PDA

View Full Version : Speaking of 64-bit versions of Lightwave... I have an idea!



joeldberry
04-27-2005, 09:05 AM
How about a 64-bit version of Lightwave for my kick-*** Dual-G5 with (soon) Tiger?

Yeah, how about that? Now THERE's an idea!

Lukesutherland
04-27-2005, 10:48 AM
whats a G5? :confused:

mattclary
04-27-2005, 11:05 AM
Probably once Apple gets it's act together.


While the G5 is a 64-bit CPU, Mac OS X is not fully 64-bit at this time. Tiger will allow non-GUI based programs to be 64-bit – but this excludes Layout and Modeler from becoming 64-bit applications until Apple updates the GUI layer to 64-bit.



http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showpost.php?p=235223&postcount=3

joeldberry
04-27-2005, 11:38 AM
Doh! :eek:

hrgiger
04-27-2005, 12:45 PM
whats a G5? :confused:

G5 is just an acronym for Got 5 months to wait for the mac version?

Captain Obvious
04-27-2005, 02:06 PM
It's not really that easy... Tiger is fully 64-bit, just all APIs aren't. There is nothing that says NewTek can't have one "engine" running fully 64-bit and one GUI layer that's using the 32-bit Carbon (or Cocoa, that'd be very nice!) API. Making 64-bit versions of Cocoa and Carbon would be a lot of work, and would cause all sorts of compatibility problems.

Karmacop
04-27-2005, 04:10 PM
Apple have actually said that this is as far as they are taking 64-bit for the moment. They said porting the gui to 64-bit would actually make the interface much slower, so they've left it as 32-bit.

WizCraker
04-27-2005, 07:24 PM
While the G5 is a 64-bit CPU, Mac OS X is not fully 64-bit at this time. Tiger will allow non-GUI based programs to be 64-bit – but this excludes Layout and Modeler from becoming 64-bit applications until Apple updates the GUI layer to 64-bit.

Amazing how companies make excuses such as this. If other companies are able to make their apps use 64-bit features then that means they took the extra step to figure out that the GUI doesn't have to be. 64-bit has some major advancements that work in the low level that not seeing the light that make the core engine utilize the 64-bit but keep the interface the same.

Its like me going and saying ah I can't finish this super cool tool [for 64-bit] which will give it a GUI interface because the GUI does not support 64-bit APIs.

It is just another way for companies to say in a nice complicated and well structured PR statment that [most are non CS*] people will understand and take at face value as the reason why they choose not to make their product for that platform.

* CS = Computer Science. The schools that rank the best in the country for Computer Science programs have required classes on processor architectures that cover this sort of myth.

mattclary
04-27-2005, 07:33 PM
Amazing how companies make excuses such as this.

Yeah, the real reason is they think a single digit market share just isn't worth the effort. :rolleyes:

Fausto
04-27-2005, 08:08 PM
It's not really that easy... Tiger is fully 64-bit, just all APIs aren't. There is nothing that says NewTek can't have one "engine" running fully 64-bit and one GUI layer that's using the 32-bit Carbon (or Cocoa, that'd be very nice!) API. Making 64-bit versions of Cocoa and Carbon would be a lot of work, and would cause all sorts of compatibility problems.

Fact:
Tiger is technically a 32-bit operating system with a 32-bit kernel, it will support 64-bit applications and 64-bit address spaces only on 64-bit capable Macs such as the PowerMac G5.

This does not mean that Tiger is going to be a *Fully 64-bit* OS.

PS, this is one expensive OS
OSX 10.1 (Puma) 19.95
OSX 10.2 (Jaguar) 129.00
OSX 10.3 (Panther) 129.00
OSX 10.4 (Tiger) 129.00

Holy catfish.. plus the cost of the original package.. and I wonder where they got the dashboard idea from..

That's pretty steep for an OS isn't it?

Karmacop
04-27-2005, 08:56 PM
How is it a 32bit kernel if it can address 64-bit memory and operate on 64bit words natively? This doesn't make sense to me.

The OSX devs have said that OSX will never be fully 64-bit as long as some things function faster in 32 bit (like the UI). Why address UI memory as 64bit when it only needs to be 32 bit? I hope XP isn't doing the same ...

Also, OSX came out before XP (didn't it?) and Tiger is more or less what Longhorn will be. So XP was $240 (from amazon) and Longhorn will cost about the same. So that's $480 for windows, and $410 foe OSX, plus Tiger is avaliable now, and Longhorn wont be out for a year.

hrgiger
04-27-2005, 09:23 PM
From what I've read on Apples website, it doesn't appear that Tiger is a full 64 bit OS. It keeps stressing that it supports 64-bit computing which doesn't seem like the same thing. Here's a few quotes from the site that seem to support this...

"It is important to note that in the Tiger release, the support for 64-bit programming does not extend throughout the entire set of APIs available on Mac OS X."

and

"Mac OS X's transition to 64-bit computing is a long-term effort. The support in Tiger for 64-bit applications is just the second of many phases. The timing and specifics of additional support for 64-bit applications will be decided with feedback from the developer community."

Fausto
04-27-2005, 10:24 PM
How is it a 32bit kernel if it can address 64-bit memory and operate on 64bit words natively? This doesn't make sense to me.

The OSX devs have said that OSX will never be fully 64-bit as long as some things function faster in 32 bit (like the UI). Why address UI memory as 64bit when it only needs to be 32 bit? I hope XP isn't doing the same ...

Also, OSX came out before XP (didn't it?) and Tiger is more or less what Longhorn will be. So XP was $240 (from amazon) and Longhorn will cost about the same. So that's $480 for windows, and $410 foe OSX, plus Tiger is avaliable now, and Longhorn wont be out for a year.

With just a bit of research, Apple's site, CNET, and a few others for example you'll find some pretty clear descriptions and facts about OSX, it is still a 32 bit operating system with a 32 bit kernal.

As for the cost, think of it this way, Microsoft release a new product about every 2-3 years, that upgrade will cost consumers about 150.00 bucks, generally when that happens it's an entirely new OS, with a good amount of legacy support. All updates, not upgrades are free.. I used to use NT4 as my OS of choice, loved that OS, it had 4 updates applied to it over the span of 2-3 years, I didn't pay anything for them. W2K had updates applied to it, none were charged for. Apple have hit their customer base for more money each and every year since OSX came out, it's only recently that they publicly stated that development was going to slow down..

That's it.

Karmacop
04-27-2005, 10:53 PM
Hey, I just went to amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005MOTG/002-7912918-5181657) and found that the windows xp upgrde costs $240, so I'm not sure how much each update costs.

