https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105593#M55511 ] <BLOCKQUOTE>Ralph wrote:<BR /> Jeffrey,<BR /> <BR /> I'm still not sure what this posting is about - it certainly doesn't seem to relate to the topic.</BLOCKQUOTE> It is an esoteric topic about the imminent end of support for a particular platform/processor and it's current lack of performance. together with the original poster's return to an older version of an application (AC) and other backwards compatibility concern that has been addressed in this thread as well. I gave a solution that works in either direction providing the only reasonable explanation of why performance has taken a hit and numerous updates and patches have failed to fix. What is yours? <BR /> <BR /> GS cannot provide a backwards (x86 to PPC) solution for technologies that no longer exist on a current platform that is the resposibility of the OS. Apple is the only one who's OS runs most processors both old and new PPC and Intel. Furthermore why should GS continue to support a processor that is no longer available or used by Apple? Apple's only commitment of continuing support of the PPC is through xGrid and they have even provided an update for 10.3.9 to provide a longer life for the G4 processor. When you install xGrid on OS 10.3.9+ you can use any combination of processors through a single interface to allocate tasks to be performed on any or all of them simultaneously. The most familiar are PPC, PPC64, IA-32, x86-64 and they can be in any machine (i.e. Dell, HP/Compaq, etc.) and not restricted to Apple's HW. This is the code that makes the processors do what they do. <BR /> <BLOCKQUOTE>Ralph wrote:<BR />You seem to have recounted almost every conceivable problem a computer can have and blamed it on the OS.</BLOCKQUOTE> No I am identifying a single problem and recounting how it can conceivably be the be the cause of any or every problem a computer can have including performance or the lack thereof. I also have a machine that runs multiple OS's where I can see the differences and the most concerning are the HW differences. Go to Apple's ADC site and enter "Keep Out" in the search field.<BR /> <BLOCKQUOTE>Ralph wrote:<BR />If you pause to think about it, doesn't it seem more plausible that something is simply wrong with your hardware or installation?</BLOCKQUOTE> It's been a long pause. This coming Dec. will be three years. It took about a year to identify the error. Your machines suffer the same ills you just don't have the same symptoms or they have not been intrusive enough for you to care or it is something you would consider "acceptable". I can reinstall a new OS on my machine in about 2± hours depending on the type of install and have done so numerous times every conceivable configuration. I have had numerous pieces of hardware replaced, Replaced two G4s with two new MacIntels that displayed many of the same symptoms as the two G4's that they replaced and even worse. My MBP1,1 was replaced with a MBP 2,2 and the other was recently replaced (finally after numerous HW replacements) with the latest MBP and immediately sold as it displayed the same and the person who owns it has had enough and as purchased another G4 so that they can actually do what they need to do. They use Apple's Pro tools.<BR /> <BLOCKQUOTE>Ralph wrote:<BR />]The primary responsibility for the allocation and management of resources and concurrent processes rests with the kernel, in this case XNU, a Unix hybrid of FreeBSD kernel with a Mach 3.0 microkernel. No one can argue that a given operating system is perfect, and debates rage amongst experts as to which approach to the OS kernel is the best, but you can't seriously argue that the Mac OS foundations are fundamentally flawed. Security experts (and the competition) would be having a field day roasting Apple if this was the case.</BLOCKQUOTE> It depends on which definition of argue you are using. I am citing evidence in support of what I am saying. You are not. Can you cite anything supporting your position. I am providing a reasonable explanation of how and why and if you actually read the bug header information you can see I am identifying that an issue is indeed in the kernel. The quote that you posted was not a "complaint" to this forum but part of a bug report that had been disregarded until legal dept. became involved and if you look at your time-stamps and the limited information available on Apple's updated and security patches you will see the evidence that they are finally tracking the issue down. <BR /> <BR /> If security experts were such "experts" there would be no issues on any platform. Most issues are found by users/hackers.