StarDestroyer.Net BBS

OS X's GUI is not incredibly responsive. It requires a lot of CPU power to utilize - the GUI in Windows XP is almost completely hardware-accelerated while only some parts of OS X's GUI are.

This will only be fixed if (1) video cards start sporting the hardware to, essentially, do PDF in their GPU and (2) Apple get start getting some faster processors from Motorola and IBM.

Crazy_Vasey wrote:And emulation, well supposedly Apple maintain an internal x86 MacOs X port to make sure they haven't fucked anything up when they're working on new versions...

That's not emulation. Comparing a hypothetical x86 MacOS X with PPC MacOS X is not analogous to running PPC MacOS X on x86.

MKSheppard wrote:

phongn wrote: I have a P3/650. It is dog slow at emulating even simple tasks like decompression. Your processor may be 4.6x as fast - but that won't be fast enough to emulate MacOS X, even if you could. (At the moment it is impossible to emulate MacOS X on x86).

I think I'll go with Mr. Bean's knowledge. If he says it can be done...it can be
done.....

Such a wonderful argument, Shep.

Bean knows about x86, fine. He certainly doesn't know about the difficulties of emulation nor the basic architecture of MacOS X.

phongn wrote: Such a wonderful argument, Shep.

Bean knows about x86, fine. He certainly doesn't know about the difficulties of emulation nor the basic architecture of MacOS X.

Hes the one with the insane firewalls, works for a tech company, and has
so much free time that he spends all of his working hours moderating SD.N,
and of course, he's more fun to read than you

Such a wonderful argument, Shep.

Bean knows about x86, fine. He certainly doesn't know about the difficulties of emulation nor the basic architecture of MacOS X.

To quote a Racer
"One does not need to understand how an Engine works to change the oil put Gas in it or Drive it around"
I'll admit the basic foundation of Mac Operation systems are unknow to me because up to this point I have conciusily ignored Mac both due to its small nature and tatics that(Up until Pandium that is) made Microsoft look like Gandhi simply turned me off from thier archeture

However one thing I DO know about OS X is the lack of hardware accerlation for the OS can easly be fixed by Nvidia's and ATI's next realse, and Phonge have you ever had the chance to work with Nvidia's drivers? Its quite easy to take the Mac versions and change them over or vis-versia by the very nature of thier driver archteture setup, If NV30 does not fix the problem certinatly NV35(Aka Dreamland) will come this August

Bean knows about x86, fine. He certainly doesn't know about the difficulties of emulation nor the basic architecture of MacOS X.

To quote a Racer
"One does not need to understand how an Engine works to change the oil put Gas in it or Drive it around"
I'll admit the basic foundation of Mac Operation systems are unknow to me because up to this point I have conciusily ignored Mac both due to its small nature and tatics that(Up until Pandium that is) made Microsoft look like Gandhi simply turned me off from thier archeture

But in this case we're not simply putting gas in the car or driving it.

Mr Bean wrote:However one thing I DO know about OS X is the lack of hardware accerlation for the OS can easly be fixed by Nvidia's and ATI's next realse, and Phonge have you ever had the chance to work with Nvidia's drivers? Its quite easy to take the Mac versions and change them over or vis-versia by the very nature of thier driver archteture setup, If NV30 does not fix the problem certinatly NV35(Aka Dreamland) will come this August

I haven't had the chance to work with it. I do know that the Composition layer of Quartz can be accelerated with current hardware and is (if you have a relatively recent card - the Rage128 can't do it) with the release of OS X 10.2.0

I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude - these changes require an entirely new GPU, not just some driver release. I'm not too sure if either nVidia or ATI will do it, either - the demand is there, but not a very large one (there are rumors of an Apple "GUI coprocessor" but those are simply rumors).

