I'm looking for any type of guidance because I'm planning on buying a new system and considering Vista 64 or XP 64 will my poser 7 work on these along with lightwave9 and Vue6 INF I want to get the right configuration to appease these programs. Any help any one is willing to give will be much appreciated thanks!

Absolutely.
I'm running Windows XP Pro x64 bit, Poser 7

The biggest benefit to 64 bit is memory handling and all those programs you mentioned benefit from more memory.
If you're buying an "off-the-rack" pc,  get one with four dual channel DDR2 RAM slots, and you can get up to 8 gigs of RAM into it.
Avoid a machine with integrated graphics, as the video card is part of the motherboard and can't be updated, plus it uses system RAM, taking it away from your apps. It's better to have an available PCI-e x16 slot for a good 3rd party video card, and disable the integrated graphics if it has it. Which most of them do.
64 bit XP and Vista are both great operating systems, but in the end it's the hardware that makes the real difference.

2/29/08

Avoid Windows Multimedia. It is 32 bit, and is not really XP Pro with bells and whistles as it was advertised. It is more like XP Home with some extra drivers and junk that makes it run slower. It will not use the /3GB switch.

Question for anyone who knows:

My mother board is clearly 32 bit, the memory (4 gigs) is 32 bit. I can't find anything that says so but I thik the Intel Dual Core processor is 32 bit. I would like to update the operating system from Multimedia, and XP Pro (32 bit) costs the same as XP Pro 64 bit. Will XP 64 run on my system, and would there be any advantage to me to use XP 64 on an otherwise 32 bit system? The Gateway sites does not cover this information on my model.

LMK

You can't run a 64 bit OS on a 32 bit system, i.e., a 32 bit cpu. The installer won't even try, just give you a message saying so.

Best bet is to replace the motherboard with an intel-based 775 or an AM2 for Athlon. My guess is though you'd be lucky to find a 64 bit motherboard to fit in a proprietary Gateway ATX chassis designed for a 32 bit machine. I wouldn't even try it without talking to them first. They want you to buy a whole new computer, not upgrade. Planned Obsolescence and all that. The beauty of OEM.
Not to mention, the case might not be the best suited for the additional heat of more memory and a newer cpu.

I'm running Poser 7 on a dual core Vista 64 bit system (CPU Intel 6850) and it runs both faster and will handle larger more complex scenes than I got with a comparable 32 bit environment. So far the other 32 apps seem to run without a hitch as well. Part of the advantage of running 32 bit apps in a 64 bit environment is that you get more of the address space devoted to application code because the elements of the kernel can be run outside of the 32 bit VM leaving more address space for your app. The second core is also very helpful with the muti-threaded Poser 7 render engine.

Ikendall,
Actually some of the DuoCores will run x64bit, but I believe it's only a few (???), not sure on that, you would need to research which ones will.

I know for a fact that the DuoCore 2.6 will run x64bit, because that's what I'm running, but it might be very specific which ones will.
Sorry I can't help you more I'm not a computer geek, I just do some research and then build my own.

2/29/08

I'm fairly sure that the bit bottle-neck on my computer is the memory and the motherboard. The Processor is a Pentium D 2.8 GHz, which is EM64T capable. According to my research that means that it is a 64 bit processor.

The mother board is an Intel board, and can only address 4 GB. I read a message from a technician that said these boards made compromises on design that made the second pair of chips actually slow the system down, regardless of the quality or speed of the memory sticks.

If Poser 7 Pro (Basic) will indeed allow for speading renders over a network. It would be smarter to get a seperate QUAD core computer, but be able to use the one I already have on the network for a several system renderfarm.

I feel that XP Pro would be more stable than Multimedia, and might let me use the /3GB switch to access more than 2 GB per program.

I have ATX cases coming out of my ears, and a 600 watt powersupply waiting for a MB. I have not seen a good bundle of MB, processor, and memory that together with a new HD and OS would come in at less than $550 dollars. XP Pro and XP Pro 64 cost $140.

