Quartz Extreme Clarification

[MasterX (OSiX)]

Originally posted by robbyd
masterX: that sounds as painful as kicking a wall while toothpicks are underneath your toenails!

It was, thankfully i had this beautiful G4 AGP well before OSX every came out.

But back to QE: I think I rmember reading on some deep page in opengl.org that OGL had 2D and 3D acceleration. So if that's true, it's likely that OpenGL graphics cards support the OGL2D too, and thus apple would be more logical to run QE on the 2D engine, despite how cool 3D would be, i doubt polygons will work out really well for Aqua.

Just thought of something, since OSX doesn't use Qukckdraw (or any 2D acceleration in 10.1.x that i've heard of, which seems to be an issue) does that mean old iMacs with under 6MB VRAM can run at 1024x768? I'd check but the new iMac user hates OSX. Can't blame her, stinks on a non-G4 honestly...

 

[Zenith]

I'm running Jaguar right now, and it's really strange... My first impression wasn't as good as i was hoping for. Resizing of windows is even slower than in 10.1, but scrolling is as smooth as in OS 9 (except for mouse scrolling...(?) scrolling with the arrow keys is fast, though). The genie-effect is also as slow as in 10.1. But resizing is a pain...

It's a bit strange, and I'm sure that my Mac takes advantages of QE because it has a GF2MX with 32 MB VRAM. It's not DDR and the card is slow, so that CAN explain the slow resizing and genie-effects... The nice little zooming effect that appears when you open windows in the Finder is as fast as it should be, i think. So because of the scrolling and zooming-effect I'm sure that Jaguar uses my vidcard to render aqua, but what about the slow resizing..?

 

[dantec]

I think QE isn't totally finished. Other threads show that resizing is slow...

 

[Zenith]

maybe it's GF2MX-related or something. many people say that resizing is fast, but I've never heard it from someone with my kind of gfx-card. I sure hope Apple is able to do something about it. Err... who cares? I'm gonna buy a new gfx-card soon anyway.

 

[MasterX (OSiX)]

Resizing

Resizing will always be very CPU intensive, for things like alphabetical order, repositioning icons, and such. If you look at wWin98/Me/XP you can see that since they use tyhe crappy WinOS GUI (haha) they easily get hardware GUI (like OS9 did). And even then their window resizing is slow. But like I hear Jaguar is, scrolling is fast, and so is dragging. The difference is that live dragging/resizing in Winodws stinks (no doubble buffering I suppose, so you get tons of artifacts). Just my thoughs.

 

[Zenith]

Oh well... If so, I gotta get a new G4 (G5? don't think so 😛) this summer/fall. It could be related to my CPU; 733 without L3 cache. I hope I have the $$$ for a new Mac! I really want a faster one, mainly because I'm a graphics/music pro, and because I'm a hardcore gamer and most games are CPU bound if I get a gfx-card better than the Radeon 8500, I think.

 

[MasterX (OSiX)]

There is no card better than the Radeon8500 that you can put in your mac at this time (unless you count the fact that the GF4Ti has 128MB RAM). Both the 8500 and GeForce4 Ti are CPU bound, even on 2.6 (?) GHz PCs with QDR Ram and DDR300 buses or whatever the heck they have now. The problenm lies in ATI's drivers, which aren't bad, but nVidia REALLY knows how to squeeze out more performance. I would assume certain games that are REALLY CPU-bound (Unreal Tournmant) that are programmed for Dual CPUs can go a lot faster on the same video card. I know Giants was programmed for duals and it'll beat a PC 2 years newer than it on a DP500Mhz G4. It's on omnigroup's web page somewhere.

 

[Catfish_Man]

I would guess...

Originally posted by alex_ant
It would make sense if by "optimally," Apple meant "at high resolutions." I'm going to bet that QE on a 16MB card will be capped at 800x600 or 1024x768 (or maybe 1152x768 on the rev B TiBooks - I hope). A 16MB card can render 1600x1200x32bpp in 2D just fine, but I don't think 16MB would be enough to do the same in hardware-accelerated 3D.

Alex

...that it won't actually be capped, but it will slow down after a certain number of windows are opened (it'll start using main memory instead of vram). A 1024x768x32 window takes 3MBs of ram (6 with double buffering), so you could fit either 5 or 2 full screen windows into 16 megs. I would guess it's 5, which means that 16 meg cards should be ok for 1024x768, but I bet they'll work better at 800x600. For a 1920x1200x32 cinema HD display I wouldn't try it on less than 64MBs (each full screen window would be about 9MBs single buffered).

