PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave to go 64-bit!!


Fasty
10-27-2004, 12:23 AM
Got this release from a mailing list...

For Immediate Release

NewTek's LightWave 3D(r) First Professional 3D
Application to Unveil 64-Bit Port
64-bit Port of LightWave 3D Enters Beta Testing

San Antonio, Texas - October 27, 2004 -- NewTek, Inc., manufacturer of
industry-leading 3D animation and video products, announced today the
port of their Emmy(r) Award-winning LightWave 3D(r) to the Intel(r)
EM64T and AMD64 platforms. NewTek's LightWave 3D is leading the industry
as the first professional 3D graphics application to publicly reveal
plans for a 64-bit port. The 64-bit version of LightWave(r) leverages
the power and range of capabilities of 64-bit technology, including
increased processor power and greater memory capabilities, providing an
ideal platform to meet the demands for higher performance in the
production of complex motion graphics and visual effects.

The 64-bit version of LightWave will revolutionize the way animators and
artists approach their work by streamlining the production process. Of
particular value is the ability the 64-bit system provides for faster
memory access for loading and swapping large scene files. LightWave 3D's
optimized performance on the 64-bit platform will provide artists with
the ability to set new standards in visual effects as they create
increasingly complex scenes and animations, rendered with greater
realism, bringing their work to an entirely new level while remaining on
time and budget.

"For years, LightWave and the artists who use it have broken barriers
and pushed the envelope of both technology and artistry; with the 64-bit
version of LightWave that momentum continues." said Dr. Andrew Cross,
NewTek's Senior VP of Software Engineering. "The added ability to access
massive amounts of memory quickly and to handle even larger scene files
more effectively, as provided with 64-bit technology, makes this a
winning combination for 3D artists in any arena."

NewTek is working with key partners in film and television visual
effects facilities to test and further enhance the 64-bit port.
"LightWave is already the cornerstone of our very cost effective
production pipeline, given the extraordinary results it produces and its
other benefits such as 999 free render nodes and free technical
support." comments Emile Smith, Emmy Award-winning VFX Supervisor, Zoic
Studios. "Add the processor speed and memory management in the 64-bit
system and a LightWave 64-bit pipeline will be hard to beat for cost and
output results."

Pricing and Availability
The 64-bit version of LightWave 3D will be available for sale when the
64-bit Windows Operating System is commercially available. The 64-bit
version of LightWave is currently in test at a limited number of
pre-determined beta site locations. LightWave 3D [8] is available now
for a suggested retail price of $2799 (inc GST). Registered owners of
LightWave 3D [7.5] or earlier are eligible to purchase a LightWave [8]
Electronic Upgrade Pack for $899 (inc GST Aust$). To locate the nearest
authorized reseller see "where to buy" section at
http://www.newmagic.com.au <http://www.newmagic.com.au/> . For more
information on the items offered and where to purchase, visit:
http://www.newmagic.com.au <http://www.newmagic.com.au/> or call New
Magic Sales at (02) 9528 4555, NZ callers dial + 612 9528 4555.

philstopford
10-27-2004, 12:41 AM
Hmmm. No mention of compatibility with existing plugins (look how long it took 6.0 to get anywhere near parity when it broke compatibility with the old plugin system) and, on a personal level, more disappointingly there is still no suggestion of a linux port of the rest of their LW system.

HarverdGrad
10-27-2004, 12:55 AM
Wow!
They certainly have their work cut out for them!
Best of Luck to the Team :)

chikega
10-27-2004, 01:04 AM
$2799!!! Oh ... OK ... that's in Australian dollars. <Phew> for a second there I thought I was back in 2001. ;) That's good to hear about the 64 bit ... but Linux is 64 bit today ... why wait for Microsoft?

DeusManus
10-27-2004, 02:15 AM
but Linux is 64 bit today ... why wait for Microsoft?

my thoughts exactly. i wish NT would be awesome and make a linux version.

ages
10-27-2004, 03:40 AM
So no mention of a mac version even though Apple has announced Tiger to be 64-bit and is definete released 2nd quarter next year. Instead Newtek plays their old game and excludes the choices that are available.

Id rather a linux lightwave 64-bit if they choose to screw macs ..again.

hypercube
10-27-2004, 08:10 AM
Heh, I guess it would have been too cheesy to say "Lightwave to go BACK to 64-bit"..blah.

http://kymartian.state.ky.us/images/alphapowered.gif R.I.P. :hmm:

I bet if all goes well they'll at least do Mac 64bit. I just hope this doesn't take away from actual-changes type development, too many ports stretched everything far too thin back in the day.

Para
10-27-2004, 10:00 AM
but Linux is 64 bit today ... why wait for Microsoft?

Linux has no real support, Windows does. Also developing is easier on Windows; if you don't know something, just check MSDN, not n^x Linux forums and mailing lists to find out stuff.

It's all about money and resources, folks :)

Exper
10-27-2004, 11:52 AM
A bit strange... NT doesn't have a press release! :hmm:

Nemoid
10-27-2004, 12:15 PM
uhm... I usually only take for true official NT press releases.

However, going 64 bit would be a good move. But, if i can honestly express my thoughts, i'd like more a real Lw rewrite joining Modeler and Layout, an opened SDK and API and a more efficient structure and workflow rather than such a move with the current Lw structure.

Once other apps made the move themselves, Lw would be behind again. :shrug:

We do know SDK should be on the works,Lscrpt is on the works too, and maybe other things so, what every user really would like to know is how things going with these works, maybe a little Lw roadmap (without dates :D) and more.

Para
10-27-2004, 12:28 PM
Think it this way: By making LW 64bit they have to rewrite a lot of stuff (SDK for example) since it's not downwards compatible. The biggest concern for me is that I don't think most of the plugin add-ons in LW8 will work at in 64bit version of LW.

Flashfire
10-27-2004, 01:49 PM
Heh, I guess it would have been too cheesy to say "Lightwave to go BACK to 64-bit"..blah.

http://kymartian.state.ky.us/images/alphapowered.gif R.I.P. :hmm:

I bet if all goes well they'll at least do Mac 64bit. I just hope this doesn't take away from actual-changes type development, too many ports stretched everything far too thin back in the day.LW was a 32bit app running on the Alpha, regardless of the system architecture...

Castius
10-27-2004, 01:58 PM
I'm very glad to hear about it personally. It could mean a significant boost in performance. There are a lot of AMD 64 bits chip just sitting in peoples computer only half used. I think it was smart for Newtek to take steps to be one of the first to of the major apps to take advantage of that. They did it with sse2 instructions sets when the p4 introduced them and there doing it now with 64 bit.

Considering they just released a patch not to long ago itís doesnít seem to have taken too long for NewTek to make the switch. So I donít think we will see many missing features because of the switch. Iím look forward to seeing what NewTek can give us in the next update. Only then will we be starting to seeing a better picture of what the new dev team can doing to improve LW for us.

policarpo
10-27-2004, 04:15 PM
This has to be the funniest thing i've read in a long time.

Why the heck are they talking about something that isn't even near to being a reality for us, the artists who use the tools.

I'd like to see an improved workflow and better tools and better rendering before hearing anything about a 64-bit port.

It's too damn funny really. They should focus on what matters most. Show us the evolution of the application today...don't tell us about something that is totally dependant on Microsoft and Apple to make it a reality.

Anyway, nice effort guys...but haven't you forgotten something about one of your competitors...I remember Brad Peebler last year @ Mac World announcing that they had compiled modo to 64 bit in the matter of minutes on their new G5's (and I think we all read the Press Releases about EdenFX and Studio ArtFX these past couple weeks).

Most modern apps will make the transition to 64bit without much effort, because they are built in a modern way and built to be extensible, so in all honesty, this is really expected of any modern tool. We all know that our beloved apps will become 64-bit compliant when the 64-bit OS hits the streets.

