"...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.
[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>
[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.
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!
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????
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).
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
[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.
Comments
<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
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>
...when you'll need 1 and 7/8 the number of licenses...
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</p>
<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...
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.
<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
What's this going to run on?
<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>
SGI, linux and maybe Win2k. That's what Weta use.
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</p>
Three-button mouse
<hr></blockquote>
... that's interesting
<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).
<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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
on apples page advertising warcraft II they make a suggestion to buy a 3 button mouse because it greatly enhances gameplay.
<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
<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."
<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.
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.
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>