 

[dantec]

Well, apple seems to be a little late on the window resizing thing... Win 98/ME hybrids were horrific at resizing windows, even on the latest PC with a GF 4 & a 2.6 Ghz Pentium windows 98 still resizes windows like Internet Explorer in OS 10 (that kinda choppy resizing that isn't smooth...). However I was surprised when I first used Win 2000. On my school comes they are 800mhz celerons, which can resize windows perfectly at 1024x768, only using around 16% of the CPU with fairly large windows (way over 640x480).

What I like with OS 10 though, is none of the window resizing is choppy. Although it is slow it runs much more smoothly when newer hardware comes out, or optimizations can be made without sacrificing the technique. The windows approach however still shows choppyness on even the fastest PC's on the market today!

 

[dantec]

Oh and by the way, as you have probably guessed these school computers didn't have top of the line graphic cards either... They were nVidia TNT2.

 

[djwoolf]

well i gatta say i am pretty mad at apple for giving shoddy performance of OS X on iMacs I have the first iMac DV and im guessing Jaguar will be a waste of time to upgrade. Ahhhhh! it gets my boxers in a knot! After all we Imac users make up the bread and butter of apple computers.

 

[Catfish_Man]

HAHAHAHHAHa....

Originally posted by djwoolf
well i gatta say i am pretty mad at apple for giving shoddy performance of OS X on iMacs I have the first iMac DV and im guessing Jaguar will be a waste of time to upgrade. Ahhhhh! it gets my boxers in a knot! After all we Imac users make up the bread and butter of apple computers.

...Jaguar a waste of time upgrade??? Jaguar != QuartzGL. Maybe you've missed all the discussion, but reviews of the pre-alpha Jaguar build have said that it's snappy on G3s without QuartzGL. Aside from that, by not upgrading you'd be losing these:
1) Optimizations
2) Rendevous
3) New Drivers
4) Bug Fixes
5) Spring Loaded Folders
6) Java 1.4 support
7) Digital Hub Prefs
8) Multi-Threaded Finder
9) Improved iDisk access
10) Better Searching
11) etc....

Basically: Jaguar == Fast. Speed != Only reason to upgrade

 

[passwordispong]

Re: 10.2 Finder

Originally posted by emdezet
Is the 10.2 finder cocoa or still carbon?

Of course not! Why would it be? There's nothing wrong a Carbon finder, and rewriting it in Cocoa won't make it faster.

 

[MasterX (OSiX)]

Re: Re: 10.2 Finder

Originally posted by passwordispong


Of course not! Why would it be? There's nothing wrong a Carbon finder, and rewriting it in Cocoa won't make it faster.

It's not that carbon is slower (as most carbon apps would lead you to beleive) but that only Apple, close developers, and smart 3rd parties can harness carbon so it doesn't take a big performance hit. Also most OSX-only carbon apps (Finder) run just as fast, unlike hybrid ones, which rely on LaunchCFMApp which is the most annoying wrapper in the universe...

 

[Grokgod]

Still confused? WHY?

The QE specs are quite simple and have been explained many times in a deliberate and concise manner. Yet still the confusion exists, why?

It exists because people do not want to accept the fact that a 2 year old computer will not run the newest OS and all its upgrades in the fastest manner available to the highest end units put out by mac.

Is there any 2 year old computer in the mac or pc world that runs new software at speeds equal to the newest and the best.

Apple is doing a great job at easing into the future upgrades and there are many older computers that will still be able to use QE. NOT fully as newer units will but it will be functional.

People with towers and older AGP graphics cards can stop complaining.

UPGRADE the card. simple enough, right.

People with older iMacs or iBooks that cannot be ungraded move up to a new computer! Or get used to using OS9 that came with the system or a less than fast OSX running on it till you can afford to upgrade.
Welcome to the real world.

Did you choose the blue pill.
Can you handle the truth?

A two year old computer is TOO old!
If your any kind of PRO user, you know this and do often upgrades or purchase new units. If your a common user then it probably doesnt matter all that much to you and whatever speed gains you do get with QE will be liveable and enjoyable.

If it isnt then you need a new box.

 

[Rower_CPU]

PBG4

Interesting ommission on your part...us TiBook users.

