Topic - Luxology @ Macworld  San Francisco

And, just in case, we brought the modo 201 Universal Binary. You know, in case there might be something to show it on.

1/10/2006 - 11:17 AM

Prague, Czech Republic
372 posts

loocas

Just a question: Will there be any recording available on the web later to download? You know, those from far east who can't attend, it would really cheer us up! ;)

Quote from Matthew Craig :
...the modo 201 Universal Binary...

- Sorry for being dull, however, what is that? And what is it for? :D

- loocas duber | www.duber.cz

1/10/2006 - 3:44 PM

Son Kim

California
3687 posts

Quote from loocas :

- Sorry for being dull, however, what is that? And what is it for? :D

*Secret sauce*

The human race is going through a shift in consciousness, from 3D to 5D. Reattach to your higher self and wake up! 10/10/10-11/11/11-12/21/12

Message edited by Son Kim on 1/10/2006 - 4:11 PM

1/10/2006 - 4:11 PM

Not dull at all - it's only relevant for Mac users. A Universal Binary is a single application (modo in this case :) that runs natively on both Intel and PowerPC chips on OS X.

Quote from loocas :
Just a question: Will there be any recording available on the web later to download? You know, those from far east who can't attend, it would really cheer us up! ;)

- Sorry for being dull, however, what is that? And what is it for? :D

Message edited by Matt Craig on 1/10/2006 - 5:04 PM

Can I ask a really stupid question?

Does Universal Binary mean it will run optimised on both chips? Is there ANY difference in performance between the two?

Is there a difference like there was between OSX apps and OSX/OS9 apps?

Message edited by Chappo on 1/10/2006 - 5:23 PM

Universal Binaries contain execution code for both PPC and Intel chips. The operating system (OSX Tiger in this case) will load and execute the correct code based on the machine type you are on. PPC-only applications will need to run in Rosetta (e.g. translation mode) on the new Intel machines.

An application that is a universal binary should run as fast as a native intel-compiled application can run on that paticular machine.

There is a difference between Universal binaries and native PPC applications much like there was between Motorola 68xxx and PPC chips when we switched the PowerPC. OSX and OS9 were essentially running on the same chips, but with different OS services, so the comparison isn't quite the same.

HTH,
-K

Message edited by Henry Armitage on 1/10/2006 - 6:14 PM

1/10/2006 - 5:41 PM

There is no real difference comparable to the one between OS X and OS X/9 apps. It's just that it runs natively (without emulation) on both x86 Macs and PPC Macs. There is a performance difference, but only insofar that the different processors have different strengths and weaknesses. A universal binary does not perform worse on PPC than an only-PPC binary, for example.

Captain Obvious

London, UK
7321 posts

Quote from Chappo :
Can I ask a really stupid question?

Does Universal Binary mean it will run optimised on both chips? Is there ANY difference in performance between the two?

Is there a difference like there was between OSX apps and OSX/OS9 apps?

1/11/2006 - 2:31 AM

Prague, Czech Republic
372 posts

loocas

Quote from Matthew Craig :
Not dull at all - it's only relevant for Mac users. A Universal Binary is a single application (modo in this case :) that runs natively on both Intel and PowerPC chips on OS X.

All clear now, thank you :)

So, what about the recording of the event? ;)

- loocas duber | www.duber.cz

1/11/2006 - 4:54 AM

Dublin, Ireland.
610 posts

Nigel Baker

Hey Mathew,

How come you did not get room 201?

;-)

Keep Posting...

1/11/2006 - 9:26 AM

Will be ready an Universal Binary version of modo 103 for the people who buy a new iMac or MacBook Pro?

Jose Vergara

Madrid, SPAIN
400 posts

[Spanish Modo weblog]
http://www.mododigital.info

1/11/2006 - 10:18 AM

We'd like to. Our reliance on a third party library that is not yet intel native is the main issue here, but we hope to have a solution for 103 as soon as we can.

Quote from Jose Vergara :
Will be ready an Universal Binary version of modo 103 for the people who buy a new iMac or MacBook Pro?

1/11/2006 - 10:54 AM

What libraries are those, if I may ask?

