Jump to content

G5: 2K or 4k VidCard/Drivers for Tiger running OS9 Apps in emulation on a bazillion pixel screen?


Recommended Posts

Title pretty much asks it all, remote possibility? Hate to give up on the G4 before its time, but when you want more than WUXGA's 1980x1200, where ya gonna go?

 

Please tell me there's a VidCard/OS9 driver combo for the OS9/MDD special edition that'll do at least 1440p  .  .  .

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the PowerMac G5 will run video cards that have dual-link DVI output and so you can run Classic Mode applications on them at 2560x1440 and 2560x1600, possibly larger, but I don't think anybody has bothered testing that.

 

In emulation on newer hardware, you can probably get more pixels out of a booted OS 9 environment, but QEMU and the like do not have acceleration and so it probably won't be good for, like, graphics applications.

 

Because none of the hardware that can boot OS 9 or run properly when 9 is booted (i.e. most G5 graphics cards will run installed in a G4 but they only have OS X drivers) it's tough to find a reference for the maximum what Mac OS 9 can theoretically run. 

 

If anybody knows what the max emulation resolution is, it'll probably be @Danamania -- who I think has run OS 9 at its maximum possible resolution on a 27-inch 5k iMac. But, if I had to guess, it's not really usable at that size/res. You would need the 4k or 5k resolutions on a larger display for 100% pixels. In general, 4k resolution at 100% pixels results in a quite large display, roughly 43 inches. (Or at least that's what Dell sells, you could comfortably go slightly smaller.)

 

That said: Mac OS 9 in emulation has no acceleration, and, QEMU requires quite a lot of horsepower to run much faster than a high end G4. For reference, I have an i5-2400 that benches similarly to a G3/300 (in MacBench 4). Most high end x86 CPUs can now get ~3-4x the per-core CPU performance and so you might hope to get roughly G3/1200 performance out of the highest end available CPU today.

 

To be honest, the performance probably won't actually scale quite that way inside emulation, so you're still basically looking at performance slightly worse than a midrange da/qs/qs02, let alone one that has had like a 1.5GHz accelerator, or something like a Mac mini G4, which outruns high-frequency PowerMac G4 upgrades in MacBench. An MDD (esp. the 2x1.42 or a 2x1.67 upgraded model) would probably make up a lot of that difference as they've got faster buses, but not quite as fast as the mini.

 

A G5 will be better than that performance-wise, although part of that will depend on how well your software works in OS X. Lots of late-era OS 9 software is dual platform and if you have some that is (PS7, ID1/1.5/2, Illustrator 10, etc) you're going to be better off running it on OS X. OSX/PPC software works as late as 10.6 so you can basically run whatever the biggest monitor say, a 2011 mac mini (unofficially but IME it works) or a 2010 mac pro will support, which, should be a bit bigger.

 

This might be a situation where moving to some newer software will ease up on your problems significantly, if being limited to 1920x1200 is a severe problem in some way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more note: On VGA, you might be able to get 2048x1536, but it's tough to say whether or not any larger displays will support that or any widescreen resolutions. Finding a 2048x1536 display that's in good condition and usable will also be a challenge. High end CRTs are in extremely hot demand and you'll pay hundreds, perhaps even more than for a good new 2560x1440/27-inch display to get one out of the hands of someone who wants to run DOS games at 640x480 on something large.

 

There was a thread where we discussed the possibility of large analog displays, and, 1920x1440 displays was a thing that existed, but I don't know if any 27-inch or so displays will accept that.

 

I keep meaning to hook my QS02 up to my Dell U2711 to see what'll happen but I haven't had time.

 

Plus, if you do that you'll lose out on the other benefits of digital connectivity to LCDs, so, it depends on what specifically you want to do. (i.e. graphics might be better left to smaller displays where you can run at 100% pixels.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking toward a future display that'll have enough versatility and a way to run my Graphics Suite from the day on it. ISTR seeing a 1440p display that had a VGA port, but like some others it didn't support 1920x1200 some only have newfangled connections like DisplayPort and DVI dual-link. I wonder if they'll do 1920x1200 on a single DVI line?

 

Dell_U2713H_Resolutions.thumb.JPG.f6d2ed1a23b088810161c81febe649f1.JPG

 

I've been looking at a lot of tables like this, some are very limited. Wait and see time for now I guess.

 

My object oriented graphics work doesn't really require much in the way of acceleration. AI9 will likely be fine running in Classic on G5/Tiger if I want gobs of pixels. Still not looking into X other than as a Classic workaround for using a higher res main display on my primary workstation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 68kMLA Supporter
On 3/14/2021 at 6:49 PM, Cory5412 said:

If anybody knows what the max emulation resolution is, it'll probably be @Danamania -- who I think has run OS 9 at its maximum possible resolution on a 27-inch 5k iMac.