Just because we buy a "Pro" machine doesn't mean we have the money to buy a new one every time Apple puts out a new revision.

And the confusion exists because Jaguar is not out yet, and therefore neither is QE. We may not even need to upgrade our hardware, if we see enough speed benefits. Wait and see, that's all we can do.

I'm sick of all this "holier than thou" BS!

 

[Grokgod]

holier than thou

Well, I am not sure if I am holier than thou,
if we both have Ti books.

But I am more holy, than a iMac G3 if your using "holy" in the whole
tech spec view. you know the Gestalt of computers.

The Ti's fit into non upgradeable units, didnt mean to leave them out at all.
Its just that they will take advantage of QE. The older ones will also to a degree.

well of course people will want to upgrade if their units dont meet the QE specs, they want more. Why else are they worried or confused or asking questions of these sorts after the MIN has been specified by apple.

This is a mere tech issue, I fail to see the holier than thou attributes in the dialogue.

You either have the MIN specs to achieve optimum benefits or you dont!
If you dont have these specs then your either satisfied with whatever gain or loss you get, or your not.

If your not, then you need to either upgrade or buy a new box.

Or cuss and moan till Gates gives you a box and you trade up to real trouble.

But if holier than thou BS makes you sick, try this!

I am better then you! I have a new iMac, a new Ti and am getting the new powermacs when they come out. Ulitmate configurations only!
If Apple makes any changes to the OS or form factors, hell I will buy that TOO! Then get new units that fly! I got 2 ipods, had to get the larger one when it came out and I am pissed that there isnt enough stuff to buy out right now. Crap!
So, I am going to waste my money on hookers and bad outdoor dining. hell, I think I will wear my Armani suit and fly to Paris and spill expensive wine on it so that I can show the stains to friends and wince over the tasty swallow that was lost to me but forever saved on my $3000. suit. Before I throw it to the poor and buy another in 5 different colors, 2 of which are the same hue merely slightly different shades.

Hopefully that is sickening enough, oh wait my freakin BMW in bright sun yellow, to turn heads and makes others cry in shame.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: holier than thou

Originally posted by Grokgod
Well, I am not sure if I am holier than thou,
if we both have Ti books.

But I am more holy, than a iMac G3 if your using "holy" in the whole
tech spec view. you know the Gestalt of computers.

The Ti's fit into non upgradeable units, didnt mean to leave them out at all.
Its just that they will take advantage of QE. The older ones will also to a degree.

well of course people will want to upgrade if their units dont meet the QE specs, they want more. Why else are they worried or confused or asking questions of these sorts after the MIN has been specified by apple.

This is a mere tech issue, I fail to see the holier than thou attributes in the dialogue.

You either have the MIN specs to achieve optimum benefits or you dont!
If you dont have these specs then your either satisfied with whatever gain or loss you get, or your not.

If your not, then you need to either upgrade or buy a new box.

...

Holier that thou in that I have seen countless people here who have machines that meet the minimum specs telling everyone who doesn't something along the lines of "why are you complaining, just upgrade". This is exactly what you said.

Which TiBook do you have?

Also, if the minimum specs require a Geforce or Radeon based card and a suggested minimum of 32 MB of VRAM I fail to see how the 8MB Rage cards in the rev a TiBooks would be able to "take advantage of QE" at all.

My point was simply that it's too early in the game to say ANYTHING about QE's performance on ANY system, as it hasn't been released to the public yet.

I think you know where to put your BMW, et al.

 

[Grokgod]

LOL

You told me to stick my imaginary BMW up my a**

Funny guy~ Now that was original and holier than thou.

First it wouldnt fit unless you know something about me that I dont.

Yea, the original Ti books are in trouble in regards to QE.

If you would actually read my post, < another not very original phrase >

In my first post I used the word CONFUSED.
In my second post I used complain in reference to towers that can be easily upgraded via graphics card, AGP that is!

I am NOT telling or saying to anyone.
"WHy are you complaining just upgrade"

I am trying to say that the nature of the beast is as it it and that those with computers that are very old should understand this nature. 2 Years old is too old to benefit fully from newer OS improvement. This should be obvious!
Dont be confused.

The QE specs are valuable and valid, this is a computer MIN. It does mean something, it means alot! Computer specifications are not heresay or maybes. These values let people understand what are the parameters of the technology and that subjective assertions need to be adjusted to fully understand what will be possible under these parameters.

