# Disable Live resizing



## mikejuni (Nov 11, 2001)

Anyone knows how to disable the live resizing in Mac OS X. I'd rather see a
smooth outline resizing then a sloggy live resizing.


----------



## dillerX (Nov 11, 2001)

Get a better graphics card.  I just bought a ATI Radeon AGP 32MB.  Absolutely no problem with live resizing.


----------



## alexachucarro (Nov 11, 2001)

Get a better Mac too. I got the GeForce 3 and i have no problems. What with my 64Mb of DDRRAM, and 867MHz G4 CPU?!!!

No, I have your sympathy. There are quite a few little things Apple have thrown into Aqua that some don't want duw to older systems. But try posting a request in the more tech parts of this forum.

Happy hunting.


----------



## themacko (Nov 11, 2001)

getting a better video card isn't a solution ...

I'm interested in how to do this also.


----------



## simX (Nov 11, 2001)

I don't know about what you guys did, but I don't think that getting a better graphics card will help with live resizing.  The reason is that Mac OS X does NOT offload any of the calculations to the graphics card.. the CPU handles it all... I think they are working on tha for Mac OS X 10.2.

So please tell me, did you guys REALLY see a performance boost when you got a new graphics card, or did you just get a new graphics card with a new computer? If you got it with a new computer, chances are its the faster processor, more cache, and faster system bus that made live resizing faster.

Also, I'd like to know how to disable live resizing too, just for knowledge purposes.  And as the last poster said, getting a new graphics card isn't the solution, because some of us don't have the money to spend on it.


----------



## sheepguy42 (Nov 11, 2001)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *I don't know about what you guys did, but I don't think that getting a better graphics card will help with live resizing.  The reason is that Mac OS X does NOT offload any of the calculations to the graphics card.. the CPU handles it all... I think they are working on tha for Mac OS X 10.2.*


I don't know _what_ you're talking about. I saw an *INCREDIBLE* boost in performance graphics-wise, going from 10.0.4 to 10.1. The fact is, there are now native drivers for most, if not all, of the graphics cards that came w/ G3/G4 machines. Granted, some drivers are better than others (GeForce 2/3 esp. better!) but many of the calcs (from what I've read) _are_ offloaded, that was one of the technical highlights of the upgrade to 10.1.


----------



## Dradts (Nov 12, 2001)

actually, I don't know y everybody should buy a new graphics card just to have acceptable window rezising speeds. 
An option to switch between live and border resizing would also fix that problem, and b a lot cheaper though.
Besides, iMac users can't upgrade to a new graphics card...


----------



## sebastiant (Nov 12, 2001)

Yes, let us custumize more. Not just what theme to use, wether or not to use aqua is more what im interested in since im on a iMac rev with 160 mb RAM.
I couldnt use 10.0.4. I cant use 10.1. It is just to slow. I guess all of you with nice G4:s are having really fun with the new nice OS. What about us with the old iMacs?
Apple hold 5% of the "computer market", right? I think it would be good if Apple tried to please at least the whole 5%.
Two thumbs down.


----------



## alexachucarro (Nov 12, 2001)

I was actually joking about the new Mac and GPU. I was taking the piss out of dillerx. In my opinion, it's ludicrous to ask someone to buy a new computer just to get a quicker finder.

The ? and 3 ! were a clue that I was being ironic and quirky. Sorry I'm english. I'll be a little more careful with my humour for my American cousins.

I am very aware that teh CPU takes control of everything but FPU intenscive calculations, ie games, 3d apps, etc. Anyway. My advice for mikejuni, is get more RAM if you can, but also wait for 10.2 and further releases as they (Apple) will get better.


----------



## genghiscohen (Nov 12, 2001)

sebastiant,
Try putting more RAM in your iMac.  That will give you significantly better performance.
I have a non-DV slot-loading iMac, 350Mhz G3 chip.  When I installed OS X back in March, I had 128MB of RAM. Within weeks, I upgraded to 320MB.  BIG improvement in speed and stability!  And a little while back, I couldn't resist adding a 512MB stick that was selling for $52, so now I have a total of 768MB of RAM on board.


