[Powaqqatsi]

What is it exactly ? And why does it need the powerfull graphics cards that only come with the newest Macs ?

The performance gains and features supported by Core Image ultimately depend on the graphics card. Graphics cards capable of pixel-level programming deliver the best performance.

Don't Radeons like the 7500, 9000 and who knows what else, support that required pixel-level programming ?

[Agasthya]

I think its just QE 2.

[arekkusu]

Here's the deal. There are several different levels of functionality:

* Rage 128, Radeon 7000/7500, Geforce2 MX, Geforce 4MX
basic fixed-function pipeline only
* Radeon 8500/9000/9200, Geforce 3, Geforce 4Ti
early programability exposed by proprietary (incompatible) vendor extensions
* Radeon 9600/9700/9800, Geforce FX
standardized programability with some floating point buffer support
* Radeon x800
more advanced programability
*Geforce FX 6800
more advanced programability and support for floating point blending

Apple says Core Image will be hardware accelerated on the 9600 and up. I think that implies that the hardware requirement is a floating point framebuffer.

Older machines are not entirely left out; Core Image apps should *run* on them, but they won't be hardware accelerated. 10.3.4 introduced a new software GL renderer with floating point programability support. This should provide a fall-back path, though of course it will be pretty slow.

See my GPU capability comparison table at:
http://homepage.mac.com/arekkusu/bugs/GLInfo.html

[Powaqqatsi]

Nice comparison table dude

So basically I'm fcked with my Mobility 9000 ?

[arekkusu]

There are no details available yet on how Core Image accelerates various functions; so I can't say how a Radeon 9000 will perform.

It is *possible* to accelerate some functions on all GPUs. But it is *impossible* to accelerate all functions on all GPUs. For example, Apple could write ATI- and nvidia-specific shader paths to accelerate simpler filters on a Radeon 9000 or Geforce 3. But filters requiring floating point buffers will never be accelerated on those cards.

[entrox]

Ha! Now I have a good reason to buy a x800 once it comes out. No, I'm not buying it to play games, I'm buying it to accelerate my workflow.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Agasthya:
I think its just QE 2.

Not really...but kinda.

It's just a system-wide filter plugin API that uses the GPU to apply filters in real-time to video and pictures.

But "it's just" doesn't give it credit. This thing will give iPhoto, Preview, Graphics Converter, QT-based apps, emulators, a new edge. Apps that don't focus on image editing will also benefit from this.

I can't wait to see people build a huge array of CoreImage plugins. And this thing could also pave the way to a Photoshop alternative.

[Millennium]

It doesn't look like this is just a set of filters, though; this looks like a new drawing API. That means that theoretically, this could also be used to re-implement Quartz in a fully-hardware-accelerated manner, rather than the limited form currently used in Quartz Extreme.

Note that I didn't say Apple was actually re-implementing it in this way for Tiger; they probably aren't. My guess is that in this first release, they're trying to get a feel for how well the library works. They won't go whole-hog on it for quite some time yet; probably two releases after Tiger at least. However, I believe that this is another step in Apple's attempt to unify all of its technologies. We know that they've reimplemented most of their audio stuff on top of CoreAudio, and they've been slowly moving Cocoa over to the HIView system for some time as well. Even the QuickDraw stuff was implemented on top of CoreGraphics, and it's entirely possible that CG will eventually be moved on top of this CoreImage library.

The end result? Not much from the user-visible end, other than cleaner-looking graphics. No, the real value of this is on the backend, where Apple (and developers) will benefit from a much cleaner hierarchy of technologies.

[Turias]

(Cross-posted in the Games forum)


One interesting thing I noticed:

From Apple.com

The performance gains and features supported by Core Image ultimately depend on the graphics card. Graphics cards capable of pixel-level programming deliver the best performance. But Core Image automatically scales as appropriate for systems with older graphics cards, for compatibility with any Tiger-compatible Mac.
Supported graphics cards:

The performance gains and features supported by Core Image ultimately depend on the graphics card. Graphics cards capable of pixel-level programming deliver the best performance. But Core Image automatically scales as appropriate for systems with older graphics cards, for compatibility with any Tiger-compatible Mac.
Supported graphics cards:

* ATI Radeon 9800 XT
* ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
* ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
* ATI Radeon 9600 XT
* ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
* ATI Mobility Radeon 9700
* ATI Mobility Radeon 9600
* NVIDIA GeForceFX Go 5200
* NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 Ultra

These cards are available in today�s PowerBooks, Power Mac G5s and both the 17-inch and 20-inch iMac.

