Lightwave 64

[Beamtracer]

Lightwave has generally had pretty much feature parity between the Mac and Windows version (give or take some old plug-ins).

However, it is becoming apparent that there is one major feature that must be added to the Mac version of Lightwave 8 but not the Windows version...

64-bit

It is absolutely essential for Lightwave 8 on OS X to be optimized for the G5 and running in 64-bit mode. A certain competitor has already been demoing their 64-bit product on the G5, and I believe Newtek must match this.

Windows users are hoping the AMD Opteron processor will provide them with a viable 64-bit platform. However, Microsoft has not released a version of Windows for this processor, so the Opteron can only run Windows applications in its legacy 32-bit mode.

Some time next year it is predicted that Microsoft may release a 64-bit version of Windows for the Opteron. One thing for sure is it won't be out this year, and it won't be out at the time Lightwave 8 is released.

When Lightwave 8 is released, there will only be one viable 64-bit platform for running Lightwave... the Apple G5. Windows users will have to be left behind. Possibly a later revision of Lightwave (8b ?) could be updated to 64-bit for Windows users, if their operating system is released.

Microsoft generally runs late with operating system releases. There is nothing that we or Newtek can do about this. However platform unity should not prevent features coming to the Mac.

I'm sure that behind the scenes, Newtek is already hard at work putting the final touches on a 64-bit Lightwave for the Mac. Hopefully Lightwave 8 will be the first 64-bit 3D program to be released for the Mac. There is no doubt that '64-bit' will be a vital feature to market the product to Mac users and to retain market share.

As Mac users, we have missed out on some previous Newtek promotions, like the BOXX promotion, or the DXF+ promotion. However, Mac users are eagerly awaiting something just around the corner that is much much better...

64-bit Lightwave 8 for the G5.

[mlinde]

So I guess everyone who owns a G3 or G4 should just go buy a new machine? I'm not saying there shouldn't be some method to allow Lightwave 8 to access the extended memory in the G5, but if you make 8 a 64-bit application it will cease to work for the rest of us.

You buying everyone new G5s Beam?

[Beamtracer]

Don't worry. Newtek could produce a version of Lightwave that works on 32-bit OS X and 64-bit OS X.

It's only the Windows users who will miss out.

[paintboy]

I want one too! thanks beamtracer!!!! man i can't wait...what a guy!!!
;)

[Beamtracer]

Is it my shout?

[luka]

Look at photoshop it has a plug-in for the G5, when PS8 gets released it will be G5 optimised across the board and still compatable with G4

Have a read of this
G5 Optimisation (http://developer.apple.com/performance/g5optimization.html)

[Gui Lo]

This is a great time for real competition between all platforms.

In the recent past the Mac has suffered from aged h/w even upon release. So I think one of the major advantages of the G5 Mac is that it will keep increasing in speed/'value' as s/w gets optimised and ram is added plus the OS going to 64bit. This allows a true investment in leading computer h/w rather than the 'latest' Mac.

I guess/hope a lot of studios are looking at the G5.

I think this is what will inspire NewTek to optimise LW.

Gui Lo

[Ade]

Beam there was or still is a version of Lightwave for SGI, now wasnt this itself 64-bit? Running on irix which is 64bit?

[Beamtracer]

In the old Newtek forums there's an interesting quote from Arnie Cachelin, who at the time worked for Newtek on the development of Lightwave:

Originally posted by Arnie Cachelin on December 30, 2002
NewTek actually showed a 64-bit LW 6 running in Itanium machines a couple years ago, when people thought there would be a 64-bit OS as well as hardware available. The fact that the codebase is "64-bit clean" means that if a market for Win64 applications somehow emerged, a version of LW for it would be ready. http://forums.newtek.com/discus/messages/2/36813.html (http://forums.newtek.com/discus/messages/2/36813.html)

To put it in context, the quote was made in the Lightwave Windows forum, in response to a Windows question. Hence the reference to Win64 rather than the Mac.

For those not familiar, Itanium is a 64-bit processor made by Intel. At the time of that quote it was obvious that the Itanium processor was a flop. Now a year later, the Itanium processor is still a flop, as it is too expensive for the desktop, and can't natively run older 32-bit applications.

It is interesting to note that the Lightwave codebase is already "64-bit clean", making it easier for a 64-bit version to be created for Mac OS X and the G5.

[Ade]

I believe it will be a race to 64-bit.

Maya VS Lightwave
(maya has a head start from*nix versions?).

I have my money on Lightwave as they are more healthy and lively.
The proof of this is they were the first to carbonise then optimise for G4.

Id love to see when LW8 is released it takes the main Apple.com page and brags all about its g5 efficiency and stuff.

[tumblemonster]

I would too, but I doubt it will happen. It's no accident that Maya always gets Apple's attention, there's a deal in place there. It would take some serious sweet talking to get Apple to endorse another 3d app openly. Personally, I think Lightwave is a better app. I was an early adopter of Maya on OS X. It was buggy as hell. I dropped it for more reasons than that, and I'm sure they've made improvements. But notice there is still no unlimited version of Maya for Mac. The Unlimited features are often the ones that get the most attention in the Maya world. Without them, the feature set is still good, but not worth the money compared to Lightwave.

A 64 bit Lightwave would deffinately be icing on the LW8 cake, especially since I'm buying a Dual 2ghz G5 in January. And it would probably help Newteks case with Apple. It would deffinately help their case with the Mac users, and we're the ones who count. The question is, what does Newtek think? Their secrecy is better and more zealous than Apples! Maybe I'll start Lightwaverumors.com...

-tm

[luka]

well i looks like intel isn't going to be in hurry for 64Bit. I wonder if that will impact on the mac

The full story here
"In terms of the general market need, you don't need it for several more years," Gelsinger said. (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1269039,00.asp)

[Beamtracer]

Originally posted by luka
well i looks like intel isn't going to be in hurry for 64Bit. I wonder if that will impact on the mac
The lack of a 64-bit Windows for the desktop shouldn't impact the Mac, unless software companies want to keep feature parity between platforms, and delay going 64-bit for the Mac until the Windows world catches up. I don't think that'll happen, though.

Mac users probably benefit from Lightwave formally being available for other 64-bit processors. The Digital Alpha processor is one high-end chip that comes to mind. This would be the reason that the Lightwave code was kept "64-bit clean" long before 64-bit processors arrived in consumer systems.

We know that there will be no 64-bit desktop version of Microsoft Windows at the time Lightwave 8 is released. It's not going to happen. Windows users have been let down by Microsoft, and will be left behind in the 32-bit world for a while longer.

The Apple G5 (IBM-970) is now the biggest selling 64-bit processor of all time, selling multiples more 64-bit processors than Intel and AMD combined.

If you read these threads you'll notice that Lightwave users are already taking delivery of their G5 systems, and many more have them on order.

The market for Lightwave 64 is here now. People want it now.

[Gui Lo]

"In terms of the general market need, you don't need it for several more years," Gelsinger said.

I guess he is right for the vast majority of Intels users. Graphics and 3d in particular must be a very small percentage.

Even now the G5 is not fully utilized and it will probably be a few years before most G5 owners even begin to push it to 50% capacity.

Even by then if Apple and AMD raise their market share as expected Intel can(and most likely are) developing something that competes. They will continue to talk down 64 bit until they are ready and people will listen.

Gui Lo

[jin choung]

yeah,

if newtek really wants to get back in black, they should devote a lot of resources developing mac specific features! yeah, that's a sound strategy.

pffffft....

couldn't resist since beam's basic argument is screw opteron/athlon64... albeit he does qualify it with - 'for now'. it's a foregone conclusion that it's inferior, undesirable and unlikely! (!!!) windows 'MAY' release a 64bit version of winxp?!

hahaha.... well if we're gonna be biased, it's refreshing to see such bald faced, gloves off biasedness.

jin

[Beamtracer]

Hi Jin,

My basic argument isn't "screw opteron/athlon64". AMD is the underdog, and I've said in other threads I hope they do well against the much larger Intel.

I see AMD as being all dressed up with nowhere to go. A potentially good processor without a mainstream OS, at least not so far.

Microsoft "may" get their 64-bit Windows (for AMD) out the door in the 2004 time frame. Whatever... it won't be here in time for the release of Lightwave 8.

AMD will not have a viable platform for running a 64-bit Lightwave at the time when Lightwave 8 is released. Anyone dispute that?

Originally posted by jin choung
yeah,

if newtek really wants to get back in black, they should devote a lot of resources developing mac specific features! yeah, that's a sound strategy.

pffffft.... Do I detect a hint of sarcasm or bias here?

So what's Newtek going to do? We have a viable 64-bit platform, the G5, on the market now. Lightwave users are purchasing these machines. Do you think that Mac users should wait around for Microsoft to catch up?

[js33]

It only takes a 15 minute recompile, right?
So what are they waiting for. :D

Cheers,
JS

[Gui Lo]

Hi Beamtracer

It is still too early to call the G5 a viable platform for a developer. They are still only a small section of the Mac community.

The Mac is taking the very first steps of a transitional stage that could take years to become truly viable.

Apple themselves have not released a 64bit OS so they can not see 100,000+ units as a viable number. Surely any developer must take the lead from the designer/producer?

Gui Lo

[Beamtracer]

Hi Gui Lo,

I must disagree there. 100,000 G5 units sold, but in how much time? It's only just been released. The things are selling like hotcakes!

Lots of people are saying that the Panther OS is not 64-bit. This is not true. It's a hybrid 32-64-bit OS. Panther supports 64-bit addressing. Each application can use the full 8 gigs of RAM. This is a feature that no pure 32-bit operating system can do.

The migration to 64-bit systems may be a transition that'll take many years. However, Apple's world is full of graphics professionals, the very people who will be first to demand a 64-bit system.

Because the G5 is a hybrid system, simple office applications will probably remain 32-bit for some time. However, people will demand that complex graphics applications (ie Lightwave 3D) migrate to 64-bit now. People are now buying computers with 8 gigs of RAM, and only 64-bit applications will be able to access all of it at once.

And if that wasn't enough reason, the competition is already demonstrating theirs. Yes, they claimed they recompiled it in less than an hour, which was rather amusing.

[Gui Lo]

I think that's a bit confusing.

In Steve Jobs own words apps can run native now or be recompiled to get that "Little bit more".
How much benefit will we see if apps go to 64bit?

I am seriously thinking of either getting one of these machines or the new PowerBooks. Personally I would rather see all NewTeks efforts concentrated on bringing parity between the Mac and Pc platforms.

Gui Lo

[Beamtracer]

Originally posted by Gui Lo

How much benefit will we see if apps go to 64bit?
•The G5 ships with up to 8 gigabytes of RAM. 64-bit apps will be able to access it all at once. 32-bit apps won't.

•Data gets shunted around in larger blocks. For apps that do calculations using large numbers, this may mean that they run faster.

•Larger files can be accessed from RAM rather than the hard disk.

I think there are two areas where changes can be made to applications. First, to make them 64-bit compatible. Second, to optimize them for extra speed on the G5.

What are G5 owners going to do if they deck their machines out with lots of RAM, but then can't access all that RAM because the application is 32-bit?

Originally posted by Gui Lo

Personally I would rather see all NewTeks efforts concentrated on bringing parity between the Mac and Pc platforms. Would you really like to see Lightwave stay 32-bit, just because Windows users don't have a viable 64-bit system yet?

[Gui Lo]

Hi Beamtracer,
Sorry, I'm even more confused now!

You say the Panther is a hybrid system and can access all 8gig of ram, yet you also say "The G5 ships with up to 8 gigabytes of RAM. 64-bit apps will be able to access it all at once. 32-bit apps won't."

Surely it is that only a 64bit OS can access it all whereas a 32bit OS could not?

Would you really like to see Lightwave stay 32-bit, just because Windows users don't have a viable 64-bit system yet?
I would like to see parity between Lw on Mac and LW on PC so I can go and buy a Mac.

You see, the advantage to me in simple speed terms of getting a G5 would be so huge that LW going 64bit wouldn't really be noticed. It would be like the difference between incredibly, amazingly fast and incredibly, amazingly faster. To reduce my renders from tens of minutes to a few seconds would blow me away.
Then to say you can shave off a few more seconds! Sorry but then it starts to get a bit weird.

Gui Lo

[robewil]

Why do I get the feeling that this thread isn't really about Lightwave? From the tone here, as well in all these other "64 bit Macintosh" threads, I gather that this is really about "sticking it to the Windows users".

[DaveW]

Bah, I think Windows users are just jealous. I know I am. I think Beam makes a good point here, and NewTek should make a 64-bit version of LW available to Mac users even if XP64 hasn't shipped yet. It makes no sense to hold back the Mac platform just because the Windows platform has fallen behind. It would be a good opportunity for NewTek to increase their Mac marketshare and let current Mac users know they haven't been forgotten.

[jin choung]

i've always held that a 64bit port is more or less trivial... a compiler dealy. and i'm not against a g5 port at all....

but arguing for it in lieu of a windows one kinda chaps my hide.

jin

[Beamtracer]

Gui Lo: OS X Panther has been recompiled to support 64-bit addressing.Originally posted by jin choung
i'm not against a g5 port at all....

but arguing for it in lieu of a windows one kinda chaps my hide. Hi Jin,
Well, a port to AMD64 would be fine too, but it can't happen by the release time of Lightwave 8.

I can't see why it chaps your hide that Lightwave 8 goes 64-bit on the G5 before the Windows platform, when to release Lightwave 8 as a 64-bit app on Windows+AMD is a technical impossibility at the moment.

[Ed M.]

Sigh....

I'm going to explain it once again. If you guys want further clarification, simply do a search for my user-name and visit the most recent/relevant posts. First, a few things to realize:

- Panther will definitely be a hybrid. The kernel will be 64bit.
- Panther will be able to utilize all the RAM you can throw at it (just like 10.2.7). It will be 16GB when the 2GB modules become available. Apple already figured in for that, so load your systems to whatever you can afford.

- Panther will be 64bit where it counts (i.e., the kernel).

- Apple has APIs in place *now* so there doesn't *need* to be a totally 64bit LightWave. NewTek is free to tweak the areas of the code *now* for the G5 to take advantage of 64bit computing.

- The G5 has two FPUs.

From an Apple engieneer:

<snip> In other words, the G5 scalar FPUs can deliver the performance you would get from AltiVec, and there is reason to believe that the G5 can do better because it doesn't have to solve the permute problem. If you are *not* meeting or exceeding "AltiVec performance" with double precision on a G5, it is likely either because your code is in need of tuning or you are running out of registers. A large part of tuning for G5 FP performance is just to make sure that there is 12-way or better parallelism in whatever you do. If you are doing things one at a time, there is a good chance you are throwing away 92% of your performance. <end snip>

In other words, developers need to start adding a lot more parallelism to their code (i.e., doing more things at once), something that they should have been doing anyway from the start. NewTek are you listening?

