iBooks with a non-mirrored monitor *is* possible.
Geoffrey
any monitor plugged into the SGVA port - as a differentiation to the
PBG4 - was something that Apple had locked into hardware.
Not so.
Some clever hackers (in the true sense of the word) have discovered that
the restriction is imposed by Apple in *software* - in particular, it is
part of the iBook's "MacOS ROM" file.
You *can* add to the iBook's desktop with an external monitor, and even
play DVDs on the external monitor without DVD Player falling over in a
heap. Yes, it is a hack, and it *does* affect other parts of the OS (you
can't sleep the iBook, for example), but for the brave iBookers out
there who desperately need extra screen real-estate, there is hope.
I don't have an iBook, but I'm curious to read some other reports of
others' attempts to do this hack and make it work, and whatever other
stumbling blocks you might find.
If you try the hack, please post your feedback to this group.
Geoffrey
(remove EXCESS BAGGAGE to reply via mail)
--
WARNING: mail to this address will be auto-bounced if:
(a) more than 10% original content appears before first quoted matter,
(b) quoted material exceeds 75% of total message content, and/or
(c) HTML is used to format text and/or embed non-ASCII items.
justin
can be assured that Apple will make sure to break it in every system
update from here on out.
And of course it's broken in software. What did you think they actually
ordered custom crippled hardware from ATI? Why would they when it's far
easier to use leftover TiBook chips and write ten lines of code?
AES
> And of course it's broken in software. What did you think they actually
> ordered custom crippled hardware from ATI? Why would they when it's far
> easier to use leftover TiBook chips and write ten lines of code?
There may have been a legitimate reason for Apple's design choice
(though I'm no expert on this . . .).
In my experience having Video Mirroring frozen in place leads to far
fewer hassles in getting an iBook connected to random LCD projectors on
the road than was the case with a previous PB G3.
Justin
better for the consumer.
If that was true, then why didn't they do the same thing on the TiBook?
Stephan Eggermont
> In my experience having Video Mirroring frozen in place leads to far
> fewer hassles in getting an iBook connected to random LCD projectors on
> the road than was the case with a previous PB G3.
Well, that is fixed in the TiBook, so I would expect an iBook to have
little problems with that.
Stephan
Greg
> play DVDs on the external monitor without DVD Player falling over in a
> heap. Yes, it is a hack, and it *does* affect other parts of the OS (you
> can't sleep the iBook, for example), but for the brave iBookers out
> there who desperately need extra screen real-estate, there is hope.
>
> I don't have an iBook, but I'm curious to read some other reports of
> others' attempts to do this hack and make it work, and whatever other
> stumbling blocks you might find.
>
> If you try the hack, please post your feedback to this group.
>
>
> Geoffrey
I don't use an external monitor, but I have used a program called
"Virtual Desktop". It seems that it might be the answer to the problem
of "mirroring only" that the iBook or 3400c has. It's freeware.
Sparky
has less RAM on it, thus the performance of the video would go to hell
when in extended desktop mode...
Justin
enough to drive both displays at a high resolution.
Remember, computers with video chips FAR inferior and much older than
that in the iBook supported extended desktop, and I don't recall anyone
complaining that performance 'went to hell'.
Sparky
Justin
and even 2 MB of RAM.
Those old chips aren't going to be running Quake III, but it doesn't
take that much VRAM to do high res. display on two monitors. I'm sure
someone can back me up with the actual numbers, but for reference, I
used to have an IMS Twin Turbo card with 2 MB of VRAM, and I remember it
would do 1280x1024 no prob.
Phil Lefebvre
>OS X certainly does run on Wallstreets, and many of them shipped with 4,
>and even 2 MB of RAM.
>
>Those old chips aren't going to be running Quake III, but it doesn't
>take that much VRAM to do high res. display on two monitors. I'm sure
>someone can back me up with the actual numbers, but for reference, I
>used to have an IMS Twin Turbo card with 2 MB of VRAM, and I remember it
>would do 1280x1024 no prob.
Beige G3s also shipped with 2 MB stock, and can easily handle 1280x1024 if
the monitor can. VRAM primarily limits color depth, not so much resolution
or performance in 2D.
Regarding splitting VRAM, my venerable 8500 is pushing 2 monitors from its
piddly 4 MB of onboard VRAM as I type this (one at 1024x768), and there is
no loss of performance.
--
Phil Lefebvre
Chicago, IL
Remove GO from e-mail address to reply.
justin
As you can see, Sparky, there certainly have been Macs with far worse
video cards than the iBook that offered dual display, so a lack of VRAM
can't be the reason for removing that feature.
Christian Eisenacher
that depends on what you define no probs.
just some plain maths.
2MB VRAM = 2 * 1024 * 1024 * 8 = 16.777.216 bit.
with 1280x1024 resolution you got 1.310.720 pixel. that leaves you with
16.777.216 / 1.310.720 = 12,8 bit per pixel color resolution. that
results in 8 bit colors = 256 colors. The higher version (thousands of
colors) would just get some strange 1192x879 resolution or somthing...
i can't belive that someone finds 1280x1024x8 resolution that great, os
x even allows 256 colors, as far as i can observe.
some remarks:
this was very basic maths. it doesn't take into account some double
buffers for usabele speed, any ergonomic refresh rates, and no space for
the gaphics processor, just plain pixel counts. And in no way will 2 MB
Vram suffice for "high res. display on two monitors".
greetings
Christian
P.S.
