cycles on that 2D processor.

Why apple is excited is that Quartz Extreme will now run SO fast (on fast vid cards) new, and exciting effects can be pulled off. I personally have a short list I sent to apple (windows that shatter when you close them, more genie effects, high-speed zoom-effects and that kind of stuff). My real hope is that MacOS X will render web pages faster, which is my only real complaint. Even if it's still CPU-bound, since Quartz is offloaded EVERYTHING in Jaguar will run at least 20% faster, since you get more CPU to spare. In Quartz related tasks (some games, finder, text scrolling) it *should* be as fast as in MacOS 9 (which i ran yesterday, and was amazed at the smoothness of IE scrolling, darn)

If i'm wrong anywhere, feel free to correct me. Also is anyone has a fast 32MB DDR or better Vid Card and Jaguar Dev Preview, I'd like to hear if you can scroll in OmniWeb/IE faster or not. Maybe with QE Apple will get around to threading scrolling so MacOS X users can get pages that load as we scroll, like stupid Win98/XP users. (grips fist) :mad:

MasterX (OSiX)
May 21, 2002, 09:18 AM
as for the new iBook, I think between the faster 3D and the suport for Quartz Extreme, it'll become a real MacOS X machine (unlike so many users who are forced to run in OS9 due to low performance)

billiam0878
May 21, 2002, 01:04 PM
Hi Everybody,

I've got a Rev A TiBook (500MHz) w/ 8MB ATI, do you know if I could upgrade it to one of the new 32MB's? Thanks

Bill:)

Funkatation
May 21, 2002, 01:56 PM
no you can't. unless you buy a new powerbook.

MasterX (OSiX)
May 21, 2002, 02:21 PM
Yes, laptops have always been weaker than desktops in expandability. I laughed at two of my friend's laptops bc their WinTel boxes didn't come with half the luxuries of my iBook's (Dual USB-500Mhz). Most importantly firewire, airport, and hard-ware accelerated video. That's why Apple has always been so strong in the laptop field, they have experience making full-featured motherboards and cool-running CPUs :¬).

robbyd
May 21, 2002, 03:27 PM
im just mad that i wont be able to utilize the QE features with my 500 mhz iBook. do you think that 10.2 will still be able to run on the older iBooks?

eric_n_dfw
May 21, 2002, 03:42 PM
Yes, 10.2 will run on your iBook - heck 10.2 should run on a Rev A, Bondi-Blue iMac (while that might be painful!) if you have enough RAM in it!

MasterX (OSiX)
May 21, 2002, 03:47 PM
I've used OSX on the 1st iMac (233Mhz/138MB RAM), yes it's sloooow. I'm not sure, but for some reason, even though Quartz is entirely CPU based, it runs oddly slow on that iMac. I guess the iMac is just painfully slow in CPU performance. Oh well, if you have an old imac i suggest a new iMac G4 or a G4 Upgrade card, it's NOT worth running OSX on the 1st iMac, unless you never touch classic, carbon, or QuickTime. Maybe as a file server...

robbyd
May 21, 2002, 03:53 PM
masterX: that sounds as painful as kicking a wall while toothpicks are underneath your toenails!

Rower_CPU
May 21, 2002, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Yes, 10.2 will run on your iBook - heck 10.2 should run on a Rev A, Bondi-Blue iMac (while that might be painful!) if you have enough RAM in it!

Wake up and pay attention to the post topic!

We're talking Quartz Extreme here, not 10.2. There is no guarantee of how or if QE will run on unsupported hardware.

Catfish_Man
May 21, 2002, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by MasterX (OSiX)
I've used OSX on the 1st iMac (233Mhz/138MB RAM), yes it's sloooow. I'm not sure, but for some reason, even though Quartz is entirely CPU based, it runs oddly slow on that iMac. I guess the iMac is just painfully slow in CPU performance. Oh well, if you have an old imac i suggest a new iMac G4 or a G4 Upgrade card, it's NOT worth running OSX on the 1st iMac, unless you never touch classic, carbon, or QuickTime. Maybe as a file server...

...runs slightly faster on a few operations than my friend's G4 450 (of course it's slower on most, but still fine). My machine has 384MBs of ram and a 7200rpm hard drive, his has 320 and the stock hard drive.

AmbitiousLemon
May 21, 2002, 10:16 PM
i just installed jaguar on my lombard (G3 powerbook, 333mhz, 66mhz bus, 512mb ram) and my first impressions were very bad. much slower than 10.1, but... this is because the first ting i started playing with was iChat (biggest POS ever, cant believe apple made it).

Once i quit that disgrace of an "iapp" and started playing with other apps and windows and such i noticed there was a speed improvement after all. Scrolling actually is smooth!

It should be noted that this is the second slowest mac able to run osx (the 233 powerbook before it is the slowest). All the new sliding effects are pretty neat.

but the scrolling in mozilla was smooth and that impressed me since my g4imac doesnt even do that smoothly.

I see the little blue beach ball (for lack of a better term) a lot still. System Preferences are very slow to load.

i checked the cpu load as i moved windows and such using the top -u command in the terminal and noticed that cpu load while manipulating the gui elements was significantly less than previously (used to 100% just by moving a window).