************************************************** **************************************
Re Opteron and Athlon64...

Opteron has been out for quite some time. AMD has been talking this thing up since when, 1998/1999? I know a lot of us loose track of that point. What I'm trying to say is that its taken them quite some time to get to this point and they have very little to show for it. The Opteron is the second slowest selling CPU right behind the Itanium. This isn't FUD, this is FACT. The numbers are there if you care to look at them. A little over 5000 CPUs sold is nothing to be proud of. What do you suppose is holding back this great technology? On the same token we have to wonder what will drive Athlon64 adoption on the desktop. Games? I don't think so. Most people who are serious gamers have several console-type system that more than meet their needs. AMD *needs* to have sales figures in the tens of thousands otherwise it may not bode well for them. Still, they continue to sell 32bit systems by the tons! Thins isn't particularly good if you want to promote the new systems. Should people throw away their 3 or 4 year old machines if they are more than meeting their needs?

However, what I'm really wondering about is this... (re 32/64bit simultaneous app execution)

Let's pretend that I'm running this great new 64bit version of LightWave (just for chuckles) on my new AMD64 rig which happens to be running the fine software that's Windows64 for the desktop.

I've completed part of a project and decide to let it render in the background while I load up Photoshop to work on another part of the same project (and/or maybe do other things within the same app), but Photoshop is only 32bit -- as are my web browsers and other applications; perhaps the majority are 32bit as well as the drivers etc.

My questions start to arise when I consider that there will undoubtedly be moments where all these applications will need to exchange data and interact. In short they will need to communicate.

I begin to think... These 32bit applications and device drivers I am using *need* to work within the same environment as the new 64bit OS environment which consists of (some) 64bit applications and 64bit drivers as well as a ton of 32bit stuff. Will Windows use a method similar to the one NT/2000/XP uses to handle 16bit applications on the current 32bit rigs? I'm not totally sure these days, but Windows employed a type of virtual machine to allow older 16bit apps to run. Needless to say, running the older apps significantly impacted system performance, and as a result, slowed down the entire system. But it gets trickier still.

This type of 32/64bit application communication and data exchange doesn't *only* apply to the various types of user-controlled apps like Photoshop, Excel, Word, LightWave, but it also applies to all of the DLLs, device drivers and other Windows tasks that could be running behind the scenes. And if you stop and think about it for a moment, what *services* *need* to be 64bit anyway? And if you mention any at all, do they apply to the majority, making it the norm? Can you see how the complexity is starting to mushroom? Let's continue...

How will Windows handle the 'stack'? It's 32bits wide for 32bit apps and will be 64bits wide for 64bit apps and each record is fixed length. Consider again the fact that there will likely be a mishmash of 64/32bit apps and other services running simultaneously -- what happens when values and pointers need to be passed back and forth between the various apps? There will undoubtedly be a huge number of inconsistencies and compatibility issues, between drivers, apps, devices ... everything. Windows has a problem *now* with drivers and there is *still* incompatibility issues. And considering there are just soooo many various sources for drivers, devices, system boards et. al., by adding 32/64bit simultaneous execution into the mix only leads me to believe that the complexity of *getting it right* grows monstrously. Which only leaves getting *something* done *quick*.

As it stands now, Microsoft only allows you to run Win32 based applications on 64bit Windows by way of an emulation layer called WOW64 (Windows on Windows64). What makes you think this model will change re Opteron? And 64bit support isn't even here yet for Opteron and Athlon64 isn't even released yet. If they choose to get it done *right*, it will take a lot longer than people think. Therefore, the interested parties need to get it done sooner and as far as getting it done *right*.. Well, that's another story.

The obvious question for developers will *still* be: should you be considering a move to 64bit Windows? That means *entirely* -- an either/or proposition -- a hard fact they will need to consider. There will be no *in between* ground as there currently is for OS X and the G5. So, re AMD64, how is this different from asking developers to support Itanium? Hint: It really isn't because it's still either/or and the same things need to be considered when talking about Windows support.

I'm willing to bet that Microsoft will do one of two things ...

They will either offer a version of Windows64 that will use a similar WOW64 emulator for 32bit apps as they currently do, or they will simply give users the ability to choose which environment they would want to run in -- either 64bit *or* 32bit. Anything else is just way too complex re compatibility to expect in such short time from Microsoft on a processor that hasn't even been released yet. Again, not a limitation of the CPU (hardware). The OS becomes the limiting factor.

Consider that 64bit support will likely come to Opteron *before* it comes to Athlon64. In other words, if Microsoft is to support Opteron fully with 64bit (and also do it right), it would have to be completely different from the Itanium version and it will cost more than an entire dual G5 system to boot. The same goes for Athlon64 and what will that OS cost? In short, it would simply be too much too soon. Expect Microsoft to support these chips in one of the two ways I mentioned above. This all ties in to what I've been posting in the other threads regarding this very issue.

--
Ed

[Ed M.]

Oddly enough...

The chipmaker touts the key point that its 64-bit architecture also runs 32-bit software, switching between both platforms effortlessly, without any emulation layer.

Taken from here:

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914683,00.html?tag=zdnnfd.main

Again, this suggests something different from what many people have been thinking regarding 32/64bit app execution. The term that is sticking in my craw is "switching". Why would there need to be a "switch" to *anything*, (a "platform in this case) if it's handled natively?

Again, as stated above, I think we can give the hardware the benefit of the doubt and state that *it* can run 32bit code natively, but it isn't clear at all how Microsoft will provide this 32bit code compatibility within a 64bit version of Windows, and not only for Opteron on the server end, but for Athlon64 on the desktop end.

There is no 64bit version of Windows for Opteron yet and there is no 64bit version of Windows for Athlon64 yet. In fact, there is no Athlon 64 yet. The version for Opteron will be priced as it is for Itanium, making it completely impractical. Will the desktop version have superior functionality over the server version? What do you price it at?

Currently on Itanium, they utilize WOW64. For desktop 32bit OSs like NT/2000/XP they use a virtual machine (emulation/thunk layer) to run 16bit apps and drivers, but doing so severely impacts system performance.

And the other words from the article.... "both platforms" also suggests that the initial version of Windows for these systems will either offer an emulation layer to hold them over until they can "get it right" or specifically force users to operate in a 32bit or 64bit environment, but not both apps running natively together at the same time. And Windows64 for the dasktop is still a ways off. Probably a yer at the least.

As mentioned above, there are just too many variables in Windows to consider at the moment. Look for Microsoft to provide something quick and dirty and less than optimal upon initial release for AMD64 technology.

--
Ed

[CaptainKirk]

I think that Iraqi minister of misinformation got hired by Apple and is now posting here under the name od Ed M.

Most of this speculation and "facts" is more ridiculous than what he was saying on CNN.

For the record:

Apple does not have a true 64 bit OS and will not have it anytime soon.

64bit version Maya demonstrated on G5 still rendered significantly slower than it rendered on 2Ghz Opterons running in normal 32 bit mode. You can look up these benchmarks for yourself and draw your own conclusions, especially regarding Apple's claims of true 64 bit and still being much slower.

Currently 2 Ghz Opterons are by far the fastest available processors if you use Maya.

They are slightly slower than 3.2Ghz Pentium 4s or Xeons if you use Lightwave.

Whether you use Lightwave or Maya you will always be on the slower end if you use G5 as proven by real tests. And that's the bottom line. Not speculation on when what will come out.

Currently there is no 64 bit Windows, but Likewise there is no 64bit OSX either. Apple's use of the word Hybrid is their best attempt to avoid legal action because they can't claim they have a true 64 bit OS without stepping over into false advertising area.

I would bet we see 64bit WindowsXP sooner than a true 64 OS bit from Apple, because there is Windows XP 64 bit beta. No such thing on Apple side. Only some hybrid OS betas ( maybe we should call it 48 bit ).

Opteron's memory bus runs at twice the speed of G5s. That is one area that will only get better as Opteron's get faster as the bus speed matches the speed of the CPU. G5 bus will be stuck at the same speed. Opteron can stay at 32 bit and still oputperform G5 at any # of bits. That is its main advantage over Itaniums.

[tumblemonster]

Apple does not have a true 64 bit OS and will not have it anytime soon.

It doesn't really matter. What does an OS do anyway? Sits there and keeps the machine running. In most cases being 64 bit wouldn't make a noticable difference anyway. On the other hand, building a 64 bit version of Lightwave would make a difference either way.

-tm

[Beamtracer]

It's really funny that Windows users keep posting again and again that the G5 + OS X will not really be a 64-bit platform.

I think it was started by a story in the British publication The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/), which said that OS X is not a "fully" 64-bit system. Windows users took this to mean that it is not 64-bit, which is wrong.

OS X must have 64-bit features so that the applications can access 64-bit features. You can't have one without the other.

Ed, I'm not convinced that the Opteron/AMD64 won't be able to run in a hybrid way. Then again, I guess it doesn't matter if there is no OS for it yet. If the Opteron project began in 1997, what excuse does Microsoft have for running so late?

Lightwave 8 will need some tweaking to take advantage of the 64-bit features of the G5. If "the competitor" is right, this may not take very long. Speed optimizations might be the hardest bit.

I see no reason why Newtek can't release a 64-bit savvy Lightwave 8. In some later revision in the future the Windows users could get platform parity.

[js33]

Beam,

Your just dying to get something that Windows users don't have aren't you. :D Hehehehe

Well I guess you've waited long enough. Still wish Apple would give people a choice in graphics cards for the Dual G5. Especially after reading that long thread of all the problems people are having with ATI cards on any Mac. Glad I don't own any ATI cards.

So the G5 is out and it's OK but it's not stellar performance plus they stick you with an ATI card with NO choice but to buy it and trade it out if you want something else. At this point in time I would rather have a render farm of 6 P4 3Ghz machines than 1 G5.

Even if the G5 had a full 64 bit OS I'm not convinced 64 bit is good for anything other than the ability to access more memory. While that will become more important in the future it's not enough to make me want to spend a $hitload of dough on it right now.

I will wait to see what happens when the AMD64 comes out on Sept 22.

Cheers,
JS

[Ed M.]

The bottom main point I'm trying to drive home here is this...

As it stands right now (we don't know what Panther will bring) unless you *need* data space that exceeds 4G for any application then the fact that 10.2.x can or cannot access more than that is not an issue, nor is it a limitation nor will there be a performance drop-off. The G5 is a 64 bit processor operating on 64 bit data that runs a full speed. Period. The G5 is a 64 bit processor. It handles 64 bit pointers, it has 64 bit registers, it also does 64 bit arithmetic. These features can be accessed by developers right *now*.

CaptainKirk is FoS BTW ;-)

Beam, I agree that AMDs chips can run 64/32bit code, I'm questioning the MS Operating System (Windows) and the x86 development world's ability to get it done *right* straight out of the door. It hasn't happened with Opteron yet and Athlon64 isn't out yet. You guys do the math. In any case, developers are *stil* being asked to support either/or with AMDs solution.

As for any apps running code on G5, that are slower, well its in the code folks. Developers need to bring it up to speed. Did you guys read the part of my last post regarding parallelism? That's a LOT of performance developers are throwing away.

--
Ed

[Gui Lo]

Hmmm...

I still think it is better for NewTek to concentrate on making the Mac version as good as the PC version. What's the point of a 64bit app if it has loads of 64bit bugs?

Gui Lo

[Matt]

If only . . . ! :)

http://www.creactive-design.co.uk/temp/lightwave64_box.jpg

[Jimzip]

Aw Matt that's cool!!
Yeah, 'If only...' is right.
Well, I guess we still just have to wait and see what NewTek cooks up! (Still very exciting) I've got faith!
I don't really mind if Lightwave 8.0 isn't 64-bit, it would be awesome though perhaps if not 8.0, then maybe 8.5 or 9.0. >Sigh< so far away..
"Crowd simulation AI engine" - !!
"64 bit Optimised" - !! :D :D
I haven't visited your site for a while either, I still love that interface.

Jimzip :D

[Nakia]

According to this we might not see a 64 bit anything on the Desktop front from Intel for awhile.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1269660,00.asp

[Red_Oddity]

I rather wait for LW 9 to have 64bit capabilities (sure it would be nice for some users to have that right now)

WHO on earth can afford 8 2Gbit or 8 1GBit memory sticks/thingies anyway?...(just check at the Apple webstore how much 8GB of memory costs...US$4950...so that would be..what? $10000 for 16GB, oh, wait, probably a lot more, since those memory sticks are new and rare and more expensive,right?)

I rather have that NT focuses on something that will mean a lot more to us in the long run in production...
For example a decent network manager for rendering ala Discreets Backburner...
Or how about fixing the file management of LW (Mac AND PC compatible...even over network (this means fixing drive naming and folder/directory seperators in file names (the ':' '/' problem)))
Heck how about being able to rename those damn instanced sequences (right now all you duplicated or instanced image sequences have the same name....this might be handy when using the same image sequences with different frame offsets...heck...why not make us able to do this from within a texture layer...)
How about ditching all those buffer exporters and decent file savers that are found under Image Filters (RLA/RPF/Etc) and place them in the spot where they should have been IN THE FIRST PLACE...THE RENDER OUTPUT...

ETC...

You get my point...64bit in my opinion is something for a later revision...let's focus on the stuff we really need and we really benefit from as LW users in general...not just the 10 LW users with a big enough cash flow who can afford to order a $15000 Apple G5...

Anyway, i'm not going to let my reply turn in my usual Mac grudge because quite frankly, it has has really little use and i'm growing tired of it (as no doubt most other users)...

[Earl]

Red Oddity makes the only real solid point in this thread: LightWave has a lot more important things to do first before it thinks about optimizing for and porting to 64-bit. Once it's caught up in the areas that it's fallen desperately behind in, then it can be optimized and ported to a 64-bit environment.

So other software makes it to 64-bit first? Whoopty do! Most studios use renderfarms anyway - something that NO 64-bit chip is suited for right now (for price/performance reasons).

[dmg3d]

Haven't seen a troll like that since the mines of Moria :p

Originally posted by Ed M.

CaptainKirk is FoS BTW ;-)

Ed

[Matt]

Originally posted by Earl
Red Oddity makes the only real solid point in this thread: LightWave has a lot more important things to do first before it thinks about optimizing for and porting to 64-bit

you are of course completely right! the list down the side of that box contains most of the features I would love to see, and some pie in the sky ones just for good measure!!!

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by Matt
you are of course completely right! the list down the side of that box contains most of the features I would love to see, and some pie in the sky ones just for good measure!!!
Hi Matt,
now _thats_ why it's version number 64, and not 8 ;)
Cheers,
Mike - damn, another 80 years to wait.

[Beamtracer]

It's interesting that many of those who are saying that 64-bit is something that should not happen in Lightwave 8 are Windows users.
Originally posted by Lightwolf
damn, another 80 years to wait. The big wait will be for Intel to make a 64-bit desktop processor, and Microsoft to make a version of Windows for x86-64.

