Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Freeflyer · Jan 13, 2005, 06:26 PM

OK, on another forum the switch from pc to mac was being discussed and I mentioned that the cost of doing so has dropped with the introduction of the mini, and that buying it with tiger and ilife05 would make it an absolute bargain.

Someone else came back with the comment that the graphics card in the mini wouldn't support tiger. I can't believe that would be the case, buy a brand new mac and not run the new OS in a few months time, but can't find anything to debunk the other poster.

Can anyone enlighten me please, just so I can put him and the others straight.

Cheers,

J.

OptimusG4 · Jan 13, 2005, 06:29 PM

Put it this way. My 350MHz G3 from 1999 with an ATI Rage Pro 16MB card will run Tiger. Won't have the special quartz effects and all but it will run.

lookmark · Jan 13, 2005, 06:55 PM

Tiger is built to scale. So if your video card isn't up to snuff, you'll probably lose a couple of the splashy Dashboard effects (rippling when new widgets are opened, flipping around). And perhaps the new Quartz 2D acceleration won't kick in...? We don't really know yet. But that's about it.

Trust me, Apple wants Tiger to run on the Mac mini, and nicely. It'll be fine.

jasong · Jan 13, 2005, 07:14 PM

I can guarantee you that the mini will not run Tiger. Absolutely, positively, definitely will not run Tiger. But Apple doesn't want people to know that, so be quiet, or they will sue you.

-- Jason

SMacTech · Jan 13, 2005, 07:39 PM

It runs on my pismo 400 with 192mb of RAM.

ManOfSteal · Jan 13, 2005, 07:46 PM

Absolutely, and very well I might add.

Chuckit · Jan 13, 2005, 08:38 PM

Any computer that will run Panther will run Tiger. However, the Radeon 9200 in the Mac Mini won't be able to fully take advantage of the new CoreImage framework. Does it really matter? Probably not.

Millennium · Jan 13, 2005, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Freeflyer:
Someone else came back with the comment that the graphics card in the mini wouldn't support tiger. I can't believe that would be the case, buy a brand new mac and not run the new OS in a few months time, but can't find anything to debunk the other poster.

Your friend on the forums is somewhat mistaken. The Mini will run Tiger just fine.

There is a feature in Tiger called CoreImage, which is an OS service for running different kinds of transformation filters on graphics. This feature is hardware-accelerated on graphics cards which can be programmed to create pixel shaders, but it can run unaccelerated on other machines.

The graphics card in the Mini doesn't do pixel shaders, so CoreImage won't be accelerated on the Mini. Your friend on these other forums probably saw this and thought that this meant that Tiger wouldn't run, but that's a mistaken impression. Tiger will run just fine on the Mini. Even CoreImage will run, it just won't be hardware-accelerated.

tooki · Jan 13, 2005, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by OptimusG4:
Put it this way. My 350MHz G3 from 1999 with an ATI Rage Pro 16MB card will run Tiger. Won't have the special quartz effects and all but it will run.

It's not a Rage Pro. It's a Rage 128 (or possibly Rage 128 Pro), which is an entirely different beast.

tooki

Millennium · Jan 13, 2005, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by tooki:
It's not a Rage Pro. It's a Rage 128 (or possibly Rage 128 Pro), which is an entirely different beast.

If it's from 1999, then he may have an upgraded Beige G3 rather than a Blue. The Beige models came with a Rage Pro chip. Trust me; I've got one.

Chuckit · Jan 13, 2005, 10:01 PM

But in that case, it's not a 16 MB card, is it?

TETENAL · Jan 13, 2005, 10:11 PM

The mini will not run Tiger. As a matter of fact, it will self-destruct after 3 months.

IamBob · Jan 13, 2005, 10:40 PM

The mini will not run Tiger. As a matter of fact, it will self-destruct after 3 months.

To quote an insider, "This [Mac mini] was once the size of a PowerMac, now just 6x6x2. Soon, it'll shrink into nothingness."

