Last Sunday Apple released a number of a new multimedia software — Shake 3.5, Final Cut Pro HD, DVD Studio Pro 3 and a new application, titled Motion. Apple starts making a big name in Hollywood and many creative studios are now opting for Apple’s products to do the main editing. Once upon a time, all this market belonged to SGI. In less than 2 years, Apple has managed to overturn this market into its advantage.More and more movie studios and animators are turning to Apple lately we hear, however the switching isn’t really happening from the Windows PC side but from the aging (and still expensive) SGI workstation side. SGI has moved fully to higher-end enterprise, higher-end visualization and military market and has forgotten the movie studios. They still offer small updates of IRIX every three months but representatives of SGI told me clearly already a year ago that the media market is not on their interest anymore.
And so Apple moved in to fill up the space and hurry up before most of these studios turn into Windows’ solutions or before they port their inhouse usually-*Motif-based software to Linux. And Apple is there in time indeed.
With purchases of a couple key companies who used to create such high-end multimedia applications (Logic, Shake) and the introduction of brand new apps like Final Cut Express, Motion and Soundtrack, Apple is filling up the space real quick. And then there are the third party software multimedia vendors with apps like Maya, MS Expression, Poser, Renderman, Photoshop, Avid Express Pro etc that really make the Mac platform more multimedia-oriented than ever.
A couple of weeks ago I called my brother and asked him what computer would like me to get him (PCs are cheaper here in USA than in Greece, so I tought I should replace his ancient half-working laptop). I mentioned on getting him an eMac and he said “what are you talking about? Do I look to you like a ‘painter’?” (he is an electrician btw). That (funny) statement made me think a lot on the image the Mac platform has created with the Classic Macs on countries where it is not very popular: mostly artists, newspapers and the like have Macs. Real-life Mac users are more hard to come by than in US (but yes, they do exist). The first Mac I ever saw myself was in 1989 in a newspaper pressing shop in the town I was living for. I think it was the only Mac in the town and the only one I saw in my area until I left Greece to relocate in UK in 1996 (now I have 3 of them in my office ;-).
With Steve Jobs saying yesterday that Apple has specifically decided to not compete in the low-end desktop market (not even in the corporate desktop market according to Jobs) but instead to focus on the iPod business and in the high-end workstation market, this image of Mac being “for artists” can only become stronger on both lower-income countries whose not all citizens can afford Macs, but also in USA — the stronghold of Apple.
But that’s not really a bad thing. SGI played on the same strength for years and they saw their business flourishing in the mid-90s. The fact that they couldn’t continue on the same success was mostly because of the extremely high prices and the fact that their hardware’s speed (per-CPU speed to be exact) and software’s innovation didn’t evolve as much the last few years. Apple can completely swamp up the market if they manage to get IBM to deliver faster G5s and if they could also deliver even higher-end workstations with 4 and 8 CPUs on each box. But even if this is not possible, Apple could drive the “donkey work” of rendering to cheap PCs running Linux or Windows with special add-on software.
Overall, I am pleased to see Apple becoming –once again– such a strong player in the media market. The only thing I am a bit concerned as a non-artist and as a person who doesn’t need an iPod or iTunes’ online song shop (Di.fm does all I need for my music needs), is the state of the desktop Mac and its future. According to Jobs, Apple is extra-focusing on multimedia and that’s cool. As long as they don’t take away the R&D, engineering time and development off the desktop Mac OS X and the desktop Mac hardware line that is.
Sorry mate, I’ll suggest you to google for old Shake announcements! Guess again, Shake has these features since stoneage (admitted, morphing needed a plugin, not included with the standard distribution IIRC).
I used Shake from 2.0 to 2.5, and Shake _allways_ had resolution independence, the node-based interface is what made Shake successfull many years ago, and Shake included an SDK (well, my 2.4 included one, maybe Apple removed this useless feature… ;-)).
