View Full Version : 10.2.4 update

02-13-2003, 05:59 PM
Just tested LW 7.5 with the 10.2.4 update and everything seems to be working A-OK! X seems a little bit quicker too, which is always a good thing. :)


02-13-2003, 08:14 PM
Any Quadro or Fire card support yet? or was that for 10.3?

How does lightwave feel with the new update?

02-13-2003, 10:25 PM
I think there might be an improvement in the open gl previews. :cool:

02-14-2003, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Ade
Any Quadro or Fire card support yet? or was that for 10.3?

How does lightwave feel with the new update?

Yes it was for 10.3, if the rumour is true..

02-14-2003, 08:17 AM
Anyone know if new drivers are provided for the GeForce4Ti cards? I checked on the Maya forums and apparently 10.2.4 fixes their problem with the GeForce3 and 4 cards, but no one mentioned if the fix involved new drivers. Could someone (who's already taken the plunge) please check?

02-14-2003, 08:54 AM
I can't talk about specific card updates. But, according to Apple's technote:

"The 10.2.4 Update delivers enhanced functionality and improved reliability for the following applications, services and technologies: Address Book, Classic compatibility, Finder, FireWire, Graphics, OpenGL, and Sherlock. It includes AFP and Windows file service improvements, as well as audio, disc recording, graphics, and printing improvements."

As far as support for the FireGl and Quadro cards, again, there is more than drivers at stake there. There must be versions of the cards with a Mac-readable firmware/ROM available to make any use of those cards. That firmware must exist for people to consider buying PC versions and "flashing" them to make them Mac-compatible. Even if the NVidia and ATI drivers included with 10.2.4 would support a FireGL or Quadro4 card, the card itself would not function in a Mac, straight out of the box.

02-14-2003, 09:21 AM
Hmmm... Apple's technote is extremely vague, and the detailed update info (http://www.info.apple.com/kbnum/n107362) mentions absolutely nothing about OpenGL enhacements.

02-14-2003, 11:11 AM
I don't understand why they have to build a special version of the graphiccard for Mac?
AGP is AGP right?

02-14-2003, 12:02 PM
It's not the physical card.

The order is something like this: The card has a processor built on it, called the GPU, or Graphics Processing Unit. Much like the CPU of a computer, it has an instruction set, or code, that is built into it. To communicate between the GPU and the CPU, there is a chip built on the card. This chip translates the code on the GPU into instructions that can be understood by the video driver software on the computer. The code on this chip is the "firmware" that is so often spoken of when people talk about making PC video cards work on the Mac. This firmware is OS dependent, or, more accurately, CPU dependent. In other words, the firmware on a PC video card (like the current FireGL, or Quadro4) communicates in a language understood by a Pentium-class CPU. AMD has a translator built in that allows its processors to understand Pentium-class commands. However, the Mac uses PowerPC CPUs, which have their own language. In order for a video card to communicate with a Macintosh, the firmware has to "speak" the same language as the video driver, and be able to translate that to the GPU. So, for a PC video card to work on a Macintosh, firmware code has to be written that translates the commands from the Mac OS/PowerPC processor into the language of the GPU. Firmware has to be written (usually) by the engineers that build the GPU, so NVidia or ATI have to develop firmware for their cards to work with the Mac OS drivers. Then, a processor-specific set of video drivers have to be written (usually by someone at Apple) to communicate between the GPU and the CPU/OS, since each GPU has different instruction sets and methods.

The biggest issue with Mac OS video cards is that Apple writes 95% of the video drivers. Much like having a mechanic who specializes in Toyota engines working on a Volkswagen, the work will get done, but it won't have the same quality. If ATI (or NVidia) could afford engineers to write video drivers optimized for the Mac OS and their specific GPUs, card performance would be almost identical across platforms. But, they don't, because for every 3 Mac-version cards they sell, there are 97 cards for PCs sold. It's pure economics, with a bit of Apple's "build-it-here" arrogance thrown in.

And, FWIW, all of the NVidia and ATI drivers were updated in 10.2.4.

02-14-2003, 08:22 PM
Not entirely true.
Apple does write ONLY the nvidia drivers with Nvidia's help.
ATI writes the mac drivers.
Nvidia card drivers are better than ATI on the mac as well as pc.
Apple had quartz extreme running on nvidia cards first, quartz extreme would never have been developed if left to those two card makers.
Or would still be in beta form.

API's play a big role in desiphering differences between the two platforms.
Open GL on the pc side isnt that deveopled because MS wants DX to be the one.
Give it time Apple wants to make sure Open GL is developed properly with the card drivers.
when we used to have lightwave v6 a company called CONNIX used to write Open GL drivers for LW on the mac os8.5.

ATI though shoud try and prove everyone wrong and bring out some performance gains in their updates!

02-15-2003, 04:03 AM
"ATI though shoud try and prove everyone wrong and bring out some performance gains in their updates!"

Yes, their drivers suck..

I have two graphic cards.. a old Ati 128 pro (agp) and a Radeon 32 (pci).. In Photoshop and games the Radeon card is much faster than the the AGP 128 Pro card..
But in 3D programs there's no differens in speed at all?

And when I use Ati "own" drivers from their website I can't see which points I have selected in modeler..

