Apple's thrust into the high-end 3d video market MUST include new hardware!

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 80
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,259member
    [quote]Originally posted by shannyla:

    <strong>From <a href="http://www.apple.com/shake"; target="_blank">www.apple.com/shake</a>







    ...for the simple reason that we'd need at least twice as many macs to get the same amount of work done with present hardware.



    It's fair to say that Junkyard Dawg's assertion is dead right.



    [ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Until mid August

  • Reply 22 of 80
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    "...for the simple reason that we'd need at least twice as many macs to get the same amount of work done with present hardware.



    It's fair to say that Junkyard Dawg's assertion is dead right."



    Ouch. True though.



    The last two benchmark threads on Digital Production software and 3D has the 'power'Macs trailing like the old Pentium snail...



    What goes around...comes around, eh?



    Lemon Bon Bon



    PS. It's about now that I expect some 'loyalist' to chime in with the superior work environment cancelling out the raw performance of Dells. Sure. That's why ILM just dumped SGI machines for Dells, eh? Ominous signs for Apple if this is the market they want to compete in. They better get their act together on bang for buck.



    [ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
  • Reply 23 of 80
    shannylashannyla Posts: 58member
    [quote] Until mid August <hr></blockquote>



    ...when you'll need 1 and 7/8 the number of licenses...



    [ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</p>
  • Reply 24 of 80
    shannylashannyla Posts: 58member
    [quote] THAT is what I was thinking too

    <hr></blockquote>



    [quote] PS. It's about now that I expect some 'loyalist' to chime in with the superior work environment cancelling out the raw performance of Dells. Sure. That's why ILM just dumped SGI machines for Dells, eh? Ominous signs for Apple if this is the market they want to compete in. They better get their act together on bang for buck. <hr></blockquote>



    I'm so glad I'm not alone on this board...
  • Reply 25 of 80
    shannylashannyla Posts: 58member
    [quote] As far as I know IRIX and Linux versions will keep going on until end of 2003, if market is still good there Apple may continue to update them <hr></blockquote>



    The only reason for this decision is so Nothing Real's client base doesn't desert them tomorrow (or 4 months ago when Apple bought them)



    Come 2003, the Irix version will be pointless as there is no point running a backroom app like Shake on such an expensive machine, and everyone will have migrated to Digital Domain's Nuke, leaving the Linux version pointless as well.
  • Reply 26 of 80
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    Just occured to me that Shake is coming out in August.



    <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />



    That's when the 'power'Macs are supposed to come out too...



    DOH!



    Took a while to make the link...male brain. OOps.



    You're not alone, Shan'.



    I think Apple is beginning to make a great software company.



    They design beautiful hardware. But it is overpriced and underspecced. It's unforgiveable to apologize for it. I'm an Apple fan. But I won't make excuses for them!







    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 27 of 80
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,259member
    <a href="http://www.massivesoftware.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.massivesoftware.com/</a>;



    What's this going to run on?
  • Reply 27 of 80
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    [quote]Originally posted by Appleworm:

    <strong>Already discussed



    <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002143&p=6"; target="_blank">http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002143&p=6</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;



    The link you gave is for a thread about powermac photos.



    Clearly, you don't understand the premise of this thread. My point is that based on recent software acquisitions and other moves by Apple, it appears that they have a strategy for taking the high-end video market. I'm saying that part of this strategy MUST include competitive hardware, otherwise the strategy will fail. As proof, I gave an article describing ILM's move to Intel for their high end video work. Apple must offer a convincing advantage over Intel for a video workstation, and their current Powermacs don't.



    Thus, I think that Apple has some hardware in development that WILL favorably compare with Intel. Otherwise, why would Apple spend so much money on all this high end software? Without the hardware to run it, this software is essentially useless....there are other software alternatives that can run better and faster on cheaper hardware.



    EDIT: ooopos, sorry Lemon Bon Bon, I didn't see your post in that other thread!



    Anyways, this topic needs its own thread, it's much different from discussing powermac photos.....



    I didn't know about Shake being available for OS X. Too bad Apple doesn't have any competitive hardware to run it on. Surely the top brass at Apple understand the problem, and are doing something about it????



    [ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
  • Reply 29 of 80
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Never been a fan of 4 processor systems but... could the 7lb heat sink be used to cool such a monster processor card?
  • Reply 30 of 80
    shannylashannyla Posts: 58member
    [quote] What's this going to run on? <hr></blockquote>



    SGI, linux and maybe Win2k. That's what Weta use.



    [ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</p>
  • Reply 31 of 80
    animaniacanimaniac Posts: 122member
    [quote]From Macintosh requirements:

    Three-button mouse

    <hr></blockquote>



    ... that's interesting
  • Reply 32 of 80
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>



    No, this is NOT already discussed. The link you gave is for a thread about powermac photos.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Sorry JD,



    The news of ILM SWITCHING to DELL/LINUX has been posted (by Lemon Bon Bon) on the other thread at page six and I discussed (ironic) about it in that thread (just do a find with DELL in that page).



  • Reply 33 of 80
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    [quote]Originally posted by Appleworm:

    <strong>



    Sorry JD,



    The news of ILM SWITCHING to DELL/LINUX has been posted (by Lemon Bon Bon) on the other thread at page six and I discussed (ironic) about it in that thread (just do a find with DELL in that page).



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Sorry, I didn't read through that entire thread.



    I do think this topic needs its own thread, however. But you're right, Lemon Bon Bon scooped me on the article. He deserves credit for starting discussion of this topic, not I.
  • Reply 34 of 80
    shannylashannyla Posts: 58member
    [quote] quote:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From Macintosh requirements:

    Three-button mouse



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    ... that's interesting

    <hr></blockquote>



    Not really. In Shake you use the left button for selection, clicking and dragging, the middle button to pan in the four areas of the interface and the right button for context-clicking. You use the three buttons so often that using the hacky Control Click would be an utter pain in the arse.



    Three button mice rule, anyone that thinks otherwise thinks that for reasons of ignorance and dogma.
  • Reply 35 of 80
    eupfhoriaeupfhoria Posts: 257member
    maya also requires a 3 button mouse.



    on apples page advertising warcraft II they make a suggestion to buy a 3 button mouse because it greatly enhances gameplay.
  • Reply 36 of 80
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong><a href="http://www.apple.com/shake"; target="_blank">www.apple.com/shake</a>



    :eek: $10k Apple Software!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    WebObjects was originally $50K
  • Reply 37 of 80
    mrsparklemrsparkle Posts: 120member
    [quote]Originally posted by shannyla:

    <strong>

    That's called marketing, the reason Shake needs a Quadro is because it uses a ton of OpenGl for everything including the interface (which is how you write graphics programs on SGI boxes, which is where Shake started). Run it on slow hardware and it crawls. A Geforce3 or 4 will probably be ok, using Shake on a machine with an MX will be like torturing dumb animals



    [ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I would not be surprised to see new nVidia cards inside the new Towers.



    Also, I don't know if this is still the case, but there wasn't a huge difference between the Quadro and the GeForce(2 or 3) Ultra. I'm not sure how much of a real performance difference ther really is between those cards.



    How much did Shake cost before? Does it require rendering like AE or Maya? Perhaps people will think "with that extra $5,000(per license) I can buy a dual 1GHz Xserve."
  • Reply 38 of 80
    nonsuchnonsuch Posts: 293member
    [quote]Originally posted by shannyla:

    <strong>



    Not really. In Shake you use the left button for selection, clicking and dragging, the middle button to pan in the four areas of the interface and the right button for context-clicking. You use the three buttons so often that using the hacky Control Click would be an utter pain in the arse.



    Three button mice rule, anyone that thinks otherwise thinks that for reasons of ignorance and dogma.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    He wasn't being disapproving, merely pointing out that this gives strong indication of Apple releasing its own multi-button mouse. Cool yer jets.
  • Reply 39 of 80
    shannylashannyla Posts: 58member
    [quote] Also, I don't know if this is still the case, but there wasn't a huge difference between the Quadro and the GeForce(2 or 3) Ultra. I'm not sure how much of a real performance difference ther really is between those cards <hr></blockquote>



    The main differences were that higher end OpenGL functions, such as support for overlays was enabled. This is important for apps like Shake that have the interface running under OpenGl as it means the interface isn't constantly being updated across the AGP bus.



    [quote]How much did Shake cost before? Does it require rendering like AE or Maya? <hr></blockquote>



    Shake has always cost $10k. It does require rendering, hence the need for computational power. One of Shake's great selling points was the fact it had the fastest compositing render engines in the business, by which I mean rendering to file rather than to the screen. Most Shake licenses were in fact non-gui licenses to run on a render farm.
  • Reply 40 of 80
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    Somewhat ironic



    Doesn't George Lucas have some relationship with the Star Wars movies and some relationship with Industrial Light and Magic.



    Didn't he do a promo when the iMac first came out describing how great it was?



    edit: Please ignore all of the above, No he didn't, my mistake <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    [ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.