However one thing I DO know about OS X is the lack of hardware accerlation for the OS can easly be fixed by Nvidia's and ATI's next realse, and Phonge have you ever had the chance to work with Nvidia's drivers? Its quite easy to take the Mac versions and change them over or vis-versia by the very nature of thier driver archteture setup, If NV30 does not fix the problem certinatly NV35(Aka Dreamland) will come this August

I don't think you get how Aqua works. It draws everything like a vector, something that graphics cards do not support doing; today's graphics cards only accelerate bitmap drawing. Unless the NV35 will be able to do PDF or vector drawing in its hardware, it won't accelerate Aqua. Right now, Apple has managed to pipe the entire screen through OpenGL, which takes the onscreen elements and draws them as textured polygons. However, it uses a whole fuckload of bandwidth, so it requires a 2X AGP slot with a card that has hardware transform and lighting.

But in this case we're not simply putting gas in the car or driving it.

Nitpick its a Valid Anaology

We are not the one's designing the car nor building it here, as they say its not rocket design

I don't think you get how Aqua works. It draws everything like a vector, something that graphics cards do not support doing; today's graphics cards only accelerate bitmap drawing. Unless the NV35 will be able to do PDF or vector drawing in its hardware, it won't accelerate Aqua . Right now, Apple has managed to pipe the entire screen through OpenGL, which takes the onscreen elements and draws them as textured polygons. However, it uses a whole fuckload of bandwidth, so it requires a 2X AGP slot with a card that has hardware transform and lighting.

Ouch, Why does the term Design Flaw come to mind with this?

Anyway I check on exactly what NV35 is adding in that respects but to me designing an OS like that... Even nativle as I've been checking up on the OS X reviews that quite alot of the Hardware Utilzation is drawing all those pretty menu's and now you tell me this? Paah



So they went to market with a OS according to reveiws where there is no such thing as "Idile" because even rendering the menus and what-no places a strain on the system... if I'm understanding this correctly, tell me on your 733, How many IE or which-ever browser windows can you have open and still mantine less than 1 second switching between them?

Ouch, Why does the term Design Flaw come to mind with this?

Because you don't understand the advantages of the windowing system. The graphics are much crisper than anything I've seen on any other platform. It allows graphic designers to view things onscreen as close to how they would appear on paper as possible at 72dpi. Don't automatically assume that it's a mistake. Apple caters to a completely different market from Quake 3 framerate whores.

Anyway I check on exactly what NV35 is adding in that respects but to me designing an OS like that... Even nativle as I've been checking up on the OS X reviews that quite alot of the Hardware Utilzation is drawing all those pretty menu's and now you tell me this? Paah

It depends on the task. Apple is ahead of the game, as usual. They've already migrated their flagship OS to a completely vector-based drawing system, which means that they'll be ready for the transition to higher-resolution monitors more than anyone else. You can argue about the wisdom of this approach -- sacrificing GUI speed and responsiveness for a better-looking GUI that accurately reflects printed media, but the fact remains that the approach does have its advantages.

So they went to market with a OS according to reveiws where there is no such thing as "Idile" because even rendering the menus and what-no places a strain on the system... if I'm understanding this correctly, tell me on your 733, How many IE or which-ever browser windows can you have open and still mantine less than 1 second switching between them?

If my system is doing nothing else? As many as I want. The window manager in 10.2 takes up significantly less CPU time, as the screen is being drawn by my Radeon 8500.

PC all the way... macs are the tool of the devil... las vegas is sin city, las vegas is has tons of neon lights, macs are neon colored, thus Macs=sin... don't think to hard on that train of thought...

Because you don't understand the advantages of the windowing system. The graphics are much crisper than anything I've seen on any other platform. It allows graphic designers to view things onscreen as close to how they would appear on paper as possible at 72dpi. Don't automatically assume that it's a mistake. Apple caters to a completely different market from Quake 3 framerate whores.

Nooo.... Its the Fact they launched it to begin without not even giving Nvidia or ATI time to intergrate it into thier cards or prehaps even telling them they are

Let me give you a Valid Analogy
Fuel Cell Cars Wave of the Future Right? Given the fact we don't have any Gas Stations in the US set up to support them does it make any Sense to cancle all product lines and sell nothing but Fuel Cell Cars tommrow?

