PDA

View Full Version : Quartz Extreme Demo Movie


blakespot
May 21, 2002, 10:58 AM
User has just written in with news of a Quartz Extreme demo movie (http://www.macnytt.com/files/files/QuartzExtremeTestriktigfil.mov) over at MacNytt (http://www.macnytt.com/) (German site)[/url]. Interesting footage -- have a look.

submitted by Nastarovja

2Step Garage
May 21, 2002, 11:17 AM
Link seems to be dead... server not found...

"Connection with the server cannot be established"

Ill check back in a few.

Rafael Perini
May 21, 2002, 11:17 AM
I wonder how they recorded this from the monitor without those moving stripes that usually appear....

Backtothemac
May 21, 2002, 11:24 AM
If someone gets it link it here. The link is 404.
What is it of, and how does it look?

The link on Blakespots post works, but the link on the main page doesn't.

Mausabiest
May 21, 2002, 11:27 AM
I have to admitt, truely impressive. If this was done with a dual G4 450 and a Gforce 2MX, really something. Gimme Quarz Extreme !!!

By the way, here the link I got it from:
http://www.macnytt.com/files/files/QuartzExtremeTestriktigfil.mov

blakespot
May 21, 2002, 11:34 AM
Link works for me. ?


blakespot

2Step Garage
May 21, 2002, 11:41 AM
wow.. now i can watch dvd's at the microscopic level! Sweet. Could come in handy while reviewing future iWalk hoaxes... ;)

jelloshotsrule
May 21, 2002, 11:45 AM
looks good. i have a dual 8 with gf 2 mx... so this is good to see how well it does on a lesser machine with the same card... nice

mischief
May 21, 2002, 11:49 AM
So I can tuck my tongue back in.....

Pardon the drool.....:p :cool: :eek: :D

Backtothemac
May 21, 2002, 11:55 AM
QE on the iBook. Ok, well, I can't do that. I just cannot believe that it is not running at all on this machine. If not, then the core improvements to X.2 are amazing. I will make a vid of what I can do, and then post it.

Hemingray
May 21, 2002, 12:04 PM
Holy Mother of .........

Okay, now I'm really looking forward to getting a new PowerMac! :eek:

The wait's getting harder and harder to endure. :D

barkmonster
May 21, 2002, 12:13 PM
I've only got a 300Mhz Beige G3 with the 6Mb Ati RageII+ so I know how much faster any mac is going to be than mine, this only a 450Mhz G4 and under X it looks around 4 times faster than OS 9 runs on mine right now. With the entry level G4 more than likely being at 1Ghz or above by the time I can afford to buy a new mac (Next year probably at this rate) I'll not only be blown away by the speed of the Mac itself, The whole "OS X is slow, boo hoo" stuff I keep reading from people is going to be so far gone it won't even be an issue. Also I won't even care how fast OS 9 runs on a newer model, with Protools X around the corner I think the last thing I'll ever see of OS 9 is when I sell my current model to put some cash towards the new one.

It's amazingly fast, if it can do something as complex as that so smoothly, I think the general day to day windowing in OS X is going to be snappy as hell.

OSeXy!
May 21, 2002, 12:41 PM
:eek:

Bloody Hell.
I wouldn't mind getting a prescription of whatever that guy's computer's on.

oranjdisc
May 21, 2002, 12:45 PM
...I'm feeling much more secure about keeping my dual 533 G4 with a GeForce 2MX card at least another year with that kind of performance. Nice. :)

Mr. Anderson
May 21, 2002, 12:53 PM
Now that was impressive. The zooming in of the DVD movie, and the collapsing and launching, its going to be nice. I think I'll be upgrading my G4 450, though. Don't think it will be able to do it justice. But I'd also like to see how a 3D modeling/animation software package ran on it, since the Graphics card would then be doing double duty.

MacKenzie999
May 21, 2002, 12:59 PM
I remember years ago I had a RasterOps monitor that did pretty much the same kind of on-the-fly screen magnification. I'm not a tecchie so I'm assuming there's something here that I am missing...

eyelikeart
May 21, 2002, 01:02 PM
I can't get through...

I guess everyone else in the world is accessing it as well... :(

puffmarvin
May 21, 2002, 01:11 PM
that was rather impressive. question: will quartz extreme work on the orginal powerbook g4?

delta.hex
May 21, 2002, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by 2Step Garage
wow.. now i can watch dvd's at the microscopic level! Sweet. Could come in handy while reviewing future iWalk hoaxes... ;)

I think it will also be very popular with other kinds of movies...

nero007
May 21, 2002, 01:12 PM
Looks like the site is down.

blakespot
May 21, 2002, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by OSeXy!
:eek:

Bloody Hell.
I wouldn't mind getting a prescription of whatever that guy's computer's on.
Take two and call me in the morning.


blakespot

Thundercorp
May 21, 2002, 01:21 PM
Here's a mirror from my box .. it may slashdot easily cause it's on a cable modem. Oh well, at least it's Powered by Mac OS X !!

http://47ronin.dyndns.org:8001/~samurai/QuartzExtremeTestriktigfil.mov

Thundercorp
May 21, 2002, 01:40 PM
Okay new mirror.. this one won't slashdot as easily.. :)

http://members.cox.net/ronin4701/QuartzExtremeTestriktigfil.mov

Gelfin
May 21, 2002, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by MacKenzie999
I remember years ago I had a RasterOps monitor that did pretty much the same kind of on-the-fly screen magnification. I'm not a tecchie so I'm assuming there's something here that I am missing...