This is the reason that people are asking questions.
There has been versions released and there are being assessed.
Are they indicative of future versions, of course they are.
Why else would they be released. Is Apple in the habit of saying to their users.
"Hey, here is a useless and good for nothing release to distract and irritate you" well , ichat doesnt count.🙂

It has its value and related to the installed unit tells of what is to come.

So what i am saying is this..

Dont be confused, these are the MINs for QE.
If you havent these specs then you will be running it at less than MAX potential. If thats ok with you then, you needed worry or fret. If it isnt then you may need to consider upgrading or buying a new box.

Its rather simple, isnt it.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Sorry, forgot to turn on the sarcasm indicator at the end of my last post. 😛

I agree that people initially overreacted to the QE requirements. Hell, I was one of them.

But you are still holding to the position that it's right for Apple to bump hardware requirements rather than steamline the OS. I read your posts, and you point blank say:

People with older iMacs or iBooks that cannot be ungraded move up to a new computer! Or get used to using OS9 that came with the system or a less than fast OSX running on it till you can afford to upgrade.
Welcome to the real world.

How is that not telling people to stop complaining and just upgrade? Is there some nuance of the English language there I'm not grasping?

Once again, for the THIRD time, we don't know how QE will run on unsupported hardware yet. We will see what happens when "Jaguar" is released. Now that is simple.

 

[Grokgod]

ok , another clarification.

The portion that you quoted seems to cover all objective possible variables.

If your computer hasnt the QE specs it will run below optimum efficiancy!

So, you either run OS9 or get used to slower OSX speed or upgrade.
I dont know of other options, do you?.

We could travel back in time and stop Gates from stealing DOS from his professor and selling it to IBM. Then return to an APPLE only world where Jobs is president of the world and APPLE is the symbol of all life on earth.
Ahh but my Deloren is up my A**.

Is it right for Apple to bump hardware requirements. I wasnt saying it was.
It merely ineveitable. Would you perfer that Apple allow themselves to be destroyed by the WIntel machine and its constant changes.
Its constantly being done at ever generation of software and hardware speed bumps. Its the nature of the beast that newer specs improve performance. And that better performance is made by either better software of hardware. in this case its both.

Those that have older models always have to deal with these changes and as new models become old, the same situation will occur. HArd to believe that this is hard to understand. Its really this simply.

I have the new Ti 800, I have no doubt that at some point soon it will begin to seem slow and that the new models will appear svelt and faster.
Soon the REAL MIN for OSX will be revealed and my Ti will not be within those specs.

Ever read a game package for the Specs to run it.
They make the specs rather low so as to not make consumers, not buy it.
Double negative?
Yet still they specs are of value because you cannot run the game properly if you dont have those specs, its the MIN. If you have more then it will run better and faster. Well OSX is just like that, Apple is writing the code to take advantage of certain specs on certain video cards, the more you got the better!
In the future people will say to me, "Oh I got the newest TI with 64 megs of ram and a Geforce Ti4. OSX FLYS , you loser"

Will I wish that I had a new Ti, Hell yea.
Will I wish that Apple could make OSX FLY on my older Ti, that wouldnt be very realistic in the least.
Will I buy a newer Ti. Hell yea!
Will it FLY, for a while till a newer one comes out.
Hopefully so, or it would mean no progress has been made!

Its called built in obselesence, its the american way, capitalism at its best. or worst?

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Resizing

Originally posted by MasterX (OSiX)
Resizing will always be very CPU intensive, for things like alphabetical order, repositioning icons, and such.

Very CPU intensive on a 386 maybe... if you look at BeOS or Windows 98, both of those are able to resize windows as smoothly as silk on a decent 2D video card (like a Matrox for example). Quartz has to be either 1) not at all optimized or 2) doing much more rendering work than is apparent.

Alex

 

[Catfish_Man]

Re: Re: Resizing

Originally posted by alex_ant

Very CPU intensive on a 386 maybe... if you look at BeOS or Windows 98, both of those are able to resize windows as smoothly as silk on a decent 2D video card (like a Matrox for example). Quartz has to be either 1) not at all optimized or 2) doing much more rendering work than is apparent.