LightWaver-67 · Jan 13, 2005, 10:52 PM

Let me see if I get this straight... The question posed to us is "Will Tiger (Apples next release of its flagship operating system) run adequately on a (brand new design) Mac Mini...?"

Ummmm...

I think Apple should and would just shut their doors and close-down if a BRAND NEW machine, just released, did NOT run their BRAND NEW operating system which will SHIP INSTALLED once released.

Yeah... once you get it out of the box and try to boot-up... it's gonna just die.

</sarcasm>

Sorry... just having some fun... of COURSE it's gonna run fine on the Mini... it may not be a blazing Dual 2.5Ghz powerhouse... but it will be just fine. Dare I say BETTER than fine.

arekkusu · Jan 14, 2005, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Any computer that will run Panther will run Tiger.

That's a baseless statement.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Jan 14, 2005, 02:04 AM

Seems some people still have an excuse not to switch.

Freeflyer · Jan 14, 2005, 02:59 AM

Thanks for all the replies. I knew it would be able to, but wanted to find out about the graphics and try to find why he thought it wouldn't rather than just saying 'of course it will'. I wasn't in any doubt, just wanted to have the facts to back it up.

And now I have,.

Cheers,

J.

Chuckit · Jan 14, 2005, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by arekkusu:
That's a baseless statement.

If you consider simple logic to be baseless, sure. Find me a reasonable case in which it's not true and I'll eat my words.

mrgaskell · Jan 14, 2005, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Let me see if I get this straight... The question posed to us is "Will Tiger (Apples next release of its flagship operating system) run adequately on a (brand new design) Mac Mini...?"

Ummmm...

I think Apple should and would just shut their doors and close-down if a BRAND NEW machine, just released, did NOT run their BRAND NEW operating system which will SHIP INSTALLED once released.

Yeah... once you get it out of the box and try to boot-up... it's gonna just die.

</sarcasm>

Sorry... just having some fun... of COURSE it's gonna run fine on the Mini... it may not be a blazing Dual 2.5Ghz powerhouse... but it will be just fine. Dare I say BETTER than fine.

Shoot. I should sell all my stock now, right?

albook · Jan 14, 2005, 07:50 AM

Of course it will!

Millennium · Jan 14, 2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Chuckit:
But in that case, it's not a 16 MB card, is it?

The amount of memory isn't the important factor. The important factor is whether or not the card can be programmed to create pixel shaders, and the Mini's card isn't capable of that.

arekkusu · Jan 14, 2005, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Chuckit:
If you consider simple logic to be baseless, sure. Find me a reasonable case in which it's not true and I'll eat my words.

All right:

Panther is officially supported on 1998-era hardware like the original iMac. That's a 233 MHz G3, with a 2M RageII, USB, and a CD drive.

Now, the Tiger requirements are still not officially listed, but google around and compare that spec against what you find.

sworthy · Jan 14, 2005, 06:05 PM

To add more speculation into the mix, Apple pulled its page where it lists all of the compatible core-image cards. Maybe the 9200 will show up when tiger ships?

LightWaver-67 · Jan 14, 2005, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by sworthy:
To add more speculation into the mix, Apple pulled its page where it lists all of the compatible core-image cards. Maybe the 9200 will show up when tiger ships?

I'm not sure what you're implying...? I run a 9200 (PCI) in my G5 for my second display... what was/is the significance of your reply.

P.S. - tone & inflection get lost in typed text - I want to be clear that I'm not being sarcastic or a wise-ass... I really am curious as to what you were referring to with the 9200 since I own & use one.

Luca Rescigno · Jan 14, 2005, 10:13 PM

Okay.

The Rage Pro/128/whatever statement doesn't really matter... the point is Tiger will even run with a crappy old pre-Radeon card. It won't be as pretty but it'll still run great. Though Rage Pro cards have shipped in Apple systems with 2-8 MB of memory, while Rage 128 cards have gotten 8-16 MB of memory. The amount of memory doesn't really matter, and neither one will show all the nice Tiger-only effects, but they'll certainly run it.