Captain Obvious

London, UK
7321 posts

Quote from Matthew Craig :
We'd like to. Our reliance on a third party library that is not yet intel native is the main issue here, but we hope to have a solution for 103 as soon as we can.

FlexLM is the biggest issue for us. There are some others but without Flex we have no licensing.

BP

1/11/2006 - 1:01 PM

Zhaoqing, China
353 posts

kennez

As already mentioned, is there any chance of getting the demo as a downloadable movie? I'd really like to see all this, but as I'm over 4000 miles away, it's a little difficult.

Please, please, please set up a video for us to watch.

Cheers,
Malcolm

Cheers,
Malcolm

'England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty' - Vice Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson, 21st October, 1805

1/11/2006 - 1:06 PM

Couldn't you just skip the licensing and give it away? ;D

Captain Obvious

London, UK
7321 posts

Quote from BradPeebler :
FlexLM is the biggest issue for us. There are some others but without Flex we have no licensing.

BP

Wasn't FlexLM the culprit in the Modo 102 "Spinning Beachball of Death"? :)

1/11/2006 - 2:03 PM

I'll second the request. Thanks.

Kvaalen

Paris, France
394 posts

Quote from kennez :
As already mentioned, is there any chance of getting the demo as a downloadable movie? I'd really like to see all this, but as I'm over 4000 miles away, it's a little difficult.

Please, please, please set up a video for us to watch.

www.kvaalen.com

1/11/2006 - 2:10 PM

Yep. Love Macrovision. Love 'em!

Quote from Rabbitroo :
Wasn't FlexLM the culprit in the Modo 102 "Spinning Beachball of Death"? :)

(Starting to get off-topic... maybe moderate this and the preceeding comments to a licensing thread?)

I find Macrovision's software engineering to be questionable, at least on the PC. I have no experience with Macintoshes.

Anecdote: myself and some friends, all in the game industry, began to notice that after running MAX 5, systems "seemed slower". At first we thought it was just a misperception, but then we profiled our compile times and found that it was in fact true.

My friend finally isolated the problem by using perfmon. It turns out that having "cdilla" running (the Macrovision copy protection used by 3D Studio MAX) somehow effectively disabled disk caching on all our machines, resulting in severe performance penalties for any operation involving lots of disk access (ie., project compilation, editting movies, etc.)

End result: many people who paid for a legal version of MAX 5 got the present of poor disk performance from Autodesk, thanks to Macrovision. Anyone who didn't and used a cracked version, on the other hand, would have a nice speedy system.

My feeling has always been that copy protection should be a very straightforward process that does not involve system hacks. No matter how complex you make it, somebody somewhere is still going to crack it. Thus, doing all kinds of questionable low-level things like Macrovision does won't prevent any more piracy, but does create more headaches for legitimate users. History proves this to be true time and time again.

So, if Luxology has any inclination, I'd say just write your own simple authorization system and get rid of Macrovision. These are facts that weigh against them: they slow down your ability to port, introduce complexity into your build process, introduce potential system problems, and cost you money. Where are the facts in favor? All we have is the speculation that maybe it prevents some piracy. But until that's proven by some hard data, I claim they're nothing but snake-oil salesmen.

- Casey

1/11/2006 - 7:30 PM

I couldn't agree more. I've worked for more than one company who keeps boxed & shrinkwrapped copies of Maya on the shelf: they paid for the seats, but found it more effective to use the crack than to license the software legitimately.

I prefer Adobe and Apple's approach (Shake notwithstanding) and feel it reflects a user-oriented company attitude that Lux certainly matches, if not exceeds, in almost all other departments.

Bonus Light

Culver City, CA
3 posts

Quote from casey :
...doing all kinds of questionable low-level things like Macrovision does won't prevent any more piracy, but does create more headaches for legitimate users. History proves this to be true time and time again.

I was wondering, does modo currently run at all under Rosetta? And will there definitely be a universal binary of 103? Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions :-)

1/11/2006 - 8:47 PM

Yes, modo runs under Rosetta (201 and 103).

As for Flex - I'll simply say I agree with everyone who's posted here. We'll see what we can do...

Quote from Albert Morrissey :
I was wondering, does modo currently run at all under Rosetta? And will there definitely be a universal binary of 103? Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions :-)

1/12/2006 - 12:35 PM