I think the fact that each new version of windows in an "entirely new OS" says a lot about windows. OSX changes what needs to be changed, and considering Tiger is just as feature rich as Longhorn will be I'd say they've done what needs to be done. OSX also has good legacy support.

Also, OSX gets free upgrades too. 10 of them even. I think OSX 10.3.9 came out not long ago didn't it?

Fausto
04-27-2005, 11:03 PM
Hey, I just went to amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005MOTG/002-7912918-5181657) and found that the windows xp upgrde costs $240, so I'm not sure how much each update costs.

Nothing, nada, zippo.



I think the fact that each new version of windows in an "entirely new OS" says a lot about windows. OSX changes what needs to be changed, and considering Tiger is just as feature rich as Longhorn will be I'd say they've done what needs to be done. OSX also has good legacy support.

What exactly does it say? The fact that 97% of the planet uses some form of windows.. what exactly does that mean? And as far as legacy support is concerned for OSX, even on this score you don't have your facts straight.

Oh and here's another fact, XP 64 edition is full 64 bit..

Karmacop
04-27-2005, 11:20 PM
Eek, I didn't mean update, I meant upgrade. You said the upgrade costs $150, but amazon said it costs $240. So I meant to say "I'm not sure how much each upgrade costs" because there is a discrepancy between the prices.

It says windows was built on a bad base. Windows is known for being insecure and easy to crash (I know it's been gatting better), compared to OSX which is built on bsd which hasn't been changed in any major way for decades.

Do you have any reading about how much of Tiger is 64bit? From what I've read so far Tiger is as much 64 bit as the developers were comfortable with changing. Just because you have 64bits avaliable doesn't mean you should use them. But if you have some information then I'd like to read it.

WizCraker
04-28-2005, 12:52 AM
Yeah, the real reason is they think a single digit market share just isn't worth the effort. :rolleyes:

lol a good way to loose that single digit user.

--

I don't know about that Microsoft has the price listed as $299 for full [xp Pro sp2] and $199 Upgrade. ref (http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/product.aspx?view=22&type=ovr&pcid=2abf99cd-a5e4-469c-802e-55ca8ec542d5)

Amazon has full [xp Pro sp2] for $269 and Upgrade at $189. ref (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-6952760-3532710)

For Windows XP Pro x64 here is a pretty good deal for those that have jumped the gun and already purchased a 64bit system. Trade up to XP Pro x64 from XP Pro 32bit (https://microsoft.productorder.com/clientx64/default.aspx). Of course only applies to systems that were bought and not built.

wacom
04-28-2005, 01:03 AM
Are we talking OS crashes or application crashes? I've had very few OS crashes since XP and OS X came out. Before then OS 9 and Windows 98 were like crash test dummies- things are WAY better now- even on unstable machines.

Well I use OS X and Windows XP- and all I can say is that the crashing thing is a he said she said we said type of deal. The Mac I use crashes all the time. But you know what? It's a crappy application that does it, not the machine: Illustrator CS! I've had it wipe out files on both the G5 and G3 I use- so I know it isn't just the computer model. My Dell hardly ever crashes, but then again I don't use very many adobe programs on it. This whole OS debate is so lame, since it's only caused by faulty marketing. It sucks that my G5 already has a 64bit CPU, but that apple is only tip-toeing into the 64bit waters with software. Where does that leave the other 32bits? WASTE. HEAT. It's like having two processors with FPrime 1!

On a side note: this might have more to do with the compiler than with the OS. I read an interview with Jon Carmac (sp?) on making Doom 3 for the Mac, in a MacWorld Mag, and he said the hardware was great, but that the compiler was crap for doing anything but hand coding! He said the compilers on PCs are MUCH better. I know he makes games...but I think Jon Carmac knows how to code so...

So maybe if NewTek could just pop LW into a good Mac compiler like they did with the PC version this wouldn't be such a big deal...

What in the hell do I know though...oh that's right- you don't have to worry if you own a Mac and a PC with LW- you'll always win in the end. Mac users go buy a cheap PC- PC users go buy a cheap Mac for kicks. Just a thought for the loyalist freaks!

PS- the XP Pro upgrade is around 100 bucks, and the upgrade to XP PRO 64 is around $20-15 right now. Almost every PC you get comes with a "free" copy of home...so this really isn't that much to ask. Plus SP2 is FREE...not 100 bucks like a few other point releases out there.

WizCraker
04-28-2005, 01:39 AM
Speaking of crashes if you are on Win XP Pro install the recovery console [optional install from cd]. It is your best friend if a major crash happens.

I have to say only had a crash once which did not get a blue screen :) fortunate for me I run Windows Restore points every day which at the time thought was a wast of HD space but now I make sure it goes back a few weeks just in case.

Long story short Recovery Console allowed me to move only 6 files from the very hidden system restore volume from a previous day and restarted and it worked. Still running the same OS install from way back with that crash in the middle. I never had to reinstall it.

By the way all users of Windows XP home or Pro get 3 free tech calls to Microsoft. Save them for stuff like this act professional when you call and you might get lucky [if you have some rare problem like I did] that you get people conferenced in.

After this incident I swear by Restore Points and Recovery Console.

Captain Obvious
04-28-2005, 04:09 AM
Tiger is technically a 32-bit operating system with a 32-bit kernel, it will support 64-bit applications and 64-bit address spaces only on 64-bit capable Macs such as the PowerMac G5.
I'm fairly sure the kernel is 64-bit, it supports 64-bit binaries (and fat binaries that contain both), it has 64-bit (I think, but I suppose it could be less) memory adressing capabilities.

Only some of the APIs aren't 64-bit. The core PPC, UNIX and memory ones, etc, are 64-bit.



Holy catfish.. plus the cost of the original package.. and I wonder where they got the dashboard idea from..
Ehm? Tiger is a LOT cheaper than Windows XP, and if you consider the fact that OS X ships with software that could potentially be considered equivalent to what Windows SBS ships with, it's a bargain. You don't have to purchase every version of OS X to get it.




What exactly does it say? The fact that 97% of the planet uses some form of windows.. what exactly does that mean? And as far as legacy support is concerned for OSX, even on this score you don't have your facts straight.
Making stuff up does not mean you're right. OS X has good enough legacy support. I've never had an application break on me because I upgraded the OS.

And the market share numbers, how are they relevant? More people use 3DSM than Lightwave. That doesn't mean Lightwave is inferior. Oh, the 97% number is also incorrect. It's lower (about 3% Mac and 3% Linux and 97% Windows? Nah...)




