Is Tiger that bigger deal?

[wrldwzrd89]

Apple's also making or preparing to make numerous under-the-hood type changes in Tiger. Some of these changes won't actually happen until 10.5 is released, but the preliminary steps towards making these changes are happening in Tiger. The changes Apple's making to the inner parts of the OS won't affect us end-users at all, and have, for the most part, only a small effect on developers (one change in particular, the deprecation of QuickDraw, has a HUGE effect on anyone still using it). The purpose of most of these changes is either to more clearly document parts of the operating system accessible to developers, improve performance, or both.

 

[Platform]

Don't forget Core Graphics! Its job is to hardware accelerate the rest of the user interface - even more so than Panther did (only if you have a programmable graphics card, though).

Will core image make the computer/graphics faster or will they just be able to handle more

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Will core image make the computer/graphics faster or will they just be able to handle more

Core Image makes image processing faster.
Core Graphics makes 2D display of all sorts faster - including the GUI.
Both technologies enable more image complexity than was possible before.
Therefore, the answer to your question is BOTH!

 

[Lacero]

CI and CV speed up image previews but the data produced by the graphics card cannot be sent back to the CPU. So basically if you needed to render out some frames, it would not be any faster. CI and CV only speed up previews, nothing more.

 

[Diatribe]

Tiger so far looks like a bigger step from Panther than Panther did from Jaguar. I think this OS looks like the most promising OS of all time. I can't really imagine how they could improve this for 10.5
Oh and I really like the resolution independent interface in Tiger... that rocks.

 

[rand()]

CI and CV speed up image previews but the data produced by the graphics card cannot be sent back to the CPU. So basically if you needed to render out some frames, it would not be any faster. CI and CV only speed up previews, nothing more.

Heck no at all!

The data produced by the GPU can indeed be recovered by the CPU. This has been true for a number of generations of graphics cards. GPU memory is no longer the Black Hole it used to be.

In fact, that's the point of Core Graphics, Core Image, and Core Video. Offload the processing of video-intensive operations to a microcontroller that's designed for those purposes. All these technologies move graphics handling to the OpenGL level - but that data most definitely IS recoverable.

Ask somebody who uses Motion - it uses the precursors to these new Tiger API's to great processing advantage.

-rand()

 

[slu]

well that wasn't exactly for the average user... let me try

CoreImage and CoreVideo provide hardware accelerated image and video processing. Look at it this way, your video card is GREAT at playing games right? It can process polygons and colors like mad to make those games look good (maybe not YOUR card but the new cards anyway). How would you like it if you could take that processing power and apply it to every day applications rather than just to games? This is exactly what CoreImage and CoreVideo do. They hardware accelerate certain aspects of your every day experience.

For example, say you're doing some image processing in photoshop. you want to add a cool effect but it's pretty processor intensive. using CoreImage this processing can be sent to a specialized processor... your graphics card! It's BUILT to handle images and the math related to editing and managing images. It's perfect for it. Same goes for editing a movie in iMovie or Final Cut Pro. You want to add effects or do things with Final Cut Pro and make your movies but you're tired of the waiting .. you can have the video card do the work about 20 times faster than your computer's processor could. It's really THAT fast. It's built for images, so why not throw some images at it? All that power and it's only used for games? Please, it can be put to good use all the time, and that is what Tiger is going to provide.

From a user perspective you will see faster usage in Image and Video related processing from applications that take advantage of it. From a developer point of view you have a lot more at your disposal to make really cool applications that just weren't possible before. There's a lot of power to harness there and Tiger will make it possible

Thanks, makes some sense now. And anything that speeds up Photoshop or iMovie is worth the price alone. Now maybe I am jazzed about Tiger!

 

[Logik]

Thanks, makes some sense now. And anything that speeds up Photoshop or iMovie is worth the price alone. Now maybe I am jazzed about Tiger!

just realize that photoshop will have to be WRITTEN to take advantage of this. it isn't just an immediate, upgrade to tiger and watch photoshop magically take advantage of these features, kind of thing. you won't see the apps take advantage of this kind of thing for awhile i don't think.. at least the big third party apps... photoshop needs to be rewritten, if it was then it would easily be faster on the mac (at least on tiger) than on the PC by a very large margin. though i'm doubting adobe will do that. so there will just be hacks to the code made to use bits and piece of coreimage... however watching FCP and Motion destroy adobe's products might be an interesting thing

 

[rendezvouscp]

I believe that Adobe has stated that they won't be taking advantage of Tiger's new features because the versions of Photoshop won't be the same on Windows and Mac OS X. This is quite silly if you ask me, so I think that Apple might be introducing a higher end editing app, or someone is going to make one off of Tiger's new features.
-Chase

 

[Logik]

I believe that Adobe has stated that they won't be taking advantage of Tiger's new features because the versions of Photoshop won't be the same on Windows and Mac OS X. This is quite silly if you ask me, so I think that Apple might be introducing a higher end editing app, or someone is going to make one off of Tiger's new features.
-Chase

giant mistake on adobe's part. Apple's video editing utilities will obviously take advantage of this and adobe's products will hurt badly in the end... but how much would you like to bet that adobe will use similar functionality when it's introduced in Longhorn or whatever other version of windows that may have this? Their loss I guess.

 

[rendezvouscp]

Yeah, once Windows is "on par" () with Mac OS X in these features, Adobe will be happy to take advantage of these new technologies. I hope they change their mind though.
-Chase

 

[Logik]

Yeah, once Windows is "on par" () with Mac OS X in these features, Adobe will be happy to take advantage of these new technologies. I hope they change their mind though.
-Chase

doubtful because they'd have to split everything. microsoft's API's for accomplishing the same task will be highly different than Apples... as such they'd split the code even more than it is now.. odds are they'll adopt microsoft's but not apples.. meaning hardware acceleration for windows, but not for mac... :-/

 

[Soulstorm]

Adobe has been supporting the mac for years. Why change their policy now? Photoshop in Mac has been optimized for this platform, as it should be. I think that adobe will do that optimization for sure.

Since adobe does anyway the effort of rewritting its programs to run in OS X, why not make the effort of optimizing it for CoreImage or coreaudio?

I don't think adobe will give up on mac so easily, since a significant amount of the company's profits come from mac users.

 

[Logik]

Adobe has been supporting the mac for years. Why change their policy now? Photoshop in Mac has been optimized for this platform, as it should be. I think that adobe will do that optimization for sure.

Since adobe does anyway the effort of rewritting its programs to run in OS X, why not make the effort of optimizing it for CoreImage or coreaudio?

I don't think adobe will give up on mac so easily, since a significant amount of the company's profits come from mac users.

because it would require major changes in the application. not to mention both microsoft and apple have competing technologies and drastically different API sets. They'd have to actually split their drawing code, right now i imagine there's a lot of shared code, this in all likelihood would reduce that shared code making both applications totally seperate ... then again they do support HyperThreading on the PC, and they support altivec... we'll see i guess, but i'm guessing we won't be seeing coreimage and corevideo support anytime in the near future. which is a shame because it would speed things up quite drastically.