Yet another hit:
discreet flint available for Linux (no OSX version planned, sorry… ;-))
http://www.commsdesign.com/press_releases/prnewswire/showPressRelea…
Firstly if all you are doing is web design, using a 2D paint program or editing then a gaming card such as ATI Radeon or NVIDIA FX will suit your needs. Workstation cards otherwise known as Professional Graphics Cards are required by many highend applications used in Film (ie: Maya, XSI, Houdini and even Shake). It’s suprising that Apple offers Shake on OSX while they list pro graphics cards are required for Linux but for some magical reason not for OSX. To a novice user they would believe Apple has done some miracle to make Shake work better on OSX than Linux so a gaming card is only required. Yeah, sure Jobs..we all believe that one..lol.
At one time gaming cards and pro graphics cards GPU chips were nearly identical. Once companies such as NVIDIA realized programmers were creating software hacks to enable pro features on gaming cards then the cards started to differ. Gaming cards have significantly improved but they still are not able to handle certain requirements of 3D animation software. For example take a look at the hardware qualifications for Maya on OSX (see link below) and you’ll notice the issues gaming cards had with this software. You wouldn’t be able to see such detailed models or fluid animation if movies such as LOTR and Matrix were created on anything but pro graphics cards. Creating detailed polygon and nurbs models, then animating on anything but a pro graphics card is a pain and you’ll experience typical crashes. Trying to create 3D effects on a gaming card is well..let’s say you better have a lot of time, a large bottle of tylenol and Tums
This may be one of the reasons Maya Unlimited was not offered on OSX due to it includes things such as Maya Paint, Fluid Effects, Fur, Hair, etc. Other highend 3D software such as XSI and Houdini are also not recommended for use with gaming hardware.
I’ve included some other links that may help clarify things for you concerning workstation (Pro) graphics cards. Alias R&D work closely with NVIDIA R&D so I thought these links would be more useful to you. Doing a Google search should find more results on other pro software requiring pro graphics.
Maya and Quadro FX:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_20030404_4242.html
Workstation Graphics:
http://www.nvidia.com/page/workstation.html
Maya Hardware Qualifications all platforms:
http://www.alias.com/eng/support/maya/qualified_hardware/index.jhtm…
Rendering:
http://www.alias.com/eng/products-services/maya/technical_features/…
Everyone knows there are a lot of great pro applications that are released for Linux, thanks for pointing them out. No one here is denying the fact that there are great software packages not available to the Mac. But I will stick by my earlier statements that FCP HD offers the most band for the buck in the market!
I have to admit, I’ve never used FCP myself (I looked over someones shoulder for some time, but that’s about it). He was very excited and impressed, but also told me that there are quite a few limitations. He was an Avid user before, but switching from DV to HD, Avid was to expensive.
I do little editing, and Cinelerra suits my needs. It has a butt-ugly interface, but it has the very best bang for the buck – it’s free! And more than sufficient for my use. BTW, it’s also available as a commercial turnkey system, with SMPTE-292/259 10bit SDI editing. Runs on Linux/ AMD64. Check the features:
http://www.lmahd.com/cinelerra.html
You are so right about Macs being a rarity in Greece. Greece is VERY PC centric.:(
But here I don’t see Macs anywhere, not even in graphics field. Just today I’ve come back after giving a job for printing, and he was very unhappy that I was unable to give him a CorelDRAW or pagemaker file for his PC.
Weird, here in the USA our (based on the company I work for) print vendors wouldn’t want to handle those two formats. Illustrator, Freehand or QuarkXPress are the three they prefer.
man.. Apple makes some serious inroads, and the nation of troll-ville awakens. This seems to happen on any Apple / Mac related article.
Grow up.
>man.. Apple makes some serious inroads,
Where is that printed or stated? I cannot find that anywhere, plus all most/all of the software and hardware in this field is comming out for sgi/windows/linux not for Mac that is a clear sign its not making inroads at the moment.
