quartz extreme and previous hardwares

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by phantommaul, May 13, 2002.

  1. phantommaul macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    istanbul,Turkey
    #1
    apple is known by its long lasting products but now steve announced quartz extreme with jaguar 10.2 what is gonna happen to the 8 and 16 MB systems are they gonna work or not because now the new softwares apple gonna make will be the version bareer of 10.2 minimum

    and if i am gonna buy a brand new 800 Mhz 32 MB Vram Tibook how long does it gonna last. i mean think about it if steve comes with a new quartz thecnology next year with a minimum vram of 64 mb on 10.4

    what is happening with apple where are the times our ond LC systems live ???

    tell me what you think bout it

    creative without strategy is art
    creative with strategy is advertising ;)
     
  2. Paolo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2001
    Location:
    The Moon
    #2
    Quartz

    I think your a little pissed off that the new update won't work on your machine.
    I think really what the 32mb requirement for 10.2 is because there were alot of complaints about the beachball of death... and the easiest way to approach this speed problem was by letting OSX chew up more video ram. I don't think quartz extreme really NEEDS the ram but it'll just speed things up for those annoyed consumers who were compliaining about the slowness.
     
  3. phantommaul thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    istanbul,Turkey
    #3
    nope pal i am currently a pc user but i am addicted to macs for 3 years (the time i made a big mistake and bought a pc) so now i have seen the light and want to but a mac but i dont want to buy a machine which is gonna die after one single year i want to use it minimum 2-3 years because i am not keen on replacing every year :D

    if your advertising gets unnoticed everything else is academic

    Bill Bernbach
     
  4. Biggles macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Location:
    Ohio
    #4
    I don't think you have much to worry about. Over at appleinsider.com there a few people with the preview version of 10.2, and a guy with an iBook says its unbelievably "snappier."
    The iBook can't even run quartz extreme, so that should tell you something. i'll try to find some actual quotes from the guy later, but i have to go to school now.
     
  5. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #5
    Does anyone really know this???

    Seriously, Apple says that Quartz Extreme needs xyz video cards with 32MB for optimal performance. My question is this, will QE work less optimally with a ATi Rage 8MB (the one on the iBook)? By less optimally, I mean that it'll work better than Quartz 10.1.4, but not as quick as it would on a 32MB xyz card.

    Or maybe it won't work at all and I'll be stuck using just the regualr Quartz (aka Quartz Lite).
     
  6. Beej macrumors 68020

    Beej

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Buffy's bedroom
    #6
    Apple hasn't done a good job keeping old hardware usable since introducing OS X. This was always going to annoy some people, but it is already helping Apple provide better products.

    I don't think you will have a problem with a new TiBook being unsupported in a years time. Apple has got OS X well established, and now with QE, I think they're about finished not supporting older hardware.
     
  7. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #7
    Congrats on having a lust for Macs, but I have to disagree with you. Yes, my iBook is not optimized for QE, however, it will have the quartz that it has now. Plus since the Kernal is going to be optimized, my iBook is going to be much snappier . Here is what you do. Go to an Apple Store, or to CompUSA, and play with a new Mac. If you are impressed with the system, and enjoy the feel, and speed of the system, then buy it. It will never run X slower than it does now.

    I was a little ticked about my two new iBooks that I just bought not being optimize for X, but now I am looking at it different. My last iBook, that I sold to a friend was bough in January of 2000. My friend still has it, and is running X.1 on it, and it does everything that he wants it to do.

    As a PC user, you should understand that if you wait to buy something, then you will never have anything. And believe me, you Mac will stay newer far longer than any PC out there. Go grab a PC from 2 years ago and slap XP on it, and see how it runs. :p
     
  8. iapple macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2001
    #8
    Don't worry about it.

    I have a Tibook 667, and I must say, OS X is NOT SLOW! Yes, 9 may feel snappier, but when you think about the multitasking, memory protection and everything that X provides, the little "delay" when you click a menu bar doesn't really matter. At least for me it doesn't.

    OS 10.2 IS GOING to support G3 and G4 systems that run 10.1! It is just this FEATURE called Quartz Extreme that will not give the best performance for graphics cards that are lower than AGP 2X, and 32 megs of VRAM is RECOMMENDED, not REQUIRED.

    All these people complaining that their machine won't run Quartz, if you look at www.apple.com/macosx/newversion, you will see that it is RECOMMENDED.

    Jeez, all these people whining... but I know, it is a rough time with this huuuge transition to X, ditching 9 apps, running 2 OSs on one machine (REDICULOUS!!!) But let's put up with it, cause Steve's going to take us there, way beyond our state right now, or any da*n thing Bill can shove at his crowd with Windoze XtraPainful.
     
  9. phantommaul thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    istanbul,Turkey
    #9
    hmm thanx for the advice but i think the new Tibooks have still some missing parts like integrated bluetooth and faster bus speed but if you guys say the QE is no big deal for a long term user like me i am on buying a 677 or 800 TiBook in a couple of months ( but i have no money :) )

    creative without strategy is art
    creative with strategy is advertising
     
  10. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #10
    Let me preface this post by saying that I am not trying to flame here.

