Attached Link: http://www.atomic-knights.de

Hello what is the difference between MAC and PC version of Poser ? When I add items to freestuff or marketplace I'm always being asked for what system it is. What elements of PC files do not work on MAC ?

Read thsi site http://www.soft-rabbit.com/

exe don't work on Macs, file names longer than 31 letters don't work on Macs, and texture pathnames that are longer than 64 letters don't work. Some immensely large obj files have problems. Think that is about it as long as the person has Maconvertor which is in freestuff.

With the advent of Poser 5 on Mac OS X, long file names (and path names) should work just fine. (And if they don't it's an application problem not an OS limitation.) Actually, I experimented just now by copying and renaming a file in my character library. It did work, although Poser seems to have gotten itself in a bit of a twist about it; when I selected the file it popped a dialog asking me to locate file ".cr2". When I selected the file in the dialog, though, it opened just fine. (The name display in the library was so small that it was completely illegible, so Poser would need some GUI work if they want long names to be practical.) Poser 4, however, will continue to be limited by the OS 9 filename limits. Also, Poser 5 shouldn't require MacConverter for most file other than to decode pcf geometry. (Though I haven't gotten a chance to experiment with unzipping raw PC files into my Poser 5 tree yet.)

True about Poser 5 but I think most people on the Mac aren't on 5 yet since it was so buggy for the PC.

I think most people on the Mac aren't on 5 yet since it was so buggy for the PC

Or simply because they're holding out to see whether DAZ Studio lives up to expections, eh? But unless you're sticking with Mac OS 9 for some reason, the mere fact that P5 runs native instead of under Classic represents an enormous improvement over P4.

And could that reason be that Poser 4 on OS 9 runs faster than Poser 5 on OSX? bB

Ting is a lot of people are still on OS9 as well :) But yep ... A lot of people are waiting for DAZ Studio .. It might be the one thing that makes me try OSX ... Have had it for 2 years and used it for a curse filled two hours maybe ... Too Windows to me LOL

Almost every application runs faster on OS 9 than on OS X.

Not my seat of Lightwave3D 7.5 :-) in fact the Newtek website indicates that Mac Lightwave Should be run on OSX and the recommended hardware requirments are higher for OS9. BTW for those interested I am *successfully* running poser5 on Mac OS 10.1.5 with 352 megs of RAM 300mhz processor but im getting a G5 in about 2 months :-)

I use OSX but I only have Poser 4. I'm leery of Poser 5, and I'm waiting for Daz Studio. :)

If the question is, "Do Classic apps run faster in a native OS9 environment than inside OS X's emulator," the answer is "usually." For less memory/processor intensive applications the difference is hard to tell, and I use a s-l-o-w 330MHz G4. If the question is, "Do apps made for OS 9 run faster in OS 9 than apps for OS X in OS X," I doubt it. C4D and Vue for OS X render raytracing faster than Poser 4 does its Phong shading, and I don't have any graphic accelerator hardware to exploit (these experiments were with OpenGL turned off in the apps' preferences, and even then I only have OpenGL in software). FWIW my Mac's a 7500 with a NewTek G4 cpu upgrade and 550 megs of memory in so many different denominations that memory interleaving isn't even possible. Eight years old and counting, and running Jaguar 10.2.8. Classic mode runs 9.2.2 and my original 1.5M boot drive still holds 9.1.

Almost every application runs faster on OS 9 than on OS X.

As duanemoody commented, most Classic applications will run faster in Mac OS 9 than Mac OS X -- they are, after all, Mac OS 9 apps and the emulation imposes some overhead as well as a different operating environment. The ones that behave most poorly (like Poser!) tend to be those that were coded to be CPU hogs, depending on being able to run as long as they want without interference. Which is something I always hated when running OS 9 anyway, and I consider that at best inconsiderate programming. Otherwise, most apps run as fast or faster under OS X, especially in 10.2 and later...

... but the resource demands are higher, and if you're short on memory or pushing a really old CPU too hard, you're likely to notice it more on OS X. Still, people with even relatively slow G4s (and even G3s!) get quite acceptable performance. And the benefits of OS X stability and flexibility are substantial. And of course on my dual processor system there's no comparison: with OS 9 half of my computer would be dead!