No mention of the Geforce 6800. I can't imagine that it wouldn't support Core Image, though.

[[APi]TheMan]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Not really...but kinda.

It's just a system-wide filter plugin API that uses the GPU to apply filters in real-time to video and pictures.

But "it's just" doesn't give it credit. This thing will give iPhoto, Preview, Graphics Converter, QT-based apps, emulators, a new edge. Apps that don't focus on image editing will also benefit from this.

I can't wait to see people build a huge array of CoreImage plugins. And this thing could also pave the way to a Photoshop alternative.

It sounds cool when you describe it. I wish I could have seen the demonstrations at WWDC, though. The developer builds (and the discussions they spawn) between now and "1st half of 2005" should be interesting.

[Agasthya]

Originally posted by Turias:
No mention of the Geforce 6800. I can't imagine that it wouldn't support Core Image, though.

It'll probably be too busy driving the 30" monitor. You'll need to buy another 600 dollar proprietary video card

[Superchicken]

All I know is... my 12 inch PowerBook 1Ghz supports it! I"M HAPPY!

Now if only Core Image could get rid of that stupid shoot the monster add that keeps popping up. Anyway I was looking at the list of cards and was getting frustrated because I saw no mention of my card on there... until... I actually saw it! Now I'm happy.

Sadly this will probably require buying the NEXT version of Fireworks, and some how saving up and paying for the full version of Photoshop. Either way I'm happy about it And it'll actually run on my Machine... dang I didn't have this when Panther previewed or Jaguar... it feels nice to say, YES THAT WILL RUN ON MY MACHINE!

[Rickster]

It looks like hardware acceleration is only half the story: the other "big thing" about CoreImage and CoreVideo is that it's a modular architecture that makes it easy to plug graphics effects into an application. So I imagine lots of users will see the results of developers supporting CoreImage -- more apps will be capable of cool graphics effects. For example, by using CoreImage in OmniGraffle, we could (theoretically) extend the range of style effects you could use on shapes... imagine a shape which, instead of having just a translucent-color fill, looks like it's actually made out of glass, blurring and distorting the image behind it.

Of course, I'm not at WWDC, so I'm just guessing based on the public info on Apple's site... it'll be some time before we can really tell how these new features will affect the Mac software landscape.

[krove]

Originally posted by Rickster:
It looks like hardware acceleration is only half the story: the other "big thing" about CoreImage and CoreVideo is that it's a modular architecture that makes it easy to plug graphics effects into an application. So I imagine lots of users will see the results of developers supporting CoreImage -- more apps will be capable of cool graphics effects. For example, by using CoreImage in OmniGraffle, we could (theoretically) extend the range of style effects you could use on shapes... imagine a shape which, instead of having just a translucent-color fill, looks like it's actually made out of glass, blurring and distorting the image behind it.

Of course, I'm not at WWDC, so I'm just guessing based on the public info on Apple's site... it'll be some time before we can really tell how these new features will affect the Mac software landscape.

Heh, my first thought when I heard about CoreImage was OmniGraffle. I can't wait for the future!

[Horsepoo!!!]

CoreImage should add value to any app that takes advantage of it. OmniGraffle would benefit from special effects added to shapes like Rick said...but also dropping a .png or .pdf onto an OmniGraffle document and adding a sepia tone to it or a Gaussian blur without the need to modify it in Photoshop comes to mind.

This should open the door to many shareware or even commercial alternatives to Photoshop since the filter plugins would already be taken care of, and devs could concentrate on adding other features.

I can also see emulators such as Richard Bannister's emulators (which use his blitter library to modify on-screen game graphics...Super2xSaI and HQ filters as well as changing RGB values) making use of CoreImage to add even more special effects.

CoreImage will be big!

[hmurchison2001]

Originally posted by Rickster:
It looks like hardware acceleration is only half the story: the other "big thing" about CoreImage and CoreVideo is that it's a modular architecture that makes it easy to plug graphics effects into an application. So I imagine lots of users will see the results of developers supporting CoreImage -- more apps will be capable of cool graphics effects. For example, by using CoreImage in OmniGraffle, we could (theoretically) extend the range of style effects you could use on shapes... imagine a shape which, instead of having just a translucent-color fill, looks like it's actually made out of glass, blurring and distorting the image behind it.

Of course, I'm not at WWDC, so I'm just guessing based on the public info on Apple's site... it'll be some time before we can really tell how these new features will affect the Mac software landscape.

Rick I'm glad you mention this because that's exactly how I feel. Core Image/Video hopefully reduces two big issues with Quicktime.

1. Multithreaded and re-entrant code.
2. CPU costs. Who wants to add video features to a word processor or any non video app if it sucks the CPU power. Now it seems that much better image and video processing can be done in GPU without killing the CPU.

Knowing what Core Audio did for application access I would also assume that Core Image/Video will handle mulitiple applications accessing it simultaneously without hiccuping.

I anxiously await more definitive information on it. I think it's going to give developers a few fun tools to work with.

[d0ubled0wn]

The only thing I want to know is, will it accelerate window resizing?

I'm joking of course (or am I?) But anything that speeds up graphics will be great. That is one area Windows still excels at. I'm certainly more excited about this than the other features of Tiger.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by d0ubled0wn:
The only thing I want to know is, will it accelerate window resizing?

I'm joking of course (or am I?) But anything that speeds up graphics will be great. That is one area Windows still excels at. I'm certainly more excited about this than the other features of Tiger.

Do you know why Windows excels at this? Because the inside of Windows' windows don't update dynamically and on the fly like on OS X. That's why you get tearing and ugliness when you resize windows in Windows.

[burkey]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Do you know why Windows excels at this? Because the inside of Windows' windows don't update dynamically and on the fly like on OS X. That's why you get tearing and ugliness when you resize windows in Windows.

That and the fact that OSX is all double buffered, which makes a huge difference.

Chad

--
Chad Burkey Photography
www.chadburkey.com

[bborofka]

So overall, will CoreImage improve GUI responsiveness?

[RooneyX]

I'm annoyed many of these new effects will leave many users out like QE did but by the time Tiger comes out some of us will have upgraded and many will be new Mac owners. I just hope a Powerbook G5 comes out before Tiger because I'm a laptop only man and current PBs don't cut the mustard. What kind of daft saying is that? Who cuts mustard?

[kcmac]

I just watched the stream and Core Image/Video is unbelievable. Being able to use the filters/effects in the same way as bringing out a font table in a Cocoa app is very nice.

I don't know how but it would seem at first glance that Photoshop could take advantage of this whole thing as well putting them on a whole new level on the mac.

[krove]

Phil Schiller mentioned that CoreImage and CoreVideo automatically adjust to your system, taking advantage of the available resources. So if you lack the necessary GPU requirements for a particular filter, it sends it to the CPU for processing.

This, of course, is just my take from something I saw Phil state. Correct me if I'm wrong...

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by krove:
Phil Schiller mentioned that CoreImage and CoreVideo automatically adjust to your system, taking advantage of the available resources. So if you lack the necessary GPU requirements for a particular filter, it sends it to the CPU for processing.

This, of course, is just my take from something I saw Phil state. Correct me if I'm wrong...

who'd want to be corrected ignorence is bliss

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Rickster:
It looks like hardware acceleration is only half the story: the other "big thing" about CoreImage and CoreVideo is that it's a modular architecture that makes it easy to plug graphics effects into an application. So I imagine lots of users will see the results of developers supporting CoreImage -- more apps will be capable of cool graphics effects.

I assume the similarity in name to CoreAudio is a sign of things to come.

I'm sure there will be a plethora of ImageUnits and VideoUnits, automagically accessible to any developer via the framework.

-s*

[MallyMal]

Jobs mentioned that he would love to see Adobe incorporate Core Image into the next version of Photoshop.

So, my question is do you folks think this will happen? This would be a perfect chance for Adobe to boost their Mac sells of PS. Not only would a proper implemention make PS faster on the Mac, which would in turn may help Apple gain revenue, but it would also compel Mac users to upgrade their copies of PS and shoot Adobe some cash for the effort.

I would really like to see Adobe make the effort and give the Mac version of PS a unique advantage over Windows. I read on the Apple website that this stuff (Core Image) can be expressed in a few lines of code so why not? Maybe Apple should give Adobe even more "incentive" to do so. So far, Adobe has written a G5 plug-in so who knows...