Also, the Radeon 9200 does handle pixel shaders, but only of the 1.x variety. The GeForce FX series (5x00), the GeForce 6x00 series, and the Radeon 9500 and above all support Pixel Shader 2.0, which seems to be the necessary feature for full acceleration of Tiger's Core Image effects. Since the 9200 doesn't support PS2.0, it won't provide full Core Image acceleration. At least, not based on what we've seen so far from Apple. I don't think it would exactly be easy for them to just change how CI works, just to get support for PS1.x video cards. What they really should have done is replaced the Radeon 9200 with something nearly as cheap but with PS2.0 support - the perfect card for this would be the Radeon 9600SE. It runs at the same clock speed as the 9200, so it would probably not generate much extra heat. It also costs about the same, and doesn't affect the ATI/nVidia balance that Apple strives to maintain. Hell, with only 32 MB of VRAM, it wouldn't be any faster than the 9200 anyway, so Apple doesn't have to worry about their ungrateful customers getting more performance than they deserve from their video chipsets.

*whew* that was kinda long. I think I'm correct about the Pixel Shader 2.0 thing, but I don't know a ton about that particular aspect of video cards so please excuse me if I made any mistakes. But based on what I've seen and read, I think I've provided a fairly accurate summary of what's going on.

billtorino · Jan 15, 2005, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Freeflyer:
Someone else came back with the comment that the graphics card in the mini wouldn't support tiger. I can't believe that would be the case, buy a brand new mac and not run the new OS in a few months time, but can't find anything to debunk the other poster.

MORONS making outrageous claims, NOT YOU, should be the ones looking for facts to try to debunk common sense. Ignore that IDIOT.

Jasoco · Jan 15, 2005, 03:25 PM

First of all, does anyone SERIOUSLY think Apple is STUPID enough to NOT support at least the G4!? They would LITERALLY be shooting themselves in the foot, then the arm, then the leg by doing this. It would be sheer stupidity to not support their newest Macs. I mean really. Trust me, Tiger will run on even the G3. MAYBE they'll add a "Requires FireWire" or "Requires xxxMHz G3" thing, but it'll at the very least run on even the earliest G4.

If they were to not support them, there would be HUGE lawsuits. Class actions. Riots in the streets. Dogs and cats living together. Basically mass hysteria. Plus, they'd lose their newfound PC switchers and tons of people who have uised Macs for years. Remember what happened when people with really old Pre G3 PowerMacs found out they couldn't run it. It's too early to stop supporting the G4 especially since the G5 isn't even in the LAPTOPS yet!

Bottom line, please don't be stupid. Use common sense here, people.

As someone said, it will run, it won't have all the cool effects, but it will run. It's not 64-bit only. It's not G5 only. It will run. Mark my words. Quote me on it. Set up an iCal appointment to alert you when the Specs of Tiger are released so you can check back to this thread and rub my nose in it if I'm wrong if you want, but don't just assume Apple's going to pull something THAT stupid this soon.

Chuckit · Jan 15, 2005, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by sworthy:
To add more speculation into the mix, Apple pulled its page where it lists all of the compatible core-image cards. Maybe the 9200 will show up when tiger ships?

It's possible, but the current thinking is that Core Image requires technology only found on the cards listed as "supported." If this is the case, I don't see how Apple would add the 9200 to the list, since that would require adding new features to the GPU.

Millennium · Jan 15, 2005, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Chuckit:
It's possible, but the current thinking is that Core Image requires technology only found on the cards listed as "supported." If this is the case, I don't see how Apple would add the 9200 to the list, since that would require adding new features to the GPU.

I think you're right, but keep in mind once again that the requirements are only for CoreImage acceleration, not CoreImage itself.

I do suspect that CoreVideo will probably be disabled on systems where CoreImage can't be accelerated. After all, what would the point of these kinds of video filters be, given that they'd stand to reduce your framerate by so much? But CoreImage itself will still run; that much is clear.