[Appleman]

Originally Posted by jocker

Bullsh*t - you don't need a dual 2ghz G5.

Any G5 will do - even the single processor 1.6 iMac

Some people just talk rubbish on these boards.

Is that your experience with Tiger, or do you have other sources?

[siMac]

Originally Posted by piracy

As for the 1 Mbps upstream others are talking about, try to stop thinking about this in terms of *exclusively* home users on cable modems or DSL. There are *shitloads* of institutional Mac OS X users who will have absolutely no problems with the bandwidth requirements whatsoever.

What happened to 'Video-conferencing for the rest of us'?

[Grrr]

Originally Posted by jocker

Bullsh*t - you don't need a dual 2ghz G5.

Any G5 will do - even the single processor 1.6 iMac

Some people just talk rubbish on these boards.

It's not talking rubbish when all we have done is quote from Apples own documentation

[Grrr]

Originally Posted by siMac

What happened to 'Video-conferencing for the rest of us'?

Very good point!

[bpd115]

The reason we're 'Talking Rubbish' is because of this

[piracy]

Originally Posted by Grrr

Very good point!

Hardly.

You can still use iChat AV on the same systems for 1:1 conferences.

You just can't do multi-person H.264 videoconferences.

[piracy]

Originally Posted by bpd115

The reason we're 'Talking Rubbish' is because of this

...

*sigh*

It's an ERROR.

You know, one of those things that happens from time to time?

Any:

- dual 1 GHz G4 or better, or
- any G5

will work.

Are we clear now?

[bpd115]

Originally Posted by piracy

...

*sigh*

It's an ERROR.

You know, one of those things that happens from time to time?

Any:

- dual 1 GHz G4 or better, or
- any G5

will work.

Are we clear now?

Not until it's confirmed to be an ERROR by someone with an iMac G5 hosting a mulitple video conf with less than 1000 Kbps Up.

[bpd115]

and another thing, I need to conf. with other tiger users, however when I conf. to someone with a 1.42 Mac Mini (I have a dual 2 G5), h.264 didn't look any better and the FPS were cut to 15...I'd rather h.263 and 30 FPS..but again I have to test with other users.

[Busemann]

"To support hosting a multiperson video conference, you need a Dual 1 GHz G4 or a Dual 2 GHz G5."

OMG! they are locking out Dual 2.5Ghz owners!!!1!

[piracy]

Originally Posted by bpd115

Not until it's confirmed to be an ERROR by someone with an iMac G5 hosting a mulitple video conf with less than 1000 Kbps Up.

Wait...I'm talking about the system requirements.

Are you concerned about the networking requirements?

Do you think a multiperson hosted videoconference can happen via magic? Yes, you do need 384kbps per participant, no matter what kind of a Mac you're using.

Saying 1Mbps upstream is just simplifying things.

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by Busemann

OMG! they are locking out Dual 2.5Ghz owners!!!1!

[bpd115]

Originally Posted by piracy

Wait...I'm talking about the system requirements.

Are you concerned about the networking requirements?

Do you think a multiperson hosted videoconference can happen via magic? Yes, you do need 384kbps per participant, no matter what kind of a Mac you're using.

Saying 1Mbps upstream is just simplifying things.

So wait...then what you are saying is Apple is in ERROR in their dual 2 Ghz G5 requirement in the help viewer and the website requirement is right, but they are right with the help viewer 1000kbps UP requirement and wrong on the website which states you need only 384 Up for hosting 4 way video.

What I'm saying is we don't know jack until we can test this stuff.

[piracy]

Originally Posted by bpd115

So wait...then what you are saying is Apple is in ERROR in their dual 2 Ghz G5 requirement in the help viewer and the website requirement is right, but they are right with the help viewer 1000kbps UP requirement and wrong on the website which states you need only 384 Up for hosting 4 way video.

What I'm saying is we don't know jack until we can test this stuff.

I am saying that the web site is correct.

The requirements, both system and network, get more intensive as you add more participants to the conference. Please, people, just refer to http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat/ and http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/ for the current, correct requirements. (And yes, those really are correct. No. Really. And if anyone would just think for a second that if a dual 1 GHz G4 will support a multiperson conference, then why wouldn't, say a dual 1.8 GHz G5? The requirements in iChat's help are wrong on their face, and simply in error. I repeat: to host a multiperson video conference, you need a dual 1GHz G4 or better, or any G5. Will the lowest end G5 iMac on DSL suffice? Yes. Would a dual 2.5 GHz Power Mac G5 on a 100mbit institutional network do better? Yes. Jeez, people, use your heads here.)