>and the nation of >troll-ville awakens. This seems to happen
>on any Apple / Mac related article.
No it does not, the person who placed this article makes the assumption that Mac/OSX is getting big in Hollywood and its surpressing SGI, this is false its more like Windows and Linux are killing SGI and Mac is just trying to get in…three dogs fight for a bone and the fourth…
But that is just not the case yet, far from that!
If that is difficult for you to accept then be enlightent, you can always put Linux on your Mac!
if your definition of enlightenment is career suicide then no thanks.
Linux is no match for OS X in the graphic design, desktop publishing and multimedia industry. If you think otherwise, then perhaps it is you who needs to be enlightened
I already thought you meant what you said regarding power, but you didn’t said that. Instead you used some metaphore Which i found broad. So i chose to respond to it, you explained futher what you meant and so the reader understands it even better now.
Also, the arrogant tone of you as a representee of your US military could even prove more than you’d wish when taking the recent events in the World in War in account…
“and about the business practice of using emulators like wine to save money- umm no. Not even a large company would save money by running their main apps through an emulator. It kills the UI consistency, causes incompatibilities, slows down the machine, introduces extra bugs, etc.”
That’s fine, because WINE isn’t an emulator. It is an implementation of the Windows API. I suggest you do your homework: go to winehq.org and read some documents over there about WHAT it is and also read the “debunking WINE myths” article. TIA!
You are also again making a classic mistake regarding fallacies. You use a broad logic of reasoning with which you try others to agree with after which you try to apply it to a single example which clearly proves the arguments you provide didn’t made them to lead to the conclusion that they shouldn’t walk down the path you detest.
I can easily give examples where all your fine ingredients are slashed to bits. However, that’s what i find pretty useless. Because the Disney example PROVES that WINE helps them save money.
Now, go use some broad FUD about “emulators” (which WINE actually even isn’t) and go make us believe it applies on this specific example where Disney uses Adobe’s Photoshop product to save the MS Windows tax.
“It kills the UI consistency”
Addressed in the article. Go read it.
“causes incompatibilities, introduces extra bugs”
Disney funded WINE to make Photoshop running *almost* perfect in WINE. Addressed in the article.
“slows down the machine”
According to my findings this is very minor in this specific example. In which extend this is true highly differs. I can’t remember wether this was addressed in the article.
“The world has WMD’s; i suggest we conquer we conquer it!” Now you must understand what i mean with global sentences which shouldn’t be applied on specific examples…
As I wrote earlier, no one is disputing the fact that Linux has its fair share of great applications that the Mac does not have. Apple’s killer application in this segment is Final Cut Pro. (and the tools that come with it) So tell me on Linux platform what is the comparable suite to Apple’s FCP? Main Actor? Cinelerra? LVE? I don’t think so!!!
Apple may not be taking over the 3D market but they are coming on strong with FCP in all segments of the video market.
Re:”Linux is no match for OS X in the graphic design, desktop publishing and multimedia industry. If you think otherwise, then perhaps it is you who needs to be enlightened”
I’m not disputing Apple is good for graphic design, desktop publishing or multimedia such as broadcast editing but that’s not what the article is about. It’s about the writer’s assumption that Apple is stealing the share SGI has in Hollywood. When the actual truth is SGI hasn’t had much of any market in Hollywood for quite some time due to Windows and Linux. Originally it was Windows swallowing the market even in Hollywood but in the last few years it’s been Linux making a major impact in this industry not Apple. When going for job interviews I’ve never been asked about Apple apps or OSX but I have been asked if I have experience on Linux and apps ported to Linux or are Open Sourced. The two distros I’ve been asked about are RedHat and SuSE, not Debian based distros or OSX.
When seeing the equipment at other studios it’s typically either a cross network of Linux/Windows or just Windows or just Linux. I’m not a professional editor but what I’ve heard from other editors is that Smoke kicks ass over anything out there on the market. Yes it’s expensive but they are not editing for just broadcast shows but for feature films. Also the turnkey system for Cinelerra which is constantly being improved on is nothing to laugh at. It may not be pretty but it offers powerful tools to get the job done. It also proves there is good support for Linux editing software and hardware.
