View Full Version : Bootable DVD-ROM for B&W? Rage 128 daughtercard?

Gary P
12-03-2003, 04:10 PM
In reference to this discussion, <http://forums.dealmac.com/read.html/f=1/i=1468342/t=1468334#reply_1468342>, I am still confused about whether I need the Video daughtercard for my OEM ATI Rage 128. XLR8 lists many fine choices for bootable DVD-ROM replacements for my OEM CD-ROM. Their info tended to suggest that I don't need the daughtercard to play DVDs, but is apparently in contradiction to Apple's KB info. BTW, possible drives include Lite-On 165H, Sony DDU1621, Panasonic SR-8588-C, and Toshiba SD M1612. Would anyone care to comment, esp. from personal experience?

http://forums.macgurus.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.macgurus.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.macgurus.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

12-03-2003, 06:46 PM
I'm pretty sure you will need the MPEG2 decoder daughter card to watch dvds with that video card. If you can get your hands on a Radeon 7000, that will play DVDs once you get a DVD-ROM drive. Sorry I cant help you with the drive it self though.

12-03-2003, 11:51 PM

O.k. is this for OS X or OS 9?

In OS X, you don't need the daughter card. The DVD Player's in OS X use software decoding. So even if you did have the daughter card it wouldn't be doing anything.

In OS 9, there are two versions of DVD Player, v1.x (v1.3 the latest version) and v2.x (v2.7 the latest). v1.x is for machines with the hardware decoder (the daughter card on the stock Rage). v2.x on the other hand uses software decoding, and I'm pretty sure was introduced with the AGP Macs, e.g. Sawtooth onward.

If you try to use v1.x w/o the daughter card, it won't work ('hardware not found'). If you try to install v2.x on your B/W, it will also fail with a 'hardware not found' message -- it's checking for that AGP slot I believe.

But all is not lost in 9.x. You can manually install DVD v2.x (with software decoding) and patch it to work in 9.x. So you won't necessarily need the hardware decoder. Info and patch you can find at ThinkDVD (http://web.tiscali.it/thinkdifferent/).

I've tried both. In 9.x hardware decoding is vastly superior to software decoding on a B/W. But OS X's software decoding is vastly superior to what you find with v2.x in OS 9. The OS X version of DVD Player (v3.x) w/SW decoding is pretty close to 9.x's v1.x w/HW decoding in my opinion. Although I should add that that last comparison takes into account that I'm using a Radeon7000 with the OS X version of DVD Player.

The downside of the hardware decoding on the stock Rage is this. In order to use it, the Rage has to be in the 66mhz slot. If you move it to any of the other 33mhz slots, the hardware decoder won't be found DVD Player v1.x.

Gary P
12-03-2003, 11:59 PM
I don't really want to invest in the Radeon unless it will give me improvements I can see and use. I mostly use Photoshop and Dreamweaver. Can't imagine the Radeon would make much difference here. But playing DVD movies? Would the Radeon help this? I am trying to minimize further investment in this aging system, and I can get a bootable DVD drive for $30 (Sony DDU1621C1).

12-04-2003, 01:06 AM

?I have a B&W that I did Photoshop work on, also with a G4 upgrade. I run a Radeon Mac Edition in it and let me tell you, the difference over the Rage128 is beyond compare. You will see a significant part of the graphics calculations being performed by the much faster Radeon card where with your Rage128 the CPU ends up doing most of the work.

The overall effect is one of a total system acceleration. I found it better than upgrading the cpu in actual performance increase. Other may disagree with other types of application usage than I, but for me it was a hands down winner. The 7000 is even faster than the Radeon Mac Edition in all but 3D gaming.

?As far as DreamWeaver goes, you wouldn't be able to accelerate Dreamweaver with a jet engine. I spend hours a day on DW and it doesn't need graphics accel nearly as much as storage acceleration. One of the most annoyingly slow programs in the world with the file and search routines spending so much time in disk access. Not much one can do about that except put up with it. All in all one of the best tools for site design there is, don't take my criticism as anything but annoyance.

Anyway, I would put a vote out that the Radeon is well worth the expense, especially since it is the only card capable of any Quartz Extreme graphics acceleration in the B&W.


Quis Custodiet Custodes Ipsos?

Gary P
12-04-2003, 01:51 AM

You have me sold on the video card upgrade. I didn't realize it would affect Photoshop.


12-04-2003, 03:00 AM
Rick said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The overall effect is one of a total system acceleration. I found it better than upgrading the cpu in actual performance increase.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have to agree completely with that. I dropped in an XLR8 G4/500 *before* dropping in the Radeon 7000. While the CPU upgraded helped with say startup and app launch times, I couldn't really see that much of difference -- with exception of say rendering times in FCP (which benefits from Altivec), which improved tremendously

But the video card on the other hand, really gave my rev. 1 B/W a kick in the pants in OS X. X is just so freaking heavy graphics-wise that the graphics card really helps (more so than in 9.x), even just working in the Finder.

I dropped my 7000 in around 10.1.3. While 10.3.x is overall faster than 10.1.x, no doubt a Radeon of some sort will make the OS X experience that much more enjoyable.

12-04-2003, 09:41 AM

?Radeon Mac Edition was probably the best gaming graphics card made. It was replaced by the Radeon 7000 which is faster at 2D manipulations, just what you want. Still, a lot of us miss the availability of the Mac Edition, it was/is the hot ticket for playing an old game of Dooom.......


Quis Custodiet Custodes Ipsos?