The bad pressed OS, Longhorn, does look a lot like OS X...M$ has dropped the cheap gradient-chrome look and now everything looks kind of shiny, like Aqua. But Aqua still looks better. You can find Longhorn screenshots at google images by typing in...I think you know what to type...
The bigger they are the harder they fall. We just can't see the end of M$'s rope yet
Apple exist quite independently of M$ in their own pocket universe.
Gee, Apple just launched their own browser and the universe didn't implode. And I can see Apple doing more of the same. iOffice? Who knows. But more products that side step that crap. Office has had its day. Appleworks just fine for me
Surprise.
.net? Laugh. Good luck, M$. You're going to need it.
Nice post, Lemon Bon Bon. You are completely correct. Apple's niche will get no smaller. On the contrary, it will probably increase instead. Apple should make as many Apple-apps as possible, so they don't have to be dependent on as many companies. People are already pissed off at the "subscription" style M$ licencing, and I expect xServe to be a big hit: it has none of that "$200 per client" BS that makes it hard for businesses to expand. M$ is infamous, and will probably get more and more unattractive by the year. As Steve Jobs puts it, "The only problem with Microsoft is that they have no taste." Of course, we all know that taste is the least of their problems. Apple is expanding as people see the light.
I frequently find myself wondering what is preventing Apple putting an x86 chip inside the Xserve enclosure and providing a recompiled version of Mac OS X server?
In my experience, most of the issues commentators cite regarding application and developer support for a change of ISA, only really apply to desktop computing...
Xserve customers are likely to be running OS X server with few third-party applications installed. Much of the additional software users would seek to add to the base operating system are likely to be command-line Unix applications, easily built from source code using the supplied developer tools?
Such a machine would be able to run Linux, but why would you do this if you had OS X server preinstalled by Apple?
[quote] I frequently find myself wondering what is preventing Apple putting an x86 chip inside the Xserve enclosure and providing a recompiled version of Mac OS X server? <hr></blockquote>
I dunno... Something deep, deep in the depths of my evil soul, something yells: NO, NOT INTEL! DON'T SWITCH TO INTEL, PLEASE! PLEASE, APPLE, DO NOT BETRAY US! A POWER5 WOULD BE GOOD INSTEAD! (hint,hint)
<strong>Not really. Steve Jobs ramming Apple down Pixar's throat would be a clear conflict of interest (and it would cost him a lot of talent in the ensuing revolt), but if the engineers settle on Apple computers as their machines of choice, fine. Everyone knows how Steve runs Pixar: hands-off, at least as far as technical details go.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>Do you have inside info from Pixar? Seriously. I'm curious since this is the second time in this thread you've mentioned steve's role at Pixar. Without being an employee or knowing an employee personally, I think it would be difficult to acurately characteristize management at a particular company. Allowing non-Macs on most desks does not neccessarily imply a hands off approach. As much as I prefer a Mac on my desktop, I wouldn't advocate them for render farms or for most engineers.
IMHO, we can infer little from the Pixar render farm purchase and Steve's recent Keynote appearance. Bill gates has been the keynote speaker at a few of the annual, Computer-Human Interaction conferences. Microsoft is also the largest exhibiter at these conferences. Yet this doesn't mean that MS is an HCI oriented corporation nor that Bill is our new GUI oracle.
<strong>Do you have inside info from Pixar? Seriously. I'm curious since this is the second time in this thread you've mentioned steve's role at Pixar. Without being an employee or knowing an employee personally, I think it would be difficult to acurately characteristize management at a particular company. Allowing non-Macs on most desks does not neccessarily imply a hands off approach.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but considering that there have been any number of articles about Steve's purchase and management of Pixar over the years, while their star was still rising, I don't feel the need to acquire contacts. The information I've posted is widely known. I've never heard anything to the contrary, either.
Now, I'm not saying that Steve is hands-off in all aspects, only that he got the word early on that the staff were going to use what they were going to use, and he'd better not interfere.
I surmised from that that Steve's taken the opportunity to learn what high-end 3D and video people need.