Maybe you need to actually learn more about this industry and what is actually used in production studios not graphic design before shooting off comments. Instead of listening to biased articles or Apple propaganda I suggest you read something like CineFX or the 3DWorld magazine to get a better perspective on what is and what is not used in this industry. Hollywood is not the only place films are created. In Canada there are many shows, commercials, videos and films done in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, etc. Not to mention there are companies such as Weta Digital and The Mill, among many others around the world that do great work on Linux and Windows. Just because a company uses Shake on a production does not mean it was done on OSX. Shake is still preferred on Linux and reason why Apple dropped the price on the OSX version.
As for those that seem dissappointed I didn’t include Photoshop in my list of software that runs on Linux sorry. I listed Cinepaint because of studio support and just like other Linux software such as Smoke they offer film industry standards. Cinepaint is free and supports things like Maya IFF, Cineon, OpenEXR and 2K film. I also couldn’t fit all the software that is Open Sourced, ported to Linux or runs on Wine. Really there is so much choice when using Linux. That’s not being a zealot since I’ve compared Windows, Linux and OSX and found Linux best suited my needs and keeps clients happy.
Atleast most of the highend tools mentioned in this thread like pirahana and so on, were SGI’s mainstay market. Don’t make the mistake of claiming that linux and windows are making inroads, it is cheap hardware doing so. SGI’s hardware lagged and is now not worth the price premium, linux on intel is SGI’s new scape goat, so the push to port all the high-end tools lot linux.
But the same reason why linux is popular “cheaper but good enough is good” applies to the new software and hardware stack that the mac now has. All the high-end tools are ridiculously expensive, previously SGI’s systems + highend tools made up the cost equation. Now linux on x86 is cheap so x86 hardware + high-end software is the better cost equation. If the software available on the Mac is “good enough” and much cheaper that say pirahana or the other tools mentioned here, the cost equatiion favors the Mac. Linux on x86 is just a part of the cost equation. But if FCP, shake and the other software can provided most of the features of the high-end software, they may very well migrate and linux won’t be a reason to stay.
With the new G5 hardware and lots of new software and Pixar as a testbed, Jobs can create the mindshare the Mac needs to make serious inroads and displace all the expensive high-end rigs. The same way linux/windows on x86 displaced SGI.
>So tell me on Linux platform what is the comparable suite to
>Apple’s FCP? Main Actor? Cinelerra? LVE? I don’t think so!!!
Smoke (Discreet) is far more high-end than FCP and its NOT available for MAC. There are lots of more but you have to do some research yourself if your that ignorrant.
ps. You might think Cinerella is a toy but keep in mind its really really powerfull. I like it.
“You are also again making a classic mistake regarding fallacies. You use a broad logic of reasoning with which you try others to agree with after which you try to apply it to a single example which clearly proves the arguments you provide didn’t made them to lead to the conclusion that they shouldn’t walk down the path you detest.”
Wow, your english is very poor. You should have said that PIXAR was using linux to cut costs, so the device i was using as an argument FOR Macs was in fact an argument against them. Is that what you were trying to say?
Well, now that they HAVE switched to the G5, we will just have to see how well they do. It’s Steve’s money; if he knows he’s wasting it to promote the Mac, then i’d say he doesn’t get enough executive compensation.
I have FCP HD and I know how to use it without any training. Will film directors be able to use these other apps to produce their vision? Many have been forced to learn by people like you (i jest).
Ignorant…good one. What are you using your Discreet Smoke system for?
And I never said that Cinelerra wasn’t powerful, I just said it is no where near what Final Cut is? Have you ever used Final Cut Pro???
“Atleast most of the highend tools mentioned in this thread like pirahana and so on, were SGI’s mainstay market.”
