PDA

View Full Version : Are any of the Apple iMacs made within the past 2 years any good for using lightwave?



yoshiii
03-03-2014, 04:33 AM
Hello

Are any of the iMacs made in the past two years any good for using lightwave? Or am I better off buying a used or new Mac Pro?

BeeVee
03-03-2014, 07:41 AM
Konnich-wa,

Yes, fine. You can go back five years and all will still be good (just slower).

B

raymondtrace
03-03-2014, 09:43 AM
You can go back 2 or 5 years but you won't be able to go too far forward as iMacs (or any all-in-one system) are not very extensible/upgradeable.

Windows systems can be cheaper, more configurable, and offer you a larger library of available plugins.

(...not to start a platform war. I use both. LW runs on my Windows systems.)

Mr_Q
03-03-2014, 10:36 AM
I was using a 2010 iMac just fine until recently. I now have a 2013 MacBook Pro. Lightwave runs great on both.

There are a couple of interface quirks you have to get used to in OSX. Function Keys need to be set for use in System Settings. The file dialogs for OSX take a bit getting use to. There are some GUI refresh oddities that, again, take some getting use to. By far the largest is if you minimize Layout, getting it back can be a tad confusing. You have to right click on its icon in the Dock and select "Show all windows." Also, all of Lightwave's GUI panels will stay displayed even if you click off to another app or on to the desktop. A behavior not common with most OSX apps.

Most of these you will adjust to. For people like me, it's always a bit maddening as I am working with Lightwave in Windows 8-hours a day at work. So when I come home, there's always that adjustment period.

yoshiii
03-03-2014, 03:27 PM
[

yoshiii
03-03-2014, 03:29 PM
You can go back 2 or 5 years but you won't be able to go too far forward as iMacs (or any all-in-one system) are not very extensible/upgradeable.

Windows systems can be cheaper, more configurable, and offer you a larger library of available plugins.

(...not to start a platform war. I use both. LW runs on my Windows systems.)


I was using a 2010 iMac just fine until recently. I now have a 2013 MacBook Pro. Lightwave runs great on both.

There are a couple of interface quirks you have to get used to in OSX. Function Keys need to be set for use in System Settings. The file dialogs for OSX take a bit getting use to. There are some GUI refresh oddities that, again, take some getting use to. By far the largest is if you minimize Layout, getting it back can be a tad confusing. You have to right click on its icon in the Dock and select "Show all windows." Also, all of Lightwave's GUI panels will stay displayed even if you click off to another app or on to the desktop. A behavior not common with most OSX apps.

Most of these you will adjust to. For people like me, it's always a bit maddening as I am working with Lightwave in Windows 8-hours a day at work. So when I come home, there's always that adjustment period.


Maybe I should get a old Mac Pro. It would be best to have two monitors too.

dsol
03-04-2014, 05:47 PM
Maybe I should get a old Mac Pro. It would be best to have two monitors too.

Though you can connect a second (and third!) display to an iMac too - the new ones comes with two Thunderbolt ports. You can even add more PCI cards to it using a Thunderbolt PCI-E expansion chassis if you want (though it's a bit pricey!)

Sebasvideo
03-06-2014, 12:26 PM
You'd be much better off building yourself a beefy PC, or have someone build it for you. iMacs have really outdated CPUs, I wouldn't even buy one for video editing, much less for real 3D software, Lightwave or otherwise. Anything takes ages to render in 3D even in the fastest machines, so the more processing power you have the better. Sure, Mac OS X looks better than Windows, but the time you save on renders makes PCs a much better choice, unless you spend several thousand dollars on the late 2013 Mac Pros, but for the money you spend on one of those, you can have a hell of a faster PC.

dsol
03-06-2014, 12:57 PM
You'd be much better off building yourself a beefy PC, or have someone build it for you. iMacs have really outdated CPUs, I wouldn't even buy one for video editing, much less for real 3D software, Lightwave or otherwise. Anything takes ages to render in 3D even in the fastest machines, so the more processing power you have the better. Sure, Mac OS X looks better than Windows, but the time you save on renders makes PCs a much better choice, unless you spend several thousand dollars on the late 2013 Mac Pros, but for the money you spend on one of those, you can have a hell of a faster PC.

