I have worked on a Mac for many years and have very few issues with Poser. DAZ Studio, especially the newer DSON plugin on the other hand has problems. At least for me on Yosemite. Yes, you have to check and update the Python scripts and some older stuff no longer works. I use a 3D Connexion 3D mouse and it is awesome for posing, etc. DS does NOT support 3D mice. I also use a Kensington Expert Mouse trackball, which make working very fast once you get used to it.

As for those who like to riff on the cost of a Apple, they do so from basic ignorance. Yes, you can build a nice set-up cheaper if you have the tech know-how. The difference comes into play when you talk about resale, included software and ease of use right out of the box. If you actually compare specs, software included and resale value directly at retail prices, Mac generally is a better deal. Security is also generally better. No, they are not immune, but better and easier to maintain.

If you are an experienced tech or field service engineer who usually uses open source software (free or pirated), then yes, a Windows unit can be built on the cheap. I do not argue that. Those are the actual caveats. Look at the whole picture... ALL of it. The difference really boils down to what one is used to using.

And YES, I understand there are plug-in issues with El Capitan. Same with Adobe CS5 Products - if you rely on an older version of Photoshop, Illustrator or Indesign (as I do), then stop at Yosemite. Mac does not run Corel Paint Shop Pro BTW. By the same token, Windows will not run Artmatic Pro or Voyager. Check all of your software if you want to switch. And yes, Mac updates are free - unlike Windows.

Quote - I confess that I just spent a few minutes with the new shop by now... however, I truly believe that a "shop" should be accessible within a few minutes since a shop is a shop and not an adventure game, where the fun is to spend hours and days to figure out how to bypass obstacles. Having said that I'm sorry to say that the new shop looks like a COMPLETE MESS to me. It's eye candy replacing basic functionality.

1. Sorry, but the main shop layout ("what's new") is just a nightmare. One aspect is that I actually liked the simple smaller thumbnails, because it was a perfect overview. One may argue that these thumbnails are "the bigger the better" (which they are not), but since the new thumbs are not just bigger but of a DIFFERENT SIZE one by one, the whole shop no longer looks like a well organzied shop but like an amateur blog where someone just posted stuff and bits and pieces without the slightest idea how the whole lot looks like.

2. But what I really dislike is that basic features actually got REMOVED! For example, I loved to sort my wishlist by vendor, which was a simple click in the old shop. It was a great way to have an organized look, especially since most vendors have a "theme" for their work. Unless I'm blind, this is gone.

3. But what's really bad: In the old shop it was easy to find all updates to purchased goods - just go to "item list" and sort by update. Most recent on top, look on the date, mission accomplished. In theory, this sorting still "exists", but it only sorts the 50 items currently on display. So in order to check all updates, the shop really forces the customer to step through dozens and dozens of pages, hitting the "sort/update" button one by one only to see the recent updates of the subset of 50 items currently on display.

Sorry folks, this has nothing to do with "I don't like it because it is new". You have removed core functionality and added some visual gimmicks. I understand that quite some of your users love this nevertheless, but I also must be honest to say that I don't...

I have to agree with everything stated above.

I would add that bigger is not always better. If you need a closer look, what was wrong with the pop-up system you had?

I am on a 27" Mac using Firefox - and all of the information I need and look for (item on sale, regular price vs. sale price, etc.) on the item page proper, is now "below the fold" (think newspaper here - scrolling is the browser equivelent) and in colors that are VERY difficult to see against the mid-dark grey. On basic pages like the Prime pages or the Marketplace front page, I get just the main sales pitch - and damn few items to see - everything else is "below the fold." None of this is condusive to browsing.

On the front page or the Prime pages, I used to be teased with a grid of like 12 to 16 items to click on and get a closer look - now, no clicky, no looky. When I scroll, I just get crosseyed from being too close.

The wishlist is now completely unusable and if it doesn't change I will just delete the whole thing (I have something like 670 items in mine).

Pretty? Sure. Functional? Nope.

My 2 cents.
Looks like sales will suffer y'all... better address these things soon... I see many saying this.

Is there a way to find out who had it for sale, and contact them about getting it?
Thanks for the reply.

Oops... second to last paragraph... I meant Epilogue juries their site. 
Although I think Epitome has made a come back, but I am not yet familiar with their policies.

Quote -> Quote - My suggestion is this: that the administration simply admit this was ill conceived, rescind the policy, and follow up with something that makes more sense. After all, everyone makes mistakes ...

