PDA

View Full Version : Anyone Using an Intel Mac Right Now?



pantone
09-06-2006, 11:26 AM
I'm debating the upgrade to an Intel mac and would like to hear feedback from anyone who's using one right now with non-UB aps.

Lightwave 9 is a concern, but I'm more concerned about using the Adobe Creative Suite 2 applications. I poked around at the apple store this weekend and all their Macs had Photoshop CS2, but not Illustrator and After Effects.

How much a performance hit do you take? How reliable does the software run?

On another note. I've been following this excellent thread (http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12458) about character animation. They mention several different plugins that help with the process, but so far they're all Windows only.

Will the switch to intel help developers get stuff onto the Mac side, or is it still going to be a problem?

avkills
09-06-2006, 12:14 PM
I think you are confused a bit (at least by your last statement, which sounds confusing).

A universal binary application is one that is written to either run on PowerPC or Intel based CPUs. Any application that is not a universal application runs under emulation when using Intel based Macs, which if you buy any of the new ones is true.

With that, developers would be foolish not to re-compile their applications to run on either platform. As far as Adobe goes, the only system which seems to run non-UB apps good are the MacPros. Although depending on the app, you will see varied performance across the board.

Windows only Lightwave plug-ins will still not run under an Intel based Mac unless they are re-compiled to do so even if we had a UB version of LW available for use; this has to do with the various OS hooks that are different between Windows and OS X.

I'm don't think you will have a problem with developers not releasing UB versions of their software, it is in their best interests. Although for Adobe it may be next year, Newtek, specifically Chilton has stated that they are hard at work on the UB version of LW and are probably real close to a release.

-mark

John the Geek
09-13-2006, 11:38 AM
So the nagging question is...

Should I buy now and expect the UB (9.1?) to be a free update or wait for 9.5?

Will the UB be a free update or part of 9.5?

My Mac Pro arrives Friday... I want to buy 9 now, but I'm hesitant.

-John

Zane Condren
09-13-2006, 11:41 AM
All LW9.xxxxx updates will be free to those who buy 9.0.

harlan
09-13-2006, 01:18 PM
Hey Pantone,

The Intel based Macs are wonderful machines. Even though some 'major' apps aren't ported to UB yet, you can always use Bootcamp to setup a WinXP Dual-Boot option and use the Windows version of the non-UB apps for the time being.

Lightwave for example, gives you the ability of installing on PC or Mac from the same Disc & Dongle; so you can install it under Windows on your Intel based Mac and run it at full native speed until the UB version is released.

Remember that WinXP on the Mac (assuming your using Bootcamp vs. Parallels, etc..) is identical to WinXP on any standard PC. It runs exceptionally well, and is actually more stable on the Mac than many of my native Win PCs.

I assume the improved stability on the Mac is due to the Apple Drivers (as they're designed specifically for your hardware, unlike other manufacturers drivers who have to try and include support for a million different hardware combinations... I dunno, just a thought, but WinXP on my MBP, iMac, & MacPro is notably more stable than my Dell systems).

PS - There is no bias intended in any of the above mentioned comments. Both platforms are great and have their pros & cons; I was just pointing out our observations over here.

***Edited to fix my sh!te grammar***

pantone
09-13-2006, 02:07 PM
Thanks for the feedback. I plan to install XP to run LW, but unfortunately all of my other apps aren't as forgiving as Lightwave:(

To run windows versions of the Adobe software I'd have to purchase it all over again. I read through the FAQ on adobes site about intel support in the Creative Suite applications and it doesn't really give me confidence.

At this point I'm considering buying the new machine, but keeping my old one right next to it in case things don't work out.

AndyUno1
09-13-2006, 04:50 PM
I am running Lightwave 9 under Rosetta and I am having no problems. Sure, it doesn't render as fast as a UB version would, but it offers substantial speed savings over my old PowerMac G4. I have the regular config Mac Pro with 1GB RAM and 2.66 Ghz Processors. I'll be glad when the UB is out but still having fun with Lightwave 9 until then.

pantone
09-13-2006, 06:53 PM
Are you using any of the Adobe aps with it?

I've been able to play with Photoshop under Rosetta and found that it's faster than my DP G4...but I haven't been able to test Illustrator or After Effects.

cresshead
09-14-2006, 02:13 AM
seems to me that a apple mac is the ideal ghardware to run xp:D

Kuzey
09-14-2006, 03:32 AM
Photoshop has just been updated but it doesn't look like it went UB yet.


