Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

ataxy

Members
  • Content count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ataxy

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Protégé
  1. have you stopped working on it or are you just to busy at the moment to work on it
  2. Increasing the VRAM

    sort of the directx of mac os
  3. no need for apology, thx for the hard work.
  4. yeah i still have problem with divx starting and freezing i think its in part due to the feature in divx where you can make the surounding of the movie window darker unfortunatly for me i dont know osx enoug to try some for of registry hack like in wondows to stop that feature and since the only thing i can do is quit divx not much chance of accessing the option panel definitly QT is alot fast even in full screen were it was barely usable before and including d3
  5. good to know it helped you if there is anything else you would want tested let me know
  6. i am getting exactly the same here also b2 offered better performance in QT the b3 hw gfx is nvidia gtx275 892mb here is the vid part of my log 1.txt
  7. thx great job so far QT is back at been usable it even plays movie in a bigger resolution then before divx is still a no go for me i get the sound but the vid window remains black
  8. humm thats weird on my computer with VMsvga2 v1.2.3 it does not lag as long as the window is not to big (6xx X 2xx) but on the 1.3.0.1 beta it basically lag no mather what but anyway still a beta is a beta so i am pleased with the possibility of seeing a full or almost full support of gl in the futur
  9. just tryed the beta driver, divx now loads video while before it use to give me an error but video is not displayed but i get sounds also movies that use to play well in quicktime are now laggy and slow probably due to the same thing as ''You may notice the screen flashes occasionally'' this is the system- asus p5n-d intel C2Q 8400 4gig ddr2 800 nvidia gtx 275 win7 ultimate 32bit vmware workstation: 7.1.2 build-301548 Osx 10.6.6 so all in all this seems to be on the good path to a usable 3d driver ps: chess is better gfx wise then before but while i use to be able to play before now the game runs but i am no longer able to play
  10. What's this app?