There was an interesting post from WizCraker in the Community section of this forum. A quote from Epic Games, makers of Unreal Tornament, and I believe possibly the world's biggest game software company:

Epic Games quote:
"If there aren't widespread, consumer-priced 64-bit machines available in three years, we're going to have a hard time developing games that are more compelling than last year's games."

Maybe you aren't about to run out and buy a G5 full of RAM, but some people will. Many G4 owners are now sitting on the 2 gig RAM limit of the G4, and would take it higher if their machines allowed. I've been using 2 gigs of RAM for some years.

64-bit computing is essential for Lightwave to be accepted on the G5. Because the G5 offers a relatively easy 64-bit migration path (for software developers) it may not be that difficult for Newtek to do the necessary tweaks for Lightwave.


Originally posted by jin choung
a 64bit port is more or less trivial...
...but arguing for it in lieu of a windows one kinda chaps my hide.

A 64-bit Lightwave previously existed for the Digital Alpha processor, a platform way too expensive for the average user to afford.

Presumably Newtek made the port to encourage high-end use of Lightwave, so production companies use it, so Lightwave gets film credits, which in turn spurns extra sales on cheaper desktop platforms.

I wonder why 64-bit Lightwave running on the Alpha platform didn't spurn anger from Windows users? Why does the prospect of a 64-bit Lightwave running on the G5 annoy Windows users?

64-bit Lightwave for OS X is a good thing. It'll encourage the use of Lightwave in places where it hasn't been used before. It confirms the Mac as the computer platform for high-end uses.

[CaptainKirk]

Who says it shouldn't happen.

We are merely pointing out that Apple is dead last to arrive to 64 bit.

What bothers us is such blatant lying by Mac users and their CEO.

Intel has been making 64 bit processors for a couple of years, AMD since April this year, you are getting yours just this month, yet still insist you're first. In this very thread you can read how intel and AMD won't have anything 64 bit and you all know it's already out there. Have you no shame lying like that?

You insist that there will be no 64bit Windows for years yet you yourself know that there is no 64bit OS for the Mac available right now while a perfectly stable 64 bit Windows is in beta and already reviewed by people..

And lastly when G5 real application tests started coming in and showing that it's slower across the board than Intel or AMD chips you blame it on developers like NewTek. Well guess what Lightwave or Maya are not optimized for Opterons either, but it seems that Opteron still outruns anything. Only your prescious G5 is bothered by this nonoptimization.

Here you go ( Maya and Photoshop ) , and this is only 1.6Ghz Opteron. Current top speed is 2Ghz with 2.2 Ghz coming out in 2 weeks. Compare this with Barefeats ( Mac site ) tests and you'll see that G5 is slower than Opteron or Xeon.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=opteron242&page=9

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=opteron242&page=10

[Ed M.]

There is are still a few questions that beg answering.

I keep thinking... Is Intel *really* that stupid to have *not* run the simulations or explored extending the x86 instruction set further? I mean really? Did they miss that one? What's got me thinking is the Intel did in fact explore the idea of extending the architecture, but came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to try and promote a clean break *away* from x86. My question is: Why? Is it at all possible that they looked at the exact course that AMD is now an and saw some huge hurdles? Is it? Why does Intel seem so relaxed about this whole AMD64 thing? Quite honestly, they don't seem worried at all. They don't seem to be taking the bait.

Oh, and a quote from a 3-year old article:

We won't see 64-bit running on the desktop until 2006," Knox agreed. "This is a short-term play for AMD, but it's the right play. If they had gone after Intel and tried to beat them in the 64-bit space, I think that would have been difficult. As it is, it's going to be difficult for AMD to make it into the 64-bit enterprise space."

I mention it because it seems that everything that's known to this point regarding the desktop and 64bit for Wintelon appears slated for 2006 at best. And Intel did say.. by the end of the decade...

http://www.cnn.com/virtual/editions/europe/2000/roof/change.pop/frameset.exclude.html

Anyway, we'll see. He could be right. 2006 might actually be the mark considering that there still isn't a native 64bit solution for Opteron yet, and let's not forget that people won't be buying a $3,000.00+ OS to run on it. What will that OS cost for MP machines?

--
Ed

[mlinde]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
We are merely pointing out that Apple is dead last to arrive to 64 bit.

Hmm. Captain Kirk, did you go by the name panini in another life?

Regardless of how often this has been hashed and re-hashed, there is a simple statement that you, and many other folks, are missing. Apple is releasing the first "desktop" 64-bit processor. Sure, the Opteron and the Itanium have been around. These processors have been and are designed for servers, not desktop workstations. Just because companies like BOXX take a processor designed for servers and throw them in desktop machines, doesn't make them a desktop system. As I recall, these systems (with opterons and Itaniums) have to run some flavor of Unix/Linux to even be useable, since there isn't a version of Windows 2k or XP to run on a 64-bit processor. Last time I checked the only people swearing that Linux was a desktop OS were the IT guys. Time before that I couldn't find myself a copy of Lightwave to run in Linux, beyond a rendering engine. You show me a viable desktop with an Itanium or Opteron processor. It's got to be able to run Microsoft Office, Lightwave, Premiere, Sound Forge, Discreet Cleaner, and Internet Explorer. Put your URL where your text is:
A Mac with a 64-bit processor that does (http://www.apple.com/powermac/)

[Ed M.]

Looks like panini changed his user name to CaptainKirk. Either that or it's a cat in heat...

However, for the record, The preliminary tests with the G5's I've been seeing are absolutely crushing the competition; especially with IBM's new compilers. ATLAS/BLAS scores for G5 are nearly double the fastest scores for Opteron. Wait and see what developers will giving us in terms of software tweaks for G5. This is only the beginning folks.

If people want the latest regarding the latest G5 benchmarks, e-mail me and I will provide the necessary information.

EdsLab2@aol.com

--
Ed

[DaveW]

Apple is releasing the first "desktop" 64-bit processor. Sure, the Opteron and the Itanium have been around. These processors have been and are designed for servers, not desktop workstations. Just because companies like BOXX take a processor designed for servers and throw them in desktop machines, doesn't make them a desktop system. As I recall, these systems (with opterons and Itaniums) have to run some flavor of Unix/Linux to even be useable, since there isn't a version of Windows 2k or XP to run on a 64-bit processor. Last time I checked the only people swearing that Linux was a desktop OS were the IT guys. Time before that I couldn't find myself a copy of Lightwave to run in Linux, beyond a rendering engine. You show me a viable desktop with an Itanium or Opteron processor. It's got to be able to run Microsoft Office, Lightwave, Premiere, Sound Forge, Discreet Cleaner, and Internet Explorer. Put your URL where your text is:
A Mac with a 64-bit processor that does (http://www.apple.com/powermac/)


The Opteron *was* designed as a dekstop processor. It's in the same market as the Xeon; the Opteron 24x series was designed for workstations and low-end servers. You are correct that there currently is no version of Windows that takes advantage of Opterons capabilities, but it does run 32bit x86 code natively so you can use those Boxx Opteron workstations for LW, Office, Sound Forge, ect. http://www.boxxtech.com/asp/cf_step2.asp?ModelInstanceID=180 look at the OS, your choice of XP Pro or Win2k Pro.


Anyway, we'll see. He could be right. 2006 might actually be the mark considering that there still isn't a native 64bit solution for Opteron yet, and let's not forget that people won't be buying a $3,000.00+ OS to run on it. What will that OS cost for MP machines?

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. MS is working on a AMD64 version of XP. I don't see why they would sell that version for $3,000 when it normally costs $300 for 32bit XP Pro, and you can get OEM versions for $130 online. And XP Pro does support dual processors and hyperthreading. And, depending on what you do, there already is a native 64bit solution for Opteron: Linux.

[Ed M.]

Dave, c'mon. It's pretty clear. No way is Microsoft going to offer the same level of support for 32bit in Athlon64 and sell the version cheaper than the one they are trying to market for Opteron. People wouldn't buy the version for Opteron if the version for Athlon64 was somehow superior for running simultaneous 32/64bit apps. Go back and read the post that I contributed to this particular thread and tell me where it doesn't make sense.

BTW, since we're talking about Lightwave and other shrinkwrap apps, I don't think LINUX is relevant to the discussion. Besides, For AMD to gain ANY market for these things at all, they need Microsoft, not LINUX.

LINUX isn't going to get them where they need to be. Opteron has been out for what amounts to an eternity in the Wintelon CPU world and it's been a big disappointment thus far -- outselling only Itanium.

I believe the Intel execs might actually be right in their predictions. Intel isn't that stupid. I think they actually looked into the exact road AMD is now traveling regarding 64bit and decided against it. I'm guessing that they know something that a lot of others don't. Intel is brushing it off and if they can remain close to AMD performance, developers will have little reason or incentive to migrate their wares to 64bit. And LOADS of 32bit Windows rigs continue to sell... We'll see eventually I suppose.

--
Ed

[Beamtracer]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk (aka Panini)
What bothers us is such blatant lying by Mac users and their CEO...

...Have you no shame lying like that?
Welcome back to the Mac forum, Panini. Have you come to antagonize the Mac users again? Why did you change your user name? Did you get expelled from the Lightwave forums?

Originally posted by DaveW
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. MS is working on a AMD64 version of XP.
When Lightwave 8 is released, the Windows version will not and cannot be a 64-bit program. Lightwave 8 will be released as a 32-bit app on Windows. MS missed its deadline.

What should Newtek do? Wait for Microsoft, delaying Lightwave 64 to achieve platform parity between Win and Mac? Or bring out the first 64-bit desktop 3D application, and make it a Mac-only experience?

It seems the prospect of having Lightwave64 on the Mac, while only a 32-bit version on Windows, seems to raise the ire of Windows users. Shouldn't you be angry at Microsoft and blame them, rather than feeling angry towards Mac users?

[js33]

Hehehehe.

Well I am happy for now with a 32 bit version of 8 because all my current hardware is 32 bit.

Do you really think everyone is going to throw away their current machines. Even if I had an AMD 64 or even a G5 I would still need a 32 bit version to run on my iMac and P4.

64 bit sounds cool but I think it is highly overhyped and overrated.

Even if 64 bit Win was available today I would still have to buy a new machine to run it on.

To me its not a compelling reason to spend 3K or more right now.

I don't think Newtek should hold back though. I think they should get a 64 bit version out there for those who can make use of it. (All 10 of you). Just kidding. :D

Cheers,
JS

[Beamtracer]

The profile of Username Panini:

[Ade]

If Newtek is offically open abut LW running on Boxx systems that means there is no loss of speeds...Although I did read a benchmark once that a single P4 3ghz outperformed the boxx systems in LW raytrace tests.


FYI-
CaptainKirk aka Panini was found talking about cracking a pirate version of Maya and Lightwave on cgtalk once...

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Ed M.
Dave, c'mon. It's pretty clear. No way is Microsoft going to offer the same level of support for 32bit in Athlon64 and sell the version cheaper than the one they are trying to market for Opteron. People wouldn't buy the version for Opteron if the version for Athlon64 was somehow superior for running simultaneous 32/64bit apps. Go back and read the post that I contributed to this particular thread and tell me where it doesn't make sense.


x86-64 is x86-64. There is no Opteron version or Athlon64 version, and there is nothing preventing you from running XP64 on an Opteron instead of an Athlon64. Opteron 24x series is designed for workstations and low-end servers. That is XP Pro territory, not Server 2003 territory. And why would MS make one version better at running 32 and 64 bit apps simultaneously? Both server and workstation versions of Windows64 are going to rely heavily on 32bit app support. Despite the huge difference in price, the server and workstation versions of Windows are nearly identical. I think MS may have fixed it in XP, but in NT4 and 2Kpro you could edit a few registry entries to unlock all the server capabilities.

Your post about 32/64 bit app execution is not based on reality. The article you quote was about the CPU and had nothing to do with Windows. As I pointed out to you in the community forums thread, AMD's white paper clearly states that their chips are capable of executing 16, 32, and 64 bit code simultaneously. If you have any evidence of the AMD64 version of Windows XP or Server 2003 will run 32-bit apps poorly then feel free to post a link. The only review of XP64 I've read claims that 32-bit and 64-bit apps run simultaneously with no noticeable speed hit: http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=amd64xp&page=4

Beam: You quoted me out of context. In my first post in this thread I agreed that NewTek should not wait for MS to play catch-up with Apple before releasing a 64-bit version of Lightwave.

[Beamtracer]

Sorry, Dave. I misunderstood your post. It seems we actually agree on the benefits of Newtek creating a 64-bit Lightwave for OS X.

Originally posted by Ade
CaptainKirk aka Panini was found talking about cracking a pirate version of Maya and Lightwave on cgtalk once
That's very interesting, Ade.
Originally posted by CaptainKirk (aka Panini)
What bothers us is such blatant lying by Mac users...
...Have you no shame
Cracked / pirated versions of Lightwave? Who should hold their head in shame?

I don't believe that someone who didn't pay for their copy of Lightwave has the right to be involved in discussions about future features of Lightwave.

[toby]

More Idiotic comments from the "We are better than you" crowd...

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Apple does not have a true 64 bit OS and will not have it anytime soon.

Currently there is no 64 bit Windows, but Likewise there is no 64bit OSX either. Apple's use of the word Hybrid is their best attempt to avoid legal action because they can't claim they have a true 64 bit OS without stepping over into false advertising area.

No OSX is not a pure 64 bit OS! It couldn't run all our software if it was! We never said it was pure 64 bit, it doesn't need to be, in case you haven't noticed there's almost *no* pure 64 bit apps anyway.


I would bet we see 64bit WindowsXP sooner than a true 64 OS bit from Apple, because there is Windows XP 64 bit beta. No such thing on Apple side. Only some hybrid OS betas.


64 bit winXP is just the same crap made to run on 64 bit. "Longhorn" from MS won't show up until about 2006 - 8.


I gather that this is really about "sticking it to the Windows users"

Oh, gee, I thought this was the MAC FORUM. Sorry, we don't plug that crook Gates here. If you want to read about how great PC's are, go to the PC FORUM.

(Great picture Beam! :p)

[Matt]

guys does it really matter who was first?

I agree with whoever said it before (can't be bothered scrolling up the posts!) there are a lot more important issues that need resolving in LW before they need to start worrying about 64bit.

:)

[jin choung]

and at no point did i ever say that you should HOLD UP 64bit mac for windows. fine... bring it out first. if the effort v. payoff makes sense to them... let them go to town. though it seems that newtek had a hard enough time keeping lw up on the g4s.... if anything, they seem LESS capable of keeping up with all platforms now - not more.

if i were you guys, i'd just be praying that lw8 for mac doesn't get WORSE!

anyway, my point is you can make your case for g5 without bashing amd or bringing it up for that matter.

whatever.

i think this may be a misdirection anyway:

I WANT TO SEE G5 vs. P4!!!

yah, we all saw the gcc benchies. but as i keep saying, the test will be when each processor uses apps and compilers that are optimized for them.

so come on g5... let's see if 64bits buys ya anything more than massive amounts of memory.

actually, i'd LOOOOOOoooooooove to see a 64bit osx optimized lw8 go up against lw8 optimized for p4 (not to mention prescott or amd64)!!!