[Graymalkin]

From what was said in the keynote it looks as if CoreImage and CoreVideo are similar in structure to CoreAudio. The Audio Toolbox contains various systems like Audio Units and software DSPs. The Toolbox sits on top of a HAL which connects to the IOKit layer that talks to the drivers and then hardware. CoreImage set up similarly might have an Image Toolbox on top of a HAL which would route functions to either the hardware or back into an emulator. CoreAudio does this already; when sound cards or audio processors are connected the HAL passes them jobs they can do in hardware routing the rest into emulators.

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by MallyMal:
Jobs mentioned that he would love to see Adobe incorporate Core Image into the next version of Photoshop.

So, my question is do you folks think this will happen? This would be a perfect chance for Adobe to boost their Mac sells of PS. Not only would a proper implemention make PS faster on the Mac, which would in turn may help Apple gain revenue, but it would also compel Mac users to upgrade their copies of PS and shoot Adobe some cash for the effort.

I would really like to see Adobe make the effort and give the Mac version of PS a unique advantage over Windows. I read on the Apple website that this stuff (Core Image) can be expressed in a few lines of code so why not? Maybe Apple should give Adobe even more "incentive" to do so. So far, Adobe has written a G5 plug-in so who knows...

But will Adobe do this ? That is the question. Are the Core Image filters as good as the Adobe filters ?

[moep]

I think CoreImage is just plain amazing. I can think of a zillion of uses for it... and the best thing is that the GPU does all the work. Finally! Those GPUs do have some serious power, way more than we use at the moment. CoreImage will take a serious amount of load off the processors, IMO. Just think about all the apps like iPhoto, OmniGraffle and of course Photoshop.
I'm sure we will see the CoreImage in Photoshop, it's just a matter of time. Darn, just think of the performance boost that PS could receive. Can't wait!
I think THIS is my personal "killer-feature" for Tiger.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by kcmac:
I just watched the stream and Core Image/Video is unbelievable. Being able to use the filters/effects in the same way as bringing out a font table in a Cocoa app is very nice.

I don't know how but it would seem at first glance that Photoshop could take advantage of this whole thing as well putting them on a whole new level on the mac.

But Adobe will never add this to Photoshop...just like MS never integrated Office with Address Book and OS X's built-in font management system.

From what I've seen in the WWDC stream, this filter plugin system is unbelievably powerful and fast. Adobe should be scared right now...really scared. If any developer can add this image filter capability to their apps, anyone with a few months of free time could potentially develop a Photoshop-killer.

But please, Adobe, prove me wrong.

[Graymalkin]

I really hope the features of CoreImage will entice Adobe to revamp their print media product line. Photoshops, InDesign, and Illustrator could all benefit greatly from both Quartz and CoreImage. Quartz has tremendous power which goes mostly under utilized today. CoreImage is to rasterized graphics that Quartz is to vectorized graphics. There's a metric pantload of power there that will be available as a core component of the OS.

Photoshop could be reimplemented as a collection of Image Units and an application to tie them all together. On older systems the performance would likely be similar to Photoshop currently. On systems with CoreImage acceleration the processing could be done in real-time or damn near real-time. That would be quite a feature for Adobe to advertise.

Besides Adobe's stuff it will be interesting to use CoreImage stuff in every day apps to add a little more visual flair to them. I'm thinking along the lines of transition effects between NSViews or distortion filters on widgets and other on-screen elements. Dissolve transition when browsing to new pages in Camino anyone?

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by Turias:
(Cross-posted in the Games forum)

One interesting thing I noticed:

From Apple.com

No mention of the Geforce 6800. I can't imagine that it wouldn't support Core Image, though.

There is no mention of the x800, either. And for good reason - the G5s don't have PCI-e. And since I just got my DP2.0 I'm selfishly hoping they won't have it for a long time to come.

[Turias]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
There is no mention of the x800, either. And for good reason - the G5s don't have PCI-e. And since I just got my DP2.0 I'm selfishly hoping they won't have it for a long time to come.

Neither of those chips require PCI-e. The 6800 is the new chip required for the 30" displays that will be shipping in August.

[austinjackson]

Photoshop, iPhoto, OmniGraffle - these are interesting.

Keynote - would be AWESOME with the core video/image stuff!

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by austinjackson:
Photoshop, iPhoto, OmniGraffle - these are interesting.

Keynote - would be AWESOME with the core video/image stuff!

True...Keynote will hugely benefit from the wipe effects. And dropping an image into a Keynote document and editing that image using different filters such as gaussian blurs or sepia (to name a couple out of the hundreds of filters) should make Keynote super powerful.

