[TETENAL]

Bummer. That would have been useful.

[xmattingly]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Smart ass? I didn't even mention the million ways QL is more convenient than being able to quickly spring-load folders. I would gladly have given up the latter - except we don't have to, because space bar works for both. Yes. Space bar again will bring you out of QL.

When you pair a response with a sophomoric remark, you're a smart ass. Own it.

I happen to value being able to browse directories quickly more than look at stuff quickly, but it's good to hear that they're making it a functional user feature without taking away something from another. I hate when software makers do that. I'm guessing that QL will quickly become one of those things that you can't remember what life was like before you had it, like Expose.

I'm not totally sold on Spaces, though; I'm a pretty heavy multi-tasker, and I get around fine w/ what's available now. I just have this feeling that I'll end up expending more mental energy trying to keep track of what apps/windows are open in whichever spaces than if I just kept everything open in "one space".

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by xmattingly 

I happen to value being able to browse directories quickly more than look at stuff quickly, but it's good to hear that they're making it a functional user feature without taking away something from another. I hate when software makers do that. I'm guessing that QL will quickly become one of those things that you can't remember what life was like before you had it, like Expose.

It already is for me. Whenever I boot back in to Tiger I find myself hitting the space bar to take a quick look at files on the desktop. I can't so I have to double click them.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by xmattingly 

When you pair a response with a sophomoric remark, you're a smart ass. Own it.

You were getting your panties in a bunch. Suck it up.

[vertigociel]

Originally Posted by xmattingly 

I'm not totally sold on Spaces, though; I'm a pretty heavy multi-tasker, and I get around fine w/ what's available now. I just have this feeling that I'll end up expending more mental energy trying to keep track of what apps/windows are open in whichever spaces than if I just kept everything open in "one space".

With four spaces, it's really easy to see what applications a space contains from the all-spaces overview. Plus, if you command-tab to switch applications, or click on an app's icon in the dock, it'll automatically take you to the space where that application resides. Another neat feature is you can bind apps to all spaces, so they follow you wherever you go. I found this really useful, since I like to keep the iTunes mini-window with me. I was sold on Spaces so fast that fifteen minutes after first booting Leopard, I had Spaces bound to the nipple button on my mighty mouse.

On a different note, has anyone else noticed that lots of widgets are having trouble in Leopard? Fan speeds and all the temp sensors but the HD won't show up in iStat Pro, several widgets (like GoGoRedBall) just refuse to run, and web-clip widgets seem to need manual reloading every time you re-open dashboard. I'm sure it'll be fixed by October, but it seemed odd to me, unless they've redone a significant amount of dashboard's codebase.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by vertigociel 

On a different note, has anyone else noticed that lots of widgets are having trouble in Leopard? Fan speeds and all the temp sensors but the HD won't show up in iStat Pro, several widgets (like GoGoRedBall) just refuse to run, and web-clip widgets seem to need manual reloading every time you re-open dashboard. I'm sure it'll be fixed by October, but it seemed odd to me, unless they've redone a significant amount of dashboard's codebase.

That build is six weeks old now and there's still three months of development time left. Those bugs will be fixed. My main concern is the CoreImage effects used in the GUI to blur the background under sheets and menus. That better be operational on all GPUs that support CoreImage. It isn't on my Geforce FX 5200 yet but is working on ATI 1600s. The FX 5200 supports all of Aero Glass in Vista so it better do the blur effect on Leopard. The Intel GMA950 also has support for those effects.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

My main concern is the CoreImage effects used in the GUI to blur the background under sheets and menus.

THAT is your main concern? Some people are easy to please I guess

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

THAT is your main concern? Some people are easy to please I guess

That is my main concern because I can tell Apple is on their way to fixing everything else.

I just don't want to see sharp text under a semi-transparent menu or sheet. We complained about it back in the 10.0 and 10.1 days and I don't want to see it return. Apple has a history of bad graphics drivers and not fully supporting GPUs that are 1-2 years old. If they can't get the GMA950 and FX 5200 to support these effects it will raise a many eyebrows. If Microsoft can do it then Apple should do it too.

That includes the translucent menu bar. Right now it doesn't do anything adaptive. It needs CoreImage applied there to blur desktop wallpaper behind the menu bar.

