Attached Link: http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=424

Erlik, have you got a MAC? I need a favour if you would :-) Len. (Please - pretty please)

No, unfortunately. I'm PC only. Sorry.

I have a Mac. It's a G5 Imac. What can I do for you Len? David :p

I don't know what smack that guy's croaking but he obviously stayed on the turnip truck too long if he can't even operate a Mac.:-P I've loved all 6 of mine, especially my dual G5. Extremely reliable & a blast to use. :)

Attached Link: http://www.jokke.dk/media/balmer.html

Well since Mac is now using Intel it will not be long before they are no longer making an OS either and Windows will be their platform or at least a flavor of it. And they will make a Mac shell.

Well to ANYONE with a MAC I need a favour. I just need a MAC user to render a scene for me (ready made of course).

Actually, it's all Dan's fault ;-)

He once posted something about the 'Gamma' function on the MAC having an opposite effect to the PC. I really need to see a MAC render of my scene so I can see the differences.

It would just be a case of load it up and hit render!

Obviously, I don't have a MAC, and don't know if there's any difference in Bryce between IMAC and G5, so a render from both would be even cooler (although I know that's probably a bit greedy) :-)

Sorry for butting in like this Erlik!

Len.

Len, how long will the render take (best guess?). I'm in the middle of prepping my godforsaken taxes which is why I didn't volunteer earlier. If I can squeeze it in while doing this prep (entirely possible), will do.

What's your plan for file transfer? Is it too large for email or ftp or via IM or what?

~arry

Attached Link: http://downloads.pumeco.com/brand/pumeco/pro-render/Outdoor_Sun.br5

Got the file and the render is under way. My dual G5 only has a 1.5ghz processor so dunno how it will compare to your celeron's time. I don't have an Intel based Mac yet. ;)

If soft shadows needed to be enabled, please let me know and I'll start over. I'm using B5 and you know about that bug. I never upgraded to B5.5 due to bugginess, deciding to wait for B6.

I'll definitely post the result where you asked, no worries. ;)
~arry

Len - Bryce Mac and PC produce exactly the same values (more or less). It's the hardware that displays the rendered image differently.
So the only way to see the difference is to display your PC image on Mac hardware.

Message edited on: 02/18/2006 12:52

Is that what we're after? Because Dan is exactly right. Obviously the calibration will appear different on both as well. Makes me nuts when guessing how to set my brightness and contrast for gallery posts. I use PS's comparison, but still it's a guessing game between PC's and Macs. Not to mention the difference between CRT's and LCD monitors. I'm using an Apple Cinema monitor myself.

@ariannah Hopefully that bug won't matter, but depending how it comes out, at least I'll know if the settings carried-over to the MAC properly. Either way - it'd be great to see the MAC render if only for confirmation of any other abnormalities. Thanks for doing this ;-) @dan_whiteside Aaah, I see. I thought you originally meant that because the hardware is different, Bryces Gamma is set differently on the MAC. Thanks for pointing that out - it's a relief to hear that. Len.

Len, it's done and posted. I have no idea why it didn't take 2 hours. I hope I didn't do anything wrong. I just opened the file, kept your settings and let her fly. Anyway, hope this helps whatever it is you're after.

~arry

Big-time thanks! I've posted a reply in the thread - problem spotted! Len.

No prob, Len. Glad I could help.
I already replied and posted additional info as well. ;)

~arry

Message edited on: 02/18/2006 14:15

Arry and Pumeco - it didn't take nearly as long to render because the Celeron line of Intel chips doesn't have the more complex math capabilities for graphics that the Pentium line has - it's made to be a low-cost processor for general clerical office environments, and for people who only surf the web and use software that requires only simple graphics like word processing. The Pentium series would have gone faster, as would/did the G5 series - even G4 series processes faster graphics than the Celeron line. It also doesn't help that you, Arry, have a dual processor - way nice!