SGI’s mainstay market was never Hollywood – that market just got the press. Their mainstay market was technical and scientific computing. It still is on the highend.
True. More important markets for sgi would be the aviation and military sector, targeting and control systems for planes and tanks, also control units for power plants, stuff like that.
>Ignorant…good one. What are you using your Discreet Smoke
>system for?
I have used it to do post and after effects, painting effects, color corrections and off course linear editing.
But my main tools where/are Houdini SideFX, 3Dstudio 4dos/max and Maya Unlimited i did once use Eddy form Softimage) I have worked for several companies in the past and started my own animation company in 1996 wich was bought out by another (bigger) company in the Netherlands. I made 3D viz. work for Nokia, KPN,ADC(prod.line),Amev(Glass houses project/Randstad),Philips (building Moss3 & Multimedia) i worked for ScreenDreamsDesign (Games) and did some linear videoediting for de Film Academy in Amsterdam.etc.
I know a lot of companies who are comitted to Linux and a lot more that are thinking about switching. Discreet will sooner or later relater 3DsMax for Linux and just like Avids Studio. Linux is the Future in multimedia/design/viz and animation/film not because its better then OSX or Window but because its Free, Open and runs on almost every hardware platform.
http://www.apple.com/pro/
Read there for a few hours and you will eat your useless words afterwards…
Apple products ARE being used for movies like X2, LOTR:ROTK, Matrix, etc. and remastered DVDs like Indiana Jones Collection and the awesome up and coming Star Wars Trilogy Collection…
Read there IF you have the guts to eat your pathetic flaming words afterwards :p
SGI’s mainstay market was never Hollywood – that market just got the press. Their mainstay market was technical and scientific computing. It still is on the highend.
Hmmm the graphics in Silicon Graphics Inc. must be just marketing then. Smoke, Pirhana and many of the applications mentioned in this very thread were primarily SGI IRIX versions which are now ported to linux on x86. If these applications were IRIX only I fail to see how Hollywood was never SGI’s mainstay market.
“Hmmm the graphics in Silicon Graphics Inc. must be just marketing then. Smoke, Pirhana and many of the applications mentioned in this very thread were primarily SGI IRIX versions which are now ported to linux on x86. If these applications were IRIX only I fail to see how Hollywood was never SGI’s mainstay market. ”
The technical market makes heavy use of “Graphics”. If you’d ever both to check their SEC filings, you’d see that this (Hollywood) isn’t and hasn’t been their primary market, just that one that gets the attention in the press.
“Wow, your english is very poor.”
How important! Your Dutch is worse. How important!
“You should have said that PIXAR was using linux to cut costs, so the device i was using as an argument FOR Macs was in fact an argument against them. Is that what you were trying to say?”
No, Disney:
http://www.kerneltraffic.org/wine/wn20030808_182.html
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/08/05/1552255.shtml?tid=106&tid=185
I have read nothing about them switching to propritary Apple hardware to cut down costs.
“Hmmm the graphics in Silicon Graphics Inc. must be just marketing then.”
Well i believe that’s why they changed their name to “SGI”. Their core business kinda changed to high-end and clustering instead of thin-clients and low-end workstations (Personal Workstation, Indy, I2, Octane, and all the older ones versus Origin2000, Tezro)
“True. More important markets for sgi would be the aviation and military sector, targeting and control systems for planes and tanks, also control units for power plants, stuff like that. ”
More like tools used to develop said control systems, not the control systems themselves, but the defense and technical sectors are and always were their primary markets.
>http://www.apple.com/pro/
>Read there for a few hours and you will eat your useless
>words afterwards..
You just fell into the hands of the Apple PR people.
Off Course they write how good and beautifull their products are thats common business, I feel sorry for you.
But again its not about that Apple is not being used in some
degree but the original article was about the fact that MacOSX is geeting big in hollywood and supressing SGI wich is NOT the case. MacOSX is small in Hollywood Windows and Linux are BIG and those are the ones that get used widley. Not MacOSX nor will it be in the near future.
