While the system GUI may be slower I find that many underlying applications tasks are faster in OSX thanks to better memory handling, better threading, etc, etc..
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X 10.3 Panther Details
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Originally posted by Rincewind42
Ugh! Perish the thought! Although I will let you have your built in Shadow Killer and 'Turn off all useless animation' checkboxes, although I know I'll never use them
Give me a "turn off all antialiasing" as well and you've got a deal.
It's better on a CRT than it is on an LCD - particularly low-resolution LCDs like the PowerBooks. On a CRT, there will always be some natural "blur" to the fonts, no matter how low the resolution is set, because that is inherent to the technology. With LCDs, you get some funny looking pixels when you have antialiasing on. For example, take a look at the lowercase "L" in the words in the menubar on a PowerBook. On the right side of the letter, you'll notice a band of reddish pixels. If the resolution on the displays were higher, this wouldn't be a problem as the overall proportion of "weird colored" pixels (such as grays) to black pixels would be dramatically reduced.
But still, ever since OS X and all that anti-aliasing going on (CRT or LCD), I stopped having headaches after long days (I work in print graphics and design & make music in the nights, so sometimes it's 16 hours in front of the screen.)
I believe this is because the word shapes in anti-aliased text more closely resemble those of printed text, and when reading, the word shapes really are what matter.
I believe this is because the word shapes in anti-aliased text more closely resemble those of printed text, and when reading, the word shapes really are what matter.
Anti-Aliasing
I not sure how to be objective on this, I suppose there is a metric somewhere.
But subjectively, I have a Linux box beside my Power Mac. The Linux box doesn't have anti-aliasing fonts. If I bring up the same pdf file on both machines, they look different.
Quite frankly viewing on the Linux box sucks (considerably) compared to the Mac ! I think the Mac viewing of the pdf is better than on a PC as well.
OS X has a more real (?) look.
By the way what new feature/improvements are rumored for Panther ?
I not sure how to be objective on this, I suppose there is a metric somewhere.
But subjectively, I have a Linux box beside my Power Mac. The Linux box doesn't have anti-aliasing fonts. If I bring up the same pdf file on both machines, they look different.
Quite frankly viewing on the Linux box sucks (considerably) compared to the Mac ! I think the Mac viewing of the pdf is better than on a PC as well.
OS X has a more real (?) look.
By the way what new feature/improvements are rumored for Panther ?
Wild Arsed Prediction
Quartz Hyper-Extreme:
All screen elements get OpenGL hardware acceleration - not just the window compositing. Each letter, icon and widget becomes an OpenGL native "thing". Then text anti-aliasing can be done by the GPU, further off-loading the CPU's duties. Window scrolling and resizing becomes smooth as silk too.
Whaddya think? Possible? Probable?
Quartz Hyper-Extreme:
All screen elements get OpenGL hardware acceleration - not just the window compositing. Each letter, icon and widget becomes an OpenGL native "thing". Then text anti-aliasing can be done by the GPU, further off-loading the CPU's duties. Window scrolling and resizing becomes smooth as silk too.
Whaddya think? Possible? Probable?
Panther Rumors
Okay, let's summarize:
Panther is supposed to be 64 bit.
-
Panther is supposed to be as fast as OS 9.2.2 on the same machine, rather than sluggish like Jaguar and it's predecessors.
-
Panther will run only on the QuickSilvers and newer because of a bus speed requirement.
-
The new IBM chip IS the G5.
Okay, let's summarize:
Panther is supposed to be 64 bit.
-
Panther is supposed to be as fast as OS 9.2.2 on the same machine, rather than sluggish like Jaguar and it's predecessors.
-
Panther will run only on the QuickSilvers and newer because of a bus speed requirement.
-
The new IBM chip IS the G5.
Re: Panther Rumors
Where did you come up with these rumors? I have'nt heard these before.
I've heard it's suppose to be faster then 10.2 on a factor of the smae amount as 10.2 was to 10.1.
Bus speed requierment? That doesn't make any since Apple would be shooting themselves in the foot.
Where did you come up with these rumors? I have'nt heard these before.
I've heard it's suppose to be faster then 10.2 on a factor of the smae amount as 10.2 was to 10.1.
Bus speed requierment? That doesn't make any since Apple would be shooting themselves in the foot.