Ah nice - so me got me a crappy 'puter then :-D Len. (It was cheap though)

No, not crappy - just not of the really huge number-cruncher variety (which is why it was cheaper - it's designed to be less expensive to manufacture in general, since it'll be used for less demanding tasks). It'll take a little longer, but it'll get there. -Lew ;-)

Lew, I do love my G5. It was quite a change from rendering on the 800mhz processor of my Titanium powerbook, lol. Gawds knows it cost me enough, it better have been an improvement. But I liken it to driving a new car off the lot - the new & improved become so old so fast. Already I'm drooling in anticipation of more processor speed. Hopefully the new Intel Macs will deliever as much as they appear to be promising.

I've always wished the chasm between Macs and PC's could be lessened to allow users to make their own choice concerning which platform/software they decided to use and enjoy. With this change, perhaps my wish will come true. If nothing else, it certainly is going to make life in the computer/techno/software world in the coming months highly interesting.

~arry

"Well since Mac is now using Intel it will not be long before they are no longer making an OS either and Windows will be their platform or at least a flavor of it. And they will make a Mac shell." You must have read that article... This simply won't happen, the mac os is the only reason apple has a larger market share than boxx, alienware etc. And since windows ripped off apple's first OS, there's some bad blood there and steve jobs is not a man who forgets. This is the keynote adress for the orignal macintosh, and as you begin watching it you'll understand why apple will never ship windows with its machines: Lost 1984 videos It's also a blast to watch, very very fun. Also, that video has been around for about four years, he seems to be referring to using mac OS 9...and he rides the short bus. I think the intel switch will generate a lot more business for apple. It brings prices down, brings power up (at least for the low and midrange machines), and people will figure out how to put windows on it as an aftermarket choice (apple and microsoft both said they wouldn;t take steps to disallow it, but neither officially support it), so a LOT of people will be dual booting windows and OSX on the same machine. I think this will prompt a few of the big PC-only apps to consider a port to OSX when users write in and tell them they want to have a universal version of the application to use wherever, once they get used to OSX. These big players being softimage and 3dsmax...i'm not familiar with any other major CG software that won't run.

ariannah, you have a 1.5Ghz G5? I didn't know they made a 1.5Ghz? The quad core G5 is a beast of a machine...1 Terahertz of processing power! Makes me feel all old and expired with my dual 2Ghz G5.

max - yep, a 1.5 dual. I think it was one of the first desktop dual G5's Apple put out. Quite a change from my work powerbook (the Titanium). The dang thing was so heavy and box so huge I had to have help getting it out of my car and into the house. My G5's tower is very heavy! 'Course I'm of a fairly small build too, lol.

I agree with you about Job's never going to Windows. This has been circulating among the PC fori and discounted for many of the reasons you outlined above. IMO, Steve would be a fool to do so. His shares are growing, the Mac user base is growing and with the introduction of Intel based Macs I think things may greatly change for the Mac side in the next few years.

I have no problem with either platform. I think they both have their strong points. But as I've previously stated in other topics in this forum, my area of the film biz exclusively uses Macs so I use what affords me a way to make a living. Plus I have no complaints with Apple's current OS. It's stable, reliable and a blast to use. I've owned 6 Macs and have been a Mac user for 15 years with very few complaints. One Mac (the Classic II) was sold eons ago. The other 5 I still have and even though their operating systems may be old, all of them work - trouble free. Not a bad track record if you ask me.

I have nothing against PC users. I've always felt whatever floats your boat and meets your needs is the way to go. Sure there's been times I've been frustrated not being able to use a certain software, plug-in, utility, whatever, due to it not being available in the Mac variety. But even in light of this aspect, there must be a reason that so many Mac users remain loyal to their platform.

I used to consider owning a computer from both platforms if I could afford to do so. With the introduction of Intel based Macs and some time.....I wonder if I'll need to do so.