<BR /> <BR /> The type of error I am identifying is called errata (an error in printing or writing) and there is a missing or misplaced "T", ":" or "." and/or in addition too "." seems to be under/undefined or misunderstood between between apps and with the OS and other devices or it could be the difference of " " or ' '. It starts out less than one second. Maybe the engineers don't have a handle on floating point arithmetic or IEEE 754. Maybe all the HW manufacturers can no longer produce reliable equipment as the specs are irrelevant as nothing can be isolated to a single manufacturer.<BR /> <BLOCKQUOTE>Ralph wrote:<BR />The underpinnings of the Mac OS are very mature and stable. Of course there are security and bug fixes, but the nature of these bugs are well understood. Many components in the Mac OS are open source (to which Apple contributes a great deal now) and of course these components are patched for refinements or bug fixes as required. You can find all the documentation for these fixes if you really want to - there is nothing ominous or underhanded about them.</BLOCKQUOTE> Bugs are well understood? What evidence supports this? Well I really want to find this documentation and can assure that no you cannot find out about the details of the fixes especially if they pertain to security issues and Information Assurance would not even be acknowledged as an even remote possibility by any computer/SW manufacturer. <BR /> <BR /> <I></I><S><I><I></I></I></S>The Mac OS X kernel is an Open Source project. The kernel, along with other core parts of Mac OS X are collectively referred to as Darwin. Darwin is a complete operating system based on many of the same technologies that underlie Mac OS X. However, Darwin does not include Apple’s proprietary graphics or applications layers, such as Quartz, QuickTime, Cocoa, Carbon, or OpenGL.<BR /> <BR /> Mac OS X provides support for numerous types of file systems, including HFS, HFS+, UFS, NFS, <BR /> ISO 9660, and others. The default file-system type is HFS+; Mac OS X boots (and “roots”) from HFS+, UFS, ISO, NFS, and UDF. Advanced features of Mac OS X file systems include an enhanced Virtual File System (VFS) design. VFS provides for a layered architecture (file systems are stackable). The file system component provides <BR /> ? UTF-8 (Unicode) support <BR /> ? increased performance over previous versions of Mac OS. <BR /> <B>(Apple's Kernel Architecture Overview) </B><E></E><I></I><BR /> <BR /> OpenGL an Apple proprietary layer? <BR /> <BR /> <I></I><S><I><I></I></I></S>Available Everywhere<BR /> Supported on all UNIX® workstations, and shipped standard with every Windows 95/98/2000/NT and MacOS PC, no other graphics API operates on a wider range of hardware platforms and software environments. OpenGL runs on every major operating system including Mac OS, OS/2, UNIX, Windows 95/98, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Linux, OPENStep, and BeOS; it also works with every major windowing system, including Win32, MacOS, Presentation Manager, and X-Window System. OpenGL is callable from Ada, C, C++, Fortran, Python, Perl and Java and offers complete independence from network protocols and topologies.<E></E>(OpenGL.org)<BR /> <BR /> This is Apple's implementation of OpenGL. The entire desktop is OpenGL.<BR /> <BLOCKQUOTE>Ralph wrote:<BR />It might help if you simply list the specific symptoms of the problems you're having under a different topic and not jump to conclusions about the cause. One of my Powerbooks suddenly began to randomly freeze or suffer kernel panics, but I conclusively tracked it down to a failed RAM chip, replaced the RAM, and all was well again (no software was reinstalled).</BLOCKQUOTE> <BR /> <BR /> <A href="http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=16929" target="_blank"><LINK_TEXT text="http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/vie ... hp?t=16929">http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=16929</LINK_TEXT></A><BR /> <BLOCKQUOTE>Ralph wrote:<BR />Regarding partitioning of hard drives, this isn't really recommended any more. There is some debate, but there are no compelling gains to be made (on the Mac at least - Windows user might gain from it). I would only suggest partitioning if you intended to run multiple OS's on the same machine, but even that will run better with separate hard drives. Partitioning will only take time and eventually leave you wishing you'd left it intact. External hard drives are cheap, and will generally work faster than partitions (which depend on a single drive head). </BLOCKQUOTE> This isn't recommended anymore by who? For what reason? I give a reason. Even my externals are partitioned because of the fact that they do rely on a single head and I don't need it to wast time reading and writing something I am not going to use. I prefer a direct flight and avoid stops and layovers as much as possible because It is quicker. <BR /> <BR /> Being that external HDDs are so cheap it would be a very worthwhile investment for anyone here to get one and partition it with all the PPC OS's ( they can't boot their Intel from this). But if you have an empty slot in your machine you may as well use it as an external HDD cannot be as fast as an internal unless it is connected via FW 800 and if you read the well known, inexplicable, documented limitation of FW800 on the Mac pertaining to HDDs together with a remote understanding of the "underpinnings" you would understand that when they locate this time formatting error this will most likely be resolved as well.