Mac OS 9 Lives
Mac OS 9 Discussion => Hardware => Topic started by: supernova777 on August 16, 2015, 10:12:54 AM
-
just wondering what the biggest possible graphics resolution would be??
strange ive never thought of this before
is it possible to get 1920x1080 or above?
what resolution do u run your macos9 at!!????
-
I run Mac OS 9 at 1680x1050 - 20” Apple Cinema Display ;D
-
Using one MDD with a 1920x1200 screen without any problems in Mac OS 9. I don't really think that there is a resolution limit in Mac OS 9.
-
Using one MDD with a 1920x1200 screen without any problems in Mac OS 9. I don't really think that there is a resolution limit in Mac OS 9.
thats just it.. is there any other people using anything larger then 1920x1200 ???
-
Using one MDD with a 1920x1200 screen without any problems in Mac OS 9. I don't really think that there is a resolution limit in Mac OS 9.
thats just it.. is there any other people using anything larger then 1920x1200 ???
... may be 1920x1200 is max resolution on Mac Os 9 ...
I'm using 1680x1050 on a 20” Apple Cinema Display connected to Ti4600 in a MDD,
and 1920x1080 on a 22" Asus display connected to Radeon 8500 in a Sawtooth,
-
I also have an Apple Cinema 30” but I can not test it on Mac OS 9. It is connected to a Mac mini with OS X.
-
I also have an Apple Cinema 30” but I can not test it on Mac OS 9. It is connected to a Mac mini with OS X.
You'll need a graphics card with a dual-link DVI connector, otherwise you'll only get 1280x800.
I don't know if there ever was a graphics card with DVI-DL that had Mac OS 9 drivers.
-
1680 x 1050 is a great resolution i think
i also have a screen this size and was using it with my mdd and it was great
-
You'll need a graphics card with a dual-link DVI connector, otherwise you'll only get 1280x800.
I don't know if there ever was a graphics card with DVI-DL that had Mac OS 9 drivers.
nope, geforce 5, G5.
only with analog connectors you can go above 1920x1200, because that is the limit of DVI.
-
nope, geforce 5, G5.
only with analog connectors you can go above 1920x1200, because that is the limit of DVI.
Or with Dual link DVI. Like the PowerMac G5 with Geforce 5 you mentioned has.
Read this article for info: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201927
-
MDD, ATI Radeon 9000, 23" Cinema @ 1900x1200 and 20" Cinema @ 1680x1050 Extended Display mode
All day long…
-
MDD, ATI Radeon 9000, 23" Cinema @ 1900x1200 and 20" Cinema @ 1680x1050 Extended Display mode
All day long…
One Important note is that only the Lucite (clear plastic) version of the 23" will do 1900X1200 in OS 9, the aluminum 23" Cinema will NOT go that high in OS 9, only in X
-
Or with Dual link DVI. Like the PowerMac G5 with Geforce 5 you mentioned has.
i dont understand this comment. nor how it is releated to the article you link to.
a G5 can not boot OS9.
-
Quite limited, we're stuck with 1920x1200 using any G4 supported GPU.
-
One Important note is that only the Lucite (clear plastic) version of the 23" will do 1900X1200 in OS 9, the aluminum 23" Cinema will NOT go that high in OS 9, only in X
Hmmm… I didn't know that - maybe time to start looking for a spare!
Here's another bit of aggravation: My 23" is on a KVM switch between the MDD and my El Capitan-running Macbook Pro.
As of Yosemite, for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, the Lucite Cinemas were deprecated in OSX monitor prefs and controls are no longer available for them.
I can tolerate this in my setup only because the display "holds" whatever it's set at by the MDD, but without having an older OSX to make adjustments, they would be hard to live with.
Just another friendly reminder from Apple that you're not spending enough money endlessly upgrading.
-
No you actually spend to much in the wrong direction.
-
Or with Dual link DVI. Like the PowerMac G5 with Geforce 5 you mentioned has.
i dont understand this comment. nor how it is releated to the article you link to.
a G5 can not boot OS9.
-
OK class… explanation time:
Knezzen knows a G5 cannot boot OS9.
He merely refers to the type of DVI it has.
