Mac OSX version?

[chikega]

Probably not .. huh? Oh well, thought I'd ask ... guess I need to stick with FCP.

[cholo]

Or wait for parallels to catch up with directx :)

Right now, bootcamp works ;)

[silver fox]

chikega,

Boot Camp is a free download from Apple for Intel Macs. It allows you to partition your internal hard drive into two parts, one for the Mac OSX and the other for Windows XP SP2 (your Windows disc must have the SP2 on it). Once you have Windows loaded, you essentially have a Mac and a PC in one machine. You can load SpeedEDIT and any other PC program that runs under Windows XP SP2.

I have a 20" IMac with a 250GB internal hard drive which I partitioned in 2 equal parts (you do not have to repartition your Mac side). I have SpeedEDIT and Mirage running on the PC side with 100% compatibility.

One thing that is not a problem for me, but for some users it might be is that when you turn your Mac on, you must decide which OS you want to use. With the current version of the MacOSX and Boot Camp, there is no option to switch back and forth between OS's without turning the machine off.

To select which OS you want to use, all you have to do is press and hold down the Mac Option Key and a screen will appear with 2 images of a hard drive with one labeled Macintosh HD and the other labeled Windows. To start using Windows, just click on the hard drive image labeled Windows, then click on the arrow below the image. Windows will boot and you are all set to use any Windows XP SP2 compatible program.

If your Mac is not an Intel Mac, then, I'm sorry you are out of luck because Boot Camp only works on Intel Macs.

I'm not sure if Parallels (the other program that allows Windows to be installed on a Mac) will work with Non-Intel Macs.

You can check out Boot Camp here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

And you can check out Parallels here: http://www.parallels.com/landingpage/dskd10_2/

Good Luck!

[pnelson]

We actually have quite a few customers using SpeedEDIT on a dual-boot mac system.

[BazC]

We actually have quite a few customers using SpeedEDIT on a dual-boot mac system.

So are you considering a version to run natively under OSX?

[ted]

With the dual boot options now available, I would think, NOT! :D
It's like saying I want FCP to run on a PC.
I would think NewTek wants to put their resources into making their products more mature then wasting time making every feature work on both platforms.
But hey, I'm just speculating here.

[BazC]

With the dual boot options now available, I would think, NOT! :D
It's like saying I want FCP to run on a PC.
I would think NewTek wants to put their resources into making their products more mature then wasting time making every feature work on both platforms.
But hey, I'm just speculating here.

Let me guess, you run Windows right? :D

This isn't much of an argument, you might as well say they should stop developing LW for Mac and concentrate all their resources on the Windows version! A lot of Mac users could still run the Windows version after all! Well they won't do that because they'd lose sales. I use a Mac because I like the OS, if I can run an app natively on OSX I will choose that app over one which is Windows only. Consequently if Speededit remains Windows only I won't be buying a copy, if they produce an OSX version I might buy it. Many other Mac users are the same so keeping the app Windows only might benefit you it wouldn't necessarily benefit NT.

[SBowie]

I think it would be wonderful to have, but a bear to program, and you have to question whether it would be worth the effort against the deeply entrenched competition.

[ted]

BazC, I agree it would be great since so many people that work with video do use MACs.
And I am curious how much time it would take to code everything for a MAC.

But a company has got to balance getting a new product like SE fully developed on one platform, or spending precious time mapping every function on multiple platforms and not catching up with similar applications.

The fact that most applications DON'T build cross platform applications has got to be an indicator that it takes more time then is worth losing on feature development.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be great, but is it worth the loss of feature development. Especially since people can now easily have a dual boot machine.

Maybe you can start a poll asking if people would rather have SE working on their MAC at the cost of loosing 25%-50%-75% of feature development.

[Bobt]

Mac was loosing the machine wars for a long time.
Finally they adpoted the Intel CPU. Now they have a Quad machine.
My feeling (not fact just feeling) they dont know how to handle the
rapid speed inprovements with newer models. Note their Mac Mini's
have not kept up with the latest CPU.

Bob

[Danic101]

From what I understand, NewTek relies on some windows components such as Direct X shaders that do not have counterparts as such on OSX. Which would make it really hard to port it. I would much rather see more features then native OSX support.

[Daniel Davis]

Media Shout is a corporation that builds a great worship graphic presentation software. When they were programing their latest version they were also pursuing very agressively to get an Apple version out there. Well, they found out that it was essentially programming two separate programs and wasn't cost efficient for their company.

The companies that successfully have a product that works nearly the same on both platforms are few and usually those with deep pockets, like Microsoft!

[BazC]

The companies that successfully have a product that works nearly the same on both platforms are few and usually those with deep pockets, like Microsoft!

I'm sorry but without meaning any offence, that's nonsense! There are plenty of small developers and one man bands creating apps that work well on both platforms. Pixologic - ZBrush about 6 staff I believe. Used to be one guy and was still cross platform. Nevercenter - Silo3d, 2 people. Luxology - Modo, about 6 again. These are all complex high end apps too.

The key to easy cross platform development is to produce platform agnostic base code, then it's pretty much a matter of compiling.

[Lightwolf]

I'm sorry but without meaning any offence, that's nonsense! ...These are all complex high end apps too.