Kuzey

gstonebank
09-14-2006, 02:24 PM
I'm running LW9 on my Macbook Pro 15" (2.16Ghz Core Duo, 1Gb RAM). No problems so far. Interface & OpenGL seems fine, just as fast as my HP laptop (1.7GHz Pentium-M, 1Gb RAM). Rendering is 10 - 20% slower than the HP. FPrime seems worse but it is still usable. I generally do logo animation etc, so I havent tried anything really heavy, polygon wise.

I can't wait to see how quick the UB version will be.

Phil
09-15-2006, 06:09 AM
Adobe was planning to make Photoshop UB with CS3. Despite the size of the company, they could not be bothered/persuaded to make a UB version of CS2. I guess the same policy applies to the rest of their apps.

Expect UB apps by the middle of next year from Adobe. That's quite a long time to wait and will probably/hopefully put a well-deserved dent in their revenue.

*shrug*

Kuzey
09-15-2006, 07:43 AM
Adobe was planning to make Photoshop UB with CS3. Despite the size of the company, they could not be bothered/persuaded to make a UB version of CS2. I guess the same policy applies to the rest of their apps.

Expect UB apps by the middle of next year from Adobe. That's quite a long time to wait and will probably/hopefully put a well-deserved dent in their revenue.

*shrug*

That's bad business.

I'm glad I haven't upgraded my Photoshop 7...not that my G3 ibook could handle it, there just wasn't that wow factor after 7 for me :D

Kuzey

Phil
09-15-2006, 08:46 AM
CS2 is just too **** slow across the board. PS 7 and CS run fine on hardly-state-of-the-art Windows systems (and 7 will even run under Wine on linux!). I never saw a reason to go further than CS myself, for any Adobe products.

The other happy thing is that older versions are, with some effort, portable. You can drop them on a USB key and, for Windows, just double click a registry file. They will then run without complaint and without needing activation. It makes machine hopping much more pleasant ;) Not sure if this is workable on Macs, though.

Scazzino
09-15-2006, 09:15 AM
Not sure if this is workable on Macs, though.

I never upgraded from CS to CS2 on the Mac, because CS2 was the version that they instituted activation on the Mac... so I boycotted it... figured I'd just stay with CS until it would no longer run and I was forced to upgrade... Same thing with Macromedia's studio, I just stayed with the "pre-activation" version...

When I buy software I like to be able to run it on whatever machine I need to use it on, wether that's in the studio, at home or on the road. I also don't like having to ask for permission before I can install and run it on a machine. Sometimes activation can be delayed if you can't get online, or you need to contact the company... and sometimes companies go out of business, drop support for old versions or sell products off, making it impossible to activate a version of software you paid for and may need to resurrect to make changes to an old project... IMO software copy protection hurts the honest consumer more than the "pirate" anyway... the pirates just use a cracked version.

The only version of copy protection I like is the version most companies used to use on the Mac: A serial number that checked the LAN to only allow one copy running at a time. That way I could use my copy on whatever Mac I needed to use it on, whenever I needed to do so. Simple, clean and user friendly...

Sorry for getting off topic, but it's always been a pet peeve of mine... and always will be... ;)

toby
09-15-2006, 12:08 PM
Adobe was planning to make Photoshop UB with CS3. Despite the size of the company, they could not be bothered/persuaded to make a UB version of CS2. I guess the same policy applies to the rest of their apps.

Expect UB apps by the middle of next year from Adobe. That's quite a long time to wait and will probably/hopefully put a well-deserved dent in their revenue.

*shrug*

That's bad business.
Kuzey
That's a Monopoly for ya.

They really are crawling at a snail's pace, supporting 1 new format or improving support for that format per release. 16 bit Tiff's, but no layers and limited filters. Next release you get layers. Release after that you get HDR but no layers and limited filters. You're still locked to one little window whenever you use a filter. They're trickling out the features because they can get away with it.

ScottSullivan
09-15-2006, 02:21 PM
Actually, I believe it all started with Apple. I could be mistaken, Apple has been doing more of this. Now, don't get me wrong... I LOVE Apple. I use Final Cut, Shake and other Apple specific products because I like them better.

However, when Apple released Appeture (sp?), things got more divided. Adobe stopped making Premiere for the Mac. Now they (Adobe) are dragging their feet because they are supporting Mac less and less.

Someone PLEASE correct me if I am ill-informed. I DO NOT know if this is truth, but this is just what I have heard over the last year or so.

But it does make sense. It seems that Apple is releasing more and more products to take share from Adobe, so Adobe says, "Okay, we're only making software for PC. Take that!"

But from what I heard, CS3 is REALLY going to kick butt.