Now watch:
1) DVI resolution tops out at 1920 x 1200
2) In order to exceed that, there's dual-link DVI. Dual-link means there are TWO independent video streams on ONE connector
3) The 30" Cinema Display likes 2560 x 1600
4) In order to get that much from computer to display, Macs with dual-link DVI cut the picture in half - sending 1280 x 800 down each link
5) That's why if you connect a 30" to a computer with only a single-link DVI, you can only get 1280 x 800 max
6) Could Apple have made the 30" capable of also displaying 1920 x 1200 single-link?
7) Of course (and actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it can), but that would be too easy…and reasonable…and less expensive
8) Because THEN, you'd be able to buy a new computer and NOT have to buy a new monitor also
Any questions?
-
Knezzen knows a G5 cannot boot OS9.
He merely refers to the type of DVI it has.
Correct! :)
-
OK class… explanation time:
Knezzen knows a G5 cannot boot OS9.
He merely refers to the type of DVI it has.
Now watch:
1) DVI resolution tops out at 1920 x 1200
2) In order to exceed that, there's dual-link DVI. Dual-link means there are TWO independent video streams on ONE connector
3) The 30" Cinema Display likes 2560 x 1600
4) In order to get that much from computer to display, Macs with dual-link DVI cut the picture in half - sending 1280 x 800 down each link
5) That's why if you connect a 30" to a computer with only a single-link DVI, you can only get 1280 x 800 max
6) Could Apple have made the 30" capable of also displaying 1920 x 1200 single-link?
7) Of course (and actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it can), but that would be too easy…and reasonable…and less expensive
8) Because THEN, you'd be able to buy a new computer and NOT have to buy a new monitor also
Any questions?
Nice explanation GaryN!!😁
-
OK class… explanation time:
Knezzen knows a G5 cannot boot OS9.
He merely refers to the type of DVI it has.
Now watch:
1) DVI resolution tops out at 1920 x 1200
2) In order to exceed that, there's dual-link DVI. Dual-link means there are TWO independent video streams on ONE connector
3) The 30" Cinema Display likes 2560 x 1600
4) In order to get that much from computer to display, Macs with dual-link DVI cut the picture in half - sending 1280 x 800 down each link
5) That's why if you connect a 30" to a computer with only a single-link DVI, you can only get 1280 x 800 max
6) Could Apple have made the 30" capable of also displaying 1920 x 1200 single-link?
7) Of course (and actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it can), but that would be too easy…and reasonable…and less expensive
8) Because THEN, you'd be able to buy a new computer and NOT have to buy a new monitor also
Any questions?
yeah:
what does all this have to do with the original question, which was what the highest resolution is what mac os 9 can do? :D
and to answer #6)
no they could not IMO. it is upper half/lower half for a reason. this monitor simply does not support this resolution. maybe the sony does? (it was the only one which could do a few more resolutions than 3 or 4)
well, actually, i think ... there would not have been a big market for such a monitor for OS9 users back in the time. (why would you spend 4500 bucks for a monitor which is bigger but cant do a higher resolution than a 23" can do? except maybe when you have problems with your eyes?)
the geforce4 ti x4 AGP supports 2048x1536 easily, but like i said above and we all agree, that is only available when you connect analog. probably it was a too big deal to implement this outdated technology (analog monitor cables) in the first 30" apple display.
-
Oh jeez…
"what does all this have to do with the original question, which was what the highest resolution is what mac os 9 can do?"
Chris asked the question - the answer was that it depends on the video card mostly; AND
The highest-rez card in a G4 has DVI (and/or ADC) outs - Hence DVI discussion; AND THEN
YOU started down the road where YOU decided that the mere mention to DVI "as in" a G5 had nothing to do with OS9; BUT
The 30" issue was not can it do 1920x1200 but rather could Apple have built it to support both dual-link for max rez AND yet accept the max 1920x1200 from a single-link if they wanted to; AND
The answer is: Of course they could have but they made a marketing decision NOT to; SO
When I said "I wouldn't be surprised if it can" I mean that it certainly has the pixels to do 1920x1200 and therefore it probably could but that it lacks the necessary circuitry to actually do it - again a marketing decision by Apple to "encourage" their users to "appreciate" the benefits of continually spending money upgrading through regular deprecation of all warez both soft and hard - You need look no further than our very own "OS9 Installer for unsupported hardware" to see what I mean. Upgrade encouragement thorough forced deprecation.