LMK

I believe (but not sure, again) that would have to enable your 4 gigs of ram through the BIOS, so that goes back to your mobo if it will allow that to happen or not, I'm sure you already know this though so sorry for repeating something you know.

Poser 7 works on my Windows XP x64 edition quad core. Check back if you have difficulty selecting body parts. There was an issue with my Radeon driver that required a workaround. It could be my imagination, but Poser seems a bit more stable, although it still slows down when you add more than a few figures to a scene. I believe the memory limit for 32 bit programs, even on a 64 bit system with 8 gigs of RAM is 3 gigs.

While you system is getting all four gigs, I believe Poser only uses 3+ gigs due to built-in software limitations. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

No, you are propbably right...I was thinking system ram and not Poser ram...hence; the name my system is registered to.

lol, I missed that the first time.

On 64 bit OS, Poser 7 can use the full 4 GB.
On WinXP Pro 32 bit with the /3GB switch, Poser 7 can use up to 3 GB
On WinXP Mediacenter 32 bit, it's limited to 2 GB

Poser 6 and earlier are limited to 2GB, doesn't matter what OS.

2/29/08

svdl:

My processor is 64 bit, my MB and meory is 32 bit. Would my computer run XP 64? And would it make a difference over XP Pro 32 (as I mentioned, I can get them both for the same price).

LMK

On 64 bit OS, Poser 7 can use the full 4 GB. What if your system has the full 8 GB? Is Poser still limited to 4 GB?

So If I purchase Vista Ultimate 64bit Run a Intel Quad Q6600 processor, Geforce 8800 GT , 8 gigs of RAM, Video card 512mb  what motherboard , and hard drives would you suggest? I was considering ordering from cyberpowerpc.com any other suggestions? Poser 7 Lightwave 9 and Vue 6 Inf are my target applications please be as specific as possible with suggestions 

also I have the Windows 2000/ XP version of Poser 7 do I need a patch of some sort to make it compatible with Vista ultimate 64 or is that even possible..if it is where would I get it?

I'm using an ASUS motherboard but most people recommend sticking with Intel.

SATAII drives are nice but might give some headaches if used for boot drives.  Don't know about Vista 64-bit, but XP Pro x64 requires that you have a disc with the 64-bit SATA drivers so that you can do this.

Poser 7 is 32-bit but already supports that particular setting to address 4GB.  Poser 7 Pro is supposed to have 64-bit support.

Aside: It's March 1 and still no sign seven, eight, nine months since the first release estimate.  Yeah, people would rather wait for it to be done correctly.  How many more years will that take exactly (Spring is 19 days away)?  It might get done, but I'm now moving my estimate to September.

I also have a Asus mobo P5B Deluxe. Been using Asus for 2 years now, they are great boards.

Hard drives I use Maxtor. But I would stay away from WesternDigital.

So no patch? Any other suggestions on where I could find that kinda info?

Quote - I also have a Asus mobo P5B Deluxe. Been using Asus for 2 years now, they are great boards.

Hard drives I use Maxtor. But I would stay away from WesternDigital.

Agreed on Asus. I have an Asus  nvidia 590 AM2 board, and have been using Asus since I first started building my own, five years ago.
But, what's wrong with WD? I have four Western Digital SATA HDD's in this box, and all are going strong. One of them is almost four years old, and I have another WD in my other PC which is almost five years old and still passing boot tests and working well.

I've had some issues with one, so it's just a personal preference, nothing more nothing less.

Most definitely understandable. :-)

Mainboard: not too many bells and whistles. The more stuff on the mainboard, the more potential conflicts.
For Intel CPUs I'd recommend mainboards based on an Intel chipset. P35 is the most common chipset right now, and it works just fine.
SATA-II drives: Vista installs out of the box. XP needs drivers on install. That can be a pain when the new machine has no floppy drive.
Luckily, you can incorporate those drivers into an XP install CD using nLite (freeware). It's easy to create a custom XP install CD that way.
Brands of mainboard - I've had good experiences in the past with MSI and Asus, but my latest Asus mainboard had a lot of trouble. First one broke in a couple of month, got another one under warranty that didn't work at all, the third one (I still have it), works, but some of the goodies have problems.
I'd stick with MSI, Gigabyte, Abit or Intel.

If you plan to use multiple monitors, you cannot use SLI (two nVidia graphics cards working in tandem) or Crossfire (two ATI graphics cards working in tandem). Stick to a single graphics card. As of now, an nVidia 8800 GT is by far the best value for money. Don't fall for an ATI, their OpenGL support is too flaky.

Hard drives: Samsung is good. And very affordable. Maybe not the fastest (WD Raptors are FAST - but very expensive), but great mainstream drives. And they're silent.
Seagate Barracuda is also good.

For speed, I'd definitely recommend installing more than one drive. By distributing OS, applications and data across multiple drives you can gain quite a bit of performance.

No use going for expensive fast memory. You'll get a performance increase of 1-2%, which is not worth it. DDR3 is too expensive, right now DDR2-800 is the best value for money.
And get lots of RAM. I can definitely recommend installing 8 GB.

Ah, but you can have an SLI setup, you just have to disable it for windowed apps, and re-enable it for games. Multiple monitor or not. :-)

For now. I'd hope the next Windoze can deal with multiple GPU's... or is it that apps need to be specifically written for it?

With that 8 gigs of RAM, make sure the mobo is delivering the voltage. My RAM is DDR2 800 (PC2 6400), but only at 2.1 volts. The mobo only wanted to give it 1.9 by default BIOS settings.

I'm XP 64 bit AMD and I still have problems with render speed and Poser 7 just crashing.

MikeJ: it's the nVidia/ATI drivers that need to be updated for multiple monitor use. That's sometihng MS can do nothing about.

Probably because Poser only fakes using what your system offers. It thinks it can handle multi-threading, but one or more cores gives up after it finishes its part and watches the others struggle on while offering no assistance.

Quote - MikeJ: it's the nVidia/ATI drivers that need to be updated for multiple monitor use. That's sometihng MS can do nothing about.

SLI can't be achieved in windowed apps, period. Maybe one GPU of an SLI tandem can be used, but neither video memory nor graphics processing can be used consecutively by two video cards in one windowed app.

SLI has nothing to do with multiple monitor usage in applications.
Although it is true it's not MS's fault. The Nvidia hardware actually has within it the capabilities, but the drivers are verbotten. ;-)

Well, that's a Mac. They're like, superhuman or something. At least that's what the Mac people say. ;-)

But seriously - is it possible to have a 64 bit cpu on a 32 bit board? SO what exactly is it that makes a mobo 32 or 64 bit anyway?

However it seems kind of a waste to me. The price of a good 64 bit mobo is less than that of a good 64 bit cpu. It would seem to me, might as well update the board along with the cpu.

Believe it or not there is no such thing as a '64 bit mobo' simply because the common Intel and AMD CPUs are not really 64 bit CPUs. They are instead 32 bit CPUs with additional hardware for dealing with 64 bit code. As proof, you only have to look at various cards you install in your mobo, all of which (sound, network etc) are 32 bit cards even on a core 2 duo or amd64 CPU. A true 64 bit mobo would require 64 bit versions of such cards.

The 'bitness' of your system on 64 bit CPUs, is determined solely by what OS youre running. If it's a 32 bit one, then the CPU runs in 32 bit. If it's 64 bit then also it runs in 32 bit, except that when the OS needs to run a 64 bit app, it simply switches on that extra hardware the CPU has and runs the app in 64 bits.

Also be very careful with upping RAM volts like that. RAM is perhaps the most sensitive hardware in your system and it takes very little to fry it. If you are running it at stock speeds, then you shouldnt really need to increase it at all.

Thank you for the explanation. I honestly wasn't aware of that.