[vertigociel]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

That includes the translucent menu bar. Right now it doesn't do anything adaptive. It needs CoreImage applied there to blur desktop wallpaper behind the menu bar.

Forget adaptivity - gimme my rounded upper corners back!

[Targon]

iChat questions
1)File transfer progress dialog, does it finally display the data rate eg kb/sec ??
2) Is there now finally an "Auto Accept" filer transfer setting?

Mail - Is there a preference to view ALL messages in Plain or Rich Text instead of forcing HTML on us? Currently Tiger mail allows only Plain text viewing of a single currently viewed message not all messages globally, tho there is a terminal command to set this globally.

3) FsckinPOSFinder- do file read/write operations dialog display the data rate like Path Finder and even *gag* Vista ?

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

If they can't get the GMA950 and FX 5200 to support these effects it will raise a many eyebrows. If Microsoft can do it then Apple should do it too.

The blurring works fine on a GMA 950

[Visualize]

A simple solution for birthday reminders in Tiger and maybe even Leopard is to install OmniGrowl. That's what I can come up with. Don't have Leopard myself so I can't verify if Growl works as it does in Tiger atm.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

The blurring works fine on a GMA 950

Now I am vexed. The FX 5200 is much faster than a GMA950 and supports all CoreImage effects.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Now I am vexed. The FX 5200 is much faster than a GMA950 and supports all CoreImage effects.

Nope, the FX5200 is slower than the 950 (e. g. 30 % in 3dmark05); there are applications when the FX5200 is slower if the same cpu is used, but overall it's faster. The FX5200 is excluded from Aperture's compatibility list, for instance, the GMA950 is not.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Nope, the FX5200 is slower than the 950 (e. g. 30 % in 3dmark05); there are applications when the FX5200 is slower if the same cpu is used, but overall it's faster. The FX5200 is excluded from Aperture's compatibility list, for instance, the GMA950 is not.

The GMA950's performance depends on the CPU it is paired with. The faster the CPU the faster the total performance. On a system with almost the same processor and memory specs, the FX 5200 is faster because it is a dedicated GPU and offloads more work from the CPU. For example, a current revision MacBook with GMA950 is only 10% faster than the original iMac G5 with FX 5200 in Cinebench shader and software/hardware texture rendering tests. The MacBook has two cores. Paired with the same FX 5200 the MacBook should outperform the iMac G5 by 30%.

Another thing, the GMA950 scores 1300 in 3D Mark 03 when paired with a Core Duo. The FX 5200 scores 1100 paired with a Pentium 4 (worse architecture). Yet the GMA950 runs at 25% higher clock speed (400Mhz vs 300Mhz). They both have the same number (4) of pixel shaders except the FX 5200 also has a vertex shader, which the GMA950 hasn't at all.

Here's another annoyance. The FX 5200 worked fine for Aperture until the last update (which also requires minimum 1GB RAM unlike previous versions which would launch with less).

Nevertheless, both cards support Aero Glass, Direct X 9 and CoreImage. Apple better make sure the FX 5200 is supported for all GUI effects otherwise there's going to be a lot of annoyed PowerBook G4, Power Mac G5 and iMac G5 owners. Not good publicity.

[DogGone]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Apple better make sure the FX 5200 is supported for all GUI effects otherwise there's going to be a lot of annoyed PowerBook G4, Power Mac G5 and iMac G5 owners. Not good publicity.

There has to be a balance between supporting legacy machines and provide innovations that enhance the value of Apple's current lineup. The G4 PB I am typing this on is 3.5 years old. While I expect Apple to support Leopard on this machine, I do not expect them support new technologies that truly require more modern equipment on the G4 PB. Also note that Apple have sold a hell of a lot of Intel Macs in the last year and a half. The web share for Safari suggests that up to 30% of the macs surfing the internet are Intel Macs.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by DogGone 

There has to be a balance between supporting legacy machines and provide innovations that enhance the value of Apple's current lineup.

Sure, but that's not even a question here. The FX 5200 supports CoreImage. Even the System Profiler in Leopard says so. It supports those same effects we are talking about in CoreImage FunHouse and Vista Aero Glass.

[xmattingly]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You were getting your panties in a bunch. Suck it up.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions about the new OS -- that's what this thread is about, not your opinions of the people who post here, erik. You're trolling.

