PDA

View Full Version : Some news about LWv9 UB release?



juli51
11-20-2006, 06:36 AM
Some news about LWv9 UB release?

Kuzey
11-20-2006, 06:46 AM
The answer is they are working on it and it will be soon :)

And it's not just a simple conversion to UB, they are adding a lot of Mac Coolness to it plus other features :D


Kuzey

Chilton
11-20-2006, 06:48 AM
First, you'll want to be part of the Open Beta group, because it will appear there first.

Some things are exactly as fast as you think they'll be.
Some things are faster than you're expecting.
Some things were sped up that you didn't realize were slow.
Some things are fixed where you didn't realize they were broken.
Some things are easier, even though they weren't hard before.

And when you run the UB against earlier versions of LightWave, on the same hardware, you'll be even more upset at how long it took us to get the UB version done :devil:

-Chilton

BazC
11-20-2006, 07:58 AM
Now that's just mean! LOL :D

Tartiflette
11-20-2006, 08:36 AM
First, you'll want to be part of the Open Beta group, because it will appear there first.

Some things are exactly as fast as you think they'll be.
Some things are faster than you're expecting.
Some things were sped up that you didn't realize were slow.
Some things are fixed where you didn't realize they were broken.
Some things are easier, even though they weren't hard before.

And when you run the UB against earlier versions of LightWave, on the same hardware, you'll be even more upset at how long it took us to get the UB version done :devil:

-Chilton

Chilton, stop teasing us and bring this UB version, now !! :devil:

You can't let us waiting longer with our poor little heart beating as **** while we read about this wonderful new release !! :D

So, stop teasing and show us all The Light (wave...)

I can't wait, i can't wait, i can't wait, i can't wait...

:help:


Regards,
Laurent aka Tartiflette :)

Yacomo
11-20-2006, 08:46 AM
Did I mention that I just picked up a shiny new 24" iMac on saturday? :D

* taps fingers on desk (im)patiently * http://www.www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/muede/f050.gif

Darth Mole
11-20-2006, 09:10 AM
Chilton, you [email protected]&rd.

If you were a girl you'd be what us Brits call a prick teaser...

JeffRutan
11-20-2006, 11:36 AM
Please someone wake me up when this UB version is finally released.
Thanks,
-Jeff

mike_stening
11-21-2006, 06:08 AM
do it, do it now!:twak: 8/

harlan
11-21-2006, 01:04 PM
you'll be even more upset at how long it took us to get the UB version done


not possible. ;)

Jirapong
11-21-2006, 02:35 PM
It is not until version 10 or 11 when the UB will be available.
There is noway that those Mac engineers will do it. Only 9 has enough bug for them to fix it. Pushing UB out even will even make LW more unusable for Mac users.

Gave up already,

Chilton
11-21-2006, 02:41 PM
Hi,

It's going to be part of the 9.x release cycle. It will be released as part of the Open Beta group first. And it will make things much easier for our Mac users.

-Chilton

Darth Mole
11-21-2006, 03:24 PM
Pfft. That's easy to say... prove it! Go on - show us a screengrab of something good :-)

Chilton
11-21-2006, 03:35 PM
Sorry guys, eh... my screenshot camera is out of film ;-)

-Chilton

TomT
11-21-2006, 05:12 PM
And when you run the UB against earlier versions of LightWave, on the same hardware, you'll be even more upset at how long it took us to get the UB version done :devil:

-Chilton

Anybody taking bets on whether UB in 2006? :sleeping:

Darth Mole
11-22-2006, 02:01 AM
Yeah - given Chilton has said the '9.x release cycle' I'll happily bet it doesn't appear during the 9.2 OB, and so I'll take a punt at early 2007.

Actually, just make that 2007.

mike_stening
11-22-2006, 02:36 AM
Hi,

It's going to be part of the 9.x release cycle. It will be released as part of the Open Beta group first.

-Chilton

well, seeing as the open beta group is a limited test cycle then i would imagine it would be before xmas so as to make it into the open beta

Yacomo
11-22-2006, 02:51 AM
Yeah - given Chilton has said the '9.x release cycle' I'll happily bet it doesn't appear during the 9.2 OB, and so I'll take a punt at early 2007.

Actually, just make that 2007.
Who is saying that by 2008 LW10 will be out? http://www.www.cosgan.de/images/midi/frech/a050.gif

avkills
11-22-2006, 03:31 AM
Chilton, please tell me the performance of the UB is going to be "a lot" better than 9.0 running PowerPC CPUs. At least give me a small hint.