I'm sensing some windows-owner bias there :) The iMacs have the latest intel CPUs (Haswell). And for video editing they have FCPX - which is (despite it's initial mishandled launch by Apple) the best pro NLE out there. The mac mini on the other hand is still stuck with last-gen CPUs and is well overdue an update. I'll also say that the 2013 Mac Pro is cheaper than any comparable PC workstation of the same spec, though is hobbled for 3D work by the fact it's single CPU socket only.

dsol
03-06-2014, 01:00 PM
I will say though - if you're ONLY using lightwave or other 3D apps, then a windows box makes a lot of sense. I really like the other benefits of OSX and also really like FCPX too (and do most of my work in After Effects anyway, which isn't noticeably better or worse on either platform!) so for me, OSX is my platform of choice.

Sebasvideo
03-06-2014, 01:09 PM
I'm sensing some windows-owner bias there :) The iMacs have the latest intel CPUs (Haswell). And for video editing they have FCPX - which is (despite it's initial mishandled launch by Apple) the best pro NLE out there. The mac mini on the other hand is still stuck with last-gen CPUs and is well overdue an update. I'll also say that the 2013 Mac Pro is cheaper than any comparable PC workstation of the same spec, though is hobbled for 3D work by the fact it's single CPU socket only.

I've had three Macs over the years, and to me the notion that Macs are better than PCs fell when I had the same problems with them I had with PCs. Of course if you give me the choice between buying a Mac or a low quality brand PC like a Dell, I will always choose the Mac, but of all the machines I had in twenty years, the fastest, most reliable and overall satisfying have been the ones I built by myself since 2007. Not to mention far more expandable and upgradeable.

As for FCPX being the best pro NLE out there, I think most users of Avid, Premiere and Edius would have a good laugh at that, myself included.

It doesn't matter if the iMacs have the latest generation chips, they're still quad core and grossly overpriced for a product that can barely be upgraded, which is also the case with the new Mac Pro, everything through Thunderbolt.

And the Mac Pros are a joke, they're made only for Mac fanboys. $3,000 for a quad core CPU with 12 GB of RAM? Are you kidding me? That's just laughable. Oh, right, and $4,000 if you want a six core CPU with 16 GB of RAM. I have a PC with 16 GB of RAM. I built it in 2010, almost four years ago. Right now I wouldn't build anything with less than 32 GB.

For $4,000 you can build a hell of a PC, and way more RAM.

dsol
03-06-2014, 01:28 PM
I'd argue that Intel's habit of changing CPU sockets with every generation (almost) undermines the classic PC desktop notion of upgradability anyway. By the time you upgrade the CPU and Mobo, you're likely to upgrade the GPU too. In which case, the only components you're keeping are the case, PSU (which you might have to upgrade too) and the drives (which could be mounted in external enclosures if you really wanted). The problem is, Intel doesn't really care about desktops anymore - they represent a vanishingly small percentage of their sales compared to laptops. In the early 2000's it was very different. But now everyone is affected by this industry shift - both Apple and PC Vendors.

Actually, come to think of it - the best reason to put together a windows system if you want to get the most bang for your buck in LW, is AMD. You can put together a 32-core monster for the cost of an 8-core intel solution (though admittedly those cores are much lower performing on a single-thread basis).


As for FCPX being the best pro NLE out there, I think most users of Avid, Premiere and Edius would have a good laugh at that, myself included.

Avid is a joke. It's a software relic from the 1990's. You have to render EVERYTHING and it's slow as sin to import footage (since it insists on sticking to 90's paradigms of "offline" and "online" footage). Premiere is OK, though I find the interface a bit clunky (and exporting final content in the correct format is inordinately fiddly!). I don't know anyone using Edius these days unless they're forced to because they paid for a site license 5 years ago. I've heard Vegas is good though (and Windows only too!)

Sebasvideo
03-06-2014, 01:39 PM
I'd argue that Intel's habit of changing CPU sockets with every generation (almost) undermines the classic PC desktop notion of upgradability anyway. By the time you upgrade the CPU and Mobo, you're likely to upgrade the GPU too. In which case, the only components you're keeping are the case, PSU (which you might have to upgrade too) and the drives (which could be mounted in external enclosures if you really wanted). The problem is, Intel doesn't really care about desktops anymore - they represent a vanishingly small percentage of their sales compared to laptops. In the early 2000's it was very different. But now everyone is affected by this industry shift - both Apple and PC Vendors.

Actually, come to think of it - the best reason to put together a windows system if you want to get the most bang for your buck in LW, is AMD. You can put together a 32-core monster for the cost of an 8-core intel solution (though admittedly those cores are much lower performing on a single-thread basis).