ANYWAY…
There would maybe not have been a huge market for a 30" display in the OS9 era (highly debatable) but that's not what I'm talking about here as much as I'm talking about the deprecation of all OSX Apple computers that didn't come with dual-link DVI video cards.
As for "a too big deal to implement this outdated technology", I submit that it is not you but rather the manufacturer who decides when something is "outdated". Do you need me to remind you that EVERY DAMN THING ON THIS SITE is "outdated technology"?
Any MORE questions?
-
1680x1050 is the max i have used.. i was just curious if it was possible to go 1920x1080 or above!
honestly gary i dont know why u are spending so much effort to answer/follow up..
its obvious that some members of this site like to post and blab without thinking
while the rest of us are very carefull that what we say is correct, spending extra effort to doublecheck + Recheck facts so that the posts can serve as a reference..
its a shame that we cant get that level of quality from some people.
-
Yeah I know, but it gives me something to do while I'm waiting for the drugs to kick in…
-
Hi guys. So with the recent changes in my setup i'm missing now the 23" screen I was sharing through an KVM switch between my PC and the MDD Mac. I connected another spare 15" LCD to my Mac but thats just not cutting it...
I found someone offering me some old ADC Apple LCD monitors...15", 17" or 22" in size. For the latter one he's asking a pricey 120€ excluding shipping cost but says it's in a good shape.
Can you recommend such a buy or I have to calm my collector syndrome ?
Ah. he also has newer Apple cinema displays but only 20" in size for 180€ and an 30" for 450€ with wall mount...just to throw in more options for you guys to recommend me something...
-
Yeah I know, but it gives me something to do while I'm waiting for the drugs to kick in…
lol was actually kind of amusing now that i read the entire thread lol
amusing + informative.. win win
-
Hi guys. So with the recent changes in my setup i'm missing now the 23" screen I was sharing through an KVM switch between my PC and the MDD Mac. I connected another spare 15" LCD to my Mac but thats just not cutting it...
I found someone offering me some old ADC Apple LCD monitors...15", 17" or 22" in size. For the latter one he's asking a pricey 120€ excluding shipping cost but says it's in a good shape.
Can you recommend such a buy or I have to calm my collector syndrome ?
Ah. he also has newer Apple cinema displays but only 20" in size for 180€ and an 30" for 450€ with wall mount...just to throw in more options for you guys to recommend me something...
if you go the adc monitor route make sure he knows how to pack that damn thing. I got 2 with broken stand during transit. Other than that i like the two 23's .... its a lot of workspace you may get over the tag after you use it.
-
Ok. Just did some homework.
The 23" Cinema HD is the one to get if you're lucky to find one...
The 22" he is offering me I think is not a wide screen one but the 23" is ?
will read some more...
UPDATE:
I'm wrong on this assumption .
Both models are wide screen (letterbox).
The max. resolution for the 22" is 1600x1024 and 1920x1200 (Full HD) for the 23".
-
Ok. Just did some homework.
The 23" Cinema HD is the one to get if you're lucky to find one...
The 22" he is offering me I think is not a wide screen one but the 23" is ?
will read some more...
UPDATE:
I'm wrong on this assumption .
Both models are wide screen (letterbox).
The max. resolution for the 22" is 1600x1024 and 1920x1200 (Full HD) for the 23".
make sure your graphics card has the power to run these resolutions. I use a ti for 2 23s and a apple adc/dvi adapter for the second monitor. The 22s will give you more than plenty workspace. Dont forget in os9 everything appears a lot smaller with that kind of resolution.
-
Thanks Devil. It's the stock GC that is in my MDD. The Radeon 9000 Pro.
It's definitely capable of driving two HD resolution displays (1920x1200).
-
Know this: The 22" 1600 x 1024 is the first - as in oldest of the Cinema Displays. It therefore behooves you to ask about the amount of and what type of use your seller has put it through. These damn things do actually wear out and repair parts, if you can actually find any, will cost more than you spent for the whole display. This is, of course, a good idea no matter which model it is or what era it comes from…
Of course, everybody lies when they're trying to unload their old worn out crap, but you gotta ask, at least.