Also of interest for those who know a little more about macs is that i used the update install rather than a clean install. Not what i woudl normally do but i wanted to be able to make a safe comparison. So many people compare the speed of jaguar (doesnt say 10.2 anywhere, even though thats what we know it is) on a fresh install to a 6 month old install of 10.1. Not fair. So i did an update on my 1 month old install and still noticed everything i have been talking about. So the speed improvement is most certainly not a result of a fresh install (the cpu load also clearly shows this).

mmmdreg
May 22, 2002, 08:29 AM
I'm a bit slow still...does QE work on the olde imacs? like the current old ones?

Catfish_Man
May 22, 2002, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by mmmdreg
I'm a bit slow still...does QE work on the olde imacs? like the current old ones?

...if it has a radeon, it works. If it has a GeForce2mx or higher, it works. If I remember correctly the CRT iMacs have rage pros, so it won't work. The LCD iMacs and the eMac have GF2mxs.

dantec
May 22, 2002, 02:20 PM
My fear is although the Apple site says you need 32 mb for optimum performance, if your card is not in the list "GeForce 2 MX ... " then Apple might stop giving you the privelege of running Quartz Extreme.

Anyone remember iDVD and non Apple installed Pioneer drives? Even though they were compatible Apple didn't let you use them. Eventually a crack came out, but it might be harder this time with QE.

alex_ant
May 22, 2002, 02:50 PM
It would make sense if by "optimally," Apple meant "at high resolutions." I'm going to bet that QE on a 16MB card will be capped at 800x600 or 1024x768 (or maybe 1152x768 on the rev B TiBooks - I hope). A 16MB card can render 1600x1200x32bpp in 2D just fine, but I don't think 16MB would be enough to do the same in hardware-accelerated 3D.

Alex

dantec
May 23, 2002, 04:50 PM
Ok, how much Alex... :)

MasterX (OSiX)
May 23, 2002, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by robbyd
masterX: that sounds as painful as kicking a wall while toothpicks are underneath your toenails!

It was, thankfully i had this beautiful G4 AGP well before OSX every came out.

But back to QE: I think I rmember reading on some deep page in opengl.org that OGL had 2D and 3D acceleration. So if that's true, it's likely that OpenGL graphics cards support the OGL2D too, and thus apple would be more logical to run QE on the 2D engine, despite how cool 3D would be, i doubt polygons will work out really well for Aqua.

Just thought of something, since OSX doesn't use Qukckdraw (or any 2D acceleration in 10.1.x that i've heard of, which seems to be an issue) does that mean old iMacs with under 6MB VRAM can run at 1024x768? I'd check but the new iMac user hates OSX. Can't blame her, stinks on a non-G4 honestly...

Zenith
May 24, 2002, 07:34 AM
I'm running Jaguar right now, and it's really strange... My first impression wasn't as good as i was hoping for. Resizing of windows is even slower than in 10.1, but scrolling is as smooth as in OS 9 (except for mouse scrolling...(?) scrolling with the arrow keys is fast, though). The genie-effect is also as slow as in 10.1. But resizing is a pain...

It's a bit strange, and I'm sure that my Mac takes advantages of QE because it has a GF2MX with 32 MB VRAM. It's not DDR and the card is slow, so that CAN explain the slow resizing and genie-effects... The nice little zooming effect that appears when you open windows in the Finder is as fast as it should be, i think. So because of the scrolling and zooming-effect I'm sure that Jaguar uses my vidcard to render aqua, but what about the slow resizing..?

dantec
May 26, 2002, 03:16 PM
I think QE isn't totally finished. Other threads show that resizing is slow...

Zenith
May 26, 2002, 04:58 PM
maybe it's GF2MX-related or something. many people say that resizing is fast, but I've never heard it from someone with my kind of gfx-card. I sure hope Apple is able to do something about it. Err... who cares? I'm gonna buy a new gfx-card soon anyway.

MasterX (OSiX)
May 27, 2002, 01:56 PM
Resizing will always be very CPU intensive, for things like alphabetical order, repositioning icons, and such. If you look at wWin98/Me/XP you can see that since they use tyhe crappy WinOS GUI (haha) they easily get hardware GUI (like OS9 did). And even then their window resizing is slow. But like I hear Jaguar is, scrolling is fast, and so is dragging. The difference is that live dragging/resizing in Winodws stinks (no doubble buffering I suppose, so you get tons of artifacts). Just my thoughs.

Zenith
May 27, 2002, 02:53 PM
Oh well... If so, I gotta get a new G4 (G5? don't think so :p) this summer/fall. It could be related to my CPU; 733 without L3 cache. I hope I have the $$$ for a new Mac! I really want a faster one, mainly because I'm a graphics/music pro, and because I'm a hardcore gamer and most games are CPU bound if I get a gfx-card better than the Radeon 8500, I think.

MasterX (OSiX)
May 27, 2002, 05:18 PM
There is no card better than the Radeon8500 that you can put in your mac at this time (unless you count the fact that the GF4Ti has 128MB RAM). Both the 8500 and GeForce4 Ti are CPU bound, even on 2.6 (?) GHz PCs with QDR Ram and DDR300 buses or whatever the heck they have now. The problenm lies in ATI's drivers, which aren't bad, but nVidia REALLY knows how to squeeze out more performance. I would assume certain games that are REALLY CPU-bound (Unreal Tournmant) that are programmed for Dual CPUs can go a lot faster on the same video card. I know Giants was programmed for duals and it'll beat a PC 2 years newer than it on a DP500Mhz G4. It's on omnigroup's web page somewhere.