I just rendered a frame from a scene on my MacBook Pro (2GB, 2.33 GHz); and it was almost twice as fast rendering under WinXP than my G5 (5GB, 2Ghz). All this says to me is that LW needs to be a lot better optimized for the G5, which hopefully by compiling using xCode will do. Although I will say that my hi-res earth scene bombs the MBP; methinks it needs more RAM. :) OpenGL performance seems about even.

Although I am a bit disappointed; and I am ecstatic at the same time. Finally a laptop that has the horsepower I need. :D

-mark

mike_stening
11-22-2006, 03:34 AM
mark i am pretty sure that was confirmed a while ago, the UB version isn't just a boost for the intel chip but for the powerpc ones as well, general optimisation et al.
blimey i'm being optimistic for a change:tongue:

CAClark
11-22-2006, 03:37 AM
Sorry guys, eh... my screenshot camera is out of film ;-)

-Chilton

Ok, I'll be the pragmatic one, but you may think it's funny, but it isn't. People are seriously waiting on this, just to get the performance they SHOULD have. I personally find all the hyping and joking about the lack of UB version to be in bad taste. Saying it'll be the 9.x cycle helps no-one. 9.2? 9.3? 9.99? For once can't NT look at working with specified achievable deadlines?

I'll add that most of my work is done in the windows version, so I am not even as reliant on getting the UB version as some, as I only use my MBP when my workstation is occupied.

avkills
11-22-2006, 09:53 AM
Well it should easily be a boost for Intel chips; I can't imagine running under Rosetta. I just want to know that the G5 will run LW how I know "it can".

-mark

John the Geek
11-22-2006, 10:00 AM
I for one would rather have Chilton here making jokes than complete silence from anyone at NewTek. I understand his hands are tied as far as leaking specific info, so he gives us what he can in the form of humor.

But if it's THAT great already then shouldn't we be testing it already...

...right?

:D

gerry_g
11-22-2006, 12:24 PM
Lightwave UB on a G5 !!. as we're all running in 'I Want I Want mode"...... I want it to run in 64bit mode under Leopard on a Quad Intel MacPro straight out of the box and with nothing missing no ifs no buts, but I'm the patient sort, so I'll give you till February

exit6
11-22-2006, 01:25 PM
um what's UB?

___mats___
11-22-2006, 01:30 PM
im with CAClark and Gerry

Jokes are cute, nice and all, but people who make a living off 3D animation have real deadlines.

I, for one recently purchased another 3D platform that better exploits my Mac/PC rendernodes, as well as considering other options, I figure the UB will come out when it comes out and if it is too late and by then I migrated all my work, well then I will sell my lightwave copy and license, or keep both, simple as that.

Chilton
11-22-2006, 03:18 PM
Hi,

We thought it over, and decided maybe we could provide one preview screenshot at this time. :)

The following is an unaltered screenshot of a window in the Universal Binary running on a stock MacBook Pro. It has a 2.16Ghz Intel Core Duo chip, 1Gb of 667Mhz DDR2 SDRAM, and is running MacOSX 10.4.8. Please bear in mind that there may be changes in the product by the time it ships.

This is one of our benchmark scenes, Virus.lws, with only the default settings. The UB build render came in at 32.8 seconds in this run. For comparison, the same render on the same system running Windows-native LightWave under Bootcamp with 32-bit Windows XP came in at 35.7 seconds. We wouldn't view that as an accurate head-to-head performance comparison with Windows as primary OS on an otherwise identical system, but for those who are running under Bootcamp until the UB is ready, it gives some idea of our progress with UB.

Chilton
11-22-2006, 03:29 PM
Hi Gerry,


Lightwave UB on a G5 !!. as we're all running in 'I Want I Want mode"...... I want it to run in 64bit mode under Leopard on a Quad Intel MacPro straight out of the box and with nothing missing no ifs no buts, but I'm the patient sort, so I'll give you till February

I cannot divulge any Leopard info or plans we may or may not have for fear of Steve Jobs' Clone Army.

Thank you,
-Chilton

grc
11-22-2006, 04:44 PM
Do you have to pre-apply for the open beta of LW UB, or can anyone get onto this?

avkills
11-22-2006, 04:53 PM
Thanks Chilton. That makes me feel tons better. Have a great Thanksgiving; and thanks for putting as much effort as you have into the Mac version of LW. It is great that you visit the forums as consistently as you do; and let us know what is in store.