There's potentially a lot more you could do if the zooming was done in the OS as opposed to being a function of the monitor. The movie doesn't really do a good job of showing it, but what I want to see is whether your fonts stay smooth when you zoom in, for instance. Can Adobe release a patch for Illustrator that keeps my curves smooth when I zoom in with QE?

The thing that really struck me about the zooming is that it makes one hell of an accessibility feature. If I had vision problems and that kind of zoom was an option, I can't even imagine using anything else, and what's more, third-party developers wouldn't even have to be aware of it for the most part.

Unless this video proves to be bogus, I may have to take back everything I've ever said about the practicality of OpenGL-accelerated raster video.

whawho
May 21, 2002, 02:00 PM
This video is impressive but what I would like to see is some everyday work stuff. Maybe a demo of someone using Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver and Flash with the mail app open and a browser.

I know that from what I've read and heard Jaguar is going to rock. I am excited for it. I find 10.1.4 usable at this point and use it everyday for work, so if Jaguar speeds it up all the merrier.:D

dantec
May 21, 2002, 02:11 PM
With a zoom that strong it's time for Apple to make the mouse less pixelated... :)

That video is absolutely cool!!! I wonder if the DVD is also accelerated with a graphics card!

The only think I would use the zoom for is when I'm watching a movie with bikini's... HEHEHEHEHEHE :)

Fat Tony
May 21, 2002, 03:18 PM
I wonder how fast the zoom will work on a 22" flat screen? I'm assuming that doesn't make a difference??

julzmon
May 21, 2002, 03:23 PM
I'm not all that impressed.

The resolution is very low on that monitor.
I get same results on the beta on my powerbook g4 4oo first generation.

I would like to see it on resolution of 1280+.

Although the beta is very nice.
Flash mx does not work on it though :(

eric_n_dfw
May 21, 2002, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by julzmon
I'm not all that impressed.

The resolution is very low on that monitor.
I get same results on the beta on my powerbook g4 4oo first generation.

I would like to see it on resolution of 1280+.

Although the beta is very nice.
Flash mx does not work on it though :(
I'm not so sure the resolution is too low. By the size of the mouse pointer, I think it is at 1024x768 with the icons and dock set very large. (Of course, I'm just guessing)
Seeing it at 1280x1024 would be nice though.
You say, I'm not all that impressed - well, what would be impressive then? No other OS graphics layer offers this level of complex scaling/compositing. What would impress you then? (not a jab - I'm really interested)

jasonpaul75
May 21, 2002, 03:58 PM
But the overall speed of the dock and minimization and etc shown is the exact same speed that I have now...We have the same G4 DUAL 450...but I don't have either the update or the Geforce card..i feel as though I may be pushed to get the larger displays as well...for I can't see this working well in conjunction with a 2nd PCI video card on my 2 monitor setup...oh well progress and all...bygones

To anyone that had any doubts the biggest performance boost you can give any version of OSX is a 2nd processor.....i really don't feel any pinch to upgrade yet...except maybe a desire to keep up with the Job's.

Cheers

mowry
May 21, 2002, 04:28 PM
Nytt means news in Swedish. MacNytt is obviously a Swedish news site.

Despite the passing resemblance, Swedish and German are quite easy to distinguish, even for those who don't know either language: German doesn't have the letter Å and Swedish doesn't have the letter Ü.

eyelikeart
May 21, 2002, 07:23 PM
I had no clue it could do that?!! :D

Rower_CPU
May 21, 2002, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by julzmon
...
I get same results on the beta on my powerbook g4 4oo first generation...

I'm going to be trying it on my PBG4 400 so I'll corroborate your findings.

I would be very surprised to see Jaguar run that fast on my TiPB with an 8MB Rage card.

Omen88
May 21, 2002, 08:06 PM
I d/l'ed some copy of os x 10.2 beta a while ago, but never noticed you could do that hehe. Anyway it's an option called ZoomView in universal access in system preferences. You zoom in/out by pressing cmd-option +/-.

Sorry to disillusionate some of you, but I don't think it's really that impressive, it's just a rasterized zoom of your screen. TMHO it's completely hardware based, so don't think it'll ever keep fonts smooth (or even the cursor).
I admit though it looked very impressive in the movie on that site.