Catfish_Man
May 27, 2002, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
It would make sense if by "optimally," Apple meant "at high resolutions." I'm going to bet that QE on a 16MB card will be capped at 800x600 or 1024x768 (or maybe 1152x768 on the rev B TiBooks - I hope). A 16MB card can render 1600x1200x32bpp in 2D just fine, but I don't think 16MB would be enough to do the same in hardware-accelerated 3D.

Alex

...that it won't actually be capped, but it will slow down after a certain number of windows are opened (it'll start using main memory instead of vram). A 1024x768x32 window takes 3MBs of ram (6 with double buffering), so you could fit either 5 or 2 full screen windows into 16 megs. I would guess it's 5, which means that 16 meg cards should be ok for 1024x768, but I bet they'll work better at 800x600. For a 1920x1200x32 cinema HD display I wouldn't try it on less than 64MBs (each full screen window would be about 9MBs single buffered).

dantec
May 28, 2002, 11:20 AM
Well, apple seems to be a little late on the window resizing thing... Win 98/ME hybrids were horrific at resizing windows, even on the latest PC with a GF 4 & a 2.6 Ghz Pentium windows 98 still resizes windows like Internet Explorer in OS 10 (that kinda choppy resizing that isn't smooth...). However I was surprised when I first used Win 2000. On my school comes they are 800mhz celerons, which can resize windows perfectly at 1024x768, only using around 16% of the CPU with fairly large windows (way over 640x480).

What I like with OS 10 though, is none of the window resizing is choppy. Although it is slow it runs much more smoothly when newer hardware comes out, or optimizations can be made without sacrificing the technique. The windows approach however still shows choppyness on even the fastest PC's on the market today!

dantec
May 28, 2002, 11:22 AM
Oh and by the way, as you have probably guessed these school computers didn't have top of the line graphic cards either... They were nVidia TNT2.

djwoolf
May 31, 2002, 03:04 AM
well i gatta say i am pretty mad at apple for giving shoddy performance of OS X on iMacs I have the first iMac DV and im guessing Jaguar will be a waste of time to upgrade. Ahhhhh! it gets my boxers in a knot! After all we Imac users make up the bread and butter of apple computers.

Catfish_Man
May 31, 2002, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by djwoolf
well i gatta say i am pretty mad at apple for giving shoddy performance of OS X on iMacs I have the first iMac DV and im guessing Jaguar will be a waste of time to upgrade. Ahhhhh! it gets my boxers in a knot! After all we Imac users make up the bread and butter of apple computers.

...Jaguar a waste of time upgrade??? Jaguar != QuartzGL. Maybe you've missed all the discussion, but reviews of the pre-alpha Jaguar build have said that it's snappy on G3s without QuartzGL. Aside from that, by not upgrading you'd be losing these:
1) Optimizations
2) Rendevous
3) New Drivers
4) Bug Fixes
5) Spring Loaded Folders
6) Java 1.4 support
7) Digital Hub Prefs
8) Multi-Threaded Finder
9) Improved iDisk access
10) Better Searching
11) etc....

Basically: Jaguar == Fast. Speed != Only reason to upgrade

passwordispong
May 31, 2002, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by emdezet
Is the 10.2 finder cocoa or still carbon?

Of course not! Why would it be? There's nothing wrong a Carbon finder, and rewriting it in Cocoa won't make it faster.

MasterX (OSiX)
Jun 2, 2002, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by passwordispong


Of course not! Why would it be? There's nothing wrong a Carbon finder, and rewriting it in Cocoa won't make it faster.

It's not that carbon is slower (as most carbon apps would lead you to beleive) but that only Apple, close developers, and smart 3rd parties can harness carbon so it doesn't take a big performance hit. Also most OSX-only carbon apps (Finder) run just as fast, unlike hybrid ones, which rely on LaunchCFMApp which is the most annoying wrapper in the universe...

Grokgod
Jun 2, 2002, 11:20 AM
The QE specs are quite simple and have been explained many times in a deliberate and concise manner. Yet still the confusion exists, why?

It exists because people do not want to accept the fact that a 2 year old computer will not run the newest OS and all its upgrades in the fastest manner available to the highest end units put out by mac.

Is there any 2 year old computer in the mac or pc world that runs new software at speeds equal to the newest and the best.

Apple is doing a great job at easing into the future upgrades and there are many older computers that will still be able to use QE. NOT fully as newer units will but it will be functional.

People with towers and older AGP graphics cards can stop complaining.

UPGRADE the card. simple enough, right.

People with older iMacs or iBooks that cannot be ungraded move up to a new computer! Or get used to using OS9 that came with the system or a less than fast OSX running on it till you can afford to upgrade.
Welcome to the real world.

Did you choose the blue pill.
Can you handle the truth?

A two year old computer is TOO old!
If your any kind of PRO user, you know this and do often upgrades or purchase new units. If your a common user then it probably doesnt matter all that much to you and whatever speed gains you do get with QE will be liveable and enjoyable.

If it isnt then you need a new box.

Rower_CPU
Jun 2, 2002, 12:09 PM
Interesting ommission on your part...us TiBook users.

Just because we buy a "Pro" machine doesn't mean we have the money to buy a new one every time Apple puts out a new revision.

