< Back to OSY 1.0 thread list

OSY 1.0 Thread Viewer

Thread #: 1841

This is it. I've lost my mind...read on...

Madan

Tue May 14 12:49:31 2002

Ok, we all know that Apple is antisocial. They piss off life-partner Adobe with their FCP/iphoto software. They tick off MS, even though they need the Office X suite to remain healthy.

They even screw their own customers over.

And don't even get me started with ATi. ATi makes the shittiest drivers in the history of time BUT...

BUT...

their drivers for Mac were always the best released for any platform. Every app., game, custom ran WONDERFULLY. It's almost like ATi *knew* that they couldn't afford to lose Apple because that would be the beginning of the end.

Guess what? It's already started to happen.

So I wondered. How long would it take for them to piss off nVIDIA? Obviously, this GeForce 4 MX card isn't worth its weight in salt and nVIDIA, they're no angels. I mean pushing a GeF 4 derivative that is slower than a GeF 3 Ti card is pretty fucking sad(even a 1.5gig Cely can beat a 866 PIII). But Apple is bound to do in that relationship too.

Here comes my psychosis.

Brace yourself.

No, really, brace yourself. This comment is moronic.

Really moronic.

No, YES, it IS that bad.

Ok, ready?

You sure?

Ok, ok....

When and if this DOES happen, couldn't Apple use reconfigured G3 chips for their graphic needs?

<McLaughlin>
Question: Since the Mac platform is already brutally expensive and since some sources indicate that Apple still hast to liquidate some G3 surplus, couldn't they use such a surplus as a video solution? Now hear me out, take this scenario:

Apple has a surplus of G3s and can produce G3s(IBM) more cheaply than G4s. Wouldn't the price of such processors been equivalent to that of an nVIDIA card? Couldn't engineering configurations yield a chip that is faster than a GeF MX, while simultaneously solving their surplus problem? And because they're expensive, the extra 1-200 dollars added to these specialty models will be easily absorbed.

Can this happen technically?

From one to ten, one being "slower than an innercity high scool student on a standardized test", ten being "faster than Bill Clinton in a McDonald's" how do you see the implementation of such a technology?
</McLauglin>

I was wondering because Ars has had rampat discussion about a co-G3 processor in Macs to speed Quartz performance. I started thinking...which for me is dangerous.
That is all. I know, I know...the horror. :(

:evilgrin:

M.

(Edited by Madan at 5:52 am on May 14, 2002)

HitScan

Tue May 14 14:49:16 2002

Not really. Just putting a second processor for Video in a box doesn't mean it's going to be as fast as a box with a GPU in it. GPU's are running up to their ass in vector and specialty circuits. A G4 is the lowest end PPC that could ever stand a chance of acting in the position of a GPU, and it still wouldn't offer much benefit.

Apple is much better off not fucking with it's suppliers and customers. If they won't learn that lesson, then the world is better off with them dead.

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Tue May 14 15:18:48 2002

No.

A G3 could not handle video rendering even remotely as well as an MX

Jeremy Reimer

Tue May 14 17:53:48 2002

AYB is right.  Let the video chips handle the video.   That's what they are best at, a G3 would choke and die trying to do that.

And let the bears pay the bear tax, I pay the Homer tax!

PaulHill

Tue May 14 19:34:46 2002

If they're really wanting to shove G3's in a Macintosh, the only possible place could be slaved between the GF and system memory, with Quartz running affine on it.

It'd choke itself purple on owner redraws though.

Madan

Tue May 14 19:42:35 2002

So the idea of a co-processor to take some of the heat isn't a good idea? Or maybe if it revolved around non-graphic systems?

M.

Evil Merlin

Tue May 14 19:59:58 2002

If it were a geometry co-processor or such, sure it would help those apps (IE 3D apps like Maya etc), but little else, it shure wouldn't do jack for a GUI.
Madan

Tue May 14 23:23:58 2002

Reparative BUMP