<strong>...got the word early ... he'd better not interfere ... that Steve's taken the opportunity to learn what high-end 3D and video people need.</strong><hr></blockquote>This characterization seems a bit slanted. It assumes that Steve is ignorant and meddlesome and that people had to tell him how to run the company. How about: '... already knew ... didn't interfere ... and was already well versed on hardware requirements for professional 3D and Video production...'
Keep in mind that whenever management changes, feathers are ruffled and there are always negative reports. The same is true for managers in general. You will never have friendly relations with 100% of the employees under your charge. With Steve being such a media figure or celebrity in the computer industry, there will always be overblown reports of genius and ineptitude.
[quote] 2/24 ? READER OPINION It will from here on out be mainly about Applications. And Apple oddly enough makes some of the best on Any platform. Take a look at what Apple has done software wise. Buys Shake, kills it on Windoze. Buys Emagic Logic, kills it on Windoze. Releases Safari, no need for Explorer, ever. Releases Keynote, no need for Powerpoint. After Keynote, we can only guess it's only a matter of time before Spreadsheet and Word Processor apps are released that will import / export MS Office files. Mac OS X (with its UNIX base ) and Cocoa development environment (read faster dev times) and what could be the best Java on the desktop and all of the Apple Apps (with more to come) are the key for Apple's continued prosperity and relevance. Apple, Linux, Sun-Java, Open Source, amongst others have made it clear, it is possible, very possible to compute on this planet, without ANY shred of Microsoft, and more and more are thinking this same way.
However, that being said....
The One and Only Challenge facing Apple this year is : the Hardware. If Apple does not address this by this summer, it may be all but over for Apple altogether. So does Apple go with Intel / AMD or stay on the Power PC, that is IBM's Power PC 970 or some other IBM chip. To me Apple has only 2 choices and two choices only IBM or Intel / (maybe) AMD. Actually contrary to what people are saying on the web, Apple can indeed go x86, Intel / AMD. As one of my fellow Apple enthusiasts so astutely pointed out, there are many advantages of such a move. Here are just some:
1. The hardware disparity and / or performance "disaster" that the Mac has suffered for the last several years, in one fell swoop would be over. Apple would have available to it, the same exact Mhz speeds, Hyper-transport, hyper-threading, faster bus technologies, faster memory technologies, yada, yada, yada. You get the picture. Apple would have the same exact specs that Intel / AMD have had and continue to come out with at so much a faster rate than Apple has in the past. And now Apple could probably make their machines even cheaper because they are using such widely available parts.
2. Because Apple is now on x86, Wall Street, would love it, because in their mind it would represent Apple at least in some ways is, "conforming" to what the rest of the 95 % of the world uses and that's Intel / AMD (x86). While this represents more of a psychological move, that is exactly what's needed and I think Apple's stock would rise and continue to rise because of such a move.
3. Free BSD, Mach, Next Step / Open Step originally ran on x86 and had to be ported to Power PC, from what I have heard there are some performance hits because of this, back on x86, OS X flies.
4. Now that OS X is on a x86 chip, WINE could be an interesting thing. WINE is an open source project that allows UNIX (on x86) to run Windows apps (Win32 API's) on your x86 UNIX box, WITHOUT installing Windoze. Read that again. You could run Windows Apps, like games or Auto CAD (which may never get ported to OS X Power PC) in a separate window, running natively, without Windoze. And WINE is not "Emulation." And with Microsoft recently buying Connectix VPC, this could wind up being very key.
5. Why exactly did Steve Jobs / Pixar buy Linux / Intel render farms, (besides the fact that Pixar is a business and needs the best / fastest tech to get the job done. It must mean that Steve really feels Intel - Linux (UNIX) is the best way to go (at this point anyway). He is even dumping Sun Sparc and SGI. To me, this move is the equivalent of Steve Jobs saying, Intel has the best / fastest chips out there (right now anyway) and will continue to. Also, do you think SJ would be using Linux - UNIX at Pixar, if OS X - UNIX was (ready and available) on x86, Intel? Maybe he can just roll out OS X x86 on those Intel render farms when it's ready. Remember OS X / NeXT (which is software) is Steve's baby. Steve is all about the software, OS / Apps, he has no real allegiance to CPU brand, just as long as its fast.