And the confusion exists because Jaguar is not out yet, and therefore neither is QE. We may not even need to upgrade our hardware, if we see enough speed benefits. Wait and see, that's all we can do.

I'm sick of all this "holier than thou" BS!

Grokgod
Jun 2, 2002, 01:07 PM
Well, I am not sure if I am holier than thou,
if we both have Ti books.

But I am more holy, than a iMac G3 if your using "holy" in the whole
tech spec view. you know the Gestalt of computers.

The Ti's fit into non upgradeable units, didnt mean to leave them out at all.
Its just that they will take advantage of QE. The older ones will also to a degree.

well of course people will want to upgrade if their units dont meet the QE specs, they want more. Why else are they worried or confused or asking questions of these sorts after the MIN has been specified by apple.

This is a mere tech issue, I fail to see the holier than thou attributes in the dialogue.

You either have the MIN specs to achieve optimum benefits or you dont!
If you dont have these specs then your either satisfied with whatever gain or loss you get, or your not.

If your not, then you need to either upgrade or buy a new box.

Or cuss and moan till Gates gives you a box and you trade up to real trouble.

But if holier than thou BS makes you sick, try this!

I am better then you! I have a new iMac, a new Ti and am getting the new powermacs when they come out. Ulitmate configurations only!
If Apple makes any changes to the OS or form factors, hell I will buy that TOO! Then get new units that fly! I got 2 ipods, had to get the larger one when it came out and I am pissed that there isnt enough stuff to buy out right now. Crap!
So, I am going to waste my money on hookers and bad outdoor dining. hell, I think I will wear my Armani suit and fly to Paris and spill expensive wine on it so that I can show the stains to friends and wince over the tasty swallow that was lost to me but forever saved on my $3000. suit. Before I throw it to the poor and buy another in 5 different colors, 2 of which are the same hue merely slightly different shades.

Hopefully that is sickening enough, oh wait my freakin BMW in bright sun yellow, to turn heads and makes others cry in shame.

Rower_CPU
Jun 2, 2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Grokgod
Well, I am not sure if I am holier than thou,
if we both have Ti books.

But I am more holy, than a iMac G3 if your using "holy" in the whole
tech spec view. you know the Gestalt of computers.

The Ti's fit into non upgradeable units, didnt mean to leave them out at all.
Its just that they will take advantage of QE. The older ones will also to a degree.

well of course people will want to upgrade if their units dont meet the QE specs, they want more. Why else are they worried or confused or asking questions of these sorts after the MIN has been specified by apple.

This is a mere tech issue, I fail to see the holier than thou attributes in the dialogue.

You either have the MIN specs to achieve optimum benefits or you dont!
If you dont have these specs then your either satisfied with whatever gain or loss you get, or your not.

If your not, then you need to either upgrade or buy a new box.

...

Holier that thou in that I have seen countless people here who have machines that meet the minimum specs telling everyone who doesn't something along the lines of "why are you complaining, just upgrade". This is exactly what you said.

Which TiBook do you have?

Also, if the minimum specs require a Geforce or Radeon based card and a suggested minimum of 32 MB of VRAM I fail to see how the 8MB Rage cards in the rev a TiBooks would be able to "take advantage of QE" at all.

My point was simply that it's too early in the game to say ANYTHING about QE's performance on ANY system, as it hasn't been released to the public yet.

I think you know where to put your BMW, et al.

Grokgod
Jun 2, 2002, 01:57 PM
You told me to stick my imaginary BMW up my a**

Funny guy~ Now that was original and holier than thou.

First it wouldnt fit unless you know something about me that I dont.

Yea, the original Ti books are in trouble in regards to QE.

If you would actually read my post, < another not very original phrase >

In my first post I used the word CONFUSED.
In my second post I used complain in reference to towers that can be easily upgraded via graphics card, AGP that is!

I am NOT telling or saying to anyone.
"WHy are you complaining just upgrade"

I am trying to say that the nature of the beast is as it it and that those with computers that are very old should understand this nature. 2 Years old is too old to benefit fully from newer OS improvement. This should be obvious!
Dont be confused.

The QE specs are valuable and valid, this is a computer MIN. It does mean something, it means alot! Computer specifications are not heresay or maybes. These values let people understand what are the parameters of the technology and that subjective assertions need to be adjusted to fully understand what will be possible under these parameters.

This is the reason that people are asking questions.
There has been versions released and there are being assessed.
Are they indicative of future versions, of course they are.
Why else would they be released. Is Apple in the habit of saying to their users.
"Hey, here is a useless and good for nothing release to distract and irritate you" well , ichat doesnt count.:)

It has its value and related to the installed unit tells of what is to come.

So what i am saying is this..

Dont be confused, these are the MINs for QE.
If you havent these specs then you will be running it at less than MAX potential. If thats ok with you then, you needed worry or fret. If it isnt then you may need to consider upgrading or buying a new box.

Its rather simple, isnt it.

Rower_CPU
Jun 2, 2002, 02:05 PM
Sorry, forgot to turn on the sarcasm indicator at the end of my last post. :p

I agree that people initially overreacted to the QE requirements. Hell, I was one of them.

But you are still holding to the position that it's right for Apple to bump hardware requirements rather than steamline the OS. I read your posts, and you point blank say:
People with older iMacs or iBooks that cannot be ungraded move up to a new computer! Or get used to using OS9 that came with the system or a less than fast OSX running on it till you can afford to upgrade.
Welcome to the real world.