I like the jokes, don't stop. If you guys can't take the jokes, then maybe you ought to re-consider your platform of choice. ;) :p

-mark

___mats___
11-22-2006, 05:59 PM
Thanks Chilton, looks good and looking forward to the release, Happy Thanksgiving

for avkills, maybe you do not have deadlines or do not depend on a 3D for your livelihood, I do not mind jokes, we just needed to know there was tangible progress made in order to plan ahead, thanks for your intelligent response it is much appreciated

John the Geek
11-22-2006, 06:04 PM
Do you have to pre-apply for the open beta of LW UB, or can anyone get onto this?

Any registered user of LW 9.0 can get their grubby little hands on the OpenBeta now, ad eventually the UB (Universal Binary) in beta as soon as it's released after the new year.... (Oh, did I say that? Oops... I meant Easter '07.) You just sign up and agree to not talk about it outside of a special forum just for beta discussion.

;)

I predict... Dec 1st will be the release date for the OB UB.

ScottSullivan
11-22-2006, 06:15 PM
I dig the screenshot you released, Chilton. Very promising results. Can't wait to go portable on my Macbook Pro (same specs as yours, pretty much).

I've got an idea. Since they let you smuggle that shot out, how about publishing a few lines of code in each of your posts. Then we can recompile it on our own before the official release!

But do it in pig latin so you don't get caught!

:D

P.S.
Have a great Thanksgiving. We appreciate all the hard work (and jokes) you've put in already!

avkills
11-22-2006, 08:24 PM
Thanks Chilton, looks good and looking forward to the release, Happy Thanksgiving

for avkills, maybe you do not have deadlines or do not depend on a 3D for your livelihood, I do not mind jokes, we just needed to know there was tangible progress made in order to plan ahead, thanks for your intelligent response it is much appreciated

Trust me, I am not down playing the importance of this release. Although I question the motives of people who constantly complain about it not being done, knowing full well that LW was not UB when they bought Intel based Macs.

And I know deadlines, but most of mine are for a combination of finished edits, 3D, powerpoint, graphics, whatever we need for whatever show we are doing and what the client is asking for (or whatever the sales team promised).

I've never really ran LW on anything but Amigas and Macs, so I had no idea the performance on the Mac was lacking this much (not a jab at Chilton or any of the Newtek dev staff). LW runs great on my G5, and I am thrilled that it looks as though it will run even better once the UB is released. It was hard to complain transitioning from a 333 Mhz G3 PowerMac LW7 to a Dual 2Ghz G5 with LW 8, and then 9. Night and day.

Let us all just be thankful that Newtek found Chilton. It is nice to know you have someone who knows how Mac users think and the level they expect from Pro apps on the team.

-mark

Drocket
11-22-2006, 10:19 PM
I have only been using Lightwave for a week but have to say I was quite impressed with the speed on my Mac Pro, I was expecting it to be really slow from reading all the emails.

Having said that I am just getting back into 3D after many years so am not pushing it at the moment, there again I can't wait to try the UB version as I think that thing will fly :)

I have been following these threads for a couple of months now and find the NewTek staff on the forums to be a breath of fresh air compared to some companies and can understand the position Chilton is in with regards what he can and can't say. I would rather NewTek hold back a little longer if it means giving us something we really want and not something half finished, not that it will ever be finished :) :lightwave

Good work Chilton.

Drocket.

mattc
11-23-2006, 12:55 AM
For once can't NT look at working with specified achievable deadlines?

Not possible in complex software development. Ever. Not with scope creep, changing requirements, etc, etc, etc. Now, I don't know when the UB was baselined, but I expect it was fairly recently.

M.

mike_stening
11-23-2006, 02:54 AM
(or whatever the sales team promised).

-mark


oh so true

juli51
11-23-2006, 04:43 AM
I do agree with drocket.... but it's hard to wait since we still don't know wenn the UB version will be released, even not a date about, and LW9 doesn't run as properly as it should in roseta mode. So the more we wait, the longer we suffer. it's not a matter of being better but a matter of praying for some works not to crash down.

How to explain to our clients?.....

But I do still agree with drocket

avkills
11-23-2006, 06:45 AM
I do agree with drocket.... but it's hard to wait since we still don't know wenn the UB version will be released, even not a date about, and LW9 doesn't run as properly as it should in roseta mode. So the more we wait, the longer we suffer. it's not a matter of being better but a matter of praying for some works not to crash down.

How to explain to our clients?.....