The red pixels you talk about, are the result of something called "sub pixel antialiasing" which uses not only complete pixels for "blurring" the fonts but it uses even the red, green and blue sub-pixels of a LCD monitor. With this some diagonal lines would look a little bit smoother but you also could see some colored pixels around a black font. As some others, i don't like this feature. To prevent this coloured pixels, you should go to the system preferences, then choos the general settings an there you could set the type of antialiasing (standard, low, normal (LCD) and high) (the names may vary, because i'm from germany and i don't know the exact english names). If you set the antialiasinig to standard (CRT) the text would be surrounded only by grey pixels and it would look as nice as on a tube monitor. This is my default setting an i like it. I think also, that it would look MUCH better than the non antialiased text in OS 9, but this is only my opinion.
bellybutton
Re: Wild Arsed Prediction
Other than the part about Window scrolling and resizing, it's unlikely.
Letters, icons, and widgets are 2 dimensional and would have too much overhead to efficiently use them in OpenGL. QE works because the windows are actually layered on top of each other.
Other than the part about Window scrolling and resizing, it's unlikely.
Letters, icons, and widgets are 2 dimensional and would have too much overhead to efficiently use them in OpenGL. QE works because the windows are actually layered on top of each other.
Re: Re: Wild Arsed Prediction
but if they did it inefficiently, it would still save proc. time, don't you think, as more would now be on the GPU?
it's possible, methinks--maybe not all of it, but some. they wouldn't call it that though, it should be Quartz überExtreme, lol. then it's like QÜE!
but if they did it inefficiently, it would still save proc. time, don't you think, as more would now be on the GPU?
it's possible, methinks--maybe not all of it, but some. they wouldn't call it that though, it should be Quartz überExtreme, lol. then it's like QÜE!
Accounts
The thing I need most is to be able to have multiple users on simultaneously. This is available in XP (correct me if I'm wrong), why not X? I find it quite disturbing to stop every process just when someone wants to check his/her email..
But then of course speed improvement and all the stuff Apple's used to come up with would ?and will? be cool
The thing I need most is to be able to have multiple users on simultaneously. This is available in XP (correct me if I'm wrong), why not X? I find it quite disturbing to stop every process just when someone wants to check his/her email..
But then of course speed improvement and all the stuff Apple's used to come up with would ?and will? be cool
Accounts
The thing I need most is to be able to have multiple users on simultaneously. This is available in XP (correct me if I'm wrong), why not X? I find it quite disturbing to stop every process just when someone wants to check his/her email..
But then of course speed improvement and all the stuff Apple's used to come up with would ?and will? be cool
The thing I need most is to be able to have multiple users on simultaneously. This is available in XP (correct me if I'm wrong), why not X? I find it quite disturbing to stop every process just when someone wants to check his/her email..
But then of course speed improvement and all the stuff Apple's used to come up with would ?and will? be cool
Re: Accounts
Yes it is. It's one of the few features I actually like about XP. You have to have plenty of RAM though.
Originally posted by Windowlicker
The thing I need most is to be able to have multiple users on simultaneously. This is available in XP (correct me if I'm wrong), why not X? I find it quite disturbing to stop every process just when someone wants to check his/her email..
But then of course speed improvement and all the stuff Apple's used to come up with would ?and will? be cool
Yes it is. It's one of the few features I actually like about XP. You have to have plenty of RAM though.
True, but maybe not if its being rendered using the 3-D pipeline...with everything being rendered as a texture mapped to a polygon like on standard 3-d games, it could be really fast, but I still dont know about text though...some pages have thousands of characters, when resizing a window it might be just as slow.
But maybe on a ATI 9700 w/128 MB or 9800 who knows...I'm stuck on a low-end 2MX.
Journaling Schmournaling. What we need is more bits. Why stop at 64 bits? Why not 65 or 66? I want a 68 bit operating system...I'll even pay $132 for it.
Apple? get John Carmack on the phone!
Darn right! Why does it seem that game programmers (esp. talented people like Carmack) know how to crank out stunning effects and speed from a computer when those who write the operating system settle for less than (apparently) optimal performance.
Yeah, yeah, Apple has many other priorities to address beneath OS X's surface than with the GUI. What I'm wondering though, is if games connect with the hardware on a lower level than say, the Finder. Would this allow games to shine despite the graphical shortcomings of the OS?
Originally posted by cc bcc
Apple should hire ID software and let John Carmack build a bad ass Quartz Beyond Extreme!
Darn right! Why does it seem that game programmers (esp. talented people like Carmack) know how to crank out stunning effects and speed from a computer when those who write the operating system settle for less than (apparently) optimal performance.
Yeah, yeah, Apple has many other priorities to address beneath OS X's surface than with the GUI. What I'm wondering though, is if games connect with the hardware on a lower level than say, the Finder. Would this allow games to shine despite the graphical shortcomings of the OS?
Computers didn't always have word sizes that were powers of two, but you don't find those models around much anymore.