Some other notes about 10.2, boot up goes somewhat faster (15% or so). Graphics are considerably faster (genie effect etc...), but the OS still feels kinda unresponsive (I hope that's due to debugging symbols still in this pre-release).

I am using a G4 733 QS, so it all runs quite smooth.

I also tried zooming on a 1280 * 1024 resolution, it didn't make much of a difference.

And one more thing, the cursor has a shadow dropped underneath it (only shows in cocoa applications). I remember someone complaining about his windows buddies making fun of him 'cos mac didn't have that. Hope that'll make you happy :)

kansaigaijin
May 21, 2002, 08:19 PM
why doesn't the video have the typical refresh lines scrolling down the screen?

Omen88
May 21, 2002, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by kansaigaijin
why doesn't the video have the typical refresh lines scrolling down the screen?

Probably because he set his monitor refresh rate to 60hz (or 50hz, European standard for TVs). I think you overcome that problem then.

mywar2000
May 21, 2002, 08:59 PM
As long as the refresh rates on the screen are the same as that of the camera... You won't see the lines.

Aqua OS X
May 21, 2002, 08:59 PM
No doubt, it's nice to see some demo movies of QE. However this movie really is not showing me anything that I care about.

I'd LIKE to see how QE performs with:
•live resizes of windows with complex dynamic data. ie Resize some browser windows or iPhoto. (I have a feeling that stuff like this is still going to be slow with QE)

•Scrolling and resizing though large list viewed windows or high res photoshop projects.

Tue12
May 21, 2002, 09:17 PM
Man, that was boring.

About One Trillion Billionth as boring as the X-Files Series Finale. :D :p

barkmonster
May 21, 2002, 09:30 PM
A lot of sites use than as a gauge of how useful a graphics card is for 2D work, Xlr8yourmac recently tested a GeForce4 Ti and noted that the scrolling speed in photoshop is 10 times slower under OS X. If it was back up to the speed of OS 9 then I think we're onto a winner here, plus as apple seem to offering the Radeon 8500 with the Xserver, I'd bet we could have one of those cards with ADC as a BTO soon, AFAIK, Ati cards are better for 2D than Nvidia cards mostly.

woodsey
May 21, 2002, 11:58 PM
WOW!!

The magnification is incrediable!

This will make my collection of DVD Porn interesting!

eyelikeart
May 22, 2002, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I would be very surprised to see Jaguar run that fast on my TiPB with an 8MB Rage card.

I'm completely with u there rower...

I think some of u guys here are being way too pessimistic on the subject...

I think this is a big step in video for Apple...

is there any other development of something similar going on with Microsoft?!

Rower_CPU
May 22, 2002, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by eyelikeart
I'm completely with u there rower...

I think some of u guys here are being way too pessimistic on the subject...

I think this is a big step in video for Apple...

is there any other development of something similar going on with Microsoft?!

I'm trying to be more positive. I'm really excited about what they're doing...but the real make-or-break moment will be when I install it and run it...once Apple finally lets me get my grubby hands on it! ;)

eyelikeart
May 22, 2002, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


I'm trying to be more positive. I'm really excited about what they're doing...but the real make-or-break moment will be when I install it and run it...once Apple finally lets me get my grubby hands on it! ;)

he he he...I completely understand what u mean...

I wonder how much we'll be paying?! :eek: :p

Rower_CPU
May 22, 2002, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by eyelikeart
he he he...I completely understand what u mean...

I wonder how much we'll be paying?! :eek: :p

I think that there are enough improvements and new features to warrant a substantial charge...say $50-60 for the upgrade $100 or so for the full version.

johnpg
May 22, 2002, 01:08 AM
After seeing the Quartz Extreme video I decided to boot into Jaguar and try it out myself. I've been very unimpressed with Jaguar and QE, but after playing around it turns out the video is for real. HOWEVER the original video didn't have sound, and sound can and in my case at least, does, cut out during some of the effects. In particular when minimizing a running DVD and it's really bad with the zooming.

DVD's do NOT update in the dock like Quicktime movies do. And Quicktime movies do play in the dock, but the sound goes off. This happens in 10.1.4 too I believe. Anyhow my video has examples of all the things in the other video, plus comparisions with playing a Quicktime movie.

Some of you asked about how the system feels doing normal tasks, etc. The honest truth is not much different at all. In fact it's very dissapointing. Windows do NOT re-size any quicker. Or if they do, it's not noticable. About the only thing that's faster for sure are the f/x that the original video showed. As a comparision I also played some videos and DVD's in 10.1.4 and put that at the end of the video. You'll see that QE/jaguar helps a LOT at these tasks and is much more reliable (if not "faster").