Scott

toby
09-15-2006, 03:05 PM
They have been leaning towards PC, but the Mac and PC versions have the same features, so they're dragging their feet regardless. You can't really blame a manufacturer for bringing a new product to market anyway, if Adobe lost market share it would be because they aren't improving their product to meet the competition.

And considering the similarity between PS8 and 5, they've been dragging their feet for longer than Aperture or even FCP have been around, they've certainly had a monopoly longer.

Chilton
09-15-2006, 04:39 PM
Hi,

Since it's Friday, and since my head is already swimming with details I dare not speak of, I can pipe up on this non-LightWave topic.

I am not privy to too much inside info at Apple. Or Adobe, for that matter. But there's always been some weirdness between the two. Consider that of all of Apple's 'friend' companies, Adobe was the only one to side with Dell on the processor speed debates of the late 90's and early 2k. Then, when the G5 finally shipped, the Adobe CEO was on record saying that it was a great achievement, and that Apple finally had a faster Mac. It was carefully worded, but he actually said it was faster than the previous generation of Macs--to date, he has not publicly acknowledged that Macs are up to par with PCs. I suspect that's an indication of some falling out between Adobe and Apple.

At some point, it appears that Jobs & Co. realized that their futures would be in jeopardy if Adobe continued dragging its heels, and especially if they were telling their users to dump the Mac platform. iMovie, Final Cut Pro, and now Aperture, appear to be warning shots as well as excellent apps.

I hope Adobe pulls out all the stops on the UB version of PhotoShop, but I'm not too worried if they don't.

Adobe's InDesign stole the entire DTP market from Quark during a similar transition period, in *less than a year* because Quark wasn't Carbonized, and then it pretty much sucked when it finally was released.

I suspect Adobe will find itself in a similar situation if it doesn't address the UB version soon. If I weren't working on LightWave, and therefore kinda busy with the 3D industry, PhotoShop would be my current target. I suspect I'm not the only Mac developer who sees that opportunity.

Phil
09-15-2006, 04:51 PM
The problem for future competition, I suspect, might lie with things like software patents. Depending on what Adobe has managed to snag patents for, competing with them might be tricky, especially now. It's certainly going to take some legal and financial muscle to beat them at their own game. The only potential major competitor might be Corel, but they don't seem to be making much headway in marketing terms given Adobe's recent slothlike pace of development.

I haven't seen much of a push for CorelDraw, for example. I'm not even aware if that is available for OSX :D

pantone
09-15-2006, 06:25 PM
For those who are curious here's Adobe's FAQ PDF (http://www.adobe.com/products/pdfs/intelmacsupport.pdf) on the Intel Mac support.

Not having a UB version of PS doesn't seem to have hurt Adobe's earnings. They just announced today higher than expected earings for the quarter (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invrelations/).

The problem with Adobe is that they're the Microsoft of graphics software. Due to their size they just don't have the ability to turn on a dime and update their products. That may be some of the reason for any friction that exists between Adobe and Apple (if it even exists). Apple has historically thrown out the baby with the bathwater so to speak...forcing Adobe to react and look bad for being to slow.

On the Mactel front I thought this info on the 24" Core Dou iMac (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/reviews/24inchimac/index.php) was very interesting. I was thinking of getting a Mac Pro...but this machine looks like a very nice choice for basic 3D and graphics work.

ScottSullivan
09-15-2006, 06:25 PM
I heard there was a great app called Lightwave 9 that was about to go Universal Binary. :D

How goes the hard work? Any good news?

Scott

Kuzey
09-16-2006, 03:58 AM
I do remember we had someone from adobe as a member here and LW user...could have been a ceo but I'm not sure. Anyway, that was on the old newtek forum.

It's all interesting...hopefully, Apple has more great and powerful apps in the pipeline :D

Kuzey

toby
09-16-2006, 04:28 AM
Are you thinking of Chris Cox? He's a Photoshop progammer, or *the* photoshop progammer. He visited the forums a few times, he's an ace. But I think he must be the only one working on PS!

I don't care if it's Apple, but I wish someone would give us an image editor that worked more like a compositing app and less like a print app - maybe a node-basd one? Maybe I'll just try using AE...

Kuzey
09-16-2006, 04:47 AM
Ahhh...that's him alright. I thought he was a higher up...my bad, but maybe he should be :D

Kuzey

John the Geek
09-17-2006, 07:03 PM
The only potential major competitor might be Corel, but they don't seem to be making much headway in marketing terms given Adobe's recent slothlike pace of development.