Just as people will run their TV's with the brightness cranked all the way up because they've got all of the shades up and the sun is blasting into the room, they'll do the same with their monitors, never realizing that this is the cause of their repeated migraines! On the old Cinemas, this wears out the CFL lamps (there are two in the 20" and 22" and three -I think - in the 23"), and tends to cause early failure of the voltage inverter board that drives them. The first telltale sign of impending death is a purple - magenta-ish tint that develops around the edges of the screen. Especially noticeable when first turned on and the screen is all grey.
I personally have and use both a 23"and a 20" (with the 23" on a KVM) and I've collected two more 20" and another 23" for backups.
It's a whole lot easier to just keep an eye out and pick them up when they come around than to desperately search for one after yours blows up in the middle of a project.
Know this also: If you run two of these on a G4, always run the larger one from the DVI output through a DVI to ADC power brick adapter. The 23" HD especially, puts one hell of an additional strain on your Mac's PSU that can stress it to an early death also. SO, while you're keeping watch for used displays, watch for whole computers too. They're usually cheaper to buy than trying to replace just a PSU also!
Never, never drive these old displays any brighter than absolutely necessary. They'll last much longer that way.
Last tip: The best way to ship these and not break the stand when the original box is gone is to remove the damn stand first! This requires a Torx driver #T-8 which, of course, the seller doesn't have so you get a display in the post with a broken, unrepairable stand.
You prevent this by simply buying the tool and sending it to the seller yourself.
Then they can remove it (three lousy screws) and send the tool back along with the display. You then reattach the stand and and think, "Boy, I'm glad I thought of that!"
-
Chris asked the question - the answer was that it depends on the video card mostly; AND
you are right, that is the first reason why i should not have answered this rhetoric question at all... (as i block this person i only answered to the topic of the thread and no more so it might be i missed some extra parts of the question.)
There would maybe not have been a huge market for a 30" display in the OS9 era (highly debatable) but that's not what I'm talking about here as much as I'm talking about the deprecation of all OSX Apple computers that didn't come with dual-link DVI video cards.
...because if you do, the thread usually ends up with theories about dual dvi and marketing decisions.
the maximum resolution you can use with an OS is the maximum resolution of the video cards the OS supports. finito.
and it would not be higher if you could connect a 30" with dual DVI because you cant.
Any MORE questions?
tons of.
for example why cant i connect a 5k monitor to my G4?
-
for example why cant i connect a 5k monitor to my G4?
Of course you can! Just plug it in. If it doesn't seem to fit, don't worry - just push harder.
-
But if it don't fit don't force it just relax.... and let it gooo...:-)
-
of course i would be quite a fun thing to run old apps which dont support scaling on a 5k monitor ... you´d need a micorscope to see things, but you´d have a gazillion of pixels for displaying 100 plug-ins at a time ... more than 8 times of a 1920x1200 :)
-
thanks for your wisdom once again ::) ::) ::)
-
Thanks so much GaryN for this valuable information (should be a sticky buying guide)
Know this: The 22" 1600 x 1024 is the first - as in oldest of the Cinema Displays. It therefore behooves you to ask about the amount of and what type of use your seller has put it through. These damn things do actually wear out and repair parts, if you can actually find any, will cost more than you spent for the whole display. This is, of course, a good idea no matter which model it is or what era it comes from…
Actually their are 2 versions of the 22" model...the first from around 1999 http://www.everymac.com/monitors/apple/studio_cinema/specs/apple_cinema_display.html (http://www.everymac.com/monitors/apple/studio_cinema/specs/apple_cinema_display.html) is with DVI connection and the later model with ADC connection which appeared one year later http://www.everymac.com/monitors/apple/studio_cinema/specs/apple_cinema_display_adc.html.
...On the old Cinemas, this wears out the CFL lamps (there are two in the 20" and 22" and three -I think - in the 23"), and tends to cause early failure of the voltage inverter board that drives them. The first telltale sign of impending death is a purple - magenta-ish tint that develops around the edges of the screen. Especially noticeable when first turned on and the screen is all grey.
That information frightened me to such a degree that i stepped back from my plans to buy such a thing...it seems not worth it when you can buy for 120€ a 22" or 23" normal VGA monitor and connect it through adaptors...