But it's not like I spend my days minimizing videos with the genie effect on. I'd much prefer to have seen speed increases in resizing and scrolling. Sorry for the bad news, but that's just the way it is. If it's REALLY important to any of you I can do a video with those things in it (resizing, etc). But it won't look any different from 10.1.4, or at least not much.

Anyhow here's the deal, I do NOT want my box to be killed with a 1000 of you downloading this video (it's over 20mb). So PLEASE if you download it, mirror it and put up another link. If I have bandwidth issues I *WILL* remove it.

Let me know what you think. Sorry I'm no George Lucas.

http://207.182.242.235/jaguardemo1.mov

Cheers,
John

eyelikeart
May 22, 2002, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


I think that there are enough improvements and new features to warrant a substantial charge...say $50-60 for the upgrade $100 or so for the full version.

I'd have to say that $50-$60 is a bit high in my opinion...I was thinking more like $25 or so...

but whatever...I'm not going to need the full anyway... :D

Rower_CPU
May 22, 2002, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by eyelikeart
I'd have to say that $50-$60 is a bit high in my opinion...I was thinking more like $25 or so...

but whatever...I'm not going to need the full anyway... :D

OS X is $130 now for the full version, and most software upgrades are typically 1/2 the full price, so...but cheaper would be better. :D

eyelikeart
May 22, 2002, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by johnpg
Anyhow here's the deal, I do NOT want my box to be killed with a 1000 of you downloading this video (it's over 20mb). So PLEASE if you download it, mirror it and put up another link. If I have bandwidth issues I *WILL* remove it.

Let me know what you think. Sorry I'm no George Lucas.


I will say it's an improvement....but still no cigar if u ask me...

ok so I'm not siding with the pessimists here....but it's not a completely fixed situation....yet...I have faith that it will be very...very killer in it's final version...

funny though...u picked Weezer as a sample video...there was a newbie making a big deal over Weezer in the Favorite Song thread... ;)

johnpg
May 22, 2002, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by eyelikeart
funny though...u picked Weezer as a sample video...there was a newbie making a big deal over Weezer in the Favorite Song thread... ;) Well I'm not the guy from the other thread, but I do love Weezer none the less.

I don't want to sound like a pessimist or anything. It's a BIG improvement at some things, and we are working with a beta (alpha?) here. I was just hoping for more after reading all the rave reviews. But I'll reserve final judgement for the actual release.

Cheers,
John

Rower_CPU
May 22, 2002, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by johnpg
...Anyhow here's the deal, I do NOT want my box to be killed with a 1000 of you downloading this video (it's over 20mb). So PLEASE if you download it, mirror it and put up another link. If I have bandwidth issues I *WILL* remove it.

Let me know what you think. Sorry I'm no George Lucas.

http://207.182.242.235/jaguardemo1.mov

Cheers,
John

Here's a mirror:
[edit: removed link]

Nice work, John!

Aqua OS X
May 22, 2002, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by johnpg


Some of you asked about how the system feels doing normal tasks, etc. The honest truth is not much different at all. In fact it's very dissapointing. Windows do NOT re-size any quicker. Or if they do, it's not noticable. About the only thing that's faster for sure are the f/x that the original video showed. As a comparision I also played some videos and DVD's in 10.1.4 and put that at the end of the video. You'll see that QE/jaguar helps a LOT at these tasks and is much more reliable (if not "faster").

But it's not like I spend my days minimizing videos with the genie effect on. I'd much prefer to have seen speed increases in resizing and scrolling. Sorry for the bad news, but that's just the way it is. If it's REALLY important to any of you I can do a video with those things in it (resizing, etc). But it won't look any different from 10.1.4, or at least not much.
eorge Lucas.

http://207.182.242.235/jaguardemo1.mov


Great post john!

I could not agree with you more. However, at the same time I'm not shocked to hear to say that window resizes have not improved on Mac OS X.

From what I understand QE is simply an OpenGL wrapper for the Quartz compositing engine. This is not really going to speed up things such as window resizes. A lot of this math still has to be done on the CPU.

What is really needed is native GPU hardware to which we can fully offload quartz.

But since that will be a few years away, we REALLY need mac developers to start understanding the limitations of quartz. For example - instead of dynamically resizing content in browser windows when a window is resized, developers should allow page content to update after a live resize has taken place.

Moreover, Apple needs to supply developers with dev tools that allow stuff like this to be done easily.

eyelikeart
May 22, 2002, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by johnpg

I don't want to sound like a pessimist or anything. It's a BIG improvement at some things, and we are working with a beta (alpha?) here. I was just hoping for more after reading all the rave reviews. But I'll reserve final judgement for the actual release.

I agree totally....it didn't appear to be ready for release...the audio dropouts...whatever though...there is a big improvement from what we have in 10.1.4....that's for certain...

I wonder if it will be ready for the release?

could this be a key reason why we have yet to see 10.2?