Speaking of Corel, I wish they'd get Painter's act together. That app is full of bugs, and I haven't dared to try it on an Intel Mac yet.

scabooba
09-20-2006, 08:10 AM
adobe is not going to drop Mac support anytime soon. I spent saturday with 20 graphic designers. 75% used Mac. 100% used Adobe (various apps). If they lost their mac users it'd be a huge chunk of their business.

al3d
09-21-2006, 08:41 AM
So, are there any time frame for a UB mac Lightwave 9.0 release?...my MacPro should be here in a week or so...would be cool to get a UB version for it..mind you i have to buy another **** liscense first.

Newtek should REALY have a special price for a second lisense for home freelancer users..

Al.

Zane Condren
09-21-2006, 08:43 AM
We do have the $495 companion copy price for all LightWave owners.

al3d
09-21-2006, 08:47 AM
We do have the $495 companion copy price for all LightWave owners.

you do?...i email newtek and they never mentionned that one!...can you explain what<s the companion copy?..

you can email me at [email protected] for details not to take over the thread. Right now i run LW on my PC..but i would like to run it on my mac as well....

wesball
09-21-2006, 09:22 AM
I've been running Lightwave 9 on my Mac Pro for a few weeks now.

I went with the Quad 3Ghz.

I use bootcamp to run windows because parallels just wasn't fast enough. And running the mac version of Lightwave 9 was REALLY buggy under rosetta for me.

I did have the SATA drive performance issues you've probably heard about... but the fix thats floating around will tell you how to correct that. It was a pain in the butt since I had to reinstall everything, but it was totally worth it.

So its up and running smoothly now... but I can't wait until NewTek gets rockin with the UB version so I can go back to OS X. ;)

al3d
09-21-2006, 09:39 AM
I orderd the 2.6ghz, i did<nt want to spend almost 1000$ for a slighty speed increase realy. i wanted to install Bootcamp as well, but no a seperate drive..i know there are a few issues concerning bootcamp so far..can you point to some info on that?....

but as you said, hopefully newtek wont be to quiet as to a release for the UB version.


I've been running Lightwave 9 on my Mac Pro for a few weeks now.

I went with the Quad 3Ghz.

I use bootcamp to run windows because parallels just wasn't fast enough. And running the mac version of Lightwave 9 was REALLY buggy under rosetta for me.

I did have the SATA drive performance issues you've probably heard about... but the fix thats floating around will tell you how to correct that. It was a pain in the butt since I had to reinstall everything, but it was totally worth it.

So its up and running smoothly now... but I can't wait until NewTek gets rockin with the UB version so I can go back to OS X. ;)

wesball
09-21-2006, 10:54 AM
This site seems to have a good rundown of what is invovled.

http://st118.startlogic.com/~macproxp/

It seems like a pain, but it's not too bad.


I also have bootcamp running windows off a second drive in Bay 2.
BTW, the Mac Pro drive bays are really, really nice. I love how easy it is to swap drives.

Just know that the bootcamp installer has to go in your applications folder. Then in the bootcamp installer, you can designate which additional drive will be used for windows.

al3d
09-21-2006, 11:04 AM
now to get an answer from Newtek on a release date for the UB version.>:)

pantone
09-21-2006, 11:33 AM
The people at the local Apple store allowed me to run a few benchmarking tests on a Mac Pro and iMac. Here are my results with a comparison to some other systems I have access to.

The bottom line for me is that Photoshop on a Mac Pro is going to perform similarly to a DP G5 powermac. The iMac really lags, but maybe maxing our RAM would help.

al3d
09-21-2006, 11:40 AM
for some reason i can<t view your attachment!...

pantone
09-21-2006, 11:59 AM
Weidness...let's try it again:

al3d
09-21-2006, 12:15 PM
can you explain those figures a little bit?..

habañero
09-21-2006, 01:27 PM
I have the MPB and its ace. I did the heat paste thing and shortly my experiences was as follows:

* Don't do it if you are/would like to be sane ... Its far more complicated than it seems, it'll be very obvious to anyone from apple that you opened your compy and everything is infinitiny inside there ... I would say don't even attempt to switch the HD yourself ...

* It'll gove you much cooler computer, but the tradeoff is LOTS more noise. Fans spins to full on startup for example. On the other hand, it now renders on less than full fan and below 50 C over time ... I feel I can safely use it for overnights now without burning up the equipment ...

I had a few surprises with OSX, my expectations was limited so to say and I am completely blown away by particularly Quicksilver. Like, everything happens in under a second on this machine ... !

