PDA

View Full Version : Will LW 9 be universal binary on Mac?



ackees
09-13-2005, 04:28 AM
Will LW 9 be universal birary on MAC? (work on both PowerPC and Intel Mac).
I ask because the Intel macs should be available by the time LW 9 is released.
Or wil we need to wait to LW X?

Captain Obvious
09-13-2005, 04:59 AM
It had darned well better, since Pentium M-powered PowerBooks will probably arive H12006, much earlier than Lightwave 10. ;)

Here's hoping. It will probably lead to increased stability and performance even without the fact that LW9 is supposed to be faster. I suppose it could lead to compatibility issues, however, since I've been told you can't run CodeWarrior-compiled plugins in a GCC-compiled application without some serious code mumbo jumbo.

ackees
09-13-2005, 05:42 AM
Codewarrior was a very Mac specific coding app, I am sure they will write an update. Mac moving to intel should throw up some interesting comparisons, I mean performance benchmarks will be about OS speed rather than processor speeds. But we really need to know what NT is planning on this, it could be they will not be ready with 9, which would not be good because the buzz that will come with the intel macs will be a huge wave of media feeding frenzy that NT can get a free ride on.

Captain Obvious
09-13-2005, 06:20 AM
The CodeWarrior compiler hasn't been upgraded in ages. It doesn't do very good autovectorisation, from what I've heard, and it does not take advantage of any of the "new and improved" features the G5 offers. As a comparison, Lightwave renders about as fast on a G5 as it does on a G4. Lightwave renders using only floating point calculations. According to most of the GCC-compiled benchmarks I've seen, the G5 is between 50% and 200% faster on floating point code...

I'm sure NewTek would want to dump CodeWarrior regardless of the move to x86. The fact that they announced that the Xcode version was under way much earlier than the x86 version of OS X was announced supports my theory that, well, CodeWarrior is obsolete. ;)

ackees
09-13-2005, 06:45 AM
I am not a programmer but I have dabbled with codewarrior in the past for a bit of fun. I am surprised that NT use it for the Mac LW, no wonder it runs so slow on the mac. I thought it was a toy for small programming outfits or small apps, nothing as huge as LW.
Thing is I need a new mac but i am not going to G5, I think the new intel Macs will be awesome leaving G5 in the dust, so i am waiting. I like to upgrade my software when I upgrade my hardware so the plan for LW 9 Mac is important to me.

Lightwolf
09-13-2005, 07:28 AM
On the subject of CodeWarrior, apparently the next release will be the last, and they're either killing or selling off the desktop compilers (-> for desktop targets that is).
So XCode on the Mac will be the only choice in the future anyhow, with either gcc (for both proc. architecures), the IBM compiler for power binaries or icc for intel binaries.

Cheers,
Mike

ackees
09-13-2005, 07:51 AM
So if NT have to use Xcode then they can choose to 'universal binary or not', has anyone a clue which way NT will jump?

Lightwolf
09-13-2005, 07:57 AM
So if NT have to use Xcode then they can choose to 'universal binary or not', has anyone a clue which way NT will jump?
Since it is just the flick of a switch... I don't see a reason for them not to produce a universal binary.
Actually, the intel iswitch is another good incentive for them to port over to XCode quickly...
Cheers,
Mike

Karmacop
09-13-2005, 08:47 AM
Lightwolf, can you give us any idea how long it'd take to convert code from codewarrior to Xcode? This is just for my own interest :p

Lightwolf
09-13-2005, 08:53 AM
No, I can't ;) Honestly, I have no idea, neither on the scope of changes Apple requires you to do nor on how much of that affects LightWave...

Cheers,
Mike

ackees
09-13-2005, 10:11 AM
So to not have a universal binary would be a strategic decision, rather than a praical one.

Lightwolf
09-13-2005, 10:17 AM
So to not have a universal binary would be a strategic decision, rather than a praical one.
I assume not to have one, when the port has been done, will be _no_ decision ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
09-14-2005, 01:58 AM
Well, basically, they'll have to create a universal binary or lose the entire Mac market. I'm sure Lu...*bleep* will be quick at making their application a universal binary. ;) Without a universal binary, there will be no x86 version. With no x86 version, there is no real future.

ackees
09-14-2005, 02:25 AM
Why hasn't marketing come out and made a statement on this?
If it's no big deal they should make a statement, always looks good, makes NT seem progressive, on the ball.