----------



## pbrice (Nov 12, 2001)

As far as I know, there is no way to disable live window resizing.  In fact, I am almost positive that Cocoa applications can ONLY have live window resizing because that is how the window object code is set up for Cocoa from the start (and this goes back to NeXT, which had lie window resizing way back when).

I really haven't seen how bad your resizing is, but I have little problem with mine.  Certainly, it is application dependent, but the window is just a split second behind my cursor in any given situation.  It is such a minuscule amount of time that when I resize, that i just click and drag to the spot I want and by the time I am actually ready to let go, the window has caught up with my cursor.  

To be honest,  I really see no difference to the lag in OS 9<'s outline model.  As you drag, you see an outline, but it doesn't actually draw the window until you let go, so often I am forced to resize and resize again because I don't know what the window will actually look like until I let go.  With OS X, I can see the window's contents as I drag, and it is only just tenths of a second behind my adjustments.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.


----------



## kcmac (Nov 12, 2001)

iCab doesn't use live resizing. It works like OS 9.


----------



## Snyper M (Nov 12, 2001)

Yeah just to add ot that note about programs using outline resizing..The crappy beat of AIm we've bene stuck with for sometime now (God dammit we need an update )  uses outlines for resizing it's windows..though truthfully it takes a whiel for it to redraw once you do resize.  I'm sure that that's merely a function of the code being untouched for several months now...


----------



## mikejuni (Nov 13, 2001)

I have already have a new iBook with 640Mb RAM.

How can I replace a graphic card? A joke.
Stop replying useless suggestions. Don't tell me to improve my hardware in order to make resizing a little less sloppy.

Now I know that this feature don't exists. Maybe I'll tell Apple
to implement this in the near future.

By the way, I fully supports Mac OS X. I am previously a PC owner (4 machines). But now I am using OSX all day long. It is really a
developer/designer's dream OS in a very good hardware.

Keep going Apple!!!


----------



## swizcore (Nov 13, 2001)

> _Originally posted by mikejuni _
> *...
> Stop replying useless suggestions. Don't tell me to improve my hardware in order to make resizing a little less sloppy.
> 
> ...*



Simmer brother... We're all just playing around a little. We always joke with eachother and solutions and helpful hiints always result after the pokes and giggles.


----------



## Dradts (Nov 13, 2001)

Outline resizing only works for carbon/classic applications (except ie, which uses its own functions for live resizing; thats y it is so slow there i guess  )

Cocoa apps all use live window resizing. But I think it should b possible to make outline resizing available for cocoa apps, too.


----------



## simX (Nov 13, 2001)

> _Originally posted by sheepguy42 _
> *
> I don't know what you're talking about. I saw an INCREDIBLE boost in performance graphics-wise, going from 10.0.4 to 10.1. The fact is, there are now native drivers for most, if not all, of the graphics cards that came w/ G3/G4 machines. Granted, some drivers are better than others (GeForce 2/3 esp. better!) but many of the calcs (from what I've read) are offloaded, that was one of the technical highlights of the upgrade to 10.1. *



Did you not listen to what I said?  I said upgrading your GRAPHICS CARD will not improve live resizing.  Upgrading the OPERATING SYSTEM will, obviously, improve live resizing -- but only because of major * optimization *, not offloading to the GPU -- if you go to www.apple.com/macosx/newversion , it says stuff about optimization, not offloading to the GPU.  That was my point.  So whether the post about getting a new GPU was meant to be a joke or not, it still wouldn't have helped, so the joke is dumb anyway.


----------



## sebastiant (Nov 13, 2001)

genghiscohen: 
I promise you. I cant afford to add more RAM (or anything) to my mac.

Seriously, what is Apple thinking? 
Of course... They run the company they got all the facts and they know what is best. But this just feels very stupid. 
If you look at their website, apple.com/macosx, they write alot about how fantastic and just plain perfect Mac OS X is. But what they forgot to say is that if your computer is not new enough, it will annoy the shit out of you, cause it feels really sluggish and everything that you normally gets done in a second you now get to wait 30 seconds for. 
Let us get rid of all the fancy stuff. All that doesnt mather. All that will, if turned off,  speed up your system.


