Adrian Fogge Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 After playing around with Leopard, I cant help but think that for the most part it is last year's left overs with some new seasoning to cover the bitter aftertaste. Don't get me wrong, Leopard has some real potential, but OS X has always stood apart as being a truly intuitive, rock hard OS full of over the top completely useless eye candy. Now that Microsoft has jumped on that band wagon with Vista, maybe Apple should go a little further with their contribution to Open Source projects so that aspects of the new Linux XGL graphical subsystem could be used in Leopard. For those who havent seen, XGL is an enhancement pioneered by Novell to have complete window deformations and animations as well as provide a complete graphical user interface that uses solely the User's graphics card (no offloading to the CPU or system memory under any circumstances). Even with Leopard, if you were to queue up a few <Shift>[Expose'] operations, you can see your CPU Utilization go through the roof even with final generation PPC systems like the Powerbook G4 17" which has the ATI Mobile 9700 Pro with 128MB of DDR2 Graphics memory. Under XGL and a Linux Installation, you can do the exact same things as Expose' including the <Shift> modifier to slow everything down, with some truly over the top animations (like having the windows bounce backwards a touch when going into Expose') while having your CPU utilization remain continuously around 1-2 %. What I am getting at is OS X does not necissarily need window deformations while moving something, but the core technologies that Novell has implemented into XGL and then have been expanded upon greatly by the Open Source community is without a doubt what Apple has been looking for to set them apart from Microsoft in 2007. Even with the latest Vista build that just came out yesterday, Aero is taking up 12% of a 2.8 GHz CPU to have 4 windows open (Notepad, Paint, Computer & Control Panel). When Aqua is doing it's fancy effects, one can expect to see round about that on a PPC. If Apple can position themselves to create a truly beautiful, over the top UI while not using a substantial amount of system resources in the process, then they will be in a far stronger and better position against Microsoft because people can have an interesting and visually appealing UI without having to sacrifice their performance in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 I think you're right on. The challenge would be for unit like my macbook with fairly weak shared memory GPUs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Actually, XGL is just a pre-alpha and the devs think it will eventually morph into a totally different type of rendering engine. What most XGL users don't realize is the devs are creating the desktop of the future. Maybe a year or two from now, we'll know where it is headed and I also think it will be much more user friendly. now lets get on ATI and nVidia's @sses on developing better drivers or release source codes to open projects. I think Apple can come up with a better interface between now and 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_muad_dib Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 what does macos need to be like XGL? lemme think... almost nothing. both quartz and xgl are using 3D surfaces to draw the desktop thru the hardware, and all the apps are indirectly accelerated. both are able of true transparencies they are very similar technologies after all the cube effect just maps 4 different desktops in textures nothing more linux itself manages the four desktop indeed macos just needs a multi-desktop management.. that's it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Fogge Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 Lord Muad, if you would have read beyond the title you would know. I said that what XGL currently gives is complete GPU accelerated user interfaces, even if you are not using 3D content such as the Decorator or other Morphing extensions for your GUI. What it means is that nothing is EVER sent to your CPU. If it can not do something in real time, then it scales back the visual quality of an effect to make it work in real time. I specifically said that Apple should be looking at simmilar technologies to what was implemented in XGL to make their user interfaces require significantly less resources (try using drop shadows on a G3 under OS X and see WindowServer take up a substantial amount of your CPU). Rather than creating a system that outright crawls, create an adaptive rendering system that determines what your hardware is capable of and gives you just what it can handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazuran Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 I think every major designer of interfaces today looks eagerly at XGL. It has tremendous possibilities, and really paves the road to the future (as said, using the GPU for graphics isn't such a bad idea ). I am quite sure people at the Apple R&D Department are wachting this as well. Perhaps Leopard will ship with modular Xorg, we shall see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpincheira Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 that's what I love of XGL (in my case aiglx, using a gma900). Apple have to apply this on OS X. That's one of the reason I still love linux, I don't like the pseudo 'compiz' of OS X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darcagn Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 How is this any different than Quartz Extreme and Quartz 2D Extreme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Fogge Posted September 3, 2006 Author Share Posted September 3, 2006 The Quartz Extreme packages say that "If there is a sufficiently powerful graphics card, I will begin offloading UI effects to the graphics card. It the Graphics card cant handle everything, then I will send the remainder to the CPU to make sure that everything looks super pretty (may not be very speedy though)." What XGL (the rendering engine, rather than Compiz, the effects engine) does is that "If there is a sufficiently powerful graphics card, I will offload everything UI related to the graphics card. If the graphics card cant handle what I am giving it, I will tell the graphics card to sacrifice anti-aliasing and texture maping quality to maintain performance. Nothing UI related will ever be sent to the CPU under any circumstances." So, it means that everyone across the board will have high performance, using their graphics card to handle graphics rather than needing their CPU to do the heavy lifting. Then, if someone were to want to have the effects that they have come to expect from OS X (lets forget about compiz for a second), then they will have them, very speedy on EVERY graphics card ever made, however will lack anti-aliasing on the Rolling print window effect, Genie Effect or Cube Effect. However, the UI on a G3 will still run as fast as it does on the highest end MacPro with every single UI nuance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_muad_dib Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 What XGL (the rendering engine, rather than Compiz, the effects engine) does is that "If there is a sufficiently powerful graphics card, I will offload everything UI related to the graphics card. If the graphics card cant handle what I am giving it, I will tell the graphics card to sacrifice anti-aliasing and texture maping quality to maintain performance. Nothing UI related will ever be sent to the CPU under any circumstances." one word.. mesa? it's not xgl itself but it's the mesa software subsystem that is used if something is not supported Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts