|
|
|
|
Citizen Of The World
2447 posts
|
It's a bombshell that most of us didn't see coming. Apple dumping PowerPC and migrating to x86 (Intel) processors over the next 2 years.
Luxology must be shocked and alarmed.
As Luxology is a key developer for OS X, I imagine there must be dismay in the corridors of Luxology. Matt Craig? Arnie Cachelin? Are you still breathing?
Even if Apple adopts Transitive Technologies fast emulator, other technologies won't transfer to x86 processors. What about Altivec optimization, and all the work Luxology must have put into it?
I guess some of you must be attending the WWDC today to listen to Steve Jobs spell it out. I expect you will clap politely Steve turns your work upside down.
--------------------------------------------------
Download a free office suite: http://www.openoffice.org/
|
|
6/5/2005 - 9:05 PM
|
|
|
virginia
318 posts
|
Well, we don't know for sure if this is true yet....we'll find out in a few hours. It seems the story originated with the WSJ and then was built upon by CNET---from what I've been able to find, the CNET article seems to be the source of all this. We'll know if they're right soon enough!
I remember Lux saying that they designed most of their code to be platform agnostic... is it reasonable to assume that they might weather the transition better than other developers? This has gotta be really frustrating for developers...but hey, maybe we'll finally see an OSX XSI!??!
|
|
6/5/2005 - 11:17 PM
|
|
|
Martian Megalopolis, Olympus Mons, Mars
7710 posts
|
I may move to Windows permanantly. This is so bad I can't even say. I feel so betrayed.
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!" -George Patton
http://aoleonthemartiangirl.com
|
|
6/6/2005 - 7:47 AM
|
|
|
Darmstadt
1765 posts
|
It would be pretty cool to have a decent OS to put on my intel machines. There was an x86 version of NeXTStep, so it doesn't seem that much of a leap to get OSX running on intel again, though I imagine that they will need to control the hardware configuration tightly, rather than running on commodity PCs. The various vector unit acceleration techniques are pretty portable, once the code is designed to be vectorized. I can't believe that most mac users would know or care what CPU thay had, as long as things worked like they expected. Of course none of those users would ever read a thread like this.
|
|
6/6/2005 - 11:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Martian Megalopolis, Olympus Mons, Mars
7710 posts
|
If I ever hear that stupid Intel jingle for 'Intel inside' on a Mac ad I will hurl big time. You know that 'duh dah duh duh'... What is it C,G,E,A? (I am guessing at the pitches)
-Brent
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!" -George Patton
http://aoleonthemartiangirl.com
Message edited by Marinello2003 on 6/6/2005 - 1:43 PM
|
|
6/6/2005 - 1:29 PM
|
|
|
Martian Megalopolis, Olympus Mons, Mars
7710 posts
|
"Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life. There have been rumors to this effect...(laugh). We've had teams working on the just in case scenario. This has been going on for the last five years. Every release of OS X has been compiled and run on Intel processors.
(Steve Jobs)
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!" -George Patton
http://aoleonthemartiangirl.com
|
|
6/6/2005 - 1:33 PM
|
|
|
Luxology Orbital Science Lab
676 posts
|
And lets face it the only spector to an Intel platform is Windows... Nothing wrong with the hardware... As with most things it's just different... :)
|
|
6/6/2005 - 2:02 PM
|
|
|
Martian Megalopolis, Olympus Mons, Mars
7710 posts
|
I applaud your positive outlook Dion.
However for me, Steve's pitch for Apple going with Intel and splitting from IBM is similar to your parents getting a divorce from a bad marriage, and they come and tell you it's 'for the best' and then your Dad immediately introduces you to his new girlfriend (who you allready think is a complete ho) and says 'meet your new stepmom'... things will be much better with her....
Not a great sales pitch....
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!" -George Patton
http://aoleonthemartiangirl.com
|
|
6/6/2005 - 2:06 PM
|
|
|
Martian Megalopolis, Olympus Mons, Mars
7710 posts
|
"The technology to let existing PowerPC applications run on Intel is named Rosetta and performs dynamic translation transparent to users (see QuickTransit from Transitive)."
I don't know any mac user that cares about performance that will want to run their applications in some kind of emulation mode when they could be running the same apps on windows natively. This is another tough sell from Steve....
