Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Surfer · Jun 5, 2002, 04:14 AM

The new version now supports Rage Pro chips in Powerbook G3's and older PowerMac G3's. Finally I can play a quicktime movie!!!

"� Support for 2D and QuickTime hardware acceleration for Rage Pro."

undotwa · Jun 5, 2002, 07:42 AM

I'm happy for you.

Meadowfield · Jun 5, 2002, 08:43 AM

Just curious - why was I able to play qt movies before the update? My Profiler indicates I have 'ATI Rage Mp3 - parent.'

Thanks,

Paul

xyber233 · Jun 5, 2002, 08:45 AM

Your processor was doing all the work.

maison · Jun 5, 2002, 08:54 AM

Does anyone know if that includes Rage IIC (very first iMac)?

jfischetti · Jun 5, 2002, 08:57 AM

i have a B/W G3 450 with an ATI rage 128

Since updating, i can no longer select 1152x870 as my screen resolution -- it defaults to 1280x1024 @ 60hz (BLINKY!!!)

Anyone have an idea on how to get the other resolution back???

BTW i have a 21" NEC MultiSync XE21

thanks

macnetic · Jun 5, 2002, 09:20 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jfischetti:
i have a B/W G3 450 with an ATI rage 128

Since updating, i can no longer select 1152x870 as my screen resolution -- it defaults to 1280x1024 @ 60hz (BLINKY!!!)

Anyone have an idea on how to get the other resolution back???

BTW i have a 21" NEC MultiSync XE21

thanks<hr /></blockquote>Did you just use the displays menu, or did you check the prefpane? There's a "Show only recommended modes" checkbox there...

jfischetti · Jun 5, 2002, 09:37 AM

Both menus no longer have the selection 1152x870...

I had this problem back in the public beta - and starting up with the monitor disconnected usually gave me back the preferred res. -- Not with 10.1.5

Hmmmm.

This 1280x1024 @ 60hz is way too blinky!

P · Jun 5, 2002, 09:49 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by maison:
Does anyone know if that includes Rage IIC (very first iMac)?

<hr /></blockquote>No. Still unsupported.

Moonray · Jun 5, 2002, 11:51 AM

Now I wait for OpenGL for these chips... any bets it will come, or was this Apple's last effort?

-

Species 8472 · Jun 5, 2002, 01:11 PM

I don't see any change, quicktime movies, window resizing and scrolling is as slow as it was before. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

Proudest Monkey · Jun 5, 2002, 01:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Species 8472:
I don't see any change, quicktime movies, window resizing and scrolling is as slow as it was before.

<hr /></blockquote>what machine are you using???

Species 8472 · Jun 5, 2002, 04:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Proudest Monkey:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Species 8472:
I don't see any change, quicktime movies, window resizing and scrolling is as slow as it was before.

<hr /></blockquote>what machine are you using???<hr /></blockquote>Powerbook G3 300 MHz "Wallstreet rev. b" with Rage Pro LT. BTW, the genie effect seems faster, but it could be placebo.

silverghost · Jun 5, 2002, 04:52 PM

[ 06-05-2002, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: silverghost ]

silverghost · Jun 5, 2002, 04:53 PM

hi everyone, well i upgraded my pismo 500 to 10.1.5 and omniweb scrolls faster and the whole system in general feels faster. im not to sure but is the card in the pismo supported?

aloha

wataru · Jun 5, 2002, 04:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Species 8472:
I don't see any change, quicktime movies, window resizing and scrolling is as slow as it was before.

<hr /></blockquote>That's right, now that you've got RagePRO support, maybe all the people that were whining about it before will realize what everyone else did already--that those machines will suck with OS X no matter what.

mattstoton · Jun 5, 2002, 05:02 PM

Faster here. Not much, but it is noticeable. I don't see any increase with QT though, mind you QT 6 gives amazingly high frame-rates (compared to what I had).

EMC · Jun 5, 2002, 05:39 PM

So. I have a Powerbook Lombard G3 400Mhz. Sure, no Altivec, but since I don't sit around all day trying various photoshop filters, the processor is as fast as a G4 with the same clock speed. (don't bother replying to this. I don't care what you think.)

So, in OS 9, I can watch Quicktime movies zoomed to full screen at full framerates, and play Quake III Arena at 20 fps if I dumb down the detail. This is all on a Rage Pro. Realize that 20fps is completely playable before you tout your stupid-a$$ comments about how my computer is ancient.