The key to easy cross platform development is to produce platform agnostic base code, then it's pretty much a matter of compiling.
In the case of the above mentioned apps, yes. A 3D app that needs some cross platform UI and relies on OpenGL (which is cross platform) is easy enough to port.
Something like SE, an app that goes very deeply into the host system to achieve the performance it needs is not. DirectX on the Mac? DirectMedi/Show on the Mac? Nope.
Quicktime on the PC? Slow as hell, not an option either.
It makes it a lot harder if the complete media subsystem you base your code on is not present on the other platform... so in this case it would not be 5-10% of platform specific code (like in the apps you mention) - but more like 50-60% - and that is almost a re-write.

Cheers,
Mike

[BazC]

In the case of the above mentioned apps, yes. A 3D app that needs some cross platform UI and relies on OpenGL (which is cross platform) is easy enough to port.
Something like SE, an app that goes very deeply into the host system to achieve the performance it needs is not. DirectX on the Mac? DirectMedi/Show on the Mac? Nope.
Quicktime on the PC? Slow as hell, not an option either.
It makes it a lot harder if the complete media subsystem you base your code on is not present on the other platform... so in this case it would not be 5-10% of platform specific code (like in the apps you mention) - but more like 50-60% - and that is almost a re-write.

Cheers,
Mike

Thanks for your input Mike! I was speaking in general terms rather than specifically about Speededit. I'll take your word that a post to Mac isn't practical since you know a heck of a lot more about this stuff than me! :D I know DirectX isn't available on Mac and doesn't look like it ever will be.

[videojt]

If it was cost effective to do cross platform coding, I would assume that FCP would have been out in the 'windows' environment by now.

[Lightwolf]

If it was cost effective to do cross platform coding, I would assume that FCP would have been out in the 'windows' environment by now.
I think that is a different issue, politically motivated by Apple. After all, initially it was a cross platform product before Apple snatched it up.

So far, Apple has always stopped the windows versions of apps they bought.

Cheers,
Mike

[avkills]

Mac was loosing the machine wars for a long time.
Finally they adpoted the Intel CPU. Now they have a Quad machine.
My feeling (not fact just feeling) they dont know how to handle the
rapid speed inprovements with newer models. Note their Mac Mini's
have not kept up with the latest CPU.

Bob

Now this is nonsense. Apple had a quad machine before going to Intel. I think Apple is going to release products the same way they always have regardless of who supplies their CPUs. And possibly it could be that Apple tests things a lot more than other manufactures who are in a race to release the latest and greatest. The mini is a cheap consumer machine that does not require the latest CPU; so that is a bad example IMO.

I'd say that almost all Mac users use either FCP or AVID, so the investment for Newtek to make an OS X version really does not pan out realistically. It would have to be *really* ground-breaking for me to ditch FCP; plus it would have to work with my Firewire interface (AJA IoLA) and be QuickTime based.

-mark

[videojt]

I think that is a different issue, politically motivated by Apple. After all, initially it was a cross platform product before Apple snatched it up.

So far, Apple has always stopped the windows versions of apps they bought.

Cheers,
Mike
__________________
Mike;
Good point, I spokey too sooney

John

[Dan Barnett]

I noticed parallels only works with intel-based macs.

I was wanting to know if the final answer is that speed edit will only work on a intel-based mac using 'bootcamp'.
I was hoping to see if it works with parallels. Has anyone tried it?

they have a new version of paralells out with coherence technology.

Good Discussion.

[Mr Maze]

I would like to see SE on Mac simply because I already have Lightwave and Newtek offers a discount for LW users. The discounted price is way below cost of FCP...

[Lightwolf]

I noticed parallels only works with intel-based macs.

Yup, it only provides the environment for Windows to run in, not the CPU.

I was wanting to know if the final answer is that speed edit will only work on a intel-based mac using 'bootcamp'.
I was hoping to see if it works with parallels. Has anyone tried it?

I'd assume only if they get hardware accelerared gfx to work (I think SE uses D3D for some stuff). Then the question remains of how fast D3D will run.

Cheers,
Mike

[TRCC]

The mini is a cheap consumer machine that does not require the latest CPU; so that is a bad example IMO.

I'd say that almost all Mac users use either FCP or AVID, so the investment for Newtek to make an OS X version really does not pan out realistically. It would have to be *really* ground-breaking for me to ditch FCP; plus it would have to work with my Firewire interface (AJA IoLA) and be QuickTime based.

-mark


Here here... I love newtek, wonderful customer service, they guys down there are excellent... but it would take ALOT to get me off of FCPstudio. Besides that, companies like Adobe run cross platform, they do have deep pockets, but they just finallay decided to run aginast FCP again. Personally I am happy where I'm at, LW, AE, and FCP work great together for what I do, so even if NewTek did have a SE version, I probably would stay where I'm at.

(MY TWO CENTS)
Luke

[RPiekar]

Do you have an opinion which of the two ( Parallels Desktop or Bootcamp) will work better with SpeedEdit on an Intel Mac?

[Lightwolf]

Do you have an opinion which of the two ( Parallels Desktop or Bootcamp) will work better with SpeedEdit on an Intel Mac?
Well... I have one. Bootcamp, because SE relies on DirectX acceleration for the preview window (and this is not hardware accelerated using Parallels - at least for the moment).

Cheers,
Mike