Know this also: If you run two of these on a G4, always run the larger one from the DVI output through a DVI to ADC power brick adapter. The 23" HD especially, puts one hell of an additional strain on your Mac's PSU that can stress it to an early death also. SO, while you're keeping watch for used displays, watch for whole computers too. They're usually cheaper to buy than trying to replace just a PSU also!
That seems logical...this is definitely something to look for when searching such a monitor...i saw it on pictures from e-vil-auctions.
Last tip: The best way to ship these and not break the stand when the original box is gone is to remove the damn stand first! This requires a Torx driver #T-8 which, of course, the seller doesn't have so you get a display in the post with a broken, unrepairable stand.
You prevent this by simply buying the tool and sending it to the seller yourself.
Then they can remove it (three lousy screws) and send the tool back along with the display. You then reattach the stand and and think, "Boy, I'm glad I thought of that!"
Awesome tip!
Thanks again GaryN!
-
That information frightened me to such a degree that i stepped back from my plans to buy such a thing...it seems not worth it when you can buy for 120€ a 22" or 23" normal VGA monitor and connect it through adaptors...
you will get used to that quickly. i was always using my flatpanels via analog cables and i´ve stopped seeing darkened spots after 3 days - including working in photoshop or jitter.
all still much, much better compared to what tubes did to our eyes.
-
Evnin' (o;
Well you can use a VGA monitor hooked up via ADC/VGA adapter and go to 2048x1536..then it looks like the attched screenshot, though picture isn't that sharp anymore (o;
-
looks hübsch.
the perfect monitor if you have a cat. :)
-
Okay..tried another one....just hooked up the MDD via the DVI-D/VGA adapter to my 27" Dell U2713HM...though analog signals...but also not bad @ 2048x1152 resolution (o;
-
great! but one must be very careful that he dual DVI-D adapter has a true 42+1 connector, right?
-
no wait, isnt that a single DVI-D? 2048x1152 is close at the border of one dvi signal.
edit: 4,1% more than 1920*1200. :D
-
Yes..it's just the RGB analog signals coming out of the DVI-D connector (o;
Hmm..maybe switch some FPGA code between the two connectors (DVI and ADC) and generate a higher output resolution ;-)
I assume there was never Dual DVI support under OS 9, right?
-
nope, never.
it would be awesome to get 30" working, but we dont even have the videocards for this resolution in OS9. the Radeon 9200 for example only supports 2048x1536.
-
nope, never.
it would be awesome to get 30" working, but we dont even have the videocards for this resolution in OS9. the Radeon 9200 for example only supports 2048x1536.
It works with 30" Monitor in 2540 x 1600 resolution and for instance a flashed GeForce 6600 in a G4 Mac
Unfortunately without QuickDraw acceleration
A Radeon 9600 should work also (without QuickDraw acceleration)
See here (unfotunately a german forum - but I guess you can get an impression from the screenshot):
http://www.cubeuser.de/showthread.php?t=924 (http://www.cubeuser.de/showthread.php?t=924)
I myself use a 27" iMac with sheep shaver and OS 9.1 in 2540 x 1440.
that's a gorgeous big desktop - isn't it?
-
i believe that no quickdraw, no 3d and no official driver support are three conditions too much.
i woudl already hesitate putting a PIC express card in my G4s, not talking about modifying drivers and firmware.
but it is great to hear that someone has tested it. :)
-
Hey guys!!
Hope you all are doing just great. I've got a related question to this. I've done dual monitors on a G4 mirror door many times also gotten 2560x whatever (can't remember now and not in front of it) from an Apple 30" display (looks killer and these seem to be a bit had to find now) over dual DVI.
I'm interested in doing something totally different now for my main rig.
I'd like to run OS9 on my main rig (sharing mouse and keyboard but somehow without a crappy KVM, I've had bad experiences with these). My main display is an Acer ET430K (they're incredible it's 40" and runs 3840 x 2160).
Somehow (maybe 2x dual DVI graphics cards in my expansion chassis or something else equally crazy) run basically a two monitor display on my main monitor. Thats a lot of conversion and a lot of graphics cards to make it happen if possible. So basically my main display would be split into a side by side 1920x1080 configuration or something else clever.
Also makes me think on all you guys fancy 9.3 stuff my number one wish was higher monitor resolution!