All that is "required" to host a 4-person conference is 384kbps up. However, ideally, you want 384kbps up PER PARTICIPANT on the computer that is HOSTING the conference. To PARTICIPATE, i.e., not host, then the requirement is just the minimal 384kbps up. Ideally, the machine hosting should be as high performance machine as possible, and have sufficient upstream bandwidth to allot 384kbps per participant. Will it work with less? Yes. Will the framerate and quality be as good? No. These are just requirements to try to set users' expectations at what's needed to reasonably use some of the varied features of the new iChat.

Perhaps some people just want 1:1 audio conferences. They have different requirements.
Perhaps some people just want 1:1 video conferences. They have different requirements.
Perhaps some people want a 4-way video conference. They have different requirements.

[Grrr]

Originally Posted by bpd115

So wait...then what you are saying is Apple is in ERROR in their dual 2 Ghz G5 requirement in the help viewer and the website requirement is right, but they are right with the help viewer 1000kbps UP requirement and wrong on the website which states you need only 384 Up for hosting 4 way video.

What I'm saying is we don't know jack until we can test this stuff.

Actually, in all fairness, I did just test it with 3 people including myself, on my 20" 1.8ghz G5 iMac. And it works. So yes the dual 2.0G5 thing is an error. Video quality was however, rather lame, but then I only have 256k upload (hard to get better than that here in the UK), and 1mb down.
Still.. the system requirements still rule out using any current Apple laptop for hosting a multiway vid chat. Which sucks. And the bandwidth requirements are well beyond what many people have.. Which also sucks..
So in short, it isn't my idea of 'Video conferencing for the rest of us'

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Grrr

Actually, in all fairness, I did just test it with 3 people including myself, on my 20" 1.8ghz G5 iMac. And it works. So yes the dual 2.0G5 thing is an error. Video quality was however, rather lame, but then I only have 256k upload (hard to get better than that here in the UK), and 1mb down.
Still.. the system requirements still rule out using any current Apple laptop for hosting a multiway vid chat. Which sucks. And the bandwidth requirements are well beyond what many people have.. Which also sucks..
So in short, it isn't my idea of 'Video conferencing for the rest of us'

I dunno. I've been looking at video conferencing hardware, and it's gonna cost 5-digit $ per site for anything half decent.

That Tiger bundles multi-user video-conferencing with H.264 support into the OS is impressive IMO.

Remember, your machine is doing H.264 encoding on-the-fly, and bandwidth requirements aren't cheap either for video.

BTW, for my home account, I have up to 5 Mbps down and 0.8 Mbps up, for about CAD$45 a month, which is less than 20 GBP.

[bpd115]

what kind of Macs did the others have?

was the quality worse than a 1 v 1?

Like I said, I did a 1 v 1 with myself and a 1.42 mac Mini and the quality was ehh..

[piracy]

Originally Posted by Grrr

So in short, it isn't my idea of 'Video conferencing for the rest of us'

You can still use the same exact features of iChat that you've always been able to use.

Are you saying Apple shouldn't introduce features into iChat that have more hefty requirements unless everyone is able to use them?

And again, many, many, many Mac OS X customers in institutional and academic settings have far more than necessary upstream bandwidth. Mac OS X isn't only used in homes on cable and DSL.

I'm really surprised at all the bitching about this considering:

- You can still do what you've always done with iChat

- It makes no sense to bitch about not having access to every feature, particularly NEW ones, especially ones that defy simple principles (i.e., hosting a freaking 4-person video conference is *obviously* going to require more upstream bandwidth, and doing *live* AVC encoding on a desktop computer isn't just some trivial task)

This whole "what ever happened to videoconferencing for the rest of us" is BS, because you can still do it, just as before. And if you happen to have a faster computer and a bigger pipe, look, you can do even more!

[Appleman]

Originally Posted by piracy

You can still use the same exact features of iChat that you've always been able to use.

Are you saying Apple shouldn't introduce features into iChat that have more hefty requirements unless everyone is able to use them?

And again, many, many, many Mac OS X customers in institutional and academic settings have far more than necessary upstream bandwidth. Mac OS X isn't only used in homes on cable and DSL.