Note: I had heard that SJ ordered Pixar to be on OS X and XServes last year, so I do find this odd, if true).
6. Apple would have to find a way to stop people from installing OS X x86 on "non Apple" boxes. This could be done by Apple using a series of specific vendors, checking for them at boot up, or serialized Boot ROM's, or OS X for x86 will not install. Hackers eventually may figure it out, But this will be only 5-10 % tops. Most people do not want to be bothered building their own boxes, just buy the Box from Apple with all its warranties, support, style, etc. The Apple box will just work and work well. Now that Apple offers the same Intel hardware configs, speed for speed, spec for spec, and keeps the price exact or within a few hundred bucks or so of the Dell's, etc, people would be attracted to Apple, styling now really becoming a main difference, "Hey this box looks cooler, and boasts the same speeds, I am buying the Apple".
7. Apple would have to find a way to stop people from installing Windows on these boxes, although this may turn out to be not such a bad thing. Run OS X on one partition and XP on another (if you really had to).
8. Don't think that getting the multitude of Mac apps to x86 is that daunting, after talking with a few (veteran programmers) it is possible. If your App is Carbon, (and the only main one left that is not, is Quark), then your app could be compiled for OS X on x86. Also, we know Apple has OS X running on x86, but why? On could surmise from this that Apple is going this route sooner or later. And I also don't think OS X on x86 is only a contingency plan.
9. People say what of Altivec? Apple could work (or has already been working) with Intel / AMD to come up with an equivalent vectoring technology. If IBM 970, 980, (Power4, 5 , etc. derivatives) or other IBM chips unknown to us, are not the choice for whatever reason of the Apple high command , then it's simple deduction: it's Intel / AMD x86 or successors thereof. (And of course at this point I believe it's a forgone conclusion that Motorola is out of the picture).
Next question, Intel or AMD? People make good arguments for AMD, but according to reports on the web, IBM and Intel will be the only two major players in the chip world in the next 5 years, so you think Apple is going to gamble with that.
Hell no.
Apple's next chip is either from IBM or Intel. A time table is the only remaining question. A new "G5" is coming this summer or fall, Not 2004, it has to or Apple is facing a possible mass exodus off the platform and lets face it, extinction.
1. It will probably be easier for Apple to simply use the IBM Power PC 970, it is after all Power PC and should just work, no real major reworking of apps.
2. If OS X on x86 (Marklar) has been going on for some time now, whose to say most of Apple's apps don't already have x86 compilations, or plans for such. If the first thing SJ announces at WWDC this Spring is, "Guess what developers out there, what do you think about re-compiling your apps to a "new processor" (read x86), and by the way, here are all the tools you need to do it, here you go". This would be the big hint of what processor the G5 will be this Summer / Fall. My guess either a IBM Power PC 970 or Intel, Pentium 5 / Itanium 2. If it's AMD I would be surprised, but you never know.
<strong>This characterization seems a bit slanted. It assumes that Steve is ignorant and meddlesome and that people had to tell him how to run the company. How about: '... already knew ... didn't interfere ... and was already well versed on hardware requirements for professional 3D and Video production...'</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your characterization is a bit slanted, yes.
Steve is a well-known micromanager, and he's well known for, shall we say, coming to conclusions rather quickly. In the right context, these are not bad traits to have: After all, they've brought us some gorgeous Apple products.
In Pixar's case, he obviously didn't have any idea what the needs of the engineers there were. How could he? What Pixar does has always been esoteric. Now it might be that the engineers bristled before Steve had so much as opened his mouth, because of what they knew of him, or it may be that he tried to run Pixar the way he ran NeXT and Apple and found out the hard way that he couldn't. Or he might have taken a gander at the day-to-day operations of the company and figured that out himself. Exactly what happened is irrelevant to my argument.