    looks like an explorer window
  11. Will Apple Adopt Windows? -- NO! (My Response to Dvorak) posted by Matthew Russell @ http://www.oreillynet.com Or perhaps I should say, "Hell No!" I normally don't comment on articles that are already running rampant on Slashdot, but I can't help myself here. Windows is my nemesis, and there's an article running on PC Magazine that suggests that Apple may actually switch its OS to Windows. Is it April Fool's day today? No. Is Dvorak insane? Maybe. Will Apple switch to Windows? Not a chance. Let's take a look at a few blurbs and attempt to at least provide a cursory disarmament. "Bigger companies than Apple have dropped their proprietary OSs in favor of Windows—think IBM and OS/2. IBM also jumped on the Linux bandwagon over its own AIX version of Unix. Business eventually trumps sentimentality in any large company." Ok, business is business. I can agree with that -- but examples prove nothing. Nothing at all. Not in mathematics, not in business, not anywhere. Moving on... "Another issue for Apple is that the Intel platform is wide open, unlike the closed proprietary system Apple once had full control over. With a proprietary architecture, Apple could tweak the OS for a controlled environment without worrying about the demands of a multitude of hardware add-ons and software subsystems. Windows, as crappy as many believe it to be, actually thrives in this mishmash architecture. Products, old and new, have drivers for Windows above all else. By maintaining its own OS, Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work." Ok, Apple has clearly benefited from not having to deal with 1,001 different pieces of hardware. There's no question that having a "controlled environment" releases you from the demands of a multitude of hardware add-ons and the support that comes along with it, but wait a tick, what about that last comment, "Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work"? -- Not true. What would Microsoft tell you if you called them and said, "Hey my non-MS camera doesn't work with Windows"? They'd tell you to call the manufacturer. Not them. Apple would do the same. No OS vendor is required to handle 3rd party hardware issues, and Apple is no different. "Linux on the desktop never caught on because too many devices don't run on that OS. It takes only one favorite gizmo or program to stop a user from changing. Chat rooms are filled with the likes of "How do I get my DVD burner to run on Linux?" This would get old fast at Apple." Ditto. This is an absurd point to make. Either the third party manufacturer supplies the drivers or they don't. Heck, if Apple (or Windows) were responsible for such things, then why would manufacturers even bother writing their own drivers? Apple has always said it was a hardware company, not a software company. Now with the cash cow iPod line, it can afford to drop expensive OS development and just make jazzy, high-margin Windows computers to finally get beyond that five-percent market share and compete directly with Dell, HP, and the stodgy Chinese makers. So effectively, you're saying that Apple would simply become an overpriced hardware company? And you claim to have used OS X? The beauty of the software is as much a defining property of Apple as the hardware ever has been, not to mention the beauty and flexibility of the development kits available. So, yeeeaaahh. Let's just ditch Tiger and the upcoming Leopard and just shift over to Vista (if it's ever released) on some overpriced custom hardware. Absurd. "To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself. From the Mac to the iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive. Apple popularized the modern GUI. Why not specialize in it and leave the grunt work to Microsoft? It would help the bottom line and put Apple on the fast track to real growth." Are you serious? The last thing Windows needs is another software layer slowing it down, and besides, the look and feel of Aqua is just one element to consider. The inherent stability is the other big one you need to consider. Various tweaks could improve any OS, so that's sort of an irrelevant comment. "Why not specialize in it and leave the grunt work to Microsoft?" Well, because of this thing called software engineering. I don't think we're going to be able to take Quartz and just slap it on top of whatever kernel Windows uses -- not even after a significant amount of effort. "The only fly in the ointment will be the strategic difficulty of breaking the news to the fanatical users. Most were not initially pleased by the switch to Intel's architecture, and this will make them crazy." No, your idea makes me crazy. But moving back to your original plan, why would Apple even care about their fanatical users that so define them? If they're willing to go through the utter hell of the software engineering and tarnish to their name after such a move, then honestly, why even care about the users? Effectively, what would happen is that Apple probably would lose a lot of their cult following, AND the would-be Windows users wouldn’t want to buy their products either. They'd just stick with their Dell that is running standard hardware. What you're talking about here is a lose-lose situation. Not a win-win by any stretch. "Luckily, Apple has a master showman, Steve Jobs. He'll announce that now everything can run on a Mac. He'll say that the switch to Windows gives Apple the best of both worlds. He'll say this is not your daddy's Windows. He'll cajole and cajole, and still hear a few boos. But those will be the last boos he'll hear, for then the Mac will be mainstream. We will welcome the once-isolated Apple mavens, finally." If you're gong to speak for Steve, then so am I -- he would never do that. The thought of it would make him stick to his stomach. He's way to picky and finnicky to ever want a substandard software product to run on his pampered hardware. Remember here -- we're talking about the same guy who had a NeXT building painted with multiple shades of grey until it was just right. The same guy who had the latch of the PowerBook redesigned till he liked the way it snapped shut. The same guy who had the corners of the PowerBook redesigned till they were just right. Or so it's rumored. "We will welcome the once-isolated Apple mavens, finally." No. Maybe you would, but I would switch to Linux entirely, and you can call me on it when Steve fulfills your prophecy that's never going to happen. I wouldn't buy overpriced hardware, nor would I buy any product that runs Windows. What about you? Would you buy Apple hardware that runs Windows? Would you feel at all betrayed if OS X development were just abandoned? Could any idea be more absurd?
  12. This was written by John C. Dvorak @ http://www.pcmag.com The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing. Epstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched. The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience. Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen. And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor. Though these points aren't a slam-dunk for Epstein's thesis, other observations support it. The theory explains several odd occurrences, including Apple's freak-out and lawsuits over Macintosh gossip sites that ran stories about a musicians' breakout box that has yet to be shipped. Like, who cares? But if Apple's saber-rattling was done to scare the community into backing off so it wouldn't discover the Windows stratagem, then the incident makes more sense. As does Bill Gates's onscreen appearance during Apple's turnaround when Jobs was taking a pot of money from Microsoft. The Windows stratagem may have been a done deal by then. This may also explain the odd comment at the Macworld Expo by a Microsoft spokesperson that Microsoft Office will continue to be developed for the Mac for "five years." What happens after that? This switch to Windows may have originally been planned for this year and may partly explain why Adobe and other high-end apps were not ported to the Apple x86 platform when it was announced in January. At Macworld, most observers said that these new Macs could indeed run Windows now. Bigger companies than Apple have dropped their proprietary OSs in favor of Windows—think IBM and OS/2. IBM also jumped on the Linux bandwagon over its own AIX version of Unix. Business eventually trumps sentimentality in any large company. Another issue for Apple is that the Intel platform is wide open, unlike the closed proprietary system Apple once had full control over. With a proprietary architecture, Apple could tweak the OS for a controlled environment without worrying about the demands of a multitude of hardware add-ons and software subsystems. Windows, as crappy as many believe it to be, actually thrives in this mishmash architecture. Products, old and new, have drivers for Windows above all else. By maintaining its own OS, Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work. As someone who believed that the Apple OS x86 could gravitate toward the PC rather than Windows toward the Mac, I have to be realistic. It boils down to the add-ons. Linux on the desktop never caught on because too many devices don't run on that OS. It takes only one favorite gizmo or program to stop a user from changing. Chat rooms are filled with the likes of "How do I get my DVD burner to run on Linux?" This would get old fast at Apple. Apple has always said it was a hardware company, not a software company. Now with the cash cow iPod line, it can afford to drop expensive OS development and just make jazzy, high-margin Windows computers to finally get beyond that five-percent market share and compete directly with Dell, HP, and the stodgy Chinese makers. To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself. From the Mac to the iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive. Apple popularized the modern GUI. Why not specialize in it and leave the grunt work to Microsoft? It would help the bottom line and put Apple on the fast track to real growth. The only fly in the ointment will be the strategic difficulty of breaking the news to the fanatical users. Most were not initially pleased by the switch to Intel's architecture, and this will make them crazy. Luckily, Apple has a master showman, Steve Jobs. He'll announce that now everything can run on a Mac. He'll say that the switch to Windows gives Apple the best of both worlds. He'll say this is not your daddy's Windows. He'll cajole and cajole, and still hear a few boos. But those will be the last boos he'll hear, for then the Mac will be mainstream. We will welcome the once-isolated Apple mavens, finally.
  13. Thoughts On Vista

    wow thats absurd you like Mac OS then cool, stick with it, you like MS Windows then again cool, stick with it. as long as the os you use do what you need it to do thats whats important, i mean {censored} i have a imac here and i boot it from time to time but i barely have any use of it as my win pc does what i need it to do and i feel comfy on it doesnt mean you will and it doesnt some wont the importance is that it does it for you, vista will own OSX as much as OSX will own vista
  14. why is it unfair 2gb and 2.5gb of ram dont do much difference as for the 1.83ghz compared to the 2ghz its the same thing it doesnt mean much either, my Athlon64@ 2.35ghz offers about the same score as a pentium4@ 3.4ghz in most benchmark test
  15. I GOT MY INTEL IMAC TODAY!!!

    no its braking the eula, not piracy, he asnt stolled it, but the eula is not valid in all country and its basicly only say that according to them you are not permited to use it on another machine then theres and that they are not required to uphold there end of the agreement if you break the eula so that means that they could actualy refuse to help and support the user on its five copy license as the agreement was in regard to those five copy and even there i think certain country would not reconize those right towards apple
×