BRING... IT... ON... !

jin

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by Beamtracer
The big wait will be for Intel to make a 64-bit desktop processor, and Microsoft to make a version of Windows for x86-64.[/B]
Beam, as much as I appreciate your (mostly unbased on facts, but fun) posts, please try to quote me in context.
I did refer to LW 64 as Version 64, it took NT roughly 10 years from LW 1.0 to 8.0, which gives them another 70 years or so to version 64 and...
...oh, nevermind, I give up...
Cheers,
Mike

[Lightwolf]

Since I'm jumping in here:
Could someone please tell me the advantages of a 64bit port of LW?
I'm not reffering to general optimizations to the processor architecture, but to a switch to 64bit.
Cheers,
Mike - who wonders what this fuss is all about...

[Matt]

anyone actually have a G5 at their disposal?

do we have times for the benchmarks folder?

[Lightwolf]

Well, I've seen some (non-LW related) G5 benchmarks (Cinebench 2003 G5 optimized, PS 7 G% optimized etc.), of a G5 1.6 compared to a Dell 2.6 GHz P4 (which costs half as much), bit I've refrained from posting them. No need to heat up the debate ;)
If the benchmarks sucks then the non-G5 optimized code is to blame, and if it still sucks then it's the company not supporting the Mac properly...
Cheers,
Mike

[Red_Oddity]

Here Mike, quickly, extinguish this flame thread....DOH!...wait...i gave you the gascan....

[Lightwolf]

*boom*

[mlinde]

Originally posted by DaveW
The Opteron *was* designed as a dekstop processor. It's in the same market as the Xeon; the Opteron 24x series was designed for workstations and low-end servers. You are correct that there currently is no version of Windows that takes advantage of Opterons capabilities, but it does run 32bit x86 code natively so you can use those Boxx Opteron workstations for LW, Office, Sound Forge, ect. http://www.boxxtech.com/asp/cf_step2.asp?ModelInstanceID=180 look at the OS, your choice of XP Pro or Win2k Pro.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I thought the Opteron was designed for servers and incapable of running Windows, and the Athlon 64 was the forthcoming desktop version. Sorry, my bad :eek:

[DaveW]

Originally posted by mlinde
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I thought the Opteron was designed for servers and incapable of running Windows, and the Athlon 64 was the forthcoming desktop version. Sorry, my bad :eek:

The Athlon64 is a Pentium 4/5 competitor; single processor, consumer/prosumer/gamer. Opteron 24x is a Xeon competitor, 2-cpu workstation/low-end server, and Opteron 84x is for mid/high-end servers. I don't know of anybody using it, but there is also a 14x Opteron for single-processor workstations.

It's easy to get confused. One benefit of the Mac is that you don't have a bunch of slightly different processors to keep track of. The Opteron is even more confusing because the model numbers mean nothing unless you look them up and find benchmarks that give you an idea of how it performs.

[toby]

Originally posted by Lightwolf
Since I'm jumping in here:
Could someone please tell me the advantages of a 64bit port of LW?
I'm not reffering to general optimizations to the processor architecture, but to a switch to 64bit.
Cheers,
Mike - who wonders what this fuss is all about...

8gb ram instead of 4, for one thing. And 16gb later on.

[Earl]

Originally posted by Beamtracer
It's interesting that many of those who are saying that 64-bit is something that should not happen in Lightwave 8 are Windows users.

Sorry Beam, but I disagree. It's NOT interesting. The issue here is not a Windows vs Mac thing, though it seems like many people want it to be a war between the two (which seems very unprofessional of both parties involved). The issue is about LW being used in production environments. Past issues has caused LightWave's development to fall behind. As a result many features that studios need, in order to remain competitive, are missing in LightWave. The new character animation tools included in LW [8] are a huge step in the right direction. More advancements like that are needed right NOW. Since LightWave has horrible support for 3rd party rendering solutions, LW's own rendering pipeline needs vast improvements. Those improvements should take priority to processor optimization.

Every year hardware changes. People who use LightWave for getting the job done care less about what OS and brand their hardware is, and more about the results. Those results are more determined by how well artists can integrate LW with other applications, and how well LightWave can be integrated with itself! There are still important features in LightWave that don't even work well within the core program!

Now I'd like to make a note regarding processor optimization: LightWave was very lucky to get the advanced optimization for the Pentium 4 processor. No other 3d software was as finely tuned to take advantage of said processor. This helped studios and illustrators everywhere. However, AMD processors have gone a long time without optimization (much longer than the G5). I personally think that ultimately LightWave should be optimized for all major processors used in studios and by professional independent artists. This includes AMD's Athlon/Opteron series, and Apple's G5 - and perhaps even more optimizations to the G4. But again, LW is being hindered more by lack of competitive features than it is by individual processor optimizations.

This not a Mac vs Windows thing. Professional artists really could care less what OS or brand of hardware they use. Most, like me, would use whatever makes the most economical and productive sense to achieve their desired results.

[toby]

Originally posted by Lightwolf
Well, I've seen some (non-LW related) G5 benchmarks (Cinebench 2003 G5 optimized, PS 7 G% optimized etc.), of a G5 1.6 compared to a Dell 2.6 GHz P4 (which costs half as much), bit I've refrained from posting them. No need to heat up the debate ;)
If the benchmarks sucks then the non-G5 optimized code is to blame, and if it still sucks then it's the company not supporting the Mac properly...
Cheers,
Mike

So non-LW benchmarks DO mean something to you. Exactly what you deny when the Mac comes out faster.

Contrary to the PC crowd, when we look at benchmarks, we're not praying to win a competition. We're wondering how much faster our next computer is going to be, or looking forward to an end to the constant nose thumbing : (which costs half as much) - I've refrained from posting them. No need to heat up the debate

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by toby
8gb ram instead of 4, for one thing. And 16gb later on.
Hi toby,
exactly, and that is the _only_ advantage you get from a 64bit port. Anybody here render scenes with more than 4GB? I understand even the Dune mini series was rendered on 1GB / CPU, in HD.

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by toby
So non-LW benchmarks DO mean something to you.
Nope, even though Cinebench comes quite close since it is a similar type of app. That is exactly why I didn't post them, even though I promised Ed. Just read the rest of my statement...
As for benchmarks, there are some where the G5 seems to scream, and some where it has trouble keeping up with a 1000$ Dell. Even within the same app (Photoshop) the results vary depending on what you test (photoshop being a good example here).
Cheers,
Mike

[Beamtracer]

If people are buying computers with 8 gigs of RAM, then Lightwave should support those systems. It would be ridiculous if Lightwave couldn't use all the RAM that you have installed in your machine.

Also, the G5 will be a faster, more capable machine, so we'll soon get accustomed to using bigger models with more polygons and larger image maps. We will adjust our workflow to use that extra RAM. We will do different things than we did with older 32-bit machines.

It's been the case throughout computer history that when computer capacity increases, we find new ways to make use of that increased capacity.

RAM is the most obvious issue, but not the only feature of 64-bit computing. I believe that software developers will find new ways to exploit 64-bit features, to achieve things we haven't thought of previously.

[js33]

Too bad the Mac has sucky video cards. Just how are you going to use higher poly models when the video cards to do that either don't work or aren't available for the Mac?

Cheers,
JS

[tumblemonster]

The video card issue is still up in the air. I think support for top-end video cards is inevitable. Apple wants to be part of the pro market(As evidenced by Shake, Logic, Final Cut Pro 4 etc.), and they'll do what they need to do to make it happen. Hopefully sooner than later.

-tm

[js33]

Apple is going to have to make their own video cards because noone seems to be doing it for them.

Cheers,
JS

[CaptainKirk]

So far Lightwave benchmarks that came in show G5 to be mostly half as fast as 3.0 Ghz Pentiums or Xeons. I'm actually surprised that Pentiums are that much faster. I expected G5 to be a noticeable improvement over G4, but I guess not.

Opterons rule Maya, especially since 2 Ghz version came out.

Pentiums are also about twice as fast if you use Cinema 4D.

3DS Max isn't available on a Mac and I 'm beginning to see why.
They simply aren't interested in developing for a platform which will make their product look bad.

I guess that's it for 3D artists. Not much left.

I find it difficult to believe that all of these companies are to blame for sloppy coding, as many here accuse NewTek of.
I tend to believe that when every single 3D application runs faster on Windows ( and by such huge margin ) there must be something wrong with that other slow platform , not with all developers. .

[toby]

There's something desparately insecure and pathetic about someone who thinks he can convince people, with exaggerated BS, to hate what he hates.

[CaptainKirk]

What exactly is more insecure. You posting your opinions without any evidence, or me posting mine backed up with real world test.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=opteron242&page=10

Same test can be found on ArsMac somewhere and barefeats.
Dual 2Ghz G5 took 12 seconds longer than 1.6 Opteron, which means even the low end Opteron is about 15% faster than the fastest G5 running OPTIMIZED PS7. On barefeats link is saying how G5 is faster than xeon, but if you go there and read up a few pages and check out the numbers you'll see they match what my link says xeon wise ( actually 2 seconds faster than G5 ), only Opterons are not tested there, that's why I provided that link.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=opteron242&page=9

That is Maya rendering, again Opteron wins, keep in mind againg the current Opteron runs at 2Ghz, the one that won that test was only 1.6 Ghz.

Cinema3D ( cinebench ) , highest score for Pentium 3.0Ghz+ was 560. G5 scores in the mid 200s These are scores, not seconds, so higher means better. So again Pentium more than twice as fast than a dual 2Ghz G5 ( you can find links in this very forum in one of the earliesr threads. ).

The one Lightwave test I saw Pentium was slightly faster than Opteron and more than twice as fast as G5.

So what exactly am I exaggerating. These are very simple tests and numbers. No opinions necessary to interpret them.

[jin choung]

niiiice,

and now, we've come to it... the very misdirection i spoke about....


yah, g5... 64bit... oooooooh.

but hey! it's still not that fast!

jin

[jin choung]

but to clarify,

it's not their sluggishness that earns apple my scorn.

it's their black turtleneck wearing, effete, yuppy obnoxious elitism.

it's the fact that not only are they slower, they're MORE EXPENSIVE?!

it's the fact that they are so utterly enamored with superficialities.

it's the fact that they are far more of a pure monopoly than either intel or M$ simply because they control both hardware and software. sure, they're the biggest fish in their very own and very small puddle but they are pure, concentrated monopoly.

it's not that they're slow that i hate apple. it's because of the above.

also, don't make the mistake that i love intel or m$... i don't. but at least i can pick up their stuff for dirt cheap!

and that benefits the one entity that i really root for at all times.

me.

jin

p.s. well, i guess i could be slightly less selfish and say that i root for the consumer. yeah, let's say that.

[tumblemonster]

Jin, I think you're beign fooled a bit by Dell and Gateway selling super cheap consumer machines to end users to chat on aol. The PC pros around here build their own machines so of course they're cheaper. 95% of computer users wouldn't even consider installing a RAM upgrade, much less build their own machine. If you try to buy a comercially available PC with the same capabilities as a Mac you'll end up paying about the same.

-tm

[Beamtracer]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
3DS Max isn't available on a Mac and I 'm beginning to see why.
They simply aren't interested in developing for a platform which will make their product look bad.
Panini, you're still here?

Originally posted by jin choung
it's not their sluggishness that earns apple my scorn.

it's their black turtleneck wearing, effete, yuppy obnoxious elitism.
Well, I don't wear turtle neck or polo shirts / skivvies, but it can't be any worse than wearing a suit, like the other computer CEOs do.

YUPPY = Young Urban Professional

Young: Do you want to be young?

Urban: Do you want to live in the city?

Professional: Do you want to be a professional or an amateur?

There aren't many CEOs of large companies that have the guts to stand on stage at a public conference wearing faded blue jeans!

Jin, are you showing some bias here?

Originally posted by jin choung
it's the fact that not only are they slower, they're MORE EXPENSIVE?!I think the dual 2GHz G5 compares pretty well with a 3GHz Pentium Xeon in performance tests.

Originally posted by jin choung
it's the fact that they are far more of a pure monopoly than either intel or M$ simply because they control both hardware and softwareThere's a difference between a vertically integrated market, and a monopoly. Apple is a vertical market, Microsoft is the monopoly (as found by the DoJ court case).

[jin choung]

tumblemonster,

i ain't fooled by nothin'. i built my current computer. i'll build my next - $400 gets me a dual channel ddr mobo (why the hell is apple always a generation late on their memory specs? they just got ddr and if they're as slow on the uptake with dual channel....) and 3.0ghz cpu if i overclock it just right. and i think it would mop the floor with pretty much anything that ain't dual processor and even AGAINST the dual processor it'll probably be competitive. actually, i'm not all that convinced yet if the dual g5 would beat a 3ghz p4....

and i would imagine that the only people who would really have a problem with macs (like me) is people who do get their hands dirty, and know how much of a rip off macs really are.


beam,

am i showing bias?! are you kidding?

and let's not get bogged in semantics eh?

no matter what yuppie means, you understand the idea that i hate eh? i even specify with the markedly disagreeable characteristics of effete, obnoxious, and elitist but if that ain't enough for ya, i'll add self important, self centered, pretentious and materialistic.

'look at me. i drive a beamer and wear designer clothing. nope, nothing but $5 espresso drinks for me. and look, right at this moment (and perpetually also), i'm speaking on a cel phone to very important people! i'm really connected and important! look at me.'

'oh yeah, and i'm so cool, wealthy and desirable, i own a mac!'

believe me, don't mistake my rabid disdain for such as covert jealousy. i'd rather live in a hole.

also, compares well in which performance tests? none of this gcc crap. you guys optimize. intel/M$ should optimize. THEN let's go at it. no holds bar. then we'll see.

also were ya talking about a DUAL 3ghz XEON? cuz if ya ain't that would be mixin' our metaphors dontcha think?

VERTICALLY INTEGRATED? well if you're happy not having CHOICE, and COMPETITION for your hardware and software so that the price gets determined at whatever point the manufacturer wants... your pocket books will have to make due with that bit of semantic comfort.

and yes,

i do NOT consider PCs competition for macs. macs have their own little world, their own market sustained merely by the rabid fanaticism of their value impervious fans. and it is a world that has no parallel with the dells, sonys or hps of the world.

nobody else gets to make mac boxes and you guys pay for that through the nose.

but i'm not arguing to change anyone's mind about it. all i'm hear to say definitively is that i hate apple. i hate them so much! (shaking fist in the air)

and let's everybody optimize for their baby and let's go at it. once again...