Anyhoo...nothing to get excited about here, and sorry to burst any bubbles.

Let's hear stuff about improved rendering, modeling, and better integration with industry standard compositors....now THAT, would be something to send out a press release about.

Cheers.

Nemoid
10-27-2004, 04:28 PM
Think it this way: By making LW 64bit they have to rewrite a lot of stuff (SDK for example) since it's not downwards compatible. The biggest concern for me is that I don't think most of the plugin add-ons in LW8 will work at in 64bit version of LW.
LOL. maybe this 64 bits switch thing is actually caused by the fact they ARE working on SDK and rewriting other stuff.:)
Main problem is the structure of the app, though .

It should be nodal after a good rewrite, to offer alot of flexibility and deepness. Don't take Maya as an example,though. Take more XSI and current Lw philosophy as a guideline of what a rewritten Lw on serious steroids could become .
Easy yet terribly powerful.
Just because an app is nodal that doesn't mean the UI have to be totally overhauled and the workflow become complicated as someone may think.

A good philosophy would be: easy job? easy workflow. Extremely difficult job? more difficult workflow , but only because job is complex. That is to say, the best and easier workflow for a complex task.

However, if it's good for Lw and its development : let's go 64!! :thumbsup:

lightwolf
10-27-2004, 04:51 PM
Think it this way: By making LW 64bit they have to rewrite a lot of stuff (SDK for example) since it's not downwards compatible. The biggest concern for me is that I don't think most of the plugin add-ons in LW8 will work at in 64bit version of LW.
You don't have to rewrite the SDK at all. You will need a recompile for the plugins though. The API can change as it is, only the size of some data structure will change, and that is handled transparently by the compiler (i.e. a pointer to a piece of data in memory, for example int *pointer, will be 32bit in a 32bit compile, and 64bit in a 64bit compile, with the same code).

Cheers,
Mike

Dennik
10-27-2004, 04:56 PM
So is there any rough estimate about how much faster can be a 64bit version of Lightwave?

Castius
10-27-2004, 05:02 PM
I've seen a few benchmarks that test the speed increase to using 64 bit over 32 bit and they ranged from 20-40% faster in most cases.

Voxel57
10-27-2004, 05:54 PM
Hmmm. No mention of compatibility with existing plugins (look how long it took 6.0 to get anywhere near parity when it broke compatibility with the old plugin system) and, on a personal level, more disappointingly there is still no suggestion of a linux port of the rest of their LW system. Plugs will have to be re-compiled for 64 bit. But we have been documenting the issues
related to it and are planning a plugin porting program to help 3rd party people port.
Try saying that 3 times fast. :)

Peter

Peter Jespersen
3D Project Manager
Newtek

Chuck Baker
10-27-2004, 05:57 PM
So no mention of a mac version even though Apple has announced Tiger to be 64-bit and is definete released 2nd quarter next year. Instead Newtek plays their old game and excludes the choices that are available.


We have a roadmap for a 64-bit port for the Mac as well, but it will take more time to do the changes we need to make for Tiger. Things like no more Direct Draw make it a bit more work for us. In sum, we simply aren't comfortable at this time in making the formal announcement for the Mac 64-bit port.

Chuck Baker
10-27-2004, 06:01 PM
Think it this way: By making LW 64bit they have to rewrite a lot of stuff (SDK for example) since it's not downwards compatible. The biggest concern for me is that I don't think most of the plugin add-ons in LW8 will work at in 64bit version of LW.
The 32-bit plugins would need to be recompiled for 64-bit. And you are correct that a lot of issues with regard to the port require core work - we'd planned to do that anyway but in fact 64-bit OS systems look like they will be less lenient about some memory management issues than were the 32-bit versions, so the improvements are required.

Voxel57
10-27-2004, 06:04 PM
Heh, I guess it would have been too cheesy to say "Lightwave to go BACK to 64-bit"..blah.

http://kymartian.state.ky.us/images/alphapowered.gif R.I.P. :hmm:

I bet if all goes well they'll at least do Mac 64bit. I just hope this doesn't take away from actual-changes type development, too many ports stretched everything far too thin back in the day.
Not to worry we are not stretching our selves to thin. :)

Exper
10-27-2004, 06:06 PM
Let's hear stuff about improved rendering, modeling, and better integration with industry standard compositors....now THAT, would be something to send out a press release about.Agree... though the 64bit version will be a really good thing!

Chuck Baker
10-27-2004, 06:22 PM
This has to be the funniest thing i've read in a long time.

Why the heck are they talking about something that isn't even near to being a reality for us, the artists who use the tools.

I'd like to see an improved workflow and better tools and better rendering before hearing anything about a 64-bit port.

It's too damn funny really. They should focus on what matters most. Show us the evolution of the application today...don't tell us about something that is totally dependant on Microsoft and Apple to make it a reality.

Anyway, nice effort guys...but haven't you forgotten something about one of your competitors...I remember Brad Peebler last year @ Mac World announcing that they had compiled modo to 64 bit in the matter of minutes on their new G5's (and I think we all read the Press Releases about EdenFX and Studio ArtFX these past couple weeks).

Most modern apps will make the transition to 64bit without much effort, because they are built in a modern way and built to be extensible, so in all honesty, this is really expected of any modern tool. We all know that our beloved apps will become 64-bit compliant when the 64-bit OS hits the streets.

Anyhoo...nothing to get excited about here, and sorry to burst any bubbles.

Let's hear stuff about improved rendering, modeling, and better integration with industry standard compositors....now THAT, would be something to send out a press release about.

Cheers. Proof once again that in the age of the Internet there is no good news you can announce that someone will not find fault with. :)

This effort is not detracting from those efforts that you say you want and that we've demonstrated with the release of [8] and of the first maintenance update. We will indeed have releases forthcoming on the kinds of improvements you mention and have discussed or hinted at some of the things users can expect in the future, and these include the items you mention - better integration with other applications including compositors, improved workflow, enhanced rendering capabilities, new modeling facilities, modernized architecture for the application.

What good does it accomplish to answer one item of good news by complaining that it was not a different piece of news? If every announcement of improved character tools is greeted by the plaint that it does nothing for rendering, if new dynamics are greeted by the plaint that it does not enhance modeling, if new modeling tools are greeted by the plaint that they do not speed up renders, if faster rendering is greeted by the complaint that it isn't an announcement of more file formats?

I guess we could consider doing only one announcement per year in which we mention every part of the application. ;)

Somehow it does not seem that this should be necessary, and that it is reasonable to expect some amount of perspective regarding announcements or updates that relate to progress on a particular front - they really don't preclude or impede progress on other fronts.

5TEF
10-27-2004, 06:31 PM
ok...lightwave goes to 64 bits, that's cool..

but Lightwave still NOT AVAILABLE on LINUX !
i want to leave Windows for Linux, and as Lightwave still not available on this OS ( :-/ ) , i think i will sell my copy of LW software, to buy Maya, or another 3D package which running on Linux.

Exper
10-27-2004, 06:47 PM
Peter and Chuck... just guessing... hoping we'll have also a 32bit version for everyone who have to stay with old tech!

E_Moelzer
10-27-2004, 06:49 PM
Hey Exper!

Of course there will be a 32 bit version for everyone else...
CU
Elmar

Exper
10-27-2004, 06:59 PM
Yes.. indeed... just for sure! :blush:

Voxel57
10-27-2004, 07:00 PM
This has to be the funniest thing i've read in a long time.

Why the heck are they talking about something that isn't even near to being a reality for us, the artists who use the tools.
Because it's very relevent to the future of 3D.


I'd like to see an improved workflow and better tools and better rendering before hearing anything about a 64-bit port. We have not stopped moving forward with any of these issues.