Captain Obvious
09-14-2005, 06:09 AM
I guess they want to wait until the Xcode version is up and running before making statements regarding it.

Chuck
09-14-2005, 08:42 AM
Why hasn't marketing come out and made a statement on this?
If it's no big deal they should make a statement, always looks good, makes NT seem progressive, on the ball.

We have already stated that we would be supporting the x86-based Macs in the future.

Captain Obvious
09-14-2005, 09:25 AM
We have already stated that we would be supporting the x86-based Macs in the future.
Would you like to comment on the state of the move to Xcode? Will Lightwave 9 be a universal binary?

Chuck
09-14-2005, 04:51 PM
Would you like to comment on the state of the move to Xcode? Will Lightwave 9 be a universal binary?

Development doesn't have any announcements regarding the state of the move to XCode at this time, but it is in progress. The initial post in this thread comments that LightWave v9 would be released at a time when there would be Intel-based Macs, but this does not match any information we have received from Apple, nor any Apple public statements that we are aware of. LightWave v9.0, the initial release in the v9 series, is expected in the fourth quarter of this year and there will be no Intel-based Macs at that time or for some time after.

Mechanic
09-14-2005, 07:58 PM
Since I'm thinking about getting my first Mac, have there been any official announcements on hardware availability, more than just first half of next year?

Roger Eberhart
01-24-2006, 01:38 PM
LightWave v9.0, the initial release in the v9 series, is expected in the fourth quarter of this year and there will be no Intel-based Macs at that time or for some time after.

Wrong on two counts. Ouch.

tonybliss
01-24-2006, 02:28 PM
ha ha heh he ehe he ... giggle gigle hee he :foreheads :neener:

ackees
01-24-2006, 02:35 PM
The best marketing policy here will be for NT to simply say one of two things:
We will not be able to have 9 ready for Intel Macs that soon but we plan for 9.5 (or whatever).
or
We will have it ready for release 9.

The worst marketing policy will be to talk round in circles without actually making a clear statement, things like:
We don't quite know where the development team are at the moment with xCode.
It's top secret, you'll have to wait and see.

NT will make every effort to ensure that we give our customers the very latest updates.

When we know we will tell you.

Chuck
01-25-2006, 06:23 AM
Wrong on two counts. Ouch.

Hindsight is always 20/20. :)

Yes, things have turned out differently from what was estimated in September for our release, and what Apple had publicly stated up to that point regarding when they would have Intel-based Macs (and for that matter, we'd had no private information that would have countered that expectation either). Apple managed a very nice surprise for the Mac community.

The LightWave team does not have an announcement regarding when in the development cycle that the port to XCode and universal binaries will be complete. They have been working on it, but not with the expectation that it needed to be complete at version 9.0, even given that version 9.0 might take longer than our estimates.

lesford
01-27-2006, 11:25 AM
It is good to bear in mind that Apple have been as secretive with their developers as with the rest of the world on the real schedule for Macintel. Look at Adobe. they are the juggernaut and they have no apps for Macintel. When Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, Acrobat, Dreamweaver, Go Live, Flash, Director and Flash Video have universal binaries, the Macintel platform will be a viable one, and Newtek will have to get on board or be left behind, but right now, as Steve Jobs himself said in the keynote, no professional would want to be using a Macintel for Photoshop.

In my world, Adobe is bigger than Apple or Microsoft. I will only run a platform that will allow Adobe applications to run at full speed. Right now, that is the G5 or a hot-rodded PC.

Macintel is not a viable platform until Adobe gets on, so I am hoping that Newtek will squeeze the G5 for all it's worth, as they continue to work on the X-Code version.

I would not dream of buying a Macintel box until Apple has an entire line and demonstrates enough confidence in the product to retire the G5 line. Right now, Apple doesn't even have universal binaries, so it's kind of goofy to be slagging Newtek because they haven't read the divine mind.

There is a much bigger picture than just Newtek and the first generation Macbook.

Chuck
01-27-2006, 01:28 PM
Once 9.0 is in release and the 3D team has a bit of time to catch their collective breath and refine plans for the updates to come in the series, I think they may be able to provide a more concrete announcement about when to expect the Universal Binaries version. The team is also in the process of acquiring a bunch of the exciting new Macs now that production models are in release.