Also Carbon copy cloner is impressive, I keep my external (old internal) drive synced and if my internal one goes south I can simply hold alt in the boot and start from the external one like nothing happened ...! And I can turn any macbook pro into *my* exact macbook pro just like that !

Further the fact it can use my cell phone "natively" is awesome, I never used the calendar and todo list etc on windows and it is flawless on mac. You don't realize how terrible windows really is, until you get used to the productivity you can get in OSX ...


Kindof looking forward to the Universal Binary version, yes ...

toby
09-21-2006, 02:55 PM
now to get an answer from Newtek on a release date for the UB version.>:)
There is no release date. They will release it when it's working well, which apparently is 'soon'.

Chilton
09-21-2006, 02:59 PM
:agree:

al3d
09-21-2006, 03:06 PM
i mean surely there is a way to know if it's in a week..or a month..or 3! right?

pantone
09-21-2006, 03:43 PM
can you explain those figures a little bit?..

What would you like to know more about?

The Photoshop test is a series of actions that use color space conversions and filters to alter an image. You can get here. (http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/speedtest.html)

Cinebench (http://www.maxon.net/pages/download/cinebench.html) is a Cinema4D benchmarking tool that runs in Universal Binary...so it will show the true speed of an intel and PPC Mac (within a Cinema4D context)

The biggest surprise was that Photoshop running in the Rosetta emulation mode on the iMac was slower than a 5 year old Powermac G4.

The 3D performance numbers in Cinebench show how well the new intel hardware smokes the PPC stuff.

cresshead
09-21-2006, 04:49 PM
err are those numbers in seconds or what?

doesn't read too good is a quad taskes 8 times longer than a g4?

pantone
09-21-2006, 06:06 PM
My Bad...

With the Cinebench numbers the bigger they are the better the score. We're working in "Cinebench Units". So the MacPro is quite a bit faster than the DP G5 machine.

The "X CPU" number is the rendering score for multi threaded renders. So on the Dual Core iMac the render got split into two threads. On the MacPro the render go split into 4 threads.

cresshead
09-21-2006, 06:12 PM
cheers.. i thought it was something like that but to the untrained eye having a set of numbers with seconds as the units on the first set people could read into it that the other stuff was seconds as well!

thanks for clearing that up!

i'm off to the apple store in nottingham tomorrow to test 3dsmax 8 on a bootcamp imac...looking to get either a imac 24" or a macpro to run max9.0 in october...

ohh err!

John the Geek
09-21-2006, 07:07 PM
i mean surely there is a way to know if it's in a week..or a month..or 3! right?

I am absolutely itching to buy... but with no UB yet my boss won't budge. Appearantly he's been "QuarkXPressed" before. Once I here news of a UB update to LW9 I can finally order and go crazy with my new Mac Pro!!! =)

W00t!

toby
09-21-2006, 08:51 PM
i mean surely there is a way to know if it's in a week..or a month..or 3! right?
Well, what happens if they give an estimate is that people start whining if the estimate time runs out, even though it was only an estimate. It's best if you put it out of your mind, then it'll happen before you know it.

pantone
09-22-2006, 08:05 AM
i'm off to the apple store in nottingham tomorrow to test 3dsmax 8 on a bootcamp imac...looking to get either a imac 24" or a macpro to run max9.0 in october...

ohh err!

Make sure and report back your results here. I don't know much about Max, but I've heard that it's the most windows reliant piece of 3D software out there. So if it runs well in boot camp that would be impressive.

al3d
09-22-2006, 08:07 AM
Make sure and report back your results here. I don't know much about Max, but I've heard that it's the most windows reliant piece of 3D software out there. So if it runs well in boot camp that would be impressive.

My friend in Africa works with Max, and he called me to let me know that the studio he works freelance for as bought some MacPro and are running 3D Max on it, and it runs lightning fast with no bugs so far

TomT
09-22-2006, 08:16 AM
3DS Max seems to work fine under Parallels. Though we haven't stressed it. We brought it up on one of our machines to tweak a model we recieved from one of our freelancers. Our PC-guy seems like XSI a little better though, so you might want to check that out too while you're playing with Parallels.
-T

toby
09-23-2006, 01:54 AM
i'm off to the apple store in nottingham tomorrow to test 3dsmax 8 on a bootcamp imac...looking to get either a imac 24" or a macpro to run max9.0 in october...