Backtothemac
May 22, 2002, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by eyelikeart


I agree totally....it didn't appear to be ready for release...the audio dropouts...whatever though...there is a big improvement from what we have in 10.1.4....that's for certain...

I wonder if it will be ready for the release?

could this be a key reason why we have yet to see 10.2?

Actually, I think that the biggest reason that we have not seen X.2 yet is due to quicktime 6. The WWDC build is not the most recent seed of 10.2 that is out there among developers. I hope that we will see it at NY, and if not by mid Sept.

eyelikeart
May 22, 2002, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Actually, I think that the biggest reason that we have not seen X.2 yet is due to quicktime 6. The WWDC build is not the most recent seed of 10.2 that is out there among developers. I hope that we will see it at NY, and if not by mid Sept.

I hear that...after the videos yesterday....I've grown increasingly eager for the release now..he he he...

what's the version build up to now...out of curiosity?

Backtothemac
May 22, 2002, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by eyelikeart


I hear that...after the videos yesterday....I've grown increasingly eager for the release now..he he he...

what's the version build up to now...out of curiosity?

Man, I honestly do not know. I know that at least one seed has been release since WWDC, and I don't think the WWDC version is the most recent because it doesn't have Sherlock 3 in it, and iChat is at ver .75. That means they are close with it. Yea, not only are the videos making me want to see X.2 released without all of the beta code, but it makes me want a G4 system. My little iBook is running so much better with X.2, but it still cannot do anything like what is in the two videos.

E-mail railheaddesign, and they can tell you what the build on X.2 is.

eyelikeart
May 22, 2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yea, not only are the videos making me want to see X.2 released without all of the beta code, but it makes me want a G4 system. My little iBook is running so much better with X.2, but it still cannot do anything like what is in the two videos.

u don't happen to have any #'s of which to compare your iBook to a G4 system by chance do u?

I'm curious to know how it will run on my TiBook....once it's installed...

dantec
May 22, 2002, 10:47 AM
It is really a disapointment to me that 10.2 won't be the OS 9 speed package I hoped it would be!

After watching that video, I think the guy who posted the video, needs defiantly to send his Studio Display for repair!!! Look at the on light flashing!

johnpg
May 22, 2002, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by dantec
After watching that video, I think the guy who posted the video, needs defiantly to send his Studio Display for repair!!! Look at the on light flashing! It only flashes in the video, believe it or not. There's no visible flashing as I look at it now, or then. But I did notice it on the tape. Weird.

John

katchow
May 22, 2002, 11:41 AM
doesnt anyone remember Close View in OS9? The only difference was it zoomed all at once not step by step (would you call that 'live zooming'?).

It just sounds like everyone thinks 'zooming' is an entirely new feature...maybe i'm wrong...

I used the old Close View all the time for zooming in on movies...especially embedded real content/windows media in a browser window that was much too small to see and couldnt be presented full screen...

katchow

GPTurismo
May 22, 2002, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by puffmarvin
that was rather impressive. question: will quartz extreme work on the orginal powerbook g4?

No joke. If I had a machine that was less than 2 years old and it couldn't take advantage of new technology in anyway i would be pissed.

Also, this type of excelleration (or something similar) should have been implemented 2 years ago, but ATI dropped the ball as usual.

beatle888
May 22, 2002, 12:03 PM
julzmon
macrumors newbie

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 4

I'm not all that impressed.


when I read the response by "Juizmon". I thought what a
spoiled brat. And I couldn't wait to post something nasty
in response to his negative attitude.

Then I realized were all seeing this through a filter of our
own experiences. So maybe his stinky childish response
is warrented. Probably.

Anyway, I just think that it's really not a good idea to get
negative because of some users experience with QE in
OS X.2 BETA. I mean come on does the word BETA mean
anything to you pessamists?

Jeeze, I HOPE we will see speed improvements but we wont
know the % until OSX.2 comes out.

So pull that Gstring out of your ass and relax folks, unless
of course you like being uptight.

hehe.


really, dissapointed. Give me a break.

eyelikeart
May 22, 2002, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by GPTurismo


No joke. If I had a machine that was less than 2 years old and it couldn't take advantage of new technology in anyway i would be pissed.

Also, this type of excelleration (or something similar) should have been implemented 2 years ago, but ATI dropped the ball as usual.

this should work out perfectly for me at least...I'm planning on scooping up the next generation PowerBook....maybe MWSF? ;)

mc68k
May 22, 2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by johnpg
Some of you asked about how the system feels doing normal tasks, etc. The honest truth is not much different at all. In fact it's very dissapointing. Windows do NOT re-size any quicker. Or if they do, it's not noticable. About the only thing that's faster for sure are the f/x that the original video showed. As a comparision I also played some videos and DVD's in 10.1.4 and put that at the end of the video. You'll see that QE/jaguar helps a LOT at these tasks and is much more reliable (if not "faster").
John, curious as to what system this is. What are the specs?

johnpg
May 22, 2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by mc68k
John, curious as to what system this is. What are the specs? Oops, sorry. I had planned to post that with my original message.

