[Satchmo]

Is there a rule of thumb as to how much video ram is required to drive Apple's 20" efficiently?

The MacMini's video memory is only 32mb...but is that taxing the card to drive such a large display?

Would 64 mb be more than enough? However, would an iBook running the hack also be pushing it as it requires sharing memory?

[Luca]

Remember that the Apple 22" Cinema Display ran great on the 16 MB Rage 128 card provided with the Gigabit Ethernet PowerMacs back in 2000. It had a resolution of 1600x1024 pixels, only slightly less than the 1680x1050 of the 20" Cinema Display. I don't see why it would be a problem to run one on the mini... 32 MB isn't much VRAM, but it's enough. It only takes a few MB to buffer the screen.

Also, the iBook can't drive an Apple Cinema Display because it only has VGA, and no DVI. You should get a Dell display if you want to connect one to the iBook with a hack, because the Dell has VGA as well as DVI input. The Apple has a single DVI input only.

[Satchmo]

Thanks...that eases my mind...now I need to save up for that 20" display.
But here's hoping the next mini will bump video ram and a new iBook will come with DVI.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Satchmo Thanks...that eases my mind...now I need to save up for that 20" display.

Well, do remember that in 2000, everyone was running OS 9. But still, you shouldn't have problems. My 1280x1024 display (only about 35% fewer pixels than the 20" Cinema) runs great with my mini. No problems at all with Exposé or Dashboard.

Originally Posted by Satchmo But here's hoping the next mini will bump video ram

Yeah, it better. 32 MB is laughable these days. Hell, even 64 MB is a ridiculously low amount when you consider that even $40 graphics cards come with 128 MB of VRAM (even if they don't need it). Video cards generally come with more VRAM than they need, but it's really sad when they don't have enough because you can't use the GPU to its full potential. I've run into the VRAM wall when playing Quake 3 on my mini, and it's sad, because I know that if I had 64 MB on the exact same GPU (which would cost Apple, oh, maybe $2) I'd be getting significantly better performance in that old, old game.

Originally Posted by Satchmo and a new iBook will come with DVI.

you crack me up, Satchmo!!!

[shatteringglass]

Originally Posted by Luca you crack me up, Satchmo!!!

What next? A $500 Mac? Hahahaha

Oh, wait.

[IonYz]

For a solid 4 hours I test drove a Mac mini (1.4 GHz, 512 MB) with my 20" Cinema Display. The games I played; Gooball, A cart racing game, Nanosaurs, Marble Blast (love that game) ran better then expected.

Exposé was a bit disappointing. I find it very hard to buy a new Mac and have Exposé stutter like it does on a single window when both my 450 MHz Cube (64 MB GeForce 3) and my Power Mac G4 (128 MB Radeon 9800) don't. The Power Mac is no news, but my stock Cube?!

[Luca]

Originally Posted by shatteringglass What next? A $500 Mac? Hahahaha Oh, wait.

The Mac mini was surprising because people didn't think Apple would even be able to do it. In the case of DVI on the iBook, it would be extraordinarily simple for Apple to both enable monitor spanning and replace the VGA output with a DVI output, but there's no readily apparent reason why Apple would want to do it. In fact, there are a ton of changes Apple could make to their computers that would cost them nothing or almost nothing, but would improve their products considerably. They could put 64 MB of VRAM in iBooks and Mac minis (since an extra 32 MB of VRAM is nearly free these days). They could enable monitor spanning on iMacs, eMacs, and minis, and replace those computers' VGA output with DVI. They could give the Cinema displays separate VGA and DVI inputs as well as removable cables. They could include a Firewire cable with the iPods. They could put multiple analog audio outputs on their computers to handle "conventional" surround sound setups.

The point is that as long as the iBooks don't even have monitor spanning capabilities, I don't think it's likely that they'll get DVI output as well. Neither the eMac nor the much more expensive iMac have spanning or DVI either. I guess it's slightly more likely to be added to the iBook at some point, but right now I think Apple sees DVI and spanning as "Pro" features that distinguish the iBooks from the PowerBooks.

[shatteringglass]

You're right. An iBook with DVI is unlikely and Apple has no real reason to release one.

I was unsuccessfully trying to be a smart-ass, is all. And not attempting to invalidate your previous post.