The idea that I won't need Photoshop to achieve some of these visual effects makes me quiver.

[austinjackson]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:

The idea that I won't need Photoshop to achieve some of these visual effects makes me quiver.

For me it is the possibility of new transitions based on these technologies. I present a LOT of graphs loaded with information. Now I use Flash to create a zoom effect to zoom in on various features of the graph, then zoom back out to the "big picture". I have to save the flash file as a broken up quicktime file, then put it in Keynote.

It looks like core image/video would take care of all of this for me (if Apple adds access to this type of thing in Keynote).

[madmacgames]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
But will Adobe do this ? That is the question. Are the Core Image filters as good as the Adobe filters ?

That isn't the point. They don't have to be. Just like with the Core Audio where there are Audio Units that you can develop whatever you dream up with respect to audio plugins, Core Image will have Image Units that you can develop whatever image plugin you like to your hearts content. The point is, Adobe will be able to make their program & filters more powerful on the Mac than they are on any other platform, if they take advantage of it. They don't have to use any of Apple's filters if they don't want to, and can still use Core Image by making their own into IU (image unit) plugins.

[OwlBoy]

Core Image, and Core Video seem to be part of Dashboard, that is one reason to think it is kind-of QE2

Those "Splashdown" effects when new widgets come out seem to come from CV to me.

-Owl

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
Core Image, and Core Video seem to be part of Dashboard, that is one reason to think it is kind-of QE2

Those "Splashdown" effects when new widgets come out seem to come from CV to me.

-Owl

There are also genie effects when closing (minimizing?) widgets.

CoreImage and CoreVideo are going to allow people to put all sorts of crazy effects to their apps.

[Grammar Police]

Not only is it cool, but my guess is that it will encourage developers to do more native Mac programming instead of merely porting over their Windows apps.

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by madmacgames:
That isn't the point. They don't have to be. Just like with the Core Audio where there are Audio Units that you can develop whatever you dream up with respect to audio plugins, Core Image will have Image Units that you can develop whatever image plugin you like to your hearts content. The point is, Adobe will be able to make their program & filters more powerful on the Mac than they are on any other platform, if they take advantage of it. They don't have to use any of Apple's filters if they don't want to, and can still use Core Image by making their own into IU (image unit) plugins.

Good point

After reading a bit more and seeing the WWDC stream I finaly understand what it is. Looks pretty cool. A pitty that my video card isn't fully supported but hey what do you want ? My computer is starting to show his age (Ti867 with Radeon 9000 32MB). All in all the Tiger update seems worth the upgrade. But we can't say too much at this point since it's almost a year away

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Grammar Police:
Not only is it cool, but my guess is that it will encourage developers to do more native Mac programming instead of merely porting over their Windows apps.

Maybe, maybe not. Platform-exclusivity can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can attract developers, but it can also drive them away from using those particular technologies.

As it stands, these Image Units are competing directly with Photoshop plugins, which are already an entrenched de-facto standard. Adobe is not terribly likely to stand for that. My guess is that they will not use Core Image for that reason.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Maybe, maybe not. Platform-exclusivity can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can attract developers, but it can also drive them away from using those particular technologies.

Yes. That's why everyone's using DirectX8/9 and DirectPlay to build games right? Rare are developers that are driven away from 'those particular technologies'.

Besides...you don't need to use them.

[Grammar Police]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Yes. That's why everyone's using DirectX8/9 and DirectPlay to build games right? Rare are developers that are driven away from 'those particular technologies'.

Besides...you don't need to use them.

That's what I think. Sure, many people won't use them because they don't want to spend the time learning to use a technology for a single platform. But, it won't scare anyone away from the Macintosh platform. All ir can do is help pull people toward the Mac and see what kind of interesting things it can do.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Maybe, maybe not. Platform-exclusivity can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can attract developers, but it can also drive them away from using those particular technologies.

As it stands, these Image Units are competing directly with Photoshop plugins, which are already an entrenched de-facto standard. Adobe is not terribly likely to stand for that. My guess is that they will not use Core Image for that reason.

That is the GREAT thing. Nothing says Adobe couldn't put CV in with the OS X version of PS along side it's standard plug-ins. They could use them as needed or as an option. Third party devs could make their own CI units just as they do plug-ins. It's a whole new market. With the Mac being ?50%+ of PS' market not using CI would probably be a mistake. Same goes for AfterEffects and CV.