So, until yesterday, no video card support in OS X, meaning that I have been limited to 10 fps max for ANY size quicktime movie, and games won't even let me play stuff in openGL. (That, and it is awful to boot into OS 9 everytime I watch a DVD).

So, yesterday morning, Quicktime 6 came out. I installed it. Great. I can now stream video faster, but I got the same terrible stuttery video for any resolution. Then the OS 10.1.5 update came out. I installed it. And guess what? The same stutter 10fps mac quicktime.

So, I check out these pages on MacNN and some pople are saying how great the hardware accelerated quicktime is, and others say they notice little difference. I took a wild guess that maybe QT 6 doesn't support the card yet, and I reinstalled Quicktime 5 instead using Apple's reinstall program.

Then BAM. Fluid quicktime. 30fps. Amazing. Great at all resolutions. I can watch movie trailers again, just like in OS 9. Morale of this story, QT 6 preview doesn't support your Rage Pro, uninstall it to get your hardware accelerated Quicktime.

Now if they will only add the GL and DVD support.

And before anyone sees my bitching and tells me to go back to OS 9, realize that pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory are much more important than video. I can get a lot more work done when I am not restarting the computer everyday for crashes, or waiting 10 seconds between IE hangs. Video comes 2nd, but there is no reason that we shouldn't get both.

wataru · Jun 5, 2002, 05:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by EMC:
the processor is as fast as a G4 with the same clock speed. (don't bother replying to this. I don't care what you think.)<hr /></blockquote>You're wrong.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Realize that 20fps is completely playable<hr /></blockquote>You're wrong.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />(That, and it is awful to boot into OS 9 everytime I watch a DVD).<hr /></blockquote>You could upgrade.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I reinstalled Quicktime 5 instead using Apple's reinstall program. Then BAM. Fluid quicktime. 30fps.<hr /></blockquote>Now this is significant. No sarcasm intended (this is my one serious comment for this reply).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And before anyone sees my bitching and tells me to go back to OS 9<hr /></blockquote>Go back to OS 9.

[/jackass mode]

[ 06-05-2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: wataru ]

Species 8472 · Jun 6, 2002, 05:09 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> So, I check out these pages on MacNN and some pople are saying how great the hardware accelerated quicktime is, and others say they notice little difference. I took a wild guess that maybe QT 6 doesn't support the card yet, and I reinstalled Quicktime 5 instead using Apple's reinstall program.

Then BAM. Fluid quicktime. 30fps. Amazing. Great at all resolutions. I can watch movie trailers again, just like in OS 9. Morale of this story, QT 6 preview doesn't support your Rage Pro, uninstall it to get your hardware accelerated Quicktime.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I reinstalled QT 5, but framerates still suck. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

jcnz · Jun 6, 2002, 05:24 AM

Lombard 333 MHz, 296 RAM, QT5

Yeah, I have to say the frame rates suck as mentioned, no difference from 10.1.4. Kind of frustrating that some have got it to work as I'm going to spend all night sorting this out. I thought maybe Rage LT Pro was a lower form of life from Rage Pro and hence not supported...

Meadowfield · Jun 6, 2002, 09:18 AM

Anyone care to tell me if Rage Mp3 the same as Rage Pro?

kangoo_boo · Jun 6, 2002, 09:26 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by wataru:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by EMC:

[QUOTE]And before anyone sees my bitching and tells me to go back to OS 9<hr /></blockquote>Go back to OS 9.

[/jackass mode]<hr /></blockquote>try linux

Drizzt · Jun 6, 2002, 09:34 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by kangoo_boo:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by wataru:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by EMC:

[QUOTE]And before anyone sees my bitching and tells me to go back to OS 9<hr /></blockquote>Go back to OS 9.

[/jackass mode]<hr /></blockquote>try linux<hr /></blockquote>Yish... I installed Yellow Dog Linux on my iBook .. that's when I realised that MacOS X was frigging fast on video even without acceleration..

Believe me.. you DON'T want to do that...

robotmarkVIII · Jun 6, 2002, 10:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Drizzt:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by kangoo_boo:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by wataru:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by EMC:

[QUOTE]And before anyone sees my bitching and tells me to go back to OS 9<hr /></blockquote>Go back to OS 9.