On a side note: this might have more to do with the compiler than with the OS. I read an interview with Jon Carmac (sp?) on making Doom 3 for the Mac, in a MacWorld Mag, and he said the hardware was great, but that the compiler was crap for doing anything but hand coding! He said the compilers on PCs are MUCH better. I know he makes games...but I think Jon Carmac knows how to code so...
Yep, the compilers could definitely be better. Hopefully, the situation will improve with GCC4.



So maybe if NewTek could just pop LW into a good Mac compiler like they did with the PC version this wouldn't be such a big deal...
I was told they're working on porting it to Xcode and GCC or XLC. The CodeWarrior compiler they use now was awesome a decade ago. Now it's fairly poor. A good example of this is render performance. G5s and G4s perform about the same, clock for clock. In most FPU benchmarks I've seen, the G5 is between 30 and 80% faster per clock. So why isn't LW faster on the G5? CodeWarrior.


Honestly Fausto, is it really THAT fun to troll Mac users?

Para
04-28-2005, 05:01 AM
Amazon has full [xp Pro sp2] for $269 and Upgrade at $189. ref (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-6952760-3532710)

You guys really should start buying OEM licenses if possible :) XP Home OEM is about 90 euros, XP Pro OEM is about 130 euros.

tischbein3
04-28-2005, 05:33 AM
Amazing how companies make excuses such as this. If other companies are able to make their apps use 64-bit features then that means they took the extra step to figure out that the GUI doesn't have to be. 64-bit has some major advancements that work in the low level that not seeing the light that make the core engine utilize the 64-bit but keep the interface the same.


Mhmpf... be carefull, someone might think this isn't said in a ironic/sarcastic way.



(EDITED: added the following lines because I think it is too offensive):

Of course it would be certainly possible to create some dirty hacks, and try to get some workarounds (wich would be certainly not a pro on stability...mixing 32 and 64 bit....I don't want to think what nightmares unleashes in the programmers mind.), but for what ?
Not only risiking additional stability problems: When Apple will release full 64bit support, the whole manpower used was for nothing...


So I think there is more marketing knowledge than speech behind this.

Best thing I would recomend is to write some mails to apple, complaining for the lack of 64bit support.

stone
04-28-2005, 07:38 AM
PS, this is one expensive OS
OSX 10.1 (Puma) 19.95
OSX 10.2 (Jaguar) 129.00
OSX 10.3 (Panther) 129.00
OSX 10.4 (Tiger) 129.00

not that 129.00 is particular expensive for an operatingsystem?

going from windows95, 98, ME, 2000, and XP will set you back more - and changes wise, osx has improved as much as windows has doing those releases.


Microsoft release a new product about every 2-3 years, that upgrade will cost consumers about 150.00 bucks, generally when that happens it's an entirely new OS

not really. apples updates are smaller and more frequent, but still they are as much 'an entirely new' operatingsystem than the past versions of windows has been - the fact that microsoft takes forever to release a new version, really only says more about microsoft than it does about apple. maya and max have halfyear and yearly forced releases, which is much worse than apples strategy.


Nothing, nada, zippo.

which is exactly the same price as osx update costs you.


and I wonder where they got the dashboard idea from..

who cares? its likely stolen from someone who stole it from someone else who stole it from nextstep who stole it from someone else - windows hasnt ever pinoneered a single feature, so thats really just bashing for the sake of it.

/stone

Fausto
04-28-2005, 08:06 AM
windows hasnt ever pinoneered a single feature, so thats really just bashing for the sake of it.

/stone

And what is this? Is this not bashing for the sake of bashing? Come on, I didn't bash apple, I just voiced a personal opinion that I thought the cost of the updates, .2, .3, 4 etc was expensive and in my mind the equivalent on the PC side is the service packs. The updates on the PC side occur almost daily, and they're automatic.. There is no charge for point upgrades (Service Packs) The only time there's an upgrade charge is when there's a new *better* OS to install.

And the observation that the dashboard idea looks familiar to what MS is developing in Longhorn and is a total rip off from this apple utility Konfabulator (http://www.konfabulator.com/) . The Longhorn application at least works with the normal desktop. The apple version grays out the OSX desktop essentially forcing you to use a separate shell to use this utility.. you enter dashboard by hitting F12 and you exit the same way. How lame is that?

Why is it that people that are insanely loyal to operating systems can't tolerate even the most innocuous negative statements? Why hasn't one mac user said, wow, MS has developed a full 64 bit OS that can access 128 (GB) of memory and that the LW, XP64 combo looks deadly?

Same old lame OS battle.. holy s***

Para
04-28-2005, 08:10 AM
Why is it that people that are insanely loyal to operating systems can't tolerate even the most innocuous negative statements? Why hasn't one mac user said, wow, MS has developed a full 64 bit OS that can access 128 (GB) of memory and that the LW, XP64 combo looks deadly?

Same old lame OS battle.. holy s***

Hear hear!

stone
04-28-2005, 08:37 AM
Is this not bashing for the sake of bashing?

no - thats called a respond. if you dont want a respond, dont post crap to begin with.


I thought the cost of the updates, .2, .3, 4 etc was expensive and in my mind the equivalent on the PC side is the service packs.

well, you are just wrong then - the 10.x releases are bigger releases than service packs. they change fundemental things in the entire operatingsystem, some changes a lot bigger than what you got from windows95 to 98, not to mention ME, or 2000 to xp.


The updates on the PC side occur almost daily, and they're automatic.. There is no charge for point upgrades (Service Packs) The only time there's an upgrade charge is when there's a new *better* OS to install.

which is stil the same case as with osx - only they are automatical or daily.


And the observation that the dashboard idea looks familiar to what MS is developing in Longhorn and is a total rip off from this apple utility Konfabulator

apple did a ripoff, microsoft did a ripoff - and more importantly, konfabulator is a ripoff and not the first of its kind.

basicly, you even metioning it was needless and a poor attempt at finding a point to put osx down.


The Longhorn application at least works with the normal desktop. The apple version grays out the OSX desktop essentially forcing you to use a separate shell to use this utility.. you enter dashboard by hitting F12 and you exit the same way. How lame is that?

so its lame in your opinion, another useless point which doesnt server any purpose than fufilling your lack of valid arguments - thats even more pointless - its the same feature, stolen, a ripoff or whatever, regardless of the implementation.

besides, comparing to longhorn, which at best gets a christmas 2006 release, surely is even more lame.


Why is it that people that are insanely loyal to operating systems can't tolerate even the most innocuous negative statements?

im not loyal to mac or osx - never owned either. but why should that stop me from pointing out the obvious faults and errors in your comments and useless bashing?


Same old lame OS battle.. holy s***

dont start it then - as i read through the post, you were the only one who lined up empty arguments for the sake of bashing.