[AKcrab]

I hate the new finder icons.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Sure, but that's not even a question here. The FX 5200 supports CoreImage. Even the System Profiler in Leopard says so. It supports those same effects we are talking about in CoreImage FunHouse and Vista Aero Glass.

If I recall, not everything that supports CoreImage necessarily supports it well enough for every use. It's possible for CoreImage to work, but be too slow for a live-motion effect.

[DogGone]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

I hate the new finder icons.

They are pretty dull and not easy to distinguish from each other. IIRC Apple have experimented with things like this and changed styling when it didn't work out. The Apple icon was in the center of the menubar for a short time (10.0 or beta).

I have also found the marker indicating an open app in the dock hard to see. Obviously this will need to be improved.

[xmattingly]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

It already is for me. Whenever I boot back in to Tiger I find myself hitting the space bar to take a quick look at files on the desktop. I can't so I have to double click them.

You know, I started off with Jaguar, and jumped to Panther when I started a new job a few years ago. It's weird... I really have no memory of what it was like getting around the OS before Expose. I must have had to keep doing the "hide app shuffle" just to maneuver.

It sounds like the same deal w/ Quick Look... "Can you remember back when we had to open an application just to look at the contents of a file?"

Originally Posted by vertigociel 

With four spaces, it's really easy to see what applications a space contains from the all-spaces overview. Plus, if you command-tab to switch applications, or click on an app's icon in the dock, it'll automatically take you to the space where that application resides. Another neat feature is you can bind apps to all spaces, so they follow you wherever you go. I found this really useful, since I like to keep the iTunes mini-window with me.

I didn't know if you could make an app available in all spaces or not, so that's good news. I'm kind of iffy about adding yet another F key as a way to get around the OS. It'd be nice if you could have all Expose, Dashboard & Spaces functions available on the Mighty Mouse, but that's obviously not an option. I'd swear I've seen something where you can activate Expose while you're in the Spaces overview. Is that true?

[Mithras]

Yes.
Also, if you've dragged an app's windows into more than one Space, Dock-clicking the icon will cycle between the spaces. (While ⌘~ and apps-Exposé will just cycle within the current space).

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

I hate the new finder icons.

Why?

[- - e r i k - -]

The new finder icons are great. I never liked those purple 3d bastard children. They never seemed to fit in. Especially in a graphite environment. The folders are neutral, easier to badge (with small icons) and they look professional with either aqua or graphite.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The GMA950's performance depends on the CPU it is paired with. The faster the CPU the faster the total performance.

This is true with any graphics card.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

On a system with almost the same processor and memory specs, the FX 5200 is faster because it is a dedicated GPU and offloads more work from the CPU. For example, a current revision MacBook with GMA950 is only 10% faster than the original iMac G5 with FX 5200 in Cinebench shader and software/hardware texture rendering tests. The MacBook has two cores. Paired with the same FX 5200 the MacBook should outperform the iMac G5 by 30%.

I don't subscribe to that last number.
In 3dMark scores, the 950 is faster despite its shortcomings (I'm aware of them) and that's not just due to the cpu. The FX5200 (Ultra or not) has never been a very capable graphics card, although the GMA950 is certainly no speed demon either. However, in the end, things are actually a lot worse in real life as the PowerBook G4's cpu is a lot slower than either the P4 or the Core (2) Duo. A third aspect that hasn't been covered are drivers: they have a profound influence on the actual speed we get.

Due to the specific architecture of the GMA950, there are certain tests when you see a detrimental effect on performance. If you think of the target market for the GMA950 (that's business notebooks, really), then its performance is adequate.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Here's another annoyance. The FX 5200 worked fine for Aperture until the last update (which also requires minimum 1GB RAM unlike previous versions which would launch with less).

Aperture has always had a RAM requirement of 1 GB (there were tweaks to shut that off, not that this helps a lot when working with Aperture). I can see why Aperture excludes only the 12" PowerBook (the other PowerMac G5 and the iMac G5 use the FX5200 Ultra which is officially supported).

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Nevertheless, both cards support Aero Glass, Direct X 9 and CoreImage. Apple better make sure the FX 5200 is supported for all GUI effects otherwise there's going to be a lot of annoyed PowerBook G4, Power Mac G5 and iMac G5 owners. Not good publicity.