:eek:
Considering that I've seen Max bring a PC workstation to it's knees with less than a milllion polys, I'd recommend that you don't get an iMac to run it. Bad enough that people are running LW on iMacs... Max eats up double the system resources...

cresshead
09-23-2006, 05:17 AM
well i'm happy to report that your concerns are in fact not the case!

i took the install of 3dsmax and direct x 9 over on my usb key..

installed max 8.0 and direct x then serrvice patched max upto it's current sate of service pack 3.0

this is running on a imac 2.16 witht eh low end ati card...

i also took the sample scenes for mental ray and animation plus my current scenes i'm working on for a client of which i have a 750,000 poly scene of the inside of a cinema screen with all the seating etc....

the imac can spin the scene around with no hassle and didn't have to setup degradation override the get good feedback on the scene whilist zooming/rotating the shaded open gl scene...

oh yeah i set up max with open gl fomr the choice of open gl, directx and software...seeing as open gl is pretty weak on a ati card it was probably the worst choice other than software display [heidi]

so ran with my cinema scene really well...actually as good/better than my own acer laptop pc which has a pci express card [128mb] which i think are similar chips...

so no problems..

i also ran all the ususal mental ray scenes to make sure mental ray can work okay...with caustics, vol lights, final gather, ray tracing

also made sure that both cores were indeed rendering..which they did so flawlessly....

then threw in my mars city scene which is 450,000 polys and has loads of raytracing due to all the reflecting windows and it is lit via light tracer [radiosity bg color renderer]....

also went in there and did some modeling and editing of polys to make sure all the polys verts displayed well

couldn't find a single problem...just felt and acted like a VERY GOOD stable pc.
and remember this is the 20" imac with the sti 128mb card....not the 256mb nvidia card i'll have in the 24" imac if i go for the 24"imac over the macpro!

as for rendering....

in comparison to my acer AMD turion64 1.6hz chipped laptop the render times were consistanly 3 times faster than my AMD laptop...

[both the 20" imac and my acer laptop have 1 gig ram btw.]

also not that the imac20" was using the display size of....

1680-by-1050 which is waay bigger than my 15.4 inch widescreen laptop which is ruinning at 1200 x 900 sothe feedback on the imac is darn good and will be cool on a nvidia 256mb card running at 1920 by 1200 pixels!!!!

i really can't stress how cool and smooth3dsmax ran on this 'apple' pc...

Kuzey
09-23-2006, 05:37 AM
That's great news...I think, it is great news...right ?

:lol:

Kuzey

cresshead
09-23-2006, 06:08 AM
well if bootcamp/xp was going to fall over ANYWHERE is would have been with 3dsmax!!!... so yeah it's great news..not only for max users [me...i also use lw of course!!!] but for those waiting for UB versions of lightwave or plugins that only ever appear on intel/winxp for lightwave too and also those MAC only owners who look with envyous eyes toward newtek speed edit..
any otherwindows only apps..
well now they can run speed edit with some confidence on a bootcamp setup.

for me this is the obvious next step in getting a new workstation...i've been looking at a dual cpu pc...mainly the dell...but it's price is £1500 more than a identicle spec'd macpro...

i have my laptop whichi bought this year to have a mobile option and is currently where i have max 8 and lightwave 9.0 installed
but also wanted a desktop pc as a new 'workstation' and render beast...so the imac24" woudl be good as the screensize is HUGE
and would help productivity in creating the scenes or a macpro and use some of my current display's to view the scenes on..

either way i'd be upgrading from my collection of current pc's which include 2 sgi workstations [silicon graphics 320 and a sgi230] a dell pc and the acer...

seems i'll be nr 90% in winxp but on a apple mac!...i also have a mac mini which i'll continue to use for video editing/music and dvd creation as well.

Kuzey
09-23-2006, 06:56 AM
Yes, it's all good in the end :D

But seriously, how long did you spend in the store testing it all...sounds like a few hours at least.


Kuzey

toby
09-23-2006, 01:50 PM
well i'm happy to report that your concerns are in fact not the case!
Well of course, loading a scene and spinning it around for a while won't bring a PC workstation to it's knees either. I'm talking about production use, hour after hour, day after day, loading and clearing scenes, dozens of test renders, other programs running and quitting, painting in Photoshop, etc. I've just heard enough complaints about performance of iMacs in production - just remember you've been warned!

avkills
09-23-2006, 06:58 PM
iMacs aren't for production pipelines. Get the Mac Pro.

-mark

skortch
09-23-2006, 09:20 PM
I have a Mac Pro 2.66 with 2 GB of ram. I ran the standard benchmarks using LWAutoBench and posted them to http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/ (Chris' Lightwave Benchmarks). They are under the name Mark F. Most of my results are near the top, though I think I need some more ram to drop some of them.

The times were 2.5x faster than my Athlon X2 4400+. I'm pretty happy... It's a great machine, both as a Mac and as an XP render box.