[/jackass mode]<hr /></blockquote>try linux<hr /></blockquote>Yish... I installed Yellow Dog Linux on my iBook .. that's when I realised that MacOS X was frigging fast on video even without acceleration..

Believe me.. you DON'T want to do that...<hr /></blockquote>Yea ya do, Video acceleration works really on x11 on my imac under debian. About the same as OS 9 on an imac 233.

[ 06-06-2002, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: robotmarkVIII ]

Nai no Kami · Jun 6, 2002, 10:53 AM

I have read a lot here about the Rage Pro support. I am now the happy owner of a blueberry iBook (G3 300). The difference for me is HUGE. Not only the interface seems a lot more fluid (also screensavers or screen effects, whatever you prefer run smoother now) but there is an abyssal difference in QT performance. Prior to 10.1.5 I couldn't play a movie larger than a low res trailer without having choppy audio and a frame drop that made impossible to figure what was the movie about if hoy had never seen it before. Take, for example, the iPod ad at Appl�'s website: completely unviewable. Now I can see it full screen with no problem at all. I do not agree with people saying that QT 6 PP is not supported by the Page Pro drivers, but I will not argue with their experience: if they see no difference at all, I believe them. Ergo, the problem is elsewhere. This update has been a godsend to me.
Just if it may matter, I first updated to 10.1.5 and then installed the QT6 PP.
Nonwithstanding my praises to QT performance, it is still far from perfect. While I now have a silk smooth video, audio gets often out of sync. Nevertheless, I hope that to be corrected when the final version comes out. Until then, I will not complain.

me · Jun 6, 2002, 11:56 AM

Its pretty weird. QT6 got me better framerates before the 10.1.5 upgrade, but I'd agree for some strange reason it doesn't support the rage pro qt acceleration. I reinstalled QT5 and wow, its been a long time since I've seen QT performance like that on my old Lombard 400. I can play full screen divx of southpark and futurama! I'll have to try a movie soon =)

On the DVD side of things - VLC can play DVDs but in a pretty small window. If they were to add hardware support for the built-in decompressor, we'd be in business. Though I'm still hoping apple will do the job.

Detrius · Jun 6, 2002, 12:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Meadowfield:
Anyone care to tell me if Rage Mp3 the same as Rage Pro?<hr /></blockquote>The RageM3 is what is in the dual-usb iBooks and is already supported. As far as I'm aware, it's not the same thing.

noisefloor · Jun 6, 2002, 12:32 PM

"now that you've got RagePRO support, maybe all the people that were whining about it before will realize what everyone else did already--that those machines will suck with OS X no matter what."

Sorry wataru, time to eat crow. The whiners were right.

I checked before installing 10.1.5 (G3/333, QT6), under 10.1.4 my test quicktime movie (480) gave me:

half size: 24 fps (movie's fps)
normal size: 10 fps
double size: 2 fps

Under 10.1.5, I get 24 fps at all sizes, including full screen or in a window. Runs at least as well as OS9, maybe a hair better.

HOWEVER, on the movie I tried, picture quality seemed worse under 10.1.5. Has anyone else seen this? (this was a pretty old QT movie, I'll check again on a newer movie)

Surfer · Jun 6, 2002, 12:44 PM

I don't get it!! I am getting a choppy 13 fps for a small trailer!! I am using QT 5 and a lombard!

Mac-arthur · Jun 6, 2002, 12:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Surfer:
I don't get it!! I am getting a choppy 13 fps for a small trailer!! I am using QT 5 and a lombard!<hr /></blockquote>From xlr8yourmac.com -- There's an article in the news.

" I have a Powerbook Lombard G3@333 with a G4@500 from Powerlogix. This Powerbook have a RageProLT graphics card.

The 10.1.5 update brings 2 'drivers' for the RagePRO in the /System/Library/Extensions. These are the ATIRagePRO and the ATIRagePROGA. The problem is that if you run kmodstat as root on the console you can't see any ATI driver loaded ... and if you run QuartzDebug you see full window updates instead of just the border ...
So, the driver is not loaded ...
Why ???
Well, if you open the Info.plist file (inside the ATIRagePro.kext/Contents) and then go to IOKitPersonalities/ATIRagePRO/IOPCIMatch you can see the board that match this driver, ie, the boards for which the driver will load ...
With PCI prober 2.0 in OS 9 you can see that the PCI signature for the Lombard board is 0x4c491002, and that signature (board/maker) is not listed ... if you add this signature the driver will load ...