----------



## Krevinek (Nov 13, 2001)

What machine do you have where you cannot afford 30$ to put a 256MB DIMM in that thing? I added 256MB to get 352MB into my 8600 and MacOS X 10.0.4 was much more acceptable to me, and 10.1 is pretty good. I think some people have to get over the fact that X will NEVER be as fast as 9. All that fancy stuff doesn't even really have an impact on speed (most of the time, the shrinking effects/etc. do have a good impact on speed).

Since X is pre-emptively multitasked, there is NO WAY for an app to hog 100% of the CPU. This leads to the fact of it feeling a little more sluggish than before, especially when you have quite a few processes actively running.

Now on the topic of stuff being unloaded onto the GPU I can say this: YES IT IS! I am currently writing Voodoo drivers for X and I can say that if you EVER BOTHER to look at the source for Darwin, there is quite a bit of stuff being unloaded. However, there are certain things that cannot be unloaded EASILY. One of these is live resizing. This is because the GPU needs the pixels for the newly uncovered regions. This means MacOS X has to call the app to get the pixels, and the pass those pixels to the GPU. This takes time, and with all these high-res monitors, it REALLY chugs time. Pixel pushing usually takes 50% of any graphics operation, and live resizing requires a lot of it. Window moving is easier since you can push the revealed pixels onto the card, and have the card blit the window to the new location (screen->screen blits take only the time required to tell the card the operation) rather than push a whole new window pixmap onto the card.

I have run Linux with V3 acceleration in XWin, and have the sluggishness with live resizing that every other iMac user complains about. Everything else is okay but live resizing. The sluggishness IS NOT NEW.

Heck, the GForce 3, and the Rage Pro series of cards finally got ANY SORT OF 2D/3D acceleration support in 10.1 and there are still are non-ATi/NVidia cards that don't have driver support.

The only reason why G4 users get good resizing is because of the fact that vector units like Altivec make live resizing a more realistic possibility. Linux on a PC with MMX or any other vector unit gets decent live resizing, but since G3s and earlier don't have a vector unit, it is difficult to push so many pixels around.

No offense to anyone, just clearing the smoke.


----------



## jamall (Nov 13, 2001)

Krevinek,
I'm running an 8600 with a G3 upgrade card. What other tips do you have for improving performance, because I find it unbearably slow compared to my G4 under 10.1. Thanks


----------



## Krevinek (Nov 14, 2001)

Can't help you there. The system bus on the 8600 is so limited compared to the G4 systems available it isn't even funny, and that appears to be the big data crunch right there on older systems. You can tweak everything else all you like, but if the system bus clogs with data, there isn't anything else to do. The reason why CVGS doesn't work on pre-iMacs without speed degredation in 3D is because the software rendering clogs the 50Mhz bus on older machines. Had they actually taken advantage of OpenGL or something, performance would have allowed the 603/604-based machines to properly use it due to the smaller bus bandwidth requirements.


----------



## jackshedd (Nov 14, 2001)

First, and foremost, get a second external SCSI HD for your swap files, and follow one of the many tutorials floating about the net. Use TinkerTool to turn off Anti-Aliasing of fonts, use Welch's hack for window buffers, and then up your ram to the 8600's max.

Then, you might be able to stand it.


----------



## Krevinek (Nov 14, 2001)

Upping an 8600 to the maximum RAM is rather expensive compared to newer models, since a single 128MB DIMM for the PowerSurge models still costs 30$ at OWC. 8 of these wind up being 240$. I personally would just kick it up to 384MB or so. I have 352MB and I swap once in a blue moon with 10-20 apps running.

On the topic of getting an external HD, bull. Sure you will be on another bus, but that bus is slow and barely keeps up with 8x CD burning. If you are really craving/needing an external HD and have USB/Firewire, get something nice like APS USB/Firewire drive. It has ports for both, is priced fairly, and can be used with any new machine you buy later on.

The most significant impact will be RAM, TinkerTool and the Window Buffer feature. The external HD is overdoing it, and is way too expensive to get something along the lines of a 5-10% boost you won't ever see on older machines. Why? It will all be to improve VM speed, and I can say that 10.1 takes up 100% of an 8600s CPU regularly without a single swapout, especially if you are dragging windows, switching apps, etc. iTunes takes 35-40% of the CPU and makes everything feel slower while playing as well.

For the most part, the sluggishness is due to the system bus as I said. A 50Mhz bus doesn't cut it for a data-bandwidth intensive OS design.


----------