What I am stating, simply and firmly, is that Steve is well-known for running Pixar in a hands-off manner. From there, it's not a stretch to imagine that he learned this style at the hands of the employees, because this style is unlike him - and that's certainly the story on the public record. Also, what is negative about the idea that he's taking notes? He's flat-out asked Hollywood people what they need. Why wouldn't he take the opportunity to learn what 3D designers and engineers need as well? It's 100% likely that he was ignorant of the needs of the Pixar engineers when he bought the company. So he's let them get what they need, and learned on the job. That's not negative - that's pretty much the best case for a new manager.
[quote]<strong>Keep in mind that whenever management changes, feathers are ruffled and there are always negative reports. The same is true for managers in general. You will never have friendly relations with 100% of the employees under your charge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not one of the reports I read were negative. Not surprising, really, since Pixar has done extremely well under Steve.
I don't understand why the Renderman technologies aren't for Mac when the CEO of Pixar is Steve Jobs! And he recently bought a ton of Intels to help render the scenes! Why? How good are the OS X-running Xserves? Aren't they "supposed" to be faster?
1. It will probably be easier for Apple to simply use the IBM Power PC 970, it is after all Power PC and should just work, no real major reworking of apps.
2. If OS X on x86 (Marklar) has been going on for some time now, whose to say most of Apple's apps don't already have x86 compilations, or plans for such. If the first thing SJ announces at WWDC this Spring is, "Guess what developers out there, what do you think about re-compiling your apps to a "new processor" (read x86), and by the way, here are all the tools you need to do it, here you go". This would be the big hint of what processor the G5 will be this Summer / Fall. My guess either a IBM Power PC 970 or Intel, Pentium 5 / Itanium 2. If it's AMD I would be surprised, but you never know.
</p>
Every article that I have read about it has shown the PPC 970 to be better than anything that Intel can put out right now and in the (fairly) far future.
I don't understand why the Renderman technologies aren't for Mac when the CEO of Pixar is Steve Jobs! And he recently bought a ton of Intels to help render the scenes! Why? How good are the OS X-running Xserves? Aren't they "supposed" to be faster?
I don't think Pixar is going to pretend they are faster when their business is rendering films. Steve might be the CEO but he has to listen to his experts and make reasonable decisions, otherwise he'll just run the company into the ground.
If the PowerPC catches up, however, we can probably expect to see Pixar taking advantage of that. They are running Linux or Unix on those x86 boxes, which makes it easier to have a mixed processor environment.
I don't think Pixar is going to pretend they are faster when their business is rendering films. Steve might be the CEO but he has to listen to his experts and make reasonable decisions, otherwise he'll just run the company into the ground.
If the PowerPC catches up, however, we can probably expect to see Pixar taking advantage of that. They are running Linux or Unix on those x86 boxes, which makes it easier to have a mixed processor environment.
Comments
<hr></blockquote>
omigosh 709! You found a matching set!
"The Antique Road Show" possibilities alone boggle the mind!
Not invented here vs open standards.
I think we all know how that one turned out.
Palladium? Wait for the backlash.
All empires fade. M$'s time will come.
The bigger they are the harder they fall. We just can't see the end of M$'s rope yet
Apple exist quite independently of M$ in their own pocket universe.
Gee, Apple just launched their own browser and the universe didn't implode. And I can see Apple doing more of the same. iOffice? Who knows. But more products that side step that crap. Office has had its day. Appleworks just fine for me
Surprise.
.net? Laugh. Good luck, M$. You're going to need it.
Lemon Bon Bon
Lemon Bon Bon
In my experience, most of the issues commentators cite regarding application and developer support for a change of ISA, only really apply to desktop computing...
Xserve customers are likely to be running OS X server with few third-party applications installed. Much of the additional software users would seek to add to the base operating system are likely to be command-line Unix applications, easily built from source code using the supplied developer tools?