All my best,
_BT
-
some older 31,5" or 40" from ~2010 will work fine, but in my opinion it doesnt make much sense to go above the DVI limit.
i only use 1920*1200 because of exactly that - so you can make use of the DVI connector if one of your cards has that as second port.
there is nothing more unelegant than monitors of different size and resolution. even on different machines if it is the same work space.:)
-
Hey IIO! I couldn't agree more yet in this space there is no way to swap monitors at main mix position. If anyone else has any ideas again what I am looking to do is display 2x pages on one 40" (modern monitor) side by side (but on the same display).
I'm gonna crack it. Help appreciated!
Best,
_BT
-
there are VGA signal splitters which let you distribute one signal to more monitors (matrox triplehead and the like), but i wouldnt know about something which lets you concatenate two signals. (think about it: the signals would have to be in snyc)
the only thing i could imagine is that you tear apart the matrixes from 2 monitors and include them in a custom frame/case.
i once wanted to do that with my samsungs, but since i have 3 there is not much sense in arranging them other than slightly convex. (plus i cant really complain about their frame, which is like 13 millimeters at both sides - and you will never get it seamless anyway even when you remove the plastic.)
-
My main display is an Acer ET430K (they're incredible it's 40" and runs 3840 x 2160).
just to point you into some direction:
https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/100722908-post3.html
http://www.networktechinc.com/hdmi-multiviewer.html
found it by image search for 'video mixer dual (quad) DVI'
(you probably don't want broadcast gear) ;)
essentially you have to feed the mac output into some box like this
-
PIP/PAP sounds like something i also want to have. :P
p.s.:
these NTI guys are awesome. did you notice the search query tags and the online demo of the admin software?
but 1500 euro...
-
They even have support for Mac OS9!
-
i believe that four "monitors" from your G4 GPU arranged as square is the only option how it could work. or 2x2 from 2 computers...
ultrawide e.g. 3800*1600 as a solution for "2" is still too high.
VGA to HDMI is doable - adapters are starting at 10 euro and are not too big.
-
damn, i think we´re wrong - the output is also only in ~2k?
http://www.networktechinc.com/hdmi-multiviewer.html#tab-3
-
But they have 4k versions although more expensive.
-
Just to document here. I got GF 7800 GS OC flashed and running with Apple Cinema Display 30" under OS9. Looks very nice.
-
great, finally someone did it. could you elaborate on the 2d acceleration and add the required software?
-
It might sound silly ... but why on earth do you want to run OS9 on such high resolutions? You have any applications that can be used more productively when run on a huge resolution? Or is it simply the interest in what OS9 is capable of? (<--- seriously interested in the answer)
To answer the question above - I usually run OS9 at 1280x1024 (still high-res to me :D ) and I wouldn't know why I should go any higher. Whenever I should indeed run out of desktop space... well, there's windowshade :)
-
It might sound silly ... but why on earth do you want to run OS9 on such high resolutions? You have any applications that can be used more productively when run on a huge resolution? Or is it simply the interest in what OS9 is capable of? (<--- seriously interested in the answer)
This is Pro Tools in my case. Graphics performance is not critical, desktop space is important.
-
It might sound silly ... but why on earth do you want to run OS9 on such high resolutions? You have any applications that can be used more productively when run on a huge resolution? Or is it simply the interest in what OS9 is capable of? (<--- seriously interested in the answer)
both. in regards of this thread it is also a partial answer to the theoretical limit of the OS (if any)
in the individual case... my answer would be "almost any, except games".
if you would have ever worked with programs for music production, image editing, programming languages, html/text editing, you wouldnt ask what to do with more than a 17" screen. (not video or 3d - OS9 machines are too slow to produce the need of more screen space here)
with programming, making music or photoshop anything below 1900*1200 creates claustrophobia for me. :)
and a height of 1200 pixels is what i use since 1998(!)
-
I have to agree. I also have a Protools system with 2 screens, only acrylic Cinema displays so below FullHD but its definitely useful to have room for all the windows in Logic and when you even run other programs in the background like synth editors you even want a 3rd screen or higher resolutions.
Imagine Mactron with 7 instances of FM7 open...everything less than FullHD x2 is not enough! 😎
-
I have to agree. I also have a Protools system with 2 screens, only acrylic Cinema displays so below FullHD but its definitely useful to have room for all the windows in Logic and when you even run other programs in the background like synth editors you even want a 3rd screen or higher resolutions.
