. . . The rest of DKE's article points out that the Mac world has less inertia than the Wintel world and will adopt 64-bit computing faster.
While I think it is possible, I'm not certain it's a good idea. Why? Because Apple has very limited developer resources. A 64-bit OSX will mean something useful to a very limited number of users. It will also mean that something that could be useful to a lot more users will not get developed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Beside OS X taking advantage of 64-bits, I don't see that much development on Apple's part. The IBM 970 makes 64 bits available to applications. So, if they can take advantage of it, developers will incorporate 64 bits at their own pace. My bet is that Apple has the 64 bit work on OS X done already, or nearly so.
[quote]<strong>
The only reason to go 64-bit is to enable Apple to attack a particular (and lucrative) niche. (I'm thinking video editing myself.) It will need to get the app makers in that niche behind it quickly (which probably means throwing money at the app makers rather than spending it somewhere else), and apple then better market the final result to that niche heavily (which means less marketing to the rest of us).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since Apple now owns some companies in the video market, I don't think there will be a problem motivating them to take advantage of 64 bits. It should not be much extra work when doing the port of software, like Shake, to Mac OS X. I bet Shake already takes advantage of 64 bits when it runs on Silicon Graphics.
As for the other video developers, Apple does not have to do anything. When they see Nothing Real and others making 64 bit OS X applications, they will be quick to follow suit. Apple will not have to market 64 bits to video developers at all. However, Apple will market 64 bits to the general public, to sell more Macs. Apple will toot their own horn and say that 64 bits is the wave of the future.
[quote]<strong>
Without that solid approach with defined goals, the effort is essentially wasted. Apple has a history of neat ideas that go nowhere (OpenDoc, anyone?)
Of course, Apple also has a history of being a technological leader. SCSI, USB, FireWire were all led to the mainstream on Macs. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't believe a 64 bit processor can be compared with Open Doc, but SCSI and USB are valid comparisons. These are technologies developed by others that the Mac lead the way to make popular. Even if 64 bits does not catch on for the PC, it will still be a success and will not go away like Open Doc. Since 64 bits in the PPC does not affect performance of 32 bit applications, it makes sense to do it for those five percent of the applications that can use it.
I watched The Lord of the Rings:the Two Towers a couple days ago, for my third time. It's a good, engaging movie, as we all know, but I was feeling a bit groggy at the end of the film, so I decided to watch the credits roll by. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> I watched the credits, and it seemed that the end of the credits was coming, so I slowly got up so vertigo wouldn't be induced. :eek: And then I saw it. Right next to the New Line Cinema logo, at the end of the credits, a banner caught my eye. COMPOSITED WITH APPLE SHAKE. After the warm tingly feeling had gone from my head, I thought about it. Lord of the Rings 2 is a huge, epic blockbuster, seen by 1/3 of America (OK, I might be wrong on that ) and seen more than one time by some people.
And then the epiphany really came through. Huge, multi-million dollar blockbuster, using a tool that was given to them by a company small enough to fit in the palm of Gollum's hand. APPLE.
These kinds of projects (films) have FX houses that would switch to PPC 970's in the blink of an eye, because Shake has such a high position in compositing video. Shake would be the first to be gilded with 64-bit aptness, and the industry would follow.
os10geek. Yes Apple could sell a Workstation Class box for $5k. Add Shake on it and it would still be cheaper for end users than the original cost. There are some big Effects Houses that use Shake and if Apple is showing ANY systems based on the PPC 970 you can bet those Houses will be invited.
Apple needs a "Statement" Computer. One that puts Power before Style. Once that makes us come on these boards and say "damn I wish I could have that Computer"
Apple spare no expense. Develop it and they will come. You have the OS now get the Hardware.
that describes the Weta Digital capabilities and the amazing leaps that each year and each film is taking.
The relevant quote from the article:
[quote]The workstation structure at Weta is astronomical. They have:
-125 SGI Octane systems
-220 Linux systems
-35 NT systems
-15 Mac systems
Then there?s the rendering system?. The renderer alone is run 24 hours a day rendering out the 1000 odd shots that were required for TTT. It consists of 192 Dual Pentium 1 GHz and 448 Dual 2.2 GHz processors. A total of 1280 processors running at approximately 2,355 GHz?. Mmmmm?.. <hr></blockquote>
also
As you can see, even in the Lord of the Rings world, Apple (only 15 machines) has alot of work ahead and alot of market to dominate ... if they can just get the power and costs and SUPPORT more in-line. But with Maya on the Mac, Shake in Apple's stables and Renderman in Steve's pocket, there is ALOT to look forward to.