BRING... IT... ON...

jin

p.s. jobs ain't bein' courageous! are you kidding me? that's like saying that saying that you're a democrat in hollywood is courageous! he wouldn't do it if yuppie culture didn't pat him on the back and give him the thumbs up.

but the minute he shows up in his pajamas, a robe, unshaved with the morning paper and drip coffee in a bowl in hand to his brain washing seminars... then i'll call him courageous.

he's as much as a robot as any suit. just a more heinously pretentious and 'hip' (ugh) one.

oooooo, i hate him so much (shaking fist in air)

[toby]

Originally posted by Lightwolf
Hi toby,
exactly, and that is the _only_ advantage you get from a 64bit port. Anybody here render scenes with more than 4GB? I understand even the Dune mini series was rendered on 1GB / CPU, in HD.

So it was a loaded question, and I thought it was genuine query - remind me not to feed your attempts to put down the "competition"

You were probably one who argued "who needs USB?" when Apple installed it on all their machines - can you honestly argue that 'nobody needs any more ram'? Has SGI used 64 bit for years for no reason? Is it wrong to bring something to market before it's absolutely neccessary? And as far as speed is concerned, is a cheetah better than a Human, because it's faster? Do Humans suck?

These STUPID anti-Mac arguments never change. Nor do they ever leave the MAC FORUM, apparently. I still haven't gone over to the PC forum, as I've threatened many times, I guess I just don't get a kick out of thumbing my nose at people -

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
"3DS Max isn't available on a Mac and I 'm beginning to see why.
They simply aren't interested in developing for a platform which will make their product look bad"
That is the unsubstantiated BS. Insecurity is clearly visible when people attack a product that they don't even use, directing at people who do use it.

[jin choung]

ok....

let's get this straight....

it's not necessary...

and it's not faster...

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

ok....

jin

[toby]

hmmm... yes... the very core of the stupid PC argument...

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by jin choung
it's the fact that not only are they slower, they're MORE EXPENSIVE?!
Hi Jin, while I (somehow) agree with most of what you say, the above statement isn't quite true.
The Dual G5 has an excellent price performance ratio, and seems to be on par, or cheaper than comparable Xeons at the same performance range.
As for the single G5s, I agree.
Cheers,
Mike - defending Apple for a change ;)

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by toby
So it was a loaded question, and I thought it was genuine query - remind me not to feed your attempts to put down the "competition"

You were probably one who argued "who needs USB?" when Apple installed it on all their machines - can you honestly argue that 'nobody needs any more ram'?
Toby, I have to admit it was, and I am trying to make a point. Make it rethorical, sounds better than loaded ;)
But I'm glad I didn't get the "because it makes it run faster" answer, as I would have some time ago.
I don't argue the need for more RAM or 64bit computing, I am arguing the need for LW to be 64bit with the next release (who knows, it might be), since most of us agree that there are other, more pressing issues at hand with LW.
So far, the only area of work (that I'm familiar with) where the current 32bit addressing is a bottleneck right now, and has been for some years, is compositing 2K or more projects. (Of course, there are other areas like databases, but they already run on 64bit servers...).
Cheers,
Mike

[toby]

" I am arguing the need for LW to be 64bit"

ooooops - sorry

I agree that it's not critical right now -

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by toby
" I am arguing the need for LW to be 64bit"

ooooops - sorry

I agree that it's not critical right now -
Hi toby,
time to open a bottle, we agree for once ;)

I just thought, since that is the subject of this thread, I'd try to put the issue in a bit of a perspective.
Cheers,
Mike

[Ed M.]

Does Lightwave need to be 64bit for the G5? The short answer is: No. Why? because NewTek can do like all the other developers and tweak their current 32bit G4 code to gain access to the important 64bit features that the G5 brings to the table.

Lightwave for the G5 needn't be *fully* 64bit at all. NewTek, like all the other developers are now able to selectively target the parts of their app that will benefit most from going to 64bit. That's why a completely 64bit app isn't needed. That would be too time consuming for NewTek. However, a hybrid 32bit app with 64bit routines is certainly in order and it is far easier than converting an *entire* 32bit app to a 64bit app at once. By doing it this way, it becomes less or a burden since developers can migrate their apps at a reasonable rate - taking the time they need to get it right.

What's more, the tweaks they make now translates into that much *less* coding they'll have to do when they decide to migrate the rest of the app over to 64bit. The important parts will have already been made 64bit. Now does everyone get it?

There is no such option for Athlon64 or the Opteron. To take advantage of the 64bit features that AMD64 has to offer, you have to make the *entire* app 64bit instead of just the select, important parts.

In short, NewTek should start to offer the necessary 64bit code-tweaks for the G5 ASAP. The app won't be completely 64bit, but the important parts will be.

--
Ed

[Beamtracer]

Ah, but Ed, Lightwave would be one of the easiest apps to go fully 64-bit. The common code base is already 64-bit clean, as it used to run on the 64-bit DEC Alpha processor.

Go all the way, I say!!!


Those who are at the other end of the extreme, who say that we don't need any 64-bit features whatsoever, have got their heads in the sand.

The G5 needs 2 gigs of RAM just to be comfortable. I'd say 2 gigs is the minimum amount of RAM for a G5. Recent tests show that when you put lots of RAM in a G5 it runs much faster.

On a G5 you need more RAM than you would on a G4. So, just by purchasing a G5 your RAM needs have increased.

[Ed M.]

Uh... Beam? Panther will still be a hybrid OS. The kernel and a few other parts will be 64bit. The rest won't be. So, in order for the G5 to run an *all* and only 64bit app, the OS will need to be completely 64bit too, but it won't matter because there would be little difference (if any at all) between an app that's been tweaked and made into a hybrid or a full-blown 64bit version. Therefore, it's wiser that NewTek offer the code tweaks. There is no need to go *completely* 64bit at this time. A hybrid will work just fine.

The G5 needs 2 gigs of RAM just to be comfortable. I'd say 2 gigs is the minimum amount of RAM for a G5. Recent tests show that when you put lots of RAM in a G5 it runs much faster.

This has not been determined. There could very well be other factors at play. It seems to be the code, however. I'll let you know more as the information comes in.

--
Ed

[dsol]

There's more to 64bit computing than just the maximum amount of RAM your system can address. In fact, even with 32-but addressing you can access up to 4GB which is more than enough for just about anyone (for the moment).

The REALLY useful feature of 64-bit CPUs like the the PPC970 (G5) and AMD Opteron is their 64bit-wide registers. This means that any software that makes use of lots of 64-bit values (ie. double-precision floats) can operate on them much, much faster than a machine with 32-bit wide registers.

And since LW has been using DP Floats for all it's internal calculations since version 5.5 IIRC, a recompiled LW for the G5 should see a dramatic increase in performance - regardless of the amount of RAM installed.

The nice thing about the PPC architecture is it was always designed with a view to upgrading the registers and address range to 64bit. Due to the retarded nature of the x86 ISA, the Opteron faces the same problem going to 64bit as the 16bit 286 did going to 32bit 386, having to run under an approprate compatibilty "mode". It can't run 64bit code under a 32-bit OS. The PPC can, and MacOS 10.2.6 (G5 edition) already has recompiled system libraries to support 64bit math (not that LW necessarily uses those - maybe only Cocoa Apps).

Anyway - that's enough of my ranting.
Hope this helps clarify things.

For a good overview of the 970, and the advantages of 64-bit computing, there's some good articles at ArsTechnica:

"Inside the PPC 970"
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html

"64bit computing and x86"
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html

cheers!

[Lightwolf]

dsol:
Actually, double floats have been 64bit for some time, SSE2 uses 64bit floats as well, internal intel chips calculate with 80bit precision. You can easily use all of those features _now_ (actually, they are being used now). Doesn't make them 64bit CPUs though.
Actually, in a multi-tasking environment, broader registers als mean that task switching is a tad bit slower, since more data has to be stored on the stack when the registers are stored/restored.
Cheers,
Mike

[dsol]

Lightwolf: Good point - I guess I should have used Ints, not Floats as an example. Of course off the top of my head, I'd say it's likely that LW probably doesn't make use of huge amounts of integer math :(

And of course the FPU on the 32bit G4 supports DP Floats too anyway. Maybe I should have paraphased my post with IANAE!

[Lightwolf]

Hi dsol,
well, from a performance point of view I see no point in a 64bit version of a renderer like LW (exception: Opteron, but that's because the instruction set actually differs in 64bit mode and more registers are available to the compiler, this has nothing to do with a general step to 64bit computing though.). Even integer apps only profit marginally from 64bit ints, if they profit at all.
So far, for our trade, the expanded memory range seems to be the only reason to switch to 64bit, but I don't see LW hit that wall in production at the moment.
Cheers,
Mike

[Red_Oddity]

*pfff*, yeah, but that's you...you have no idea how many times i hit that darn 4Gig barrier when doing notepad work...:D :D :D

I apologize in advance for the lame attempt at humor...thank you...

[Lightwolf]

:D Well, Red, that's why I use NTPD-64, it only runs on Linux-128, but I can easily work with projects that are terabytes in size. The problems start when my machine has to swap ;)
You ask for nerd humour, you get nerd humour ;)
Cheers,
Mike

[Gui Lo]

The ability to move around with a wider bandwidth should speed things up, No?

So why highlight the massive change in architecture of the Mac system from 32bit wide to 64bit?

A DVD load of memory per sec.

Just asking

Gui Lo

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by Gui Lo
The ability to move around with a wider bandwidth should speed things up, No?

It does, but then again, most current systems already have a 64 or even 128 bit bus to the memory. That doesn't really define a 64bit system then either.
So, currently, if you have plenty of task switches a 32bit cpu on a 64bit bus is theoretically faster than a 64bit system on a 64bit bus (if all other variables stay constant, such as the number of registers...), because the 32bit system will only have to save/restore 32bit wide registers...
Cheers,
Mike

[jin choung]

and so,

in case you haven't noticed kids,

that brings us right back to saying that basically the biggest advantage with 64bit cpus IS the ability to address large amounts of memory.

and again, as some of you have pointed out, 4gigs is still a substantial (and i keep saying - EXPENSIVE) amount of memory.

jin

[Lightwolf]

Hi Jin,
phew, did we do yet another 360° ? ;)
(or a 2pi for all of you nerds out there...)
Cheers,
Mike.

[jin choung]

yup,

gettin' dizzy yet? :)

this issue, along with "isn't vertex sharpening the same as edge sharpening in sds", seems to be the nascar of thread topics....

i guess we're drafting huh?

jin

p.s. say, i know MMX accelerates integer math but does it also provide extra registers like SSE? anyhoo, it's good to know that intel isn't populated with tin foil draped orangutans. it was a good call with the 80bit fp....

[trick]

Originally posted by Beamtracer
...The G5 needs 2 gigs of RAM just to be comfortable...

So how much RAM do you think [8] needs to be comfortable...an extra 2. And to do professional work...an extra 10 ???

And what do you expect [8] to cost..after developing 3 different versions - Intel 32, OSX 32 and OSX 64 - with all the extra support on that, seeing that I always have problems running on 2 threads with all the different plugins I have ????

There are a lot of people I know that are only comfortable using 1st-class stuff like expensive G5's, BOXX rendernodes or worknodes.... The only thing I'm interested in that justifies a purchase is a powerstation that solves my speed-needs !!!! And for that none of these options is competitive...

[Red_Oddity]

Originally posted by Lightwolf
Hi Jin,
phew, did we do yet another 360° ? ;)
(or a 2pi for all of you nerds out there...)
Cheers,
Mike.

You mean 180°, right? 360° doesn't change much in the direction we're heading in this thread...unless we all do this 360° really fast blindfolded and try to pin the tail on the donkey...

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by Red_Oddity
You mean 180°, right? 360° doesn't change much in the direction we're heading in this thread...
I did mean 360° alright... Exactly, the heading didn't change much, but we sure took some crazy turns getting there.. Hm, we might even be at 720° in LW terms by now ;)
Cheers,
Mike

[Beamtracer]

If it's gone a full 360º, then it must be my turn to talk again.

Isn't the AMD64 processor going to be released this week? Will it be any good? Any thoughts?

[Jimzip]

Jin.
Sigh, who would you rather:
Steve Jobs (1)
or
Steve Ballmer (2)
If you have seen the videos I got these pictures from (1: Apple developers conference Jobs Keynote speech, (2: Microsoft's developers conference keynote)) I am just thanking whatever is the most powerful force in this universe that we have Jobs..
In my opinion: Ballmer scary. Scary man... Very scary man..
Jobs has done incredible things with Apple and things are still happening, he deserves some credit.
And about the price vs performance, give it up already. Weigh the things you get with Macs, and PC's, then take a look at the prices if they were both identically equipped. And don't bother posting your results, a lot of us already know the outcome.

Jimzip :D

[Earl]

Ya know, it's possible to use an OS without worshipping the CEO behind it... :D

[jin choung]

yup,

why give me a dilemma between two evils? i'm not a fan of either. i dislike apple with a passion but i dislike m$ just as much if not more.

again, i am nobody's fan boy but my own. i cheer for no CORPORATION - i cheer for the consumer.

i kowtow to no man's PR machine. and it's funny how the '1984' commercial about the mindless masses' allegiance to 'big brother' captures so well a smaller but equally mindless masses' allegiance to 'little brother'.

yah, i think balmer is a scary man inasmuch as i'd hate to run into him in a dark alley. he's like chris farley on pcp and invariably invokes the phrase 'it took (X number of cops) to bring him down'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as for amd, they alienated my dollar by rolling out a mobo line for both 64 and 64fx that will be obsolete next year. no more possibility of upgrading cpus after this roll out line. WHAT A GYP!!!

64 will be hamstrung in its performance by single channel ddr ram and clock speed and will not be competitive with p4s - though they will cost more.

64fx will be competitive (but not overpoweringly so) with p4s but will be hamstrung by the req for ecc ram (expensive) and its own inherent price (which is substantial).

jin

[Red_Oddity]

you know, when you think about it, Jin is a rather cheerful bloke:D

[Beamtracer]

Jimzip, I like those photos!

Steve Ballmer likes eating meat pies, burgers and coke.

Steve Jobs likes eating carrots, bean sprouts and lentils.

Maybe this has had some effect on their appearances, as you can see in the photos.


Originally posted by Red_Oddity
you know, when you think about it, Jin is a rather cheerful bloke:D "bloke"... isn't that an Australian originated word, or do the British use it too?


Originally posted by jin choung
as for amd, they alienated my dollar by rolling out a mobo line for both 64 and 64fx that will be obsolete next year. no more possibility of upgrading cpus after this roll out line.

Jin, if you are thinking about next year you should support non-Intel processors. Otherwise Intel will do a go-slow like they did in the early 1990s when they had the slowest processors in the industry. People seem to forget that. It was an example of how Intel behaves in the absence of competition.