Imagine Mactron with 7 instances of FM7 open...everything less than FullHD x2 is not enough! 😎
Yes, that's true. I have two 1080x1920 screens connected to a nVidia Ti 4600 on my main MDD. 8)
I had posted a picture somewhere here, in the past... ;D ;D ;D
-
not to forget that the bigger the monitor is, the more icons you can litter on the desktop.
-
great, finally someone did it. could you elaborate on the 2d acceleration and add the required software?
Sorry, what is the 2nd acceleration? No special SW required except modified binary from themacelite and the latest Nvidia drivers 3.5.2.
-
Sorry, what is the 2nd acceleration? No special SW required except modified binary from themacelite and the latest Nvidia drivers 3.5.2.
2d acceleration is in modern graphics cards part of the 3d acceleration and responsible for things like quickdraw, move and copy, buffering methods and compression en/decoding, and without it the finder and all windows can be quite sluggish.
and in radeon cards not made for OS9 it usually doesnt work, thats why i asked if it worked here.
you dont know what 2D acceleration means but others should be able to reproduce your setup by getting a "GF 7800 GS OC with modified binary from themacelite", that´s funny. :)
when i google the card i dont even find one with dual DVI output. and in your picture i see nothing done to the card to make it work as x4 AGP.
this raises a lot of questions.
-
Sorry, what is the 2nd acceleration? No special SW required except modified binary from themacelite and the latest Nvidia drivers 3.5.2.
2d acceleration is in modern graphics cards part of the 3d acceleration and responsible for things like quickdraw, move and copy, buffering methods and compression en/decoding, and without it the finder and all windows can be quite sluggish.
and in radeon cards not made for OS9 it usually doesnt work, thats why i asked if it worked here.
you dont know what 2D acceleration means but others should be able to reproduce your setup by getting a "GF 7800 GS OC with modified binary from themacelite", that´s funny. :)
when i google the card i dont even find one with dual DVI output. and in your picture i see nothing done to the card to make it work as x4 AGP.
this raises a lot of questions.
I know what 2D means, but I don't know what "2nd acceleration" means :)))) That's why I clarified.
Sorry, forgot to say, pin3 and 11 to cut, that should be obvious for this family but I missed to document it earlier.
-
It might sound silly ... but why on earth do you want to run OS9 on such high resolutions? You have any applications that can be used more productively when run on a huge resolution? Or is it simply the interest in what OS9 is capable of? (<--- seriously interested in the answer)
To answer the question above - I usually run OS9 at 1280x1024 (still high-res to me :D ) and I wouldn't know why I should go any higher. Whenever I should indeed run out of desktop space... well, there's windowshade :)
One of the serious reasons is if you need to replace your display (for example when your CRT got unsharp) and need an recent display for real work. I for example have a nice Eizo with 1920 x 1200 that needs to be used with this native resolution.
Another one is if you are doing layout stuff, real A3 at the screen makes really sense for example. ;)
I can imagine that seeing more tracks at the same time in ProTool also makes sense.
Another reason is that it may be a real help sometimes to have two programmes opened at the same time for comparing stuff. If you are working a lot with text for example, or wherever you like to see changes from within another program immediatly, without switching between programs.
-
I know what 2D means, but I don't know what "2nd acceleration" means :))))
at times when it was not part of the 3d but an extra area on GPUs it was quite common to differntiate between the two.
"acceleration" probably means that it otherwise has to be done from the host CPU.
the question why i needed to know more about GF 6 & 7 is that you already explained what you main focus is (bigger resolution) and that you do not need much GPU power for protools.
but i for example like to drag stuff (plug-in windows and such) around and furthermore i like to use solid dragging (i cant stdn OS9 without such enhancements) and so it could limit the use of such a graphics card a lot if the accceleration isnt supported by the OS.
saying that, the geforce 7800 wants to have 400 watts - which is 50 more than a quicksilver or MDD PSU offers alltogether. how do one come around with that? in case acceleration would be fully suppoerted it wont be a good idea to drive the card to the max i think. :)
while we are on it, i have a third issue. are there cards of the same type for PCI? or are you limited to one monitor.
