PDA

View Full Version : LW8.5 64Bit Mac



Nigel Baker
08-27-2005, 05:07 AM
Hello All,

Does anyone know if Newtek has given up on developing 64 bit LW for the Mac.
I am curious there is so much about LW9 coming and yet 8.5 is not out yet.
Anything about 8.5 just talks about PC and the 64 Bit platform.
Has anyone else pondered these issues.

Looking for some insights and re-assurance.

Captain Obvious
08-27-2005, 05:25 AM
Given up? Definitely not. Postponed? Most likely. It's pretty darned hard to make a fully 64-bit 3D application for OSX, unfortunately (blame Apple for this). Only some core APIs are 64-bit. If you want your application to use QuickTime, OpenGL, Cocoa, Carbon, Core Audio, etc etc etc, it will have to be 32-bit (or have some pretty nifty code trying together the 64-bit and the 32-bit parts of it). They could probably develop a 64-bit renderer for Mac OS X, but the rest of it would be a lot harder.

Lightwolf
08-27-2005, 06:05 AM
I assume it is currently up to Apple to provide a complete 64bit OS with 64bit GUI ... Since this will come sooner or later anyhow, I assume developing a cludge right now to make LW run under 64bit on OS-x is probably considered as a waste of time. (Can't blame them). I assume by the time they get the cludge to work, Apple will release a full 64bit version of OSX anyhow, so nothing is gained, to the contrary, ressources are wasted.

Cheers,
Mike

Nigel Baker
08-27-2005, 06:13 AM
Thanks Chaps,

This settles me little mind.
All these points, I knew nothing about.
So thanks for the postings.
Now I can stop biting my toe nails.

Much appreciated.

Captain Obvious
08-27-2005, 07:07 AM
I assume it is currently up to Apple to provide a complete 64bit OS with 64bit GUI ... Since this will come sooner or later anyhow, I assume developing a cludge right now to make LW run under 64bit on OS-x is probably considered as a waste of time. (Can't blame them). I assume by the time they get the cludge to work, Apple will release a full 64bit version of OSX anyhow, so nothing is gained, to the contrary, ressources are wasted.
Imagine spending a year or two getting the ****ed thing to work in 10.4 only to discover that 10.5 is a fully 64-bit system...

Anyway, you can't really blame Apple for it, either. Most of their customers either don't need 64-bit at all, or don't really need it in the GUI. Windows XP 64-bit is plauged by a whole lot of things that simply do not work. By not making it fully 64-bit, Apple avoided all that. I guess they figured it was better to release a fully functional 64-bit system a while later instead of offering two different versions, one buggier than the next.

Lightwolf
08-27-2005, 07:13 AM
By not making it fully 64-bit, Apple avoided all that.
To be quite honest, I think they'll end up having the same problems. Anything that is hardware dependant will have problems untill the dirvers have been updated (fortunately the third party market is smaller for Macs) ... and you will still have the same issues, i.e. no 32bit Flash in a 64bit Safari or vice versa.
So no worries, you'll end up with the same worries, only a bit later ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
08-29-2005, 12:09 AM
Yes, maybe they will end up with the same problem, but doing it this way buys them time. Since Apple doesn't need to wait for others to write drivers, they just need time to fix them for themselves. An extra year of 32-bit could reduce the amount of bugs in the first true 64-bit version quite a bit.

Lightwolf
08-29-2005, 02:27 AM
Since Apple doesn't need to wait for others to write drivers, they just need time to fix them for themselves.
I thought there was third party hardware available for Macs as well ...

An extra year of 32-bit could reduce the amount of bugs in the first true 64-bit version quite a bit.
How _buggy_ is XP64? (at least compared to Win32?), or how many of the issues aren't bugs but inherent to the difficulty of running a mixed OS?

Not everything that doesn't work is a bug per se.

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
08-29-2005, 07:23 AM
I thought there was third party hardware available for Macs as well ...
Well, yes, but the amount is fairly small. As long as cameras, scanners and printers work, most people have few complaints. Mice, microphones and the like don't really need drivers, and RAID cards and such probably require Apple to chip in on the driver coding regardless.