    That being said, I don't really know of any PC laptops with bluetooth. Why is it that so many people expect Apple to have things that the PC's don't when no one has it. Also, yes the 133 MHZ speed may seem slow but the P4 has a theoretical bus speed. This means it is a 100 MHZ but they claim it is 400. Yea, that is why the Athlons can smoke the P4's and yet run 600 MHZ slower. Save your money, buy the Ti. You will be more than happy.
     
  11. phantommaul thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    istanbul,Turkey
    #11
    i am expecting the latest technolog from apple because apple has always been the leader on new techs so i am not comparing apple laptops with pc laptops because i know apple laptops are way apead the tech and design of pc laptops but i want to but a long lasting machine so i am asking the magic question again (how long to wait ??)

    apple for life
     
  12. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #12
    I say go for it now. If you keep waiting for the best thing with all the features, then you will never have the machine that you want. You cannot, and I mean cannot go wrong with the TiBooks as they stand now.

    DO IT! Do not wait, you will not regret it.
     
  13. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #13
    QuartzGL...

    ...
    1) requires AGP
    2) requires a Radeon or better
    3) does not require 32MB of ram (although with less than 16 it will be slower than normal Quartz)

    and, as people have said, 10.2 will run great even without QGL. MUCH better than 10.1.
     
  14. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #14
    Thank you Catfish_Man for posting that.

    I was afraid I was going to have to go off on someone. :rolleyes:
     
  15. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #15
    To figure out how much ram...

    ...a window takes, multiply its size in pixels (800x600 on my monitor, for a full screen window), by the color depth (32 bits per pixel, on my monitor), then divide by eight. A 1024x768x32bpp window takes 3MBs, so a 16Meg graphics card could handle 5 full screen windows at that size before it had to hit the main memory. A new TiBook (1280x1024x32) screen takes 4MBs, so it can fit eight in its 32MB card. A 1920x1200 high res cinema display screen takes 9MBs, so a 32Meg card can only handle 3 full screen windows at that size. That help anyone figure out why the ram recommendations are what they are?

    The AGP requirement is because when a PCI card runs out of ram, it's out. When an AGP card runs out, it can use the main memory as extra texture memory.

    The Radeon requirement has been the source of a lot of speculation. Afaik it's because of one or both of these things:
    1) I have heard that on early cards textures were stored in powers of 2 sizes, so a 1024x768 screen would actually be 1024x1024 (2^10). boost it up 1 pixel bigger than that, and the ram requirement quadruples (2048x2048, or 2^11). The newer cards may have fixed this, no one I've heard has been sure.

    2) The Radeon and the GeForce were the first cards with hardware transform and lighting. If QuartzGL uses T&L then there would be 0 (or worse than 0) performance gain on a chip that just sent T&L tasks back to the cpu.

    I hope that helps (and perhaps reduces the complaining ;))
     
  16. Mr Jobs macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #16
    so are you saying that apple should hold back the release of quatz extreme for about a year because it doesn’t support all of apples current hardware, and release it a year later when it does.

    damn some people really...pis* me off, it's always me me me, hey i have a Powermac dual G4/450 with and ADC 15" flat, i live in England i paid just over £3000 for it, way more that i would have if I live in the US. You don’t hear me complain because i understand there are some reasons for it. One being the laws of economics, remember the US is about 70 times bigger then England.

    just like you have to understand there a tecnical reasons why 32MB cannot support QE, any why an iBook does not have a graphics card better then a PowerBook which just about supports QE:mad: :mad:
     
  17. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #17
    Take a deep breath and relax...

    The truth of the matter is that we have no reason to be going on like this right now...but in three or so months, that's a different matter!

    Once we get Jaguar and load it up on our "unsupported" hardware we'll see where we stand. If the performance sucks, people have a right to complain. If we at least get improvements over 10.1, I'll be happy.

    But I'll say again, what I've said before: Apple should include options for turning off/down the GUI elements so that older/slower systems can still run X effectively.
     
  18. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #18
    Who exactly are you responding to here....
     
  19. Mr Jobs macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #19
    sorry, i'm replaying to phantommaul on his/her first post
     
  20. confirmed macrumors regular

    confirmed

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #20
    raycer chip

    before quartz extreme was announced, everyone was hoping for the mythical Raycer chip, a chip devoted to rendering quartz, thus freeing up the processor from having to do this.

    this new chip would, of course, only help new computers which include raycer chip (and probably would, at first, only be included in the professional line.)

    but now apple announces Quartz Extreme. it doesn't need a new chip! it just needs a good graphics card. it'll run on the new iMac, it'll run on a year old PowerMac.

    i just find it silly that people were hoping for a Quartz rendering solution that would only help new computers, and when they get something that helps some older computers, they complain.


    and on another note.. if you're not happy with the speed of your computer when you buy it.. don't buy it.
     
  21. Inhale420 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 4, 2002
    #21
    my athlon 800 (circa summer 2k) runs windows xp just fine.
     
  22. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #22
    Knowing that was a top of the line purchase, most users in summer of 2k were buying 600 MHZ machines. Now, we all know that XP likes a big system, IE: memory, video, and proc. We have a PIII 750 at work with 512 memory, and it pokes with XP on it, and screams with 2K. Just a fact.
     
  23. phantommaul thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    istanbul,Turkey
    #23
    hmmm arent u a bit rude about the opinions i just gave. i am simply asking your ideas about the situation but u understand me completely wrong. thats not a typical manner an apple fan should show. :mad:
     

Share This Page