How is that not telling people to stop complaining and just upgrade? Is there some nuance of the English language there I'm not grasping?

Once again, for the THIRD time, we don't know how QE will run on unsupported hardware yet. We will see what happens when "Jaguar" is released. Now that is simple.

Grokgod
Jun 2, 2002, 02:32 PM
The portion that you quoted seems to cover all objective possible variables.

If your computer hasnt the QE specs it will run below optimum efficiancy!

So, you either run OS9 or get used to slower OSX speed or upgrade.
I dont know of other options, do you?.

We could travel back in time and stop Gates from stealing DOS from his professor and selling it to IBM. Then return to an APPLE only world where Jobs is president of the world and APPLE is the symbol of all life on earth.
Ahh but my Deloren is up my A**.

Is it right for Apple to bump hardware requirements. I wasnt saying it was.
It merely ineveitable. Would you perfer that Apple allow themselves to be destroyed by the WIntel machine and its constant changes.
Its constantly being done at ever generation of software and hardware speed bumps. Its the nature of the beast that newer specs improve performance. And that better performance is made by either better software of hardware. in this case its both.

Those that have older models always have to deal with these changes and as new models become old, the same situation will occur. HArd to believe that this is hard to understand. Its really this simply.

I have the new Ti 800, I have no doubt that at some point soon it will begin to seem slow and that the new models will appear svelt and faster.
Soon the REAL MIN for OSX will be revealed and my Ti will not be within those specs.

Ever read a game package for the Specs to run it.
They make the specs rather low so as to not make consumers, not buy it.
Double negative?
Yet still they specs are of value because you cannot run the game properly if you dont have those specs, its the MIN. If you have more then it will run better and faster. Well OSX is just like that, Apple is writing the code to take advantage of certain specs on certain video cards, the more you got the better!
In the future people will say to me, "Oh I got the newest TI with 64 megs of ram and a Geforce Ti4. OSX FLYS , you loser"

Will I wish that I had a new Ti, Hell yea.
Will I wish that Apple could make OSX FLY on my older Ti, that wouldnt be very realistic in the least.
Will I buy a newer Ti. Hell yea!
Will it FLY, for a while till a newer one comes out.
Hopefully so, or it would mean no progress has been made!

Its called built in obselesence, its the american way, capitalism at its best. or worst?

alex_ant
Jun 2, 2002, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by MasterX (OSiX)
Resizing will always be very CPU intensive, for things like alphabetical order, repositioning icons, and such.
Very CPU intensive on a 386 maybe... if you look at BeOS or Windows 98, both of those are able to resize windows as smoothly as silk on a decent 2D video card (like a Matrox for example). Quartz has to be either 1) not at all optimized or 2) doing much more rendering work than is apparent.

Alex

Catfish_Man
Jun 2, 2002, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Very CPU intensive on a 386 maybe... if you look at BeOS or Windows 98, both of those are able to resize windows as smoothly as silk on a decent 2D video card (like a Matrox for example). Quartz has to be either 1) not at all optimized or 2) doing much more rendering work than is apparent.

Alex [/B]

Matrox? Decent? Surely you're joking. Matrox makes the best semi-reasonably priced 2D accelerators you can buy (I'm sure some pro cards are better, but they cost $1000+). Anyway, both 1) and 2) are corrrect. Quartz currently is NOT accelerated (read that as, "a $5000 graphics card will go exactly 0% faster"), is NOT all that well optimized (it's very new still), and it IS the most advanced 2D engine in use today (Windows is expected to catch up to where Quartz will be this summer sometime in 2004). Remember QuickdrawGX? It did vector graphics like Quartz and was dropped because it was too slow. Quartz is QuickdrawGX done right, but it's still much more complicated than normal QD. My main peeve about Quartz is that they didn't use it to make the UI resolution independent. I think Quartz will eventually be a very good thing, but for now it's a bit slow.

Grokgod
Jun 2, 2002, 10:34 PM
I think that the latest iBook video graphic specs is an indication of what Apple is considering palatable for decent OSX useage.

The newest ibook that came out after the QE announcement has a Radeon with 16 megs of ram. There is a thread on Macrumors that discusses its virtues. Having read this thread it prompted me to go to the only computer store in my town to see if they had any in stock to see for myself.

Before anyone says anything, YES, I am thinking about buying an iBook for my girlfriend, its the only Apple product I dont own and I must complete the absorption process.

So, we went to check it out.
I was quite surprised by its relative snappiness. I think it was comparable to the new iMac on basic GUI functions. I felt that it ran the GUI rather well.
My perceptions of the iBook not being a viable choice for the college student was changed, in a positive way.

Also between the sound of my girl singing. " OH its So cute!" numerous times.

I worked a bit on iMovie and I didnt get Beachball.
Window closed and minimized decently, of course resizing was bit painful but tolerable if you calm your heart from saying.
"Crap, fringin 2002 and I cant resize a window, give me a break!"

So it was a good experience and with QE installed , I think that it would obviously better!
I think that Apple knows this and I feel that it is indicative of what the lowend is and needed for QE and to create a decent user experience.

Rower_CPU
Jun 2, 2002, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Grokgod
The portion that you quoted seems to cover all objective possible variables.