<BR /> <BLOCKQUOTE>Ralph wrote:<BR /> Backing up only documents is made easy by the way Apple organises files for you. I recommend sticking to their model - it really is very well thought-out. Don't attempt to move the VM swap file to another partition - get it wrong, and it will be a disaster.</BLOCKQUOTE> I avoid many of Apples apps for this very reason. They don't organize anything according to how I use them and are often not too friendly with other apps. i.e. iPhoto. As for orginization, I don't care what the dates the images were created and don't want them re-organized accordingly as well I don't want/need a hierarchy of hundreds of empty folders to sort through when I need to access them in other apps., nor do I need excessive thumbnails for every image. <BR /> <BR /> A more common disaster is when auto-save features do not work for lack of free space on your scratch disk or not enough memory errors when saving/encoding or doing many other seemingly minute things. When I finalize a project of 20± GB the free space required to encode and create a temp file for burning is 2x the file size.<BR /> <BLOCKQUOTE>Ralph wrote:<BR /> All in all, I wonder if some of your recommendations haven't in fact caused some of the problems you are experiencing? Start a new thread, focus a bit more on the symptoms, and hopefully we can get to the bottom of it <IMG src="https://community.graphisoft.com/legacyfs/online/emojis/icon_smile.gif" style="display : inline;" /></BLOCKQUOTE> Not surprising as you appaerntly have never used partitions and have not provided any advice whatsoever to the original post. In addition to lack of performance, the symptoms are that Mac OS has destroyed and or can't read files and discs it created. Applications crash too often, primarily Apple's. Safari crashed numerous times while trying to post a reply. PPC apps work the best on an intel Universal apps don't and a PB G4 on 10.3.8 outperforms a fully supported MBP. Hardware just doesn't work. Again painfully obvious on the G4 booting into different OS's. Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:32:32 GMT Anonymous 2007-09-25T14:32:32Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105557#M55475 <DIV class="actalk-migrated-content"><T>I suppose this is common knowledge, but according to a GS press release Power PC will no longer be supported beyond 2009 (or I believe version 12). <BR /> <BR /> While this makes sense the way hardware is moving, it does makes life a little harder for us PPC users. As it is, AC 11 runs very slowly on my dual G4 and dual G5. Disabling auto rebuild etc, helps, but for the moment I have gone back to AC 10. <BR /> <BR /> Had I know 11 would be so slow I would have waited to upgrade. <BR /> <BR /> Don Lee</T></DIV> Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:51:27 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105557#M55475 Anonymous 2007-07-18T22:51:27Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105558#M55476 Imagine how it runs on my G4 Powerbook (single processor)...<BR /> I'll be only using my PC desktop for ArchiCAD. Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:13:53 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105558#M55476 stefan 2007-07-19T07:13:53Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105559#M55477 <BLOCKQUOTE>Don wrote:<BR />I suppose this is common knowledge, but according to a GS press release Power PC will no longer be supported beyond 2009 (or I believe version 12). <BR /> <BR /> Don Lee</BLOCKQUOTE> It depends. If Graphisoft comes out with a new release every year from now on (there was one year between 10 and 11), then it will only be version 13 (Unlucky number for PPC users? <IMG src="https://community.graphisoft.com/legacyfs/online/emojis/icon_smile.gif" style="display : inline;" />) and version 12 would still support PPC, I guess. Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:42:46 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105559#M55477 Laszlo Nagy 2007-07-23T12:42:46Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105560#M55478 I think part of the problem is that GS is developing separate PPC and Intel versions. They are not using the Apple Universal Binary, that would be able to run on both PPC and Intel machines. I'm assuming this has to do with the amount of legacy code to be converted into the more modern programming system. Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:21:23 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105560#M55478 TomWaltz 2007-07-23T13:21:23Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105561#M55479 <BLOCKQUOTE>TomWaltz wrote:<BR />I think part of the problem is that GS is developing separate PPC and Intel versions. They are not using the Apple Universal Binary, that would be able to run on both PPC and Intel machines. I'm assuming this has to do with the amount of legacy code to be converted into the more modern programming system.</BLOCKQUOTE> I think that is indeed the reason: there are not two but three versions: Windows, PPC and Mactel... And with three different compilers (Visual Studio, CodeWarrior, XCode), I understand putting only effort in the newer systems. Too bad.<BR /> <BR /> If they had made the PPC version indeed a true "universal binary" (it would probably be very large) the PPC might have survived and being compiled with the free Apple XCode instead of the retired CodeWarrior compiler. That said, the Powerbooks are stuck with really old G4 processors and I noticed ArchiCAD 11 on my Powerbook is a bit over its capabilities for any real work, so it would probably have been a more theoritical issue than a practical one. Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:12:50 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105561#M55479 stefan 2007-07-28T19:12:50Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105562#M55480 And sadly, Ac11 and LWS runs and handles much better the memory on PPC than on Intel Mac. My latest experience shows that AC11 for Intel Mac don't have even a slight difference in memory handling than on an M$ box. <BR /> So I can just say everyone that if you consider buying a new Mac i would just invest upgrading memory, fast harddrive and videocard in the old G5 systems. AC runs much better on them. I can proove it.<BR /> <BR /> so as long as it is supported for PPC just use it. Meanwhile i'm hopeing that GS will make an AC version which runs on a mac as it was running on the old PPC systems.<BR /> <BR /> have a good day folks... Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:18:43 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105562#M55480 Mishi 2007-08-16T14:18:43Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105563#M55481 <BLOCKQUOTE>Mishi wrote:<BR /> So I can just say everyone that if you consider buying a new Mac i would just invest upgrading memory, fast harddrive and videocard in the old G5 systems. AC runs much better on them. I can prooove it. </BLOCKQUOTE> Would others please comment on this while my horror subsides? Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:21:44 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105563#M55481 Dwight 2007-08-16T15:21:44Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105564#M55482 <BLOCKQUOTE>Dwight wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE>Mishi wrote:<BR /> So I can just say everyone that if you consider buying a new Mac i would just invest upgrading memory, fast harddrive and videocard in the old G5 systems. AC runs much better on them. I can prooove it. </BLOCKQUOTE> Would others please comment on this while my horror subsides?</BLOCKQUOTE> I've found the Intel machines to cut about 10% off almost every process compared to the G5's running Archicad.<BR /> <BR /> PowerPC apps like Adobe CS2 ran like crap on the Intel, but CS3 screams. Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:07:07 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105564#M55482 TomWaltz 2007-08-16T16:07:07Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105565#M55483 I have given up on relying on GS for backward support - hardware &amp; speed can be relatively easily changed but the real issue would seem file access... yes archicad 10 can open files to 4.1 but the libraries have only been updated since v6.5 WITH MISSING &amp; DUPLICATE PARTS &amp; MATERIALS FILL &amp; LINEWEIGHT ISSUES - many early details in MSA detailer (which was sold as the greatest thing since sliced bread by GS) seem orphaned without major efforts - the whole ArchiCAD library reliance seems a growing ACHILLES HEEL &amp; because of the lack of GS updates to such objects &amp; WIBU protection which FORCES the need for a legacy machine just to go back into older versions which don't run properly in emulation because of the WIBU - the only software I can't run is the most expensive applications I supported...<BR /> <BR /> I want to have respect for copyright but WHEN SOFTWARE PROTECTION SCHEMES CREATE COMPATABILTY HELL FOR THOSE WHO PAY THE FREIGHT IT WOULD SEEM WRONG and arguably in breach of a licencees reasonable expectation of fitness for use - it makes me sympathize with the hackers who beat copy protection &amp;/or vote with my wallet &amp; go elsewhere...