It's a G4 867mhz (quicksilver, 2001) with 640mb of ram.

John

dantec
May 22, 2002, 02:12 PM
Man I need to get more RAM... 384 isn't enough anymore!!! Hence the 128 I have in my indigo iBook :eek:

eyelikeart
May 22, 2002, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by dantec
Man I need to get more RAM... 384 isn't enough anymore!!! Hence the 128 I have in my indigo iBook :eek:

I have a 512 chip waiting with my name on it...

I've heard mixed reviews though...some say RAM helps out with X....others say they do not see much difference...regardless I'm going for it...if anything it'll be a selling point for me if I ever get rid of my Ti... ;)

GPTurismo
May 22, 2002, 03:30 PM
It pisses me off as a Tech Advisor for a legal firm that has quite a few older powermacs and powerbooks. Especially since we have quite a few tibooks that have the 16 meg and 8 meg cards.

We got to quit, as a community, letting apple slide on stuff. We got to let them know they got to get their act straight, so they will make their os swamp the competition.

I personally don't care what the competition is, for I love mac os x, but it's getting tiring of all the half baked crap they through at us. It's like they willingly take advantage of our devotion to them. LOL.

Like evil gods. LOL.

As for ram, RAM is the biggest thing with mac os x. I am running a g3 400 powermac here at work and a g3 400 powerbook. I originally had 256 ram in the powermac and it was sluggish. Just adding 128 ram sped things up greatly. When I put it to 512, it ran beautifully.

The powerbook is the same way. It had 192, and It would churn when I had 3 apps open, and small apps to boot. I have boosted it to 384 and it runs a lot smoother.

The thing you want to do is prevent OS X from paging out in the ram, or using virtual memory. You want to allow it to cache as much info as it can to speed up operations. Also so it doesn't have to costantly move things to the drive, which if you have 256 megs or ram or less, and use a couple of apps at a time, you need 256+.

GPT

britboy
May 22, 2002, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by dantec
Man I need to get more RAM... 384 isn't enough anymore!!! Hence the 128 I have in my indigo iBook :eek:


I know the feeling. I just recently went from 384 to 768Mb RAM. Sad part is, i still get pageouts. Nowhere near as many, but still some. VPC runs better now though.

eyelikeart
May 22, 2002, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by britboy



I know the feeling. I just recently went from 384 to 768Mb RAM. Sad part is, i still get pageouts. Nowhere near as many, but still some. VPC runs better now though.

I surprisingly do not get any...and I'm only running 384 MB myself...

odd?! :confused:

Rower_CPU
May 22, 2002, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by eyelikeart
I surprisingly do not get any...and I'm only running 384 MB myself...

odd?! :confused:

My TiBook w/ 640MB occasionally pages out, but only if I'm really multitasking with heavy duty apps

mc68k
May 22, 2002, 05:09 PM
I'm running a tricked out s900 for god sakes— and no pageouts!

G4— 510MHz
512MB 5V FPM RAM (interleaved)
ATA/133 w/7200 RPM WD Caviar
etc.

Even when I make my whole dock come alive, I've never had any pageouts.

Zoboomafoo
May 22, 2002, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Gelfin


There's potentially a lot more you could do if the zooming was done in the OS as opposed to being a function of the monitor. The movie doesn't really do a good job of showing it, but what I want to see is whether your fonts stay smooth when you zoom in, for instance. Can Adobe release a patch for Illustrator that keeps my curves smooth when I zoom in with QE?


Think about what you're asking. You want to zoom in on a curve at a pixel level and you want to have Adobe make it such that the curves retain their crispness?

That's gonna break the pixel up into mini pixels. If you zoom in and try to edit something, just what in god's name will you be editing? something real, something fake?

Rower_CPU
May 22, 2002, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Zoboomafoo
Think about what you're asking. You want to zoom in on a curve at a pixel level and you want to have Adobe make it such that the curves retain their crispness?

That's gonna break the pixel up into mini pixels. If you zoom in and try to edit something, just what in god's name will you be editing? something real, something fake?

Illustrator is a vector-based graphics editor. Vectors are mathematical curves, not pixels.

There's no reason why a vector shape should break up into pixels.

Zoboomafoo
May 22, 2002, 05:28 PM
isn't it drawn with pixels, fundamentally?

i stand by what i say. heh.

Rower_CPU
May 22, 2002, 05:35 PM
You're getting the display (i.e. monitor) and the program (i.e. Illustrator) confused.

If you zoom in on a vector all you see is a straight line, no pixels whatsoever. If you simply take a magnifying glass to the monitor you will see pixels, since that's how the monitor displays this information.