[quote] Thousands of different programs were used in the development of the special effects. Most prominently Maya was used for the modelling and animation, Pixars Renderman was used for the rendering and finally Apple?s Shake was used for compositing the film.
<hr></blockquote>
Just to complete the Hobbit-geekness of this tangent from the thread topic, here is a nice site showing some of the cgi and compositing images that are used by Shake and Massive, etc.
[quote]With The Return of the King, Massive is apparently being stretched to its limits. Peter Jackson is saying that the great battle must be several times larger than that of Helm?s Deep. This is not only stretching Massive to it?s limits but also the Intel 32bit processor architecture as well and Weta is looking at replacing the processors with 64bit ones. <hr></blockquote>
Perhaps too late for Apple, but would be nice to know how much Apple is selling for free. For all we know it may be just a matter of yields now, which I am led to believe it is. Apple may hand out a few indescrete boxes of 970s come summer to set up demand for a full scale release.
If Apple can come up with kernel level distributed computing in Darwin(see <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002060"; target="_blank">this</a> thread to discuss that), and Darwin runs on the IBM blades, PowerPC will go to the renderfarm and Apple will work it's way onto the desktop. Apple may not profit from this, but the enhancements to Darwin from all these groups will make it back to us. And that's a good thing.
[quote]- The developer of Massive is under talks at the moment to release Massive commercially.<hr></blockquote>
Talk about making your mark. This would be awesome software for Apple to buy. Renderman, Shake, Massive with Maya and 970 = serious rendering capabilities. And why rebuild Massive for your own use, just buy the software and hardware from Apple.
Wait a sec...Shake isn't an Apple product through-and-through? If it isn't, then why isn't Emagic's product on their site? You know, that sound editing product?
<strong>Wait a sec...Shake isn't an Apple product through-and-through? If it isn't, then why isn't Emagic's product on their site? You know, that sound editing product?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Logic? Well, Emagic already had a nice big site, so why waste it? Also, Emagic is, I believe, still based in Germany, so they couldn't fold that neatly into Apple.
Apple bought Shake, and in fact as far as I'm aware they're still selling exactly the product they bought. I imagine that the arrival of a 64 bit Mac platform will foreshadow a rollout of a significant, Apple-authored update to Shake. And that 30" Cinema Display.
<strong>Wait a sec...Shake isn't an Apple product through-and-through? If it isn't, then why isn't Emagic's product on their site? You know, that sound editing product?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a big difference.
Apple purchased Nothing Real to be an Apple Product.
Apple prefers to have have Filemaker and Emagic was wholly owned Subsidiaries. In this instance there will be less confusion as Emagic has been around for a long time(started on the Atari). No sense in making it an Apple Branded product when Emagics name is already where is should be.
I was just thinking about the 2.5Gghz and thought. Why doesn't Apple just use this processor in a 2U Server. The heat requirements wouldn't be as stringent as a 1U. That's of course provided their available in small quantities. I'd assume Apple would probably only need a couple thousand at the most.
A 2u or even 3u server makes so much sense. The Xserve is great an'all but for music and video its too damn long and too damn loud. Not a fault, just what the target market requires.
A 3u box the size of the powermac would be just peachy for us with normal sized racks, not those monsters they use in server farms.
I suspect the new PM enclosure is going to be a bit boxier than el Capitan with less pronounced curves (and more shiny aluminium) so there may well be an rack mount 'Xtreme' variant.
Makes them easier to sell into AV/ film set installations as well.
No surprise there. Some platforms have beaten MS to 64 bits by a matter of years.
Apple could, however, beat MS to the desktop, since the current 64-bit Windows only works on IA-64, and that platform's not showing up in a desktop (let alone a laptop) any time soon.
By the time the x86-64 version appears, Apple should have their OS out. Even then, unless x86-64 takes the WinTel world by storm, Apple can still transition to 64 bits sooner and more comprehensively than MS can.
With the 970 coming out are we going to see an XServer Blade? A compliment to the XServe Raid with massive number crunching abilities. Might be a good way to supply the horsepower for "Apple Shake".
A lot of questions have come in regarding specific features of Apple's next-generation system architecture, expected to accompany IBM's PowerPC 970 later this year. We think it all but certain that dual processors will be available right off the bat. We would be surprised to see these initial systems run in excess of Two 2GHz 970's -- but this is far from certain. Some have predicted twin 2.3GHz processors at the high end along with two significantly slower-clocked, single-processor systems. We think it most likely that Apple will stick with having two high-end, dual-processor PowerMacs and one entry-level single processor PowerMac -- and will have a similiar layout for Xserve models, with the addition of the Cluster system which is a mid-range dual processor Xserve with stripped-down storage and memory.