[Ed M.]

Getting back on topic...

Here are some interesting excerpts I've taken from the following article. I'd like you guys to read the excerpts and interpret them for yourselves. Beam, Scot and others might even wish to refer back to my *original timeline* with respect to Windows64 support on AMD64 technology and see how it might line up given the fact that Longhorn has been delayed even further still. I'm trying to figure out what that means for the client version (i.e.,the desktop) of Win64 for Athlon64. It's the second quote that I'm wondering about.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1061703,00.asp

One of the key obstacles for Microsoft, and the PC industry in general, is convincing users that they not only need to upgrade, but to buy an entirely new and high-end PC. In 2002, according to Gartner, roughly 76 of all PCs sold were priced at $1,000 or less, versus 16 percent in 1998.

Will Poole, senior vice-president of the Windows Client Division, also said that there will be no interim Windows desktop client OS release before Longhorn ships, as some have speculated.


Microsoft also outlined its Windows Server roadmap, together with its virtual data center initiative. Microsoft plans several "out of band" releases before the release of Blackcomb, its next-generation server OS. Dave Thompson, corporate vice-president of the Windows Server Group, did not release a timetable for Blackcomb.

Support for AMD's 64-bit processors is scheduled for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, "hopefully by the end of the year," Thompson said.

Now, given the information I've provided in my other posts, what would be the best-guess timeline after factoring all the information together? Beam? Scot? Anyone? I'm posing it as a question just to see what *others* can interpret from the information that's been given by AMD and Microsoft representatives.

Oh, I have some other information that people might also be interested in ;-) That will come later though in another post in this thread.

You guys might also want to provide a link to this information in another forum that's been discussing pretty much the same thing. It's found here:

http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10842&perpage=15&pagenumber=3

Perhaps we can consolidate it into a single thread (i.e., here in this one)

--
Ed

[Ed M.]

Anyway, here is the other info I promised...

It looks like my initial hypothesis is true... Windows will utilize the WOW64 approach for AMD64 technology. It's more or less *emulation* for Windows and *not* the hardware per se', which is what I've been trying to tell people when I first started thinking about it. I asked a reliable German multiplatform developer to iron out a few details for me. I though I would share them with you here. The excerpts and my words will be in [[[ ]]] while the developer's explanation will be in *quote* format.

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:YbdwW-zgv6MJ:teched2003downloads.mymsevents.com/HOLTechEd/WINHOL03%2520Manual.doc+%22Athlon+64%22%2B%22WOW64 %22&hl=en&start=20&ie=UTF-8


[[[ Hi ******, I came across this information and I think my initial guess that Windows will implement the current WOW64 layer for AMD64 was right. ]]]

Yes, there has been a confirmation in the newest issue of c't magazine as well (a German print publication).

[[[Perhaps you could provide a little more insight into the details?]]]

I'll try.

[[[64-bit OS provides 32-bit libraries and “thunking” translation layer for 32-bit system calls.]]]

This is one of the "simple solutions": all 32 bit apps will suffer from a small translation overhead. In infrequent cases, that translation overhead can become significant though.

As it stands right now, the biggest roadblock in Microsoft's current WOW64 implementation is that 32 bit apps cannot use OpenGL ... a severe, severe setback for AMD, because the gaming crowd won't want to reboot that often. This level of support will undoubtedly take much longer.

[[[64-bit OS requires all kernel-level programs & drivers to be ported.]]]

As I said in our earlier discussions, there is no chance to pick up PCI (or AGP) cards from the "grab back" and use them under Win64.

However, Apple's solution allows you to use a lot of the existing drivers unchanged.

[[[Any program that is linked or plugged in to a 64-bit program (ABI-level) must be ported to 64-bits. ]]]

This means: a 64 bit app cannot use existing 32 bit plugins. In general, apps and "linked software components" cannot be intermixed between 64 and 32 bits.

This will probably boil down to some popular apps never being ported, because they'd loose all the third party plug-ins in the process of doing the port and will likely be a reason to remain 32 bit.

[[[OS & App share small 32-bit VM space32-bit OS & applications all share 4GB DRAM Leads to small dataset sizes & lots of paging]]]

This means a 32 bit Windows will compete with its apps for address space.

[[[App has exclusive use of 32-bit VM space64-bit OS can allocate each application large dedicated portions of 12GB DRAM ]]]

Under Win64, each 32 bit application has the full 32 bit address space for itself (or rather, "a" full 32 bit space), while 64 bit Apps
can have multiple address blocks each over 33 bits.

[[[OS uses VM space way above 32-bitsLeads to larger dataset sizes & reduced paging ]]]

Under Win64, the OS resides way beyond the 4GB limit. This is a natural thing to do, and right now 10.2.7 does the same thing. It is unclear what Panther will bring.

[[[Compatibility Thunking Layer A DLL integral to operating system Transparent to end-user Resides within a 32-bit process established by the 64-bit OS to run 32-bit application ]]]

This says that system libraries get mapped into the 32 bit space of 32 bit applications.

[[[32-bit application is dynamically linked to Thunking Layer Thunking layer implements all 32-bit kernel calls Translates parameters as necessary Calls 64-bit kernel Translates results as necessary ]]]

This is the translation process I mentioned above. The 32 bit app can't be linked directly to a 64 bit library, so it is linked to a "translator" instead, which in turn makes calls to the 64 bit OS.

[[[Well understood technology implemented in Microsoft® Windows®:Windows on Windows (WOW32, WOW64) ]]]

This is one of the possibilities that you mentioned to me in a previous discussion and it turned out to be correct. Is it "well understood". :-) Yes, a simple solution for them because WOW64 already exists for Itanium; definitely better than nothing.

[[[AMD64 Computing Strategy (3) BIOS is standard x86 32-bit code Transfer to 64-bit mode is done by OS loader. No extra Requirements.Legacy ModeAMD64 processors run any 32-bit legacy OS with leading edge performance Fully compatible with existing 32-bit systems and Mode under 64-bit OS64-bit OS runs existing 32-bit Apps with leading edge performance]]]

Well, this is true -- except when the translation fails. I think there should be pressure to get OpenGL to work first, but apparently it is harder than one would expect. It will take more time and effort.

[[[Processor core provides full x86 compatibility at full speed. No application recompile required, no emulation layerOS provides thunking layer at kernel-call boundary ]]]

True, it's not an emulation in the strictest sense. But it's not without "overhead" either, so it remains to be seen. As I said, this overhead can become significant.

So, there we have it... MS will be utilizing a WOW64 implementation for Opteron first and then a variation for Athlon64 later on.

It's pretty much confirmed at the following links as well:

CPU Zone - Windows XP 64-bit for AMD64 http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=6731

Building 64-Bit Windows Device Drivers, Part II
http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/17086?trk=DXRSS_LATEST

--
Ed

[Beamtracer]

From Ed's post, regarding AMD's 64-bit processors:


"As it stands right now, the biggest roadblock in Microsoft's current WOW64 implementation is that 32 bit apps cannot use OpenGL ... a severe, severe setback for AMD"


"there is no chance to pick up PCI (or AGP) cards from the "grab back" and use them under Win64."


"a 64 bit app cannot use existing 32 bit plugins"




The points made in the previous post indicate that AMD is in trouble. No graphics cards, no plug-ins, no OpenGL. If this is true, there will be no point ever recompiling Lightwave to work on 64-bit Windows.

Judging by this information, it seems that the AMD64 processor, released just today, would turn into a disaster, unrivaled by anything since the Itanic disaster.

[CaptainKirk]

?????????????????????/

I really fail to see what you're so excited about.

Nobody cares about 64bits at the moment. The point is that this Athlon performs better at Photoshop, Maya, Cinema4D, Lightwave and a number of other applications than your G5, no matter what the bits are ( read about Apple using 64 bit optimized Photoshop and still losing to Intel, and not not even this newest Intel chip.
And Opteron ( essentially same as this new Athlon FX ) killed Intel's chips at Photoshop and Maya.

AMD has a great chip which performs well no matter what bittage you are using. By the time 64 bit applications are available so will be all of the drivers, video cards and so on. There is absolutely nothing available for Apple either. You can't even get a decent 32 bit hardware sometimes for Macs.

So, chill out. I'm getting one of these Athlons as soon as prices drop after New Year's.

[Ade]

Yay its CaptainJerk, see Beam I told ya hes still floating around just waiting to be banned.

[jin choung]

yes,

absolutely. amd is in a very dire situation.

they don't have opengl, they don't have drivers and 32 bit apps need to run in emulation.

however, the emulation is the LAST of amd's problems.

what this means is that when windows64 comes out, it will be in such a state that no graphics card will support output because of lack of drivers. that means that you will not be able to SEE anything because a connected monitor will receive no signal.

that is only a minor problem however because you may be able to communicate with the os by means of the system speaker beeps and squawks. it also provides a much needed rest for monitors which lesser systems tax almost constantly.

a greater problem is that since there will be no 64bit keyboard, mouse or usb drivers, and also no drivers for any kind of network connection, it will be absolutely impossible to input anything at all whatsoever.

it may be feasible to do some rudimentary input equivalent to mousing and clicking by directly 'tickling' the electronic components of the motherboard with your fingers while charged with a carefully gauged amount of static electricity. but this may be more risky than it's worth.

that being the case, i suspect that windows64s first incarnation will be a simplified and stripped down version of windows that will use 64bit address space to squawk back to the user prime numbers by the system speaker - but that task in itself will be a tremendous load on the cpu and will show the true power of 64bit computing.

an added benefit to such strenuous processing is that amd64s will likely be very effective space heaters.

i suspect that this is a carefully strategized fringe benefit that amd intends to maximize by releasing their cpu in the colder autumn/winter months.

jin

[Beamtracer]

LOL! jin, you have a good sense of humor!



Originally posted by jin choung
it may be feasible to do some rudimentary input equivalent to mousing and clicking by directly 'tickling' the electronic components of the motherboard with your fingers while charged with a carefully gauged amount of static electricity. Now that really would bring 64-bit computing to Windows, as your computer would blow up into 64 bits!
Originally posted by jin choung
an added benefit to such strenuous processing is that amd64s will likely be very effective space heaters.
I once heard of people keeping warm during winter by huddling up to their Pentium laptops, especially after Intel introduced MMX (multimedia instructions) which caused the Pentium to run much hotter than before. However one guy in Scandinavia actually got his sensitive bits burned by holding one too tightly on his lap!

[Red_Oddity]

mmm....maybe it's just me...but why in the hell didn't AMD make some sort of deal with MS before even building these processors...

Or am i missing something...It's the Alpha chip all over again...raw power a planty, but no decent software/OS support....

Time for Linux or Unix i guess...

[jin choung]

ummm,

in case the gist of my joke wasn't obvious....

they DID make a deal with M$.

all the doom and gloom sayers are not thinking properly....

amd would not have struck out on a path that leads them without basic compatibility!

come on people.

so they will have drivers, opengl will work, direct x will work, everything will work.

and win64 will be out next year.

jin

[Ed M.]

Now here is something truly interesting (I posted this in another thread as well):

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prka_fea_tfiu.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prka_fea_ppnm.asp

Add to this the information I posted about the WOW64 layer that I correctly surmised would be running on AMD64 tech. to accommodate 32bit apps and the difficulty of OpenGL and the other obstacles I brought up and.... well, you guys get the picture.

--
Ed

[jin choung]

are you done congratulating yourself? finished patting your own brilliant back?

big whup... what is the 'revelation' here? we all knew that drivers would have to be re-written for winxp 64.

as for the list of unsupported stuff, nothing too damnably debilitating fortunately.

as for opengl... IT WILL WORK. and any and all of the stuff mentioned in m$'s list will work if somebody makes a driver for it. with opengl, all the support comes from whoever makes your video card. ya think nvidia won't? ya think ati won't? ya think one or the other will because of competition? and cuz maya and other big industry players can make money from such a thing?

puh-leez.

also, xp64 due early 2004. when is osx 64 due out?

and as for what all these 'emulation layers' or whatnot... let's just see who's faster shall we? irregardless of semantics.

jin

p.s. some other links....

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11822

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11781

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11785

[js33]

Remember Jin your talking to the biggest FUD miester ever seen on ANY platform. :D Ed wants the PC to fail so the MAC can take over the world. Well Apple missed that chance about 15 years ago with their closed proprietary boxes. Macs are less proprietary now but still closed (meaning the user is not free to upgrade the motherboard or processor). That is one of the reasons the Mac failed to get big was the closed nature of it's systems. If you want to just trade out the MB and processor you have NO CHOICE but to buy a new machine. Good for Apple = Bad for customer. Apple would have went out of business a few years back if it hadn't been for M$ propping them up. With John Skulley and later Gil Amilieo Apple almost went under. They surely would have given the course they were on. I remember before the Second coming of SJ Apple had about 100 different models and noone really knew what they all were.

Anyway if you want to talk with Ed just keep in mind that he probably works for Apple and will always present you with the most FUD possible.

Listen to the real Mac users and you will mostly get a more balanced POV on any issue.


Cheers,
JS

[DaveW]

Ed, those links are referring to the IA64 version of Windows XP, not the x86-64 version.

[jin choung]

oooh,

good catch. didn't look at the first page!

i love their terminology too. so it's not just CISC and RISC anymore... it's EPIC!!! explicitly parallel instruction computing... but it seems that it sounds cooler than it performs alas.

jin

[js33]

The Itanium has very high floating point performance due to EPIC but most of the optimizations are handled in the compiler which is not a bad thing. Maybe the Mac could do with some of that.

Cheers,
JS

[Ed M.]

What makes any of you guys think that the AMD64 version will be any different than the IA64 version, eh?

How about posting some links from Microsoft stating that it will be different and more feature rich than the IA64 version. Time to put the link where your mouth is. You see, I figured you guys would bring that up. Do you really think I would have posted the information directly from Microsoft if I hadn't tried to find the skinny on if the AMD64 version might be different? The reason you won't find anything is because the OSs will be one in the same feature-wise. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Oh, and as far as the Inquirer link. They are full of *****. ArsTechnica did a pretty decent job of dismantling it for the BS that it is -- and those guys are the experts, why don't you go argue with them?

You guys love to cling to any type of good news about Wintelon, don't ya? And you complain just like me when similar things are posted about the Mac. I'm just giving you guys a taste of your own medicine. Besides, you guys act like I'm pulling this stuff out of my *****, EVERYTHING I've ever posted was backed up with links to articles containing words spoken by AMD and Microsoft representatives, not me. Hell, I even get information directly from Microsoft's own site (several times!) and you *still* doubt it. I'm not the one in denial here, you guys are. It's just a lot of sour-grapes on your part if you ask me.

--
Ed

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Ed M.
What makes any of you guys think that the AMD64 version will be any different than the IA64 version, eh?

Because the Itanium is and never was intended for the desktop or consumers. There was no reason for MS to include any of those features. AMD64 on the other hand *is* intended for consumers, and I find it hard to believe that MS will leave out things like DVD playback and Windows Media Player.