Before anyone considers giving me grief for my choice of OS, please know I respect anyone their choosing of a platform. Sure I may tease those of you PC users who like to make jests at us Mac users. When done in friendly fashion it can be a fun parley. But unless a major life change ensues, or Apple decides upon a different path that no longer suits my needs, you won't change my mind. In turn, I won't try and change yours. ;)

"I have nothing against PC users."
...Some of my best friends are PC users...

LOL, this OS malarky always makes me laugh. Of course it used to be a "platform" distinction, with 'Wintel' being jointly derided by MAColytes. But, now, all of a sudden... ;-)

"Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

Don't make me wet my pants, PJ.
It's far too early and besides......Sundays are a sacred day made for remaining in one's PJ's (no pun intended ;)...) for as long as possible.

:-D

I've used both and I equate it to Craftsman vs DeWalt - just pick which handle you happen to like best because when you're finished with a product no one will EVER know which one was used - we all bang the same nails (Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, etc.) which work the same no matter what brand hammer you use. I'm lost on one part of this thread, though - Apple possibly "...no longer making an OS either and Windows will be their platform or at least a flavor of it." Why on Earth would they do that? In fact, I think Apple ought to go the way of Microsoft - they almost have in that they don't make any of their hardware anymore aside from the cases - IBM (am I the ONLY one that found that one funny?!) and soon Intel make their CPUs, ATI and nVidia make their graphics cards, Kingston and PNY make their RAM, Piuoneer makes their "superdrive" and Maxtor Seagate and Western Digital make their hard drives. ALL of the above (other than the current IBM G5 CPUs) are available for any platform in existence - the only thing differentiating Mac is the OS anyway. For a while in the mid-90's they let others use their OS and there was a HUGE boon in MacOS sales (I myself was saving for a Power Computing model myself!) when Apple suddenyl realized these folks were competition for MACHINES and pulled the plug! Stupid move IMO! Right now Macs make up around 4% of worldwide computer sales - I think they'd be all over the place if they'd just made the OS and their lines of software - which are fantastic! As it is, because they see themselves as a "hardware" company, Microsoft invests in Apple (many people don't realize that) to keep them healthily afloat because if Apple goes under Microsoft will be in direct violation of Monopoly laws. And while I'm at it, Apple should make their software available to the Windows crowd - stomp in the other guy's playground and make a huge profit. I know the PC crowd would love Final Cut Pro, and if they brought Shake back to the PC world (they dropped the Windows version the moment they bought Nothing Real - much to the dismay of HUNDREDS of FX facilities using it!). They keep hindering possible revenue when they should jump right in and reap the benefits and profits. -Lew ;-)

"And since windows ripped off apple's first OS, there's some bad blood there and steve jobs is not a man who forgets." Er, they both ripped Xerox. Why do you think Apple dropped that lawsuit? And Lew, I heartily agree with you. Closing their architecture down was a way, way stupid move. Any such company either changed or went under. Where are the companies with proprietary memory modules? Where are the companies with proprietary expansion boards? It's all gone.

"Er, they both ripped Xerox."
Bingo! Thank you Erlik - many peops forget or aren't aware of this.
Unfortunately, IIRC, Xerox didn't realize just what they had on their hands with their intro of the GUI interface.

I've often wondered what the mucky-mucks at Xerox thought when they saw the popularity of the GUI interface and realized just what they let slip through their hands....

They sheepishly looked at each other and went, "...Ooops... I hope nobody remembers this...!" And for the great majority, they were right. Side thought/dream - if Apple just licensed their OS to anyone who wanted to build a computer (just like Microsoft), we'd see Mac OS Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc. Think about it - all computers use the same "parts" - the only reason the above mentioned are Windows and Linux is because they can BUY the license and use it. How would THAT be for competition?! -Lew ;-)

On a slightly more serious note...

It'll be interesting to see how this Mactel move pans out. As well as a secure hold on the publishing sector that they retain by default (in much the same way PhotoShop has remained top dog), Mac computers have flourished in their niche because they have been perceived as being better than PCs (more efficient, more stable). Plus, of course, their chic factor.