How _buggy_ is XP64? (at least compared to Win32?), or how many of the issues aren't bugs but inherent to the difficulty of running a mixed OS?

Not everything that doesn't work is a bug per se.
I've heard of quite a few issues, to say the least. I recall a few people on these boards complaining about Fprime not running at all in XP-64. Games have the most issues, due to the state of graphics drivers... I can't say for sure, since I haven't used it, but I've heard quite a few people complain about it.

Lightwolf
08-29-2005, 07:31 AM
Well, yes, but the amount is fairly small. As long as cameras, scanners and printers work, most people have few complaints.
Which is the same on XP, I think only HP and Lexmark still have to provide drivers.


I've heard of quite a few issues, to say the least. I recall a few people on these boards complaining about Fprime not running at all in XP-64. Games have the most issues, due to the state of graphics drivers... I can't say for sure, since I haven't used it, but I've heard quite a few people complain about it.
None of these are XP issues though, but 32/64 bit issues...
If Worley for example directly tries to read the dongle on the Mac as well, this is likely to fail later on too if the dongle uses a 64bit API.

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
08-29-2005, 08:14 AM
The difference with Windows is that they need to support a vast variety of logic boards, chipsets, sound cards, network cards, etc etc etc. Most such things do require drivers. "Nobody" sticks a third party sound card (other than Firewire or USB, anyway) or network card in a Mac, so Apple do not have to worry about that.



None of these are XP issues though, but 32/64 bit issues...
If Worley for example directly tries to read the dongle on the Mac as well, this is likely to fail later on too if the dongle uses a 64bit API.
Yes, I know they're 32/64-bit issues, that's why they're interesting. ;) There are issues with switching to a fully 64-bit system, and it's only understandable that Apple wants to stall things a little.

Lightwolf
08-29-2005, 08:28 AM
The difference with Windows is that they need to support a vast variety of logic boards, chipsets, sound cards, network cards, etc etc etc. Most such things do require drivers.
Yeah, but "they" are third parties, and most of the recent stuff does work in that area anyhow.


Yes, I know they're 32/64-bit issues, that's why they're interesting. ;) There are issues with switching to a fully 64-bit system, and it's only understandable that Apple wants to stall things a little.
Which goes back to my earlier argument I guess, Apple will face the same problems, just a bit later (i.e. by the time XP users will have smooth sailing ;) ).

Cheers,
Mike

Nigel Baker
08-29-2005, 08:35 AM
Hello Captain Obvious and Lightwolf,
You two guys are great.

:rock: :bowdown:

Lightwolf
08-29-2005, 08:37 AM
Hello Captain Obvious and Lightwolf,
You two guys are great.

:rock: :bowdown:
Lol, we're just enjoying ourselves here ... at your expense I guess :D

Right Cap?

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
08-29-2005, 08:42 AM
Which goes back to my earlier argument I guess, Apple will face the same problems, just a bit later (i.e. by the time XP users will have smooth sailing ;) ).
And I think that Apple's stalling will mean the first 64-bit OS X will be more ready for "prime-time" than XP-64 was when it was first released. Oh well. Err... I don't think I have more points to make. :p That concludes today's debate. I would like to thank the participants, and I hope to see you all tomorrow evening for another exiting program.

Lightwolf
08-29-2005, 08:46 AM
Oh well. Err... I don't think I have more points to make. :p That concludes today's debate. I would like to thank the participants, and I hope to see you all tomorrow evening for another exiting program.
:agree:
Lol... let's go and have a beer then :D

...and just wait to see what'll happen.

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
08-29-2005, 09:07 AM
Good suggestions.

toma
08-31-2005, 03:58 AM
Hi there, about that 64bit issue on the mac platform, I have sent a message to http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/

I tried to be clear but english is'nt my language, so maybe every concerned, user should send them a message, maybe if were are enough they will do something, or at least show us a roadmap…

toma.



this is my message :

Hello,

I'm a 3D designer and my needs have hit the 32bit wall : 4Gb/app isn't enough…

So I'm waiting for the release of 64bit 3D applications : Lightwave in my case.

Sadly, a 64bit 3D app needs a 64 bit GUI and Apple only offers 64bit computing for command-line application.