After rebooting with the new signature the driver shows up in kmodstat and QuartzDebug show only borders being redrawed when moving windows ... Let1kwindowsBloom is also a bit faster ... I haven't tried with anything else yet, but system load when moving windows seems lower ....
Luis Flores"

Surfer · Jun 6, 2002, 02:14 PM

WOOOOOOOOOW!!! I applied the hack and now I get 25fps!!! Everything is so much faster!!! OS X feels snappy!!! maybe I can keep my lombard a little longe....

Thanks for the tip!

Mac-arthur · Jun 6, 2002, 02:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Surfer:
WOOOOOOOOOW!!! I applied the hack and now I get 25fps!!! Everything is so much faster!!! OS X feels snappy!!! maybe I can keep my lombard a little longe....

Thanks for the tip!<hr /></blockquote>Well the real credit should go to Mike Breeden for his excellent site and Luis Flores for figuring out why the driver wasn't loading...

But I'll take credit for posting it here to help you!

You are very welcome!

wataru · Jun 6, 2002, 03:00 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by noisefloor:
Sorry wataru, time to eat crow. The whiners were right.<hr /></blockquote>I recognize that this is a significant improvement, but it still does not make OS X useable, at least full-time. The systems that shipped with RagePROs are just not powerful enough (unless you upgrade them, which I realize many of you have).

Although if you're satisfied with only 20fps in Quake3, then maybe you'll also be satisfied with OS X on such a machine.

Species 8472 · Jun 6, 2002, 03:32 PM

What's the PCI signature on a Wallstreet rev. B Powerbook? I don't have Mac OS 9 installed so I can't check it myself.

noisefloor · Jun 6, 2002, 04:01 PM

"it still does not make OS X useable, at least full-time. The systems that shipped with RagePROs are just not powerful enough (unless you upgrade them, which I realize many of you have)."

So how do you explain all the people like myself using OSX full-time? At this point OSX is about as usable as OS9 on a beige box (in many ways more usable).

Species 8472 · Jun 6, 2002, 05:23 PM

I booted into OS 9 using the cd to get the PCI signature using PCI Prober 2. I booted back into OS X, applied the patch and rebooted. Guess what happened, I did not get any graphics acceleration, but I did get a kernel panic. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

wataru · Jun 6, 2002, 06:00 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by noisefloor:
So how do you explain all the people like myself using OSX full-time? At this point OSX is about as usable as OS9 on a beige box (in many ways more usable).<hr /></blockquote>You must have extremely low standards as far as responsiveness goes. Congratulations.

neps · Jun 6, 2002, 06:21 PM

can someone post the updated driver with the xlr8yourmac.com hack? i can't seem to figure it out, and my brain is fried.

noisefloor · Jun 7, 2002, 09:32 AM

"You must have extremely low standards as far as responsiveness goes."

Is your point that OSX doesn't run as well as 9 on slower boxes, or just that people using machines more than a year old are cheapskate losers?

Or are you just trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong - the people who were "whining" for Rage acceleration DID get a huge improvement?

Before: 2 fps (unusable)
After: 24 fps (usable)

Gee, that wasn't worth "whining" for.

Joshua Johnston · Jun 7, 2002, 11:27 AM

After reading things on many forum threads, I think one major resource would help with a lot of the confusion around what video card chipset is used by what model of Mac. Is there any page that puts out this information someplace that people can just read it and see for sure whether they have a Rage, a Rage 128, a Rage 128 Pro, a RageMp29 (Or whatever my iBook dual-USB 500 claims it is...) and the like?

wataru · Jun 7, 2002, 01:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by noisefloor:
Is your point that OSX doesn't run as well as 9 on slower boxes, or just that people using machines more than a year old are cheapskate losers?

Or are you just trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong - the people who were "whining" for Rage acceleration DID get a huge improvement?<hr /></blockquote>I'm saying that OS X doesn't run nearly as well as OS 9 does on the boxes that shipped with RagePro's.

And I'm not wrong--I know the new drivers helped, and in some cases they helped a lot, but that still doesn't make OS X useable, at least in my opinion. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that this is my opinion. I hope most people understand that I wasn't presenting my argument as fact.

Sure, now you can view movies at 24fps, but that doesn't mean that the GUI is now perfectly responsive all the time. QuickTime performance != useability.