If your computer hasnt the QE specs it will run below optimum efficiancy!

So, you either run OS9 or get used to slower OSX speed or upgrade.
I dont know of other options, do you?.

We could travel back in time and stop Gates from stealing DOS from his professor and selling it to IBM. Then return to an APPLE only world where Jobs is president of the world and APPLE is the symbol of all life on earth.
Ahh but my Deloren is up my A**.

Is it right for Apple to bump hardware requirements. I wasnt saying it was.
It merely ineveitable. Would you perfer that Apple allow themselves to be destroyed by the WIntel machine and its constant changes.
Its constantly being done at ever generation of software and hardware speed bumps. Its the nature of the beast that newer specs improve performance. And that better performance is made by either better software of hardware. in this case its both.

Those that have older models always have to deal with these changes and as new models become old, the same situation will occur. HArd to believe that this is hard to understand. Its really this simply.

I have the new Ti 800, I have no doubt that at some point soon it will begin to seem slow and that the new models will appear svelt and faster.
Soon the REAL MIN for OSX will be revealed and my Ti will not be within those specs.

Ever read a game package for the Specs to run it.
They make the specs rather low so as to not make consumers, not buy it.
Double negative?
Yet still they specs are of value because you cannot run the game properly if you dont have those specs, its the MIN. If you have more then it will run better and faster. Well OSX is just like that, Apple is writing the code to take advantage of certain specs on certain video cards, the more you got the better!
In the future people will say to me, "Oh I got the newest TI with 64 megs of ram and a Geforce Ti4. OSX FLYS , you loser"

Will I wish that I had a new Ti, Hell yea.
Will I wish that Apple could make OSX FLY on my older Ti, that wouldnt be very realistic in the least.
Will I buy a newer Ti. Hell yea!
Will it FLY, for a while till a newer one comes out.
Hopefully so, or it would mean no progress has been made!

Its called built in obselesence, its the american way, capitalism at its best. or worst?

Sorry to full-quote but I didn't want to be accused of taking a quote out of context again.

You have a DP1GHz PowerMac according to your profile, and the latest 800 MHz TiBook according to
this thread (http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=5837). Your machines are fully supported....I don't think that's a coincidence.

It is in no way an unreasonable expectation for Apple to make OS X run faster on currently "supported systems". It has been one of the biggest expectations of the Mac community since Public Beta.

Once again, for the FOURTH time, we don't know how/if QE will run on video hardware that doesn't meet the minimum requirements. We will know once "Jaguar" ships. This argument is moot.

MasterX (OSiX)
Jun 3, 2002, 03:11 PM
1st of all: GrokGod and Rower_CPU please just shut up. You will obviously bicker on FOREVER, so i dont want to hear any more of this arguing crap. Now back to the TOPIC:

Originally posted by alex_ant

Very CPU intensive on a 386 maybe... if you look at BeOS or Windows 98, both of those are able to resize windows as smoothly as silk on a decent 2D video card (like a Matrox for example). Quartz has to be either 1) not at all optimized or 2) doing much more rendering work than is apparent.

Alex [/B]

There's a variety of things to concider. I'm assuming Windows 98/Me/XP all use hardware acceleration since they get 2D Antialiasing so fast, and the GUI is so resonsive. But now consider how simple the WinXP GUI is, it's a few gradients and graphics connected to some text which is rendered using the GUI's 2D Acceleration unit. In OSX the resizing is very CPU intense for a few reasons: 1) The actual drawing is done in CPU, 2) Whatever CPU is left need to be devoted to alphabatizing (try turning it off, runs a bit faster), scalling the icons, and moving them to fit in the frame. So yes I still back my claim that it's intense on the CPU. Now look back to WinXP, they use single-buffering (which looks like junk) and from my personal guess it appears that it updates the contents only when it has cycles, unlike OSX which updates it constantly. I don't know how clear that reads so i'll put it this way: when you scale a window in 98/XP it has an awful trail of garbled color behind it, which is most noticable on slow machines. I'd have to GUESS that this is because the scale is done in the GPU, but the contents needs to be done in the CPU.

Now fast forward to MacOS X 10.2. There seems to still be an issue with QE and what will happen to my Rage 128 or whatever. Well to me it seems obvious that only a 256-bit GPU (which all include a variety of advanced features) will be required to map Quartz onto OpenGL, thus hardware accelerating them. If this is true, Apple could do two things: 1) run as much Quartz as possible in the CPU, but leaving the majority of it to to CPU (thus eliminating the need for a lot of VRAM in Rage GPU systems) or 2) simply leave Quartz in it's existing CPU form, which is actually very polished in my opinion.

Ok now we all know without some insane G4 the windows still resize poort as shnapps but then look at examples of resizing in OS9. Some apps like Final Cut used it, they look about as bad as the Windows resize on a slow computer, other apps simply have a poor resize respnsiveness. In truth if apple can pull off really fast Quartz on a GPU they will be gods in the graphics world. Never before has anyone made such an advanced API run on the GPU. Notice how excited apple seems about "opening new opertunities for applicaiton developers" and stuff? This is because many developers have been running around Quartz, opting for an inferior implimentation on OpenGL (which some OSX games use instead of Quartz). But now we should see games and programs using the most complex Quartz effects, at insane speeds, and at insane quality.