It's too damn funny really. They should focus on what matters most. Show us the evolution of the application today...don't tell us about something that is totally dependant on Microsoft and Apple to make it a reality. Actually this is part of the evolution of LightWave.


Anyway, nice effort guys...but haven't you forgotten something about one of your competitors...I remember Brad Peebler last year @ Mac World announcing that they had compiled modo to 64 bit in the matter of minutes on their new G5's (and I think we all read the Press Releases about EdenFX and Studio ArtFX these past couple weeks). Saying it compiles and having it run stable (or at all) are not necessarily the same thing.


Most modern apps will make the transition to 64bit without much effort, because they are built in a modern way and built to be extensible, so in all honesty, this is really expected of any modern tool. We all know that our beloved apps will become 64-bit compliant when the 64-bit OS hits the streets. Saying an app is built in a modern way is a bit general. Do you meen coded efficiently?
Because we are still fixing code that was "built in a modern way" so we can do all the things our customers want and deserve.


Anyhoo...nothing to get excited about here, and sorry to burst any bubbles.
No problem..no bubbles burst. :)


Let's hear stuff about improved rendering, modeling, and better integration with industry standard compositors....now THAT, would be something to send out a press release about.

Cheers. Well everything you list is on our list too. But if we just contniue slapping bandaids on bandaids LightWave would just have more and more features that don't work properly.
Thats a trend we are trying to reverse not continue.
So when we look at something like improving rendering should we just fix the old and keep the bagage that goes with it or should fix with an eye on the future?
It's a no brainer... fix it right so that the improvements made not only make what's there now better but also give us a path for the future.

Anyway enough of my ranting I have work to do. A lot. :)



Peter

Peter Jespersen
3D Project Manager
Newtek

Thalaxis
10-27-2004, 07:18 PM
So no mention of a mac version even though Apple has announced Tiger to be 64-bit and is definete released 2nd quarter next year. Instead Newtek plays their old game and excludes the choices that are available.

Id rather a linux lightwave 64-bit if they choose to screw macs ..again.
Why would you assume that they won't port to the 64-bit OSX when it's available, just because they're jumping on the XP64 bandwagon early?

The betas for XP64 have been available for almost a year now, and the 64-bit development tools have been available for almost as long. That's not true of OSX, so they're not blowing off an option that's available, because right now it's not.

Para
10-27-2004, 07:26 PM
Hi devs! Nice to see you interacting with us, the humble customers :wavey:

I hope you didn't take my message as a sign of negativity since that is not the way I meant it. It's clear that making the program 64bit isn't just a recompile and I have a good gut-feeling about how this step fits in to development roadmap. Just get it right in the first place and I'll be happy :) Only negative thing I have to say about LW at the moment is that it seems like your coders seems to be meddling too much and over-optimizing things. For example most of the Scene Editor bugs may be caused just by floppy pointer usage in the program code :)

Anyway, keep those .x updates coming on a regular basis (once every 2 or 3 months would be nice, once/month optimal) and I'll stay on your side :p

policarpo
10-27-2004, 07:45 PM
Well thanks for the pointed and candid remarks.:rolleyes: Glad my post made some ripples.

Anyhow...keep up the announcements and promises for your customers. It is important that the line of communication remain open.

I personally have no plans to do anything major until I see where LW is come Siggraph '05. I think at that point we will have a good indication where the application is moving and evolving into. And I would presume that by then, we'd see the landscape of 64bit apps maturing as well.

I am always a hopeful optimist.

Keep up the good work Pete. NT and the community is lucky to have you at the helm over there. A good steersman can do wonders for a ship on the stormy ocean.

Cheers.

Nemoid
10-27-2004, 07:56 PM
Because it's very relevent to the future of 3D.


Well everything you list is on our list too. But if we just contniue slapping bandaids on bandaids LightWave would just have more and more features that don't work properly.
Thats a trend we are trying to reverse not continue.
So when we look at something like improving rendering should we just fix the old and keep the bagage that goes with it or should fix with an eye on the future?
It's a no brainer... fix it right so that the improvements made not only make what's there now better but also give us a path for the future.

Anyway enough of my ranting I have work to do. A lot. :)



Yaaaaaaaaay ! Now this is a great feedback and good developing philosophy.
Don't fix the old. Create the future! :scream:
This is way better than I and IMO many users even dared to hope.
These are the words we want to hear, after many years lost in Lw not evolving really that much.

Good work. Cause u surely are working hard.

SplineGod
10-27-2004, 08:11 PM
I think its possible to kill two birds with one stone. In the process of porting over to 64 bit it also gives NT an opportunity to find and kill bugs and fix workflow issues. Software development isnt like trying to save an endangered species which when dead is gone forever. Software can evolve and change literally overnight. Its obvious that Newtek is serious about keeping lightwave alive and well as well as getting it ready for the next level in computing. The two arent mutually exclusive. :)

Nemoid
10-27-2004, 08:24 PM
Agree totally on this. it's a good moment and a good occasion to get rid of bugs, but even more to create tools wich make Lw become more modern and efficient.

People like Irrational number and Worley too, created tools that Lw missed and this means its possible to make Lw grow better.

We know that the new team had alot of probs , due also to the Lw code being old , not comented in many parts and also that many things in lw were , like Peter says, bandaid on the old Lw core creating even more probs.

So, its good to see the real good will to go beyond and make Lw grow better. I bet that facts will follow the words. :)

gruvsyco
10-27-2004, 08:46 PM
Personally, I think Newtek should stick with supporting Windows and Mac "current" OSes, fixing bugs and adding needed features. If the programmers that are working on the 64 bit version of the softwares sole function and knowledge is on converting code to 64bit then that's fine, otherwise I think it would be a resource better put towards improving what we have now. Once that's done, I'd be all for them putting out a 64 bit version and/or Linux version with 64bit ranking higher in priority.

just my $.02

Limbus
10-27-2004, 09:50 PM
Good News,
I have one question though. Will I need to buy LW 64 or can I use it with my current dongle?

Florian

policarpo
10-27-2004, 10:06 PM
Personally, I think Newtek should stick with supporting Windows and Mac "current" OSes, fixing bugs and adding needed features. If the programmers that are working on the 64 bit version of the softwares sole function and knowledge is on converting code to 64bit then that's fine, otherwise I think it would be a resource better put towards improving what we have now. Once that's done, I'd be all for them putting out a 64 bit version and/or Linux version with 64bit ranking higher in priority.

just my $.02
Well, that's just crazy talk. :drool:

NanoGator
10-27-2004, 10:10 PM
Proof once again that in the age of the Internet there is no good news you can announce that someone will not find fault with. :)

Amen.

Policarpo: Please, lighten up. It's like reading about Microsoft on Slashdot sometimes.

policarpo
10-27-2004, 10:14 PM
Lighten up? Not sure what you mean.

I didn't say anything contrary or inflammatory...just stated the obvious facts for what they were...or at least that's what I thought I was doing. :thumbsup:

NanoGator
10-27-2004, 10:16 PM
Lighten up? Not sure what you mean.

I didn't say anything contrary or inflammatory...just stated the obvious facts for what they were...or at least that's what I thought I was doing. :thumbsup:

Err if I had read a little farther before, I wouldn't have posted that. Sorry man.

policarpo
10-27-2004, 10:18 PM
Err if I had read a little farther before, I wouldn't have posted that. Sorry man.
No problem. Just needed to check what ya meant. :D

Beamtracer
10-27-2004, 10:24 PM
Good publicity stunt. I guess that's full marks to Chuck for that one.

It's a publicity stunt because the 64-bit Lightwave is not available to the public yet. So, it's in development. It's been in the works for many years.