Since Aperture supports the latter two, I'm not really sure whether Core Animation works on the 5200 Ultra, but if Aperture supports the other two cards, then this is an indication that this might be the case for Core Animation as well. In that case, only the PowerBook G4 12" would be excluded and probably for a good reason. Back in the old days, there were hacks to enable Quartz Extreme on PCI graphics cards. Now what might sound like a good idea has actually decreased performance in a number of cases (when the PCI bus was simply too slow to handle it). I don't think Apple would intentionally exclude people from enjoying new features in this case (also applies to Aperture).

I'm just saying this as many people here were concerned that going to an integrated graphics card is actually a downgrade when it's not (it's not an upgrade either, but for most intents and purposes more than sufficient).

PS Why do people expect that the latest bells and whistles run on older machines?

[DogGone]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm just saying this as many people here were concerned that going to an integrated graphics card is actually a downgrade when it's not (it's not an upgrade either, but for most intents and purposes more than sufficient).

PS Why do people expect that the latest bells and whistles run on older machines?

I don't understand either why people expect machines that were released several years ago to be able to cope with all the new OS developments.

Saying that an old G4 Sawtooth (with a few mods ) can handle Leopard reasonably well. For a seven year old machine that is pretty impressive. Still I can't wait till I can afford a new MB or MBP.

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

The new finder icons are great. I never liked those purple 3d bastard children. They never seemed to fit in. Especially in a graphite environment. The folders are neutral, easier to badge (with small icons) and they look professional with either aqua or graphite.

They also look good and are easily identifiable in list and column view which shows that a a lot of work has gone into them, anyone can make a great icon at 128 x 128 but if you can do at 16 x 16 you have skill. Mike Matas seems to be doing his job.

[vertigociel]

Originally Posted by xmattingly 

I'm kind of iffy about adding yet another F key as a way to get around the OS. It'd be nice if you could have all Expose, Dashboard & Spaces functions available on the Mighty Mouse, but that's obviously not an option.

That's my only problem with Spaces - now it's impossible to access three of OS X's most commonly used features with just the mouse, although if you count hot corners, you can get around it. It's worse on MBP's, since F8-F10 are assigned to adjust the keyboard backlight, so you need a modifier key to access those.

There was recently an interesting patent filed by Apple for a multitouch mouse with gesture support - that could probably support seven different types of clicks - index, middle, ring and pinky individually, then index+middle, index+middle+ring, and then all four fingers. Who knows if that'll ever materialize, though.

Another Leopard compatibility thing - has anyone else had a problem with the marquee selection tool in Photoshop CS3 Extended? On my machine it refuses to work at all, meaning I won't be able to do any actual work in Leopard until a couple more revisions, at least. Unfortunate, but I can't really complain, since it is a beta.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't subscribe to that last number.
In 3dMark scores, the 950 is faster despite its shortcomings (I'm aware of them) and that's not just due to the cpu.

You'll have to subscribe to it. The GMA950 has a clockspeed 100Mhz/25% faster than the FX5200 and only beats it in some benchmarks when paired with a faster CPU.

The FX5200 (Ultra or not) has never been a very capable graphics card, although the GMA950 is certainly no speed demon either.

Yet Call of Duty 2 and Doom III run better on a G4 with FX 5200 than on a Core Duo with GMA950!

Aperture has always had a RAM requirement of 1 GB (there were tweaks to shut that off, not that this helps a lot when working with Aperture). I can see why Aperture excludes only the 12" PowerBook (the other PowerMac G5 and the iMac G5 use the FX5200 Ultra which is officially supported).

Aperture 1.0 ran without a hack or tweak. It was slow, nothing compared to the speed of Lightroom but it ran on my PB12.

The FX 5200 and the Ultra version in the iMac G5 have the same pixel shader support for blur filters in Aero Glass, Open GL, Direct X and CoreImage. If one will be supported then the other must too.

Why do people expect that the latest bells and whistles run on older machines?

Blurring is hardly the latest bells and whistles. Aero Glass supports it on a GMS950 and FX 5200. There's real time blurring on a FX5200 in a very GPU taxing game like Call of Duty 2 and Doom III as well.

Let's brush performance aside because I want to zero in on the problem because I'm thinking this might not be an FX 5200 issue. It might be that blurring is currently not active on all Power PC machines.