Macs certainly have been more efficient - that's why ariannah's 1.5Ghz device renders quicker than Len's 2.6Ghz Celeron and my 2.53Ghz P4. Wintel had to win the speed war by ugly, brute force - which they nearly always did, of course.

Macs certainly have been more stable overall. You'd hope so when the same company makes (or specifies) the hardware and the operating system (and a lot of the software that runs on it). Windows has to work on computers made by anybody, including Len and me. PC hardware has to work with other PC hardware made by anyone else. Although Lew is correct when he says Macs are made of bits of other people's hardware, it is also true that Apple carefully designs and controls what goes into machines carrying their name.

The move into Intel processors and Intel technology based motherboards will remove the efficiency advantage. Now PCs and Macs will run at the same speed for the same overhead, especially once Windows Vista is established and PC users can finally be rid of the bios. Further to that, the more competitive PC market will mean that PCs will now always be faster and cheaper than Macs.

If Apple move into direct competition with Microsoft and make their OS available to other computer builders, then their stability advantage might disappear. Microsoft has decades of experience in the area of compatibility; whereas Apple has deliberately sheltered itself from the requirement.

Even if stability isn't a problem, the question of inertia certainly will be. People continued to pay a lot for Microsoft Office when offered capable alternatives for free. Most of the business world knows how to use Windows and will have to be persuaded that the learning curve cost of MacOS is worth it. Linux is free and good, but is nowhere...

And with MacOS "out there", the bundling practises of Apple will suddenly be exposed to the same anti-competition scrutiny as Microsoft's.

I think, all else being equal, Apple-Mac will be forced to remain in its 'novelty' niche, and I suspect it may suffer now for being less novel. But 'all else being equal' means that Microsoft won't trip and fall badly for some reason. Bigger beasts have come tumbling down before.

Here's a bit on the origins of the user interface if you're interested: http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_horn1.html Apple has always had many of its parts manufactured by others, but it's the integration of components with each other and with the operating system that sets apple systems apart. The G3 and G4 series porcessors were handled by motorola, the G5 by IBM (The G5 was apple's big move to put high end macs back up to speed with the current high-end intela nd AMD boxes. When released, the apple was the fastest personal computer you could buy.) Now the next will be handled by intel. The only difference is the processor, and the price. Apple still makes the motherboards as they always have, so the integration of the processor with the rest of the computer will still be uniquely apple. The reason apple can't only be a software company goes beyond economics and rationality. Their OS is much better than windows (few would disagree) and they'd make oddles of money if they opened it up. BUT, Steve Jobs is a quirky, irrational fellow like most people and he has a vision of what a computer should be. It should be a harmony of software and hardware that is designed with an ordinary human user in mind: a user which makes mistakes, is clumsy, and wants tools that work well. The mashed together hardware so many PC manufacturers use goes against this dream, and OSX running on ye old bargain basement PC would probably no less buggy than windows, and it would not be in tune with the experience apple delivers. Apple follows the weak link policy: if one component is weak the system is weak, for both the hardware and software. THis is why you don't have lite-on drives in G5 powermacs, xga panels in macbooks, and generic DAC's in the ipod. Who knows though, never say never. Only fools say never.