How about posting some links from Microsoft stating that it will be different and more feature rich than the IA64 version. Time to put the link where your mouth is. You see, I figured you guys would bring that up. Do you really think I would have posted the information directly from Microsoft if I hadn't tried to find the skinny on if the AMD64 version might be different? The reason you won't find anything is because the OSs will be one in the same feature-wise. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

How about proving your FUD right? BTW, the second page of the GamePC review of the AMD64 version of XP shows Windows Media Player installed. Strange for MS to include a media player that is not supported. http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=amd64xp&page=2


You guys love to cling to any type of good news about Wintelon, don't ya?

And you like to cling to any news that could possibly be twisted to appear as bad news.

EVERYTHING I've ever posted was backed up with links to articles containing words spoken by AMD and Microsoft representatives, not me.

No, several times you've posted FUD like this that is either completely wrong or theories you present as established fact. For example, stating that the Opteron version of Windows will have better support for 32bit apps than the Athlon64 version; XP-64 will not be able to simultaneously execute 32-bit and 64-bit code; AMD version of XP64 will not be out until after Blackcomb.

When there is actual proof that the AMD version of XP-64 will not have support for basic consumer activities such as using Windows Media Player, burning CD's, watching DVD's, and chatting on MS Messenger, then I will be happy to join you in bashing MS for their utter stupidity. Until then, I will assume that since they are targeting consumers, they will include the same features as the 32bit version of XP.

[Jimzip]

Originally posted by jin choung:
it may be feasible to do some rudimentary input equivalent to mousing and clicking by directly 'tickling' the electronic components of the motherboard with your fingers while charged with a carefully gauged amount of static electricity. but this may be more risky than it's worth.

:D :D :D!! There should be a 'laughing while slapping ground' emoticon!

"Oh, there is no emoticon to express my feelings at the moment!" - Simpsons, Comic Book Guy.

Jimzip :D

[js33]

Ed,

Psst .... MS won the desktop war about 15 years ago...get over it. :D

I do appluad Apple for still trying to innovate though.

Cheers,
JS

[Ed M.]

Ahhh, more interesting factoids:

Monday, September 29th, 2003
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1304151,00.asp

From the article:
AMD officials said they expect mainstream demand for 64-bit desktop computing to take off with Microsoft's release of "Longhorn," the next version of Windows.

Isn't this what's been said all along, since I was piecing together my timeline that was based on direct quotes from other AMD and Microsoft representatives. It look like initially, there will be some extremely limited support via a 64bit Windows version with the main 64bit OS coming from LINUX at the moment. That doesn't bode too well for AMD no matter what type of spin they try to put on it. AMD needs to get mainstream, commercial shrink-wrap applications support in order to move the systems, otherwise they may as well just continue to sell their current 32bit rigs. LINUX isn't going to get them the support that they need. BTW, I think that eWEEK certainly hold much more water than that e-rag the Inquirer.

But they said demand among high-end gamers and PC enthusiasts is already developing.

This has also been surmised based on the information taken from words spoken by AMD and Microsoft representatives. What's more, if I'm not mistaken, a premier Windows game development company said that the first 64bit game won't be available for another 2 years. This only reinforces my belief that AMD might try and target console game makers with the chip in an attempt to nurture widespread adoption.

However, some enterprise desktop users say their need for 64-bit computing is a ways down the road. Terry Claypool, IS operations manager for The State Journal-Register, a newspaper in Springfield, Ill., said he understands why there is demand among high-end gaming enthusiasts, but for his company's needs, 32-bit computing works well.
"It's not like it used to be," said Claypool, whose company runs Windows XP primarily on systems from MPC Computers LLC. "We'd click a button and then go for a cup of coffee. Now, for what we're using, 32-bit is fine."

Haven't we been saying this all along? 64bit isn't going to be the driving force for the desktop for a while yet -- not in the Wintelon world anyway. You guys act like I'm the guy posting all these things. Heck, I'm just the guy collecting all the little factoids and attempting to piece together the larger puzzle. What I find interesting is that it does appear that Intel was right about widespread 64bit adoption on the Windows desktop coming at around the end of the decade. Given the current information, it would appear that at least initially, AMD64 will enjoy only limited support for 64bitWindows until Longhorn ships. LINUX is the only other alternative for them at the moment, but LINUX systems aren't going to generate the volume that they need to stay competitive..

--
Ed

[Jimzip]

True js! ;)

Actually, my friend just bought a new PC a week ago, really cool system, 128MB NVidia GeForce GPU, an AMD Processor I think, (just 'cause of monetary constraints, + he's a gamer..)
1 gig of RAM. DVD + CD ROM's.
He didn't get a DVD player with the system. (XP)

Also, we had a LAN last week, and this was four days after he had bought it, the box blew up. He'd been playing music and we all heard a pop, then smelled that burning metal smell. I felt really bad, he'd been waiting for a new computer for like three years! (Luckily everything was covered by warranty :) )
Still, when you buy a new system, I'd expect quality and that the system would last. It was custom built.

I don't know really, since I've never built my own PC, but from a lot of people at uni and this instance, it seems being able to build a PC is more trouble in the end than it's worth. Of course, there are advantages, I'm not debating that, but the chance that things are going to go pear-shaped seems to multiply..

Jimzip :D

P.S, damn Ed! You type fast man!

[Ed M.]

No, Dave, you've shown us nothing. Everything I've pieced together was from information extracted from articles containing information quoted directly from Microsoft or AMD representatives or taken directly off of Microsoft's site. I surmised that Microsoft will be using the WOW64 compatibility layer and you (and others) doubted it, until I posted the appropriate articles and links backing up my claim. You keep telling me that the Win64 version for AMD64 will be more feature-rich than the IA64 version, yet you cannot post any reliable proof of that. Let's see the official AMD64/Win64 feature list and what we can expect as users. They did it for Itanium and they had TONS more lead-time developing for Itanium. Besides, the current version is only in developer-only beta. Figure a good year off if they want to get it at least halfway right.

--
Ed

[js33]

Ed,

Windows XP 64 final version is due Q1 2004. Longhorn is due in 2005 and is a more overall update than just 64 bit extensions.
Intel has a license to use AMD 64 bit extensions and they will use it for the desktop rather than sabatage their Itanium line which uses IA-64(the version you pointed to earlier). Prescott already has 64 bit capability and Intel are waiting to see how it takes off and then they are already ready with a response. Of course the mainstream users won't need 64 bit and most of them probably don't render 3D, edit video/audio, use compositing software, etc...
Also remember all those G4/3 users out there? They won't be able to use 64 bit either. Never actually on those machines because Steve won't let them upgrade the motherboard and processor to a G5.

Cheers,
JS

[Ed M.]

Jim, I'm getting sick and tired of all the PC trolls hanging around the MacLW forum. It's getting annoying. It's as if they are wandering aimlessly because they lost their way due to the utter confusion that continues to build on the PC side. You don't see me going to their forums spouting off. I went once because Beamtracer had invited me. I figured I'd be greeted with a warm welcome. I should have known.

Listen, you guys know me. I generally post pretty accurate information. I bring a lot of good discussion to these boards and a decent amount of experts like Chris, John and Dave and Dean. Everything I've posted has been backed up to some extent. The most recent stuff has been extracted directly off of Microsoft's website or from articles directly quoting AMD representatives. I don't know ow much more evidence these people expect. Again, I'm just the guy piecing together the information. Scot, Ted, Beam, yourself could easily do the same and come to the same conclusions. I've even gone so far as to talk to multiplatform developers to try and get some of the inside scoop. What have these people brought to the discussion to refute it, some kid's wet dream extracted from an article or forum post on a gaming site or some other questionable source? Give me a break..

--
Ed

[Beamtracer]

Originally posted by js33
I do appluad Apple for still trying to innovate though.
You applaud Apple for "trying to" innovate? Like they haven't actually succeeded? Ha! What innovation do makers of Windows boxes do? You think Dell innovates? That's a joke!

Microsoft and Intel wait for another company to come up with a bright idea, then they crush that other company and release their own copy-cat version of the same product. Windows users always flock to MS's copied product.

Microsoft is a bit like the cuckoo of the computer world. It waits for another bird to build the nest, then it lays its egg in it.

Originally posted by js33
MS won the desktop war about 15 years ago...get over it.
That's fine if you want to live in the mono-culture world of Microsoft. The mono-culture is one of the reasons why so many virus's take hold of Windows computers.

[js33]

Hi Beam,

I didn't say it was good or bad that MS won. Just a fact whether we like it or not. I wish the Amiga had taken over but that didn't happen either. :(

I didn't mean that Apple didn't/doesn't innovate. I mean I applaud them for still trying to do something different even though the desktop war was lost along time ago.

Cheers,
JS

[js33]

Originally posted by Ed M.
Jim, I'm getting sick and tired of all the PC trolls hanging around the MacLW forum. It's getting annoying. It's as if they are wandering aimlessly because they lost their way due to the utter confusion that continues to build on the PC side. You don't see me going to their forums spouting off. I went once because Beamtracer had invited me. I figured I'd be greeted with a warm welcome. I should have known.
<snip>

Ed

Ed,

You bring all the attacks on yourself by being so onesided in all your arguements. Maybe if you tried to be a bit more open minded about things you would have a more balanced opinion.

Cheers,
JS

[toby]

Originally posted by js33
Ed,

Psst .... MS won the desktop war about 15 years ago...get over it. :D

I do appluad Apple for still trying to innovate though.

Cheers,
JS

Aren't you the little cheerleader - "go, MS, go! go, MS, go! yayyyy MS!"

Does it matter that they 'won' with dishonest and frequently illegal behaviour? Behaviour that has reduced the quality of computing instead of improving it? No, 'winning' is more important.

Corporations with inferior products regularly do better than higher quality proprieters, even without disgusting behaviour, it's called marketing.

[Ed M.]

All speculation js... Show us *some* evidence. And I don't mean from the Inquirer.

As for Longhorn, we've been through this already...

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1268771,00.asp


and here:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1235051,00.asp (there are 2 pages)

Then in May of this year, officials pushed back the release date to 2005. But now executives are declining to say when they expect the software to ship."We do not yet know the time frame for Longhorn

--
Ed

[js33]

Well the reason MS won is because they went after the business/office market rather than the desktop publishing market.
One was very big the other not so big. Remember that was Apples killer app back then "desktop publishing". Now that the internet has largely made that market irrelevant Apple is pushing for the desktop video market which is still a small niche market.

Cheers,
JS

[js33]

Originally posted by Ed M.
All speculation js... Show us *some* evidence. And I don't mean from the Inquirer.

As for Longhorn, we've been through this already...

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1268771,00.asp


and here:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1235051,00.asp (there are 2 pages)



--
Ed


Here's an update on Longhorn Ed.
Windows Longhorn (http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5083491.html)


AMD vs Intel (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1276898,00.asp)


ArsTechnica quoting the Inquirer about the P5 (http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/1064803631.html)

Ed it seems your own fav site has to get it's news from the Inquirer. I've seen you post articles from the Inquirer when it served your interest now you don't want to hear from them. :o

Cheers,
JS

[jin choung]

jimzip,

yes, loneliness and cheeseburgers make a dangerous combination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hey ed,

if ya need to ask what the difference between amd64 x86-64 and itanium2's whole Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing and their PURE 64bit NO BACKWARD COMPATIBILTY WITH X86 cpus, you shouldn't claim (and assume) to have a handle on anything on the pc side.

since you like ars so much, here's an article that explains what x86-64 actually is and does. has some interesting comments on the last page of the article too.

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-4.html

this talks about g5 v. p4s....

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/ppc970/ppc970-6.html#970vsp4

hey, but if we can agree on ars' analyses, let's agree to that. i'll come back with a quote from them when amd64 and prescott mops the floor with the g5. ok?

as for you bein' sick of pc folk,

don't INVOKE US then! new posts show up in the new post search. if you make provocative claims vs. pcs, you are likely to incur the wrath of the pc sentinels.

in this case, i believe it was beamtracer who made the provocative claim.

you guys can brainwash each other till the cows come home for all i care. but if ya start to make erroneous claims and i see it.... (shaking my fist)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

apple innovates by giving us pretty boxes. truly they've been on the forefront of box making. they've really revolutionized the way people think about boxes.

i know that sounds completely dismissive and sarcastic. and it is.

but really, that's pretty much the biggest innovation they've brought to the table hardware wise. (but they really did make pc people think twice about their boxes). i would even credit them with helping to spark the current pc enthusiasm of dremeling and otherwise punching holes into perfectly good boxes.

well firewire was good and osx is very nice with a nice, solid consumer implementation of unix - f@#$ing finally someone did it right. bill might just have been proven wrong that it was too late.

but apple's been on the (what's opposite of 'cutting edge'?)... 'blunt surface' of almost all their other hardware - their cpus haven't been able to keep up (unless you listen to stevie) and their mobos are freakin' ancient.

come on! while pcs have been bumping up their memory speeds and front side buses constantly, apple can barely keep their eyes open... like they can't even be bothered to pay attention memory/bus technology....

heck, even their ultra spiffy g5s run ddr - finally! nevermind dual channel ddr or ddr2 or quad channel stuff coming up. and if they don't change their ways, even if the g5 is half as fast as they say it is, you're gonna have a massive bottleneck at the fsb - the faster the cpu, the greater this problem becomes exascerbated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

again, i don't hate apple cuz they're slow.

that wouldn't even earn a smirk.

it's their pompous, affectation that bugs the hell out of me. 'i'm young, dress mod, wear horn rimmed glasses and probably a scarf for some reason, drive a vw, drink espresso beverages and that makes me a talented artist! hee hee'.

i hate apple cuz they dress up, act important and evidently won't even bother competing. and heck, why bother with making stuff better if you can just SAY it's better?!

it's got a cultish hue about it. dontcha think?

oooooh, it makes the skin crawl it does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and as i said, i'm no fan of m$ either.

but between m$, intel, amd, via, sis and some other players, a consumer can kinda leverage these 900lb gorillas against each other in just the right, 'red harvest', 'fistful of dollars', kinda way that you get to squeeze out choice, competition and value.

with apple, you're stuck with the pompous a$$hole$... they even recommend buying marked up memory from THEM for some reason.... ACK!

a$$hole$!

i hate them SO much... (shaking my fist)

jin

p.s. and they have SUCH a small, boutique, irrelevant market presence, they're not even useful as competition to drive innovation and value! twice as useless! AAAAAaaaaaaaaa. oh we can agree that they occupy space. So much... (shaking my fist)

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Ed M.
No, Dave, you've shown us nothing. Everything I've pieced together was from information extracted from articles containing information quoted directly from Microsoft or AMD representatives or taken directly off of Microsoft's site.


