PDA

View Full Version : Mac OS X Universal Binary



jchaney01
12-15-2006, 11:52 AM
It's been almost 5 months since Newtek "Demoed" it.......Where is it? I'm seriously considering switching to C4D.

Phil
12-15-2006, 12:15 PM
Asked and answered many times over. It's in development. It's not ready for Open Beta, but is apparently in closed beta with folks determined to try and break it so that you don't have to.

That said, Adobe with all its cash and developer resources has yet to UB-ise its product line. I admire those who have been able to, but not every company can be expected to turn on a dime. NewTek are working on it.

Switch to C4D if that's what you need, though.

cresshead
12-15-2006, 12:21 PM
if your already on intel based mac you can also get yourself bootcamp [free] and xphome to run the windows variant of lightwave 9.0...a good alternative to the prospect of cinema4d base or their rather expensive studioxl variant which costs more than maya complete.


as always there are 'options'...

Ade
12-15-2006, 08:20 PM
It's been almost 5 months since Newtek "Demoed" it.......Where is it? I'm seriously considering switching to C4D.

Just go Modo and c4d, i just sold my Lightwave off and wont ever return.
I used to speak with my threads now I speak with my actions about my dismay.
These two companies had UB versions the first few months of release...

cresshead
12-15-2006, 09:22 PM
you sold 'a seat' of lightwave or have you dumped lw altogether?

Nicolas Jordan
12-15-2006, 11:43 PM
I would take what he wrote to mean he sold his only seat of Lightwave. I think Newtek is doing well with Lightwave considering the position Lightwave was in a few years ago. The dev team is really starting to dig in. I personally have one foot in the Lightwave camp and one in the Modo camp. I will be watching carefully where future development takes both apps. Since the UB version is taking a while to complete I would count on it being done well. I don't think it's fair to compare a Modo UB port and a Lightwave UB port since Modo was designed to be easily adapted and ported to certain platforms from the beginning and Lightwave is an older program that seems to require more work to port at the moment :)

Kuzey
12-16-2006, 03:51 AM
I don't think it's fair to compare a Modo UB port and a Lightwave UB port since Modo was designed to be easily adapted and ported to certain platforms from the beginning and Lightwave is an older program that seems to require more work to port at the moment :)

Also, the port is not just a port of the current version...it's getting some very cool Mac OS X only features added. Otherwise, it would have been out months ago :hey:

Kuzey

nigebabe
12-16-2006, 04:50 AM
jchaney is right to feel annoyed, as many of us do. LW 9 came out some time ago with lots of issues which have not been addressed. Most companies at least seem to get an interim bugfix out pretty soon after it becomes obvious that there are some. You can go on all you like about, 'its in development' but how long should we have to listen to this? If some of the main bugs were at least fixed then maybe we would have some faith in these kind of statements. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy using LW, most of the time, but now I use it privately only because I use it at work as well and my company would not allow a change. I also use Modo and if the animation side comes to fruition soon and is as good as Modo 201 is at the moment, then LW for me as a private user will be history - unless the windows version is fixed and/or the UB version is a revelation. I would place a bet on Modo 301 coming before LW 9.x. based on the available info out there. And yes, Cinema 4D looks real nice, their update cycle is much better the LW, albeit it is more exspensive.

Phil
12-16-2006, 05:50 AM
For the record, here's what is known.

- 9.2 is in open beta right now. All 9.0 users have access. This is the not long out of the oven software. It's got a lot of nice fixes and additions. To find out what, though, you'll need to join the Open Beta.

- Post-9.2, NewTek have stated that hot fixes will resurface. After a fair bit of arse kicking in these forums, we'll no longer have to take feature updates in combination with bug fixes. That means, you'll have stable LW and experimental LW versions to play with. I *like* this. This is going to be a real sanity saver.

-- We couldn't get this before 9.2 because that release was too far down the pipe for the fixes to be separated.

- The SDK is being progressively and sensibly opened. This is not a next-day kind of issue that can be fixed. It needs to be done correctly so as to avoid lots of irritation for everyone. Half-assed is no longer the order of the day for LW, it seems. Good thing too.

- UB is on the way. It's a near complete rewrite simply because the migration to XCode requires that kind of thing. At least as far as I understand. This means lots of breakage and annoyance. Unless you fancy different behaviours when you shove a scene into the UB version. This is a one time pain and it's worth waiting to get it done correctly. Bitching and moaning won't help here. Aside from anything else, you won't be able to do much with it until your favourite addons have been ported to use it. CFM plugins won't work with UB, so there's little reason to get knickers in a twist just yet.