Hands up anyone with a Power PC Mac and Leopard. Do you see the blurring effect under the Print Dialog Sheet (expanded view) and what are your Mac's specs?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

You'll have to subscribe to it. The GMA950 has a clockspeed 100Mhz/25% faster than the FX5200 and only beats it in some benchmarks when paired with a faster CPU.

Yeah, that means the clockspeed of the GPU is higher which makes it faster. You don't underclock current gpus either to compare them to their ancestors at the same clockspeed. I also haven't said that the GMA950 beats the FX5200 hands-down, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Aperture 1.0 ran without a hack or tweak. It was slow, nothing compared to the speed of Lightroom but it ran on my PB12.

Aperture has always required 1 GB RAM, although I'm not completely sure whether the installer excluded 12" PowerBook user by force (the 12" PowerBook isn't mentioned in the system requirements).

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The FX 5200 and the Ultra version in the iMac G5 have the same pixel shader support for blur filters in Aero Glass, Open GL, Direct X and CoreImage. If one will be supported then the other must too.

Well, not if it's about speed. If the graphics card is not up to the task to render these effects quickly enough (and the mobile derivatives are slower than their desktop counterparts), then Apple may decide not to enable certain effects on that machine just because the hardware is too slow.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Blurring is hardly the latest bells and whistles. Aero Glass supports it on a GMS950 and FX 5200. There's real time blurring on a FX5200 in a very GPU taxing game like Call of Duty 2 and Doom III as well.

M$ had tried very hard to avoid adding Aero support for the GMA950; however the big notebook manufacturers and Intel insisted, so they've added it. (Otherwise brand new notebooks couldn't run Vista properly, can you imagine the embarrassment?) From what I've heard, this must have been quite some effort.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Let's brush performance aside because I want to zero in on the problem because I'm thinking this might not be an FX 5200 issue. It might be that blurring is currently not active on all Power PC machines.

I doubt that since this depends on the feature set and speed of the graphics card.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Aperture has always required 1 GB RAM, although I'm not completely sure whether the installer excluded 12" PowerBook user by force.

That's what I meant. The latest 1.2 update enforced that it would not launch with less than 1GB RAM. A warning signs appears asking the user to upgrade memory. Prior to 1.2 it would launch.

M$ had tried very hard to avoid adding Aero support for the GMA950; however the big notebook manufacturers and Intel insisted, so they've added it. (Otherwise brand new notebooks couldn't run Vista properly, can you imagine the embarrassment?)

This is the same situation we're in regarding the FX 5200. The GPU is up to the task and has shipped in millions of PowerBooks and iMacs in the last two years.

[xmattingly]

Originally Posted by vertigociel 

That's my only problem with Spaces - now it's impossible to access three of OS X's most commonly used features with just the mouse, although if you count hot corners, you can get around it. It's worse on MBP's, since F8-F10 are assigned to adjust the keyboard backlight, so you need a modifier key to access those.

There was recently an interesting patent filed by Apple for a multitouch mouse with gesture support - that could probably support seven different types of clicks - index, middle, ring and pinky individually, then index+middle, index+middle+ring, and then all four fingers. Who knows if that'll ever materialize, though.

That Arstechnica article was better than Apple Insider's. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's the way to go, though. It just seems that there'd be a lot more room for input error on a curved device -- I'd put my money on a flat-surface device that is large enough to take input from both hands, sort of like a large graphic tablet, or possibly touch-sensitive display.

I know this is a left field comment, but I have a feeling that multi-touch was the (or maybe one of the) top secret features that was supposed to be introduced in Leopard. When you consider the iPhone, all those crazy multi-touch patents Apple has applied for, and comments made by the Jobster himself at D: All Things Digital, it's a fair bet.

If you haven't seen these yet, check 'em out: you can tell these are Apple's, because whoever they have over there who's in charge of submitting patent illustrations draws really bizarre looking fingers.

The new GUI

Also try this one: They Should Do That

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

That's what I meant. The latest 1.2 update enforced that it would not launch with less than 1GB RAM. A warning signs appears asking the user to upgrade memory. Prior to 1.2 it would launch.

I recall specifically that hacks were necessary to run it on machines with less than 1 GB or RAM or on 12" PowerBooks. Are you sure you haven't applied one of the hacks?