These numbers are not to be taken as much more than speculation at this point, but if we were to make a prediction, it would be that the initial G5 systems will run at single 1.4GHz, Dual 1.6GHz, and Dual 1.8GHz. We would not be surprised to see Dual 2GHz systems at the high end, but 2.2 or 2.3GHz seems optimistic for a system that will ship with any significant volume before the end of the year.
Serial ATA, USB 2.0, AGP 8X, PCI-X expansion slots, Firewire 800, and a new keyboard and mouse are all specifically mentioned as intended features in what few Apple documents we've been able to see on the new systems. If anything is cut, USB 2.0 will be first on the block, with Serial ATA and PCI-X tied for a distant second....and at this point, we don't think cuts have been made. In fact, the program to build Apple's HyperTransport-based motherboards that will be home to those impressive IBM processors appears to be coming along well. Prototypes are said to have a competitive PC3200 memory architecture (200MHz DDR SDRAM), and some have even been produced with twin PC3200 memory banks to be able to fully saturate the HyperTransport and PPC 970 processor front-side busses, which can each push 6.4GB/s. PC3200, which is already costly and in relatively short supply when talking about only a single memory bus, is as its name indicates, only able to provide about 3.2GB/s of bandwidth.
The extra cost, and need to install memory in two paired banks of a twin-PC3200 architecture are not attractive to Apple, but having an utterly leading-edge professional architecture is. The balance between these, paired with the fortunes of world war and an unstable economy, will decide for Apple which architecture it can release right off the bat. We've been hearing single-bank is the choice for the initial release, but it is still too soon to say with certainty.
The extra cost, and need to install memory in two paired banks of a twin-PC3200 architecture are not attractive to Apple, but having an utterly leading-edge professional architecture is. The balance between these, paired with the fortunes of world war and an unstable economy, will decide for Apple which architecture it can release right off the bat. We've been hearing single-bank is the choice for the initial release, but it is still too soon to say with certainty.
This is really directed to Apple if they are listening. I think Pro users can handle putting memory into a computer in pairs. Don't let THAT dissuade you from shipping the fastest damn computers you can!
With the 970 coming out are we going to see an XServer Blade? A compliment to the XServe Raid with massive number crunching abilities. Might be a good way to supply the horsepower for "Apple Shake".
I don't think this is very likely, but it would have been cool if they could make blades that were hot-swappable modules like hard disks are in the XServe Raid.
I don't think this is very likely, but it would have been cool if they could make blades that were hot-swappable modules like hard disks are in the XServe Raid.
True. It would be cool to have 14 blades of dual 970 goodness though.
Comments
<strong>
. . . The rest of DKE's article points out that the Mac world has less inertia than the Wintel world and will adopt 64-bit computing faster.
While I think it is possible, I'm not certain it's a good idea. Why? Because Apple has very limited developer resources. A 64-bit OSX will mean something useful to a very limited number of users. It will also mean that something that could be useful to a lot more users will not get developed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Beside OS X taking advantage of 64-bits, I don't see that much development on Apple's part. The IBM 970 makes 64 bits available to applications. So, if they can take advantage of it, developers will incorporate 64 bits at their own pace. My bet is that Apple has the 64 bit work on OS X done already, or nearly so.
[quote]<strong>
The only reason to go 64-bit is to enable Apple to attack a particular (and lucrative) niche. (I'm thinking video editing myself.) It will need to get the app makers in that niche behind it quickly (which probably means throwing money at the app makers rather than spending it somewhere else), and apple then better market the final result to that niche heavily (which means less marketing to the rest of us).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since Apple now owns some companies in the video market, I don't think there will be a problem motivating them to take advantage of 64 bits. It should not be much extra work when doing the port of software, like Shake, to Mac OS X. I bet Shake already takes advantage of 64 bits when it runs on Silicon Graphics.
As for the other video developers, Apple does not have to do anything. When they see Nothing Real and others making 64 bit OS X applications, they will be quick to follow suit. Apple will not have to market 64 bits to video developers at all. However, Apple will market 64 bits to the general public, to sell more Macs. Apple will toot their own horn and say that 64 bits is the wave of the future.
[quote]<strong>
Without that solid approach with defined goals, the effort is essentially wasted. Apple has a history of neat ideas that go nowhere (OpenDoc, anyone?)