If QE just takes the signal and increases each pixel by a set factor to achieve zooming, then all you will see is blocky pixels. If it actually reads the data, and then outputs a zoomed in image to the monitor, then vector shapes should stay straight.

It all depends on how sophisticated QE is...

eyelikeart
May 22, 2002, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


My TiBook w/ 640MB occasionally pages out, but only if I'm really multitasking with heavy duty apps

something to think about...

I do any graphic work in 9.2....not X...

but even while running multiple internet apps....iTunes...and maybe photoshop....I haven't really seen anything...

who knows...? :confused:

gopher
May 22, 2002, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by blakespot
User has just written in with news of a Quartz Extreme demo movie (http://www.macnytt.com/files/files/QuartzExtremeTestriktigfil.mov) over at MacNytt (http://www.macnytt.com/) (German site)[/url]. Interesting footage -- have a look.

submitted by Nastarovja

Woah....magnification x 10 Is that done by key command with Quartz extreme? How were they able to zoom in on the movie?

Aqua OS X
May 23, 2002, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You're getting the display (i.e. monitor) and the program (i.e. Illustrator) confused.

If you zoom in on a vector all you see is a straight line, no pixels whatsoever. If you simply take a magnifying glass to the monitor you will see pixels, since that's how the monitor displays this information.

If QE just takes the signal and increases each pixel by a set factor to achieve zooming, then all you will see is blocky pixels. If it actually reads the data, and then outputs a zoomed in image to the monitor, then vector shapes should stay straight.

It all depends on how sophisticated QE is...

QE is no more sophisticated then what we have now in 10.1. Apple is only moving the the quartz compositing engine to the GPU and taking it off the CPU.

Rower_CPU
May 23, 2002, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Aqua OS X
QE is no more sophisticated then what we have now in 10.1. Apple is only moving the the quartz compositing engine to the GPU and taking it off the CPU.

Really? Where did you get that info?

mc68k
May 23, 2002, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Really? Where did you get that info?
I followed your link:
Quartz Extreme
Jaguar dramatically improves the performance of Mac OS X with Quartz Extreme hardware-based graphics acceleration. Quartz Extreme takes advantage of the OpenGL 3D graphics engine to make the entire desktop a fully accelerated OpenGL scene. A supported* video card can then render the drawing of the desktop, just like it would a 3D game. The main CPU chip(s) can then focus on application-specific needs, making the whole system faster and more responsive.

That means your shadows will drop quickly, your genies will appear slicker and your transparencies will layer faster — and Mac OS X can do more processing in the background while you move the foreground.

But as for no improvement from the Quartz in X, what do you have to say to the new live zooming feature……hmmm??

This quote from Apple and the leaked demo's are the only real proof that we have,

Aqua OS X
May 23, 2002, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Really? Where did you get that info?

Ok, now I don't want to get too geeky. However I get this info primarily from the horses mouth - Apple as well as ATi. It's not new info... you just have to talk with the dorks in the mac dev community.

No doubt, the compositing engine for Quartz and the ways in which certain applications interact with Quartz have been refined in Jaguar. Regardless of whether your video card is "supported" you should still see some speed boosts, be able to render transparency over DVD's, and be able to zoom. (although I could very well see Apple killing the latter two for non QE machines in order to spare the CPU. )

QE is basically a wrapper for the Quartz compositing engine which sits on top of OpenGL. Instead of having the compositing engine for Quartz on top of the CPU, which is also doing everything else on your mac, QE places that engine on top of OpenGL, which in turn sits on top of your GPU.

Now understand that your GPU was not really designed for post script, it does not contain superhuman powers (well I guess it isn't human ;)), and it is essentially going to handle the math for the Quartz compositing engine much in the same way the CPU would handle it.

Nevertheless, the GPU in OS X is usually doing a whole lot'a noth'n unless you are playing a 3D game. So why not max that little processor out and exploit it in ways that you really can't do with the CPU, because the CPU still has other stuff to do. This is where you are going to see your speed boosts come from.

However, it's also important to remember that some of the math for Quartz still has to be done on the CPU ... quartz extreme or not. Complex calculations like those done with a browser resize will still be kind of slow.

Hopefully mac developers will start to see the limitations of quartz, and understand that they ARE here for stay for a bit longer (and forever on non upgradable macs). There are ways to accomplish fast efficient live animations on OS X, and Apple needs to inform developers about how this is done (it wouldn't hurt to give them more free tools as well)...however this is another post unto it's own.

Backtothemac
May 23, 2002, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by eyelikeart


u don't happen to have any #'s of which to compare your iBook to a G4 system by chance do u?

I'm curious to know how it will run on my TiBook....once it's installed...

Actually, I would love to find a way to do some speed tests. I will start a new thread and see what we can come up with for a basis of testing. That would be neat to see how they do.