/stone

mouse_art
04-28-2005, 10:29 AM
i guess the thread has become senseless...

hrgiger
04-28-2005, 10:46 AM
As per usual, the OS fanatics are out in force.

And yes, Fausto was incorrect about the market share. Last time I heard, it was about 7%mac, 3 % Linux and about 90% Windows (roughly of course).

We all obviously have our reasons for using the OS we do. Personally, the market share has a lot to do with my decision to use Windows. It's not about being the best, it's about not having to complain that there isn't a mac version out sometimes the same time as a Windows version.

Mac users talk about stability and the fact that OSX is less susceptible to viruses and on and on about advanatages, and who knows, they may be right. But I always have the latest plug-in and don't have to send repeated emails to developers asking when they're going to port to Macintosh. Or complain on forums that software is more biased towards the Windows environment.

Frankly, I don't care which OS is minutely better. The fact is, if the market switched overnight and Macs controlled 90% of the market share, I'd trade up in a second. I know where my bread is buttered.

Gui Lo
04-28-2005, 10:58 AM
I can understand Apples reluctance to move to full 64bit since it may not be a benefit. Having to move 64bit of graphical data in the GUI when only 32bits are used is in-efficient. There would be other stuff like in/output, sound, etc.

It makes sense to support the critical aspectsof 64bit and then await feedback of what and how it is used in the community.

Anyway 64 bits will only offer an improvement to those who need 4+ gigs of Ram and have huge scenes.

A much more exciting prospect is dual core which will benefit everybody. I wonder what Apple and Microsoft with the abilities multi-core will allow.

Fausto
04-28-2005, 11:37 AM
We all obviously have our reasons for using the OS we do. Personally, the market share has a lot to do with my decision to use Windows. It's not about being the best, it's about not having to complain that there isn't a mac version out sometimes the same time as a Windows version.

Mac users talk about stability and the fact that OSX is less susceptible to viruses and on and on about advanatages, and who knows, they may be right. But I always have the latest plug-in and don't have to send repeated emails to developers asking when they're going to port to Macintosh. Or complain on forums that software is more biased towards the Windows environment.

Frankly, I don't care which OS is minutely better. The fact is, if the market switched overnight and Macs controlled 90% of the market share, I'd trade up in a second. I know where my bread is buttered.

I share the same POV except in this regard *Last time I heard, it was about 7%mac,*, that's laughable. If there were advantages to using OSX I'd run with it. Computers are just that computers, what they run is only as important as how it makes my life easier or more difficult.

I too will abandon this thread.

Fausto
04-28-2005, 11:52 AM
Honestly Fausto, is it really THAT fun to troll Mac users?


No it's totally frustrating, frankly I don't care what the hell anyone uses.. but sometimes some of the totally ignorant comments made here get the better of me. I am not loyal to any machine, I'm not loyal to any software, I have the boxes of unused software to prove it, it's just when.... oh f*** off. Who give a s*** about this.

mattclary
04-28-2005, 12:01 PM
lol a good way to loose that single digit user.

Well, I guess if XSI, Maya, or Max comes out with a 64bit version for the Mac, then Newtek might see some losses. ;)

mattclary
04-28-2005, 12:04 PM
The fact is, if the market switched overnight and Macs controlled 90% of the market share, I'd trade up in a second. I know where my bread is buttered.

Absolutely agree.

jacross
04-28-2005, 05:04 PM
There are misconceptions on both sides. Yes, the releases for OSX have been significant. I think OSX is one of the most beautiful and responsive OS's available today. And it really has come a long way since it's firt iteration. In addition, they definately have many features that will be in Longhorn right now which shouldn't be overlooked (like the fully OpenGL interface, even though M$ will use DirectX instead since they don't own OpenGL :) ). I'm also disappointed that Microsoft has pulled items from Longhorn such as WinFS which would've provided a great file management search system.

However it should be noted that Microsoft Service Packs have been major updates to the system. Windows XP Service Pack 2 included some major re-writes of some core components. It replaced the entire Windows XP kernel during the install. And it was free. You can buy the full version (not an upgrade) of WindowsXP Professional for $130(OEM) from newegg.com, and that license will last you for the next 2-3 years between major upgrades. Contrast that to the $400+ that apple has charged over the last few years, and it's easty to see how OSX can be considered expensive.

BUT!!!! I'd say for the most part that you get what you pay for. If you want more advanced features more quickly, and you have a smaller user base, you have to pay for the development somehow. It all comes down to choice. What is it worth to you? Some will invariably go the less expensive route because it's all about utility and cost, while others see it more as a worthwhile investment to get the features/usability that they are after. Only each of us on our own can make the decision that's right for us. That's just my $.02.

monovich
04-28-2005, 07:02 PM
full text:

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars

part I liked:

Panther introduced rudimentary 64-bit support to Mac OS X. It expanded the virtual address space (in the kernel, anyway) to 64 bits and allowed the use of 64-bit registers and the instructions that manipulate them (i.e., 64-bit math). But processes other than the kernel still saw a 32-bit address space. A single process could work with more than 4GB of memory (remember, the Power Mac G5 can hold up to 8GB RAM), but doing so required the programmer to manually juggle several 32-bit-addressable chunks of memory at once.

Tiger takes Mac OS X another small step in the 64-bit direction by allowing any process to see a 64-bit address space. Such a process must use 64-bit pointers in its code, of course, and that means that any libraries it uses must also be compiled to use 64-bit pointers.

In Tiger, the only 64-bit library is "libSystem," which is basically the BSD layer. A 32-bit version of libSystem is also included, of course (otherwise 32-bit applications would not run on Tiger).

A process can do a lot using only libSystem: file and network i/o, math, inter-process communication, er...more math. But the notable thing it can't do is any sort of GUI operation. (Curses doesn't count, sorry.)

For GUI applications that need to address more than 64-bits of memory as part of their work, the recommended strategy in Tiger is to spin off a 64-bit "worker thread" that only uses libSystem and communicates its results back to the host application using one of the various inter-process communication mechanisms.

This confinement of 64-bit processes to a non-GUI jail might seem severe, but in practice, a large proportion of processes that need to be 64-bit are already "faceless" worker processes doing computations on behalf of some larger system: offline rendering, server processes, scientific computing, etc. It's also a step up from Panther's 64-bit support, which is something at least.

It's clear that the road to "full 64-bit support" will be a long one. There are few benefits to being a 64-bit process for the vast majority of GUI applications. Nevertheless, it's safe to assume that, eventually, all Macs will include 64-bit CPUs. The introduction of 64-bit versions of all Mac OS X subsystems (Carbon, Cocoa, Core Foundation, QuickTime, Quartz, etc.) seems inevitable.