But I do still agree with drocket

Why would you run a Pro app under Rosetta in a studio? I ask because Quad G5s were still available after the Mac Pros were announced. Obviously one likes to have the fastest they can get, but it seems to me that in a production environment, one would get the machine that runs all the critical apps natively.

I still run a G5 in my suite as the main computer; plus I have one at home which I generally do my 3D work on since I have lots of RAM and a better GPU than the work machine.

The MacBookPro was just purchased at work for my travel machine, which is going to work out great since mostly what I'll be doing is video with it. FCP Studio runs really, really good on it. I also need to do powerpoint, so being able to boot into Windows is a major bonus.

-mark

mike_stening
11-23-2006, 06:51 AM
well if your stuff getts nicked and all you can get are the mac pros then rosetta it is :thumbsdow

CAClark
11-23-2006, 08:43 AM
I have only been using Lightwave for a week but have to say I was quite impressed with the speed on my Mac Pro, I was expecting it to be really slow from reading all the emails.

Having said that I am just getting back into 3D after many years so am not pushing it at the moment, there again I can't wait to try the UB version as I think that thing will fly :)

I have been following these threads for a couple of months now and find the NewTek staff on the forums to be a breath of fresh air compared to some companies and can understand the position Chilton is in with regards what he can and can't say. I would rather NewTek hold back a little longer if it means giving us something we really want and not something half finished, not that it will ever be finished :) :lightwave

Good work Chilton.

Drocket.

But that's what the open beta program is for.... without specifics mention B2 & 3 are heavily buggered, so nohitng is being held back for polishing there.

Cheers!

avkills
11-23-2006, 08:47 AM
well if your stuff getts nicked and all you can get are the mac pros then rosetta it is :thumbsdow

True. It will come and I have a feeling it is going to be worth the wait.

-mark

John the Geek
11-23-2006, 09:22 AM
But that's what the open beta program is for.... without specifics mention B2 & 3 are heavily buggered, so nohitng is being held back for polishing there.

Agreed. If it's running enough for Chilton to give us a screenshot then you'd think that it's capable of being tested in OpenBeta. (I know Chilton has no say in this, but just an observation for others at NewTek who can make that call.)

Going beta isn't going to make all our woes go away since it's obviously still unfinished, but it will be a solid milestone in our long wait for running native Intel. It also makes us part of the process instead of just bystanders hearing about it's glory.

smcstravick
11-29-2006, 09:05 AM
if a UB version of Lightwave does come out sometime soon as part of a 9.x release cycle, can anyone tell me whether i'm going to have to pay for this? considering the fact that I just bought a new full version 9.0 a few weeks ago.

i'm running it on a new mac pro and its feeling pretty slow, so a UB version coming out would be great news.

mike_stening
11-29-2006, 09:08 AM
as you have just bought version 9 you should be eligable to go on the Beta test and as a UB version of the beta comes out, if it comes out then you can be there to try it.
if you have registered your v9 copy you should be able to go into you downloads area of the registration site and get the beta to try out.

John the Geek
11-29-2006, 09:17 AM
NewTek has reassured us all that the UB will be 9.x release and will be free to all registered LW9 customers.

When has been hit and miss, with more miss than hit it feels like.

I should just forget it exists and wander off for a few months and play with modo for a while... then come back in 6 months or so and hopefully find a functioning Intel Mac version of LW 9. This week-by-week self-inflicted agony is just awful. It's not going to be next week, or the week after that... so I need to just let it go and stop thinking about it.

-John

hdace
12-03-2006, 03:03 AM
I just wrote a long message about running 64bit version under boot camp, and then read this entire thread. All very fascinating (if frustrating).

The one question I have (with regard to UB) that never got answered is will the UB be 64? And will it be 64 for both PPC & intel Macs?

There are several reasons why we all need to be patient. LW is a bloody complicated package! Apple switched processors. And both Apple & Microsoft are in the middle of converting their software to 64, to boot! Couldn't be harder for NT to cope, and I really respect how hard they're trying.

Hal

BazC
12-03-2006, 03:12 AM
The one question I have (with regard to UB) that never got answered is will the UB be 64? And will it be 64 for both PPC & intel Macs?

There has been no official word on a 64bit version of LW for Macs as far as I know. My guess would be that the initial UB will be 32bit. There is no point in releasing a 64bit version until we have a 64bit OS to run it on and that won't arrive until OS 10.5 next year. I've heard rumours that even that may not be fully 64bit.

64bit really isn't that big a deal for most Mac users anyway from what I know. The biggest advantage will be the possibility of using more RAM but we can already use 4gigs. I doubt many people really need more than that yet.