It depends on how long you wait to upgrade, if you wait years obviously you will have to upgrade CPU and mother board, possibly RAM too, but not graphic card unless you want to, or case, PSU, hard drives, etc. There's not even a contest between the upgrade value of a built PC against a Mac of any kind. Again, I'm talking only about custom built PCs, I would never buy a Dell again or any other brand PC.

As for laptops, I doubt that Intel will stop making desktop CPUs anytime soon, and if they do, they will never stop making server CPUs since no matter how successful laptops, touch this and that platforms you have, you will always need servers. So there's no chance Intel will stop making CPUs for the foreseeable future.

As for AMDs, I wouldn't put AMD on anything that needs too much power these days. Their 8 core CPU is about as good as the 4 core Intel 4770k in benchmarks, but the AMD consumes much more power, so if you put a few render nodes on those, your power bill is going to go through the roof.

raymondtrace
03-06-2014, 04:40 PM
I'd argue that Intel's habit of changing CPU sockets with every generation (almost) undermines the classic PC desktop notion of upgradability anyway. By the time you upgrade the CPU and Mobo, you're likely to upgrade the GPU too. In which case, the only components you're keeping are the case, PSU (which you might have to upgrade too) and the drives (which could be mounted in external enclosures if you really wanted)...

All valid points, but we're neglecting the matter of a display in an all-in-one unit (iMac or laptops). That is what really harms upgradeability.

BeeVee
03-07-2014, 12:58 AM
But for a single machine, especially for a home user that's happy to build their own machine AMD is a good way to go. My machine is called Trigger mainly because I keep replacing bits of it, but it's still the same machine (Only Fools and Horses reference). AMD are less keen on changing their socket design and are more keen on maintaining compatibility so there's a lot less of the "replace everything in one go" attitude there is on the Intel side. Mind you, only NVidia for the gfx card side, I'm not so AMD I want to go Radeon or FirePro again...

B

prometheus
03-07-2014, 01:15 AM
I will not get into mac due to the lack of some support and all plugins with it, though I would really love to have the Mac look of Lightwave when working, itīs clean and has no boundary edges on the module windows, I think itīs about 3 millimeters on each side of every lightwave window module panel, looks bad in windows...hope some UI wizards could do something about that...or maybe I need to run a
seperate simulation program to do that?? :D

Michael

Sebasvideo
03-07-2014, 01:20 PM
I will not get into mac due to the lack of some support and all plugins with it, though I would really love to have the Mac look of Lightwave when working, itīs clean and has no boundary edges on the module windows, I think itīs about 3 millimeters on each side of every lightwave window module panel, looks bad in windows...hope some UI wizards could do something about that...or maybe I need to run a
seperate simulation program to do that?? :D

Michael

I like the look of Mac too on everything, Lightwave, Modo, Adobe programs, you name it. The font smoothing is way better. Unfortunately to get that you either have to buy an overpriced machine, or buy specific PC parts to build a Hackintosh, which is a nightmare to setup and unstable. However, at least in Windows 7 and earlier, you can adjust the border size so it's not so thick.

raymondtrace
03-07-2014, 03:33 PM
I'm amused by people that are so affected by window decoration.

One might just theme their system to look like Mac. Then you can still use all the plugins from the Windows world.

Here's Lightwave running on Linux (with Wine) and themed as OS X.

120637

Sebasvideo
03-07-2014, 03:43 PM
I'm amused by people that are so affected by window decoration.

One might just theme their system to look like Mac. Then you can still use all the plugins from the Windows world.

Here's Lightwave running on Linux (with Wine) and themed as OS X.

120637

No offense, but that doesn't look like Mac OS X. It has a bar at the top that kind of looks like it, and that's about as close as it gets. The text looks like Windows' but horribly embossed. Look up screenshots of Lightwave under Mac OS X and you'll see what I mean.

Besides, to me dressing up an OS to make it look like another doesn't make any sense. You can find a program to emulate the dock, another to make the menus look like Mac, and a dozen more programs taking up memory and CPU, and still it won't look like real Mac OS X. It's a waste of time.

Mr_Q
03-07-2014, 04:11 PM
Parallels, the emulator for OSX, comes with all the tools to make your Windows install look Mac again. I think that's silly. I do enjoy emulating Windows at 1:1 speed in OSX though, when needed.

raymondtrace
03-07-2014, 04:48 PM
No offense, but that doesn't look like Mac OS X...