As for the VRAM debates, well no Radeon or GeForce2 has ever shipped with under 16MB, so i dont think that's a problem. As for weather that's the limiter or not, i doubt it. I'm pretty sure even if your Rage 128 Pro had 32MB of DDR ram it still wouldn't run Quartz Extreme. But like i said earlier, it's still possible Apple could offer SOME support for hardware Quartz on older 128-bit GPUs, and those with 8MB of ram. Time will tell...

Rower_CPU
Jun 3, 2002, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by MasterX (OSiX)
1st of all: GrokGod and Rower_CPU please just shut up. You will obviously bicker on FOREVER, so i dont want to hear any more of this arguing crap.
...

If you don't want to see it, don't read it.

I don't try to tell you what to do on these forums and I would appreciate it if you would do likewise.

We are on topic...just not your topic.

MasterX (OSiX)
Jun 3, 2002, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU

I think you know where to put your BMW, et al.

Rower_CPU
Jun 3, 2002, 05:46 PM
And...:confused:

MasterX (OSiX)
Jun 3, 2002, 05:59 PM
see we're pff topic yet again If you want to arge with him FINE, but at least keep your posts shorter. Jeeze...

Rower_CPU
Jun 3, 2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by MasterX (OSiX)
1st of all: GrokGod and Rower_CPU please just shut up. You will obviously bicker on FOREVER, so i dont want to hear any more of this arguing crap. Now back to the TOPIC:



There's a variety of things to concider. I'm assuming Windows 98/Me/XP all use hardware acceleration since they get 2D Antialiasing so fast, and the GUI is so resonsive. But now consider how simple the WinXP GUI is, it's a few gradients and graphics connected to some text which is rendered using the GUI's 2D Acceleration unit. In OSX the resizing is very CPU intense for a few reasons: 1) The actual drawing is done in CPU, 2) Whatever CPU is left need to be devoted to alphabatizing (try turning it off, runs a bit faster), scalling the icons, and moving them to fit in the frame. So yes I still back my claim that it's intense on the CPU. Now look back to WinXP, they use single-buffering (which looks like junk) and from my personal guess it appears that it updates the contents only when it has cycles, unlike OSX which updates it constantly. I don't know how clear that reads so i'll put it this way: when you scale a window in 98/XP it has an awful trail of garbled color behind it, which is most noticable on slow machines. I'd have to GUESS that this is because the scale is done in the GPU, but the contents needs to be done in the CPU.

Now fast forward to MacOS X 10.2. There seems to still be an issue with QE and what will happen to my Rage 128 or whatever. Well to me it seems obvious that only a 256-bit GPU (which all include a variety of advanced features) will be required to map Quartz onto OpenGL, thus hardware accelerating them. If this is true, Apple could do two things: 1) run as much Quartz as possible in the CPU, but leaving the majority of it to to CPU (thus eliminating the need for a lot of VRAM in Rage GPU systems) or 2) simply leave Quartz in it's existing CPU form, which is actually very polished in my opinion.

Ok now we all know without some insane G4 the windows still resize poort as shnapps but then look at examples of resizing in OS9. Some apps like Final Cut used it, they look about as bad as the Windows resize on a slow computer, other apps simply have a poor resize respnsiveness. In truth if apple can pull off really fast Quartz on a GPU they will be gods in the graphics world. Never before has anyone made such an advanced API run on the GPU. Notice how excited apple seems about "opening new opertunities for applicaiton developers" and stuff? This is because many developers have been running around Quartz, opting for an inferior implimentation on OpenGL (which some OSX games use instead of Quartz). But now we should see games and programs using the most complex Quartz effects, at insane speeds, and at insane quality.

As for the VRAM debates, well no Radeon or GeForce2 has ever shipped with under 16MB, so i dont think that's a problem. As for weather that's the limiter or not, i doubt it. I'm pretty sure even if your Rage 128 Pro had 32MB of DDR ram it still wouldn't run Quartz Extreme. But like i said earlier, it's still possible Apple could offer SOME support for hardware Quartz on older 128-bit GPUs, and those with 8MB of ram. Time will tell...

What's that about long posts?

My points were as brief as possible, and I apologized for full quoting one of his "essays". You are the one who took us off topic by calling attention to the dispute.

Back to the topic, and for the FIFTH and final time, until Jaguar ships all of this discussion is moot. Until we see "real-world" performance on various hardware, this is all opinion.

MasterX (OSiX)
Jun 3, 2002, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


What's that about long posts?

My points were as brief as possible, and I apologized for full quoting one of his "essays". You are the one who took us off topic by calling attention to the dispute.

Back to the topic, and for the FIFTH and final time, until Jaguar ships all of this discussion is moot. Until we see "real-world" performance on various hardware, this is all opinion.

Well we've seen the sweedish 10.2 video of OSX's new zoom feature in action. :)

MasterX (OSiX)
Jun 3, 2002, 06:23 PM
Oh yeah and by breif, i meant while flaming (if you consider it flaming). Make your points as long as you damn well please. I'm not going to limit your freedom of speech.

Grokgod
Jun 3, 2002, 06:43 PM
Do what I do when i read something that begins in a really idiotic manner like your post did!
I ignore the entire long idiotic babbling diatribe!

This gives you the right to write whatever nonsense that you enjoy pretending to understand and spares me the pain of reading it.

Rower and I were enjoying ourselves till you came about.
Lest I certainly was!