John the Geek
12-03-2006, 06:13 AM
It's OS specific. In Tiger, only the Unix underpinnings can be truly 64-bit, hence the UB will be 32-bit with some 64-bit addressing were allowed by the OS, but there have been hints that since Leopard opens up the 64-bit toolbox to more GUI apps then there will be a 64-bit version once Leo is in the wild.

But correct me if I'm wrong. That's all my perspective and I may just be slap-happy.

=)

dglidden
12-03-2006, 10:04 PM
There has been no official word on a 64bit version of LW for Macs as far as I know. My guess would be that the initial UB will be 32bit. There is no point in releasing a 64bit version until we have a 64bit OS to run it on and that won't arrive until OS 10.5 next year. I've heard rumours that even that may not be fully 64bit.

Just out of curiosity where have you heard those rumours? Obviously Leopard testers aren't allowed to say very much, but from what Apple is announcing, Leopard is 64-bit through-and-through. Tiger is 64-bit at the UNIX (Darwin) level, and Leopard brings that to Aqua, along with the rest of the various APIs and libraries.

"Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit.

...

Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit ..."

Chilton
12-03-2006, 10:37 PM
Hi guys,

Leopard is a 64-bit OS.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html

To get there, Apple ditched a large number of APIs that most Mac apps use. If you use those APIs, your app gets no 64-bit love. Again, most Mac apps do use those. We do, currently. Our competitors do, currently.

Apple wants everyone (or at least its developers) to move to the 64-bit OS, ASAP.

Aside from that, I cannot say anything more about what I know regarding how well LightWave *might* run in Leopard, were we to try such covert things.

Furthermore, NewTek has not made any announcements regarding a 64-bit version of LightWave for MacOS X. It would be foolish to assume we lack the technical know-how to pull off such a feat, as we have had a 64-bit PC version for a long time now. It should likewise be obvious that at some point in the future, we'd build a 64-bit Mac version of LightWave. But right now, we have made no public plans regarding this issue.

Don't feel too bad--even Microsoft doesn't completely embrace 64-bit. As Zane pointed out to me earlier, the Microsoft Zune doesn't jive with his 64-bit Windows system. That sucks.

-Chilton

hdace
12-03-2006, 11:43 PM
I just posted yet another saga on my thread "Boot Camp Wow". Summary:

Under 9.2 (again, sorry for breaking the rules-- this isn't really about the open beta program) 64 bit version, this new iMac dual core rendered a fairly sophisticated scene (one frame) only one minute slower than my PPC G5 Quad. The same machine took 6 minutes longer to render the same frame in the 32 version.

What this says to me is that the UB really needs to be 64 bit. It clearly makes a HUGE difference. I sometimes spend a week, once even a month, rendering scenes.

If you look at my other thread, you will see you can extrapolate that if my G5 takes 3 weeks to render a scene, with a 64 bit UB version, it could do the same scene in just 2 weeks. Now THAT is something to hope for.

Hal

hdace
12-03-2006, 11:45 PM
oh, one other thing, in case your curious, new iMacs come standard with 1 GB of ram and I have not added.

BazC
12-04-2006, 01:38 AM
Just out of curiosity where have you heard those rumours?

I'm not sure, it may have been something Chilton said in an earlier post along the lines he's posted here.


To get there, Apple ditched a large number of APIs that most Mac apps use. If you use those APIs, your app gets no 64-bit love. Again, most Mac apps do use those. We do, currently. Our competitors do, currently.

In which case I've misunderstood, it sounds as though the OS is fully 64bit but we still won't be seeing any 64bit 3d apps for Mac any time soon. Is that about right Chilton?

I really don't see it as a problem anyway. We can already use 4 gigs of RAM I would think that's more than enough for most people!

Chilton
12-04-2006, 06:45 AM
Are you asking me to predict the future? Because the only thing I can predict accurately about the future is that there will be bunnies. There will always be more bunnies. Aside from that, I have no idea what's going to happen.

-Chilton

brunopeixoto
12-04-2006, 07:08 AM
Ok, 64 bit, WOW!!! But, beside large memory and large chuncks of data to manipulate (scenes and objects more complex, more polygons, etc), how could 64 bit OS/Apps change the way I work?
In design and creative process/production I know something really important - interaction between user/computer to show us how our design is working in other words - get a real time preview (good enough) of lights, motions, textures, etc - on first hand, and second, colaborative workflow and this tells about objetcs and scene management, mult user enviromet (with realtime, or near, preview of changes - I think in computers like instruments and jobs like an orchestra playing together - You don't need wait for to hear a sound.