You sound like sane fellow. I expect you are reasonably young and certainly idealistic. You need to understand that the Rules of Right do not work the way you learned Reason in school. M

Thank you. 
I am not so young though, and although I think to be an artist one must be a bit idealistic, I do not really expect the PTBs ("powers that be," as opposed to the monitors... they don't make the decisions) to rethink anything, much less admit to an error. That requires a level of maturity, which they have failed to demonstrate. Had the PTBs that level of maturity, they would have announced the REAL reason for the change... not this obvious façade of making the galleries look more professional… with absolutely no concern for the artist (ART Community??) and considering the nudity/violence filters already in place. No, I expect Renderosity to become increasingly commercially driven with the corporate style mentality (“This is the way it is insert placebo reason here  the new policy is here to stay”) regardless of the actual profitability and/or effect on clientele. I fully expect the more professional element to migrate to places such as Epilogue, GFX , and so on, while the mid-range will migrate to DAZ, Rendervisions and the like. I am in the process myself (plus, I have my own site to maintain) and have found that I am outgrowing this site.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Renderosity will continue to be a decent resource, just not particularly as elitist as they may envision… after all, that is the crux of this newest policy… yet another form of elitism. 

You know, they could just enforce posting to an amateur or beginner’s gallery, or a portion of each gallery… or even jury the whole place like Epitome. Frankly, I don’t like that place very much either, elitist at its finest. Funny, considering digital art has some distance before it will be fully embraced as “High Art.” 

No, I don’t think my suggestion will even be taken serious… PTBs probably do not see any problem with the policy.

Okay, there may be real people in the Photography section... I admit it... I was wrong about that (frankly, I don't browse either the photography section, or the Poser section much the Poser section is just too large and unwieldy thus the need for some kind of policy like this... really, I get it, but there has to be a better way...). In my own defense, I will add that no one is talking about the REAL nudity here. HELLO? Additionally, I am not suggesting the policy is morally wrong. I am saying it is wrong from the censorship/artistic standpoint. This should be the main concern for an ART community. Clearly, the Artistic view is not the concern here; ergo, Renderosity has proved that it is not an ART community.

Like irony? Has it occurred to anyone that there is actually NO NUDITY WHATSOEVER here at Renderosity? What's that you say???? Yup. Think about it... Not a single nude picture. Huh??? Absolutely... NONE!! There are however an extraordinary number of pictures of unclothed 3D models. This is tantamount to a website dedicated to pictures of unclothed Barbie dolls... Oh and, no one has bothered to mention the one reason I posted above that brings a true Artistic argument as to why this is such a sham and absolutely wrong. Clearly, this site is not an ART Community at all.

I am responding to this because my take is a bit different. While I do not normally post in the Poser Gallery and my work tends to be much more in the genre of landscape or science/science fiction, I consider my work to also be an artistic statement that often falls within postmodernism. I have attempted a piece that is poignant to this discussion (though my angle is violence rather than nudity) and was censored as a result. Yes, CENSORED. I know the argument is about thumbnails, and the new policy is an effort to clean up the look of the galleries for those who have set their preferences for nudity and/or violence (after all, this effects no one else). That part of the issue is moot. However, that part of the issue is based on ONE assumption: that the thumbnail is a separate entity from the artwork. Unfortunately, this is not always true, and ergo, this policy becomes a huge debate that is impossible to enforce on an across the board, equal basis (without individual review of each and every piece submitted). Many people have posted images that have thumbnails designed specifically to lead to the piece (whether you like their method or not) such that BOTH pieces are integral, one to the other. The Humor Gallery is full of such examples (I am surprised the Social Commentary Gallery has fewer). My piece Eye of God is a particular case in point. It is a cross genre piece that falls under Postmodernism (Irony, popular culture reference, multiple parts and seemingly disjointed concepts that rely upon the viewer and what they bring to the piece), social commentary, humor, space, science, science fiction and of course in this place, the ArtMatic Gallery since things here are also divided by medium. The thumbnail is specifically made as a commentary on this policy and is designed to lead the viewer to the rest of the artistic statement. It takes BOTH PARTS to make the whole. Either piece (or section if you prefer), by itself, is half a statement. The two (so called thumbnail and larger piece) rely upon one another to make a complete sentence. Many art pieces come in multiple parts, so this is not a special case or even particularly unusual. Just as telling someone they can only post half a sentence, and not a complete sentence (traditional censorship; see assorted government documents with blacked out passages), telling someone they can only post half of their piece of art is CENSORSHIP. This is my official response on this issue, this new policy is wrong and was a mistake for many reasons (regardless of the intent). My suggestion is this: that the administration simply admit this was ill conceived, rescind the policy, and follow up with something that makes more sense. After all, everyone makes mistakes and a committee is often even more prone to such. Admitting a mistake is much better than making enemies of a large portion your client base and that just makes basic business sense. Mitchell Davidson Bentley, M.A.