So my feedback is more a request : please make aqua, OpenGl and QuickTime 64bit…

Newtek will release LightWave 64bit in a few weeks (LW 8.5) and they can't release it for the mac people because of that issue (windows XP64 maybe buggy, but at least it is fully 64bit)…

I don't know if you answer to personnal feedbacks, but trust me, I'm not the only one that NEED 64bit computing with a 64bit GUI : we who work with visual data, either 2D or 3D need to SEE in REALTIME those data, so a message passing interface between a 32bit GUI and a 64bit Core isn't a viable solution (except for rendering, but here I am talking about modeling, scene set-up, previewing, compositing etc).

I hope this is the right place
I hope this will not be taken as ranting
I hope We will have some feedback

regards,
Thomas Le Calvé

Atexel - images de synthèse - France

Nigel Baker
08-31-2005, 04:05 AM
Good idea, Toma,

I am sure it can not do any harm.
It really would be nice to find out what might be going on.
I actually thought I was on a 64 bit operating system.
But thanks to this thread, I now know differently.


Hope this catches on and a LW wave starts.

wilgory
09-02-2005, 09:22 AM
hey people LW 64 bit is far from a reality, mostly just a marketing dream that didn't really come true. At siggraph they couldn't get Lightwave 64bit to even run it would crash before startup. During presentations they would do a render and say that it was blazing fast because it was taking advantage of 64bit architecture but they were running on the 32bit version. Yet another buggy application that doesn't fully work. Forget about 64 bit, give me a network renderer that actually works without any problems. I wasted a day last weekend trying to get 16 machines on my network to netrender. I won't hold my breath.

Greg

Lightwolf
09-02-2005, 09:43 AM
At siggraph they couldn't get Lightwave 64bit to even run it would crash before startup.
Weird, at the fmx in March we had it running (I was helping out a dealer) for three days (8.3 it was I think) rock solid (well, no more crashes than regular LW).

Cheers,
Mike

Nigel Baker
09-02-2005, 09:46 AM
Like the title says .... ;)

You don't know what you have started Greg.

parm
09-02-2005, 12:11 PM
Yes toma, that is a good idea. I've just this minute sent them my tuppence worth:

As a professional 3d designer, I'm somewhat concerned, that my application of choice; Lightwave 3d, will shortly be released as a 64 bit version, for use on the windows platform only. My understanding is, that a Mac version will not be made, until a fully 64 bit version of the Mac OS is available. Until then my wintel based competitors and colleagues will have an unacceptable performance advantage.

Please make a fully 64 bit version of OS X soon. So that I, and many others can use our application of choice on our platform of choice.

Many thanks

Parm

Captain Obvious
09-03-2005, 10:15 AM
Unless you run into the 4 gigabyte memory roof in LW for Mac, a 64-bit version won't really help you. It will not render anything faster, it most likely won't calculate dynamics faster, OpenGL probably won't gain a lot... It's basically just the RAM.

archiea
09-04-2005, 10:31 AM
so much for the 32lane/64lane highway analogy!!!!!

toma
09-05-2005, 05:41 AM
:beerchug: thanks parm ! Now, maybe if all the mac users browsing this forum send apple messages like yours… maybe we'll hear something from apple a bit sooner than expected…

…hey Nigel, did you send yours ? ;)

I must admit that I am sceptical about our "lobbying" and it's more a message in a bottle, but like you say, "I am sure it can not do any harm."

toma

ps, on that subject, this thread could bring some other POVs…
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=822917#post822917

mnbear
09-08-2005, 02:21 PM
I would not expect to see a 64-bit version of OS X( OR XI, as it may be) Until Apple switches from the power pc to intel processors. It seems to me that their resources would be better spent making sure that everything is intel compliant than releasing a 64 bit version of Mac OS and then having to re-work it to run on an intel processor. That means we're at the very least a year away from a 64 bit version of Mac OS and longer than that for a 64 bit version of Lightwave on the mac.