02-15-2003, 07:45 AM
i'm not terribly sure, but i think os x 10.2.4 has enabled all of the ram on my G4Ti card. This makes me think the driver has been updated. anybody know the definitive way to check?

i went into openGl info and the value for Total Texture memory is: 128351232


02-15-2003, 08:15 AM
You could check the OpenGL Profiler (Developer>Applications>OpenGL Profiler) and in the 'OpenGL Drivers' section at the bottom of the panel, there's a pull down menu for 'Choose driver'. This should list all the OpenGL drivers on your machine. Though I also have the GeForce4Ti, mine lists only 'Geforce3GLDriver', but then I haven't upgraded to 10.2.4 yet. If yours lists something different, I'd be very interested to know.

02-15-2003, 12:42 PM
its definetly still the same driver name, but when i enable the vram free, and the vram used, items... the total is more than 64. it look like 128 megs... perhaps they updated the 'Geforce3GLDriver' without renaming it.

02-16-2003, 05:56 PM
Well, I finally went ahead with the upgrade - and checking the 'OpenGL info' app, I can pretty safely say that there was no difference (in anything that 'OpenGL info' measures) before or after the upgrade.

02-17-2003, 08:51 AM
So Nigel, I just want to understand the problem with your card and OGL usage, because I'm getting conflicting information, and I'm still debating a video card upgrade.

1) You have the 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti in your mac, yes?
2) When you us OGL profiler to track VRAM used & VRAM free (simultaneously), it doesn't come close to 128MB?
3) When you run LW with the OGL profiler running, does your VRAM usage ever spike over 64 MB?

I have a 64MB 2MX card, which tracks with 64 MB available. When I launched LW, VRAM used spiked to about 48MB, then dropped back down to about 32, as I ran tests it hovered about 32MB, when I quit LW it dropped to about 24, then reset to about 32. Since you have the 128MB Ti, the only difference I would expect is the VRAM Free to be about 64MB greater... is it?

02-17-2003, 11:54 AM
Hi mlinde,

To answer your questions,

1) Yes. I have the 128mb Geforce4Ti on my Mac.
2) Yes, the VRAM and VRAM free totals to came close to 128mb - but they did that before 10.2.4. I still have 10.1.5 running on a separate partition and I get the same results there.
3) Sure, but again, it did that before.

If there's anything else I should check, let me know.

It just seems to me that the performance of the card isn't tied to VRAM usage alone, and i'm not claiming that the card is unusable. I'm jusy saying that whatever combination of features that are needed to produce a noticeable difference in performance between this card and the GeForce3 (my previous card) just isn't happening - or at least if it is, the improvement is barely perceptible. I'm no technician (obviously), but I would imagine that unlocking the advertised performance potential of the card lies within creating specific drivers targeted at the particular capabilities of the card. I can only assume that Apple has created drivers that work with all of the supported Nvidia cards aimed at getting the best average performance across the board. I could be wrong, but i have seen no evidence from Apple or elsewhere that suggests otherwise.

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, and of course, I can only speak of my personal experience. If anyone has found anything that I may have missed that results in the GeForce4ti actually operating at its' full potential, I would consider myself foreve in your debt. :-)

02-17-2003, 02:35 PM
Just trying to understand people's issues. I read in the old forum that the Ti cards weren't accessing the entire 128MB of VRAM on the card. That's not the problem you describe, your problem is the same thing I've found with any video card on the Mac with 3D, and it's all about the drivers. As I (and some others) have noted in the past, Apple isn't exactly filled with geniuses working on the video drivers for real-world 3D applications.

I've always had issue with how poor identical cards perform Mac v. PC, and it has always come back to the quality of the video drivers, which (in my understanding) was always in Apple's court. The way I understood it, most chip manufacturers write a set of "reference" drivers that perform basic tasks, and then the reseller/card manufacturer writes the final driver set. However, I've not seen that as the case with the Mac, since I can't find reference drivers to ATI or NVidia cards for the Mac -- all questions regarding such things are pushed off to Apple. And, software developers I know have commented that Apple doesn't write drivers with the same logic as the people developing PC cards, because the same software doesn't perform the same way with identical graphics hardware, when it should.

thanks for the info Nigel!

02-18-2003, 04:07 AM
Don't forget that anyone using these incremental OS updates should be very careful to back up all their data.

If you have 10.2.0 running, and for some reason you need to reinstall the OS to fix a problem, then you can do it. However when you upgrade to 10.2.3 or 10.2.4 you don't have this option any more.

To reinstall the OS and revert to 10.2.0 you must erase your entire hard drive. At the point that you need to reinstall the OS, you may not be able to rescue the data.

02-18-2003, 05:41 PM
Greetings All,

here's a problem i (and many others) have been experiencing with the 10.2.4 update.

http://discussions.info.apple.com/[email protected]@.3bbf7794

http://discussions.info.apple.com/[email protected]@.3bbf5aaf/1

02-19-2003, 10:33 AM
cheers murdoch, I have been trying for a few days to resolve this problem and have had no solutions from the apple forum, so I would advice everyone to stick with 10.2.3 for now. Beam your solution of having a seperate partition with a functioning OS seems to be the most sensible one. I would really appreciate any such advice that will make the life of us newbies more free flowing.

PS couldnt agree more with your quote
darle a le peace une opportunity