<BR /> <BR /> LEGITIMATE PAID LICENSEES SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS or RUN OLDER FILES OF THE SOFTWARE &amp;/or ACCESS PAST CLIENT &amp; 'DESIGN INVENTORY' - VERSIONS 6 &amp; 6.5 INCLUDED WITH 7 DO NOT RUN IN CLASSIC, ROSETTA OR XP EMULATION &amp; REQUIRE AN OLDER MAC OR PC - VERSIONS 4.1-5 DON'T HAVE WIBU COMPATABILITY AT ALL<BR /> <BR /> UPDATED LIBRARIES OR WIBU DRIVERS OR HACKS OR SOME WAY TO ACCESS PAST ARCHICAD VERSIONS/FILES BACK TO THE 4.1 THAT CAN BE OPENED WHEN NEEDED WOULD SEEM EVEN MORE IMPORTANT IF PPC's are being orphaned so soon...<BR /> <BR /> The support GULF would seem to be soon widening &amp; add risk undermining the merits of the added complexity of the 3D methodology that this application is dependent upon... Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:23:51 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105565#M55483 March_ Bruce 2007-08-17T05:23:51Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105566#M55484 <BLOCKQUOTE>Mishi wrote:<BR />So I can just say everyone that if you consider buying a new Mac i would just invest upgrading memory, fast harddrive and videocard in the old G5 systems. AC runs much better on them. ...</BLOCKQUOTE>Oh.. i know this will sound like a no brainer but,.... How/where will I notice the benefit of more SDRAM vs. a faster Video card? Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:56:57 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105566#M55484 Stress Co_ 2007-08-20T18:56:57Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105567#M55485 <BLOCKQUOTE>TomWaltz wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE>Dwight wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE>Mishi wrote:<BR /> So I can just say everyone that if you consider buying a new Mac i would just invest upgrading memory, fast harddrive and videocard in the old G5 systems. AC runs much better on them. I can prooove it. </BLOCKQUOTE> Would others please comment on this while my horror subsides?</BLOCKQUOTE> I've found the Intel machines to cut about 10% off almost every process compared to the G5's running Archicad.</BLOCKQUOTE> me too.<BR /> <BR /> mishi - please do proooove it to us. i find that this ( <A href="http://www.graphisoft.com/support/IntelMac/performance/" target="_blank">http://www.graphisoft.com/support/IntelMac/performance/</A> ) is a pretty accurate performance analysis . . .<BR /> <BR /> ~/archiben Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:54:51 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105567#M55485 __archiben 2007-08-20T22:54:51Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105568#M55486 <BLOCKQUOTE>Stress wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE>Mishi wrote:<BR />So I can just say everyone that if you consider buying a new Mac i would just invest upgrading memory, fast harddrive and videocard in the old G5 systems. AC runs much better on them. ...</BLOCKQUOTE>Oh.. i know this will sound like a no brainer but,.... How/where will I notice the benefit of more SDRAM vs. a faster Video card?</BLOCKQUOTE> The faster video card would only affect the 3D window in OpenGL mode. The additional RAM would improve performance across the board. Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:17:47 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105568#M55486 TomWaltz 2007-08-21T13:17:47Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105569#M55487 <BLOCKQUOTE>TomWaltz wrote:<BR />The faster video card would only affect the 3D window in OpenGL mode. The additional RAM would improve performance across the board.</BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks Tom. <BR /> Just to clarify.... the additional memory will help in 3D OpenGL when converting to 3D and rebuilding? ....and the video card will improve (in 3D OpenGL) .... when I rotate and move thru the model?? Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:38:55 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105569#M55487 Stress Co_ 2007-08-21T16:38:55Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105570#M55488 <BLOCKQUOTE>Stress wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE>TomWaltz wrote:<BR />The faster video card would only affect the 3D window in OpenGL mode. The additional RAM would improve performance across the board.</BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks Tom. <BR /> Just to clarify.... the additional memory will help in 3D OpenGL when converting to 3D and rebuilding? ....and the video card will improve (in 3D OpenGL) .... when I rotate and move thru the model??</BLOCKQUOTE> Correct.<BR /> <BR /> The video card would have more effect on 3D than the RAM would, but would have no effect at all on anything else in Archicad. <BR /> The additional RAM would improve performance in 3D (but not to as much an extent as the video card), in addition to elevation/section rebuilds, schedule calculation, and layout updates, not to mention other programs running at the same time as Archicad. Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:05:01 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105570#M55488 TomWaltz 2007-08-21T17:05:01Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105571#M55489 Thanks Tom ..... I'll see what an extra 4 GB will do. Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:57:58 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105571#M55489 Stress Co_ 2007-08-21T23:57:58Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105572#M55490 <BLOCKQUOTE>TomWaltz wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE>Stress wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE>Mishi wrote:<BR />So I can just say everyone that if you consider buying a new Mac i would just invest upgrading memory, fast harddrive and videocard in the old G5 systems. AC runs much better on them. ...</BLOCKQUOTE>Oh.. i know this will sound like a no brainer but,.... How/where will I notice the benefit of more SDRAM vs. a faster Video card?</BLOCKQUOTE> The faster video card would only affect the 3D window in OpenGL mode. The additional RAM would improve performance across the board.</BLOCKQUOTE> This has long been the rule on a Mac. I wish this were still true. 10.4 and QT 7 "finalized" the integration of NextStep and has changed this (Next Computers was a medical imaging computer company created by Steve Jobs. John Lasseter created the presentations but because the medical profession didn't see any use for it Pixar was "born"). Now the Mac uses Open GL all over the place. <BR /> <BR /> <I></I><S><I><I></I></I></S>Quartz Extreme uses OpenGL for the entire Mac OS X desktop. Graphics calls now render in supported video hardware, freeing up the CPU for other tasks. <E></E> (Apple)<BR /> <BR /> Unfortunately even the majority of Apple' s tech support isn't aware of this.<BR /> <BR /> This is a major issue I am having with my machines as I am primarily using 2D software that is presented on the display in "real time" through OpenGL and only uses the processor to save or render the images to a file. This is a function of the OS/QT and not the apps. RAM would improve performance across the board for power users but would not be touched by most others as the Mac's dynamic memory when working properly is quite amazing. I used to be able to bring any machine to a screeching halt using ArchiCAD but am hard pressed to do so these days as the RAM seems to be able to keep up with my macro entries. Everyone would experience an increase in performance if they would fix a time formatting error that is in the OS and is effecting software and hardware.<BR /> <BR /> Jeffrey Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:58:34 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105572#M55490 Anonymous 2007-08-22T12:58:34Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105573#M55491 AFAIK Pixar was an Industrial Light and Magic division that Steve Jobs bought.<BR /> <BR /> <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar" target="_blank">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar</A><BR /> <BR /> The full Quartz Extreme Engine is not turned on in OS X 10.4<BR /> <BR /> <A href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10-4.ars/14" target="_blank">arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10-4.ars/14</A><BR /> <BR /> The old Mac graphics engine is called Quickdraw which is (I think) what AC uses and the reason for the Quicktime requirement, this set of instructions have been deprecated by Apple which means that they can stop using them at anytime. Quickdraw was substituted by Quartz 2D and Quartz 2D was substituted by Quartz 2D Extreme (not enabled by default).<BR /> <BR /> Quartz 2D is enabled in Os X and it is faster than Quickdraw and it is not dependent on Quicktime. As long as AC still uses the Quickdraw engine it will not take advantage of the speed improvements.<BR /> <BR /> Based on Ars Technica numbers, Line drawing on 10.4 per second:<BR /> <BR /> Quickdraw = 290,000<BR /> Quartz 2D = 1,500,000<BR /> Quartz 2D Extreme = 12,000,000<BR /> <BR /> In conclusion Apple is making these engines available it is for the software maker take advantage of them.<BR /> <BR /> PS, I am not a programmer so I might be completely wrong about this… Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:29:32 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105573#M55491 Eduardo Rolon 2007-08-22T13:29:32Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105574#M55492 <BLOCKQUOTE>ejrolon wrote:<BR />AFAIK Pixar was an Industrial Light and Magic division that Steve Jobs bought.