I'm seeing good things from the development team for LW. They seem to be a committed bunch of folks and I've every reason to believe that they are trying their best. If you sign up to the 9.2 UB, you might find that to be true as well.

In the meantime, feel free to jump ship. It's OK. I was there before 9.0 OB. I was close to picking up XSI Foundation. If they had a Mac version, I'd probably still be tempted :) 9.0 was a good start. 9.2 continues that, so for the moment, NewTek have my custom. It's not a given, though.

jchaney01
12-16-2006, 01:32 PM
I'm not talking about why it's taking so long for a UB. We all know that there is development time. I'm talking about the reasons Newtek decided to "Demonstrate" something that would not exist for at least half a year or more. Did they do it to prove their commitment to a UB? Their capability to port it? Their desire to hang on to Mac users who might switch otherwise? Why demo something that does not exist. If you say it does exist and they're only working out bugs, then the saying would also be true if I wrote an app and only coded the features that I can demo, but would not be shipping it for 2 years...Does the product exist? I'm fine with companies saying/showing a product in development. What I HATE is their inability to accurately estimate a launch date. I would have liked them to at least demo the UB, and then say but it won't be out for a year. If they're unable to roughly estimate a realistic launch date, something is wrong with their internal production workflow. Saying "It's in development" is a copout so they don't commit to a date and then miss it. Adobe states their UB will be in CS3 in Q2 2007. I'll be happy if I hear LW will be a UB in Version 10 in Q3 2008.

Speedmonk42
12-16-2006, 01:39 PM
In a post above the UB is described possibly as a 'revelation'.

Can someone shed some light on what the UB exactly is?

My understanding was it used the same code in both platforms, which would lead to faster deveopment cycles, plug-in compatibility...

Yet, in another post it says the UB may include OSX specific features...

jchaney01
12-16-2006, 01:46 PM
UB = Universal Binary - Runs natively on the Intel processors the latest Mac use. Currently, LightWave is much slower on these machines than their Windows counterpart. I have a Quad Core Xeon Mac. Until a UB version of LW comes out, I would get better speeds on an older iMac.

loki74
12-16-2006, 01:53 PM
Also lets not forget that UB also means a version in Xcode, which (as I understand it) will spell better performance for Mac users in general, and possibly explain why Speedmonk42 heard mention of OSX specific features.

Speedmonk42
12-16-2006, 01:55 PM
Ok that is what I thought it was. It's when I read about OSX specific features it seemed to contradict the idea.

Am I correct in thinking that this would indeed make development easier or plug-ins more compatible?

BazC
12-16-2006, 03:03 PM
Speedmonk, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you but it sounds as though you think the Universal Binary version is for Macs and Windows? It's not, it's a version of Lightwave which will run natively on PPC Macs and Intels Macs. It has nothing to do with Windows.

Again apologies if I'm stating the bleedin' obvious! :D

Speedmonk42
12-16-2006, 03:57 PM
Ah ok. I though it had something to do with the fact that the new Macs were Intel based, and that they could use more of the same code.

Chilton
12-18-2006, 02:17 PM
Howdy,

Here's the skinny on the Mac UB...

1) This is not a minor rewrite. For example, the entire event architecture on the Mac is new. It's faster, requires less CPU time, doesn't suck the battery dry on your shiny new MacBook Pro, and is all around snappy.

2) This is not just a 'port' of existing stuff. For example, the Universal Binary removes all dependence on resource based menus. I'm not going into a detailed report of what changed, because a lot has changed.

3) Everything we've demo'd so far has been transitionary. As we've fixed things, we've improved them to the point that other things look broken in comparison. We're getting really close now though, and all the new bells and whistles are starting to snap together right.

The UB we were demoing earlier this year was based on the shipping product. However, there are a lot of things our users wanted in the UB that we weren't able to provide at that time. For example, the plug-in architecture needed some love on the Mac side. And better Mac SDK docs, which we're still working on.

So what's in the UB? This is the list I'm going by. Not everything in this list will make it in. But a lot of it will...
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55804

And there were quite a few Mac specific bugs we've fixed along the way.

This will be a huge update for our Mac users. HUGE.

It's not LightWave that runs on a Mac, this is a Macintosh version of LightWave.