It depends on the task. Apple is ahead of the game, as usual. They've already migrated their flagship OS to a completely vector-based drawing system, which means that they'll be ready for the transition to higher-resolution monitors more than anyone else.

EXCEPT they jumped the gun before there was Hardware to support it making it effeictly a giant preoframance drain for midden returns

If my system is doing nothing else? As many as I want. The window manager in 10.2 takes up significantly less CPU time, as the screen is being drawn by my Radeon 8500.

I asked for a Definate number, If you opened say ten IE Windows, Or whichever browser you used then minised them all, picked two and opened them, how long does it take before each pops up?

I'm asking for numbers here not idiotic statments like "as many as I want"

Nooo.... Its the Fact they launched it to begin without not even giving Nvidia or ATI time to intergrate it into thier cards or prehaps even telling them they are

And what were ATi and nVidia supposed to do? Jump to work on a new graphics chipset just for Apple? How do you know that Apple hasn't been working with both companies for that express purpose, anyway? Apple needed to get OS X out as soon as they could, and they did. Why bother having OS X with a slightly new GUI and then delaying the transition to Aqua? Might as well get people used to the new interface now.

Let me give you a Valid Analogy
Fuel Cell Cars Wave of the Future Right? Given the fact we don't have any Gas Stations in the US set up to support them does it make any Sense to cancle all product lines and sell nothing but Fuel Cell Cars tommrow?

Your analogies suck, no offense. Computers can run Aqua without the graphics card.

EXCEPT they jumped the gun before there was Hardware to support it making it effeictly a giant preoframance drain for midden returns

They didn't jump the gun. People were clamoring for OS X, and there's no reason to delay the transition to the new Aqua interface and the new way of doing things. The sooner people get used to it, the better. You're acting as if Mac OS X has been on the market for 5 or 6 years, like NT has. It hasn't. It's a completely new OS, and it's still in its infancy. I don't seem to recall Windows 95 being a speed demon, or Windows 3.1, for that matter.

I asked for a Definate number, If you opened say ten IE Windows, Or whichever browser you used then minised them all, picked two and opened them, how long does it take before each pops up?

I'm asking for numbers here not idiotic statments like "as many as I want"

It's rather difficult for me to run such a test from my machine at work, since it's not a Mac.

Argh, 3 pages of this stupid argument again? Look, now if this were a serious question, how would you answer:

(this is a serious question, after all)
What would you get to accomplish the following tasks as stably and as fast as possible?

Mathematica, Matlab, SETI@home, word processing, CDs/DVDs, and games like CivX. I mean, great picture and speed. Fast connection a la T10 and no MS registry, dll files, or tracking devices. Total control over the interface and some fortran and C++.

How about one to control your home theater?

oberon wrote:Argh, 3 pages of this stupid argument again? Look, now if this were a serious question, how would you answer:

(this is a serious question, after all)
What would you get to accomplish the following tasks as stably and as fast as possible?

Mathematica, Matlab, SETI@home, word processing, CDs/DVDs, and games like CivX. I mean, great picture and speed. Fast connection a la T10 and no MS registry, dll files, or tracking devices. Total control over the interface and some fortran and C++.[/b]

Erm, some derivative of *nix? Both MacOS X and Win32 will do most of the above, though not all.

Durandal wrote:

Ouch, Why does the term Design Flaw come to mind with this?

Because you don't understand the advantages of the windowing system. The graphics are much crisper than anything I've seen on any other platform. It allows graphic designers to view things onscreen as close to how they would appear on paper as possible at 72dpi. Don't automatically assume that it's a mistake. Apple caters to a completely different market from Quake 3 framerate whores.

There's also the somewhat minor problem that Aqua is the biggest VRAM hog ever to exist. Each window has to reside in memory independantly, unlike in QuickDraw or GDI+ where only the output of the screen has to be in RAM.