Chilton
12-04-2006, 07:11 AM
I don't have any solid numbers (on our 64-bit WindowsXP LW compared to 32-bit) right now, so I couldn't tell you how much of a real speed boost you'd get with the migration to 64-bit. Obviously, you'd be able to handle much larger data sets (I think the technical term is 'bazillions' of polys). But there a lot of things that are faster in the UB build, and not just for Intel Macs.

-Chilton

BazC
12-04-2006, 07:16 AM
Are you asking me to predict the future? Because the only thing I can predict accurately about the future is that there will be bunnies. There will always be more bunnies. Aside from that, I have no idea what's going to happen.

-Chilton

Ah well, it's good to know about the bunnies anyway! :D

harlan
12-04-2006, 09:58 AM
There are obvious advantages to running 64bit, and as Chilton mentioned, it's only logical that NewTek will make a LW64 for the MacOS at some point in the future.

However, Leopard is not yet shipping (will be soon though), Intel Macs have been shipping for a while, so my main focus would be the Universal Binary, as that is something we could take advantage of today (well... today being whenever the UB version ships).

dglidden
12-04-2006, 11:48 AM
Aside from the obvious stuff of "more bits" which translates directly into "more memory" which translates directly into "bazillions of polys with no problem", something else that 64-bit gets you (that I learned from a friend of mine who apparently is insane since he loves doing assembly programming) is that the current Intel 64-bit processors have quite a lot more registers available directly for programmers.

More registers means less memory access. Which means that applications can keep more stuff directly on the CPU without having to go back to main or even cache memory to retrieve, which turns into faster processing all around when compared to non-64-bit processors running at the same speed. Even taking the _same_ CPU running 32-bit and 64-bit code, and you should see a noticable speedup strictly from the fact that your 64-bit code can take advantage of those extra registers.

When you're talking about things that might take a fairly small dataset for any given calculation and perhaps do lots of computations around (let's just say as a hypothetical example) a point in space to (let's continue our hypothetical example) calculate the color and appearance of that point, then move on to the next piece of your dataset, you are going to get much higher throughput without having to go back to main memory as frequently. And then you've got additional CPU instructions that your 64-bit CPU lets you use as well, further optimizing and speeding up the code your compiler spits out.

To sum up: it goes faster.

brunopeixoto
12-04-2006, 04:27 PM
"My point is
Ok, 64 bit, WOW!!! But, beside large memory and large chuncks of data to manipulate (scenes and objects more complex, more polygons, etc), how could 64 bit OS/Apps change the way I work?
In design and creative process/production I know something really important - interaction between user/computer to show us how our design is working in other words - get a real time preview (good enough) of lights, motions, textures, etc - on first hand, and second, colaborative workflow and this tells about objetcs and scene management, mult user enviromet (with realtime, or near, preview of changes - I think in computers like instruments and jobs like an orchestra playing together - You don't need wait for to hear a sound."


Do you remember about media/assets management?

http://www.proximitygroup.com/

hdace
12-05-2006, 09:36 AM
dglidden said, 'Aside from the obvious stuff of "more bits"... ...To sum up: it goes faster.'

When I did my test I sort of understood that the processor is simply processing more data per cycle (although whether it was just instructions or whether it also included more data per cycle of the actual media being manipulated wasn't clear to me) and that this must result in a speed boost. But to hear you clarify it is most instructive.

Now my question is this: Why bother with a 32 bit UB at all? I know you folks are in a hurry to see your intel Macs run more efficiently and all, but it never even occured to me to try and run LW in Mac OS on an intel chip until LW was native. I just got me a copy of Windows & Boot Camp and accepted the inevitable.

What do they say in the UK? Just close your eyes and think of Britain! Who cares if it's Windows? I prefer Mac OS too, but I also want an app that actually works and works fast.

Since Leopard is nearly here, it would seem to me that Chilton & his colleagues should focus strictly on a 64 UB.

But dang, I admire you guys. So if in your wisdom you do the 32 first, well darn it, you must be right!

Hal

avkills
12-05-2006, 10:44 AM
I think getting a stable code source using Xcode and Apple's development tools is way more important than 64bit support. Once the code is stable, re-compiling for 64bit support should not be "that hard".

As mentioned before, we can already access 4GB of RAM with the 32bit version, which is not shabby.