Years go, possibly around 1999-2000, the old Lightwave development team announced that Lightwave was already "64-bit clean". That means that the code was written to enable an easy transition to 64-bit systems.

Back then, Newtek thought the future was with Intel's Itanium computer platform. Newtek demonstrated a beta version of Lightwave running on Itanium. People seem to forget these things. The Itanium processor has been a failure for Intel, and LW64 for Itanium was abandoned. Now 64-bit LW returns for the AMD-64 platform.

Why not Mac? Newtek has a long history of "forgetting" its Mac user base when announcing products. The 64-bit OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is already in developers' hands, and will likely be released before the Windows version.

Does Newtek not have a 64-bit Lightwave for OS X in development? I don't mean for release, just in development (after all, the Windows version is just in development). If one is being developed, why was it not announced?

rrelitz
10-27-2004, 10:25 PM
Peter Jespersen and Chuck Baker


I thank you for posting and adding comments. It was extremely refreshing and look forward to hearing from you both as much as possible. Perhaps in between all of that compiling?

LOL and THANK YOU!

-rrelitz

policarpo
10-27-2004, 10:28 PM
Good publicity stunt. I guess that's full marks to Chuck for that one.

It's a publicity stunt because the 64-bit Lightwave is not available to the public yet. So, it's in development. It's been in the works for many years.

Years go, possibly around 1999-2000, the old Lightwave development team announced that Lightwave was already "64-bit clean". That means that the code was written to enable an easy transition to 64-bit systems.

Back then, Newtek thought the future was with Intel's Itanium computer platform. Newtek demonstrated a beta version of Lightwave running on Itanium. People seem to forget these things. The Itanium processor has been a failure for Intel, and LW64 for Itanium was abandoned. Now 64-bit LW returns for the AMD-64 platform.

Why not Mac? Newtek has a long history of "forgetting" its Mac user base when announcing products. The 64-bit OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is already in developers' hands, and will likely be released before the Windows version.

Does Newtek not have a 64-bit Lightwave for OS X in development? I don't mean for release, just in development (after all, the Windows version is just in development). If one is being developed, why was it not announced?
I remember that Press Release Beam. Wasn't it also around the same time that they announced that Foundation Imaging had just gone Mac G4 native with all their rendering servers for their LightWave animations? I seem to recall that Press Release as well.

SplineGod
10-27-2004, 10:38 PM
I dont remember Foundation ever using Macs in large numbers. I think one or two artists had them and maybe some compositiors.

I agree with Chuck on this one... You have people screaming to know what Newtek is up to and when Newtek reveals some of that roadmap others complain... :)

architook
10-27-2004, 10:46 PM
Newtek did indeed have (and publically show!) a 64 bit version of LightWave about 4 (?) years ago, running on the Itanium under 64 bit Windows 2000 for Itanium.

policarpo
10-27-2004, 10:48 PM
I dont remember Foundation ever using Macs in large numbers. I think one or two artists had them and maybe some compositiors.

I agree with Chuck on this one... You have people screaming to know what Newtek is up to and when Newtek reveals some of that roadmap others complain... :) Well, there was a Press Release about this fact.

And I have a good memory and typically read Press Releases from NT back then. :thumbsup:

But hey...maybe I am wrong.

Beamtracer
10-28-2004, 12:25 AM
I agree with Chuck on this one... You have people screaming to know what Newtek is up to and when Newtek reveals some of that roadmap others complain... :)
Splinegod, what if it was the other way around. What if Newtek announced that a 64-bit Lightwave was being developed for Mac OS X, with no mention of Windows?

Let's compare the statements from Newtek and Luxology regarding 64-bit Mac development, or lack of. First, Newtek (from page 2 of this thread)...

We have a roadmap for a 64-bit port for the Mac as well, but it will take more time to do the changes we need to make for Tiger. Things like no more Direct Draw make it a bit more work for us. In sum, we simply aren't comfortable at this time in making the formal announcement for the Mac 64-bit port.

Now, Luxology...
We were able to reconfigure our software for 64-bit OS X in 15 minutes using Xcode
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/06/30.5.shtml
http://www.macminute.com/wwdc2003.html
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:kDjjVoEbENIJ:www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm%3FNewsID%3D6489+64+bit+minute+OR+minutes+%22brad+peebler%22&hl=en

monovich
10-28-2004, 12:27 AM
64 bit sounds cool. thanks for the news clip, Newtek. Look forward to seeing how much it speeds things up.

I volunteer to test it on OS X when it needs more outside beta testers. :)

Fasty
10-28-2004, 12:32 AM
Edit: Maybe I should read the thread

NanoGator
10-28-2004, 12:33 AM
Um, you guys do realize that there's a difference between recompiling code to work with 64-bit and optimizing the app to take advantage of it, right?

SplineGod
10-28-2004, 12:45 AM
Beam, I try to be practical about all of this. If LW gets to the point where it doesnt do what I need I use something else. If my Operating system doesnt support the tools I use then I find another OS that will. The same goes for computers. Ive used a variety of computers (yes including Macs), OSs and software over the years. Its one thing to have personal preference and another to let my personal likes and dislikes interfere with my money making options. I dont believe anyone on the Dev team is stupid. They are fully aware of what needs to be done and how to do it and are probably at lot better at it then most of us are.
Chuck has made it clear that a 64 bit roadmap for the Mac OS is being looked at. I dont expect to see a 64bit version of LW before theres a 64 bit OS to run it on.
And as far as claims by Luxology...well weve seen that theres a difference between public statements made and reality. Theres also a difference between doing a 64 bit compile and a 64 bit version that runs or is stable. I know lots of ppl who could model a character in 15 minutes but that doesnt mean Id want to pay for it. :)

igorstshirts
10-28-2004, 01:45 AM
I think that this is great news. I want an Opteron... BAD! I am wondering how this is being Beta tested by ZOIC and other studios? HOW CAN I BE DOWN?!

ages
10-28-2004, 02:13 AM
For what I think, Newtek has close ties with BOXX systems and probably wants to impress them with 64-bit exclusive before they even go macs.
I think sponsorship will dictate who gets the support first. Lux on many cases said osx has the libraries ready to go 64 bit easily..... UNLESS lightwave as of now is harder to port cause its an older app with different libraries unlike Modo and cinema 4d that are modern.

Rabid pitbull
10-28-2004, 04:53 AM
Really all of you mac users should be used to waiting, hasn't it always been this way? I used to be a mac user too, but got so tired of comprimise, waiting, and pissy graphics cards. I just decided using the programs to there fullest was more important tthan the look of the os. OSX looks really sweet, but it still doesn't allow for my programs to run at their fullest.

Really isn't worth the hassle, use the hardware that supports your applications. If you don't be prepared to be frustrated.

ages
10-28-2004, 04:59 AM
Really all of you mac users should be used to waiting, hasn't it always been this way? I used to be a mac user too, but got so tired of comprimise, waiting, and pissy graphics cards. I just decided using the programs to there fullest was more important tthan the look of the os. OSX looks really sweet, but it still doesn't allow for my programs to run at their fullest.

Really isn't worth the hassle, use the hardware that supports your applications. If you don't be prepared to be frustrated.

The Hardware is there now, what we fight for is the same optimisation attentions goes towards macs too. Lux and maxon have showed this can be done.
OSX Tiger is made for 3D in mind with core graphics etc but whats the point if software writers dont take advantage of these features. Intel is only no.1 cause they have the optimising bias they deserved to get i admit cause they pushed for it. But thats not to say this cant be done for dual g5's with their huuuge buses and same as pc video cards (no pros i admit but noone is really buyin pro cards nomore)etc..

peanuckle
10-28-2004, 05:46 AM
I wonder when they let me pre-order will I have to wait over a year like I had to with version [8]........................................:rolleyes:

Tanner

P.S. I think they should make a linux version. Then maybe I would use lightwave in production more.

policarpo
10-28-2004, 06:39 AM
LightWave is Dead.