Limbus
04-29-2005, 01:33 AM
Well, I guess if XSI, Maya, or Max comes out with a 64bit version for the Mac, then Newtek might see some losses. ;)
Well then we would need Mac Versions of XSI and Max in the first place ;-)

Limbus
04-29-2005, 01:34 AM
no - thats called a respond. if you dont want a respond, dont post crap to begin with.


Accusing somebody of flaming and then doing the same thing does not help your argument.

Para
04-29-2005, 02:06 AM
There are misconceptions on both sides..*snip*..In addition, they definately have many features that will be in Longhorn right now which shouldn't be overlooked (like the fully OpenGL interface, even though M$ will use DirectX instead since they don't own OpenGL :) ). I'm also disappointed that Microsoft has pulled items from Longhorn such as WinFS which would've provided a great file management search system.

WinFS wasn't literally pulled from Longhorn, they just decided to delay it because it came apparent that they couldn't get it done in the time available plus they're now making WinXP/Win2k3 ports of it too so it'll be available as an upgrade sometime in the future. Of course it would've been better to get it working immediatly but things like this happen.

As for the interface it's not that simple. Longhorn has full vector support on desktop meaning that all UI elements can be made with vectors - although it's not very convenient in all cases - and most of Longhorn's features are stuff that doesn't show up to the end user in any way. Basically Longhorn has taken the best pieces from Unix world and adapted those to Windows world. These things vary from patching core software on the fly to renewed directory structures. I recommend this page (http://msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/) for everyone interested about Longhorn.

Captain Obvious
04-29-2005, 11:58 AM
[FONT=Century Gothic]And what is this? Is this not bashing for the sake of bashing? Come on, I didn't bash apple, I just voiced a personal opinion that I thought the cost of the updates, .2, .3, 4 etc was expensive and in my mind the equivalent on the PC side is the service packs. The updates on the PC side occur almost daily, and they're automatic.. There is no charge for point upgrades (Service Packs) The only time there's an upgrade charge is when there's a new *better* OS to install.
What are you talking about? The upgrades to OS X are much bigger changes than any Service Pack. Hell, the difference between Windows NT 5 and Windows XP SP2 is smaller than the difference between Panther and Tiger.


And the observation that the dashboard idea looks familiar to what MS is developing in Longhorn and is a total rip off from this apple utility Konfabulator (http://www.konfabulator.com/) . The Longhorn application at least works with the normal desktop. The apple version grays out the OSX desktop essentially forcing you to use a separate shell to use this utility.. you enter dashboard by hitting F12 and you exit the same way. How lame is that?
Apple more or less invented the "desktop accessory."

As for the fact that they're not sitting on the desktop all the time... Go read up on proper UI design, try the darned thing, and you'll realize that Apple's way is better. That said, I think Dashboard is a pretty bad implementation, but it's really a lot better than Konfabulator. And if you're going to talk about ripping off... Konfabulator added a feature they call "Konsposé," that does more or less the same thing as Apple's Dashboard "fly in, fly out." How's that for ripping off? They barely even changed the name!


Why is it that people that are insanely loyal to operating systems can't tolerate even the most innocuous negative statements? Why hasn't one mac user said, wow, MS has developed a full 64 bit OS that can access 128 (GB) of memory and that the LW, XP64 combo looks deadly?
Because Windows XP-64 has all sorts of compatibility issues that Tiger will never have. Apple didn't want to ship two completely separate OSes, they wanted 100% compatibility between all shipping versions of OS X. It's a little thing called "consistency," and I think it's pretty ****ed nifty.

Anyway, if you're going to whine about Apple, at least have proper things to whine about (trust me, there is plenty rotten in Apple).




I share the same POV except in this regard *Last time I heard, it was about 7%mac,*, that's laughable. If there were advantages to using OSX I'd run with it. Computers are just that computers, what they run is only as important as how it makes my life easier or more difficult.
If you're going to challenge someone's numbers, please provide at least some backing up of them.




No it's totally frustrating, frankly I don't care what the hell anyone uses.. but sometimes some of the totally ignorant comments made here get the better of me. I am not loyal to any machine, I'm not loyal to any software, I have the boxes of unused software to prove it, it's just when.... oh f*** off. Who give a s*** about this.
Heh... It's amusing that you find my comments "totally ignorant" and then proceed to type out something like that!

TheDynamo
04-29-2005, 02:13 PM
Lordy, this stuff gets tedious after a while.

If I take two identical scenes that are moderately complex, what will the difference be between 32 bit and 64 bit versions of lightwave? Faster rendering? Quicker response to updates?

-Dyn

Captain Obvious
04-29-2005, 02:57 PM
If I take two identical scenes that are moderately complex, what will the difference be between 32 bit and 64 bit versions of lightwave? Faster rendering? Quicker response to updates?
Most likely none. The 64-bittiness only really matters when scenes get very complex. Scenes that work properly now won't work all that much better with a 64-bit Lightwave (you need to work less with optimizing the scene, though). The real advantage is that you can do all sorts of things that were downright impossible with 32 bits.

jacross
04-29-2005, 03:45 PM
WinFS wasn't literally pulled from Longhorn, they just decided to delay it because it came apparent that they couldn't get it done in the time available plus they're now making WinXP/Win2k3 ports of it too so it'll be available as an upgrade sometime in the future. Of course it would've been better to get it working immediatly but things like this happen.

As for the interface it's not that simple. Longhorn has full vector support on desktop meaning that all UI elements can be made with vectors - although it's not very convenient in all cases - and most of Longhorn's features are stuff that doesn't show up to the end user in any way. Basically Longhorn has taken the best pieces from Unix world and adapted those to Windows world. These things vary from patching core software on the fly to renewed directory structures. I recommend this page (http://msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/) for everyone interested about Longhorn.

Perhaps there is just a difference in wording. By "pulled" I meant that it was pulled from the Longhorn release. I think everyone would agree that even if something isn't released the first time around that doesn't mean it won't be released eventually. The comment is still true however in that it won't be released in Longhorn which is the next latest and greatest, and won't be out until sometime "before Christmas 2006". It was a feature that would've really provided the best available in file management and searching.

You are correct that they have stated that they intend to release WinFS and Avalon (the interface) for WindowsXP eventually. However the other portion of my point was that OS X has many similar features now, which to me is really impressive given the smaller dev team and budget. Don't get me wrong, I'm primarily a WindowsXP user, that's what almost all of my software is on. However I try to be balanced in my assessment and look at both sides with equal scrutiny. I also talked about the costs of OS X versus Windows. I think Windows comes out on top in the comparison. In addition, the Service Packs with Windows have been significant updates to the kernel and other core technologies. And these Service Packs are free. And when Microsoft does release WinFS and Avalon for WindowsXP, if history is any indication I'm sure it will be included in a free Service pack (although that is speculation).