-mark

dglidden
12-05-2006, 07:16 PM
Aside from the fact that a 64-bit UB won't run on 32-bit chips any more than a windows binary will run under OS X, there are the issues of actually making it 64-bit to begin with. There's a HUGE amount of work above and beyond "just recompile it as 64-bit" when doing 64-bit application development.

Not having done 64-bit app development myself, I can't make exact claims but you have issues with things like data types that are expected and assumed to be a certain size in your code that suddenly change under a 64-bit environment. When you "just recompile" as a 64-bit app, things suddenly go wonky for no immediately obvious reason if you aren't familiar with all the details. A google search for "64-bit ready" or "64-bit compatible" should return about a zillion results with all the information you could care to know if you're really curious.

Not to mention the fact that Leopard isn't here and won't be here for months, doesn't even have a solid release date yet, along with all the people who aren't going to jump on the bandwagon for at least a couple months after that for whatever reason. Think of saying "just release a 64-bit version now" as if LW9 only ran under Windows Vista 64-bit and you get a pretty good comparison.

32-bit and stable under Xcode first for the UB version, then start migrating all your 64-bit unsafe stuff to 64-bit for the next major release, by which time Leopard at least has a release date if not released yet.

None of which means I wouldn't LOVE to have a working 64-bit UB version on my Macbook Pro next week. I mean, it's not like I'm not drooling over the prospect and blathering all over this messageboard every time I check in to see if there are any new developments every other day. :)

avkills
12-06-2006, 01:03 PM
I'm fairly certain that since Newtek already has a 64bit version for Windows, that once the Mac code is stable under Xcode, that a transition to 64bit for the Mac will not be a pain, unlike the transition from Code Warrior to Xcode and Universal Support.

Comments Chilton?

-mark

Chilton
12-06-2006, 01:19 PM
Just getting to 64-bit compatibility is one thing. Making an app really take advantage of a 64-bit OS is another. A massive amount of the underlying stuff has to go in order to just be 64-bit compatible in Leopard. Our competitors will face the same problem.

So the first step for any app is making it compatible. Everyone's going to be scrambling to do that. I expect to see a lot of 64-bit compatible apps ship long before they really should be using that 64-bit logo. Just like there were UB apps that shipped as 'Universal Binary' when in fact, their developers hadn't bothered actually testing them enough to be releasing them.

Bah.

Later, possibly after Leopard ships, you'll start seeing developers really taking advantage of all that extra address space. That's when it's going to really get exciting.

Now, that said, the above statements do not divulge *any* information about NewTek's plans, status, or intentions in this regard. Our situation is different than most--we already have a 64 bit application, it's just only available for the PC right now. So finding something to do with all that data space is something we're already set up for.

But all we've announced was the UB. As far as anyone else knows, I can't even count to 64.

-Chilton

hdace
12-06-2006, 04:14 PM
Welp, that's pretty clear. Thanks a gazillion, Chilton!

3dworks
12-10-2006, 10:49 AM
getting back to the original topic: any, even slightest news?? :)

markus

Chilton
12-10-2006, 02:47 PM
Hi Markus,

Nothing I can report right now. Last week there were a number of bugs I had introduced as a side effect of rewriting a big part of something else I can't talk about. I've fixed all of those bugs now, and am adding in another big thing everyone asked about in the thread on what people expect. After that, I have one minor thing that kinda hangs off of that (technology wise, not literally, ew gross).

There will be a lot of things for people to play with in the UB version that didn't exist before. And there are still things I'd like to have in there before it ships. In fact, there are three HUGE things I don't want to even hint at, for fear of anyone figuring out what I'm up to before you see it in action.

And of course, I know everyone wants it yesterday, or preferably a week ago. So right now, it's days and days of day-in, day-out, all-nighter kind of work to get the UB where everyone (including myself) wants it to be.

And that's just the Mac specific stuff! Keep in mind that there are many more engineers working on LightWave than just Dave and I. They're doing some terrific work, but I can't talk about that either.

-Chilton

John the Geek
12-10-2006, 03:28 PM
Now that sounds worth the wait.

=)

Darth Mole
12-10-2006, 03:47 PM
Okay - well, I guess we won't be getting an early Christmas present then?

3dworks
12-10-2006, 03:59 PM
hi chilton

thanks for this straightforward and at the same time diplomatically unfocused answer... ;)

of course, the hard work you and the other engineers are doing these days deserves all of our greatest respect and patience! well, i'm still hoping for something to play with under the osx-mas tree!

cheers

markus

Scazzino
12-10-2006, 04:02 PM
...of course, the hard work you and the other engineers are doing these days deserves all of our greatest respect and patience!...