"...designed with an ordinary human user in mind: a user which makes mistakes, is clumsy..." But Windows is that automatically, saving we users the effort. Always ahead...

hehehehe true, true

Madmax_br5 - I was pretty sure I read that Toshiba made the motherboards (to Apple's specs of course). The only other thing made to spec is the CPU,and apparently Intel didn't want to budge and change THEIR specs. Everything else is that exact same hardware you can get for all 3 major OS's - it's the drivers that make them work for each particular one - but I could take an ATI graphics card out of a Mac and slap it in a PC, download the correct driver (if for some odd reason it wasn't on the CD-ROM that came with it) and it'll work just fine. As far as the "few would disagree" - few MAC users would disagree. Windows users just don't care - that's the difference. Very few Windows users get up in arms over this argument - and the ones that do are loud enough that you'd THINK it was all of them, but most just don't care at all. They just want it to run their software, and be fast and cheap. Outright competition makes this possible - you've got to make it better-faster-cheaper than the next guy to stay on top. The lift from Xerox wasn't an exact copy - they merely took the ideas of grab, drag, and drop. They had a get together of designers and engineers to hash out every idea they could possibly come up with to make it user-friendly. Microsoft merely took THEIR ideas (just like Mac w/ Xerox) and hashed out their own. Both Mac and Windows are designed so that your average 8yr old can sit down and figure it out. I can't remember if it was Rolling Stone or Washington Post but there was a FUNNY article where the columnist sat with 2 MS technicians behind a one-way mirror as there were 2 teenagers on the other side with a set of tasks to complete on Windows and surfing the web - they were taking notes on how the teenagers did it and screwed it up so that they could come up with even more multiple ways of doing the same thing - the interviewer was stunned they weren't furious - they just shrugged and said this is what ALL YOUNGSTERS do, which is how you make it better. As far as "this one is easier than the other" - read just about EVERY post asking which 3D software is easier to use. "I tried using X but it was just this jumbled mix of icons I couldn't decipher - so I finally settled on Y because it's so much easier!" And the VERY next post reads, "I messed with Z but just got tired of pulling my hair out, but X was SO INCREDIBLY INTUITIVE!!" And yes, the G5 was Apple's jump to make theirs the top speed demon again, but it fell short - it actually WASN'T as fast if you read independent testing - the only thing it beat in the tests were machines supplied by the manufacturer that didn't seem to realize it was a speed test - you saw 2.4Gh (and without Hyperthreading) single processor machines with only 1Gb RAM in there up against the dual 1.5Gh G5 w/ 2Gb RAM. They're leaving IBM's chips behind because IBM just couldn't break the 3GH barrier. The first chip they came out with was only 1.25GH when Intel AND AMD were both over 3GH - IBM just couldn't compete on par with them. I think Apple can make software for other OS's (they do for LINUX anyway - just not Windows). And I think it has nothing to do with the dream - it's because Apple sees themselves as a "hardware" company - and in order to use their software they want you to be buying the hardware. When, in fact, if they just sold the software they'd make more money because they'd have a much bigger revenue outlet. Look at the iPod - I'm a product photographer and I can tell you that every OTHER standard MP3 player has the same digital inputs (and I'm not talking about USB or Firewire - think of chargers for each brand of phone). The iPod has its own specific digital connection if you want to plug it directly into a more "boombox" like player. When you buy the iPod, they want you to only be able to buy the APPLE hardware to play it a boombox.

max said:
"...you have a 1.5Ghz G5? I didn't know they made a 1.5Ghz?"

max - I now have my tail tucked meekly between my legs. I was on crack. I just took my G5 in for repairs. A first - it shut down last night out of the blue and won't power up. They reminded me I have a 2.5ghz processor. I was confusing my pocessor with my RAM which is 1.5 gigs. I'm going to upgrade and add on 2 gigs of RAM while it's there.

I was on crack in a huge way. Man, am I embarrassed. I used to know my own computer's configs. Sheesh at self. Let it never be said I'm not humble enough to come clean.

Thank Yahvo it's covered under AppleCare. Hopefully, I'll have it back in 2 days or less. They're not sure whether it's the power source or the logic board but are fairly sure it's not the HD. phwew I had almost completed my tax prep and was going to backup my Quicken database this morning. I guess my G5 had other ideas......=:-O

Oh no, the out-of-the-blue-screen-of-death.

What's your faulty computer again, ariannah, um? Speak up now. A, a, a Mac, did you say? Yes? A - Mac? Um, yes?

