View Full Version : what version should i use?

07-20-2003, 08:21 AM
OK so heres my dilemma, got a G4 Cube- 1.2Gb RAM, 40GB HD and here comes the bad part........16MB ATI RAGE PRO Graphics Card.

I'm running OS 9.2.2 & 10.1.5, I find LW on X is way to slow on my machine (screen drawing). I was tempted to update to jaguar but I've been told it won't make that much of a difference because my graphics card isn't quartz extreme compatible.

I can do pretty much everything I want to do (Architectural work-Vectorworks, Photoshop, Form.Z) on 9.2 anyway so I'm not worried for the moment. I want to learn more advanced 3d modelling/animation, so I had a look around for something I could run on OS 9- my options were Cinema 4D XL, Electric Image Universe and Lightwave.

I deicided on lightwave, but having made the choice (and started learning it) I've found that most people say its very unstable on os 9.

Can someone tell me what the best configuration for OS 9 is (is 7.5 the best option?), or whether theres something I could do to get better operation on OS X.

Is my machine too slow to learn on?

Thanks in Advance

07-20-2003, 08:05 PM
Well, the problem may not be the OS so much as it may be the graphics card. Not having a Quartz compatible card is not such a good idea when running os 10, as it is really based on OpenGL and Quartz. The card may have trouble making the operating system run smoothly and running Lightwave on top of that.
What kind of card have you got?


07-21-2003, 11:41 AM
I've got a 16MB ATI Rage Pro. Which i've been told is not quartz extreme compatible- only radeons+geforces are- something to do with not being able to do to certain graphic calculations?!?

Ah well i hate it when computers go out of date. especially when you cant afford to replace them.

Thanks for the help


07-21-2003, 12:36 PM
I recall reading that one of the OS X.2.x updates made the Rage 128's Quartz compatible. You might look in the Apple support section for details. Your second option is to track down the cube-compatible video card upgrades (eBay or Other World Computing are likely sources) and get (and install) a cube-compatible video card. You haven't reached the end of your cube's lifespan, or capabilities, but it will be more difficult to upgrade than a standard box.

As far as maximum compatibility, I suggest the 7.5 mod I'm running. I installed 7.5, and backed up the entire install, then installed 7.5c over it. I then kept the plugins folder from 7.5c, trashed everything else, and put back 7.5 (but not the plug-ins). Then manually add the plug-ins from 7.5c to 7.5 and you have the most stable and functional version of Lightwave. This is documented in another thread here. You can also look at the buglist to see what issues you may still encounter.

07-21-2003, 03:23 PM
Whatever you do, don't use OS 9. Go to OS X.

My personal opinion is that Lightwave on OS X runs better than OS9 on any G4 processor, no matter what speed. It's more stable than OS9.

OS X's Quartz display works fine with your machine and your card.

Quartz Extreme is a bit different. OS X 10.2 uses the graphics card to accelerate the user interface. Normally this is done by the processor. The biggest thing I notice about Quartz Extreme is that web pages scroll up and down really smoothly.

If you use OS X 10.2 on an older machine that doesn't support QE, that's OK. All that happens is that the UI is handled by the processor again, like in 10.1. It still works, but you won't get that smooth scrolling.

I can't remember what the clockspeed is of the Cube, but maybe OS X 10.1 would be the answer for this machine.

07-22-2003, 01:44 AM
Trash that card! The 16mb ATI is too slow for LW in OS9 or OSX. You can find lots of Geforce2 cards on ebay from $80 - $200, and you won't have to worry about the Raedon bug.

I bought a Geforce2 to replace the ATI 16mb before switching to OSX a year ago, the system slowdown is still pronouced - it's something you have to get used to, the higher-end cards like GF4 Ti might make the difference, but for me OSX is more sluggish even with the GF2 than OS9 was with the 16mb ATI.

But OSX is still the way to go. You'll have a lot more problems in OS9, and very few solutions.

btw you must get a 2x AGP card.


07-22-2003, 02:03 AM
Oh yea,

CONGRATULATIONS on NOT choosing Electric Image! It's awful!