I do have a screenshot here *somewhere* of sheepshaver happily running 8.6 in just under 4k res. Something weird like 3790 pixels wide, or maybe 3970. I think I needed to put the iMac into 5K native resolution to do it, too. (Preferences->Displays->Display->option click Scaled->Select 5120x2880). It was a while back, memory is fuzzy.

 

Everything worked pleasantly except for old apps meant for system 6 or earlier. Their menus went really screwy and were smeared across the top of the screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, maniac, that may well put OS9/Classic Mode on a 2560x 1440 display at its native resolution? Did you try Illustrator on that setup? If so, was there an objectionable performance hit for AI9 in emulation? I hadn't thought to run my apps in that environment. Thanks for that notion, yet another concept to ponder.

 

1440p in vertical more triples the extra 120 pixels I'm running over 1080 now. That's more important to me than the 1440 gain in the horizontal.

 

Crazy, caffeine deprived morning mode has me thinking it might be worth waiting for the right 4K display to hit the used market or drop to less than stratospheric NIB prices? 4K segmenting four 1080p inputs hooked up to a pair of 1080p dual head cards in the G4/OS9 environment might result in a contiguous desktop?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

? 4K segmenting four 1080p inputs hooked up to a pair of 1080p dual head cards in the G4/OS9 environment might result in a contiguous desktop?

 

This monitor can do that: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Monitor-43-Multi-Client-P4317Q/dp/B01F80FSKS

 

I don't, off the top of my head, know if there are any of these that are more affordable, but this is a fairly specialist type of market. These go into operations/dispatch centers and the like in lieu of setting up multiple displays on stands.

 

It's possible to use it both ways, with four computers as separate inputs or one computer using the whole space.

 

If you used four single-link DVI/HDMI it should show up to one computer as four individual monitors so the utility of that is basically down to how well, say, Mac OS 9 handles displays in that orientation.

 

A G5 or emulating Mac OS 9 would of course be cheaper, but probably less performant overall. 

 

The other thing you might be able to do with 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 displays (especially business oriented ones like Dell UltraSharps and P-series) if you need more vertical space (like if you want to view a Letter-sized page at 150 or 200% pixels) you can just rotate one of those displays. Mac OS 9 should be able to do 1200x1920, although you may need to use a third party utility like SwitchRes to convince it of that fact.

 

And, 1920 is much taller than 1440.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 68kMLA Supporter

Not sure if this point is useful, but the RasterOps Paintboard Turbo XL I've been playing with in my Quadra will allow me to create a 4000x3000 virtual desktop. The card is only capable of sending 1152x870 to the display, but the scrollable Mac OS desktop is effectively 4000x3000, which should mean a better RAMDAC/VRAM setup could theoretically display it all simultaneously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2021 at 4:57 PM, Cory5412 said:

This monitor can do that: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Monitor-43-Multi-Client-P4317Q/dp/B01F80FSKS

 

I don't, off the top of my head, know if there are any of these that are more affordable, but this is a fairly specialist type of market. These go into operations/dispatch centers and the like in lieu of setting up multiple displays on stands.

 

It's possible to use it both ways, with four computers as separate inputs or one computer using the whole space.

 

Yep, thanks Cory, that's the ticket and exactly what I meant by Stratospheric pricing. When those babies come down to earth NIB a/o hit the used market, I think it'll have been worth waiting to hook one up to a pair of Dual Head cards in the MDD if I even get it set up by that time. We'll see how things works out for a somewhat specialized panel. Don't financial jockeys use these things too? This years $1600 display is the $400 display of two years out.  :approve:

 

Given four Extron Scalers you could put feeds from four collectors items on that puppy at once. :grin:

 

QuickDraw Acceleration isn't all it's made out to be, there are distinct limitations. Once you use the hand tool in AI to tool around a page as opposed to the scroll bars, all is lost. I don't care to go out of my way to retain acceleration at the cost of working freedom. Other acceleration for bitmap graphics or games is lost on me, don't do that stuff. I love my little AI9 in OS9 bubble for the Graphics I want to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

I don't care to go out of my way to retain acceleration at the cost of working freedom. Other acceleration for bitmap graphics or games is lost on me, don't do that stuff. I love my little AI9 in OS9 bubble for the Graphics I want to do.

 

Happy that that helped.

 

Though, I can't help but think of the logistical convenience you'll get from moving to Illustrator 10, which can run in 9 and 10 and on Mac OS X up to 10.6 on Intel hardware.

 

That said, I don't know how cross-compatible Illustrator 9 and 10 are. I know graphics software is often poor on that front and you already have a large installed base of 9.

 

W/re Classic mode: You'll get some acceleration and as long as you're not doing too much classic mode doesn't like, a G5 with classic mode would be fine. Those'll run 2560x1440 and 2560x1600 displays -- so a G4 or G5 with OS X might be worth considering if that's enough. 2560x1440 displays, even new, even nice ones, are quite affordable at this point and most still have DVI Dual Link. (Though you'll want to check for that in particular on these kinds of displays, HDMI to DVI conversions won't do in this case.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You beat me to it!