:agree: :agree: :agree:

dsol
12-11-2006, 06:12 AM
In fact, there are three HUGE things I don't want to even hint at, for fear of anyone figuring out what I'm up to before you see it in action.

Ha! - let the rampant speculation commence! (this is like the warm-up to a Jobs keynote).

I'm guessing (hoping!)

1. Multithreaded OGL (for systems running 10.4.8 or later)
2. Qmaster support (or just a proper OSX version of Screamernet that can run from the terminal)
3. Better usage/support of the standard OSX application task bar & drop down menus (actually I ran out of ideas after the first two, but this would be nice!)

dsol
12-11-2006, 06:15 AM
Or alternatively:

1. Stability
2. Performance
3. Big honking bells and whistles!

:)

Phil
12-11-2006, 08:39 AM
Rendezvous support for LWSN setup would be nice. The current approach is archaic and trips every single LWSN user up at least once.

Thomas
12-11-2006, 09:53 AM
Ha! - let the rampant speculation commence! (this is like the warm-up to a Jobs keynote).
:D So true! :D

This is really exciting! And, for the first time ever (with regard to the Jobs Keynote), I'd settle with just native ppc-/intel-code. I think the speed-bump will be quite noticeable for us with "old" PPC macs. I think this is really important for the 3rd party plugin development for mac. Sure, the big guys can do it today but soon we can have it the other way around as well. Develop on a mac and re-compile for windows. Hopefully :)

Whatever else that might be lurking in the UB I'll see as an extra bonus.

But, sure, give me simple drag & drop, previews of objects in the icons of LWOs and a few bells and whistles, I won't mind... :)

And please, please... FIX the audio!


Regards
Thomas

Darth Mole
12-22-2006, 08:35 AM
Feature request for Chilton!

How about writing a small bit of code so owners of Mighty Mouse can select how it works within LW? I know you can use USB Overdirive and stuff like that, but it'd be nice to have it built in - after all, now the MM is standard on Macs there are a lot of them out there...

Ta!

Chilton
12-22-2006, 09:15 AM
Hi Darth,

MightyMouse owners will have at least one never-before-seen feature in a 3D app when the UB ships. Mac only. It's the kind of simple, obvious thing I could probably stick on YouTube and claim my 'ur a genus!!lol!1' trophy for.

I know you'll like it, because it just feels more Mac-like. Also, it makes using LW much easier on a MacBook and MacBook Pro.

So yeah, you'll want to have a Mighty Mouse on hand when you use the UB.

-Chilton

avkills
12-22-2006, 09:43 AM
Do I get a cookie if I guess the feature?

-mark

Chilton
12-22-2006, 09:47 AM
No. It's a really cool one, so it's one of those hidden things I'm going to wait for someone to find.

-Chilton

John the Geek
12-22-2006, 09:49 AM
No. It's a really cool one, so it's one of those hidden things I'm going to wait for someone to find.

-Chilton

Yeah, I want to be surprised.

But don't make me wait too long now!

avkills
12-22-2006, 10:01 AM
Hmmmm......sneaky!

-mark

Darth Mole
12-22-2006, 11:57 AM
Scroll up/down zooms in and out, scroll left/right scrolls through the timeline?

avkills
12-22-2006, 12:17 PM
Scroll up/down zooms in and out, scroll left/right scrolls through the timeline?

Nah, too easy. Mine was the scroll ball rotated your object or "item" in total free 360 degree space.

-mark

Darth Mole
12-22-2006, 01:10 PM
You misunderstand: the left/right scrolls the application along its timeline - scroll to the left and you can go back to LW 5.6 - scroll to the right and you can use LW 10+ :-)

But your idea rocks!

avkills
12-22-2006, 05:37 PM
You misunderstand: the left/right scrolls the application along its timeline - scroll to the left and you can go back to LW 5.6 - scroll to the right and you can use LW 10+ :-)

But your idea rocks!

Heh heh , that is good and sounds like something devious right up Chilton's alley. Although I've never met him, from his posts, he just sounds like the semi-deviant type. ;)

Maybe he can make a hook into Time Machine for that also. :D

-mark

Chilton
12-22-2006, 08:23 PM
After months of trial end error, I was able to get Time Machine to move *forward* in time. Unfortunately, I forgot to plug it in when it happened, the battery died (from compressing several years of programming into one instant), and I lost the source. I didn't have a backup, for obvious reasons.