Aqua vs Aero

Discussion in 'macOS' started by iMikeT, Feb 2, 2007.

  1. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #1
    Ok. So I got into a debate about Mac and Windoze. At some point, the debate came down to Aqua and Aero. What I wanted to know was why does Mac OS X Tiger only require 256mb of RAM has the ability to run Aqua as the default (and only) UI. Whereas Vista is requiring a whopping 1gb of RAM so that a user can have the Aero experience.

    Does this have anythiing to do with the Quartz layer of Mac OS X? In my understanding of Quartz, all of the "Core xxx" components are able to make calls to the proper hardware and make efficient use of exactly what it needs. Does this have anything to do with why Mac does not require more RAM?

    Also, I was told that Vista is able to take advantage of "Extreme" branded hardware, mainly the GPU, to accomplish something similar to what Mac OS X does. With that, why does Vista still require 1gb of RAM just to run the UI?
     
  2. oceanmonster macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    #2
    Because the Mac programers are really good at their job and can design software to run under low ram (iPhoto, iMovie) and the same follows for the UI. microsoft hasn't figured out how to compact their ui or programs ram usage. Even the XP ui required around 512 to operate correctly.
     
  3. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #3
    Mac OS X requires 256 MB of RAM and 16 MB of VRAM on the graphics card.
    Windows Vista requires 1 GB and 128 MB of VRAM on the graphics card, AND a powerful GPU (some 128 MB cards can't run it).

    It's ridiculous...it's simply because Vista is bloated. Inefficient coding.
     
  4. Project macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2005
    #4
    Its actually because Aero Glass has more eye candy and as such is more graphics card intensive.

    Whether thats a good thing or not is another matter. Aero Glass to me while nice in places, goes too far (the blurring on the title bar, Flip 3D etc)
     
  5. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #5
    Apple's Dashboard ripple is pretty GPU intensive, but an integrated GPU runs it fine...
     
  6. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #6
    1. It is an artifical restriction, Vista can probably run Aero at 256mb of memory but God....
    2. I have owned Macs with 512mb of memory before, it is not pretty. 256? You gotta be joking
    3. Aero actually has pretty spiffy effects, like the stacked 3D Windows thingy we see in ads. What does OS X use the GPU for? Just that ripple effect and maybe Expose.

    Tell that to the 9200 on the G4 Mac Mini. No matter how you cut it, it requires some shape of hardware support.
     
  7. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #7
    1. i don't think comparison of Vista and Tiger should come down to how it looks, thats shallowest comparison
    2. I don't like Aero, what the hell would u want your title bar to be half transparent? difficult to read.
    3. for your question, u are cheating yourself, did u see anybody run Tiger with 256Mb RAM and be happy? sys req is lie, always.
     
  8. Shadow macrumors 68000

    Shadow

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Keele, United Kingdom
    #8


    1. Everything, actually. I mean that literally-everything you see on screen is handled by the GPU in Mac OS X. May not sound like a lot, but when you consider drop shadows, transparencies, etc.
     
  9. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #9
    Hmmm, come think of it, they are all things that are always there but you never think of :)

    I guess Microsoft used too much of those extravagent effects, like translucent windows and other unnecessary stuff.
     
  10. seanf macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Wow, so you've actually audited the source of Vista and discovered serious inefficiencies in the code?

    1GB RAM and 128MB graphics cards are hardly high-end and home PCs have been selling with this spec for a couple of years now. Could it not be that Microsoft has simply geared their system to take advantage of this? No, of course it's because Microsoft's Developers are so much worse than the magical bread of programmers employed by Apple :rolleyes:

    Sean :)
     
  11. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    It's not just "special" stuff like that. Literally every element that gets to the screen has been placed on a 3D surface for compositing (blending with other windows for the final output). All full-window effects (scaling for Exposé/Spaces, transform for the genie effect, scaling for the Dock) are done by the computer's 3D hardware. And with Quartz 2D Extreme in Leopard, even some of the in-window rendering will be moved to the GPU.

    Fact is, Apple could EASILY do the Flip3D effect that's in Vista with Quartz Extreme _right now_. They could probably do the transparent blurry titlebars too, utilizing CoreImage since it's just a pixel shader effect (not a programmer, but I know the technology is there, it might require some "hook" into the UI system). They don't, because Flip3D is far less useful than Exposé. You can only see the entirety of one window at a time instead of all of them, and it doesn't address windows within a single application or getting to the Desktop easily. It's just a "prettier" Alt+Tab for Windows users.
     
  12. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #12
    u can always say it, talk the talk, doesn't really mean much. :D
     
  13. mojohanna macrumors 6502a

    mojohanna

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Location:
    Cleveland
    #13
    Aren't all of the core xxx pieces of tiger pushed off to the GPU so that it frees up the CPU and then those processes become more dependent on not only the amount of vram but also the speed of the vram as well as the GPU processor. I thought that was one of the big "innovations" of the core xxx pieces.

    I don't see how system ram would be impacted in this case. If Vista handles most of the UI's stuff via the CPU, then I guess I could see why it would require such large chunks of ram.

    Herein also lies another HUGE advantage of Macs. Seamless hardware and software integration.
     