Good to know the irony gods are looking in. ;-)

(hope you get sorted quickly)
(never pictured you as a crack whore - just shows you never can tell nowadays ;-))

Mac, was it? Hmm?

"I was on crack." hahahhaha One of our G5's at school has had a similar problem, i'm guessing it's the power supply. Ahh so a dual 2.5Ghz...that explains a lot. Effectively you have a 5Ghz processor then, no wonder it didn't take two hours :)

YES it's a Mac and there was no blue screen of death, so nyaah! It's kind of hard to have that when your compy has gone dead. That's called the black screen of death. :-P

It's happily back home now. Love this Apple store although they said they don't usually turn around a repair in less then a day. Oh yes - that's A-P-P-L-E Mr. PJF, in case you didn't catch that. ;)

It wasn't exactly the power source but definitely related. Even the tech said it was a first for him. My G5 is liquid cooled and somehow the coolant leaked (much like a radiator) and the leaking fluid zapped the surrounding electrical parts, shutting it down. Thankfully they had all the necessary parts for repairs in stock and my ProCare got me fast service.

I'm loving the switch from 1.5 gigs RAM to 3. It's back to being speedy again so whoohoo!

~arry (no longer on crack... I hope) :D

p.s.: to max - 5Ghz processor did you say? Dang. I'm stoked.
p.s.s: I got to test drive an Intel iMac since the Macbook Pros won't be in for a couple days and all I can say was it was fast as heck. You clicked a dock icon and in one bounce, the application opened. Can't wait to see what the meatier versions will do - I'll bet they're screamin.

Message edited on: 02/21/2006 21:40

Intel is in the middle of a complete and utter redesign of their chips - from the ground up, they'll be a different architecture. I think we've only tasted the notion of "speed"! And it wouldn't surprise me if Apple also approached AMD about using their chips. If they can use one brand, they can use another - let the chips wars begin again! We ALL benefit! -Lew ;-)

LOL Lew! The coming months just might get verra inneresting. ;)

Oh and piffle on me. Guess I wasn't completely off crack yet. I added 2 gigs RAM so that now makes my total 3.5.

It's heck getting old and addled. :D

max - meant to ask something. if an application doesn't take advantage of the dual processors (which I thought most haven't yet), then doesn't that mean I'm still mainly running 2.5Ghz not 5? 'Splain me please so I can follow?

Well any application written in Xcode should support dual processors pretty much by default. Bryce does not because it's written in its own quirky language and has been around since before dual processor systems. But, you will still see a speed boost because you basically have a dedicated processor running bryce 100%. If you only had a single processor, not only is it trying to render in bryce, but it's sending data to the grapics card, and to the hard drive, and swapping data into RAM, and calculating lots of stuff for every open application, and especially in a consumer model like a celeron, it's not built to do that. A dual processor isn't just like having two processors, it's a bit smarter than that. It uses one for the menial tasks like loading your web pages and typing in word, and the other can be set free rendering at 100% without slowing anything else down. So feel free to rip cds, catch up on the forums, and import your photos while rendering, because nothing will slow down :) Oh by the way, you suck for having a faster G5 than me. :-P

beams

And thanks for explaining so well. That helped a lot. Yup.
Love you too, max. :-)

"Intel is in the middle of a complete and utter redesign of their chips - from the ground up, they'll be a different architecture. I think we've only tasted the notion of "speed"!"

The new "Core" design is essentially Pentium 3 technology.

I'm entirely unconvinced about us seeing significant speed improvements in the near to mid future, at least as far as Bryce is concerned. The marketing talk now is about power saving and efficiency for normal computing activities rather than raw number crunching power for games (and 3D rendering).

The techies have run into a limit of how fast they can make chips go, and their only recourse for now is to have multiple slower chips running together. Unless and until Bryce can take advantage of this parallelism approach (straightforwardly and reliably), then there isn't much in all this for us.