dsa
Radeon 9200 and Core Image Support
From
Michael Vandervort
Yeah, like you need another one. : )
Before I get into it, love to read you - way too much.
I'm sending this to you, because I'm continually reading people
saying the same thing. Rather than correct all of them, I figured I
would just tell you about it and hope the Mac community picks up on
it through you.
the story:
In Mac mini Updated to 512 MB Memory, SuperDrive Model Added
- However, I find this update a bit underwhelming, given that
video support remains a non-programmable Radeon 9200 GPU, which
does not fully support Core Image graphics in OS X 10.4
Tiger....
except from ATI's site:
- Offering full support for the AGP 8x standard and extremely
programmable geometry and texture engines, Radeon 9200 series
produces the sharpest possible graphics and video imagery.
just PR? Then:
- A highly programmable graphics environment with four
independent rendering pipelines gives Radeon 9200 series the pixel
processing power to drive today's leading 3D applications. Matching
high performance with competitive pricing, Radeon 9200 series
delivers barrier-free entertainment to the most demanding PC
enthusiasts.
Also, there appears to have already been an update put out there
by ATI in April of this year: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/macosx-ati-displays-4-5-1.html
Versavision - screen rotation on a Mac mini with Tiger. I'm
hoping enough minis get sold that ATI will continue to provide
future updates to it.
Perhaps Core Image can happen someday?
Hi Michael,
First, thanks for reading.
It appears that I have erred in referring to the Radeon 9200 as
"non-programmable".
However, according to Apple's Core Image information page, I'm
correct that the 9200 does not support Core Image.
It states:
Core Image-capable graphics cards include:
- ATI Mobility Radeon 9700
- ATI Radeon 9550, 9650, 9600, 9600 XT, 9800 XT, X800 XT
- Nvidia GeForce FX Go 5200
- Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
- Nvidia GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL, 6800 GT DDL
The context of the discussion on the page implies that graphics
processing units that do not support Core Image are
non-programmable, but that is too much of a generalization, I
guess.
You can check it out at: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/
Anyway, thanks for the additional information. Always
useful.
Charles
WorkStrip vs. Dock
From Matthew Daniels
Mr. Moore,
Your Miscellaneous Ramblings on
WorkStrip couldn't have come at a better time, since I'm
nearing the end of my evaluation period. I wish its application
switching behavior were like the Dock's, because it includes a
feature I've been searching for ever since the Dock arrived: tabs.
Assigning WorkStrip's tabs to act as part of the application icons
allows you to activate applications from the edge of the screen.
The Dock's inability to do so tramples all over Fitts' Law and
makes auto-hiding almost unworkable.
Do you know of any other app/extension/haxie that makes the
whole screen-edge beneath the Dock clickable for app switching?
There must be a thousand ways to do it - with tabs, by increasing
the width of the arrows, or submerging the dock icons part-way, to
name a few. If you could point me in the direction of one of them,
I'd be really grateful.
Matt Daniels
Hi Matt,
Can't think of anything that does exactly what you describe, but
that doesn't mean no such thing exists.
Another Dock substitute I like is 3D-Space VFS, also with a free
demo available.
For more information, visit: http://www.marcmoini.com
Charles
Don't Like the Dock
From Christopher Beaver
Dear Charles,
Thanks for your latest regarding alternatives to the dock.
I'm somewhat stuck in OS 9 due to legacy software and hardware,
particularly with my video editing system, an older and yet still
superb Avid Xpress. To shift to OS X with the Avid would be
very, very expensive. Hardware and software both.
However I have also been working in OS X on a PowerBook that I
use to log footage.
I have to say that I do not like the Dock. It seems to me that
it doesn't let me do what I want to do.
I want to put my various icons individually and
idiosyncratically wherever I want to put them. Even after having
stopped the bouncing Dock icons and eliminated the background, I
still don't want them all in a row on any side of the screen. I
want them here, there, and everywhere.
Am I the problem? Have I missed a way of emulating the freedom
of OS 9 icon placement in OS X?
One other question: Is there a systemwide means of having files
open in OS X without all the folderol of multiple panes on the
left showing applications and so forth, or must it be done window
by window?
Overall, no matter what anyone says, wasn't the desktop simpler
and cleaner prior to OS X? Even if you love the Dock.
With all the fancy semitransparent windows, etc. why not use
some of that computing power to give users the option to use the
OS X desktop or the OS 9 - whichever we choose?
Just pondering the whys and wherefores of interface design.