About LOTR and SGI
ttp://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1015392993
The technical market makes heavy use of “Graphics”. If you’d ever both to check their SEC filings, you’d see that this (Hollywood) isn’t and hasn’t been their primary market, just that one that gets the attention in the press.
SGI’s foray into the technical computing began with thier acquisition of Cray in 1996. Prior to the acquisition the company’s primarily market was Hollywood and visualization. If you are talking about SGI today, yes they are more into technical comupting and scientific markets.
That’s primarily because of what most of this thread is about. The highend applications that hollywood dependeds ran only on SGI machines. Now with SGI’s inability to keep up with intel/AMD/NVIDIA/ATI, linux on said hardware are eating into the market SGI began with, SGI themselves are responsible for this push, they began the move to intel hardware, with the release of thier NT workstation.
SGI acquired Cray to expand it’s business, then spun it off again.
More about Linux multimedia applications:
http://linuxmovies.sourceforge.net
T.I.H.,
We are not ignorant anti-Apple people as you stated but instead are artists pointing out inaccuracies in the article that tends to mislead readers.
As for the Apple link thanks as it’s good reading. Like I said before Apple does have it’s place. It’s just not so widely used in film as Apple and the article would like you to believe. Sure it’s great to cut cost on software and hardware as long as your production doesn’t suffer.
RE:”Apple products ARE being used for movies like X2, LOTR:ROTK, Matrix, etc. and remastered DVDs like Indiana Jones Collection and the awesome up and coming Star Wars Trilogy Collection…”
A few things to clarify. Among the proprietory tools used by Weta (LOTR Trilogy) and ESC (Matrix Trilogy) the software for 3D was Alias Maya Unlimited not offered on OSX basically due to poor graphics hardware support for 3D. Maya Complete for OSX does not have Cloth, Paint FX or Fluids among other tools found in Unlimited which were used extensively in both movies. Shake was used which is a cool and powerful piece of software in the production line but lets not credit Apple for something they had little to do with. Nothing Real is the one we should credit with creating such a powerful app. Apple has done little to advance Shake since they purchased it from Nothing Real.
As for Apple DVD authoring software being used by some 3rd party company to make Starwars available for sale/rental in your local video store I’m not impressed. A lot of the software used at ILM for creating Starwars EP1/2/3 and the long list of other movies, commercials and videos they work on is custom made inhouse for ILM on Linux. As well as proprietory software used such as Maya Unlimited which is ported to Linux. If I recall correctly their compositing software is called CompTime which is something they created inhouse that runs on Linux. They aren’t the only major film studio that uses Linux when creating animation and visual effect but they are a good example how well Linux has done in the industry.
I think Apple will be able to compete in the film industry for animation and visual effects when it eventually gets wider support for applications and offers professional graphics hardware. One day hopefully in the near future when studios see companies such as Softimage, SideFX and Alias (Maya Unlimited), Discreet (Smoke) porting their software to Apple because it has finally produced a workstation and not a desktop then they will be taken seriously. The dual G5 procs are great, OSX is cool but the graphics hardware sucks for what we need it to do. There is just to much limitation on software and graphics hardware that is currently used in this industry. Only by Apple customers and consumers speaking up will we ever get Apple to offer a real workstation and not just a desktop that looks cool.
“SGI’s foray into the technical computing began with thier acquisition of Cray in 1996. Prior to the acquisition the company’s primarily market was Hollywood and visualization. If you are talking about SGI today, yes they are more into technical comupting and scientific markets.”
Supercomputer-level technical computing, yes. However, SGI’s primary market before that was STILL technical computing – just primarily workstations. Hollywood just
isn’t – and wasn’t especially then – a big enough market to sustain a company like SGI. Hollywood was never their mainstay and isn’t now. “Visualization” most certainly is used in technical computing. There’s far more to “graphics” than pretty pictures for entertainment.