I agree on being careful with RAM voltage. If you're referring to what I said about upping it to 2.1 volts, it's because by default my mobo had the voltage set at 1.9. The RAM specs did in fact say to give it 2.1 volts. Haven't had any problems.
I've been tempted to try OC'ing and I even bought a huge heatsink/fan combo for my cpu for when I decide to do that... just haven't had the nerve to give it a go yet. ;-)

The Mac isn't completely 64-bit (eh hem).  With Leopard 10.5 (!), the kernel and frameworks have been made 64-bit.  I'm not certain that anything in that screenshot regards it either.  Multiple CPUs isn't a 64-bit thing - I've been running dual processors since 2000 under Windows 32-bit (and Linux has supported them for a lot longer). ;P

Some edumication:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/07/mac_os_x/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.4 (scroll down to "Improvements")

http://developer.apple.com/macosx/64bit.html

There is no 64-bit Carbon support until Leopard - one MUST use Cocoa otherwise.  And the Carbon GUI is completely 32-bit until Leopard.  Even with Leopard, there are still gaps.  This is the main, overriding reason why Maxon has not made a 64-bit version of Cinema 4D for MacOS:

http://www.carbondev.com/site/?page=64-bit+Carbon

Unfortunately, 0.0001% of the developers in the entire universe use (or even know about) Apple's proprietary Objective-C language.  There are stubs and wrappers to use C/C++ with it, but, imho and that of a large number of developers, it ain't worth the aggravation.  J++ and C# and Objective-C - say no to OS-dependent programming languages for multi-platform dev.

And finally, can anyone provide a list or link thereof with MacOS X 64-bit software?  I see that Adobe Photoshop translated early.  Can't find much else four years later.

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/09/32-bit-vs-64-bit-performance/

*But seriously - is it possible to have a 64 bit cpu on a 32 bit board? SO what exactly is it that makes a mobo 32 or 64 bit anyway?

No.  The mobo needs to support the 64-bit addressing and register spaces of the cpu and memory.

See ya...

I am running 4G's of RAM on a Core 2 Duo system - XP 32 bit / XP Pro 64 bit dual boot.  All of my 3D/2D applications run better and faster under 64 bit than they do on the 32 bit side.

Oh, yeah -- I should add the caveat that AutoCAD 2008 won't install under a 64 bit OS.  Which is astonishing.........

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=553068

Kuroyume - the G5 is a hybrid 32/64-bit processor (which is what I said earlier ;) ). The 64-bit functionality can be accessed by way of Cocoa. Carbon was built as only a compatibility library - nothing more (this explains why I rode CL/eF's arse for so long about re-writing Poser's codebase for it). That said, it is possible to do a pure 64-bit app on OSX, and has been for a long time. Ghonma - you are correct, save for the Itanium processor (ia_64), which is full 64-bit (and a raging pain in the ass to code for, not to mention expensive - which is why you only see it in certain lines of high-end server gear). /P

Yes, but Cocoa is the Apple in the eye of Apple.  It only understands Objective-C (Apple's programming language) unless you do ALOT of footwork to use C++ (which is the language of choice everywhere else).  Apple developers think highly of their extremely (and needlessly) complex API.  I've never seen something so complex.  To do theeee simplest things requires 32 or 64 lines code (where in other OS APIs and methodologies the same can be done in 1 or 2).  A lot of that complexity is removed in Cocoa - if you use Cocoa.  But Cocoa is really only useful for MacOS X applications.  Unfortunately, a lot of software is written for Windows and may be ported to the Mac - not written natively from scratch for sure.

For example, this is how I show a selected folder/file in my application tree in Windows Explorer (realizing that I'm not using any of the OS API calls but the C4D Plugin API which adds some extra steps):

//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
void TreeRoot::ShowInExplorer(RuntimeItem* rti)
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
{
    // Create bat file
    AutoAlloc    bf;
    if (!bf)            return;
    Filename    fn =    GeGetPluginPath()+Filename("explore.bat");
    if (!bf->Open(fn, GE_WRITE, FILE_NODIALOG, GE_INTEL))    return;
    CHAR    buffer[1024];
    String    cmdstr =    String("@echo offn%SystemRoot%explorer.exe /e,""+rti->GetPathString()+""");
    LONG    cmdlen =    cmdstr.GetCString(&buffer[0], cmdstr.GetCStringLen()+1L);
    if (cmdlen < 1L)    return;
    for (LONG i = 0L; i != cmdlen; ++i)
    {
        bf->WriteChar(buffer[i]);
    }
    bf->Close();
    // Run bat file
    GeExecuteFile(fn);
}

Tada!