Christopher Beaver
Hi Christopher,
I'm not a Dock fan either, and I am likewise of a mind that the
OS 9 GUI was more functional, at least for my tastes and
purposes.
I'm not aware of a means to globally get rid of the window
sidebar, although there may be one.
You can put any icon you like on the desktop, including
applications (or aliases from the Applications Folder. I usually
have in excess of 200 icons scattered about my OS X Desktop
(and I usually know where everything is). Exposé makes
access convenient, so there are some good things about the
OS X UI. ;-)
Charles
Re: Don't Like the Dock
From Christopher Beaver
Charles, thank you as always for taking the time to respond.
I just returned my PowerBook with OS X on it to its owner, so I
can't fool around with its interface for the time-being.
Your comments were helpful and encouraging.
There must be a way of triumphing over the OS X clutter.
I've also been noticing more clutter in the news-oriented
websites. It's as if everything has to be included all the
time.
I wonder if someone is waiting in the wings with a new paradigm
of Web design - something that will spring us all directly into
simplicity and clarity. Sartori!!
Oh, well, onward and upward with the GUIs!!
Christopher B.
Hi Christopher,
I've made this comment elsewhere before, but I really did like
the simplicity of the old System 6 user interface.
One Dock alternative that appeals to me aesthetically is
3D-Space VFS (link above), which combines Launcher, Dock, and
Finder features with 3D drawers to give you easy point-and-click
access to your files and applications, without having to sift
through folders.
Charles
Re: Don't Like the Dock
From Christopher Beaver
Charles,
Thank you for the tip. I'll give it a try.
It's always great to have your thoughts on these things.
From a Low End Mac diehard with my beloved Power Mac 8500 upgraded twice now a
G4!!
Best always,
Christopher B.
12" PowerBook or 12" iBook?
From JD
Hi,
I had some few questions about the PowerBook, especially the
12". How does it compare to the 12" iBook (with SuperDrive)?
Can anyone help me decide whether to get a PowerBook or iBook -
kind of what's best bang for the buck? Can you show me the
benchmarks to both? I kind of know the differences in the things
they have, but how do they compare in performance? How much faster
is the PowerBook compared to the iBook? What are the main
differences?
Does anyone know any websites that have articles comparing the
two? I'm look at a 12" for either one. I want a SuperDrive.
I mainly use my computer for office utilities, Internet, AIM,
email, organizer (Palm Desktop), music, some games (poker), movies,
burning CDs, file storage, photos/photo editing, audio editing.
Also, how does the Macintosh computer compare to security
threats, viruses, worms compared to Windows PC?
Thanks, JD
Hi JD,
If you want a SuperDrive in a 12" Apple portable, your only
choice is the 12" PowerBook. The 12" iBook is not available with a
SuperDrive - only the 14" model.
For a detailed discussion of the iBooks vs. the 12" PowerBook,
see
12" PowerBook January 2005 vs 12/14" iBook August 2005 - Value
Comparison Revisited (last week's The Road Warrior column on
MacOpinion).
Based on your description of the sort of things you use
computers for, either an iBook or PowerBook should fit your needs
admirably. There isn't a big performance difference, but the
PowerBook does have more powerful video support.
At this point in time, malware (viruses, worms, Trojans,
spyware) are almost a non-issue for Mac users. There are no
significant OS X viruses, and most Mac users of my
acquaintance don't bother with virus protection software, although
it is available. For more background on this topic see
Mac OS X, BSD Unix Top Security Survey (Computerworld).
Charles
Re: 12" PowerBook or 12" iBook?
Thank you so much, Charles. I think that solves my question. But
do you know any benchmarks as in terms of numbers for performance
comparing the two? If I have any more questions I'll let you
know.
Thanks, JD
Donating a Power Mac 5300
From David Shor
Hi:
Have read many of your articles and appreciate your work. Have a
Power Mac 5300 that has been
sitting in my closet for a long long time. Don't want to throw it
in the trash if a good use can be found for it. Are you aware of
any organizations that could put this to good use.
Thanks
David Shor
Hi David,
There are organizations that ship older donated computers to
developing nations. However, my suggestion would be to see if a
local youth or senior citizen's center might be interested, or
perhaps a local social services agency could hook you up with an
underprivileged child who has no home computer.
Thanks for reading.
Charles
Letters sent may be published at our discretion. Email addresses
will not be published unless requested. If you prefer that your
message not be published, mark it "not for publication." Letters
may be edited for length, context, and to match house style.
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