Such a machine would be able to run Linux, but why would you do this if you had OS X server preinstalled by Apple?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>The problem with Microsoft is that they just have no taste</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I dont mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>Not really. Steve Jobs ramming Apple down Pixar's throat would be a clear conflict of interest (and it would cost him a lot of talent in the ensuing revolt), but if the engineers settle on Apple computers as their machines of choice, fine. Everyone knows how Steve runs Pixar: hands-off, at least as far as technical details go.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>Do you have inside info from Pixar? Seriously. I'm curious since this is the second time in this thread you've mentioned steve's role at Pixar. Without being an employee or knowing an employee personally, I think it would be difficult to acurately characteristize management at a particular company. Allowing non-Macs on most desks does not neccessarily imply a hands off approach. As much as I prefer a Mac on my desktop, I wouldn't advocate them for render farms or for most engineers.
IMHO, we can infer little from the Pixar render farm purchase and Steve's recent Keynote appearance. Bill gates has been the keynote speaker at a few of the annual, Computer-Human Interaction conferences. Microsoft is also the largest exhibiter at these conferences. Yet this doesn't mean that MS is an HCI oriented corporation nor that Bill is our new GUI oracle.
<strong>Do you have inside info from Pixar? Seriously. I'm curious since this is the second time in this thread you've mentioned steve's role at Pixar. Without being an employee or knowing an employee personally, I think it would be difficult to acurately characteristize management at a particular company. Allowing non-Macs on most desks does not neccessarily imply a hands off approach.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but considering that there have been any number of articles about Steve's purchase and management of Pixar over the years, while their star was still rising, I don't feel the need to acquire contacts. The information I've posted is widely known. I've never heard anything to the contrary, either.
Now, I'm not saying that Steve is hands-off in all aspects, only that he got the word early on that the staff were going to use what they were going to use, and he'd better not interfere.
I surmised from that that Steve's taken the opportunity to learn what high-end 3D and video people need.
<strong>...got the word early ... he'd better not interfere ... that Steve's taken the opportunity to learn what high-end 3D and video people need.</strong><hr></blockquote>This characterization seems a bit slanted. It assumes that Steve is ignorant and meddlesome and that people had to tell him how to run the company. How about: '... already knew ... didn't interfere ... and was already well versed on hardware requirements for professional 3D and Video production...'
Keep in mind that whenever management changes, feathers are ruffled and there are always negative reports. The same is true for managers in general. You will never have friendly relations with 100% of the employees under your charge. With Steve being such a media figure or celebrity in the computer industry, there will always be overblown reports of genius and ineptitude.
However, that being said....
The One and Only Challenge facing Apple this year is : the Hardware. If Apple does not address this by this summer, it may be all but over for Apple altogether. So does Apple go with Intel / AMD or stay on the Power PC, that is IBM's Power PC 970 or some other IBM chip. To me Apple has only 2 choices and two choices only IBM or Intel / (maybe) AMD. Actually contrary to what people are saying on the web, Apple can indeed go x86, Intel / AMD. As one of my fellow Apple enthusiasts so astutely pointed out, there are many advantages of such a move. Here are just some:
1. The hardware disparity and / or performance "disaster" that the Mac has suffered for the last several years, in one fell swoop would be over. Apple would have available to it, the same exact Mhz speeds, Hyper-transport, hyper-threading, faster bus technologies, faster memory technologies, yada, yada, yada. You get the picture. Apple would have the same exact specs that Intel / AMD have had and continue to come out with at so much a faster rate than Apple has in the past. And now Apple could probably make their machines even cheaper because they are using such widely available parts.
2. Because Apple is now on x86, Wall Street, would love it, because in their mind it would represent Apple at least in some ways is, "conforming" to what the rest of the 95 % of the world uses and that's Intel / AMD (x86). While this represents more of a psychological move, that is exactly what's needed and I think Apple's stock would rise and continue to rise because of such a move.
3. Free BSD, Mach, Next Step / Open Step originally ran on x86 and had to be ported to Power PC, from what I have heard there are some performance hits because of this, back on x86, OS X flies.
