Who's giving Apple FCS lead bad advice?

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
I'm in awe at who could possibly be leading Apple down the dead end road that is called FCS 3. After working with FCS 3 (and I'm thinking of going back to FCS 2 because I lost QuickCluster same machine functionality) I'm lost for words -- all I can say is "huh?".



Snow Leopard is 2 months away with 64bit app support. So Apple release FCS 3 two months before as same old 32bit app that is disk I/O intensive and some very weak new features -- so we'll have another 2 year wait for FCS 4 that we "hope" is SL native 64bit? In the mean time, the rest of the Industry has long since adopted 64bit application support and their apps are rendering at 5X faster consuming as much RAM as you can toss at them.



Given that SL will also have support for H.264 hardware acceleration which again is no where to be found in FCS 3, I'm again scratching my head. Why did Apple release FCS 3 in it's current state? Wouldn't waiting a few months for SL rather than waiting 2 more years be the smart move? I know that Pro Apps developers have access to SL builds and could have been building an SL native FCS app for sometime now, but choose not to?? Have none of the Apple developers seen or used some of the other native 64bit apps (Vegas) or 64bit optimized apps (Adobe)? If not, they should, cause they are considerably faster when working with large projects vs. FCS 3 that feels dinosaur like in terms of performance.



Has the FCS 3 code been so butchered and hacked over the years that it would be impossible for Apple to move it into the 21st century and at least give it a chance of survival? no 64bit support, single instance FCP, ugh!



I know Apple have the resources so why oh why have they put FCS 3 in this VERY bad position?



Rob

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 3
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by robains View Post


    I'm in awe at who could possibly be leading Apple down the dead end road that is called FCS 3. After working with FCS 3 (and I'm thinking of going back to FCS 2 because I lost QuickCluster same machine functionality) I'm lost for words -- all I can say is "huh?".



    Snow Leopard is 2 months away with 64bit app support. So Apple release FCS 3 two months before as same old 32bit app that is disk I/O intensive and some very weak new features -- so we'll have another 2 year wait for FCS 4 that we "hope" is SL native 64bit? In the mean time, the rest of the Industry has long since adopted 64bit application support and their apps are rendering at 5X faster consuming as much RAM as you can toss at them.



    Given that SL will also have support for H.264 hardware acceleration which again is no where to be found in FCS 3, I'm again scratching my head. Why did Apple release FCS 3 in it's current state? Wouldn't waiting a few months for SL rather than waiting 2 more years be the smart move? I know that Pro Apps developers have access to SL builds and could have been building an SL native FCS app for sometime now, but choose not to?? Have none of the Apple developers seen or used some of the other native 64bit apps (Vegas) or 64bit optimized apps (Adobe)? If not, they should, cause they are considerably faster when working with large projects vs. FCS 3 that feels dinosaur like in terms of performance.



    Has the FCS 3 code been so butchered and hacked over the years that it would be impossible for Apple to move it into the 21st century and at least give it a chance of survival? no 64bit support, single instance FCP, ugh!



    I know Apple have the resources so why oh why have they put FCS 3 in this VERY bad position?



    Some people think there may be an update for Snow Leopard.
  • Reply 2 of 3
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,119member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by robains View Post


    Snow Leopard is 2 months away with 64bit app support. So Apple release FCS 3 two months before as same old 32bit app that is disk I/O intensive and some very weak new features -- so we'll have another 2 year wait for FCS 4 that we "hope" is SL native 64bit? In the mean time, the rest of the Industry has long since adopted 64bit application support and their apps are rendering at 5X faster consuming as much RAM as you can toss at them.



    Rob



    Most likely because Apple wants to remove as many variables to test or account for. With FCS 3 you have new code that needs to run on a stable platform. They've just announced 10.5.8 so Apple was likely testing FCS3 on it the whole way.



    Sure the Snow Leopard features are nice but let's be honest it's not going to be mature until it's hit roughly the third or fourth point release update. I didn't think Apple was going to ship new FCS code on top of new OS code. It's asking for problems doing it this way and makes it 2x hard to track down bugs (i.e is it FCS or the OS?)



    A lot of people wanted a new UI and some other features that didn't make it. I think the new UI will have to wait for FCS4 but I do believe Apple will have a more substantial Snow Leopard update that incorporates 64-bit, OpenCL and Grand Central Dispatch to good effect not to mention Quicktime X.
  • Reply 3 of 3
    More likely than not there will be a more silent upgrade with the release of SL. Apple did'nt want to give up their exclusivity window with the release of the first "new" Xeons and they are keenly aware of how much Final Cut drives the sales of new Pro hardware, so they released early. I think it was just an issue of bad timing between 3 different product development efforts.



    For what it's worth I still think and have thought all along that Apple might release a new version of Shake along side Snow Leopard, because many of the advancements in the OS. I have set up a Shake petition just in case. Even though there are no worries about FCS's continued development if things don't get dramatically better someone may want to consider starting a petition to change the path of FCS. It can't hurt.



    Shake 5 Petition Thread
Sign In or Register to comment.