Supercomputer-level technical computing, yes. However, SGI’s primary market before that was STILL technical computing – just primarily workstations. Hollywood just
isn’t – and wasn’t especially then – a big enough market to sustain a company like SGI. Hollywood was never their mainstay and isn’t now. “Visualization” most certainly is used in technical computing. There’s far more to “graphics” than pretty pictures for entertainment.
You are right. The point I was trying to make still stands. Or I should rephrase that one sentence, “Atleast most of the highend tools mentioned in this thread like pirahana and so on, were SGI’s mainstay market. ”
Atleast most of the highend tools mentioned in this thread like pirahana, smole and so on, were primarily on SGI.
The point I am trying to make still stands. It is not linux but the cheap hardware and UNIX like os that run on those cheap hardware that makes it easy to port the IRIX apps to.
“Atleast most of the highend tools mentioned in this thread like pirahana, smole and so on, were primarily on SGI.”
That doesn’t follow. Just because those applications were only available on IRIX doesn’t make it SGI’s primary market. It’s a *visible* one, but that’s not the same thing.
“The point I am trying to make still stands. It is not linux but the cheap hardware and UNIX like os that run on those cheap hardware that makes it easy to port the IRIX apps to.”
This is correct. Although NT shares some of the blame with Linux.
That doesn’t follow. Just because those applications were only available on IRIX doesn’t make it SGI’s primary market. It’s a *visible* one, but that’s not the same thing.
I thought I just said you were right, that media wasn’t SGI’s market. But it is also right that all those tools were primarily only available for SGI machines. Making the hollywood market dominated by SGI hardware and IRIX.
I was pointing out that it is not linux that is responsible for SGI’s demise in that market, it is cheaper hardware. Linux and windows predominantely run on that hardware. There are no other OSes that have the wide spread appeal of windows and linux on the x86 platfrom. Linux is closer to IRIX in terms of Unix APIs and X11R6 making it easier for companies to port thier applications. That is the primary reason for linux’s sudden uptick in the media market.
I thought I just said you were right, that media wasn’t SGI’s market.
primary market
“were SGI’s mainstay market. ”
Sorry. I suppose I misread.
If Eugenia Loli-Queru actually walked into a post-production house in Hollywood he would racks of SGI servers and storage. He would see clustered filesystems with Windows and Linux clients. He would see some Mac boxes. He would still see IRIX workstations being used every day because for some things they are still the only machine on the planet that can do it.
“If Eugenia Loli-Queru actually walked into a post-production house in Hollywood he would racks ”
“He” is a “she”.
“He would still see IRIX workstations being used every day because for some things they are still the only machine on the planet that can do it.”
Actually, except for a few VERY narrow things (48-bit color on VPro) that isn’t true anymore – at least not on the desktop. You would see pro-grade graphics hardware in those PC workstations. You’ll still see IRIX workstations, but not really for that reason.
My apologies to Eugenia for assuming she was a he.
Frustrated isn’t officially responding for SGI?
i believe what you say. I am rather wondering about numbers. Keeping in mind these aren’t always representive (lies, damn lies, …).
Oh yeah and thanks for the fish. Thanks to SGI the Dutch AMSIX datacenter provides internet to the whole country :>
What would happen if Apple were to release OSX support for all processors instead of PPC? I wonder why Jobs and the board members at Apple have never considered this? Linux for example used by the industry is capable of running on all platforms, including Apple’s PPC. After all locking your OS to only specific hardware limits your clients ability to run on differant system configurations which is unattractive to most consumers. We want choice and not feel as though we are locked in. This is an example as to why SGI failed to attract the film industry. At first SGI seemed like the must have system since software for film originally ran only on IRIX. That was back in the days of Softimage 3D, Aliaswavefront PowerAnimator, etc running on workstations from SGI that cost the price of a new sports car. Little has changed with SGI except on their server end. The industry has since moved to Intel/AMD systems running Windows and Linux which are cost efficient, offer more choice and can compete with SGI’s workstations. Limiting consumers on options by attempting to lock them in to sell only your software and hardware will eventually cause a company to fail. GUI Eye candy alone is not what this industry wants or needs. We want tools that work well while offering more choice on what software and hardware to use. Hopefully Apple will realize this and be more open minded instead of thinking of the mighty dollar to line their wallets.