I've shown you white papers from AMD that refuted your claims that AMD64 chips wouldn't be able to simultaneously execute 32 and 64 bit code. I've shown you that your own article, when you said XP-64 would ship after Blackcomb, actually said it would ship before Blackcomb; and that article wasn't even about XP-64 it was about Server 2003. And I've shown you an article that refuted your claims that XP-64 couldn't simultaneously execute 32 and 64 bit code. When you claimed WOW64 would cause a big speed hit, I posted a review of the XP-64 beta and the reviewer said there was no noticeable speed hit.


I surmised that Microsoft will be using the WOW64 compatibility layer and you (and others) doubted it, until I posted the appropriate articles and links backing up my claim.


Could you refresh my memory and link to my post where I doubted it? The only WOW64 comments I remember posting were to refute you claims of a huge speed hit; I actually had an article backing me up and you didn't.



You keep telling me that the Win64 version for AMD64 will be more feature-rich than the IA64 version, yet you cannot post any reliable proof of that. Let's see the official AMD64/Win64 feature list and what we can expect as users.


And you can't post any reliable proof that it won't be more feature-rich than the IA64 version. I have posted a link to an article with a screenshot of XP64, and right there was one of the features that is not supported in the IA64 version, Windows Media Player. Could you at least explain *why* you think MS is going to try to sell a consumer OS that doesn't support many of the most basic consumer needs? No CD burning? No DVD playback? No Windows Media Player? No Messenger? Please explain why you think MS will leave these things out.

[js33]

Come on Jin don't hold back...tell us how you really feel. ;)

Cheers,
JS

[jin choung]

so much....

(shaking fist)

jin

:)

[toby]

apple innovates by giving us pretty boxes.

You macho-tech types love to jump on this band wagon. Just because Macs don't look like apartment buildings from the 70's doesn't mean they have nothing to offer. They were also the 1st to bring us USB, a dvd burner, PCI-X, built-in flat screen, Cinema displays, etc.
it's their pompous, affectation that bugs the hell out of me. 'i'm young, dress mod, wear horn rimmed glasses and probably a scarf for some reason, drive a vw, drink espresso beverages and that makes me a talented artist!

Come on jin, that's advertising. You expect them to market to AutoCAD engineers or build-it-yourself-ers?
How do you think we feel when we hear some geek brag that they can replace their processor when it burns up, they know where to get the 'bargain' hardware, 'I have more mhz than you', or that they know how to keep Windows from crashing 10 times a day?
p.s. and they have SUCH a small, boutique, irrelevant market presence, they're not even useful as competition to drive innovation and value!

well half the digital media in the industry gets created on a Macintosh. That despite the fact that 3D is still predominantly PC -

[js33]

Apple and the Mac are like Canada...You know it's there but it's mostly irrelevant. :D

Before you guys get all upset I'm just kidding.

Cheers,
JS

[jin choung]

hey toby,

macs were the first to bring us usb?

macho type? wow! that's the first time in the history of my existence that someone has categorized amidst the 'macho types'.

that's right... check it.... 125lbs soaking wet! a sinewy, pressure filled can of whoopass, springloaded for trouble. GRRRRR!!!! RARRRR!

as for the advertising,

i understand that it's 'branding' but it caters to a pretention set that i find deplorable, superficial, shallow and probably singlehandedly caused both the internet boom and the subsequent bust.

'i graduated on mummy and daddy's dime, i'm young, damn i'm attractive... now how can i get paid for not doing any work?'

'no... we don't know how the business will make money... but your investment is safe with us.'

and finally,

'stop riding that razor scooter around the office and fill out these pink slips you espresso swilling ninny! and don't knock over the pinball table!'

and it's not so much just this image but that they cater to the wealthy, 'better half' for their stuff with their prices. classist, elitist bullsh!t that irks the very core of my being.

and it is also a branding and image that TAKES ITSELF DEADLY SERIOUS.

you think steve jobs has a sense of humor about himself? you think he can look at the image that apple puts out and laugh at it himself?

self important, vain, smug, turtleneck wearing...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as for the tech geek hardware rats, no matter how much they brag and boast and strut their damn sexy muscles, they know they're dorks - correction - WE know we're dorks.

sure, we can kick *** at chess and fat32 a drive like nobody's business but it's still pretty hard to get a date....

we have perspective and a sense of humor about ourselves... forced on us for certain... but still, my mom says it's a good thing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

don't put 'value' in quotes! you might begin to argue other things but value is not in question.

my next upgrade will boost me 2ghz (bringing me to 3.0ghz P4 from 1.0 ghz P3 currently), get me 512mb of dual channel ddr2700 ram, get me a state of the art motherboard and cost me $500.

how much will the next significant upgrade for a mac user cost?

value is not a topic that is in play here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hmmmmm,

half the digital media? if ya count websites, perhaps....

still... market presence and impact - negligible.

prove me wrong jobs!!! prove me wrong!!!

(shaking my fist)

jin

[jin choung]

CA-N-A-D-A?

Ohhhhhh!

you mean america jr?

or what they used to call 'the escape pod' during the cold war.

jin

[dsol]

Jin: I'm a bit wary of posting anything right now as it feels like this thread's getting personal for some people :)

But I feel I should speak up about some of the things mentioned - just because AFAIK they're inaccurate:

> but apple's been on the (what's
> opposite of 'cutting edge'?)... 'blunt
> surface' of almost all their other
> hardware - their cpus haven't been
> able to keep up (unless you listen to
> stevie) and their mobos are freakin'
> ancient.

I'm not sure how you quantify "ancient". Apple have developed new MB's for each powerMac revision (apart for 1st Generation G4's). In fact, I suspect the feeble FSB of the G4 has pressured them to innovate more when it comes to developing their mobos - ie. moving more of their high bandwidth I/O (gigabit ethernet, firewire, independent PCI channels) to the northbridge, to "soak up" the unused bandwidth that the slow FSB of the G4 left over.

> come on! while pcs have been
> bumping up their memory speeds and
> front side buses constantly, apple can
> barely keep their eyes open... like they
> can't even be bothered to pay attention
> memory/bus technology....

OK, while the G4-based systems certainly had cruddy FSBs (167MHz), I don't think anyone could seriously accuse the G5 (particularly the dual 2GHz version) of having outdated memory/bus technology. It's got a 1GHz FSB (with separate 1GHz buses for each CPU). And the memory controller does seem to use dual channel ram (AFAIK you have to add ram using paired DIMMs).

> heck, even their ultra spiffy g5s run
> ddr - finally! nevermind dual channel
> ddr or ddr2 or quad channel stuff
> coming up. and if they don't change
> their ways, even if the g5 is half as fast
> as they say it is, you're gonna have a
> massive bottleneck at the fsb - the
> faster the cpu, the greater this problem
> becomes exascerbated.

My G4 at home runs DDR-333 and has been doing so since March. Not that the CPU's can make huge use of it (crappy motorola bus protocol), but it does provide extra bandwidth for other system I/O. And the G5's FSB (which is rather spiffy, even if it doesn't feature an integrated memory controller - yet!) is design to scale up with CPU clockspeed. So bottlenecks shouldn't be a problem the way they were on the G4.

DS

ps. my disclaimer: I own an Athlon PC and a Mac. I prefer working on the Mac (OSX rocks). PC's have better games and are cheaper to upgrade (and fix, when something blows up - like my power supply last Sunday!).

[Ed M.]

Read the discussion after the article guys...

http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=174096756&m=7060986785&r=7060986785

The Inquirer article is all Bull$hit.

Very nice article js.. looks like all marketing to me, but it still doesn't answer the release date, which even Microsoft has gone on record as saying they don't know when it will ship. It was supposed to be 2005, but I'll bet it's 2006 at the earliest. I wonder where OS X is going to be by then?

It's not going to be a pretty upgrade path for you guys. Just wait and see.

--
Ed

[Beamtracer]

Hey, Jin...

first you were raving about Mac users. Then VW drivers. Now Canadians.

I guess all this ranting must be good therapy for you. Get it out of your system.

[dmg3d]

Wow Jin...

You've shown me that PC users have a lot in common with their computers...

Overclocked and excessively hot. :D
How many fans do you have in your house? (and don't say just your Mom :) )

[jin choung]

hey i mock myself as blisteringly as anyone.

if you can't laugh at yourself then that's your liability, not mine.

and don't comment on my 'overclockedness' and canada defamation if you don't recognize the self parody and irony mixed in with what i say here. i dislike defusing punch lines with 'just kidding's every f#@$ing time i say some-g@ddamn-thing.

i assume a certain level of sentience. if ya don't get it and get all offended-like, tough.

i hate apple. i dislike mac users that have their identities so bound up in that corporation that they can't see fact if it slapped them upside the head. seriously, where does this mindless allegiance come from? don't root for apple. don't root for M$. root for your g@ddamned-self and your pocketbook! where's good old fashioned self interest?

vw drivers are fine if they like the car and not because it's a status symbol or an 'image' they BOUGHT INTO. the world is full of bullsh!t... it doesn't mean we should eat it up with a spoon.

as for inaccuracies... err, i think ya agreed with everything i said. they WERE behind. they're pretty good now (except for memory, see below) but i suspect they'll fall behind AGAIN unless they change their ways.

as for the g5, i don't think it's dual channel ddr. it's ddr but not dual channel.

anyone wanna confirm that?

jin

[Lightwolf]

Jin, its Dual Channel DDR.
The only current CPU/chipset combo that has a better/faster/tighter memory interface (for a multi-processor set-up) is the Opteron.
Siingle P4s currently have DDR Dual channel as well, as do the Athlons depending on the processor and the chipset.
Xeons currently have slower frontside busses and RAM, so the Dual G5 beats them there.
Cheers,
Mike

[Red_Oddity]

Originally posted by jin choung
vw drivers are fine if they like the car and not because it's a status symbol or an 'image' they BOUGHT INTO. the world is full of bullsh!t... it doesn't mean we should eat it up with a spoon.



I always eat with my hands:D

[Ade]

Originally posted by Lightwolf
Jin, its Dual Channel DDR.
The only current CPU/chipset combo that has a better/faster/tighter memory interface (for a multi-processor set-up) is the Opteron.
Siingle P4s currently have DDR Dual channel as well, as do the Athlons depending on the processor and the chipset.
Xeons currently have slower frontside busses and RAM, so the Dual G5 beats them there.
Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf im using here a dual 2.2 xeon and when set to 8 threads and render the whole system becomes unusable like os9 was. Even icq disconnects.

EVO W6000 compaq
Windows 2000 pro/ 2gig ram


G5 is unique as it has true fsb all at 1000mhz, not shared like in intels range, bus slewing is something that needs to be addressed when doing banchmarks.

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by Ade
Lightwolf im using here a dual 2.2 xeon and when set to 8 threads and render the whole system becomes unusable like os9 was. Even icq disconnects.
Hm, I have a Dual PIII 700 with 916MB Ram, I can easily render with 4 threads, nothing disconnects over here, and I even run other apps at the same time. If LW eats too many cycles, I lower the task priority. I use W2K as well.
I would suggest an upgrade to XP though, to make proper use of HT on the Xeons.
...and I've never had a PC that felt as slow as os9, not even my old PPro 200 ;)
G5 is unique as it has true fsb all at 1000mhz, not shared like in intels range, bus slewing is something that needs to be addressed when doing banchmarks.
The FSB isn't 1GHz on the G5, it is 500MHz DDR. The Xeons have a 166MHz Quad Bus, while the P4s have a 200MHz Quad bus.
On the Dual G5, the most limiting factor seems to be the speed of the memory, on the Xeons it is definetely the processor bus.
Now, for the Opteron... different league alltogether.
Cheers,
Mike

[Ade]

I read in the tech specs it is dual 1 ghs bus when its a dual system. Not dual 500.

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by Ade
I read in the tech specs it is dual 1 ghs bus when its a dual system. Not dual 500.
Well, that's Apple. ;)
It's a dual 500 DDR. Since it is bi-directional they just doubled the frequency for their specs (just like intel claims a 800FSB, even though it's 200MHz quad-pumped).
Cheers,
Mike

[Ade]

I read it off IBM's site. When they announced the IBM 970 compiler, i read it over and over to make sure.

[Lightwolf]

Hi Ade,
I just triple checked.
The GX bus runs at a fixed ratio to the CPU clock, on the G5 that is 1:4 (it could run at anything between 1:2 and 1:6). We have 1:4 = 500Mhz * 32 bit * 2 (DDR) * 2 (bi-directional) / 8 (bits per byte) = 8 GB/s - 10% overhead ~= 7 GB/sec per processor.
Note, this is bi-directional, only if the processor reads and writes at the same time. The read and write bandwidth are half of that.
As a comparison, on the P4:
200 * 4 (QDR) * 64bit (yup, 64bit processor bus here) / 8 = 6.4 GB/sec. It doesn't have a bi-directional bus, and can transfer that in _one_ direction, there is a small speed penalty involved with switching i/o directions though.
What were we discussion in the first place btw?
Cheers,
Mike ;)

[jin choung]

yah,

you were right about the dual channel ddr.

all i can say is thank god....

well, here's hoping that this trend of smart tech continues so that mac users actually pay through the nose for something worthwhile.

actually, i hope ibm releases a linux version for ppc 970 too. that would rock....

then, perhaps with a hack, we can run osx and get a non mac mac!

jin

[DaveW]

There are already PPC versions of Linux so you can buy a G5 from Apple or a 970 from IBM and run Linux. There's even a MacOS9 emulator that is faster than OS9 emulator in OSX :)

[jin choung]

yah,

i know there's linux for the mac but do i look like the queen of australia to you?

do i look like i drive a leer jet?

buy a mac.... yah, if only that were possible....

(which is to say again, i hate apple, i would not deign myself to give them my business and of course - it's really really expensive).

jin

[DaveW]

Well in your post you said you wanted IBM to make Linux for PPC970. And, there it is! If you want to buy a PPC970 computer from IBM, that is a different story.

[jin choung]

nonono,

what i said is i wanted ibm to make PPC 970 computers!!!

under the ibm brand! it would be like having a third party apple hardware dealer!

now that would be cool. apple clones again.

there are already rumors to this effect.

then ibm could 'legitimize' it by saying that it is designed to run linux for business (wink wink) but the kids will know what to do.

hey, if i wanted to just run linux, i can break out my 286!

jin

[DaveW]

nonono,

what i said is i wanted ibm to make PPC 970 computers!!!


I understand what you meant (now) but your post said:

actually, i hope ibm releases a linux version for ppc 970 too. that would rock....

[mlinde]

Originally posted by jin choung
what i said is i wanted ibm to make PPC 970 computers!!!

under the ibm brand! it would be like having a third party apple hardware dealer!

Um, they do. They make the 970 in the "entry level server" market. They also start at $3500. I couldn't find a desktop/workstation with the 970 in it in their site.

[jin choung]

doh!
yah,
my bad... yes, it was me that expressed my thought badly....

sorry.

jin