I'm really surprised at all the bitching about this considering:

- You can still do what you've always done with iChat

- It makes no sense to bitch about not having access to every feature, particularly NEW ones, especially ones that defy simple principles (i.e., hosting a freaking 4-person video conference is *obviously* going to require more upstream bandwidth, and doing *live* AVC encoding on a desktop computer isn't just some trivial task)

This whole "what ever happened to videoconferencing for the rest of us" is BS, because you can still do it, just as before. And if you happen to have a faster computer and a bigger pipe, look, you can do even more!

[bpd115]

my only beef is the hyping of h.264 without mentioning that it cuts the framerate for G4s in half (afaik)
Not only that but in the chances I've had to use it so far, the image quality wasn't better than h.263 over 2 cable connections.

Hopefully I'll try it out with some others once they get Tiger and my opinion will change.

[Grrr]

Originally Posted by piracy

You can still use the same exact features of iChat that you've always been able to use.

Are you saying Apple shouldn't introduce features into iChat that have more hefty requirements unless everyone is able to use them?

And again, many, many, many Mac OS X customers in institutional and academic settings have far more than necessary upstream bandwidth. Mac OS X isn't only used in homes on cable and DSL.

I'm really surprised at all the bitching about this considering:

- You can still do what you've always done with iChat

- It makes no sense to bitch about not having access to every feature, particularly NEW ones, especially ones that defy simple principles (i.e., hosting a freaking 4-person video conference is *obviously* going to require more upstream bandwidth, and doing *live* AVC encoding on a desktop computer isn't just some trivial task)

This whole "what ever happened to videoconferencing for the rest of us" is BS, because you can still do it, just as before. And if you happen to have a faster computer and a bigger pipe, look, you can do even more!

All valid points, and im not disputing most of them. My beef is that many people were really looking forward to the new ichat after Mr Schillers very impressive demo, and now they find AFTER having already ordered/bought Tiger, that they are unlikely to be able to use the new features. It was a selling point. See?
And its all very well mentioning its institutional uses, but we're not all students now you know. And we're not all Americans with readily available super fast connections either.
As for 'Video conferencing for the rest of us' being BS. I definitely disagree there. iChat video conferencing was originally promoted as being for everyone. Which is EXACTLY what that phrase was referring to. Ever heard of iVisit? I used to run that on my old 120mhz 8200 in OS 8 on dial up, between up to 16 people (8 now) 6 years ago!!!!! Sure, its changed a bit since then, and is rather dated. But it does prove a point. Like it or not.

[Chuckit]

The requirements for iChat have been posted on Apple's Web site since it was available for purchase, haven't they?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by piracy

Jeez, it's obviously a freaking error.

Uh yeah, that's kind of what I was trying to imply. You know, how my post said "That can't be right" and all. You really do enjoy jumping on people, don't you?

You know, a few posts later, you even ended up saying the same exact thing that I said which you just yelled at me for:

Originally Posted by piracy

Really. And if anyone would just think for a second that if a dual 1 GHz G4 will support a multiperson conference, then why wouldn't, say a dual 1.8 GHz G5?

[piracy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Uh yeah, that's kind of what I was trying to imply. You know, how my post said "That can't be right" and all. You really do enjoy jumping on people, don't you?

You know, a few posts later, you even ended up saying the same exact thing that I said which you just yelled at me for:

I wasn't jumping on you, and I repeated your statement *intentionally*.

Since it's obvious that it's in error, what purpose does it serve for people to sit here getting all up-in-arms and bothered over it? If you were trying to *point out* that it was an error, then my apologies.

I repeated your statement regarding the the dual 1.8 because it would be obvious to any sane person that it was simply a misstatement.

I took your statement literally, i.e., that you were really asking why it wouldn't work on a dual 1.8, when it was merely a rhetorical statement. Going back and re-reading your comment, it's still not clear, viewed in itself, that it's anything but a literal statement, especially because of the emoticon on the end. However, if you are saying that it was an illustrative statement to point out the error, I apologize for interpreting it literally.

[siMac]

Originally Posted by piracy

it would be obvious to any sane person that it was simply a misstatement.

That explains how it slipped through the net over at Apple then...

[chibianh]

u guys worry too much. I have a 1.6 Power Mac and host just fine. Albeit, I have 1mb upload. However, my friend has a dual 2.0, but only 512Kbps upload, and he hosts just fine... So.. quit worrying!

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by piracy

I wasn't jumping on you, and I repeated your statement *intentionally*.

Since it's obvious that it's in error, what purpose does it serve for people to sit here getting all up-in-arms and bothered over it? If you were trying to *point out* that it was an error, then my apologies.