What would happen if Apple were to release OSX support for all processors instead of PPC? I wonder why Jobs and the board members at Apple have never considered this? Linux for example used by the industry is capable of running on all platforms, including Apple’s PPC.
I don’t understand this argument. Linux in the industry is primarily linux on x86, it doesn’t matter how many platforms linux runs on you are limited to x86. All the ISVs aren’t going to support linux on ten different hardware architectures, they will pick the most popular, which is x86. So while you might get a choice in vendors to pick the hardware you are eventually stuck with x86.
With the Macintosh’s customer base or any customer base for instance, they would just walk into best buy and buy say quicken for windows or Mac. You are saying that there should be a quicken for Mac on PPC and x86. It gets confusing to the enduser. “It says MacOS X on the box so it must work on my imac”, walks home to puts the “MacOS X x86 version” the iMac sptis the CD out and the user is confused.
Not just users but ISV’s now instead of supporting two versions say linux/x86 macOS X/ppc have to also start supporting all the permutations an combinations of thier software releases.
All these are the reasons why it makes not sense to support MacOS X on x86 and PPC together. If apple transitions to x86 only fine, but they risc breaking binary compatibility and pissing off thier loyal customer base.
By the way OpenDarwin is open source and runs on x86. OpenDarwin is the MacOS X kernel analogous to linux. Linux is a kernel.
I don’t understand why you are confused about my post. I know Linux is the kernel but it’s used as a general term when speaking about the OS even though there are more than one distro using the Linux kernel. Just like when someone asks if I use Linux I say “Yes I use SuSE Linux”. Though when my friend tells people he is using OSX I know he uses a Mac because that’s all OSX runs on. When someone says they are using Linux depending on the distro that could be on an x86 system or running on a Mac. Not every Linux distro ports to Mac but some do. Just as some software and hardware companies port to more than one OS. If other companies can do it then so can Apple.
As for the Darwin comment I have yet to see someone install a current version of OSX on an x86 platform. Take a look at Apple’s site for the system requirements of their OSX OS. Intel and AMD procs are not listed. Apple supports their select hardware and not other hardware such as the wide range of Intel and AMD procs supported on Windows and Linux. If Apple R&D would make an effort to offer a wider support base for other hardware then they should be able to compete at least with their OS. Right now the way things stand if you plan on purchasing OSX you can forget about using it on anything but a Mac. That’s the differance between Apple’s OSX and Linux distros. They may be similar with the kernel but when it comes to offering a wide range of support Linux distros such as RedHat will out beat OSX everytime. This is just another reason why Linux is so popular with the film industry.
Right now the way things stand if you plan on purchasing OSX you can forget about using it on anything but a Mac.
Thier customers like it that was that’s what it means to be a systems company. Apple wouldn’t survive if they ported ther OS to x86, the market os saturated with windows and linux, the lack of software support for OS X on x86 wouldn’t let the platform take off.
That’s the differance between Apple’s OSX and Linux distros. They may be similar with the kernel but when it comes to offering a wide range of support Linux distros such as RedHat will out beat OSX everytime. This is just another reason why Linux is so popular with the film industry.
Where can I buy SUSE 9.1 for SPARC to run on my ultra10? Or Redhat Enterprise linux for SPARC for that matter?
No linux is popular because it runs on x86 hardware which is 90+% of the worlds desktop systems. Linux has not market on any other architecture, a few people running yellow dog on thier PPC machines as a hobby is not an industry.