Of course, Apple also has a history of being a technological leader. SCSI, USB, FireWire were all led to the mainstream on Macs. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't believe a 64 bit processor can be compared with Open Doc, but SCSI and USB are valid comparisons. These are technologies developed by others that the Mac lead the way to make popular. Even if 64 bits does not catch on for the PC, it will still be a success and will not go away like Open Doc. Since 64 bits in the PPC does not affect performance of 32 bit applications, it makes sense to do it for those five percent of the applications that can use it.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
And then the epiphany really came through. Huge, multi-million dollar blockbuster, using a tool that was given to them by a company small enough to fit in the palm of Gollum's hand. APPLE.
These kinds of projects (films) have FX houses that would switch to PPC 970's in the blink of an eye, because Shake has such a high position in compositing video. Shake would be the first to be gilded with 64-bit aptness, and the industry would follow.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: os10geek ]</p>
Apple needs a "Statement" Computer. One that puts Power before Style. Once that makes us come on these boards and say "damn I wish I could have that Computer"
Apple spare no expense. Develop it and they will come. You have the OS now get the Hardware.
<a href="http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1047582857"; target="_blank">http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1047582857</a>;
that describes the Weta Digital capabilities and the amazing leaps that each year and each film is taking.
The relevant quote from the article:
[quote]The workstation structure at Weta is astronomical. They have:
-125 SGI Octane systems
-220 Linux systems
-35 NT systems
-15 Mac systems
Then there?s the rendering system?. The renderer alone is run 24 hours a day rendering out the 1000 odd shots that were required for TTT. It consists of 192 Dual Pentium 1 GHz and 448 Dual 2.2 GHz processors. A total of 1280 processors running at approximately 2,355 GHz?. Mmmmm?.. <hr></blockquote>
also
As you can see, even in the Lord of the Rings world, Apple (only 15 machines) has alot of work ahead and alot of market to dominate ... if they can just get the power and costs and SUPPORT more in-line. But with Maya on the Mac, Shake in Apple's stables and Renderman in Steve's pocket, there is ALOT to look forward to.
[quote] Thousands of different programs were used in the development of the special effects. Most prominently Maya was used for the modelling and animation, Pixars Renderman was used for the rendering and finally Apple?s Shake was used for compositing the film.
<hr></blockquote>
Just to complete the Hobbit-geekness of this tangent from the thread topic, here is a nice site showing some of the cgi and compositing images that are used by Shake and Massive, etc.
<a href="http://filmforce.ign.com/lotr/articles/388/388611p1.html"; target="_blank">http://filmforce.ign.com/lotr/articles/388/388611p1.html</a>;
Edited for quotation code....
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: MacGregor ]</p>
[quote]With The Return of the King, Massive is apparently being stretched to its limits. Peter Jackson is saying that the great battle must be several times larger than that of Helm?s Deep. This is not only stretching Massive to it?s limits but also the Intel 32bit processor architecture as well and Weta is looking at replacing the processors with 64bit ones. <hr></blockquote>
Perhaps too late for Apple, but would be nice to know how much Apple is selling for free. For all we know it may be just a matter of yields now, which I am led to believe it is. Apple may hand out a few indescrete boxes of 970s come summer to set up demand for a full scale release.
If Apple can come up with kernel level distributed computing in Darwin(see <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002060"; target="_blank">this</a> thread to discuss that), and Darwin runs on the IBM blades, PowerPC will go to the renderfarm and Apple will work it's way onto the desktop. Apple may not profit from this, but the enhancements to Darwin from all these groups will make it back to us. And that's a good thing.
[quote]- The developer of Massive is under talks at the moment to release Massive commercially.<hr></blockquote>
Talk about making your mark. This would be awesome software for Apple to buy. Renderman, Shake, Massive with Maya and 970 = serious rendering capabilities. And why rebuild Massive for your own use, just buy the software and hardware from Apple.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: macserverX ]</p>
<strong>Wait a sec...Shake isn't an Apple product through-and-through? If it isn't, then why isn't Emagic's product on their site? You know, that sound editing product?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Logic? Well, Emagic already had a nice big site, so why waste it?
Apple bought Shake, and in fact as far as I'm aware they're still selling exactly the product they bought. I imagine that the arrival of a 64 bit Mac platform will foreshadow a rollout of a significant, Apple-authored update to Shake. And that 30" Cinema Display.
2nd half 2003, Macs storm the gates of the x86 workstation market. How's that for a parallel.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>Wait a sec...Shake isn't an Apple product through-and-through? If it isn't, then why isn't Emagic's product on their site? You know, that sound editing product?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a big difference.
Apple purchased Nothing Real to be an Apple Product.