Regarding the interface in Longhorn, it is fully DirectX 3D driven. That was the similarity I was trying to draw with OS X's fully OpenGL interface. Sure, there will inevitably be differences, but theoretically they both have the same cability of pushing vectors around. The comparison may or may not be valid, but without further information (Longhorn in hand), much is up to speculation.

All being said, neither is perfect, both need improvement, and it all depends on which one will help you get the most done at the end of the day. Usually that has more to do with personal preferences than anything else. Just my $.02.

Captain Obvious
04-29-2005, 04:01 PM
Regarding the interface in Longhorn, it is fully DirectX 3D driven. That was the similarity I was trying to draw with OS X's fully OpenGL interface. Sure, there will inevitably be differences, but theoretically they both have the same cability of pushing vectors around. The comparison may or may not be valid, but without further information (Longhorn in hand), much is up to speculation.
As far as I can recall, OS X has been able to use vector graphics for, well, anything since we first got Quartz Extreme in Jaguar two or three or however many years ago...

philthorn
04-29-2005, 05:51 PM
I left behind the "mine is better than yours" fights years ago (ex. Amiga fanatic here).

My honest feeling about these threads is that they totally useless. Use what you are comfortable with, use what your job requires you to use or use what your wife tells you you can afford. Just use it, create great art and get back to work!

Frankly IMHO anyone that looks at Tiger and can't find anything about it to say "Wow! That's freakin' cool!" or looks at Longhorn's vector desktop or XAML interfaces and doesn't say "How awesome is that!?" is totally missing out on the excitement of living during a time when companies like Microsoft and Apple are delivering incredible power to the hands of the masses.

I love it all! Mac, PC, Linux, Palm, WinCE, my new Razr!!! It's such a freakin awesome time to be a part of this industry that I look forward to reading several RSS feeds and Blogs a day just to see what really cool thing is coming next.

Oh well, I gotta go make bad code into great code. Peace!

tischbein3
04-29-2005, 08:58 PM
As far as I can recall, OS X has been able to use vector graphics for, well, anything since we first got Quartz Extreme in Jaguar two or three or however many years ago...


Well I didn't wanted to post, but this forces me to do:

they "stole" this from irix. (the better macs)
Will longhorn also have this funny little scrollwheel slider to zoom icons up to almost screensize ? :D

In times before win95 consumers were forced to choose between a real bad and a better os.....
Now we can choose between two OS, wich try constantly to outrun each other in stability functions and usablity. And the best of it: both are bound to each other.

As a consumer pov this market situation can't be better.

js33
04-30-2005, 01:23 PM
Yeah it's all good. I use both systems so I have the best of both worlds. For those who sit on one side and constantly bash the other well try the other side and look at in an unbiased way and you will find each has it's strengths and weaknesses. IMO Apple is good for video and DVD production and the PC is better for 3D and rendering while each system can do both jobs. And the current OS one upsmanship is good for both sides as things only get better.

Cheers,
JS

Captain Obvious
04-30-2005, 05:52 PM
As a consumer pov this market situation can't be better.
It would be a lot better if Windows didn't have 90% of the market, I'd bet...

MikeMD
04-30-2005, 08:53 PM
The bottom line is , this is Lightwave forum and Lightwave on the Mac should be called Lite-wave. It is in every way inferior to PC version of Lightwave and most of the blame lies with Apple ( stuff like crappy Open GL on macs ). Then you have Lightwave plugins most of which are not available on the Mac side.

I don't care about any fancy new features of either OS. All I need is stability and that my applications perform well. When it comes to Lightwave PC has that. Mac does not.

Video editing is another matter, but from using and working with people using Vegas, FCPro and avid on both, Mac and PC. PC has a definitive video editing advantage too.


the fact that microsoft takes forever to release a new version

it only means that since win 2kpro they have had very little to fix. Apple needs to release a new OSX more frequently because they can't get it right and they like to steal your money. I still run Win 2K pro on my main workstation and nothing ever crashes. I don't even need Win XP and couldn't care less about Longhorn.

Para
05-01-2005, 01:29 AM
It would be a lot better if Windows didn't have 90% of the market, I'd bet...

Having a monopoly (in quantity) means more funds for development so it isn't that bad thing. Just think of this, rewriting a complex software completely takes time and lots of funds -remember the LW9 rewrite discussions a while ago- and by market domination MS gets the funds to do it. As for time they're in a bit worse situation since normally MS has release new major OS between 2-3 years (Win95, Win98, Win2k, WinXP, Win2k3) and now with Longhorn that time may stretch to something else, too early to say yet how long LH's development will take in total. They can afford it though since they keep good care of their user base ranging from developers (MSDN libraries) to average end users (MS Knowledge Base).
Also it's good to remember that MS has literally hundreds of different both big and complex products, not just one (Windows).

As for Apple, it's actually a monopoly* too. Apple has monopoly over its own computers (which is very obvious) and especially video editing. There's nothing bad in that even when it is a monopoly, "best tool for the job" yaddayadda etc. fits here nicely.

This is just my POV but I believe it's just. And now some coffee, I just woke up :cool:


* one of the explanations of the word "monopoly" is "Exclusive possession or control", http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monopoly

Karmacop
05-01-2005, 03:18 AM
The difference is that Microsoft sell software, and they have used their monopoly to force people to bundle their software with the hardware (either sell windows on all your hardware or sell it on none). Apple on the other hand sells hardware, and they bundle OSX with the hardware so that you can actually use it.

Para
05-01-2005, 04:02 AM
The difference is that Microsoft sell software, and they have used their monopoly to force people to bundle their software with the hardware (either sell windows on all your hardware or sell it on none). Apple on the other hand sells hardware, and they bundle OSX with the hardware so that you can actually use it.

You can buy a PC without Windows but last time I checked Apple always bundled OS with their computer. Linux runs fine on both systems so there is choice for both platforms. "Evilness" of a company is just a matter of perspective. :)

Karmacop
05-01-2005, 04:42 AM
Microsoft had contracts with companys (like dell etc) that basically said if you don't sell every computer with windows pre-installed then you can't pre-install windows on any computer. This was an illegal use of Microsoft's monopoly, because if you wont sell a computer with windows pre-installed then a customer will go somewhere else. It doesn't happen anymore, but only because this was found to be illegal.