What i consider no probs on my iBook here is: 1024x768x32 (Millions of
colors) with results in a need for 3MB VRAM...
Justin schrieb:
Christian Eisenacher
Christian
David Empson
> sorry had to be os x _doesn't_ seem to allow 256 colors
It doesn't let you choose it for normal operation, but programs can
switch to 256 colour mode (e.g. some games). The desktop ends up
looking pretty awful if you manage to switch back to it while in 256
colour mode.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Sparky
do myself. Note the double-buffering and all. It's not something you
want to do in Mac OS X and something you barely want to do in 9.
This will only get worse in the future as Quartz Ext. actually uses
OpenGL to draw the windows (the window is a texture on a plane) and will
use even MORE VRAM to do ANYTHING (hence the requirement for a graphics
card that rivals games). The iBooks just aren't going to do two
seperate displays (much less one if there's no sort of non-QE graphics
available in 10.2).
justin
just as capable.
Sparky
> Then how do the TiBooks with 8 Megs of VRAM do it, genius? The iBook is
> just as capable.
Easy, they don't do it well. Video speed is reduced on either the
external or both displays when in that mode.
Elliott Roper
<now...@hell.edu> wrote:
Have you checked this yourself?
I run non-mirrored dual display on Pismo 400MHz G3 (Rage 128 8MB- same
as iBook?) with OS X 10.1.5 all the time I'm not on the road, and
sometimes when I am.
It *does* do it well. There is no speed difference one monitor or two.
$teve does seem to be missing a trick with this. It impresses the hell
out of the assembled PC-ites when I casually do the cmd-F2 trick with a
borrowed projector. They might 'switch' sooner if every iBook user
could play too.
Elliott
justin
Clearly, you aren't going to be running OpenGL apps on one screen and
the iTunes visualizer on the other. But for normal operations like web
page viewing, word processing, Finder, email, etc. it works just fine
and doesn't slow down at all.
ELVIS2000
>
>And of course it's broken in software. What did you think they actually
>ordered custom crippled hardware from ATI? Why would they when it's far
>easier to use leftover TiBook chips and write ten lines of code?
Apple stuns me sometimes in how they cripple their hardware. Non dual
display iBooks -- and now 1X DVD burning in the 12" Powerbook. LOL.
AES/newspost
ELVIS2000 <el...@nyc.com> wrote:
>
> Apple stuns me sometimes in how they cripple their hardware. Non dual
> display iBooks -- and now 1X DVD burning in the 12" Powerbook. LOL.
I can't speak for Apple -- but I've argued before that Apple might have
limited the iBooks to built-in, automatic, no-option video mirroring as
the only option in part just to make the process of connecting to
external monitors and especially LCD projectors as simple as possible
for the primary intended iBook audience.
Back when i did a lot of traveling and presenting in multiple locations
using a PB G3 with its wider range of display options and settings, I
had endless problems getting connections to different projectors set up
and working. With the iBook, it's been plug and play every time.
--
"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton (1834-1902)
"Dependence on advertising tends to corrupt. Total dependence on
advertising corrupts totally." (today's equivalent)
Greg Weston
1x DVD burning remains the reality for the 15" PowerBook as well. 2x is
a perq for the 17".
G
ELVIS2000
<sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>I can't speak for Apple -- but I've argued before that Apple might have
>limited the iBooks to built-in, automatic, no-option video mirroring as
>the only option in part just to make the process of connecting to
>external monitors and especially LCD projectors as simple as possible
>for the primary intended iBook audience.
Then make it an option - turned off by default. Don't make excuses
for Apple.
ELVIS2000
<gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>1x DVD burning remains the reality for the 15" PowerBook as well. 2x is
>a perq for the 17".
But the 17" and the 12" use the same drive.
jw
Greg Weston
<el...@nyc.com> wrote:
No. What gave you that idea?
The drive in the 17" is 6/2/8/4/24 (DVD read, DVD write, CD write, CD
rewrite, CD read)
The drive in the 12" is 8/1/24/10/24.
The drive in the 15" is 6/1/8/4/24.
Note that the 12" has the best DVD read speed and the best CD recording
speeds, and the _only_ place the 17" beats the drive in either of the
other two models is DVD writing.
ELVIS2000
<gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>
>No. What gave you that idea?
>
Same drive. Crippled in the 12" BIOS. I've seen the Apple profiler
on each. Yay Apple!
Greg Weston
<el...@nyc.com> wrote:
Erm.
a) You've seen the System Profile reports on two machines which aren't
shipping?
b) Assuming that's true, you assert that what you saw was an accurate
representation of the shipping configuration and not a prototype or
demo model?
c) Having seen the ASP reports, did you also test the performance and
confirm that the 12" did, in fact, have a slower DVD write speed?
d) Apple crippled the DVD write speed for the 12" but crippled the CD
write speed for the 17"? If the _only_ difference was that the
SuperDrive in the 17" was a faster DVD writer, I _might_ believe it,
but why would they penalize the buyers of the high-end machine on a
much more common task?
ELVIS2000
<gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>a) You've seen the System Profile reports on two machines which aren't
>shipping?
Yes - at MacWorld.
>b) Assuming that's true, you assert that what you saw was an accurate
>representation of the shipping configuration and not a prototype or
>demo model?
Good point. Could be different when ships.
HomerSimpson
ELVIS2000 <el...@nyc.com> wrote:
Are family pets now part of the iBook audience. Yep, that will expand
market share.....