 

On 3/14/2021 at 4:57 PM, Cory5412 said:

1920x1200 displays (especially business oriented ones like Dell UltraSharps and P-series) if you need more vertical space (like if you want to view a Letter-sized page at 150 or 200% pixels) you can just rotate one of those displays. Mac OS 9 should be able to do 1200x1920, although you may need to use a third party utility like SwitchRes to convince it of that fact.

 

Had a 27" 1920x1200 UltraSharp die on me, so I'm back to that resolution on a 24" HP. Hadn't thought of using 1080p Portrait in OS9, I'll have to look into that. Card in the QS drives a pair of WUXGA screens. Those extra 120 rows of pixels are a big deal to me. I can't abide losing them to what should be a Wide screen TV format, not a computer display 1600x1200 is more useful as far as I'm concerned.

 

Looking into 1440p at some point, one day I'll break down and snag a CheezyGrater, but not anytime too soon. I'mglad they all boot Tiger/9. Though one of those flashed cards might be worth dredging the bottom of the 'Bay beforehand?

 

edit: forgot to say I've got AI10 kicking around here somewhere, but I stayed with AI8 for speed on the DA/466. I just bought the upgrades whenever offered. Now I'm in AI9 running on one the 1GHz QS'02's two cylinders. :blink:

Edited by Trash80toHP_Mini
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 7:47 AM, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

I can't abide losing them to what should be a Wide screen TV format, not a computer display 1600x1200 is more useful as far as I'm concerned.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Why the heck are there no modern monitors with anything but a 16:9 or 16:10 aspect? I'd kill for a modern 5:4. A 27inch 2560x2048 panel would be sublime. Last year I switched from using a 30" Cinema HD alongside a 20" Cinema to two modern 1440p LGs and there are still days where I find myself hankering for those extra 120 pixels. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 68kMLA Supporter
On 3/15/2021 at 5:55 PM, jeremywork said:

Not sure if this point is useful, but the RasterOps Paintboard Turbo XL I've been playing with in my Quadra will allow me to create a 4000x3000 virtual desktop. The card is only capable of sending 1152x870 to the display, but the scrollable Mac OS desktop is effectively 4000x3000, which should mean a better RAMDAC/VRAM setup could theoretically display it all simultaneously.

 

3328x2496.thumb.png.cba8fa42b6260dbe2ddd73fd07db2bb0.png

 

Only 2-bit color at that resolution, though that’s already almost as much VRAM as I have RAM in the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was wondering how well tiling 4x1080p for a seamless desktop might work out on that $1,600 4K screen. Took a look around Amazon for stacking a quartet of 1080p screens for a budget version that's deliberately imperfect. Came up with what might be a workable solution for .5 bazillion pixels in the short term that wouldn't dwarf my workstation or sink my budget.

_____________________________________________________________________________

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |                                             ||                                             | |

| |____________________________________||____________________________________| |

 

A pair of "frameless" 1080p Displays butted up head to head in portrait mode yields a 2160x1920 desktop with a somewhat annoying and a bit disjointed mullion running down the middle. It would hit about a $300 price tag and run off the card I've already got in the QS'02 under OS9. I could probably get used to working on such a setup?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 9:20 AM, sfiera said:

 

3328x2496.thumb.png.cba8fa42b6260dbe2ddd73fd07db2bb0.png

 

Only 2-bit color at that resolution, though that’s already almost as much VRAM as I have RAM in the system.

The UI is comically tiny at that resolution!!

 

c

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the virtual desktop(?) will ever make a return. Imagine pulling around a massive CAD drawing or artwork free of screen redraws. The 4K window into the page could be as small ss that "About this Macintosh" window. Probably not necessary given screen updates of current graphics tech, but it might be a way to explore a 3D world without any disorientation at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtual desktop now commonly refers to virtual workspace switching, which X11 had during the '90s and then Mac OS got with 10.5 and Windows got in Windows 10. If I had to guess, desktop panning will never come back. 

 

Modern graphics software doesn't have much trouble w/re file redrawing as you pan around a graphics file that is itself larger than your viewport or display is, stemming both from better use of the hardware and from software having gotten better.

 

Faster computers with more memory and software ultimately taking advantage of 64 bit and faster storage subsystems help on this front as well. Though, we're talking about slightly more movement forward than just to Illustrator 10 to really take advantage of that.  (Though it wouldn't surprise me if Illustrator 10 on OS X is meaningfully better, performance-wise, than Illustrator 9 on OS 9 is, even on the same hardware.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might could be, but the only thing that'll get me into Tiger/Classic will be Final Cut Studio and I haven't gotten around to loading, much less playing with Final Cut Pro in OS9. I've finally found a 27" 1440p Panel that supports 1920x1200. It's more than I'd like to spend, but it'll dangle my toes in the deep end of the pixel pool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...