Quest. about video performance w/o drivers

[dcbarry]

All:

While we are waiting for native drivers to come forth, I'm teetering as to whether I should run to the Apple Store and purchase today.

The one thing I'm a bit unclear on is the actual video situation. I guess the universal statement is that you can't run games on it, but otherwise is it fully usable?? -- for example, can I run normal prodcutivity apps, developemtn apps, etc? Are we surrently stuck in a low resolution mode?

Just looking for folks to clarify this a bit.... Appreciate your input.

(I guess the macmini situation is somewhat better in that there is a native driver, but I'm more interested in either a notebook or iMac)

Thanks!


d.

[jann]

Just turn off video accelleration.

Sounds wrong, I know, but the Core duo has MORE than enough power to run video w/o the GPU (it will be better with the GPU, but until then, ho humm)

I have a 2.16 and disabled video accelleration:

Right click desktop, properties, settings tab, advanced, troubleshooting tab and then slide the slider all the way to the left

It works wonderfully.

1440x900 is the actual graphics, although the only thing missing is the GPU doing the work and the accellerated graphics.

To give you an idea: Quicktime movies (Full screen) play wonderfully. Boots in about 25 seconds from turn on to final.

Everything (wireless, ethernet, sound, bluetooth) works with the drivers mentioned int fAQ (i did not install bluetooth until i am sure i want it under XP).

Sound only works through optical out (headphone port) until we figure out how to tell XP to use the internal speakers, tho.

So, in a phrase, I bought a 2.16, installed XP and could not be happier!

need help or more info, IM me at jannlinder (AIM) or ff_jann (yahoo)

I am online alot.

Jann

[cawaker]

I am very impressed how usable XP is on a 2.0MBP.
form the compalints i read that it was laggy, i expected it to be like a 2 frame per second.

But its very usuable, and i barely notice any lag while scrolling websites and moving windows. it is more than good enough for use as a daily OS.

[RichP]

Yeah, when we say laggy, it isnt all that bad. Even solidworks does a decent job of rotating and rendering 3D objects; if that is useable, anything else that is not graphics based will be no problem.

This is ages beyond the best of what VPC could ever do, even on a dual G5 :D
________
Yamaha cs2x (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_CS2x)

[gygysamurai]

Windows runs WAY better then it ever ran on my PC. Here are my PC's specs:

-AMD XP 2000+ (1.67ghz)
-512mb RAM
-30gb HD
-256mb ATI 9600 Pro

It's DEFINITELY not the greatest PC but it ran Call of Duty 2, Half-life 2, etc with very little lag.

Even without the video drivers Windows runs great on a mac. You'll love it! Don't go for the quick fix by getting a mini! Can you imagine playing games with onboard Intel graphics? That's probably what it would be like *shudders* but I dunno.

I can't wait to play COD 2 on my iMac! :D

EDIT: If your like so many people who think running Windows in a window on OS X is a better solution, I can tell you it's really not. I installed Windows XP using Q (universal binary, uses one core, supposedly near native speeds), took me 10 minutes to boot Windows. And it's laggy beyond usability. I can't see this ever been a productive way to go.

[iFrodo]

I installed Windows XP using Q (universal binary, uses one core, supposedly near native speeds), took me 10 minutes to boot Windows. And it's laggy beyond usability. I can't see this ever been a productive way to go.

A SCOOP for you: The current version of Q for Mac Intel use an Intel CPU emulator, that is to say, it's not using the virtualization module yet (aka Accelerator). So it's logical that you are experiencing a significative slow down compared to native, as it runs just like Virtual PC on Mac PPC runs for now, until the virtualization module is ported and working.

[gygysamurai]

A SCOOP for you: The current version of Q for Mac Intel use an Intel CPU emulator, that is to say, it's not using the virtualization module yet (aka Accelerator). So it's logical that you are experiencing a significative slow down compared to native, as it runs just like Virtual PC on Mac PPC runs for now, until the virtualization module is ported and working.

Kudos! I did not know that :) Glad to see that things will be getting better in that area

[dcbarry]

Darn you all ;-)

Well, I guess I have no excuses, and need to plunk down my cash! Thanks for the encouragement, everybody.

Now -- do I go whole hog and get the 20", or plow that extra money instead into more RAM and a bigger HD on a a 17..... decisions, decisions...... '-)

[dcbarry]

(Oh.... my other plan was to just to do the install at the apple store.... not sure I could pull it off fast enough w/o suspicion and I dont have an OSX disk.... but it would have been fun!)

d.

[Steve1496]

Darn you all ;-)

Well, I guess I have no excuses, and need to plunk down my cash! Thanks for the encouragement, everybody.

Now -- do I go whole hog and get the 20", or plow that extra money instead into more RAM and a bigger HD on a a 17..... decisions, decisions...... '-)


Congratualations, you will not regret your purchase!
Personally, I think you will appreciate the extra screen real estate 20" iMac has to offer. I would never go back to something smaller now (besides my notebook). For Intel Macs though, you will need lots of RAM if you will be using Rosetta any amount. You can find a 1GB stick for about $100 though, so cost isn't too bad.

As for video, Windows XP is definitly usable, but it can get annoying after a while of having sluggish graphics even when Hardware Acceleration is off.

Enjoy your new Mactel!

Steve

[sandau]

Congratualations, you will not regret your purchase!
Personally, I think you will appreciate the extra screen real estate 20" iMac has to offer. I would never go back to something smaller now (besides my notebook). For Intel Macs though, you will need lots of RAM if you will be using Rosetta any amount. You can find a 1GB stick for about $100 though, so cost isn't too bad.

As for video, Windows XP is definitly usable, but it can get annoying after a while of having sluggish graphics even when Hardware Acceleration is off.

Enjoy your new Mactel!

Steve

Go for the ram upgrades, as much as you can afford. I went with the 17" iMac because I already have a 20.1" widescreen dell 2005FPW. They run about $354 on deals on slickdeals.net. My 17" with the 20" widescreen with the dvi adapter is perfect for a dual kit. Since I have external firewire drives and I don't think the 256mb ram in the video is worth much it didn't make sense for me to buy the 20". Your mileage may vary. Then again, I don't keep my machines for more than a year so I expect to upgrade to a revision 2 or a Mac Book Pro around september/october.

[chrispy]

I'm using it for .NET development and find it to be very fast compared to my old Dell laptop (well, not so old, but old compared to my MacBook). This kind of work doesn't need graphics, but it's definately quite usable. I have Oracle 9i, VS.Net 2003, Office2K, and some other apps on here and they all work great so far. I am personally waiting for Q to get virtualized as I want to spend most of my time in OS X. Then I'll save my XP booting for gaming. But I'm ready to ditch my 10lb Dell for my sleek MacBook.

BTW, there's another optimization I found in the Advanced Tab of the My Computer properties. If you click on the Performance button you can turn off all of the visual features and it runs even faster. Things look more like Windows 2K, but it seems quicker. Just select the "Adjust for best performance" option.