Long live lightwave. :applause:

Nemoid
10-28-2004, 08:29 AM
I don't think u guys can really compare Lw with Luxology Modo.

Lw has an old core and old structure, and wasn't coded into a modern way originally, while Modo and probably other Lux products have been coded into a modern way, starting with Xtools and with programming flexibility and ease in mind.

So what the heck this mean? it means that is way more difficult to code Lw for 64 bits than Modo, or even Cinema.At least is a longer job.
This also mean that in this case,since many parts and plugs will have to be recompiled NT could take the occasion to make Lw become more modern at the same time.

Probably will pass some time before Win for 64 bit will be at our disposal, and in the meantime Nt will continue to work at Lw, the SDK and more, so it's possible that we will end up with a more modern package at the end of the process.Also who said bug fixes are not in the works?

I expect at least a good 64 bit port, as well as some good bug fixes, some tweak to half working tools like IK booster, and maybe some new feature, for 8.5. Since we are right now at 8.01...I think they can do the job.

For 9.0 I expect a good rewrite making Lw really top notch, basing the toolset on what we have now, but joining together Mod and Layout, introducing edges,n gons and more... but this is another story.

Limbus
10-28-2004, 08:38 AM
Why not Mac? Newtek has a long history of "forgetting" its Mac user base when announcing products. The 64-bit OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is already in developers' hands, and will likely be released before the Windows version. Windows XP 64 is in Deveolper hands for a long time now. And I think only time will tell which OS will be released first.

Florian

Carm3D
10-28-2004, 01:20 PM
For 9.0 I expect a good rewrite making Lw really top notch, basing the toolset on what we have now, but joining together Mod and Layout, introducing edges,n gons and more... but this is another story.
I sincerily hope that we don't have to wait for 9.0 to have edges and ngons.

Nemoid
10-28-2004, 01:46 PM
I hope this too, but I am realistic. Edge as an item and ngons support require respectively some work on the core code, and a new sub-d algorithm.
If Nt reaches to give us these features before 9.0 I would not be the one who complains. :D

MattClary
10-28-2004, 03:39 PM
Yeah, I think it's unrealistic to expect major structural changes prior to the next whole-number release. I doubt we will see that kind of stuff without a complete rewrite.

marinello2003
10-28-2004, 03:46 PM
I was so upset when I saw this release and no mention of OSX Tiger. I coulndn't believe it. Especially since Tiger will be available at least a year in advance of Windows 64bit. I sent Newtek an email chiding them for that.

Thalaxis
10-28-2004, 03:49 PM
I was so upset when I saw this release and no mention of OSX Tiger. I coulndn't believe it. Especially since Tiger will be available at least a year in advance of Windows 64bit. I sent Newtek an email chiding them for that.
Now that was pretty funny!

Para
10-28-2004, 04:16 PM
Isn't it almost a year since WinXP64bit beta was first released for everyone to use and test? Now, where's tiger...still in the jungle? :)

lightwolf
10-28-2004, 04:18 PM
Isn't it almost a year since WinXP64bit beta was first released for everyone to use and test? Now, where's tiger...still in the jungle? :)
Shell out $500 and it can be all yours ... the beta that is :)

gruvsyco
10-28-2004, 04:18 PM
I sincerily hope that we don't have to wait for 9.0 to have edges and ngons.
Yeah, what he said. I would somehow feel justified in my 8 upgrade then.

lightwolf
10-28-2004, 04:20 PM
Newtek did indeed have (and publically show!) a 64 bit version of LightWave about 4 (?) years ago, running on the Itanium under 64 bit Windows 2000 for Itanium.
Siggraph 2000 I think it was, in the corner of their booth. It was Modeler only btw., which I didn't think was the most impressive app to run on a 64bit machine ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Thalaxis
10-28-2004, 04:22 PM
Shell out $500 and it can be all yours ... the beta that is :)
They've been giving out plenty of free copies, so I certainly wouldn't pay for one!

marinello2003
10-28-2004, 04:46 PM
Newtek support answer to my 64bit MAC question

"Will this 64-bit release include support for the Mac G5?

NewTek is working aggressively to support a 64-bit version of LightWave running on the Mac G5 platform; however, we do not feel comfortable making announcements regarding the date that this product may be available."

ages
10-28-2004, 04:57 PM
If anyone does 64bit right it will be Apple. Theyll make sure all apps (from their stable) will take advantage and not just use 64bit to sell some updates. They do things more thought out.

Chuck Baker
10-28-2004, 04:59 PM
Why not Mac? Newtek has a long history of "forgetting" its Mac user base when announcing products. The 64-bit OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is already in developers' hands, and will likely be released before the Windows version.

Does Newtek not have a 64-bit Lightwave for OS X in development? I don't mean for release, just in development (after all, the Windows version is just in development). If one is being developed, why was it not announced? Making an announcement specific to our Windows development does not mean that we've "forgotten" our Mac user base by any means, any more than those times that we've made announcements specific to the Mac means that we've "forgotten" our PC user base. As for your question regarding the Mac 64-bit plans, we've already answered that on the page previous to your post on this thread, the 20th post:

http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1679559&postcount=20

We have a roadmap for a 64-bit port for the Mac as well, but it will take more time to do the changes we need to make for Tiger. Things like no more Direct Draw make it a bit more work for us. In sum, we simply aren't comfortable at this time in making the formal announcement for the Mac 64-bit port.

Chuck Baker
10-28-2004, 05:20 PM
Splinegod, what if it was the other way around. What if Newtek announced that a 64-bit Lightwave was being developed for Mac OS X, with no mention of Windows?

Let's compare the statements from Newtek and Luxology regarding 64-bit Mac development, or lack of. First, Newtek (from page 2 of this thread)...

Originally Posted by Chuck Baker
We have a roadmap for a 64-bit port for the Mac as well, but it will take more time to do the changes we need to make for Tiger. Things like no more Direct Draw make it a bit more work for us. In sum, we simply aren't comfortable at this time in making the formal announcement for the Mac 64-bit port.

Now, Luxology...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luxology President, Brad Peebler
We were able to reconfigure our software for 64-bit OS X in 15 minutes using Xcode
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/06/30.5.shtml
http://www.macminute.com/wwdc2003.html
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=c...eebler%22&hl=en (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:kDjjVoEbENIJ:www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm%3FNewsID%3D6489+64+bit+minute+OR+minutes+%22brad+peebler%22&hl=en)
If your memory is good enough to recall our Itanium announcement, then I'm certainly surprised that you don't recall why there is a difference between the two processes being described, since that was discussed in a much more recent release. LightWave needs to be ported to Xcode and to an OS X native application. We announced plans here:

http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/01-06-04b.html

and if I recall correctly I mentioned in some public responses that this effort would commence at some point after the release of [8].

vonbon
10-28-2004, 05:23 PM
just wondering, what percentage of computer users do yall think use PCs vs MACs

I would say probably 20%-MAC and 80%-PC. If this is the case, as a business move I would with out a doubt create my software for a PC first because it simply has the larger market share compared to MAC users. I dont think MAC users should look at it as people not taking them into consideration but that a company has to make money to stay in business. So ya bread and butter has to come first and the bread and butter for software and hardware designers, weather you like it or not is! MICROSOFT

9192
10-28-2004, 05:25 PM
The price will bonce back to $3000, huh. Actually, it higher than the old price. $800 fro upgrading from 7.5. but how's about people who have 8 now.
Is it free?

:-)

zuzzabuzz
10-28-2004, 06:14 PM
The price will bonce back to $3000, huh. Actually, it higher than the old price. $800 fro upgrading from 7.5. but how's about people who have 8 now.
Is it free?