Alex [/B]

Matrox? Decent? Surely you're joking. Matrox makes the best semi-reasonably priced 2D accelerators you can buy (I'm sure some pro cards are better, but they cost $1000+). Anyway, both 1) and 2) are corrrect. Quartz currently is NOT accelerated (read that as, "a $5000 graphics card will go exactly 0% faster"), is NOT all that well optimized (it's very new still), and it IS the most advanced 2D engine in use today (Windows is expected to catch up to where Quartz will be this summer sometime in 2004). Remember QuickdrawGX? It did vector graphics like Quartz and was dropped because it was too slow. Quartz is QuickdrawGX done right, but it's still much more complicated than normal QD. My main peeve about Quartz is that they didn't use it to make the UI resolution independent. I think Quartz will eventually be a very good thing, but for now it's a bit slow.

 

[Grokgod]

The latest iBook~

I think that the latest iBook video graphic specs is an indication of what Apple is considering palatable for decent OSX useage.

The newest ibook that came out after the QE announcement has a Radeon with 16 megs of ram. There is a thread on Macrumors that discusses its virtues. Having read this thread it prompted me to go to the only computer store in my town to see if they had any in stock to see for myself.

Before anyone says anything, YES, I am thinking about buying an iBook for my girlfriend, its the only Apple product I dont own and I must complete the absorption process.

So, we went to check it out.
I was quite surprised by its relative snappiness. I think it was comparable to the new iMac on basic GUI functions. I felt that it ran the GUI rather well.
My perceptions of the iBook not being a viable choice for the college student was changed, in a positive way.

Also between the sound of my girl singing. " OH its So cute!" numerous times.

I worked a bit on iMovie and I didnt get Beachball.
Window closed and minimized decently, of course resizing was bit painful but tolerable if you calm your heart from saying.
"Crap, fringin 2002 and I cant resize a window, give me a break!"

So it was a good experience and with QE installed , I think that it would obviously better!
I think that Apple knows this and I feel that it is indicative of what the lowend is and needed for QE and to create a decent user experience.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: ok , another clarification.

Originally posted by Grokgod
The portion that you quoted seems to cover all objective possible variables.

If your computer hasnt the QE specs it will run below optimum efficiancy!

So, you either run OS9 or get used to slower OSX speed or upgrade.
I dont know of other options, do you?.

We could travel back in time and stop Gates from stealing DOS from his professor and selling it to IBM. Then return to an APPLE only world where Jobs is president of the world and APPLE is the symbol of all life on earth.
Ahh but my Deloren is up my A**.

Is it right for Apple to bump hardware requirements. I wasnt saying it was.
It merely ineveitable. Would you perfer that Apple allow themselves to be destroyed by the WIntel machine and its constant changes.
Its constantly being done at ever generation of software and hardware speed bumps. Its the nature of the beast that newer specs improve performance. And that better performance is made by either better software of hardware. in this case its both.

Those that have older models always have to deal with these changes and as new models become old, the same situation will occur. HArd to believe that this is hard to understand. Its really this simply.

I have the new Ti 800, I have no doubt that at some point soon it will begin to seem slow and that the new models will appear svelt and faster.
Soon the REAL MIN for OSX will be revealed and my Ti will not be within those specs.

Ever read a game package for the Specs to run it.
They make the specs rather low so as to not make consumers, not buy it.
Double negative?
Yet still they specs are of value because you cannot run the game properly if you dont have those specs, its the MIN. If you have more then it will run better and faster. Well OSX is just like that, Apple is writing the code to take advantage of certain specs on certain video cards, the more you got the better!
In the future people will say to me, "Oh I got the newest TI with 64 megs of ram and a Geforce Ti4. OSX FLYS , you loser"

Will I wish that I had a new Ti, Hell yea.
Will I wish that Apple could make OSX FLY on my older Ti, that wouldnt be very realistic in the least.
Will I buy a newer Ti. Hell yea!
Will it FLY, for a while till a newer one comes out.
Hopefully so, or it would mean no progress has been made!

Its called built in obselesence, its the american way, capitalism at its best. or worst?

Sorry to full-quote but I didn't want to be accused of taking a quote out of context again.

You have a DP1GHz PowerMac according to your profile, and the latest 800 MHz TiBook according to
this thread. Your machines are fully supported....I don't think that's a coincidence.

It is in no way an unreasonable expectation for Apple to make OS X run faster on currently "supported systems". It has been one of the biggest expectations of the Mac community since Public Beta.

Once again, for the FOURTH time, we don't know how/if QE will run on video hardware that doesn't meet the minimum requirements. We will know once "Jaguar" ships. This argument is moot.