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!" -George Patton
http://aoleonthemartiangirl.com
|
|
6/6/2005 - 2:24 PM
|
|
|
Los Angeles, CA
367 posts
|
There's really no need for such an emotional reaction, after all these are just our computers... our tools as artists. The way I see it, this is a great thing for us; software we've long wanted like Softimage or HL2 are now all that much closer (and probably will run at a respectable speed...cough cough....Doom 3..)
Message edited by Fezz on 6/6/2005 - 2:28 PM
|
|
6/6/2005 - 2:28 PM
|
|
|
Citizen Of The World
2447 posts
|
Quote from Marinello2003 :
I may move to Windows permanantly. This is so bad I can't even say. I feel so betrayed.
No Marinello, don't do it. Don't jump!
I'm not exactly happy with Apple's deal with Intel, though I certainly won't be switching to Windows. I think AMD has better rendering technology than Intel, and Apple probably only chose Intel to get access to processors for laptop computers.
I already run Linux on PowerPC, so if I wanted to use any particular processor for rendering I'd use Linux rather than Windows.
I think Apple will have to use 32-bit Intel processors in their laptops, as I don't think Intel has any cheap, low-power 64-bit processors that could go into an iBook.
Quote from Arnie Cachelin :
There was an x86 version of NeXTStep, so it doesn't seem that much of a leap to get OSX running on intel again
It's good to know that Luxology people aren't overly worried by this.
While we know that the code in Modo is mostly platform-agnostic, it's Nexus that I was worried about.
Maybe my impression of Nexus is not correct, but I imagined it to be a bit like a Java virtual machine, which translates the platform agnostic code of the application into platform-specific code for the OS.
It also seemed sad that Luxology's renderer has not yet been released, yet they already have to make changes for the platform it runs on.
--------------------------------------------------
Download a free office suite: http://www.openoffice.org/
|
|
6/6/2005 - 5:43 PM
|
|
|
Martian Megalopolis, Olympus Mons, Mars
7710 posts
|
What really irks me is that I just spent thousands of dollars on new software and hardware on PPC, and now Apple is telling me that in a year and a half all of that will be obsolete. That kills me. And then I think, knowing apple they will only let you run MacOSX on an Apple/Intel box - not on an AMD/Boxxtech dual core dual processor CPU etc... or a Dell discount machine.
Intel just isnt there for heavy lifting apps like 3D animation and video editing. That is where PowerPC really takes off. AMD is the only peer in that respect. If Apple doesn't have an Opteron solution, I will probably go with Windows/AMD.
If you can show me that it is easy to use Linux, I would even do that (over windows). However, I do not have a clue how to use Linux, and I am very familiar with Windows. So that is the delemma for me.
Worst comes to worst, we can hack an XBox 360 and run OSX on that :)
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!" -George Patton
http://aoleonthemartiangirl.com
|
|
6/6/2005 - 7:46 PM
|
|
|
Citizen Of The World
2447 posts
|
Marinello, it's a good idea to learn Linux anyway. No, it's not always easy. Take a look at Ubuntu Linux and Yellowdog Linux. For rendering, Linux makes a lot more sense than Windows.
I wonder whether Apple has struck an exclusive deal with Intel. This is a bit like Dell, which has had an exclusive deal with Intel for many years. This is why if you buy a Dell you don't get any processor choice, apart from Intel.
As stated in eWeek, this may be more about Steve Jobs' grab for a bigger share of the x86 market, rather than what processor is best.
--------------------------------------------------
Download a free office suite: http://www.openoffice.org/
Message edited by Beamtracer on 6/6/2005 - 8:22 PM
|
|
6/6/2005 - 8:21 PM
|
|
|
San Francisco
60 posts
|
As Beamtracer surmised, I was dismayed and shocked by the rumors I dismissed as impossible (Mmmm - humble pie).
Nonetheless, I am happy to report that, I assure you, our battlestation is fully operational on OS X on Intel :) Seriously though, as of early this afternoon, modo runs on OS X Intel. It was trivial to port - kudos to Apple on that.
|
|
6/7/2005 - 12:18 AM
|
|
|
2088 posts
|
That sounds great MC, how does it compare? what processor was it on? have you had a chance to test out the rendering technology on it too? I think the demos of it were on PPC or am I wrong? Anyway just curious.
Yazan
|
|
6/7/2005 - 1:52 AM
|
|
|
Citizen Of The World
2447 posts
|
Quote from Matthew Craig :
As Beamtracer surmised, I was dismayed and shocked by the rumors I dismissed as impossible (Mmmm - humble pie).
Nonetheless, I am happy to report that, I assure you, our battlestation is fully operational on OS X on Intel :) Seriously though, as of early this afternoon, modo runs on OS X Intel. It was trivial to port - kudos to Apple on that.
Hi Matthew. I don't know you personally, but legend has it that you single-handedly ported Lightwave 3D to the Mac, which to me is worth a lot of kudos!!! :) It's good to see you hanging out on this forum with us plebs!
I think most people dismissed the Apple/Intel rumors as impossible. I'm not sure if I still believe it.
You really have modo/Nexus running on an x86 Mac? I wasn't sure if that was a joke or not. I thought the port would drive developers crazy!
They say that Mac Minis will be the first to switch, with PowerMacs switching in 2007. I would assume that there are a lot more modo users on PowerMacs than Mac Minis, which means most will switch in 2007 or after. A long way off yet.
--------------------------------------------------
Download a free office suite: http://www.openoffice.org/
|
|
6/7/2005 - 2:03 AM
|
|
|
Brisbane
384 posts
|
why will our software be obsolete in the future?
in the end nothing will change,
when the Intel boxes come out, we just upgrade to the newest versions of software.......
to me it won't matter if there's an Intel chip or an IBM chip inside, the casing (design) will still be cool and i will still use OS X
so what's the deal?
Message edited by Michiel on 6/7/2005 - 3:07 AM
|
|
6/7/2005 - 3:06 AM
|
|
|
Citizen Of The World
2447 posts
|
Quote from Michiel :
why will our software be obsolete in the future?
in the end nothing will change,
when the Intel boxes come out, we just upgrade to the newest versions of software.......
to me it won't matter if there's an Intel chip or an IBM chip inside, the casing (design) will still be cool and i will still use OS X
so what's the deal?
Well it seems to me that the new Intel Macs will have emulators to run todays software. But today's Macs won't have emulators to run tomorrows software.
Who knows, maybe Apple will resolve this issue, as they need to think of some way to attract people to buy PowerPC Macs over the next 2 years.
--------------------------------------------------
Download a free office suite: http://www.openoffice.org/
|
|
6/7/2005 - 4:57 AM
|
|
|
virginia
318 posts
|
Quote from Marinello2003 :
What really irks me is that I just spent thousands of dollars on new software and hardware on PPC, and now Apple is telling me that in a year and a half all of that will be obsolete. That kills me. And then I think, knowing apple they will only let you run MacOSX on an Apple/Intel box - not on an AMD/Boxxtech dual core dual processor CPU etc... or a Dell discount machine.
Intel just isnt there for heavy lifting apps like 3D animation and video editing. That is where PowerPC really takes off. AMD is the only peer in that respect. If Apple doesn't have an Opteron solution, I will probably go with Windows/AMD.
If you can show me that it is easy to use Linux, I would even do that (over windows). However, I do not have a clue how to use Linux, and I am very familiar with Windows. So that is the delemma for me.
Worst comes to worst, we can hack an XBox 360 and run OSX on that :)
Marinello, I'm just as shocked as you--and I'm also a very loyal Mac user. That said, I have been very disappointed with 3D animation on the mac. I was dismayed, in my latest project, to find that mental ray for maya rendered just as fast on a single 1.8 ghz Dell with 512 RAM, as my dual 2.5 G5 with 2.5 gb Ram!!! Remember, Pixar runs on x86 chips! Yes, of course, this has a lot to do with the coding, but fear not, I think this transition will be very good for 3D on the mac. Personally, I'm excited about the possibilities.
Message edited by russ munson on 6/7/2005 - 10:10 AM
|
|
6/7/2005 - 10:09 AM
|
|
|
Los Angeles, CA
367 posts
|
For the Lux guys here, have you any idea how difficult the transition will be for apps written in Codewarrior or the like to XCode? The thing that is the most unnerving after watching Job's speech this morning is that developers need to make the move to XCode in order to keep supporting the Mac... which means that this could be a harder transition that the one from OS9 -> OSX.
|
|
6/7/2005 - 10:09 AM
|
|
|
Martian Megalopolis, Olympus Mons, Mars
7710 posts
|
Quote from spinnage29 :
Marinello, I'm just as shocked as you--and I'm also a very loyal Mac user. That said, I have been very disappointed with 3D animation on the mac. I was dismayed, in my latest project, to find that mental ray for maya rendered just as fast on a single 1.8 ghz Dell with 512 RAM, as my dual 2.5 G5 with 2.5 gb Ram!!! Remember, Pixar runs on x86 chips! Yes, of course, this has a lot to do with the coding, but fear not, I think this transition will be very good for 3D on the mac. Personally, I'm excited about the possibilities.
I know I know. I am what others may call an 'overzealous mac user' and an avid 'evangelist'. So this is a huge leap for me. I have both PCs and Macs, however only the Mac is dear to my heart. I will give Steve/Apple the benifit of the doubt and wait to see what they can deliver. However I am pretty upset over a) How he promised 3GHZ in a year and failed to deliver 2 years later, and now b) How we are forced to upgrade all our software in order to run it 'natively' on the newer hardware in 06. I am still waiting for a Dual Core Dual Proc G5. (Which is really weird, because Microsoft is putting a triple core 3.2GHZ G5 into their XBOX 360 in November - so why can't Apple get those chips too? It makes me think like IBM is deliberately screwing Apple over.) Just think a triple core, dual processor G5 running at 3.2 GHZ would be any Mac users wet dream. And it will appear on a Microsoft XBOX before it appears in a Mac. Something is incredibly wrong in the universe.
Does this also mean the Mac users now get X86 Intel based viruses too?
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!" -George Patton
http://aoleonthemartiangirl.com
Message edited by Marinello2003 on 6/7/2005 - 10:40 AM
|
|
6/7/2005 - 10:24 AM
|
|
|
Martian Megalopolis, Olympus Mons, Mars
7710 posts
|
Quote from Beamtracer :
Marinello, it's a good idea to learn Linux anyway. No, it's not always easy. Take a look at Ubuntu Linux and Yellowdog Linux. For rendering, Linux makes a lot more sense than Windows.
Beam, The only reason I would use Linux is for making render nodes out of X86 Boxes such as Dell or Boxxtech for a render farm - using the LW screemer net linux node. Have you run the LW screemer net node on Linux? What version of Linux do you recommend for that purpose? I would not use it other than that.
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!" -George Patton
http://aoleonthemartiangirl.com
|
|
6/7/2005 - 10:50 AM
|
|
|
San Francisco
60 posts
|
Hey guys, I'll try to check this forum from time to time but am obviously quite busy on our little project. But, regarding Intel OS X, here's what I think I can say (WWDC is under NDA so I gotta be careful).
First off, yes, if you were in the Intel OS X lab yesterday, you would have seen me demoing modo running native on Intel OS X. As for questions about performance, it's impossible to say now. for one thing, these machines are nothing like what will finally be released. They're 3.6 GHz P4 Prescotts (I think they're prescott) with Intel on board graphics cards. Plus, I was using a debug modo and running it through XCode. So I'd advise against performance observations until there's real Apple hardware.
As for other apps porting - if you're using Codewarrior you're in for some work. Depending on the app, who knows how much. And if you're CFM and not mach, that means porting a bunch of code (like plugin loading). Also, if you have altivec, that's gotta go. I did run modo in translation mode (Rosetta is NOT an emulator) and it ran very, very well. I was very impressed with Rosetta. But, apps that use AltiVec WILL NOT RUN ON ROSETTA!!!! Rosetta runs most apps at about 900 MHz G3 speeds (that's what it will report - and G3 not G4 since there's no AltiVec).
Finally, everyone who is mad about this, I have to admit I felt weird yesterday, but you know what? It's just a mac. And when Apple hands you a dual core Pentium M based PowerBook, you're gonna be estatic and not care that it's got Intel inside! The porting is too bad, but I don't think they had much choice and at least this time, it's fairly safe to say Intel is not going to screw them over. OK, gotta get back to WWDC!
|
|
6/7/2005 - 11:48 AM
|
|
|
Los Angeles, CA
367 posts
|
Thanks for the insights, Matthew. I we'll just have to wait and see how smoothly this transition goes. Who knows, maybe my G5 will become a collectors item in a few years.
|
|
6/7/2005 - 1:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