UnCommonGrafx
09-23-2006, 09:28 PM
Welp,
I've been told that this may be in my future. Well, ought to be, at least.

So, what should I be looking for? I had planned on putting together a $3k to $4k quad Amd box but what would the suggestions be for said monies?

Thanks.

avkills
09-23-2006, 09:44 PM
Welp,
I've been told that this may be in my future. Well, ought to be, at least.

So, what should I be looking for? I had planned on putting together a $3k to $4k quad Amd box but what would the suggestions be for said monies?

Thanks.

I'm not sure why anyone would not consider the Mac Pro. You get OS X, plus you can run Windows or Linux on it if you have to...seems like a no brainer.

Besides, Intel finally seems to have pulled their head out and designed some good chips for a change.

-mark

dfc
09-24-2006, 03:35 AM
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this.

I just got done setting up a new Intel mac that also had "parallels" on it...(running windows XP).

It's a fine machine..even running under rosetta...save for one thing.....VERY, VERY, VERY slow CD, DVD read/write.

I tried to look this up..and nobody is taliking about it. But, I did a copy test with a font CD that had over 6k folders...but was only 300 megs..and it took about 15 mins. That's right...15 mins. The CD (or DVD) did not "whir". It sounded like this..."Kachink, kachink, kachin,...pause...Kachink, Kachink, kachink..pause.

I never could figure it out. I thought it might have just been Parallels..install. So..I disabled drive from that. Nope. It's the intel mac.
I've not seen drive performance this bad since 7.56 days!

That's the one drawback I saw on this machine.

D

cresshead
09-24-2006, 04:34 AM
i've also read tha parrallels is not multicore as yet for macpro...they are working on it though..

as for comment that a imac is not production worthy can you exand on what information brings you to that conclusion?

is it...?
1.hard drive
2.over heating
3.lack of expandability
4.video card
5.limited memory expansion

any tangable insight to just why a imac24 is a poor choice would really help me decide on the imac24"/macpro decision i have to make

cheers!

stee

dfc
09-24-2006, 04:43 AM
Yes...
specifically...it's the optical drive speed. (buss speed).

I haven't quite got it sorted yet. If you take a dual layer DVD (like a movie) and play it..you hear the drive "whirrr"...normal. And it plays fine. But, if you make a data DVD or CD...no matter what format you use, nor matter what you use to burn it with....it will be SLOW, SLOW, SLOW to read/copy over...or burn.

That's been my experience.

I sorted everything on the machine..(including quirks with "Parallels"..save for this issue...andcould not find anything further on it.

But, my guess is...slowly..but surely..there will be more reports..about this on apples site..etc.

We'll see.

D

dfc
09-24-2006, 04:44 AM
I wanted to add..if it's not clear..that reading from that disk is very, very slow too.

D

Kuzey
09-24-2006, 04:54 AM
This is out there but have you tried it with different brands of cd/dvd's ?

I would take the problem cd/dvd to an Apple store and see if other Macs have the same problem reading them or see if you can burn a test cd there.

Best of luck,

Kuzey

avkills
09-24-2006, 10:17 AM
Supposedly, there is a fix for the poor SATA performace.

As far as the iMac not being production worthy; A lot depends on what exactly your production pipeline is. I personally would never buy a machine for production use that did not have PCI expansion or massive amounts of RAM that can be put in it.

I'd still take my Dual 2 GHz G5 over an Intel iMac even thought the iMac is more than likely faster.

-mark

cresshead
09-24-2006, 10:40 AM
here's where i'm at with my decision process...

i'd like a new desktop pc for lightwave 9 and 3dsmax 9 plus a bit of video editing...

the way i see a imac is that of like a deskbound LARGE laptop...with laptops you can' upgrade them much but they are still very useful...and it's a nr all in one unit...which is nice.

the up's of a imac24" are mainly the very large 24" monitor...which if i were to buy as a separate unit would be around £700..that makes the imac ''GUTS'' around the £700 mark depending on ram etc...

so i mainly gain a 24" monitor a a 3x or more [i'll be getting the 2.33 if i go imac] render speed increase...

the main reasons for the macpro are that of the quadcore cpu's...i'd go for the 2.66ghz chips...but i'd not have a monitor and more specifically if i wanted a 24" i'd add £700 on top of the cost...or could go 2x20" for around £600...so mainly the up's for a quadcore macpro is for rendering...yeah the thing will also spin large scenes around well...but so does the imac...there is more room for expansion and maybe even throwing in some clovertow's next year...