Apple prefers to have have Filemaker and Emagic was wholly owned Subsidiaries. In this instance there will be less confusion as Emagic has been around for a long time(started on the Atari). No sense in making it an Apple Branded product when Emagics name is already where is should be.
I was just thinking about the 2.5Gghz and thought. Why doesn't Apple just use this processor in a 2U Server. The heat requirements wouldn't be as stringent as a 1U. That's of course provided their available in small quantities. I'd assume Apple would probably only need a couple thousand at the most.
A 3u box the size of the powermac would be just peachy for us with normal sized racks, not those monsters they use in server farms.
I suspect the new PM enclosure is going to be a bit boxier than el Capitan with less pronounced curves (and more shiny aluminium) so there may well be an rack mount 'Xtreme' variant.
Makes them easier to sell into AV/ film set installations as well.
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0303/18.xserve.php
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...nXP64BitPR.asp
Apple could, however, beat MS to the desktop, since the current 64-bit Windows only works on IA-64, and that platform's not showing up in a desktop (let alone a laptop) any time soon.
By the time the x86-64 version appears, Apple should have their OS out. Even then, unless x86-64 takes the WinTel world by storm, Apple can still transition to 64 bits sooner and more comprehensively than MS can.
A lot of questions have come in regarding specific features of Apple's next-generation system architecture, expected to accompany IBM's PowerPC 970 later this year. We think it all but certain that dual processors will be available right off the bat. We would be surprised to see these initial systems run in excess of Two 2GHz 970's -- but this is far from certain. Some have predicted twin 2.3GHz processors at the high end along with two significantly slower-clocked, single-processor systems. We think it most likely that Apple will stick with having two high-end, dual-processor PowerMacs and one entry-level single processor PowerMac -- and will have a similiar layout for Xserve models, with the addition of the Cluster system which is a mid-range dual processor Xserve with stripped-down storage and memory.
These numbers are not to be taken as much more than speculation at this point, but if we were to make a prediction, it would be that the initial G5 systems will run at single 1.4GHz, Dual 1.6GHz, and Dual 1.8GHz. We would not be surprised to see Dual 2GHz systems at the high end, but 2.2 or 2.3GHz seems optimistic for a system that will ship with any significant volume before the end of the year.
Serial ATA, USB 2.0, AGP 8X, PCI-X expansion slots, Firewire 800, and a new keyboard and mouse are all specifically mentioned as intended features in what few Apple documents we've been able to see on the new systems. If anything is cut, USB 2.0 will be first on the block, with Serial ATA and PCI-X tied for a distant second....and at this point, we don't think cuts have been made. In fact, the program to build Apple's HyperTransport-based motherboards that will be home to those impressive IBM processors appears to be coming along well. Prototypes are said to have a competitive PC3200 memory architecture (200MHz DDR SDRAM), and some have even been produced with twin PC3200 memory banks to be able to fully saturate the HyperTransport and PPC 970 processor front-side busses, which can each push 6.4GB/s. PC3200, which is already costly and in relatively short supply when talking about only a single memory bus, is as its name indicates, only able to provide about 3.2GB/s of bandwidth.
The extra cost, and need to install memory in two paired banks of a twin-PC3200 architecture are not attractive to Apple, but having an utterly leading-edge professional architecture is. The balance between these, paired with the fortunes of world war and an unstable economy, will decide for Apple which architecture it can release right off the bat. We've been hearing single-bank is the choice for the initial release, but it is still too soon to say with certainty.
Originally posted by Nitzer
From MacOSRumors:
The extra cost, and need to install memory in two paired banks of a twin-PC3200 architecture are not attractive to Apple, but having an utterly leading-edge professional architecture is. The balance between these, paired with the fortunes of world war and an unstable economy, will decide for Apple which architecture it can release right off the bat. We've been hearing single-bank is the choice for the initial release, but it is still too soon to say with certainty.
This is really directed to Apple if they are listening. I think Pro users can handle putting memory into a computer in pairs. Don't let THAT dissuade you from shipping the fastest damn computers you can!
Sorry to reply to my own post. 8)
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
With the 970 coming out are we going to see an XServer Blade? A compliment to the XServe Raid with massive number crunching abilities. Might be a good way to supply the horsepower for "Apple Shake".
I don't think this is very likely, but it would have been cool if they could make blades that were hot-swappable modules like hard disks are in the XServe Raid.
I don't think this is very likely, but it would have been cool if they could make blades that were hot-swappable modules like hard disks are in the XServe Raid.
True. It would be cool to have 14 blades of dual 970 goodness though.