Now, I'm not at all happy that it's taking this long to get done, but I mainly have myself to blame for that. Our users have asked for quite a few things, and I feel it's our responsibility to provide them.

Oh, and you'll want to be in the Open Beta program. That's where it's going to show up first.

-Chilton
/going back to work on it now...

Speedmonk42
12-18-2006, 03:50 PM
Well I don't have a Mac, I just completely misunderstood what a universal binary was.

I am curious though, does having intel macs help cross development at all?

Chilton
12-18-2006, 04:47 PM
Hi,


Well I don't have a Mac, I just completely misunderstood what a universal binary was.

I am curious though, does having intel macs help cross development at all?

Not too much, but I'm new. LightWave's engineering team did an awesome job of separating the app from the platform long before I started here.

We used to build the Mac version in CodeWarrior. XCode is free though, and while initially a poor replacement, it is getting much better. The Universal Binary is built in XCode.

I prefer portable Macs. The move to the Intel chip has allowed me to use a MacBook Pro that can build faster than my trusty old G5. So for that reason alone, I'm glad we've made the switch.

-Chilton

pdrake
12-19-2006, 09:27 AM
so, i have a choice between 2 macs at work. a new, dual 2.3 dual core intel mac with 2 gigs of ram and my older dual 2.7 powerpc mac with 4 gigs of ram. which would be better for this?

also, i was involved in the lw 9 open beta, do i need to resign up for the UB open beta?

thanks

loki74
12-19-2006, 11:51 AM
Chilton--that is exactly what I wanted to hear... "not just a port." Sometimes all the whining about NT and Lightwave here on the boards makes me question my decision, but THIS is truly exciting. I'm anticipating this just as much (if not more) than the v9 release!

pdrake--Hmm. sounds to me like the dual 2.7 PPC is a good bet. I'm pretty sure UB is supposed to run the same on an Intel as on a PPC, so why not go for the faster chip? Of course, I don't know a WHOLE lot on the subject, so looking at some raw numbers/advice from people more informed will prolly do you good.

BazC
12-19-2006, 11:55 AM
Chilton--that is exactly what I wanted to hear... "not just a port." Sometimes all the whining about NT and Lightwave here on the boards makes me question my decision, but THIS is truly exciting. I'm anticipating this just as much (if not more) than the v9 release!

pdrake--Hmm. sounds to me like the dual 2.7 PPC is a good bet. I'm pretty sure UB is supposed to run the same on an Intel as on a PPC, so why not go for the faster chip? Of course, I don't know a WHOLE lot on the subject, so looking at some raw numbers/advice from people more informed will prolly do you good.

I think that's a dual 2.7 ppc and a QUAD 2.3 Intel - 2 dual cores.

John the Geek
12-19-2006, 11:57 AM
My impression from various speed reports, is that a good UB will run faster on an dual-core Intel Mac than all of the PPC G5s, minus the quad-core G5. Only the Mac Pro, with itself having quad-cores, can smoke that one. (Those were CoreDuo too, not the new Core2Duo chips... so you may be better than any G5 already)

So, between a dual processor G5 or dual-core Intel? I'd go with the Intel machine, but that's just me.

=)

loki74
12-19-2006, 11:59 AM
ah! I missed the second "dual." That really makes it a tough choice, then... I mean the extra cores would be nice for rendering complex scenes, but extra ram in the other box is nice, too...

myself, I'd probably go with the quad core intel.... and then save up some money and get more ram.

John the Geek
12-19-2006, 12:00 PM
Wait, you said dual-dual-core? So quad-core?

Definitely get the Intel one. =)

pdrake
12-19-2006, 12:54 PM
yes, it's a quad core. has anyone done any side by side comparisons? for some reason lw 9 was crashing on the intel machine.

John the Geek
12-19-2006, 01:40 PM
For the short term, the Intel Mac will crawl in Lightwave because it is written for PPC processors only. Once it goes UB, (soon we hope) it will sing for you. As Chilton said, expect it in the OpenBeta program first, and then we'll test it to death before it gets released to the public.

Also, v.9 just crashes a lot it seems. It's on the list of things to fix I hear, but one of the suggestions in the mean time is to kill the hub by putting -0 (that's a zero) in the cmdLine files for both Modeler and Lightwave. This will help until the UB is released.

pdrake
12-19-2006, 02:02 PM
thanks