And what were ATi and nVidia supposed to do? Jump to work on a new graphics chipset just for Apple?

You claim that they are on the leading edge ready before anyone else, If thats true then what do ATI and Nvidia have to loose by supporting Apple?

Your analogies suck, no offense. Computers can run Aqua without the graphics card.

What? Magic now? Can Imagins be beamed directy from the Computer to your mind now? There is always a Graphics card involed in some-place of the rendering proccess if nothing more than turning it into Signals your Monitor can understand. Yes Computers can run without Graphics card support however as you already noted, they can run it pretty damn shitty with-out support from the card

They didn't jump the gun. People were clamoring for OS X, and there's no reason to delay the transition to the new Aqua interface and the new way of doing things. The sooner people get used to it, the better. You're acting as if Mac OS X has been on the market for 5 or 6 years, like NT has. It hasn't. It's a completely new OS, and it's still in its infancy. I don't seem to recall Windows 95 being a speed demon, or Windows 3.1, for that matter.

Invalid Analogy, Win 95 WAS Pretty fast and Win 3.1 was two steps above DOS at best(Win XX up until 2000 being 3 or 4 steps)
The fact is they realsed the new Interface without support from the hardware side and now its suffering from it, One should not peg 30% Computer Utilzation from opening the control panel

It's rather difficult for me to run such a test from my machine at work, since it's not a Mac.

Then GO HOME AND DO IT
If you don't have Internet Access I'm willing to wait for Tommrow

I want one of those new IBM chips that are 1.9e-9th the size of the face of a pencil eraser. Well, not just the chip. But a computer the size of a notebook that can do all that stuff and control my home entertainment and alarm, all at the same time. So I can have seti going and always be online and surfing the web while running CFD and Mathematica--so there's what, like 3 processes running some kind of matrix reduction, and maybe be doing some F77 to solve something else, all at the same time, oh yeah and have a CD going and a game that I can alt-tab to when I feel like taking a break from, for instance, SD.net.

You claim that they are on the leading edge ready before anyone else, If thats true then what do ATI and Nvidia have to loose by supporting Apple?

Research and development for a relatively small portion of the market. Come on, Bean, I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

What? Magic now? Can Imagins be beamed directy from the Computer to your mind now? There is always a Graphics card involed in some-place of the rendering proccess if nothing more than turning it into Signals your Monitor can understand. Yes Computers can run without Graphics card support however as you already noted, they can run it pretty damn shitty with-out support from the card

Sorry, without graphics card acceleration. Even without full acceleration, my G4 runs OS X acceptably.

Invalid Analogy, Win 95 WAS Pretty fast and Win 3.1 was two steps above DOS at best(Win XX up until 2000 being 3 or 4 steps)
The fact is they realsed the new Interface without support from the hardware side and now its suffering from it, One should not peg 30% Computer Utilzation from opening the control panel

That's what happens when you composite every pixel on the screen. What also happens is that you get a much cleaner, sharper GUI. It's a trade-off. Looks vs. Speed. Why do I need to explain this concept to you? Apple took a different approach, just like with USB. They didn't wait for all the vendors to have USB peripherals in place, because they'd be waiting forever. So, they created the demand for it. Just like they're doing with vector accelerating graphics cards. Are you as stupid as your typing skills make you out to be?

Then GO HOME AND DO IT
If you don't have Internet Access I'm willing to wait for Tommrow

I just got off work, you asinine fuck. Don't fucking make demands of me. I started out by calmly stating why I choose to use the Mac platform in spite of its disadvantages, and that it's just a matter of opinion. In other words, mere subjectivity. What the fuck are you trying to prove? That Windows is better? Then you might as well give up now; you're not going to convince me. I use both on a regular basis, and my opinions are set.

oberon wrote:I want one of those new IBM chips that are 1.9e-9th the size of the face of a pencil eraser. Well, not just the chip. But a computer the size of a notebook that can do all that stuff and control my home entertainment and alarm, all at the same time. So I can have seti going and always be online and surfing the web while running CFD and Mathematica--so there's what, like 3 processes running some kind of matrix reduction, and maybe be doing some F77 to solve something else, all at the same time, oh yeah and have a CD going and a game that I can alt-tab to when I feel like taking a break from, for instance, SD.net.