Captain Obvious
09-08-2005, 02:43 PM
I would not expect to see a 64-bit version of OS X( OR XI, as it may be) Until Apple switches from the power pc to intel processors. It seems to me that their resources would be better spent making sure that everything is intel compliant than releasing a 64 bit version of Mac OS and then having to re-work it to run on an intel processor. That means we're at the very least a year away from a 64 bit version of Mac OS and longer than that for a 64 bit version of Lightwave on the mac.'
Considering the switch to Intel probably starts this spring, 10.5 may very well be fully 64-bit, if you even are right about this. They will not upgrade 10.4 to be fully 64-bit, most likely. 10.5 will not be released for well over a year. They have quite a bit of time on their hands to fix it. They'll be well into the switch when it's released, regardless of whether or not they think it will prevent the more to 64-bit.

eblu
09-09-2005, 09:26 AM
errmmm.... theres a bit of confusion (based on marketing and technical issues) about what a "64 bit OS" is.

lets start with Apple has not yet put the finishing touches on their 64bit os, but all of the power of thew 64 bit chip is available now, to developers. The GUI, will likely Never be 64 bit. but thats NOT the os, its an application (like photoshop, lightwave, etc...) that runs on top of all the unix-y goodness, to make it more palatable to the user. the GUI doesn't do anything that would see benefits from 64 bitness, so it aint getting it. the unix-y stuff... now that stuff will benefit from it, so apple is currently making tools, and power tools that take advantage of the 64 bitness, and at every milestone they pass along the tools to developers.
Apple suggests, that developers make a unix tool, that is 64 bit, and a front end thats 32 bit. the front end lets you do all your work in candy coated goodness, and the unix tool does all the heavy lifting, so that you don't have to.

not suprisingly, mac LW users have been screaming for just this separation of GUI and math from newtek since os X shipped. If Newtek had listened... well its spilt milk at this point. But lets explore the ideal situation anyway to illustrate just how Newtek Can do 64 bit, without eating a bullet.

the first thing they need to do is turn the renderer into a command line tool. for the most part the heavy lifting in doing this is done. Screamernet is a command line tool (although hacked beyond a reasonable amount, thats what it is) and the renderer is now a plugin, so its not THAT difficult to get it completely into the unix-y portion of os X. Heck, unix Loves C, and C++ the amount of code added would probably be less than the amount of code (extremely hacked and buggy) removed. after that all of the low level 64 bit tools are available. Just like that. Now, at some point Apple will ship Higher level tools that are nice shiny, candy coated, and really user friendly. But the low level stuff will always be there, will always be marginally faster, and don't forget... they are available Right Now.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2005, 09:37 AM
I would like to point out that making a 64-bit 3D application is a heck of a lot easier if Cocoa, Carbon, QuickTime and OpenGL are 64-bit. They currently are not, though they probably will be at some point. This means, in a sense, that the "GUI" is 64-bit. It's a lot of work tying together a 64-bit back end that does all the rendering, all the mesh mathematics, all the dynamics simulations, all the viewport OpenGL rendering, etc etc etc, all 64-bit, but controlled entirely via a 32-bit GUI. It's a lot of work. Luxology and Maxxon have been pretty clear on that they're simply not prepared to do all the work it takes, since chances are that Apple have upgraded the APIs needed to 64-bit by the time they're done with the significant restructuring of the application.

Lightwolf
09-09-2005, 09:45 AM
The GUI, will likely Never be 64 bit. but thats NOT the os, its an application (like photoshop, lightwave, etc...) that runs on top of all the unix-y goodness, to make it more palatable to the user. the GUI doesn't do anything that would see benefits from 64 bitness, so it aint getting it.
Erm, we are talking 3D here... It doesn't help if the part of the software that interacts with the user can't have access to more than 4GB of Ram. Heck, we will be expecting huge models in the future. How do you want to push a huge mesh to openGL if the part interfacing to openGL is limited?
Why is it that the Linux flavours provide a complete 64bit environment that goes beyond the bare bones system calls?
I just don't buy the fact that the GUI will never be 64bit , because that will mean that Apple will loose out in the long run. Creating a hybrid 32/64bit app is inherently difficult, expecially for a complex app like a 3D suite.