I repeated your statement regarding the the dual 1.8 because it would be obvious to any sane person that it was simply a misstatement.

I took your statement literally, i.e., that you were really asking why it wouldn't work on a dual 1.8, when it was merely a rhetorical statement. Going back and re-reading your comment, it's still not clear, viewed in itself, that it's anything but a literal statement, especially because of the emoticon on the end. However, if you are saying that it was an illustrative statement to point out the error, I apologize for interpreting it literally.

Well, since I don't work at Apple or have access to Tiger builds to try it on, I can't say anything definitively. All I have to go on is those facts that are known and common sense. Of course, Apple occasionally does very strange things, so there is some possibility, albeit slight, from my POV, that someone at Apple could decide to be stupid and put some check in that would block it from working on certain hardware. So for that reason, I couldn't just go out and say "This is a mistake!", but I can say something like "This can't be right" and proceed to explain why - i.e. a dual 1.8 G5 is much more powerful than a dual 1.0 G4, and add a to show that it makes no sense.

Of course, perhaps it's my fault for not annotating my posts. Anyway, you could respond with a little less anger in the future and relax a little more - it would probably lengthen your life span by staving off that impending heart attack.

[piracy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

it would probably lengthen your life span by staving off that impending heart attack.

The only thing that might put me at risk of a heart attack is continuing to read what some people come up with on these forums.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by Appleman

If you can give me a link, or a manual ?
Thanks!

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/tips/Flas...-117guide.html

[Krusty]

Boy, you guys sure aren't very creative when it comes to wild speculation about the extra-special bonus with G5 machines (PMs and iMacs). iChat specs ? Dual-layer recording ? How utterly non-interesting if this is the case.

I prefer to dream big

How 'bout 64-bit G5 processors can act as "dual core" 32-bit processors under Tiger ? ... effectively making iMacs dual-processor and PMs quad-processor ?

[jamil5454]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Boy, you guys sure aren't very creative when it comes to wild speculation about the extra-special bonus with G5 machines (PMs and iMacs). iChat specs ? Dual-layer recording ? How utterly non-interesting if this is the case.

I prefer to dream big

How 'bout 64-bit G5 processors can act as "dual core" 32-bit processors under Tiger ? ... effectively making iMacs dual-processor and PMs quad-processor ?

Thanks for boosting my confidence. I feel smarter now.

[trip]

[QUOTE=
I prefer to dream big

How 'bout 64-bit G5 processors can act as "dual core" 32-bit processors under Tiger ? ... effectively making iMacs dual-processor and PMs quad-processor ? [/QUOTE]

Now that would be cool!

Is that technically possible?

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by trip

Now that would be cool!

Is that technically possible?

Yes, the trilinear accelerator of the vector pipelines could easily double the performance with some heavy code tweaks and still keep the external IO control down to a manageable level.

Man I can't wait for Tiger to giver me dual cores!

[trip]

Originally Posted by zerostar

Yes, the trilinear accelerator of the vector pipelines could easily double the performance with some heavy code tweaks and still keep the external IO control down to a manageable level.

Man I can't wait for Tiger to giver me dual cores!

Ouch! I think I just pulled muscle reading that!

[Brazuca]

My opinion on the surprise:

They removed the debug code� and rebuilt Finder in Cocoa.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by trip

Ouch! I think I just pulled muscle reading that!

mission acomplished

[Dumbo]

Originally Posted by piracy

The only thing that might put me at risk of a heart attack is continuing to read what some people come up with on these forums.

Well, then stop reading these forums and **** off. Nobody needs your pompous egomaniac ass here.

[Appleman]

Originally Posted by Cadaver

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/tips/Flas...-117guide.html

Thank you so very much indeed!
Will try later on. Thanks!

[sheer]

Here's a stab at what Tiger may deliver for G5 users...
...a complete fix for noises, chirps and whines.

Pre-Tiger my Feb 05 dual 2.0 made a very high pitced whine (loud enough to be audible and if the tower was on the desktop maybe loud enough to be annoying) when transferring stuff over the network at home. Never noticed it while surfing, only during FTP and only for traffic over ethernet, never during firewire transfer.

Post-Tiger the noise has gone. Completely. Tested a number of times now, many Gb transferred over the network. No noise.

[OwlBoy]

So what is it?

Today is the day...

-Owl

[addiecool]

yeah yeah yeah... what is it????

[bpd115]

Nonsense, that's what it is.