Here's what I need to do the same thing on MacOS X (Xcode, Carbon):

//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
static OSStatus LowRunAppleScript(const void* text, long textLength, AEDesc* resultData)
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
{
    OSStatus            err;
    ComponentInstance    theComponent =    NULL;
    OSAID                scriptID =        kOSANullScript;
    OSAID                resultID =        kOSANullScript;
    AEDesc                scriptTextDesc;
    /* set up locals to a known state /
    AECreateDesc(typeNull, NULL, 0, &scriptTextDesc);
    / open the scripting component /
    theComponent =        OpenDefaultComponent(kOSAComponentType, typeAppleScript);
    if (theComponent == NULL)
    {
        err = paramErr;
        goto bail;
    }
    / put the script text into an aedesc /
    err =                AECreateDesc(typeChar, text, textLength, &scriptTextDesc);
    if (err != noErr)    goto bail;
    / compile the script /
    err =                OSACompile(theComponent, &scriptTextDesc,
    kOSAModeNull, &scriptID);
    if (err != noErr)    goto bail;
    / run the script /
    err =                OSAExecute(theComponent, scriptID, kOSANullScript, kOSAModeNull, &resultID);
    / collect the results - if any /
    if (resultData != NULL)
    {
        AECreateDesc(typeNull, NULL, 0, resultData);
        if (err == errOSAScriptError)
        {
            OSAScriptError(theComponent, kOSAErrorMessage, typeChar, resultData);
        }
        else if (err == noErr && resultID != kOSANullScript)
        {
            OSADisplay(theComponent, resultID, typeChar, kOSAModeNull, resultData);
        }
    }
bail:
    AEDisposeDesc(&scriptTextDesc);
    if (scriptID != kOSANullScript) OSADispose(theComponent, scriptID);
    if (resultID != kOSANullScript) OSADispose(theComponent, resultID);
    if (theComponent != NULL) CloseComponent(theComponent);
    return err;
}
/ SimpleRunAppleScript compiles and runs the AppleScript in
the c-style string provided as a parameter. The result returned
indicates the success of the operation. /
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
static OSStatus SimpleRunAppleScript(const char* theScript)
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
{
    return LowRunAppleScript(theScript, strlen(theScript), NULL);
}
// v1.7.6: Show Runtime/Folder/File in New MacOS Finder
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
void TreeRoot::ShowInExplorer(RuntimeItem* rti)
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
{
    /*
    tell application "Finder"
        activate
        open folder "pathfolder"
        select item "filename" of window 1
    end tell
    */
    String    file =        rti->GetFilename().GetFileString();
    String    folder =    rti->GetFilename().GetDirectory().GetString();
    LONG    pos;
    #ifdef    C4D_R10
        if (folder.FindFirst("/Volumes/", &pos))    folder.Delete(pos,9L);
        else                                        folder =    dialog->GetSettings()->GetMacVolumeName_Plain()+folder;
    #endif
    while (folder.FindFirst('/', &pos))    folder[pos] = ':';
    String    cmdstr =    String("tell application "Finder"nactivatenopen folder "")+folder+String(""nselect item "")+file+String("" of window 1nend tell");
    CHAR    buffer[2048];
    if (cmdstr.GetCString(&buffer[0], cmdstr.GetCStringLen()+1L) < 1L)    return;
    SimpleRunAppleScript(&buffer[0]);
}

Ta... wow, simple as Quantum Physics...

Yes, completely 64-bit Cocoa applications have been possible since 10.3.9.  Again, great for the Mac-only developers.  Maxon is no slouch here - they've been in this business since 1991 (starting on the Amiga OS) and ported to Windows/Mac in 1996.  They are world-renowned for the stability on and similarity maintained between Windows and MacOS for Cinema 4D/BodyPaint 3D in the 3D world at least.  Yet, they would have to compromise a large part of their code to go from 32-bit to 64-bit on the Mac because they use C++ and Carbon.  You can take up your argument with the Maxon developers.