  14. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #14
    Um, if you had any idea how simple the technology is, or how Quartz Extreme worked at all, you'd know that what I said is true. Flip3D is a very simple effect.
     
  15. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #15
    well, it might be simply, but vista has it, osx doesn't, and ppl impressed with it, whatelse u wanna explain to a normal user like me? by telling them they are not intelligent enough? lol, thats what im saying, doesn't mean much.
     
  16. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #16
    If that is the case I guess we are just too used to seeing what Apple has been hawking to us that we disconnected from the real world. Even a Mac Pro has only 1gb of memory and a Geforce 7300 :rolleyes:

    1GB of memory is *non existent* in most of the Mac line before the last core 2 duo updates. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
  17. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    Every review I've seen of Vista so far has pointed out how it's well behind what Tiger was doing already and how Flip3D, while neat looking, isn't really useful compared to Exposé. And in a few months, Leopard will have jumped ahead of Windows again with things like live UI resolution independence, CoreAnimation, QuickLook, network searching with Spotlight, Time Machine, 64-bit/32-bit support seamlessly in one OS install, support for a brand new modern filesystem...

    Honestly clevin I wonder why you're on these boards. You seem to be one of a few annoying Microsoft apologists with little to no knowledge of Apple, making you a troll. Don't you have better things to do? I'd start with learning how to type like a civilized human being. :rolleyes:
     
  18. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #18
    no, sometimes i just love to see apple fans being contradict with themselves,
    its really funny, they brag everything about the looks of OSX, but keep saying Vista's looks is useless... how interesting.
    same applied to iphone and zune.
    its always the logic, "when apple has it, its great, when other ppl have it, but apple doesn't, then its useless", lol, that s all i can say. :p
     
  19. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #19
    Sure, but 1GB RAM and 128MB GPU cards are hardly base either - even now, with Vista, Dell's least expensive desktop, the E521, comes with 512MB RAM and an integrated GPU (you can check it for yourself). Adding another 512MB RAM and a 256MB X1300 GPU adds $160 to the $359 base price, which you'd have to do to get the benefit of anything other than Vista Home Basic ($29 more for Home Premium). And that's still with an AMD Sempron - AMD's version of the Celeron.

    Previously, 256MB and integrated GPU was standard for the cheapest PCs.
     
  20. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #20
    Not really.

    When Apple does something, they are not following behind someone else's tail but instead they are after something revolutionary and innovative. When Microsoft does something their objective is to come up with something that is comparable to what Apple has done before.

    Hence the result. With Apple we have solutions that are engineered to be truly user friendly. With Microsoft we have solutions that looks nice but are essentially superficial pieces of ****.
     
  21. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #21
    No, I've seen you in other Vista threads. When we raise legitimate points about how Vista doesn't match OS X in most areas, you just ignore our points. However, I'll humor you here.

    Flip3D is useless compared to Exposé because it doesn't have nearly as much functionality. All Flip3D does is let you go between windows in order, forward or backwards. It's exactly the same functionally as Alt+Tab, just shows you the windows themselves. It even shows the Desktop itself as part of the rotation of the open windows, which is bizarre and confusing.

    Exposé, on the other hand, has three main modes of operation, each of which are more useful. First, all windows mode gives you instant access to ANY window you want that's open on your system. You can see all of them (fully, not obscured by other windows, which is the point after all) and pick whichever one you want at a glance. In Application windows mode it does the same thing for all the windows open in one application. This is useful if you're working on a bunch of images in Photoshop and want to switch to another quickly but don't want to be distracted by other apps' windows. You can hit a button and instantly see every image you have open in Photoshop and bring the one you want to the front—no cycling through in a specific order. And finally, you can instantly shoof off every window so you can see and interact with the desktop.

    MORE importantly, you can drag clippings, images, files, basically ANYTHING between Exposé modes. So I can show the desktop, grab a file, show all windows, and drop that file in that window. I can grab an image from my browser, show the desktop, and then use spring-loaded folders to drill down in the HD and save the file easily. And with hot-corners, I don't have to hit a single key to do it.

    If you can't see how that huge array of easy functionality is better than Flip3D, you really have no other argument than "IT'S MICROSOFT LOL!"
     
  22. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #22
    I don't think cheap "VISTA capable" pcs are meant to run Aero.

    I agree with u, 1G RAM is acceptable, but 128MB graphic card is not low-end.
     
  23. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #23
    well, Mr.

    I didn't say expose isn't good or useful, i was merely suggesting vista's flip3D isn't useless, is that such a big deal? even apple has alt+tab, altho looks not cute. does anything Vista has u feel NOT useless and good?
     
  24. Techguy172 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    #24
    Here's my point of View Wait until you have actually used Vista before saying it's bad or mac is better. Vista has some cool stuff and no apple doesn't revolutionize everything now I'm not saying Microsoft does either but hey they have both had some pretty cool ideas Like office or Itunes and as for Aero it looks amazing and no it's not simple it's quite complicated that's why no else has done it before.

    As for the requirements for Vista i'll admit they are quite high but I think Microsoft has something here However Leopard has cool stuff too. we'll just have to wait and see what apple's response to vista is.
     
  25. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #25
    Thanks. Somebody had to say it.
     

Share This Page