Mactoid · Jun 8, 2002, 03:01 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Joshua Johnston:
After reading things on many forum threads, I think one major resource would help with a lot of the confusion around what video card chipset is used by what model of Mac. Is there any page that puts out this information someplace that people can just read it and see for sure whether they have a Rage, a Rage 128, a Rage 128 Pro, a RageMp29 (Or whatever my iBook dual-USB 500 claims it is...) and the like?<hr /></blockquote>If anyone is unsure of what their graphics card is, they can just run Apple System Profiler, in the /Applications/Utilities/ folder. That has information on your hardware setup, including what graphics chip you are using.

me · Jun 8, 2002, 03:13 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by wataru:
I recognize that this is a significant improvement, but it still does not make OS X useable, at least full-time. The systems that shipped with RagePROs are just not powerful enough (unless you upgrade them, which I realize many of you have).

Although if you're satisfied with only 20fps in Quake3, then maybe you'll also be satisfied with OS X on such a machine.<hr /></blockquote>wataru: there is more to life than Quake3. I have been using Mac OS X full time since the public beta on a Lombard 400 with 384MB and a 20gb travelstar. Sounds insane doesn't it? But some of us do real work, like development - project builder runs fine on my machine. As does OmniWeb, Mail, etc. I'm damn excited to get Rage Pro acceleration, I enjoy watching the occasional divx and now my machine can play them - far better than in OS9 even! The Lombard is no dinosaur, it just isn't a powerhouse anymore.

moki · Jun 8, 2002, 05:16 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by me:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wataru:
[qb] But some of us do real work, like development - project builder runs fine on my machine. <hr /></blockquote>...let's be honest, Project Builder doesn't even run well on my dual 1ghz machine. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> PB is a beast (and sports one of the worst UI's I've ever seen on an IDE)

[ 06-08-2002, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: moki ]

Surfer · Jun 8, 2002, 06:30 AM

There seems to be a big discussion on if OS X is usable or not on older machines. I think this totally depends on what you are use to and what you do on your machine! I have been using my lombard 400Mhz for the last three years and it has been a great machine!!! OS X has been running fine on it and now the 2D acceleration is an added boost. I have 512MB of RAM which helps a bit...
I would say that OS X is a little slower than OS 9 on my machine and might even be equal with 10.2. Yes, OS X is not very zippy, but IT is totally usable!! I do a lot of graphics, web design and programming! Naturally it doesn't go at great speed, but it works and gets the job DONE!!! Which is quite different than saying that the machine is not usable! Even though OS X is not as fast as OS 9, I still think I get work done faster on OS X. The thing is that if you take all the restarts and system errors with OS 9 I am sure OS X is faster to work with! What I hate with OS 9 is how one little app can slow down the whole machine!!!

of course it would be nice to have a fast G4, but since I don't play any games or do video editing the lombard is fine for everything else!
I will soon be getting a Powerbook G4 and I am sure the difference will be huge, but the lombard 400Mhz is still a great machine!
I am pretty sure that the current top of the line PB won't last as long as the lombard has!! Three years is a long time... Even when they released the PB G4 in 2001 (500Mhz and 400Mhz) (lombard 2 years old) my machine was still fast!

BJPirt · Jun 10, 2002, 10:33 AM

oh well, got quite excited for a moment, but it appears to be no go on a wallstreet II. <a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/OSX/osx_ragepro_driver_tip.html" target="_blank">Here's</a> the full xlr8yourmac thread for the interested. I guess i'll just have to keep waiting. At least apple seem to have changed their stance on support for older graphics cards.

theoden · Jun 10, 2002, 12:39 PM

Nice speed increase thanks to the Rage Pro driver

It's useable now! For the most part... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

DanMacMan · Jun 10, 2002, 12:45 PM

All I can say is that after upgrading to X.1.5, speed and in turn, productivity have increased immensely on my 333 iMac.

me · Jun 10, 2002, 03:30 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by me:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wataru:
[qb] But some of us do real work, like development - project builder runs fine on my machine. <hr /></blockquote>...let's be honest, Project Builder doesn't even run well on my dual 1ghz machine. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> PB is a beast (and sports one of the worst UI's I've ever seen on an IDE)<hr /></blockquote>While I realize you're a lot more hardcore dev than I, my only beef with project builder is the slow compile times. I love the UI, its the best I've seen on the IDEs I've used.