-
saying that, the geforce 7800 wants to have 400 watts - which is 50 more than a quicksilver or MDD PSU offers alltogether. how do one come around with that? in case acceleration would be fully supported it wont be a good idea to drive the card to the max i think. :)
while we are on it, i have a third issue. are there cards of the same type for PCI? or are you limited to one monitor.
This is not correct. The card is 75W. And yes, I have brand new 450W PSU installed (PC->MAC mod), so there is plenty of power to drive graphics and three pro tools mix cards. Cooling is also modified. It's active now with external thermal sensor.
This family is either AGP or PCIe. No PCI versions.
-
I tried out a flashed ATI Fire GL X800 GT in a G4 MDD with Mac OS 9.2.1.
It worked with a 27" display in 2560 x 1440 but ofcourse without 2D an 3D accelderation.
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/_DSC7527_MOD.jpg)
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/_DSC7528_MOD.jpg)
Pin 3 + 11 deactivated:
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/_DSC7529_MOD.jpg)
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/_DSC7526_MOD.jpg)
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/ATI-800_27_System-Profiler.jpg)
I run some tests and the results were interesting:
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/01_All_20Kopie.jpg)
Rectengular shapes:
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/02_Rectengular.jpg)
Rectengular shapes with round edges:
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/03_Rectengular_rounded.jpg)
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/04_Ellipse.jpg)
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/05_Lines.jpg)
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/06_Draw_Picture.jpg)
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/07_CopyBits_small_1.jpg)
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/08_CopyBits_small_2.jpg)
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/09_CopyBits_big_1.jpg)
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/10_CopyBits_big_2.jpg)
Draw Text:
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/11_DrawText.jpg)
Scrolling:
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/12_Scroll.jpg)
The performance in most test is quite decent - BUT without QuickDraw acceleration drawing speed of rectangulars and scrolling is very bad - so working with this card is impractical for applications where you are paning and scrolling most the times (for instance in Quark, Freehand or Photoshop).
That big workspace is quite nice for Mac OS 9. The document window (Quark 4.11) in this screenshot is 1920 x 1200. The rest is the workspace you gain - not bad...
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/ATI-800_27_Quark_2_MOD_mini.jpg)
The overall situations regarding graphic cards for Mac OS9 looks like this chart:
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/allgemein/GraKa_OS9_Uebersicht.jpg)
(As far as I know - please feel free to correct me if something is wrong)
I have a Gainward 6600 GT at my hands that I want to give a try in the next weeks (but I have to flash it first)
-
Regarding the maximum viewable resolution:
I have a Village Tronic MPDD+ running in a G4/466 which is my testbed for graphic cards.
The highst resolution you can choose with this card is 3200 x 2400 at 60 Hz VGH with 256 colors.
I have mo moitor for this resolution so this works only with software paning.
It is also a PCI slot card with a modest 2D acceleration. Usable but no racer.
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/MPDD_plus_001.jpg)
-
Regarding the maximum viewable resolution:
I have a Village Tronic MPDD+ running in a G4/466 which is my testbed for graphic cards.
The highst resolution you can choose with this card is 3200 x 2400 at 60 Hz VGH with 256 colors.
I have mo moitor for this resolution so this works only with software paning.
It is also a PCI slot card with a modest 2D acceleration. Usable but no racer.
(http://www.gestaltwandler.com/MacVintage/001/MPDD_plus_001.jpg)
Real maximum to MPDD+ is 1600x1200 thousand colors at 60Hz. But virtual desktop can be bigger as 3200x2400 256 colors. It's like ATI cards with ATI toolbar.
-
the original meta-question about the "maximum resolution of OS9" would include multiple monitor setup, isnt ist?
if yes, then the possbility to run 1 30" monitor at the AGP doesnt raise the known maximum - until someone proves that dual dual link DVI works, too, 2 small monitors in this bus offer more pixels. ;)
6*1920=11520
virtual desktops which are based on real space of virtual monitors are new to me - interesting thing. what is it good for, when would you prefer this over conventional virtual desktop space which is rendered only alternatively?
-
virtual desktops which are based on real space of virtual monitors are new to me, interesting thing. what is it good for, when would you prefer this over conventional virtual desktop space which is rendered only alternatively?
It has autoscrolling when you move mouse.