I still don't see that list yet.  Several Google searches and searches at Apple don't really provide that overwhelming flood of 64-bit MacOS X software.  Adobe obviously.  Final Cut possibly.  Stuff bundled with the OS (iPhoto, iThis, and iThat), irrelevant.

Windows 64-bit native software (as of 2005 and definitely incomplete - so double it for more reliable, up-to-date numbers):

http://www.3dvelocity.com/articles/win64compatibility/win64nativesoftlist.htm

You're asking these companies to invest human resources, time, and money to convert tens of millions of lines of code to work with Cocoa/Objective-C.  Not as simple as ole' Steve made it out to be.

To put it bluntly, I haven't seen anything on my Mac which smells like 64-bit.  Only a small percentage of people can afford the Mac Pro with 8, 16, 32 GB of memory ($5000+ including an Apple display).  Bluntly, again, there is absolutely no logical reason for having a 64-bit system without more than 4GB of memory (it's like having a four-wheel car with three wheels).

I'm ordering components tomorrow for a new system from NewEgg.

Core2Quad6600, 8GIG RAM, Intel MOBO, intense case and Powersupply, Quadro Video card

I am going with the Intel board for the sake of stability, reliability, simplicity. These boards are boring for gamers, but that is not me! This motherboard also has excellent audio capabilities, and I need that to drive the rather outrageous sound system I am getting; this is to be used to do some work on, and also audit finals of, sound for DVD/HD release files. Depending on results, I may add an additional audio card.

I am going with the Quadro video card because it has optimized drivers for 3DSMax and because it hopefully will run the graphics elements of the general computer better than a gamer board. It will drive dual monitors, which I already have in the studio. I don't expect it to necessarily improve the viewport experience in Poser and Carrara, but it should do no worse than a gamer card for those apps.

You'll notice twin WesterDigital Raptors, small ones, which in RAID-0 will give me a 70Gig main drive. This is partitioned for the OS and a second partition for my working .pz3 and .car files. The second hard drive (80Gig WD) contains two partitions, one for the windows page file, one for applications and runtime folder. Yes, that only gives me 150GIG internal. I do not believe in "storage" or archive internal. I backup to a huge external I already have, then from there to DVD storage and offsite. I've had great success with twin raptors in raid-0 for three years running as my sleek, fast working drive.

1 Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor  $254.99
1 Intel BOXDP35DPM ATX Intel Motherboard    $107.99
2 CORSAIR XMS2 DHX 4GB(2 x 2GB) DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Memory $268.00   ($134 each)
1 Antec P182 Gun Metal Black Computer Case  $149.99
1 Rosewill RX750-S-B 750W Power Supply   $139.99
2 Western Digital Raptor 36GB 3.5" SATA 1.5Gb/s Hard Drive  $189.98  ($94.99 each)
1 Western Digital Caviar SE 80GB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive $41.99
1 PNY Quadro FX570 VCQFX570-PCIE-PB Video Card  $209.99
1 LITE-ON 20X DVD±R DVD Burner Black IDE Model DH-20A4P-04 $22.99
1 Logitech Black Cordless Desktop EX110  $29.99
1 Logitech Z-5500 5.1 Speaker  $262.99
1 Microsoft Windows XP Professional 64Bit SP2C  $139.99

Subtotal: $1,818.88
Tax:  $150.06
Guaranteed 3 Day Service $69.21

Unfortunately I have to pay sales tax for California if I buy from NewEgg.com

My only remaining issue is XP-64 versus Vista-64.

I am not one to arbitrarily join the Vista bashing chorus. However, I am a big fan or XP. I also don't want grief.

For Poser, Carrara, AfterEffects/PS and 3DSMax, are there any opinions on actual performance difference between Vista64 and XP64 for the rig in the prior post?