Its called freedom of choice, so BUGGER OFF!

Just so I wont be accused of being off topic.
I did check out an iBook with 16 meg radeon,.
I found it speedy and nice.
I think that this is the MIN to take advantage of QE.
I think that if it works with the current osx build then its all good after that!
hopefully!

Rower_CPU
Jun 3, 2002, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Grokgod
Do what I do when i read something that begins in a really idiotic manner like your post did!
I ignore the entire long idiotic babbling diatribe!

This gives you the right to write whatever nonsense that you enjoy pretending to understand and spares me the pain of reading it.

Rower and I were enjoying ourselves till you came about.
Lest I certainly was!

Its called freedom of choice, so BUGGER OFF!

Just so I wont be accused of being off topic.
I did check out an iBook with 16 meg radeon,.
I found it speedy and nice.
I think that this is the MIN to take advantage of QE.
I think that if it works with the current osx build then its all good after that!
hopefully!

I, too, was enjoying the debate. There's nothing like a little verbal sparring for entertainment. We hadn't fallen into personal attacks like so many debates do.

I agree that a GeForce of Radeon will handle QE nicely, and the 32 MB minimum is probably just a conservative number so that customers won't complain about sluggish performance on the supported hardware.

What were the specs on the system in the MacNytt video? The subsequent video, that's still mirrored on my server here (http://calnet.sdsu.edu/jaguardemo.mov) is running on a current PowerMac with hardware that meets the minimum specs.

What I want to see is video of it on an UNsupported machine to compare the performance and behavior.

MasterX (OSiX)
Jun 3, 2002, 07:41 PM
I hear it's around 20% faster overall. That means non-specific to Quartz.

Rower_CPU
Jun 3, 2002, 07:49 PM
My personal experience is on a G3 (Blue and White) and a rev A TiBook.

Overall performance is definitely faster than 10.1.4.

I have yet to see Jaguar on anything supported yet, so I can't verify what's going on with QE yet...:(

MasterX (OSiX)
Jun 3, 2002, 07:56 PM
Anyone notice how BAD 10.1.3/10.1.4 are? I mean i can't get the damn DVD player to open, and freakin OSX crashes more than it did in 10.1.2 (although 10.1.4 spruced it up a bunch). I pray it'll all be resolved for JaguAr.

Rower_CPU
Jun 3, 2002, 08:02 PM
The main problems I've had with 10.1.4 stem from my experiments with moving system applications and them then failing to work (Mail, Print Center).

They have been stable for me…just slow on my work machine (G3).

Abomination
Jun 3, 2002, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by billiam0878
Hi Everybody,

I've got a Rev A TiBook (500MHz) w/ 8MB ATI, do you know if I could upgrade it to one of the new 32MB's? Thanks

Bill:)

Bill:

You CAN run ANY PCI VIDEO CARD you want on ANY POWERBOOK WITH A PC CARD SLOT!!!!!

The MAGMA division ( http://www.magma.com/index2.html ) of Mobility electronics ( http://www.mobilityelectronics.com/ ) sells towers with like 5 PCI slots in 'em, 2 IDE channels (for up to 4 IDE devices) and three 5 1/4" and two or three 3 1/2" bays for less than $300 at MacMall, or you can buy 'em online at the above addresses.

These towers have NO CPU in 'em, just IDE cables and extra PCI slots and connect to your laptop through the PC Card slot. They call it a "PCMCIA to PCI Bridge" or something like that.

My point is that if your G4 is fast enough (and it is), why let it go to waste? Get a Mobility tower and put whatever PCI based video card you want in it to run OSX. True, the OS won't run that well when you're mobile, but at home it'll rock. There's still use in that 'ol TiBook left!

Besides, if you get a new PowerBook, you can still use the tower, along with whatever internals you've put in it. Keep in mind that you can run desktop-sized hard drives and CD-Rs, as well as any other IDE devices in that tower. Best of all, those devices are cheaper if you buy them as an internal component for a desktop, anyway.

Check 'em out, they're cool.

Catfish_Man
Jun 3, 2002, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Abomination


Bill:

You CAN run ANY PCI VIDEO CARD you want on ANY POWERBOOK WITH A PC CARD SLOT!!!!!

The MAGMA division ( http://www.magma.com/index2.html ) of Mobility electronics ( http://www.mobilityelectronics.com/ ) sells towers with like 5 PCI slots in 'em, 2 IDE channels (for up to 4 IDE devices) and three 5 1/4" and two or three 3 1/2" bays for less than $300 at MacMall, or you can buy 'em online at the above addresses.

These towers have NO CPU in 'em, just IDE cables and extra PCI slots and connect to your laptop through the PC Card slot. They call it a "PCMCIA to PCI Bridge" or something like that.

My point is that if your G4 is fast enough (and it is), why let it go to waste? Get a Mobility tower and put whatever PCI based video card you want in it to run OSX. True, the OS won't run that well when you're mobile, but at home it'll rock. There's still use in that 'ol TiBook left!

Besides, if you get a new PowerBook, you can still use the tower, along with whatever internals you've put in it. Keep in mind that you can run desktop-sized hard drives and CD-Rs, as well as any other IDE devices in that tower. Best of all, those devices are cheaper if you buy them as an internal component for a desktop, anyway.

Check 'em out, they're cool.

PCI graphics cards do not and cannot run QuartzGL.