<BR /> <BR /> <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar" target="_blank">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar</A><BR /> <BR /> The full Quartz Extreme Engine is not turned on in OS X 10.4<BR /> <BR /> <A href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10-4.ars/14" target="_blank">arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10-4.ars/14</A><BR /> <BR /> The old Mac graphics engine is called Quickdraw which is (I think) what AC uses and the reason for the Quicktime requirement, this set of instructions have been deprecated by Apple which means that they can stop using them at anytime. Quickdraw was substituted by Quartz 2D and Quartz 2D was substituted by Quartz 2D Extreme (not enabled by default).<BR /> <BR /> Quartz 2D is enabled in Os X and it is faster than Quickdraw and it is not dependent on Quicktime. As long as AC still uses the Quickdraw engine it will not take advantage of the speed improvements.<BR /> <BR /> Based on Ars Technica numbers, Line drawing on 10.4 per second:<BR /> <BR /> Quickdraw = 290,000<BR /> Quartz 2D = 1,500,000<BR /> Quartz 2D Extreme = 12,000,000<BR /> <BR /> In conclusion Apple is making these engines available it is for the software maker take advantage of them.<BR /> <BR /> PS, I am not a programmer so I might be completely wrong about this…</BLOCKQUOTE> Completely wrong no. I wasn't a developer, with the exception of GDL and AppleScripts, until OS X.4 started destroying my hardware and data and an important project I am working on since Oct 2003 has been destroyed by the OS using Apple's own apps. A Y2K thing a few years behind the times. I have since developed a motion picture program that is plagued with the same problems as many others. There are too many clocks in the frameworks and audio and video simply cannot be synced together with any remote accuracy and the durations of time dependent files are arbitrarily recalculated somewhere along the lines. <BR /> <BR /> As for Pixar, Wikipedia is somewhat accurate but brief. If you follow the current legal concerns of Pixar's former and Apple's current CEO it is all an intermingled corporate paper chase.<BR /> <BR /> As for QT it is the graphics side of the OS (not the QT player application). QT is even required by AC for Windows. Everything you see on the Mac is QuickTime. OS X 3.9 + QT 7 actually enabled Quartz Extreme. Quartz Extreme is the hardware accellerater which encompasses Qtz 2D, QuickDraw, QT Streaming Media &amp; OpenGL 3D (which is what your desktop is). <BR /> <BR /> Apple makes these engines available to take advantage of them as they are new technologies and an improvement over what was but when they say a technology will be or is "deprecated in" it means that if you continue to develop with those legacy API's your software will eventually no longer work with future OS releases and instead of updating bits and pieces of your SW you may have to start from scratch. I would be surprised if GS is still using QD for the Intel version as it would not work and this is most likely the reason GS decided to develop to the separate platforms. A very wise choice as all my universal apps are nothing but garbage and GS writes to the kernel and avoids many of the extensions that reveal this error and does not need to be synced with other technologies as CoreAudio and the like. The only apps that work properly for me are the PPC running in Rossetta and the Intel only apps. I still can't believe that no one on this forum is having challenges with Firewire and USB devices though the graphics card issues seem to appear here and there.<BR /> <BR /> Any speed or time numbers generated on the Mac OS are not something that I believe for even one second as this is a serious issue with the OS and is evident through many other forums. Moving files from one place to another changes creation dates, time-stamps are incorrect on and on-... I can wallpaper the world with crash reports and kernel panics and all point to the same thing it does not understand the date or time. Even the stripped down version of iMovie 08 time-stamps imports in the early 1900's. 1903 and 1904 seem to be the norm.<BR /> <BR /> Jeffrey Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:30:14 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105574#M55492 Anonymous 2007-08-22T18:30:14Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105575#M55493 Is there any possibility this is all because of something YOU did? If the problem was that bad, I would think it would be much more widespread. Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:42:26 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105575#M55493 TomWaltz 2007-08-22T18:42:26Z https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105576#M55494 How, goes not work and I have so many details to reuse. Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:27:02 GMT https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/No-More-Power-PC-Support/m-p/105576#M55494 Anonymous 2007-08-23T01:27:02Z