:-) I believe it's listed in Australian dollars, so more like $2,091.17 USD
and $597.81 USD

Thalaxis
10-28-2004, 06:15 PM
If anyone does 64bit right it will be Apple. Theyll make sure all apps (from their stable) will take advantage and not just use 64bit to sell some updates. They do things more thought out.
Microsoft and several Linux vendors have already "done 64bit right" as have quite a few UNIX vendors. So what's your point? That unless Apple does it, it's not "right"?

Thalaxis
10-28-2004, 06:18 PM
just wondering, what percentage of computer users do yall think use PCs vs MACs

I would say probably 20%-MAC and 80%-PC. If this is the case, as a business move I would with out a doubt create my software for a PC first because it simply has the larger market share compared to MAC users. I dont think MAC users should look at it as people not taking them into consideration but that a company has to make money to stay in business. So ya bread and butter has to come first and the bread and butter for software and hardware designers, weather you like it or not is! MICROSOFT
Apple's sales have accounted for less than 3% of the computing market for close to the last two years, and their unit sales have been lower this year than previously. In content creation overall it's probably closer to 10%, but of late their sales are skewing toward iBooks rather than powermacs.

ages
10-28-2004, 06:31 PM
Microsoft and several Linux vendors have already "done 64bit right" as have quite a few UNIX vendors. So what's your point? That unless Apple does it, it's not "right"?
Apple would release Tiger 64 and announce FCP, Shake etc as 64bit coded too.
I cant see win 64 released for consumers anytime soon, more like a win 64 for I.T ppl as in servers etc. Graphics wise it will be Apple that pushes 64 bit in this sector. They can make Adobe move too "if" 2D apps will benefit from 64 bits. Apple got Adobe to release a plug that sees the huge ram 64 bit chips can handle.

Thalaxis
10-28-2004, 06:39 PM
Apple would release Tiger 64 and announce FCP, Shake etc as 64bit coded too.

So you think that Apple will be the only developer with a 64-bit clean application? I think that's pretty unlikely.


I cant see win 64 released for consumers anytime soon, more like a win 64 for I.T ppl as in servers etc.

Wrong tense, that's been out there in the marketplace for several years already. Their latest target is early 2005... let's see if they make it. Then again, they're not the only software company that has issues with delays.


Graphics wise it will be Apple that pushes 64 bit in this sector. They can make Adobe move too "if" 2D apps will benefit from 64 bits. Apple got Adobe to release a plug that sees the huge ram 64 bit chips can handle.
They certainly won't be alone, and not likely first. There are already packages out there that have 64-bit roots, since so many of the higher end one started on IRIX, and in any case, 64-bit Linux on both x86 and Itanium has been shipping for years. Don't worry, the world doesn't have to wait for Apple and MS to catch up in order to move forward into the 64-bit world. Valve already has a 64-bit Half Life 2 client ready to roll, for example.

thx1138
10-28-2004, 11:26 PM
Don't some of you get tired of this "apple this" and "linux that" stuff ? Jeez, all that really matters is LW as far as I see. I don't give a rats ass what box it runs on. Boxes are all the same anyway, they all have there postive and negative sides. Right now, NT goes with XP-64 simply because that's the most viable way to start. Most widely used, huge amount of support and easier to develop. I sure wouldn't want them to waste extra time on a Linux version, when they can better use that time for functional improvements like the SDK.
I think it's great news. And 3D apps need native 64 Bit support. Other non CG apps can migrate much easier, since you don't really notice the slight overhead that you get when runnning 32bit apps on 64bit hardware.

Qexit
10-28-2004, 11:28 PM
Siggraph 2000 I think it was, in the corner of their booth. It was Modeler only btw., which I didn't think was the most impressive app to run on a 64bit machine ;)

Cheers,
Mike ..and back then, who would have been writing that particular version of modeler and where is he now along with pretty much everyone else in the then Dev team ? Sorry, but knowing that there was an Alpha as opposed to Beta version of a 64bit version of modeler running at Siggraph four years ago is pretty meaningless/unimportant when there is now a completely new Dev team involved in the project who will hopefully have started over again from scratch to make sure they get it right :thumbsup:

Cheers

policarpo
10-28-2004, 11:30 PM
..and back then, who would have been writing that particular version of modeler and where is he now along with pretty much everyone else in the then Dev team ? Sorry, but knowing that there was an Alpha as opposed to Beta version of a 64bit version of modeler running at Siggraph four years ago is pretty meaningless/unimportant when there is now a completely new Dev team involved in the project who will hopefully have started over again from scratch to make sure they get it right :thumbsup:

Cheers
When he says Alpha, I think he means Dec/Alpha...not Alpha as in build. Remember when LW ran on that platform as well as SUN?

Qexit
10-28-2004, 11:40 PM
When he says Alpha, I think he means Dec/Alpha...not Alpha as in build. Remember when LW ran on that platform as well as SUN?Hehe, I know he meant Alpha as in the type of computer. I was refering to Alpha as in the buggy, unstable version of a piece of software that comes before the Beta version that goes out to a bunch of Beta Testers. The copy of modeler running at Sig 2000 would have been an Alpha build running on an Itanium PC. The main point of my post was about WHO wrote the thing...not what it was running on :)

Beamtracer
10-29-2004, 01:57 AM
Apple's sales have accounted for less than 3% of the computing marketYou can skew the stats to whatever argument you want.

Look at it this way... in cross-platform 3D apps, it's usually 30% Mac, sometimes more. And that percentage is growing. Mac also has the largest untapped potential user base... by that I mean 2D artists. There are lots and lots of 2D artists who are quickly realizing that they need to add 3D skills to their repertoire to stay viable.

As for 64-bits.... guess which 64-bit processor is the currently the most widely used in history? Yep, the IBM/Apple G5. There is more 64-bit hardware out there on the Mac side than the Windows side. Even the little iMac is 64-bit hardware.

Microsoft and Apple both have beta versions of their next 64-bit operating systems out there for developers to test. Newtek will no doubt have access to both. The issue, as I read it from Chuck's statement, is that Apple's 64-bit OS X has a lot of new code and has dumped lots of legacy code, making it more work for developers to bring older applications across. The Windows OS doesn't get updated as often.

I never say Newtek should not support Windows. I'm happy that 64-bit software is being developed for Windows. It just doesn't look very good when the Mac version is given second billing. Especially at a time when competitors (esp Luxology) are singing sweet serenades to Mac users.

Also, I wonder if we can assume that this means an end to Newtek's previous policy of simultaneous releases for Mac and Windows?

Celshader
10-29-2004, 02:24 AM
It just doesn't look very good when the Mac version is given second billing. Especially at a time when competitors (esp Luxology) are singing sweet serenades to Mac users.

Also, I wonder if we can assume that this means an end to Newtek's previous policy of simultaneous releases for Mac and Windows?
So Luxology has actually delivered a 64-bit Modo to Mac users? Or have they merely said that they have a 64-bit Modo ready-to-go? If so, has Luxology pinned down a release date for 64-bit Mac Modo?

As for NewTek's policy, I figure we'll all find out once a 64-bit LightWave gets released. :)

m_luscombe
10-29-2004, 04:12 AM
There's almost no way to appease this crowd.

It's just one press release about one development effort. I don't see where they say "we aren't working on anything else but this."

Everytime I come to this forum I'm reminded why I stopped coming regularly.

Where's the middle ground between the forums where everyone just compliments everyone else, and here where packs of wild roaming predators wait for their opportunity to jump out to seed fear and doubt.

Where do we just get to talk about 3D?

I don't find this press release to be anything other than expected. I don't have a 64 bit machine right now, so I could care less. When I get one, I'll be clamoring for a 64 bit version of Lightwave, and it sounds like it will be there. Where's the issue?