Well, they got me for the "Content advisory - Extreme Violence" thumbnail I had up on my nebula. It is after all the most violent thing I can think of... blowing up entire star systems and wiping out entire planetary populations. Sounds like violence to me. Of course they are saying it is not violent and the thumbnail is in violation. Here is my response: Acadia, Gee, I did that in order TO COMPLY with the new rules... Did you actually READ the text that went with it? The new rule says: No Sexually Suggestive Language No "Censored" language/images (some examples: "Warning: Nudity Inside" or black bars covering breasts/genitals) And in fact my image does NOT have either sexually suggestive language nor does it have censored on it. By the rule, IT COMPLIES. If you dont think blowing stuff up is violent, perhaps you should visit Iraq for awhile... Since I cannot both comply AND not comply simultaneously, and I have in fact followed the rule as it is written, I am left very confused. Would you care to clarify this for me? Mitch What do you all think? Am I nuts, or does this new policy have a serious problem with wording and implementation? I mean, if they say one thing and then slam you for trying to comply, what's the deal?

(From Fictional story above):

Quote - Perhaps simply one single complaint. For example (invented story): PayPal's manager, a 60 years old man, takes his laptop and surfs the web taking a view of some sites where he have his bank online. Suddenly, while he's visiting Rosity he finds a thumbnail with a huge boob in the middle. Inmediately, he takes his cell and says: 'Pete, please, send to Renderosity administration the usual nudity email, second version' 

And a Rosity administrator glups his coffee reading an email like: 'Dear Renderosity Administration: we're sad to tell you we comprobed your site and we're still founding nudity without warnings, so a software like CyberNanny couldn't detect it and OUR CLIENTS' KIDS would watch forbidden content. This is the second warning we send you requesting you need to extreme cautions because PayPal only offer its services to 'family friendly' sites. We warn you if we find again another example of carelessness we'll inmediately paralize our account with you. We hope next time blahblahblahblah...'

Fiction. Only a fiction... or not?

Ah, I hadn't thought of that angle... sigh... follow the money. That would be a real motive wouldn't it? After all, as has been said it's not the freedom or rights or any change of actual content that is driving this change. They (administrators of the site) have determined it is about tastefulness and professional appearance. The thumbnail is now supposed to reflect not what the image is about (despite what the TOS actually says, otherwise ALL thumbs would be merely down-sized versions of the whole) but whether or not those who have CHOSEN to view violence and nudity must now not see what they are looking for until they actually spend the time and bandwidth to download to their browser's cache the actual larger image... Oh wait, that will actually cost more money, won't it? Unless the motive is to dissuade folks from quite so many clicks on images of questionable content. Hmmm... Perhaps if we have to choose what to view more wisely...? This could get very convoluted in a hurry...

Quote - Jim you didn't get a site mail? I will send again, but basically we aren't allowing thumbnails which are effectively "censor" thumbs. Not very professional looking... which is one of the reasons for this change.

Since when did this become a community of professional artists? I find this whole thing amazing and befuddling. I would like to point out that if this has to do with anyone complaining about nudity in thumbnails, if you think about it you will find that complaints is all you ever get. I mean no one ever says, "Gee, I really LIKE that there is nudity on the thumbnails here!" now do they? Considering the need to turn on violence and nudity viewing in your own options, this policy is obviously either about (1) a few complainers who can't figure out how to filter it themselves, (2) a few administrators who just need to feel in control of other people's morals, (3) or Renderosity is getting pressure from the government (the FCC? Is there a new Department of Homeland Insecurity???) about "all that open nudity the kids might accidently see... (quick ma, cover up! The baby's staring at your nipples again)" If Renderosity wants to look professional, maybe they should adopt the policies of say, a museum...? What do you think? Would that be good enough for Renderosity? Or is that too radical?