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

This is the same situation we're in regarding the FX 5200. The GPU is up to the task and has shipped in millions of PowerBooks and iMacs in the last two years.

Just have a look what it took: a lot of effort to support a current product with a lot more cpu horsepower. M$ had to do it, as otherwise Vista wouldn't run on many of the current notebook line-ups (including many €1k+-class business notebooks). The GMA950 does have the advantage now that all that's missing in circuitry and speed can be done in software by the second core, the PowerBook doesn't have that advantage (not enough cpu horsepower, no second core) nor is it a current product.

I don't think Apple tries to exclude anyone, unless, as in the case of Aperture, there are very good reasons for that. If it were simple, they'd do it.


To go back to your original question: I've seen people run Leopard on their PowerBooks, but I've never paid that much attention to these tiny details back then.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I recall specifically that hacks were necessary to run it on machines with less than 1 GB or RAM or on 12" PowerBooks. Are you sure you haven't applied one of the hacks?

From memory (a year ago) I'm certain that I didn't use a hack. A warning would appear but it launched anyway. The 1.2 update changed that.

The GMA950 does have the advantage now that all that's missing in circuitry and speed can be done in software by the second core, the PowerBook doesn't have that advantage (not enough cpu horsepower, no second core) nor is it a current product.

I doubt they'll be sending any of the CoreImage GUI effects to a CPU, Intel or Power PC, if the GPU is perfectly capable. If it isn't then the effect will be disabled. One thing is certain, the CoreImage effects aren't complete yet. Blurring that appears in the Print dialog doesn't appear under other sheets, HUDs and drop down menus. My graphic driver (and others) might be incomplete too. System Profiler says the FX 5200 supports CoreImage yet it also reports that I have 256MB VRAM when I have 64MBs. Time will tell, when drivers are complete and support extends to all compatible hardware. No support for the FX 5200 should by extension mean no support for the whole 5x00 series because they all have the same shader unit for that effect.

To go back to your other question: I've seen people run Leopard on their PowerBooks, but I've never paid that much attention to these tiny details back then.

If you catch a glimpse again please tell.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

No support for the FX 5200 should by extension mean no support for the whole 5x00 series because they all have the same shader unit for that effect.

Again, I think it's an issue of speed, not feature set.

From one of my favorite technews website:

Originally Posted by The Inquirer

The second key point was the i915G's lack of support for all of the future Longhorn–Vista Aeroglass desktop interface. Intel 915G and its GMA 900 could not get Microsoft's imprimatur on it. You can have an idea that Intel is very nasty in persuading anyone including Microsoft but we learned after hard lobbying it simply could not persuade the Vole, and Microsoft didn’t want to lower the bar at any cost. Interestingly enough, Intel's GMA 950 can meet the Aero glass specification and Intel will continue to sell its quite highly priced dual core supporting the i945G chipset.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Again, I think it's an issue of speed, not feature set.

The FX 5200 is still perfectly capable of real time blurring. It does so even in a 3D environment as mentioned before. It does so in Aero Glass too. This is not worth questioning or going over again and again.

Here is an Aero Glass article. The author enabled it on an FX 5200. Microsoft states Aero Glass will also run on a slower FX 5100.

WindowsDevCenter.com -- An In-Depth Look at Vista, Part 2

And a full list of GPUs that support Aero Glass

Video Cards that Support Aero Glass Theme - TalkTechWithJack

I have a PC with Aero Glass running on an integrated ATI Xpress 200M chipset. That runs Aero Glass fine and is in the same ballpark as the FX5200 and GMA 950.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by vertigociel 

That's my only problem with Spaces - now it's impossible to access three of OS X's most commonly used features with just the mouse, although if you count hot corners, you can get around it. It's worse on MBP's, since F8-F10 are assigned to adjust the keyboard backlight, so you need a modifier key to access those.

I changed the settings to require the "fn" key for hardware control on my Powerbook back then.

Reasoning is that I rarely needed to touch the backlight settings, and the more often-accessed keys are still accessible with one hand.

[vertigociel]

Originally Posted by xmattingly 

I know this is a left field comment, but I have a feeling that multi-touch was the (or maybe one of the) top secret features that was supposed to be introduced in Leopard. When you consider the iPhone, all those crazy multi-touch patents Apple has applied for, and comments made by the Jobster himself at D: All Things Digital, it's a fair bet.