Are you being critical of something that took me two whole minutes to show? Ouch, I'm hurt. :D

It was just an illustration to show nobody has to use the default UI of their system, unless you are using a real Mac. There are plenty of native and 3rd party tools for Windows and Linux users to tweak their system UI.

To me, choosing an OS based on its looks instead of software capabilities doesn't make any sense. That is why I am eternally confused why people buy a Mac for Lightwave. It is like building a Hackintosh for FCP. Just save the trouble and get the system that runs the software best. The only reason to get Lightwave for Mac is if you already have a Mac.

pinkmouse
03-07-2014, 04:49 PM
..or buy specific PC parts to build a Hackintosh, which is a nightmare to setup and unstable....

Writing this on a perfectly stable Hack, and it took less time to setup and install OSX than it did when I installed Windoze. :)

Sebasvideo
03-07-2014, 07:25 PM
To me, choosing an OS based on its looks instead of software capabilities doesn't make any sense. That is why I am eternally confused why people buy a Mac for Lightwave. It is like building a Hackintosh for FCP. Just save the trouble and get the system that runs the software best. The only reason to get Lightwave for Mac is if you already have a Mac.

Agreed. I, as many others, fell into the notion that Macs are better for graphics and video work, and was captivated by the much nicer GUI. But then I had problems with all the models I had, and that taught me that even if I have to put up with an uglier GUI I'd rather have a much beefier Windows system, and yes, I could tweak the look, but I'd rather not install 3rd party software to do that, since it's going to make the GUI feel heavier (it did every time I tried) and in the end, it's time I'd rather spend learning productive software and get used to the Windows look. Of course when the time comes that I can't get a license to Windows 7 anymore and I have to see the Windows 8 desktop GUI all day long I will probably have to install a theme program or something.

- - - Updated - - -


Writing this on a perfectly stable Hack, and it took less time to setup and install OSX than it did when I installed Windoze. :)

Sure, but then you want to buy a new graphics card and you have to check on some list if the drivers have been hacked already, if it's compatible, etc, etc. With Windows it works right out of the box.

pinkmouse
03-08-2014, 12:48 AM
I call that due diligence, and I do that for Windows hardware as weli. Seriously, I've had more grief with the software dongle and soundcard I use for loudspeaker testing on the PC side than I ever did installing my GTX 770 on the Mac side.

Three or four years ago, you were right, and it was a pain. These days, with good community support and some simple software tools it really is an option to consider.

CaptainMarlowe
03-08-2014, 03:21 AM
Not to jump into this endless discussion about Windows versus Mac. To answer the OP initial question : LW 11.6 runs fine on my 2012 macbook air. It also worked fine until a few months ago on my late 2009 iMac i7. I have since then changed it for a more recent iMac.
The question you should ask yourself is : what are you going to do with your computer ? If it is for LW only, then go for a PC. If you consider mac-specific applications, such as Motion or Final Cut Pro, and if you don't want to build your own PC, then buying an iMac is to consider.
I have built PCs for years, until I decided I hadn't time anymore for that (e.g. when I experienced the joys of fatherhood !!) and I then switched for iMacs. It was 15 years ago, and I never looked back, especially as I still have to work on PCs at my office. If you are on a budget, buying a refurbished iMac on the applestore can save you a few hundred bucks. I always buy my macs there, and have never been disappointed (maybe I'm lucky).

prometheus
03-08-2014, 05:26 AM
I really donīt wanīt to install and run linux to get the mac look on windows 7 pc, or install third party plugins or processes running in the background sucking memory and processing power just to get
lightwave to look as it does in mac.

If I simply can change the boarder size in windows settings then I will check in to that of course..it will be easiest and that might be enough for now anyway.

Michael

gerry_g
03-08-2014, 07:35 AM
just started using a KVM switch between two Macs and its way better than I remember, nothing to stop you mixing it up a little and running one PC and one Mac, I really like the look of Windows 8, maybe one day I'll even pull my disk out of it's case and install it, then again hell might freeze over first

raymondtrace
03-10-2014, 08:52 AM
Since the advent of the garish, cartoony blue border decoration of Windows XP, I have been applying the "Classic Windows" theme to my systems. It gets rid of distracting system colors and useless transparency effects. This can all be done with native Windows OS settings. I have not seen such control in Mac.