As they are able to add them in and not have to completely alter their own model it is almost a no-brainer. PS pros will be tearing down the doors for this kind of speed in PS, etc. I don't think Adobe really has much of a choice.

Tangent: Design apps are getting very advanced�and increasing every quarter. Hopefully Adobe is privy because PS, for all its functionality, is starting to show its age. Things like CI are what will save it.

[lookmark]

It's probably not enough notice for Adobe to integrate CoreImage features, or plug-ins, into the next version of the CS suite (say mid 2005), whose development is already well under way.

If so, it means we'll have to wait until the *next* version of Photoshop to see this (say late 06 to early 07), at which point Adobe will be retooling Photoshop for both CoreImage *and* Avalon. Sigh.

Unfortunately, to see a Mac advantage on this in design and pro imaging, I suspect that we'll have to see it from some ambitious new developer. Too bad. Who know, maybe Adobe can burn the midnight oil on this one -- if they do, it'll be a major selling point for their suite on the Mac side.

Consumer apps will without doubt have the wazoo enhanced out them for Tiger, though. And just imagine what iLife 05 for Tiger will be like.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by lookmark:

Consumer apps will without doubt have the wazoo enhanced out them for Tiger, though. And just imagine what iLife 05 for Tiger will be like.

Well, unless Apple wants to retain 10.3 compatibility (and I hope they don't since iLife 04 is plenty good for 10.3 users), iPhoto will probably gain all of the CoreImage filter capabilities, iMovie will probably gain all the CoreImage (CoreVideo?) transition effects, iPhoto will probably get Spotlight to filter photos, iTunes visual effects could probably use CoreImage/CoreVideo for some really neat effects.

Keynote would get new transition effects.

Safari could get transition effects when going to different webpages (this could get annoying fast )

So many apps will benefit from CoreImage and CoreVideo.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Yes. That's why everyone's using DirectX8/9 and DirectPlay to build games right? Rare are developers that are driven away from 'those particular technologies'.

No, but Microsoft breaks all the rules because of its monopoly. On Windows, there is no distinction between standard and proprietary, because Windows is all that matters. Or at least, that's what Microsoft wants you to think, and they've been depressingly successful about it. People don't often want to develop on OS-specific technologies, if those technologies won't work in Windows.

This makes it practically impossible to gain much in the way of a competitive advantage based on technology, which is how Microsoft has managed to perpetuate itself. By introducing its own "new" Windows technologies from time to time, it makes sure everyone has to constantly play catch-up, while ensuring that competing technologies are never adopted, not because of any merit of lack thereof, but simply because they're not Microsoft.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No, but Microsoft breaks all the rules because of its monopoly. On Windows, there is no distinction between standard and proprietary, because Windows is all that matters. Or at least, that's what Microsoft wants you to think, and they've been depressingly successful about it. People don't often want to develop on OS-specific technologies, if those technologies won't work in Windows.

This makes it practically impossible to gain much in the way of a competitive advantage based on technology, which is how Microsoft has managed to perpetuate itself. By introducing its own "new" Windows technologies from time to time, it makes sure everyone has to constantly play catch-up, while ensuring that competing technologies are never adopted, not because of any merit of lack thereof, but simply because they're not Microsoft.

Good point.

It's sad that most people only want to evolve when MS is ready to evolve. MS has stunted the growth of computers and the web for too long now.

[pcd2k]

A casual observation of Tiger Core component apps

Historically, Core Image and Core Video technologies have been available for professional television broadcast editors at least since I witnessed them being demonstrated by Qantel Paintbox in 1987 and then again by SGI in 1992 on their Oxygen supercomputer. Interestingly though I can't actually recall seeing any of those functions actually working on live TV although that may be somewhat difficult to ascertain. When I was shown these technologies they were being demonstrated as working 'on the fly'which for that time was actually quite unbelievable as you might imagine. So those technologies were available to only the select few who had access to them - now it seems everybody will have the opportunity.

This leads me to suspect that Steve and or Apple will reinvent many more features from the professional Broadcast and perhaps Scientific and Engineering fields of the recent past. One feature that SGI had which has as yet not shown up in our contemporary systems is the magnifier slider for windows. This made it possible to automatically with the assistance of the mouse slide a slider on the edge of the window frame to either magnify or reduce the visual field of the window, thus making an open window as small as a file icon or as large as the entire screen, although this function may not be needed any more what with the enhancement app of Dashboard ?