RobertoOrtiz
10-29-2004, 04:58 AM
Good God 6 pages wow.

Anyway for those clamoring for newer 64 bit ports of Lightwave please
feel free to post your ideas in here:

HOW TO IMPROVE LIGHTWAVE: Operating Systems (http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=181864)


And for those who want to suggest ideas on how to improve Lightwave
(and DONT have a axe to grind)
please go here:

HOW TO IMPROVE LIGHTWAVE (Tell us your ideas) (http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=175449)

Lets continue to keep things civil people.

Thanks

-R

Thalaxis
10-29-2004, 05:44 AM
As for 64-bits.... guess which 64-bit processor is the currently the most widely used in history? Yep, the IBM/Apple G5. There is more 64-bit hardware out there on the Mac side than the Windows side. Even the little iMac is 64-bit hardware.

Wrong again, as usual. 64-bit PPC isn't even close to SPARC or MIPS volumes.

Thalaxis
10-29-2004, 05:45 AM
since you don't really notice the slight overhead that you get when runnning 32bit apps on 64bit hardware.
You have that backward. Running 64-bit code adds overhead, not the other way around.

(Duh.)

Para
10-29-2004, 07:34 AM
Wrong again, as usual. 64-bit PPC isn't even close to SPARC or MIPS volumes.

What about Athlon64/Opteron/Itanium for that matter? I know that those are basically just 32bit processors extended to 64bits but don't they still count too?

thx1138
10-29-2004, 10:10 AM
You have that backward. Running 64-bit code adds overhead, not the other way around.
(Duh.)
Let's not get too technical. What I meant was if you have differences in code and hardware, you get overhead. And for 3D you sure as hell don't want that. That's why it's important too have a native 64Bit version of LW. The 64bit platform is comming. We can't stop that.

But all this stuff is too much waste of time. Let's get back too what really interest us and be happy with NT news about 64bit support. Things like subpathes, bump mapping, specular diffusion, keyframes and cloth dynamics is what should give us a stiffy. Not the hardware and OS crap.

MattClary
10-29-2004, 01:30 PM
..and back then, who would have been writing that particular version of modeler and where is he now along with pretty much everyone else in the then Dev team ? Sorry, but knowing that there was an Alpha as opposed to Beta version of a 64bit version of modeler running at Siggraph four years ago is pretty meaningless/unimportant when there is now a completely new Dev team involved in the project who will hopefully have started over again from scratch to make sure they get it right :thumbsup:

Cheers
The code has been 64bit ready for a long time now.


http://forums.newtek.com/discus/messages/2/36910.html?#POST138936

From Arnie Cachelin:

Among the points my statement wanted to make was this most important one: LW, since v6.5, has a "64-bit clean" codebase. This means that the issues involving shipping a version for some given 64-bit OS and HW combination are primarily in the existence of a compiler to generate the app., and then the existence of a market of users willing to buy such an app. I am not convinced that 64-bit processing will bring that much to the performance table. It will require some extra memory to do the same things, and a large number of processes and calculations will not benefit from, and may be slowed down by the doubled size of the basic element. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

lightwolf
10-29-2004, 01:46 PM
I think the main problem is adapting to a new compiler, and to possible OS API changes.
This seems to be easier on the intel side of things, where the APIs seem to be identical, and the compiler is the same as well (I assume NT uses intel's icc).
On the Mac a few older APIs that NT have relied on are phased out, and NT will have to change from CodeWarrior to XCode, both of which make the transition a larger effort.

Cheers,
Mike

Thalaxis
10-29-2004, 02:52 PM
What about Athlon64/Opteron/Itanium for that matter? I know that those are basically just 32bit processors extended to 64bits but don't they still count too?
I'm quite sure that Itanium's volumes are on the low side compared to Opteron (BTW, Itanium is not an extended 32-bit design, it's a straight up 64-bit design, just fyi).

There are probably actually more Opteron and/or Athlon64 (they're pretty much the same chip, after all), products out there than there are 64-bit PPC products, particularly in light of the fact that AMD is outproducing IBM like there's no tomorrow. And the 30,000 Opteron XT3 doesn't hurt, either.

However, MIPS has a huge installed base; they did very well for themselves after SGI unwisely spun them off. Even AMD has a MIPS license now. And Sun put the first RISC processor on the market, so they have a lot of momentum behind them. They're still the 64-bit, RISC + UNIX volume leader, which is why they are the primary target for both IBM and HP.

There was an amusing note on one of the tech boards, that that DB2 folks at IBM would greatly prefer to sell Solaris licenses for DB2, because they charge licenses per CPU... which means that they get much, much larger revenues from people with Sun boxes than they do from people with Itanium and/or POWER boxes. :D

Nemoid
10-29-2004, 03:00 PM
wheew ! this has become a giant discussion, even very technical. :D

I don't think Nt team is composed by stupid geeks so if they took the decision to go 64 bit obviously they thought going for it is a real benefit for the program and its users. They have the code at their disposal, and after some time passed to study and work to improve Lw, they should know it well. so, what's the prob?


Win 64 bit was announced some year ago after XP launch, some time has passed, but it will finally come hopefully improving our workflow with speedness.

I personally don't think that 64 bit will be a magic wand that will solve every Lw problem, weakness etc., but that it will be a good thing in the Lw development process.

regarding Mac :

Mac is a very good machine, but it's just starting now to be considered both from software house, both from Apple itself a 3D machine mainly because of the amount of Mac users working with 3D.
It currently is the best machine for 2D, sound, editing and more, but Windows based machines have been considered and supported alot by every software house as machines good for 3D.

Hopefully this will change soon and actually is changing indeed, and so, naturally will happen that software houses will consider Mac a good market too, and compile better ports for this machine. :)

Accusing Nt to not deliver immediately the same things for intel and Mac its a bit silly IMO, considering that the main software houses except Newtek, Maxon and probably Pixologic and Luxology don't support Mac so well. As you can see Software houses are going towards Mac too, but there still is a gap.

Since Nt is working on a Mac 64 port too,even if they didn't announce it yet i repeat :

what's the prob?

Beamtracer
10-29-2004, 03:08 PM
I think the main problem is adapting to a new compiler, and to possible OS API changes.
This seems to be easier on the intel side of things, where the APIs seem to be identical, and the compiler is the same as well (I assume NT uses intel's icc).
On the Mac a few older APIs that NT have relied on are phased out, and NT will have to change from CodeWarrior to XCode, both of which make the transition a larger effort.

Interesting analysis, Lightwolf. You're probably right.

It's ironic that Newtek may be experiencing a more difficult time compiling the Mac version of Lightwave using the Xcode compiler. This is the very same reason that Luxology claims they are developing things faster...
http://developer.apple.com/business/macmarket/luxology.html
Unexpected difficulties are encountered modifying Lightwave's code. It makes you wonder whether the total rewrite option may have been better.

lightwolf
10-29-2004, 03:16 PM
Interesting analysis, Lightwolf. You're probably right.

Well, I think the main problem on the Mac is that LW was dragged along one very major OS revision (OS9 and before -> OSX), and even Apple didn't seem to be sure of where to go in the beginning of OSX. Cocoa, Carbon ...wtf?
Basically most of the functions LW uses on Windows haven't changed much from NT 3.5 something .. which was new when I moved to Windows in 1996, And they won't change in XP64 either...
Remember, XCode is fairly new (..not the compiler behind it though), and switching to a new environment does take time. In intel world it could be as easy a flipping a couple of switches, due to Apple's OS history it won't be that easy on the Mac side though.

Sometimes legacy compatibility is a good thing, as well as sticking to your APIs even if they may be out of date a couple of years later.