Rower_CPU
May 23, 2002, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by mc68k

I followed your link:


But as for no improvement from the Quartz in X, what do you have to say to the new live zooming feature……hmmm??

This quote from Apple and the leaked demo's are the only real proof that we have,

But the info on the Jaguar page is generic marketing speak that says nothing about what's going on behind the scenes, other than the hardware acceleration.

mc68k
May 23, 2002, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


But the info on the Jaguar page is generic marketing speak that says nothing about what's going on behind the scenes, other than the hardware acceleration.
But besdies the bootleg Jaguars and the bootleg WWDC videos, there is no REAL proof besides this marketing talk. Everything else is just heresay. I want to see the goods before I go bitching on the forums and to Apple!!!

Rower_CPU
May 23, 2002, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by mc68k
But besdies the bootleg Jaguars and the bootleg WWDC videos, there is no REAL proof besides this marketing talk. Everything else is just heresay. I want to see the goods before I go bitching on the forums and to Apple!!!

Exactly...:)

katchow
May 23, 2002, 12:36 PM
I reitterate...zooming is not a new feature.

Am i the only who remembers Close View starting as far back as system 7? The zooming in OSX appears to be exactly the same except for the smooth transition between zooms...

here's a page about it at apple's site...

http://www.apple.com/disability/easyaccess.html

whats all the fuss?

kactchow

mc68k
May 23, 2002, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by katchow
I reitterate...zooming is not a new feature.

Am i the only who remembers Close View starting as far back as system 7? The zooming in OSX appears to be exactly the same except for the smooth transition between zooms...

here's a page about it at apple's site...

http://www.apple.com/disability/easyaccess.html

whats all the fuss?

kactchow
No, CloseView is not lost to history. I also used MouseKeys back in the day in System 7.

Well, the zooming might appear similar, but the whole OS architecture is wholly different than OS 9, so it's not exactly the same. In fact, it's probably the opposite.

Same idea, better implemenation. Try playing a QT movie with CloseView— it's a no go. Then try it with QE (http://calnet.sdsu.edu/jaguardemo.mov) and tell me if it's the same.

katchow
May 23, 2002, 01:41 PM
i used to watch quicktimes movies with close view...true, it was a bit choppy, but i always attributed that to my lack of video memory (maybe i was wrong).

I'm just saying that this is not a new idea...true it may be handled better in OSX...but aren't a lot of things? It just seemed like everyone was surprised, like it was some new revolutionary feature to be able to zoom your monitor from the OS....

katchow

mc68k
May 23, 2002, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by katchow
i used to watch quicktimes movies with close view...true, it was a bit choppy, but i always attributed that to my lack of video memory (maybe i was wrong).

I'm just saying that this is not a new idea...true it may be handled better in OSX...but aren't a lot of things? It just seemed like everyone was surprised, like it was some new revolutionary feature to be able to zoom your monitor from the OS....

katchow
Yes, hardly revolutionary and hardly new. I don't see much use for it, and I'm halfway blind. I just use the zooming features that come standard in most programs.

People are just excited because it's QE and Jaguar combined to produce something that wasn't in 10.1.x. That's all. We musn't lose sight of history now. :)

dantec
May 23, 2002, 05:06 PM
I think everyone finds the zooming pretty amazing because knowing the history of OS 10's speed, it looks like something too good to be true with zooming effect...

holmesf
May 24, 2002, 12:16 AM
I'm using 10.2 and I have a few things to say about QE.

First, Zooming, while cool, and having a good drool factor to display to PC users, is completely useless unless you have a disability. Thats what it was designed for in the first place! It slows down the system while your zoomed in and is completely unpracticle. I don't know why you guys are so worked up about it.

Secondly, I think quartz extreme is only being applied for a few things. When moving a window around, window manger still hogs 40% of the CPU. As of now, I only think QE is applied onto transperancy effects and the zooming, as those are the only places I've seen speed increases. Moving the terminal around when it is transparent is MUCH faster. Also, making the little box to select files on the desktop snaps perfectly to the cursor. Also, they've added new fading effects when opening applications, which I think have to do with transperancy and QE.

On a completely differn't note I've also noticed the quicktime movie at the begining of RTCW as well as scrolling in IE are smoother as well (donno why).

Aqua OS X
May 24, 2002, 12:18 PM
I don't know why I even both trying to explain QE to you guys :rolleyes:

Theoretically things such as zooming, and transparency over DVDs, should also function on macs without QE in jaguar. Placing the compositing engine on the GPU does not give it special powers, it's just frees up the CPU.

Rower_CPU
May 24, 2002, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Aqua OS X
I don't know why I even both trying to explain QE to you guys :rolleyes:

Someone's a little full of themselves...

The next time you put someone down you might want to double-check for typos...or is that not something you both to do?