07-22-2003, 05:44 AM
thanks for the advice, i'll c how jaguar works on machine, and if i can a new graphics card then i won't have a problem.


i'm glad too!

i chose lightwave just because of the results i saw in the gallery, and unlike electric image and cinema 4d it doesnt have stupid icons on the interface- why do people like it like that? still it would be nice if they tweaked the interface for mac a bit. :D

thanks everyone


07-22-2003, 05:55 AM
eer… you're architect aren't you ? at least you seem to work on architectural renderings…

so before changing your graphic card or your OS I'd advise you
to care of few more things :
A general point is I am OK with what has already been said :
OS 9 = **** (for LW), and ATI 128 too (I started with it on LW
and really see the difference now with a GEF4)

Now let's talk more precisely : you got a Cube, what's the processor speed ?
400 Mhz, 600 Mhz ?
I don't remeber…

However depending on the weight of the scene you will work on
less than a total amount of 1 Ghz (single or dual added) might
not be enough in architecture…

You should know approximatively the number of polys you expect to
have in a standard scene (in architecture you quickly work on hundred thousands
polys scenes) and also mind that if you expect to render images with radiosity
(even at LOW level) a 500 Mhz like processor will not be enough at all,
or you will have to wait hours and hours for each 1024x768 frame,
especially if you need high level of antialiasing.

Well if you tell me more about the type of architectural scenes you expect
to work on I could maybe give you better advices…

But you understood me : I meant that the OS and the graphic card are troubles
but could not be the only ones, it would be stupid to change them now and realize
in 4 months that anyway you need a new mac…!

07-22-2003, 08:48 AM
yeah i see ur point lasco. my cube's got a 450MHz G4.
I'm not so much worried about rendering, I can do that at university. It's just general modelling that feels really slow.

I'm a complete begginner so i guess i should just put up with all of this.


07-22-2003, 09:23 AM
all right if you don't have too large needs in rendering
right now then I guess your Cube could do it,
I (without being a king now) began myself with a 450 Mhz…

Sure that another graphic card will help much for
real time preview in the Modeler though,
and perhaps when you get a real pro building very
large scenes you'll change your computer…

07-22-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by lasco
all right if you don't have too large needs in rendering
right now then I guess your Cube could do it,
I (without being a king now) began myself with a 450 Mhz…

Hmm. I began 3D on a 66MHz PowerPC 601 with 32MB of RAM (which cost about $1200 at the time). Mines smaller than yours! :D

Seriously, the biggest thing you can do to improve your work on the cube is to get your hands on a cube-compatible video card:

more RAM:

and a processor upgrade:

07-22-2003, 12:36 PM
Hmm. I began 3D on a 66MHz PowerPC 601 with 32MB of RAM

Yes but maybe not with LW 7.5 running on this machine…

I personnally stared with Amapi on a 233 Mhz with…16 Mb RAM
so ok you CAN do 3d on "any" computer but which 3D ??

Nowadays softwares possibilities are already 1 or 2 years in advance of
most of our computers (hey, do you know many people who REGULARLY
render high res pictures or even movies in AA EnhExtreme and Radio
monte carlo 5x15 or even higher ??)
so I guess you must work on a computer that is a bit enough powerfull
for your software tool… if our friend architeckt is a beginner as he says
then it might be our duty to at least tell him now that he won't probably
try any radiosity solution (for example) on a 450 Mhz Cube,
and if this is not a problem for him then everything's all right :)

07-22-2003, 01:20 PM
I think i'm gonna try getting hold of a geforce 2mx and then install jaguar.

i was looking at apple's jaguar's data sheet and it seems to indicate that even without quartz extreme, compositing in jaguar is twice as fast.



07-22-2003, 02:14 PM
"stupid icons on the interface- why do people like it like that?"

Yea! That's what I always say! You made the right choice. You'll fit right in here :D

Newtek has the best forums too

If you're rendering for architecture, at least you're not rendering animations - 3000 frames at 5 min. a frame is worse than any Hi-res Radiosity render!

07-22-2003, 02:21 PM
3000 frames at 5 min. a frame is worse than any Hi-res Radiosity

no !
because the client is waiting the Hi-Res Radiosity image for tomorrow 8 AM
and it's now 23 PM, computing for already 6 hours while you see the pass 1/9 is not finished yet…
the fact you have more and more whiskies and trying to look your screen in