Apple sells computers, and so they pre-install an OS (OSX) so that you can use the computer without needing to buy anything extra. This is not illegal.

No one gets angry at Microsoft for putting whatever OS they have on xbox, because they make the x-box (although some people wish it was easier to something else on them). The point was they illegal used their powers to forse other people to put windows on their computers.

Captain Obvious
05-01-2005, 07:07 AM
The bottom line is , this is Lightwave forum and Lightwave on the Mac should be called Lite-wave. It is in every way inferior to PC version of Lightwave and most of the blame lies with Apple ( stuff like crappy Open GL on macs ). Then you have Lightwave plugins most of which are not available on the Mac side.
Honestly, we've been through this dozens of times.

Lightwave for Mac is not, as such, inferior to the Windows version. Both have their issues, of course, and the Windows version has more compatible plugins, but other than that, they're probably about equal.

OpenGL on the Mac does not have poor performance. NewTek is to blame for the poor viewport performance in LW for Mac, not Apple. Doom 3 runs like *censored* on the Mac not because of poor OpenGL performance but because of poorly optimized CPU code.


I don't care about any fancy new features of either OS. All I need is stability and that my applications perform well. When it comes to Lightwave PC has that. Mac does not.
The stuff you could do to a 3D application using QuickTime, Core Image/Video and even Spotlight is probably quite amazing. The problem here is that developers like NewTek must maintain platform equality, more or less, so they cannot take advantage of all the cool stuff in OS X.


Video editing is another matter, but from using and working with people using Vegas, FCPro and avid on both, Mac and PC. PC has a definitive video editing advantage too.
Wow, you're the first person I've heard claim that FCP etc isn't the best video editing solution... The advantage "PCs" have here is debatable.



it only means that since win 2kpro they have had very little to fix. Apple needs to release a new OSX more frequently because they can't get it right and they like to steal your money. I still run Win 2K pro on my main workstation and nothing ever crashes. I don't even need Win XP and couldn't care less about Longhorn.
Ah, here comes the moneyshot. Apple are evil, Microsoft aren't. Honestly, do you really believe that Apple are evil and incompetent? The reason they release new versions of OS X is not because there are severe issues they need to fix, but because things can be improved. There is plenty of low-hanging fruit in Windows that Microsoft could fix, should they decide to do so, but so far, they haven't. Every new version of Mac OS X is a big improvement not because the older version was bad, but because the new version is better.

Para
05-01-2005, 11:34 AM
Ah, here comes the moneyshot. Apple are evil, Microsoft aren't. Honestly, do you really believe that Apple are evil and incompetent? The reason they release new versions of OS X is not because there are severe issues they need to fix, but because things can be improved. There is plenty of low-hanging fruit in Windows that Microsoft could fix, should they decide to do so, but so far, they haven't. Every new version of Mac OS X is a big improvement not because the older version was bad, but because the new version is better.

What you said applies also to Windows and even to Linux. I don't understand why some people still think that when one of the [insert whatever software, hardware, car, chair or any kind of item here] is good the other(s) must suck beyond all recognition. This attitude is very unhealthy and to be honest is pushing "main stream" people away from the alternative just because the others seem to have some sort of half-religious agenda.

Karmacop
05-01-2005, 08:23 PM
Just so you know, I run windows xp at home.

Anyway, I look at it this way; Linux is good because it's unix based, but it's interfaces aren't that great and a lot of software doesn't work on them. Windows is good because it has a decent interface and most software runs on it, but it can be very insecure and isn't great at multi tasking etc. OSX is almost the best od both worlds - it's unix based, has a nice interface and a fair bit of software runs on it. If I had the money, I'd buy a mac for my home. Everyone can argue about what OS is best, but I think fairs rather well looking at it critically.

Lightwolf
05-02-2005, 03:40 AM
Well, I guess if XSI, Maya, or Max comes out with a 64bit version for the Mac, then Newtek might see some losses. ;)
Well, mental ray 64bit yes, Max on the Mac never, XSI maybe (not 64bit though on Tiger... that is, if they decide to port), Maya in 64bit not on Tiger. Also have a look at luxology who basicaly take the same stance as NT to the 64bit debacle on Tiger. Actually, they were the first to publish such information on their forum.
Don't blame the messenger.

Cheers,
Mike
P.S. I just saw LW8.3 64bit at the fmx/05 ad it was quite stable and rocks...

mattclary
05-02-2005, 07:02 AM
Mike, my point exactly. If Newtek doesn't provide a 64 bit port, it's doubtful anyone will.

Lightwolf
05-02-2005, 07:10 AM
Mike, my point exactly. If Newtek doesn't provide a 64 bit port, it's doubtful anyone will.
Well, they could port lwsn (which will require a re-compile for all plugins) while Tiger is on the market.

I do assume that everybody waits for the next release of OSX (as far as their GUI driven apps are concerned) and hope for a 64bit GUI API. If LW has made it over to XCode by then it should be quite painless (since the common code in LW is 64bit compatible _now_) to do a decent 64bit OSX version.

Mind you, most of the apps Apple talk about on their 64bit page would probably work o.k. with a 32bit GUI and 64bit core (i.e. scientific apps with a couple of buttons to press), however, looking at 3D apps, where does the GUI end and the processing core start... Especially if you look at the data that both need (geometry, images) I do wonder how that should be split up between both worlds without loosing the 64bit advantage...

Cheers,
Mike

Para
05-02-2005, 07:34 AM
Just so you know, I run windows xp at home.

Anyway, I look at it this way; Linux is good because it's unix based, but it's interfaces aren't that great and a lot of software doesn't work on them. Windows is good because it has a decent interface and most software runs on it, but it can be very insecure and isn't great at multi tasking etc. OSX is almost the best od both worlds - it's unix based, has a nice interface and a fair bit of software runs on it. If I had the money, I'd buy a mac for my home. Everyone can argue about what OS is best, but I think fairs rather well looking at it critically.

Or like some people do, they'll just get some old PC with ~200MHz processor and install Linux to act as an software router/firewall to it and use WinXP/whatever on their desktop. Works like a charm.

MikeMD
05-02-2005, 12:07 PM
Wow, you're the first person I've heard claim that FCP etc isn't the best video editing solution... The advantage "PCs" have here is debatable

Actually I've heard video editors say it sucked. It's only the best for people who never learned anything else.

Most professional video editors ( and these are the ones I'm talking about and work with ) prefer Avid. Some even prefer Vegas once they try it, but it's still Avid for the most part.

Latest stats I saw had 60% of the studios using Windows platform for video editing and 40% using Macs. Of those 40% most also had Windows PCs in their studios.