Anyway, why limit yourselves to integers? If a 64-bit computer wouldn't be powerful enough and a 65-bit computer would cost a little too much, simply buy a 64.5-bit computer.
Re: Apple? get John Carmack on the phone!
Your comparing Apples to Oranges. When your playing Quake the developer isn't trying to conserve CPU cycles - they will burn every cycle they have to create those images. If the Finder burned 100% of the system to give you incredible graphics effects you'd be yelling at Apple left right and center because the rest of your system has slowed to a crawl.
And technically, games do typically connect with the graphics system at a lower level, but this is generally because their graphics needs are "simpler" than that of the Finder (or any other application that interacts with the user via the standard GUI). I say the needs of a game are simpler because they generally have only a two requirements: 1) The ability to specify graphics and 2) the ability to draw graphics. Your typical GUI app also has to be concerned with looking like the other apps on your system, and thus need much higher level graphics operations.
Your comparing Apples to Oranges. When your playing Quake the developer isn't trying to conserve CPU cycles - they will burn every cycle they have to create those images. If the Finder burned 100% of the system to give you incredible graphics effects you'd be yelling at Apple left right and center because the rest of your system has slowed to a crawl.
And technically, games do typically connect with the graphics system at a lower level, but this is generally because their graphics needs are "simpler" than that of the Finder (or any other application that interacts with the user via the standard GUI). I say the needs of a game are simpler because they generally have only a two requirements: 1) The ability to specify graphics and 2) the ability to draw graphics. Your typical GUI app also has to be concerned with looking like the other apps on your system, and thus need much higher level graphics operations.
Games vs. UI, and Font Smoothing
I think the OS is dealing with much higher resolution images than games, too. Compare a complete OS X window to a 256x256 texture tile.
And games cut corners to look "pretty good" while running at top speed. An OS has to look perfect. Games are full of artifacts, while the OS X GUI is not. Examples: pieces of things getting blurred or jagged, passing through each other, flickering, getting an odd texture, etc. Things you wouldn't care about if they happen from time to time in some minor visual details of a game--but which would be intolerable anywhere in a UI.
Also: regarding coloration along text when antialiased on LCD: just choose Best for CRT and that goes away. It's subpixel AA, and looks great on most LCDs, but if it doesn't on yours, Best for CRT does NOT have that effect. All the other smoothing settings do. But they also provide triple the resolution--each pixel divided into three subpixels--which is the trade-off. This makes diagonals much sharper than normal AA.
Try this: turn on Best for Flat Panel and switch your display back and forth between Millions and Thousands. Look at the V in the View menu to see the difference: subpixel AA only appears in Millions. And you can't test just by changing the smoothing settings--they only FULLY take effect if you log out and back in.
There's another kind of AA, too: the kind in OS 9 where vertical and horizontal strokes "snapped" to the nearest pixel and would bever blur--but curves and diagonals were still smoothed. This distorts the details of a typeface a bit, bit it's VERY nice on the eyes: smooth AND sharp. Compare text in SimpleText to text in TextEdit and see for yourself. I with OS X still had this "snapped" AA, at least for the UI itself.
I think the OS is dealing with much higher resolution images than games, too. Compare a complete OS X window to a 256x256 texture tile.
And games cut corners to look "pretty good" while running at top speed. An OS has to look perfect. Games are full of artifacts, while the OS X GUI is not. Examples: pieces of things getting blurred or jagged, passing through each other, flickering, getting an odd texture, etc. Things you wouldn't care about if they happen from time to time in some minor visual details of a game--but which would be intolerable anywhere in a UI.
Also: regarding coloration along text when antialiased on LCD: just choose Best for CRT and that goes away. It's subpixel AA, and looks great on most LCDs, but if it doesn't on yours, Best for CRT does NOT have that effect. All the other smoothing settings do. But they also provide triple the resolution--each pixel divided into three subpixels--which is the trade-off. This makes diagonals much sharper than normal AA.
Try this: turn on Best for Flat Panel and switch your display back and forth between Millions and Thousands. Look at the V in the View menu to see the difference: subpixel AA only appears in Millions. And you can't test just by changing the smoothing settings--they only FULLY take effect if you log out and back in.
There's another kind of AA, too: the kind in OS 9 where vertical and horizontal strokes "snapped" to the nearest pixel and would bever blur--but curves and diagonals were still smoothed. This distorts the details of a typeface a bit, bit it's VERY nice on the eyes: smooth AND sharp. Compare text in SimpleText to text in TextEdit and see for yourself. I with OS X still had this "snapped" AA, at least for the UI itself.