of course with the mac pro i could use my 22" crt and my 19"widescreen monitor and use a switcher to view them....[i have one..not set it up yet..]

so for day to day use... a imac would be a decent choice..i gain some render speed though not a 6x render speed like the macpro..but i do gain a nice huge screen...
as regards expansion..i'd be running external Hd [firewire/usb2] for projects and just have the os/apps on internal drive.

it's a tough one!...both are ideal...and i could get either one...i also looked over at dell and they are still charging waaay too much for their pc's in comparison to a mac...be it imac or macpor equivelent...so it's def a mac of some sort!

avkills
09-24-2006, 10:47 AM
If it was me, I'd get the MacPro and use my existing monitors and get another monitor later when I have the money.

-mark

cresshead
09-24-2006, 10:50 AM
yeah maybe i'm just being 'vain'...and want to sit in front of a imac screen!
...a mac pro won't be 'visible'...it'll be tucked under a desk...next to me sgi's and dell!....

grr!....

pantone
09-24-2006, 12:57 PM
I think the iMac is clearly production ready for many situations.

I think there are ony a couple of questions you need to ask yourself:

1. Do you need PCI expansion slots?
2. Do you need more than 3 GIG of RAM?

If the answer to either of those quesitons are "yes" then the iMac won't do.

I think for SD/DV video work the iMac should work fine. It's every bit as capable as the current crop of G5 power macs.

If I needed to do HD or Film resolution work then the MacPro would win hands down as I'd need to have the PCI expansion slots for video capture cards and faster RAID cards. As well as the additional RAM the MacPro would allow.

toby
09-24-2006, 02:42 PM
The difference between an iMac and a workstation is that one is a workstation. Rest assured that they didn't take a workstation, add a 24" lcd to it and drop the price. A workstation is designed and built from the ground up to be production-ready, iMacs are designed to be more affordable, and you get what you pay for.

That said, it might work for you, it depends on how hard you push it. But considering that Max will bring down a workstation ( which is one of the reasons I think it's Crap ), I recommend you get the strongest computer you can. Specifically, when it's loaded up with polys and textures, system response really lags. You find yourself sitting and waiting after almost every click or command. You can also lose the ability to run other applications, because Max has leaked every last crumb of ram to itself.

On one show in Lightwave I assigned myself 8-9 shots, was helping another artist on the show, and never worked more than 12 hours. Another show in Max I had 2 shots, and was struggling past midnight the last 2 weeks of the show to get it done. At one point I had the audacity to start another copy of Max to look at another scene for reference - BSD!! Blue Screen of Death! How often does that happen any more? The thought of trying to use Max on an iMac, with it's laptop parts, makes me cringe -

cresshead
09-24-2006, 05:10 PM
interesting thoughts on the workstation concept...
maybe it's a poor comparison but i feel that th imac could hold up to be better than either of my ageing sgi workstations...though their build quality has shown them to be rugged as they still work fine some 6-7 years after they came to market [1999-2001]...they maybe slow in rendering and their graphics cards are nothing to shout about thesedays [sgi 320 and sgi230..windows machines not irix]

still they have helped me out onmy current freelance project....so has my acer laptop!...which is just a consumer laptop
with a 128mb pci express ati consumer gaming video chip...

it think the imac24" would compare well to a dell precision laptop...more so than a dell precision desktop i'd admit...though the dell laptop is also considered a 'workstation'..

surpose i'm being nit picky!...

whatever i get will enhance my production...i'm still totally undecided as yet!....that 24" screen is tempting....but so are those 4 cores!...thanks for your input it's helping me weight up the choice!

avkills
09-24-2006, 05:42 PM
For me it is all about the processing. Monitors come second. If I can see what I am doing with what I have currently, then to me the focus should be on bang for the buck, which is clearly the MacPro.

-mark

cresshead
09-25-2006, 12:11 PM
well i had a session on a 24" monitor yesterday...just to see if i'd like the idea of the imac24" soley to run 3dsmax and lightwave on that HUGE monitor...this was a dell 24" but it was setup with same res...

interesting....if anything i'm leaning more to the macpro currently as when i had several floating windows open such as material pallete, curve editor, asset browser etc...they just didn't sit well on that monitor...woudl really need a second screen even though the 24" is running at i think 1900 x 1200

i'd think two 19" monitors woud be better...or two 20" widescreen ones
...still thinking!

avkills
09-25-2006, 12:41 PM
I have a 20" Apple and a 15" NEC at home. At work I have two 20" Nokias. I can't hardly work these days without 2 monitors. But I mostly do video editing and post stuff.

-mark