Cheers,
Mike

LASooner
10-29-2004, 07:06 PM
Well, there was a Press Release about this fact.

And I have a good memory and typically read Press Releases from NT back then. :thumbsup:

But hey...maybe I am wrong.
The only thing Macs were really used for at Foundation Imaging was in editing. They used Final Cut Pro to edit Dan Dare. Before that Animatics were assembled using Premiere on NT based systems. I don't ever recall anyone using Mac versions of Lightwave.

policarpo
10-29-2004, 09:28 PM
The only thing Macs were really used for at Foundation Imaging was in editing. They used Final Cut Pro to edit Dan Dare. Before that Animatics were assembled using Premiere on NT based systems. I don't ever recall anyone using Mac versions of Lightwave. I gathered that, I was merely commenting on the NT Press Release that came out several years ago about FI using G4's as the basis for their render farm.

Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers.

SplineGod
10-30-2004, 05:02 AM
There was one person I knew of at FI that did use a Mac with LW. :)
As far as render farms go its weird if Newtek did say that because that would be a very expensive way to go. :)

Qexit
10-30-2004, 10:25 AM
I gathered that, I was merely commenting on the NT Press Release that came out several years ago about FI using G4's as the basis for their render farm.

Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers.I remember a couple of press releases coming out at around the same time one highlighting how FI were making extensive use of Lightwave in all their productions and another one hyping the use of a bunch of shiny new Apple Macs at Siggraph to demonstrate how StealthNet could be used to drive a render farm over the Internet. The Siggraph press release might even have combined the two items, so perhaps you're getting them confused.

Funk Ride
10-30-2004, 07:17 PM
Just to clarify some things here, Tiger is not fully 64-bit like 64-bit Windows. This means that apps can take advantage of larger memory allocation and so on.

As to core Image/Video, etc. This is pretty much useless for cross-platform applications, unless a compay is willing to spend an enormous amount of time in taking advantage of them, which will create a disparity with Windows/Linux versions. For instance, Photoshop could greatly be enhanced by using core whatever, but do you really think Adobe ae going to invest that time on a product that sells less on the Mac, combined with making Windows versions seem like a poor cousin? I doubt it.

Beamtracer
10-31-2004, 01:38 AM
Just to clarify some things here, Tiger is not fully 64-bit like 64-bit Windows.You're not clarifying anything there. Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is a 64-bit OS. It runs full 64-bit applications, with each app able to use in excess of 4 gigs of RAM. On an Apple G5 machine, this would mean up to 8 gigs of RAM.

Apple's Tiger OS also has "core video" and "core audio". This means that things like video effects and transitions are now available at an OS level. It makes it far easier for application developers to bring these features to their applications, not harder.

Newtek has no obligation to take advantage of OS X, or to release a 64-bit Lightwave for OS X at the same time as their Windows version. But if they don't, it is at their own peril. Luxology will bring out these features on OS X. It's not in Newtek's interests to make their Mac users feel second class. If Newtek's Mac users (possibly one third of Lightwavers) suddenly went to Lux, it would be at the detriment of the remaining LW Windows users.

SplineGod
10-31-2004, 01:42 AM
Its not in anyones interests to make any customers feel 2nd class. I just have this feeling that Newtek is working on the problems rather then sitting around in a circle chewing tobacco and tossing playing cards on the ground. The other side of that coin is that if a 3rd of LW users did suddenly go to Lux it could be a detriment to those Mac users. Newtek has said that there will be a 64 bit version of LW for windows AND Mac. Why not leave the details to the professionals? :)

Thalaxis
10-31-2004, 08:07 AM
Newtek has no obligation to take advantage of OS X, or to release a 64-bit Lightwave for OS X at the same time as their Windows version. But if they don't, it is at their own peril.
You're asking NewTek to do something that is very likely to be impossible, because they can't launch a 64-bit version for either platform before it's available, and it's very unlikely that the 64-bit OSX will available when XP64 ships.

The only people here making the mac users feel like second class citizens are the mac fanatics. It started with the utterly insipid assertion that they weren't planning to release a 64-bit version for OSX, just because they didn't announce that they were. There was no logical basis for that, but there it is. So if you feel slighted, you have only yourself to blame, not NewTek, because they clearly have no intention of blowing off the mac users.

Funk Ride
10-31-2004, 11:02 AM
You're not clarifying anything there. Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is a 64-bit OS. It runs full 64-bit applications, with each app able to use in excess of 4 gigs of RAM. On an Apple G5 machine, this would mean up to 8 gigs of RAM.

Apple's Tiger OS also has "core video" and "core audio". This means that things like video effects and transitions are now available at an OS level. It makes it far easier for application developers to bring these features to their applications, not harder.

Newtek has no obligation to take advantage of OS X, or to release a 64-bit Lightwave for OS X at the same time as their Windows version. But if they don't, it is at their own peril. Luxology will bring out these features on OS X. It's not in Newtek's interests to make their Mac users feel second class. If Newtek's Mac users (possibly one third of Lightwavers) suddenly went to Lux, it would be at the detriment of the remaining LW Windows users.


It's not as simple as that, beamtracer. If Tiger was fuly 64-bit, nothing would run on it unless it was re-compiled for it, only certain parts of Tiger ae 64-bit. /core image/video is one of those very cool tricks, but vendors aren't going to run to it if makes theior Windows vesions sub-par, iot makse no sense. Just wait and see, Adobe, Newtek, Alias, nonoe of them will really take advantage of it. Apple's own apps probably will, but that makes sense since they are Mac only.


It's a pity because the whole core thing is amazing, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not going to impress the companies that need to be wooed over.

mattc
10-31-2004, 12:29 PM
Newtek has no obligation to take advantage of OS X, or to release a 64-bit Lightwave for OS X at the same time as their Windows version. But if they don't, it is at their own peril. Luxology will bring out these features on OS X. It's not in Newtek's interests to make their Mac users feel second class. If Newtek's Mac users (possibly one third of Lightwavers) suddenly went to Lux, it would be at the detriment of the remaining LW Windows users.
That's being a little harsh on Newtek at this point. Chuck has mentioned publically (and Elmar privately) that they're simply not in a position to comment about a 64-bit version of LW for the Mac due to uncertainties with 'Tiger'. It's nothing more than that at this point. SO, for anyone to read anything else into it would be somewhat foolish.

M.

zapper1998
11-05-2004, 03:07 PM
When Microsoft finally puts out the OS [Windows XP 64bit Pro] and then there will tons of bugs and patches, hmmmm, Sometime before the end of the year 2005, then I will have to upgrade to the 64bit technology, MB and Processors, boy that will be a spendy upgrade yicks
Michael



This has to be the funniest thing i've read in a long time.

Why the heck are they talking about something that isn't even near to being a reality for us, the artists who use the tools.

I'd like to see an improved workflow and better tools and better rendering before hearing anything about a 64-bit port.

It's too damn funny really. They should focus on what matters most. Show us the evolution of the application today...don't tell us about something that is totally dependant on Microsoft and Apple to make it a reality.

Anyway, nice effort guys...but haven't you forgotten something about one of your competitors...I remember Brad Peebler last year @ Mac World announcing that they had compiled modo to 64 bit in the matter of minutes on their new G5's (and I think we all read the Press Releases about EdenFX and Studio ArtFX these past couple weeks).

Most modern apps will make the transition to 64bit without much effort, because they are built in a modern way and built to be extensible, so in all honesty, this is really expected of any modern tool. We all know that our beloved apps will become 64-bit compliant when the 64-bit OS hits the streets.

Anyhoo...nothing to get excited about here, and sorry to burst any bubbles.

Let's hear stuff about improved rendering, modeling, and better integration with industry standard compositors....now THAT, would be something to send out a press release about.

Cheers.

CGTalk Moderation
01-19-2006, 05:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.