Macs are better for graphics is an old wives tale dating back to when they actually were better ( late 80s, very early 90s ), same with video. The truth is quite different.

And no, Open GL and quake problems are Apple's fault. It is not the responsibility of NewTek or ID to make sure all of the necessary tools for the platform are available. It is Apple's responsibility. Carmack has said that Mac hardware was fine, but it was the lack of other tools preventing Mac from running Quake properly ( it's about 15 times slower even on the newest 2.7 ghz dualies ).

Same exact thing happened with Lightwave 64 bit. Apple didn't provide NewTek with necessary tools in the timely manner. Thay have had a 64 bit version of windows to work with a lot longer.

marble_sheep
05-02-2005, 03:11 PM
Well, this thread has pretty much become the classic "my platform is better" debate... so... please read my comment with the idea that I'm trying to stay out of that argument.

Mike... it seems like you don't actually work in video, you just know people who do? I may be completely wrong in this, but that's the tone you give. Either way, I have to disagree with your comments regarding video editing. (I do agree with most everything else you've said, though.)


Actually I've heard video editors say it sucked. It's only the best for people who never learned anything else.

As someone who has used FCP, Avid (full-on hardware system and the free sw-only one), M-100, and even a Sony X-Pri, I can tell you that FCP is a very elegant and complete system. It is very stable, and for the price bracket it's in, it is a very good investment. If it was so bad, why would it have gained so much popularity in such a short time? Many edit houses use it to cut trailers, etc. Sure, Avid is still king of film editing, but only if you're willing to pay the Avid premium. Maybe most video editors YOU know prefer Avid, but there are PLENTY of people out there using FCP.

The facility I work at currently uses FCP... and I love it. A close friend of mine works a few doors down and they use a full hardware-based Avid system. His crashes ALL the time. And it's not any more intuitive than FCP. They had to spend big bucks to have an Avid tech install the system... we just install the software and go.

I think it's funny you say that FCP is for people who have never "used anything else" when in reality it is a large majority of Avid-snobs that have never even bothered to learn FCP.


Latest stats I saw had 60% of the studios using Windows platform for video editing and 40% using Macs. Of those 40% most also had Windows PCs in their studios.

Even if that number is correct (and I don't have data to refute it), then it's still pretty good considering Apple's overall marketshare. Plus... I would guess that close to 100% of those mac users are using FCP, whereas the PC users could be using any number of thing... Avid, Vegas, EditDV, Premiere... the list goes on. So... do you have any numbers that break it down that way? Not just by platform? And of course they're also going to have PC's in their studios. Any studio worth it's salt is going to have both for compatibility/testing purposes.

Anyway, sorry if I've made any assumptions about you, but don't let your hatred toward a company allow you to make sweeping generalizations. (yes i know mac zealots are guilty of the same thing.)

Captain Obvious
05-03-2005, 10:07 AM
Actually I've heard video editors say it sucked. It's only the best for people who never learned anything else.
I guess we talk to different people then. Either way, I've never used it, so bah...



And no, Open GL and quake problems are Apple's fault. It is not the responsibility of NewTek or ID to make sure all of the necessary tools for the platform are available. It is Apple's responsibility. Carmack has said that Mac hardware was fine, but it was the lack of other tools preventing Mac from running Quake properly ( it's about 15 times slower even on the newest 2.7 ghz dualies ).
That's fiddlesticks. Modo, Blender, Pixels3D, Cinema 4D, Maya, Cheetah3D... All have more or less acceptable viewport performance, and I've heard at least Modo performs about the same on a Mac as it does on a "comparable" Windows PC. Lightwave has downright bad viewport performance on the Mac. It's the only 3D application that suffers from this. The tools to fix it are obviously there. The problem lies either with NewTek or with Lightwave.

As for ID's performance problems, they might be more Apple's fault, since almost all games have issues with performance on Mac OS X. This is not true with professional 3D application (or even amateur ones).


Same exact thing happened with Lightwave 64 bit. Apple didn't provide NewTek with necessary tools in the timely manner. Thay have had a 64 bit version of windows to work with a lot longer.
Yes, of course. If NewTek thinks it's too much work to build Lightwave like Apple recomends a 64-bit application to be built in Tiger, you can't really blame them for it. It would take a lot of work to do so, and it might not be worth it. Before whining about how Apple made a bad bad bad mistake, however, you must ask yourself if it was worth it for them to make 64-bit versions of every darned API. How many people stand to really benefit from a 64-bit Lightwave on the Mac? How much work would it take?

I for one would not be the least bit surprised if OS 10.5 'Lion' was fully 64-bit, but that's still a year or two away.




Well, this thread has pretty much become the classic "my platform is better" debate... so... please read my comment with the idea that I'm trying to stay out of that argument.
If I had to buy a new computer to use LW on today, it would probably be a Windows-based (homebuilt) PC. I'm not some Mac-taliban. I just defend the platform from ad hominem attacks. ;)

Lightwolf
05-03-2005, 10:18 AM
That's fiddlesticks. Modo, Blender, Pixels3D, Cinema 4D, Maya, Cheetah3D... All have more or less acceptable viewport performance, and I've heard at least Modo performs about the same on a Mac as it does on a "comparable" Windows PC. Lightwave has downright bad viewport performance on the Mac. It's the only 3D application that suffers from this.
Funny, C4D users on CGTalk complain about exactly the same thing (OpenGL being to slow on the Mac) ad, yo and behold, even cite LW as an example of fast openGL performance.

...the irony ;)

Cheers,
Mike

marble_sheep
05-03-2005, 10:22 AM
I'm not some Mac-taliban. I just defend the platform from ad hominem attacks. ;)

As you should! I'm not against refuting baseless "facts," I was just stating that I was trying to address the video-editing software comments only, and stay out of the OS comments. :cool:

Lightwolf
05-03-2005, 10:25 AM
Most professional video editors ( and these are the ones I'm talking about and work with ) prefer Avid. Some even prefer Vegas once they try it, but it's still Avid for the most part.
Hey, I've worked with ones that prefer Quantel eQ to anything else... does that count as a Win2000 system? scnr ;)

Cheers,
Mike :p

marble_sheep
05-03-2005, 10:30 AM
Hey, I've worked with ones that prefer Quantel eQ to anything else... does that count as a Win2000 system? scnr ;)

ahhhh! Good ol' Quantel. Now there's a niche market, haha :D

And I've worked with old-school editors who wouldn't even touch an Avid... tape to tape is what they swear by, even with HD! (and it definitely has advantages, and man can those guys fly when they're in their element.) Just goes to show you... the world of video editing is NOT as simple as FCP vs. Avid, or even Mac vs. PC. :cool: