PDA

View Full Version : Could we get an official statement from Newtek about Mac to Intel?



Ge4-ce
06-06-2005, 12:09 PM
Hey Scott, Chuck, or who else is out there,...

The most important question for me at this moment is:

Will Newtek officially support the roadmap Apple is gonna take?

Will Newtek convert stuff to X86 processors for Mac?

with other words.. is my favorite 3D app still available for my favorite OS?? :confused:

Ge4-ce

UnCommonGrafx
06-06-2005, 12:28 PM
Has it been announced, yet?

Otherwise, you are asking a question without basis; one based on ... rumor. I would think you wouldn't get an answer in such a situation.

Ge4-ce
06-06-2005, 12:31 PM
No, I just followed the keynote. It's official, in a year, Apple starts shipping intel based computers. In 2007, all Macs will ship with Intel inside.

A little update:

It appears that all versions of OS 10 (10.0, 10.1 ...10.4) have all been running on intel equiped macs for the past five or six years! Iin fact, all the demos given on stage by steve , were done on a Mac with Intel inside!!

Most apps would only take minor adjustment to make it work!

But I take that with a grain of salt

Talking about one good secret, Apple kept hidden for a long time!

toma
06-06-2005, 12:31 PM
Same question here, tho I have no doubt NT will support X86 mac as it will be easier than now with both PPC & X86…

Still, what will NT do for the year to come ?
did NT knew about the switch ?
Is it because of this transition that newtek didn't anounce LW 64 for PPC ?

toma.

Ge4-ce
06-06-2005, 12:34 PM
Is it because of this transition that newtek didn't anounce LW 64 for PPC ?

toma.

yeah, that question also crossed my mind...

mattclary
06-06-2005, 12:34 PM
Jeez, guys! Newtek probably has as much info on the change as we do, give them 5 minutes to figure out what's going on! We don't even know if they plan to use x86 chips yet.

toma
06-06-2005, 12:40 PM
Jeez, guys! Newtek probably has as much info on the change as we do, give them 5 minutes to figure out what's going on! We don't even know if they plan to use x86 chips yet.

So let's hope that rosetta will do the job and that NT has already made it's transition to Xcode (a few days to recompile et voilà! :rolleyes: )

toma

Lamont
06-06-2005, 01:15 PM
Talking about one good secret, Apple kept hidden for a long time!Apple using Intel-based machines was kinda leaked on the net a couple of years ago. It brought around the first couple of "Apple is going Intel" rumors.

This is good news for you Mac-sters. Now I just need Apple to allow 3rd party motherboards...

Ade
06-06-2005, 06:08 PM
Im scared...What war will I fight now?

UnCommonGrafx
06-06-2005, 06:45 PM
Fear not...

Now, the real wars can begin: OS Kaboom!!
If they make it such that it's only a matter of OS choice, then I'm in that fight. ;)
Particularly, if NewTek makes a Mac VT!

LSlugger
06-06-2005, 08:46 PM
The number one point Steve Jobs made in the WWDC keynote was that application developers need to move to Xcode. The key transition technology is the universal binary, a single package that can run on PPC and IA32 Mac OS, and it only supports Xcode / Mach-O. NewTek has already announced its Xcode plans (http://newtek.com/news/releases/01-06-04b.html).

The other transition technology is Rosetta. Steve Jobs demonstrated PPC versions of Word, Excel, and Photoshop running on IA32 Mac OS. The Universal Binary Programming Guidelines (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf) (PDF) describe the types of code that Rosetta does not support:


OS 9
AltiVec
G4 or G5
kernel extensions


If you can run it on a G3 with OS X (not using Classic), then Rosetta can probably handle it. Another limitation of Rosetta is that it's all or nothing: you can't use Rosetta to run plugins for a native application.

I would expect a future version of LightWave to be released as a universal binary, and for third-party plugins to follow suit. In my limited experience, dyld/Mach-O is so much easier to develop than CFM/PEF that plugin developers will have no excuse. You may be stuck running unmaintained plugins, like Shave and a Haircut, with the last CFM/PEF version of LightWave under Rosetta (and I would be surprised to see a CFM/PEF version of LightWave 9).

Now, we all know that there can be snafus. If you've been on a big-endian platform for the last decade, you may have made some assumptions about byte order. For example, binary data formats are sometimes written to disk directly from memory. Such a format will now require a byte-order conversion on one of the architectures.

riki
06-06-2005, 08:46 PM
oh sweet, windows for Mac. I wonder if Newtek can output Lightwave in a Maya format :p

avkills
06-07-2005, 08:30 AM
I would not worry too much. Newtek's LW team is renowned for their ability to re-compile Lightwave to run on the "currently fastest workstation" in short order. Remember when they had it running on Solaris and Sun Ultra 10s. In fact this is more than likely going to make things easier for them. Now they can use all the time optimizing for one CPU ISA and then just compile for the OS.

-mark

eblu
06-07-2005, 09:57 AM
thats satire right?

mlinde
06-07-2005, 11:12 AM
Didn't Newtek say they are already working on porting LW Mac to XCode?
So this is a non-issue. LW from XCode will be able to run on PPC and Intel Macs without any problem.

Captain Obvious
06-07-2005, 11:12 AM
I don't think the port would be all that hard. Things optimized for PPC (like the renderer) will not be a problem, since they can just use the x86 renderer instead. The APIs are pretty much the same...

Chuck
06-07-2005, 01:28 PM
I've let the Lightwave team know that Mac users are interested in an official comment, and I'll post here as soon as we have it; I would note that if I understand the "universal binary" component of Apple's OS X development correctly, then which processor is in use is handled transparently by the OS and need not affect the application in most circumstances.

avkills
06-07-2005, 02:13 PM
thats satire right?

No I'm afraid not. I've seen LW being run on so many different systems and CPUs I am not worried about it.

-mark

noiseboy
06-07-2005, 02:51 PM
So this is a non-issue. LW from XCode will be able to run on PPC and Intel Macs without any problem.
Except for all those third party mac plug-ins which would also need to be ported to Xcode.

LSlugger
06-07-2005, 05:09 PM
I would note that if I understand the "universal binary" component of Apple's OS X development correctly, then which processor is in use is is handled transparently by the OS and need not affect the application in most circumstances.

A universal binary is just a container for multiple versions of a binary, not entirely unlike a fat binary. The developer is still responsible for compiling the two different binaries, even if, as Steve Jobs implies, this means simply checking a box in Xcode. Since a universal binary must be dyld/Mach-O, the transition to Xcode is a necessary precondition.

Third-party plugins have to be ported, as well. While Apple will loan a prototype of the new Mac to ADC members for $1,000, NewTek could smooth the transition by doing a beta release of a Mach-O version of LightWave. This would let developers start the hard work of porting their plugins to Mach-O now, so that they're prepared for the (hopefully) easy task of porting to Intel.

Hopefully, this will also allow some formerly Windows-only plugins to be ported to Mac OS. Graham Fyffe's been trying to get HD Instance ported for the last couple of years. If he could target dyld/Mach-O, instead of CFM/PEF, he'd probably be done, by now.

Ade
06-07-2005, 06:06 PM
In the end it takes apple to leave its hardware to get NT to optimise for it..

Ade
06-08-2005, 05:55 PM
Does this mean we will get supported if we are on G5? Will we still get a LW 64 for mac g5's? and a mac 64 for c4d?
What does all this mean?
My 2 week old G5 will be obsolete soon with no updates or enhancents?
Will my g5 be unsupported now?
I dont believe this as apple still have to sell macs for the next year which none will be x86.

Captain Obvious
06-08-2005, 06:02 PM
My 2 week old G5 will be obsolete soon with no updates or enhancents?
Will my g5 be unsupported now?
PPC Macs will probably be supported by Apple into 2008 or 2009, or even later. NewTek et al would be folish to not support both. In order to port to Intel, they'll have to switch to Xcode regardless, and maintaining both Intel and PPC versions shouldn't be all that difficult what with universal binaries and all.

Ade
06-08-2005, 06:13 PM
Wehave been waiting for optimised g5 lw for a while now...And a 64bit release.
I dont want this to be an excuse by NT to not bother and put development for g5 on the backburner. Mac support will be my main focus if I want to be purchasing lw9.

Captain Obvious
06-08-2005, 06:27 PM
A 64-bit Lightwave will have to wait for a OS X with more 64-bit APIs, unfortunately. Not much NewTek can do about it. As for the G5 optimized LW, it will come as soon as NewTek's switch to Xcode is done. CodeWarrior (that they're using now) is horrible at optimizing code for the G5. There is no reason what-so-ever for NewTek to not keep developing for the PPC.

parm
06-09-2005, 04:03 AM
Does this mean we will get supported if we are on G5? Will we still get a LW 64 for mac g5's? and a mac 64 for c4d?
What does all this mean?
My 2 week old G5 will be obsolete soon with no updates or enhancents?
Will my g5 be unsupported now?
I dont believe this as apple still have to sell macs for the next year which none will be x86.

Your machine will not be obsolete soon. It will be 2 years before the shift to Intel is complete, and realistically, (guesstimate), another 2 to 3 years after that before the PPC base deminishes significantly.

In the meantime. The development tool used for compiling OSX programs, (Xcode 2.1), Will produce a PPC version and an Intel version of the code simultaneously.
No extra work.

So. I don't know how often you upgrade. But if you're anything like me. Unless come june 2007 an Intel based machine sporting, Dual triple core processors running at 6ghz is unveiled. I'll keep mine for about 3 to 4 years. Maybe treat myself to a new Power Book before then.

Ge4-ce
06-09-2005, 04:13 AM
Yes, I don't think there is any reason for panick. At this moment, it's just a matter of "IF" and "When" developers are making a dual binary or not. There's probably no-one who thinks about making an Intel-only-based binary at this moment. Once everyone works with Xcode, making the binary for the 2 platforms is like checking a box. (that's what they tell us anyway) so I guess the coming next 6 to 8 years, every new app will support our "old just bought G5 processors" Maybe then, they will no longer support PPC chipsets. But if it's only one checkbox in Xcode, why wouldn't they? just to keep contact with the old G5 systems...

Chuck
06-09-2005, 09:59 AM
A universal binary is just a container for multiple versions of a binary, not entirely unlike a fat binary. The developer is still responsible for compiling the two different binaries, even if, as Steve Jobs implies, this means simply checking a box in Xcode. Since a universal binary must be dyld/Mach-O, the transition to Xcode is a necessary precondition.

Third-party plugins have to be ported, as well. While Apple will loan a prototype of the new Mac to ADC members for $1,000, NewTek could smooth the transition by doing a beta release of a Mach-O version of LightWave. This would let developers start the hard work of porting their plugins to Mach-O now, so that they're prepared for the (hopefully) easy task of porting to Intel.

Hopefully, this will also allow some formerly Windows-only plugins to be ported to Mac OS. Graham Fyffe's been trying to get HD Instance ported for the last couple of years. If he could target dyld/Mach-O, instead of CFM/PEF, he'd probably be done, by now.


Thank you for your explication on this subject! Given what you are saying then my understanding was certainly close enough, and that really, is that Apple has clearly provided a very efficient means for developers to support both processor lines. Very definitely another impressive effort from a very creative and forward-thinking company!

While a formal statement from our LightWave Team is still forthcoming, I do not get a sense from internal discussions so far that anyone here feels that this presents anything other than terrific opportunity for LightWave 3D and LightWave 3D users on the Mac platform using both processor lines for the foreseeable future.

Thanks as well for your feedback on third party developer considerations. I'll see that this gets to the appropriate staff here.

Chuck
06-09-2005, 10:03 AM
Reminder: NewTek forums are for discussion of NewTek products, and discussion of competing products is off-topic. Apologies, but we've had a to trim a few messages from the discussion. Please know that we do appreciate your participation, however.

kip
06-09-2005, 01:19 PM
Newtek has publicly commited to XCode and I haven't heard that they are not planning to use it. (http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/01-06-04b.html)

If they are using XCode it should ease the process of creating the Intel-OSX version of Lightwave. Other companies have apparently already had success.

Hopefully it won't slow development of OSX-LW in the meantime.

It would be nice to hear an official take on it though . . .

eblu
06-09-2005, 02:55 PM
Newtek has publicly commited to XCode and I haven't heard that they are not planning to use it. (http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/01-06-04b.html)

If they are using XCode it should ease the process of creating the Intel-OSX version of Lightwave. Other companies have apparently already had success.

Hopefully it won't slow development of OSX-LW in the meantime.

It would be nice to hear an official take on it though . . .


Xcode is a good first step, the next thing is to go through all of the old code that is Mac specific, and replace legacy Calls (lightwave is riddled with them) with up to date calls, and use standards wherever possible (which lightwave is notorious for Not doing).

good example: Modeller utilizes a number of "utility windows" but it doesn't use Apple's standard Utility window (check out the size of the window title bars, NOT utility/toolbar sized... not utility windows). Apple has thoughtfully supplied their own robust utility window code, that if Lightwave used, would have saved a lot of time, needed less code, and would Work the way users expect them to. Utility windows (toolbars, attribute windows) exist in a layer that is always on top of the main application window, they disappear when the application is sent to the background, and they have any number of subtle behaviors that Apple thoughtfully provides, FREE to developers... that Lightwave ignores, only to go with their own window variants... which on occasion Brake. Ever notice how Lightwave can sometimes lose one of its windows behind the main window? even though it had never happened like that before? Yeah. Newtek really should be letting Apple do that work for them... Now more than ever, because its the kind of thing Apple is saying will be a problem Moving to Intel. its Non-standard, it goes against the rules, its more than likely where you'll hit your problems.

marinello2003
06-09-2005, 07:23 PM
Didn't Newtek say they are already working on porting LW Mac to XCode?
So this is a non-issue. LW from XCode will be able to run on PPC and Intel Macs without any problem.

I am not so sure about that. I think this is a very pertinant question, and I hope NT makes some kind of announcement.

Captain Obvious
06-11-2005, 01:12 PM
Xcode is a good first step, the next thing is to go through all of the old code that is Mac specific, and replace legacy Calls (lightwave is riddled with them) with up to date calls, and use standards wherever possible (which lightwave is notorious for Not doing).
Aren't they pretty much forced to do that regardless when they're switching to Xcode?




I am not so sure about that. I think this is a very pertinant question, and I hope NT makes some kind of announcement.
I hope they make an official announcement too, but they did say they were switching to Xcode long before the switch to Intel was announced.

eblu
06-13-2005, 09:47 AM
[QUOTE=Captain Obvious]Aren't they pretty much forced to do that regardless when they're switching to Xcode?

um... no.
Xcode isn't going to force anybody to follow the rules. Xcode is simply a dev platform. it will allow you to make any call supported by the system, and link to any library you have availible. Its really not a humungous undertaking to move from codewarrior to Xcode... if you keep your code tidy. What newtek will do, as history indicates, is try to shoehorn the entire system into xcode and then fix the bugs that "stick out". its taking so long to move to xcode, because nothing ever did force Newtek to do things the correct way, leaving LW marginally supported, by end-of-lifed code in the os.

for example:
remember when OSX changed the way it saved files? and then screamernet didn't work? and Newtek had to scramble to fix it? well that change was documented since os 9, anybody reading the docs Knew that you shouldn't rely on the os to behave in That way, from that point forward. I am a novice programmer, And I knew. Newtek either didn't know, or worse, wasn't aware they did that in their code.

I think the one thing that might make Newtek sit up and start taking this "zero tolerance" (microsoft coined the phrase after shipping a version of word that basically didn't work. they realized that just getting it out the door wasn't good enough, cost them money in the long run, and hurt their customers. from that point on, they ran a policy of zero tolerance for bugs. you see a bug, that becomes a priority over anything else) seriously, is customer demand. call tech support on every bug you find. tell tech support at the end of the call that you would really like a piece of software that works over new features.

Captain Obvious
06-13-2005, 10:24 AM
My point was that I've heard that many of the legacy functions in CodeWarrior simply do not exist in Xcode/GCC. Of course, I'm not a developer and I've barely used either, so I don't know. :p

Darth Mole
06-13-2005, 02:15 PM
"Tell tech support at the end of the call that you would really like a piece of software that works over new features."

Amen to that.

eblu
06-13-2005, 03:16 PM
My point was that I've heard that many of the legacy functions in CodeWarrior simply do not exist in Xcode/GCC. Of course, I'm not a developer and I've barely used either, so I don't know. :p


and my point is that what you have just described, is only the Tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Captain Obvious
06-13-2005, 03:34 PM
and my point is that what you have just described, is only the Tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Okay then! :)

kip
11-24-2006, 06:58 AM
I've let the Lightwave team know that Mac users are interested in an official comment, and I'll post here as soon as we have it

Has there been any info about the Mac Intel version?

BazC
11-24-2006, 07:04 AM
You've dragged this thread up from 18 months ago and missed the dozens posted since? :D

There are several current threads on this question, the LW universal binary is being developed as I post and should be available for beta testing soon.

kip
11-24-2006, 07:21 AM
A-poh-polly-oggies. Working with that strange archaic concept called "Subscribe to a thread". Made the inane assumption that people actually replied to related existing "threads" (as they said they would) but apparently the correct approach is to start a new one over and over again for the same topic . . . "search, search, search" it is then! :thumbsup:

BazC
11-24-2006, 07:59 AM
A-poh-polly-oggies.

Not a problem, it just amused me :D