I think that's too big of a change to pull off in an OS revision. First off, you'd need a multitouch screen - a tablet device wouldn't work well, since the disconnect between what you interact with and what you see is too great, especially since you can't hover - if you're moving the mouse, it's a drag operation. Furthermore, since every Mac but the Mini and the Pro ships with an integrated screen, Apple would have to start making capable displays long before the OS's release - or else multitouch has to be an optional feature, and thus not integral to the OS's UI.

Also, Apple, like other companies, applies for plenty of patents that never materialize, just to keep its bases covered against competitors.

What did El Jobso say at All Things Digital regarding multitouch? I must've missed that comment.

Originally Posted by analogika 

I changed the settings to require the "fn" key for hardware control on my Powerbook back then.

Reasoning is that I rarely needed to touch the backlight settings, and the more often-accessed keys are still accessible with one hand.

How do you do that? That would be useful indeed. I can't find that option under system prefs anywhere.

[xmattingly]

Originally Posted by vertigociel 

I think that's too big of a change to pull off in an OS revision.

You could argue that the GUI was a huge leap too, when it was introduced in the original Macintosh.

Originally Posted by vertigociel

First off, you'd need a multitouch screen - a tablet device wouldn't work well, since the disconnect between what you interact with and what you see is too great, especially since you can't hover - if you're moving the mouse, it's a drag operation.

Nah, I don't think you need your fingers directly on what you're manipulating to have a sense of what you're doing. A mouse isn't really all that different -- though you have a constant cursor on the screen, you don't have to constantly have a sense or orientation (what direction the top of the mouse is pointing, etc -- unless it's a hockey puck mouse ). It's like any other input device; you just have to get used to it. Making it intuitive to use is key, obviously. Since you'd only be able to drag & not hover, some new input methodologies would have to be in place: perhaps you can only select or drag+select w/ two fingers.

Originally Posted by vertigociel

Furthermore, since every Mac but the Mini and the Pro ships with an integrated screen, Apple would have to start making capable displays long before the OS's release - or else multitouch has to be an optional feature, and thus not integral to the OS's UI.

That would make the case for a tablet interface, wouldn't it? I've seen diagrams floating around the web - I think they might be some of Apple's patent applications - that show a large touch space in place of a keyboard on a laptop. The entire OS doesn't have to be determined based on one piece of interface equipement. Different capabilities are already inherent depending on what's connected (ie. the programmable buttons on the Mighty Mouse).

Originally Posted by vertigociel

What did El Jobso say at All Things Digital regarding multitouch? I must've missed that comment.

His comment was pretty elusive (suprise, surprise). Mossberg asked Jobs & Gates point blank what the future might be w/ multi-touch devices, and Jobs basically said that there's a big temptation to focus on putting that in post-PC devices, since it's a clean slate. With computers, you have to deal w/ the legacy of all the software & the way people are used to working. I think what he said is a really strong indication that they're at least trying something out, but won't make it a shipping product unless they can get it right.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by vertigociel 

How do you do that? That would be useful indeed. I can't find that option under system prefs anywhere.

System Preferences --> Keyboard & Mouse --> Keyboard

[P]

I'm beginning to think that it's time to add a FAQ of the GMA 950 versus some of the older discrete GPUs, because this issue keeps cropping up...

The GMA 950 is not a complete GPU. It's part of a GPU with the rest of the functions emulated in software. As long as you stay within the features that the GMA 950 can do, it's decent - it has 4 pipes (same as the 5200) and a higher core clock, so it can beat the 5200 within its (rather narrow) field. When you stray outside of what the 950 can handle, you might as well be using a Rage IIc. It's beyond terrible if it will even launch.

When comparing it to a board like the 9200, there are also things that the 950 can do that the 9200 can't (9200 is only DirectX 8 compatible) which is why the 950 will support some features (like Core Image) that the 9200 won't. That is not true for the 5200. If Apple is supporting some features on the 950 but not on the 5200, they're being lazy or adding artificial limitations to drive upgrades - likely the first, considering the schedule issues.

While it is true that the 5200 was never a very powerful chip, it's main drawback was the lack of color compression - something many later low-end chips have also lacked. The rest is an unfavorable comparison to the (more expensive, but higher numbered) 4200 and remembered benchmarks of a regular 5200 crippled by a 64-bit memory bus, a configuration Apple never used. The Ultra model Apple used has almost 3 times the framerate of that crippled model.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by P 

When comparing it to a board like the 9200, there are also things that the 950 can do that the 9200 can't (9200 is only DirectX 8 compatible) which is why the 950 will support some features (like Core Image) that the 9200 won't. That is not true for the 5200. If Apple is supporting some features on the 950 but not on the 5200, they're being lazy or adding artificial limitations to drive upgrades - likely the first, considering the schedule issues.

Yep. Anything that supports Direct X 9 pixel shaders is capable of the blur effect in real time in any OS if the programmers have done their job. The 9200 doesn't support the Direct X 9 feature set, Aero Glass or the right pixel shader for blurring. For that a minimum of Radeon 9500 has to be met. The whole Geforce 5x00 series supports the feature set. Anybody here with a Radeon 9500/9600/9700/9800 or Geforce 5x00 (and above) who can see if the blur effect works in Leopard?

[OreoCookie]

You still seem to be fixated on the blur thing, yet you miss the central point here: Core Animation isn't the equivalent of Avalon (the underlying display architecture for Aero), Avalon's equivalent in the OS X world is Quartz Extreme -- which is supported by the FX 5200 series. So the question isn't whether the FX 5200 is fast enough for making a blur (i. e. one particular effect), the question is whether it's fast enough for Core Animation (not just blurry), i. e. animated effects in real time -- the answer seems to be yes and no, in that order.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You still seem to be fixated on the blur thing, yet you miss the central point here: Core Animation isn't the equivalent of Avalon (the underlying display architecture for Aero), Avalon's equivalent in the OS X world is Quartz Extreme -- which is supported by the FX 5200 series. So the question isn't whether the FX 5200 is fast enough for making a blur (i. e. one particular effect), the question is whether it's fast enough for Core Animation (not just blurry), i. e. animated effects in real time -- the answer seems to be yes and no, in that order.

The answer is yes and yes for the processor, but when it comes to some of the crazy things that Core Animation can do (like a video wall with 100 videos playing simultaneously) then no. Blur filters don't stress the FX 5200, GMA 950 or Radeon 9500. These chips are capable of it, like I said before, in high polygon 3D environments too. In Doom III the FX 5200 can handle real time blur (vapour coming out of pipes) and bump mapping pixel shaders at the same time. Leopard's GUI should be child's play by comparison.

I know this sounds like I'm making a big deal out of it, but when I and many many others have Macs that are capable of a new and simple feature then it would be nice to see Apple put the work in otherwise there will be many complaints on the net come October about how Apple's Core Animation isn't capable of making full use of hardware like Direct X and Aero Glass are. If Apple thinks everyone will be tempted to upgrade because of things like that they might as well dream on.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The answer is yes and yes for the processor, but when it comes to some of the crazy things that Core Animation can do (like a video wall with 100 videos playing simultaneously) then no.

Again, you focus on two things: (i) blur and (ii) whether the feature xy present. If you want Core Animation to work nicely, your gpu has to be fast enough and that simply isn't the case. I'm sure, technically, you can run Aperture on any G4, but is Aperture going to be useful on a G4/400 with 512 MB RAM? I don't think so. The same goes for Apple's decision not to support the FX 5200 Go in Aperture: although Core Image supports the FX 5200 Go, Apple decided that it was too slow for it. However, the FX 5200 Ultra is supported by Aperture (which just shows it's not a question of the feature set, but of speed). The same goes for Core Animation: unlike the question whether or not an app will run, it is just an addition to the system and for most intents and purposes (useful!?) eye candy.

The other thing you seem to confuse is Core Animation and Leopard's interface: Leopard's interface is Aqua which, in turn, is based on Quartz Extreme. The FX 5200 fully supports Quartz Extreme, it also supports Core Image effects. Aero Glass is the equivalent of Aqua, while MS still has no direct equivalent to Core Animation (although I have heard that they are working on something). So also in this respect, the argument is skewed: both, Aero Glass and Aqua are fully supported by both OS on the FX 5200 Go.