::::: Opera :::::

Save your money on the Quadro, from what I hear it doesn't really offer a lot of value for the much-higher price compared to the top shelf NVidia gaming cards even in 3D apps:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=47&t=601824

Sorry to hijack your thread, operaguy.  I have a Mac, use Macs, and develop for them but I hate the fanboyism and arrogance that comes with Mac diehards.  I've been running a real 64-bit OS for several years (Windows XP Pro x64) with real native 64-bit software - none of that transitional, partially converted, proprietary crap.  My new machine isn't quite as good as the Mac Pro 8-core but it is a 4-core with 8GB and 1.5 TB of SATA II storage and an 8800GTX nVidia card - less than $3000.  No complaints whatsoever here.

Can't provide any experience concerning issues between XP x64 and Vista-64 as I refuse to move to Vista at all.  When they've resolved or removed the DRMs, new&exciting vulnerabilities, rootkits, network woes, software compatability issues, etc. I may one day (not).

Thanks for the link and I certainly have heard that sentiment before. However, no one in that thread spoke about an experience in which they proactively claimed "no difference" while using the optimzed drivers. The Quadro cards have an optimzed driver for 3DSMax.

What are talking about here in price, anyway? Aren't high end gamer cards more than $200?

::: Opera ::::

Edit: looks like the Geforce 8800 GT is between $270-300

Quote - Save your money on the Quadro, from what I hear it doesn't really offer a lot of value for the much-higher price compared to the top shelf NVidia gaming cards even in 3D apps:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=47&t=601824

Agreed.  Go for the GeForce series (8600 or newer).  You won't gain much either way unless you are a consummate gamer.  Higher end 3D applications can usually take advantage of some of the newer OpenGL features for the editor view - but that's about it.  Video cards don't play any part in the rendering process(es).

ETA: http://www.3dbuzz.com/vbforum/showthread.php?p=1338422

Do a Google search with "Quadro versus GeForce 8800" (for example) and then make your decision.

Quote - Yes, completely 64-bit Cocoa applications have been possible since 10.3.9.

No. 10.3 did not allow any 64 bit applications whatsoever.
10.4 allowed command-line only applications on a very limited set of system calls (system.framework and accelerate.framework).
10.5 finally allows to write 64bit GUI applications, and Apple didn't give a definitive answer to what APIs are available in 64bit until the day 10.5 shipped to end users. And that's why you don't see any 64bit applications for OS X - the only two that I'm aware of are Xcode and Chess (and none of the two benefits from 64bit).

hijack....hey, I hijaked the thread first!

Well, I am leaning toward XP-64 over Vista. However, some are claiming real gains between the two for rendering in Carrara. That's my only 'tug."

Hey kuroyume I have two Macs also, G4/EarlyG5, used for LogicPro

::::: Opera :::::

Quote - > Quote - Yes, completely 64-bit Cocoa applications have been possible since 10.3.9.

No. 10.3 did not allow any 64 bit applications whatsoever.
10.4 allowed command-line only applications on a very limited set of system calls (system.framework and accelerate.framework).
10.5 finally allows to write 64bit GUI applications, and Apple didn't give a definitive answer to what APIs are available in 64bit until the day 10.5 shipped to end users. And that's why you don't see any 64bit applications for OS X - the only two that I'm aware of are Xcode and Chess (and none of the two benefits from 64bit).

So much for all of the Apple hype (and lies).  This is like the third time that I've caught Apple 'bending the truth'.  They still have (unless Maxon demanded it removed) a mention of Cinema 4D running as 64-bit on MacOS X (which is patently untrue).  Thanks for the clarity!

ETA: What about the hype about Adobe Photoshop migrating to 64-bit on MacOS X?

I am buying the $200 NVidia Quadro 570

I am fully aware it [normally] does not assist in render, and that it will not help in the viewport for Poser and Carrara.

1. It will do no worse for those two apps
2. it is cheaper than the Geforce 8800 GT
3. It WILL help with the viewport experience in Max
4. It WILL help me with render in Max, once I get fully Max-ized. Why? Because for my animations, I can render viewport frames as finals with the scanline render engine. That's right, final render using Max v2008, which even has shadows in the viewport. So, the faster the viewport, the faster the final render.

Do you see how I am thinking now?

::::: opera :::::