ROTFLMAO, Hyde, you're fucking funny.......Of course, we'll have those
in about 5 years, give or take.....

Durandal wrote: That's what happens when you composite every pixel on the screen. What also happens is that you get a much cleaner, sharper GUI. It's a trade-off. Looks vs. Speed. Why do I need to explain this concept to you? Apple took a different approach, just like with USB. They didn't wait for all the vendors to have USB peripherals in place, because they'd be waiting forever. So, they created the demand for it. Just like they're doing with vector accelerating graphics cards. Are you as stupid as your typing skills make you out to be?

USB is great, imagine it......you can chain innumerable hordes of shit to
your computer......you don't need to FORCE things upon the market if
the market LIKES it......

*Cough*

One button mouse Standard on all Macs

*Cough*

Gee, you think maybe APple should take a little money
out of it's funky design labs and just go to a damn beige rectangle
for the tower, along with a 2 button wheel mouse......perhaps then
they'd save a few HUNDRED by not having to look different than
every other computer on the market....

I mean shit....the cube looked cool, but was it really worth all the
R&D money blown on it? For $50 bux, I can give you a marketing
study showing that computer users overwhelmingly favor a multi-button
mouse, yet Apple keeps thinking "Gee, everyone seems to want funky
looking computers, not a WORKABLE MOUSE"

And do we really really need a pretty looking interface? Give me the
boring winblows display.......saves me CPU clock cycles that can be
used to do more crap, rather than render a artsy fartsy interface...

USB is great, imagine it......you can chain innumerable hordes of shit to
your computer......you don't need to FORCE things upon the market if
the market LIKES it......

The market didn't like it. USB has been around for a very long time before Apple adopted it with the iMac. The market is lazy, and Apple are the folks who force it to change every so often.

*Cough*

One button mouse Standard on all Macs

*Cough*

Agreed, this is stupid. That's why I have a trusty Microsoft 4-button optical.

Gee, you think maybe APple should take a little money
out of it's funky design labs and just go to a damn beige rectangle
for the tower, along with a 2 button wheel mouse......perhaps then
they'd save a few HUNDRED by not having to look different than
every other computer on the market....

Why should they? They've been one of two computer companies consistently turning a profit. They must be doing something right.

I mean shit....the cube looked cool, but was it really worth all the
R&D money blown on it? For $50 bux, I can give you a marketing
study showing that computer users overwhelmingly favor a multi-button
mouse, yet Apple keeps thinking "Gee, everyone seems to want funky
looking computers, not a WORKABLE MOUSE"

The Cube was disastrously overpriced; that was it's only problem. Aside from that, what Apple thinks apparently is doing them well. They sell machines, and they turn a good profit. Can Gateway say the same? Or eMachines?

And do we really really need a pretty looking interface? Give me the boring winblows display.......saves me CPU clock cycles that can be
used to do more crap, rather than render a artsy fartsy interface...

To each his own. I'm a perfectionist, and I like attention to detail. Apple offers that to me. If you don't care, then don't buy Apple. It's not that hard a concept.

Seriously, if you want to use Windows or Linux, fine. But Christ, why can't anyone understand that some people just like using Macs more than fucking Windows? Jesus.

Durandal wrote: The market didn't like it. USB has been around for a very long time before Apple adopted it with the iMac. The market is lazy, and Apple are the folks who force it to change every so often.

Actually, I think USB only took off after Microsoft made USB actually
WORK in Windows 98.....

Why should they? They've been one of two computer companies consistently turning a profit. They must be doing something right.

Only thanks to their legions of fanboys....Apple IMHO spends an inordinate
amount of time and money making sure that their computers look different
than the rest of the market. Dell, for example, just recntly moved from
a beige box to an all-black look, and it looks pretty good for something
that a bunch of eggheads probably slapped together on a minimal budget...

The Cube was disastrously overpriced; that was it's only problem. Aside from that, what Apple thinks apparently is doing them well. They sell machines, and they turn a good profit. Can Gateway say the same? Or eMachines?

Only because they CONTROL the market to an extent that Microsoft
never does....They squashed the Apple Clone Market when it was
obvious that the clone companies were making Macs faster and cheaper
than Apple could ever hope to do....

Just how much premium is tacked on because of the "APPLE" brand?

To each his own. I'm a perfectionist, and I like attention to detail. Apple offers that to me. If you don't care, then don't buy Apple. It's not that hard a concept.

Seriously, if you want to use Windows or Linux, fine. But Christ, why can't anyone understand that some people just like using Macs more than fucking Windows? Jesus.

Macs are no better than fucking Windows based computers. I can crash
a computer, even a Linux box in no time

MKSheppard wrote:

Durandal wrote: The market didn't like it. USB has been around for a very long time before Apple adopted it with the iMac. The market is lazy, and Apple are the folks who force it to change every so often.

Actually, I think USB only took off after Microsoft made USB actually
WORK in Windows 98.....

No. USB took off when the iMac was released and Apple abandoned RS422 and ADB. It reached further success when Microsoft released a working implementation in Windows 95 OSR2 and later Windows 98.

Only thanks to their legions of fanboys....Apple IMHO spends an inordinate
amount of time and money making sure that their computers look different
than the rest of the market. Dell, for example, just recntly moved from
a beige box to an all-black look, and it looks pretty good for something
that a bunch of eggheads probably slapped together on a minimal budget...

It's their market. Sony does the same thing - they both cater to the market that likes more than just the minimalist design.

Just how much premium is tacked on because of the "APPLE" brand?

A lot. The profit margins, IIRC, are almost ridiculous.

phongn wrote: No. USB took off when the iMac was released and Apple abandoned RS422 and ADB. It reached further success when Microsoft released a working implementation in Windows 95 OSR2 and later Windows 98.

Ah, but what REALLY controls the PC market? Apple has only a 10% market
share IIRC.....the M$ working implementation made USB take off like
crazy....

Also, does anyone remember the days when Apple was a bankrupt and
dying company? It took steve jobs to save their ass....

Actually, I think USB only took off after Microsoft made USB actually WORK in Windows 98.....

Wrong. Immediately after the iMac's release, a slew of USB printers came out to match it. It was the most successful personal computer of all time. You may not like Apple, but you at least have to acknowledge that fact.

Only thanks to their legions of fanboys....Apple IMHO spends an inordinate amount of time and money making sure that their computers look different than the rest of the market. Dell, for example, just recntly moved from a beige box to an all-black look, and it looks pretty good for something that a bunch of eggheads probably slapped together on a minimal budget...

Yes, and some people like different, Shep. A Corvette is 4x as cheap as a Viper, but it could still beat one in the quarter-mile. Why do people buy Vipers? They look fucking cool, that's why.

Face it. You don't get attention by being exactly like everyone else. You do it by being different. Steve Jobs knows the exact market he's catering to, and he knows that they want their computers to be distinctive.

Only because they CONTROL the market to an extent that Microsoft never does....They squashed the Apple Clone Market when it was obvious that the clone companies were making Macs faster and cheaper than Apple could ever hope to do....

Oh please. Apple controls their own market, and that's like saying Chevy controls the Chevy market. No shit, Sherlock.

Just how much premium is tacked on because of the "APPLE" brand?

About 30%.

Macs are no better than fucking Windows based computers. I can crash a computer, even a Linux box in no time

Maybe you don't quite get this. I'll write it in nice, big letters for you.

I AM MORE PRODUCTIVE ON THE MAC PLATFORM, SO THAT IS WHAT I USE. OK?

Is that better?