[CobaltFire]

Well Luca, the only thing there that would cost the consumer significantly is the VGA in for the cinema displays. That would require a whole new logic board with at least one new controller. Much simpler to have the mini and the iBook switch to 9600's and use the native DVI for them (cheaper, too). The 32MB RAM situation is a joke... if they ever actually switched to PCIe they would solve that situation anyhow for their low-end machine with the new technologies that nVidia and ATi are using to access system RAM, boosting video RAM that way (AGP does not have the bandwidth to do this). In this case, PCIe would be better for the low-end computer than the high-end ones. It would basically allow Apple to make a Mini with a Radeon X600SE that had 32MB VRAM capable of accessing 96MB more from main memory (at about a 30% performance loss compared to dedicated VRAM) or 64MB VRAM capable of accessing 192MB more from main memory (same performance loss relative). The problem here is that the G4's would require a new chipset to support PCIe, but performance would be so far above normal that it would, in my opinion, be worth it for the next round. Will it happen? Not to the Mini, but I could see the iMac getting a video setup like that, given that G5's will have to go PCIe to stay competitive.

[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by Luca In the case of DVI on the iBook, it would be extraordinarily simple for Apple to both enable monitor spanning and replace the VGA output with a DVI output, but there's no readily apparent reason why Apple would want to do it.

Your assessment on how easy it would be for Apple to make improvements is bang on. However, there is a reason for Apple to do it.

If they hope to attract more PC switchers, they need to stop crippling video cards and cheapening out on features. Many PC laptops while crappy with integrated video cards, at least have true spanning.

The argument of pro vs. consumer lines is frankly getting tiresome. Yes, there needs to be a distinction between the two, but do it in other areas...particularly processor speed (when they finally figure how to get a G5 into a PB, of course).

[Koodari]

Originally Posted by Luca You should get a Dell display if you want to connect one to the iBook with a hack, because the Dell has VGA as well as DVI input. The Apple has a single DVI input only.

... and there is the reason why they should include the DVI output on every computer. To give their own displays a shot.

It's plenty differentiation if the mini-DVI to DVI adapter is not included and Apple charges an extra $20 for it, like they do for the video adapter. In fact, that's the same as Bluetooth, which you gotta get BTO in iBooks but is standard in Powerbooks.

Then to the initial subject of the thread: I'm spanning to a 24" Dell from iBook at 1920x1200, so obviously 16MB is enough for that screen.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Satchmo The argument of pro vs. consumer lines is frankly getting tiresome. Yes, there needs to be a distinction between the two, but do it in other areas...particularly processor speed (when they finally figure how to get a G5 into a PB, of course).

I fully agree. Locking out various features that cost nothing simply to offer a fuller feature set in the PowerBooks is a really lame way of making them "worth" more. When you think about it, those are about the only things that separate the iBooks from the 12" PowerBook. A 12" iBook must cost about the same to make as a 12" PowerBook. While there are some features that truly cost more to incorporate into the PowerBook, many cost nothing. I guess Apple loves this because it adds value to the PowerBook without making it cost any more. But that's about the worst way (from the consumer's perspective) to add value to a product.

Oh, and while PCI Express may have the bandwidth to use system RAM for texture buffering, I don't think Apple ever will (or at least should) use that method. So it doesn't slow down the system... it still takes RAM from it. That's one of those lows that PC companies have gone to that Apple wants to avoid. With OS X craving more RAM than ever with Tiger, and with their low end systems still shipping with just barely enough RAM to even boot the OS (much less run it smoothly for a general home user), stealing system RAM for screen buffering is a huge no-no. I'm even running out of RAM, and I have 1 GB! Of course, any Mac that ships with even a barely adequate amount of RAM is too high end to need one of these cost-saving shared memory systems, so I really don't see the point.

[CobaltFire]

Well, what you have to realize is that the cards still have their own memory, and they don't automatically pull system memory. It actually only calls on system memory 1) if there is enough (it has a table saying what it is allowed per how much the system has) and 2) only when needed, like gaming. Look it up sometime, it is pretty interesting. I don't honestly think that it would work with Apple's current memory policy, but it could be a litttle bit of a value-added proposition for some of the more aggressive users. This would be a kind of back-door way to upgrade the video card in an iMac. Out of, say, 1GB system RAM, you would give up 192MB to the video card when playing games. That won't make a big difference in game performace on the system memory side, but it would on the graphics memory side. Also, remember that the card can handle lower level 3D without touching the system memory, so CoreImage and the like would never need the video card to touch the system memory. Think of it as the best of both worlds.

Now, do i honestly think they will use this technology? No, because it would require them to up the RAM in their systems to acceptable levels. This is unfortunate, because if they tailored the system to an iMac, you could have a 64MB Video Card (same as current) with the ability, when needed and enabled, to pull between 64MB and 192MB from system memory to assist with video operations.

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by Luca Well, do remember that in 2000, everyone was running OS 9.

Everyone, except about 95% of the world.