This would also extend to third parties, just imagine a mesh deformer/displacement plugin: The GUI would have to be 32bit while the actual evaluation is done in 64bit code and the third party would have to interface the two as well. Not really practical.

Cheers,
Mike

Chuck
09-09-2005, 11:12 AM
errmmm.... theres a bit of confusion (based on marketing and technical issues) about what a "64 bit OS" is.

lets start with Apple has not yet put the finishing touches on their 64bit os, but all of the power of thew 64 bit chip is available now, to developers. The GUI, will likely Never be 64 bit. but thats NOT the os, its an application (like photoshop, lightwave, etc...) that runs on top of all the unix-y goodness, to make it more palatable to the user. the GUI doesn't do anything that would see benefits from 64 bitness, so it aint getting it. the unix-y stuff... now that stuff will benefit from it, so apple is currently making tools, and power tools that take advantage of the 64 bitness, and at every milestone they pass along the tools to developers.
Apple suggests, that developers make a unix tool, that is 64 bit, and a front end thats 32 bit. the front end lets you do all your work in candy coated goodness, and the unix tool does all the heavy lifting, so that you don't have to.

not suprisingly, mac LW users have been screaming for just this separation of GUI and math from newtek since os X shipped. If Newtek had listened... well its spilt milk at this point. But lets explore the ideal situation anyway to illustrate just how Newtek Can do 64 bit, without eating a bullet.

the first thing they need to do is turn the renderer into a command line tool. for the most part the heavy lifting in doing this is done. Screamernet is a command line tool (although hacked beyond a reasonable amount, thats what it is) and the renderer is now a plugin, so its not THAT difficult to get it completely into the unix-y portion of os X. Heck, unix Loves C, and C++ the amount of code added would probably be less than the amount of code (extremely hacked and buggy) removed. after that all of the low level 64 bit tools are available. Just like that. Now, at some point Apple will ship Higher level tools that are nice shiny, candy coated, and really user friendly. But the low level stuff will always be there, will always be marginally faster, and don't forget... they are available Right Now.


Apologies, but this is not an accurate representation of the case with regard to 3D applications such as LightWave. We are not the only 3D developer to have pointed this out, since it affects other 3D applications equally. In LightWave, the full dataset of scenes, objects and images does in fact need to be manipulated within the GUI for modeling, texturing, scene setup and animation, and not just within the renderer. For this reason, a 64-bit port of the application will have to await the OS providing 64-bit GUI capability, which Apple has indicated is in their future development plans. They have indeed suggested that for those applications where manipulating a complete dataset of such a size as to require 64-bit memory space is not required within the GUI, having a 32-bit GUI talking to a 64-bit application can be done, but they understand there are applications that require 64-bit GUI capability and they plan to provide it.

The split 32-bit GUI/64-bit renderer course you suggest for Mac would not provide the capability of the application fully manipulating a large scene dataset of a scope requiring 64-bit memory space; it would only provide the capability of rendering a larger frame in RAM than would be possible on a 32-bit system, and possibly of allowing a Mac to render a scene created by LightWave 64 on a 64-bit OS system and requiring 64-bit memory capacities, if the scene is rendered using SNet under command-line control, bypassing having to load the scene within the Mac 32-bit GUI. I'll pass the discussion along to development, as there is certainly merit in the notion of 64-bit rendering capability. Please understand, though, that there may be reasons that make it unlikely that a 64-bit rendering capability for Mac could actually come along much, if any, sooner than a full 64-bit port could, given the variables within our own and Apple's development issues.

Thanks for again sharing your thoughts and expressing your concerns on this matter!

Lightwolf
09-09-2005, 03:37 PM
Please understand, though, that there may be reasons that make it unlikely that a 64-bit rendering capability for Mac could actually come along much, if any, sooner than a full 64-bit port could, given the variables within our own and Apple's development issues.

I hope you don't mind me adding to this Chuck:
Even a command line port of lwsn to 64bit would require a port of parts of LW to XCode, which is (as we all know) in progress. You would also have the issue of third party plugins having to be (at least) recompiled. As we can see with the Linux version of the command line renderer, only a few developers, if any, spare the time to port over to a command line only renderer.

Cheers,
Mike