4. Now that OS X is on a x86 chip, WINE could be an interesting thing. WINE is an open source project that allows UNIX (on x86) to run Windows apps (Win32 API's) on your x86 UNIX box, WITHOUT installing Windoze. Read that again. You could run Windows Apps, like games or Auto CAD (which may never get ported to OS X Power PC) in a separate window, running natively, without Windoze. And WINE is not "Emulation." And with Microsoft recently buying Connectix VPC, this could wind up being very key.
5. Why exactly did Steve Jobs / Pixar buy Linux / Intel render farms, (besides the fact that Pixar is a business and needs the best / fastest tech to get the job done. It must mean that Steve really feels Intel - Linux (UNIX) is the best way to go (at this point anyway). He is even dumping Sun Sparc and SGI. To me, this move is the equivalent of Steve Jobs saying, Intel has the best / fastest chips out there (right now anyway) and will continue to. Also, do you think SJ would be using Linux - UNIX at Pixar, if OS X - UNIX was (ready and available) on x86, Intel? Maybe he can just roll out OS X x86 on those Intel render farms when it's ready. Remember OS X / NeXT (which is software) is Steve's baby. Steve is all about the software, OS / Apps, he has no real allegiance to CPU brand, just as long as its fast.
Note: I had heard that SJ ordered Pixar to be on OS X and XServes last year, so I do find this odd, if true).
6. Apple would have to find a way to stop people from installing OS X x86 on "non Apple" boxes. This could be done by Apple using a series of specific vendors, checking for them at boot up, or serialized Boot ROM's, or OS X for x86 will not install. Hackers eventually may figure it out, But this will be only 5-10 % tops. Most people do not want to be bothered building their own boxes, just buy the Box from Apple with all its warranties, support, style, etc. The Apple box will just work and work well. Now that Apple offers the same Intel hardware configs, speed for speed, spec for spec, and keeps the price exact or within a few hundred bucks or so of the Dell's, etc, people would be attracted to Apple, styling now really becoming a main difference, "Hey this box looks cooler, and boasts the same speeds, I am buying the Apple".
7. Apple would have to find a way to stop people from installing Windows on these boxes, although this may turn out to be not such a bad thing. Run OS X on one partition and XP on another (if you really had to).
8. Don't think that getting the multitude of Mac apps to x86 is that daunting, after talking with a few (veteran programmers) it is possible. If your App is Carbon, (and the only main one left that is not, is Quark), then your app could be compiled for OS X on x86. Also, we know Apple has OS X running on x86, but why? On could surmise from this that Apple is going this route sooner or later. And I also don't think OS X on x86 is only a contingency plan.
9. People say what of Altivec? Apple could work (or has already been working) with Intel / AMD to come up with an equivalent vectoring technology. If IBM 970, 980, (Power4, 5 , etc. derivatives) or other IBM chips unknown to us, are not the choice for whatever reason of the Apple high command , then it's simple deduction: it's Intel / AMD x86 or successors thereof. (And of course at this point I believe it's a forgone conclusion that Motorola is out of the picture).
Next question, Intel or AMD? People make good arguments for AMD, but according to reports on the web, IBM and Intel will be the only two major players in the chip world in the next 5 years, so you think Apple is going to gamble with that.
Hell no.
Apple's next chip is either from IBM or Intel. A time table is the only remaining question. A new "G5" is coming this summer or fall, Not 2004, it has to or Apple is facing a possible mass exodus off the platform and lets face it, extinction.
1. It will probably be easier for Apple to simply use the IBM Power PC 970, it is after all Power PC and should just work, no real major reworking of apps.
2. If OS X on x86 (Marklar) has been going on for some time now, whose to say most of Apple's apps don't already have x86 compilations, or plans for such. If the first thing SJ announces at WWDC this Spring is, "Guess what developers out there, what do you think about re-compiling your apps to a "new processor" (read x86), and by the way, here are all the tools you need to do it, here you go". This would be the big hint of what processor the G5 will be this Summer / Fall. My guess either a IBM Power PC 970 or Intel, Pentium 5 / Itanium 2. If it's AMD I would be surprised, but you never know.
<hr></blockquote>
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>This characterization seems a bit slanted. It assumes that Steve is ignorant and meddlesome and that people had to tell him how to run the company. How about: '... already knew ... didn't interfere ... and was already well versed on hardware requirements for professional 3D and Video production...'</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your characterization is a bit slanted, yes.
Steve is a well-known micromanager, and he's well known for, shall we say, coming to conclusions rather quickly. In the right context, these are not bad traits to have: After all, they've brought us some gorgeous Apple products.
In Pixar's case, he obviously didn't have any idea what the needs of the engineers there were. How could he? What Pixar does has always been esoteric. Now it might be that the engineers bristled before Steve had so much as opened his mouth, because of what they knew of him, or it may be that he tried to run Pixar the way he ran NeXT and Apple and found out the hard way that he couldn't. Or he might have taken a gander at the day-to-day operations of the company and figured that out himself. Exactly what happened is irrelevant to my argument.
What I am stating, simply and firmly, is that Steve is well-known for running Pixar in a hands-off manner. From there, it's not a stretch to imagine that he learned this style at the hands of the employees, because this style is unlike him - and that's certainly the story on the public record. Also, what is negative about the idea that he's taking notes? He's flat-out asked Hollywood people what they need. Why wouldn't he take the opportunity to learn what 3D designers and engineers need as well? It's 100% likely that he was ignorant of the needs of the Pixar engineers when he bought the company. So he's let them get what they need, and learned on the job. That's not negative - that's pretty much the best case for a new manager.
[quote]<strong>Keep in mind that whenever management changes, feathers are ruffled and there are always negative reports. The same is true for managers in general. You will never have friendly relations with 100% of the employees under your charge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not one of the reports I read were negative. Not surprising, really, since Pixar has done extremely well under Steve.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
I don't understand why the Renderman technologies aren't for Mac when the CEO of Pixar is Steve Jobs! And he recently bought a ton of Intels to help render the scenes! Why? How good are the OS X-running Xserves? Aren't they "supposed" to be faster?
--Alexis
Quote:
1. It will probably be easier for Apple to simply use the IBM Power PC 970, it is after all Power PC and should just work, no real major reworking of apps.
2. If OS X on x86 (Marklar) has been going on for some time now, whose to say most of Apple's apps don't already have x86 compilations, or plans for such. If the first thing SJ announces at WWDC this Spring is, "Guess what developers out there, what do you think about re-compiling your apps to a "new processor" (read x86), and by the way, here are all the tools you need to do it, here you go". This would be the big hint of what processor the G5 will be this Summer / Fall. My guess either a IBM Power PC 970 or Intel, Pentium 5 / Itanium 2. If it's AMD I would be surprised, but you never know.
</p>
Every article that I have read about it has shown the PPC 970 to be better than anything that Intel can put out right now and in the (fairly) far future.
Expect a PPC in the summer, not x86.
--Alexis
Originally posted by Alexis
My question is simply, "why?"
I don't understand why the Renderman technologies aren't for Mac when the CEO of Pixar is Steve Jobs! And he recently bought a ton of Intels to help render the scenes! Why? How good are the OS X-running Xserves? Aren't they "supposed" to be faster?
I don't think Pixar is going to pretend they are faster when their business is rendering films. Steve might be the CEO but he has to listen to his experts and make reasonable decisions, otherwise he'll just run the company into the ground.
If the PowerPC catches up, however, we can probably expect to see Pixar taking advantage of that. They are running Linux or Unix on those x86 boxes, which makes it easier to have a mixed processor environment.
Originally posted by Programmer
I don't think Pixar is going to pretend they are faster when their business is rendering films. Steve might be the CEO but he has to listen to his experts and make reasonable decisions, otherwise he'll just run the company into the ground.
If the PowerPC catches up, however, we can probably expect to see Pixar taking advantage of that. They are running Linux or Unix on those x86 boxes, which makes it easier to have a mixed processor environment.
OK, that makes sense. Thanks, I appreciate it. 8)
--Alexis