Pixar talks OS X migration

[dmaas]

This article talks about Pixar running OS X on all of its *Macs* (some of which used to run OS9). I'm pretty sure Pixar still has plenty of SGI, Sun, and Linux systems for its production work, in addition to Macs.

[talos72]

along with 125 windows systems, which the article didn't say Pixar would necessarily be dumping!

[deepinspace]

Originally posted by talos72
along with 125 windows systems

How did you know that?

[talos72]

Finally, the company runs about 125 computers running Windows.

Exact quote from the article!

[Cyberdigitus]

Originally posted by talos72
along with 125 windows systems, which the article didn't say Pixar would necessarily be dumping!

dumping? who's talking about dumping? They may send them my way...:D

[ilasolomon]

I heard/read PIXAR has changed its SUN render farm to the Intel based machines (a myth?).
and probably running NT, not sure.

[amygdalae]

Originally posted by ila_solomon
I heard/read PIXAR has changed its SUN render farm to the Intel based machines (a myth?).
and probably running NT, not sure.

No one 'swaps' anything in VFX. old stuff usually takes a while to phase out.

Pixar has about a 2400 proc Sun farm which all their movies to this point have been rendered on (including finding nemo). They recently bought a 1024 proc Xeon renderfarm for work on incredibles and future projects. Im sure alot of the sun procs are still around.

And there is no way in hell they would run NT for renderman. Pixar's farm is linux, im not sure why anyone in their right mind would run a PRMan farm on windows.

I know ESC is a bunch of windows fanatics, which is maybe why they chose Mental Ray in the end, I hate PRMan on windows.

[Chewey]

I'd call any use of the apple product more a political move than a one made for improved performance. Although I suppose their cost for the macs will likely be substantially lower than that for John Q public.

[Mouser]

I went to the Shake user group at Siggraph, and Pixar was there to announce the OS X version of PRman. They then went through a lengthy explanation of why they were moving their artist workstations to Macintosh (lots of charts with linux vs. NT vs. OSX)

In the final analysis it was decided that it needed to be either Linux or OSX, and when they weighed the pros vs. cons of each,
Mac OSX was the best choice.. I was pretty supprised as well, considering the performance disparity between the hardware... but this was straight from the source...

FWIW

edit: guess the charts I was thinking of aren't on the website.. but it was still a pretty convincing argument

[Pumuckle]

i think that if this helps the people at pixar with their computers. i say go for it, BUT i have had a lot of problems with macs. lets hope that the intergration will not slow down any of their projects

[onlooker]

No one mentioned anything about the article accept that quote? Why don't you look at the rest of it?



He said that the company was using 375 desktop Mac's running Mac OS 9 and around 100 PowerBooks also running Mac OS 9. Pixar also had 500 computers running Linux that were slated to move to Mac OS X. Finally, the company runs about 125 computers running Windows.

375 Desktops -> Mac
100 Powerbooks -> Mac
500 Computers Running Linux -> Mac

125 Computers Running Windows. -> PC

As I see it. That's 975 Mac's to 125 PC's.

The article was titled: "Pixar talks OS X migration" wasn't it? Why is everyone in such a hubbub about the measly amount of windows machines?

[beaker]

Originally posted by Chewey
I'd call any use of the apple product more a political move than a one made for improved performance. Although I suppose their cost for the macs will likely be substantially lower than that for John Q public.
Steve Jobs has stated many times that he lets the company use whatever they want and has no say in what hardware they use. As he puts it he lets the people who know what they are doing make those kind of decisions. He has been CEO of Pixar much longer than he has been of Apple. If what you said was true then Pixar would have moved over to mac G3 back 7 years ago when he took over as apple CEO or even G4's which apple touted as "supercomputers in a home system".

It seems to me that Pixar is just picking the best bang for the buck. G5 may be the best right now, but 2-3 years from now it might be AMD opterons or Xeons. They have consistantly bought a new renderfarm for each new movie they do. So they can jump to a different machine every 2 years or so.

[Wolfskin]

There's another very interesting question to ask though

Quote:

'Pixar also had 500 computers running Linux that were slated to move to Mac OS X'

... these 500 computers previously ran Linux, and now are slated to run..... OS X?
What hardware would these be? PC's perhaps? Would that imply OS X on x86?

[RormanKnockwell]

This is the part that made my jaw drop:
Rather than constantly spend time issuing administrator passwords whenever one of these users wanted to do anything, Pixar's administration team decided to give all of their users admin level access.

"We thought that is was better to let them do what they want to do and just kind of keep them in line," Benveniste said.
Careful with those sudo commands, guys!

[onlooker]

Originally posted by Wolfskin
There's another very interesting question to ask though

Quote:

'Pixar also had 500 computers running Linux that were slated to move to Mac OS X'

... these 500 computers previously ran Linux, and now are slated to run..... OS X?
What hardware would these be? PC's perhaps? Would that imply OS X on x86?


I new someone would come blow that horn again, but those would be Macs.

There is no x86 OS 10.

[Nicodemus]

Are you sure about that. I know I saw an article about a week ago about OS X for x86 machines.

~L~

[onlooker]

You'll see those articles all your life if you pay attension. I've been seeing them for years.

[policarpo]

Sounds like good news for Apple and the OSX community as a whole.

Pixar probably sees OSX as a great environment to deploy for their day to day business for admininstrators and artists alike. Seeing how OSX is unix derived, i presume that it will integrate quite nicely with their Linux rendering cluster that they have.

Imagine a world where viruses aren't a weekly occurence, where emails can be freely sent to and fro. An environment where the command line is your gateway to do anything. Where mouth breathing is acceptable behavior. :D

Maya on a G5 for most modelers and texture artists and animators will probably run perfectly well, and hey, if they need more juice, there's always the Linux box to push the envelope. And since Shake is OSX native as well as Linux, it's definitely a plus.

My own personal experience with OSX on my PowerBook after 6 long years in the Windows world has been great. Working in the OSX environment has it's frustrations at times, but working in the environment is actually a pleasure. If any of you have a chance to test it out, do so with an open mind. You'll be surprised.

Cheers to Pixar for putting a nail in the coffin that is Windows. Hail Linux and OSX!!

:beer:

[playmesumch00ns]

It would be quite nice to be on an OSX workstation. From what I hear from the people who are testing them here tho is that there are some problems getting macs to interface well with a linux network.

[MonkeyNinja]

"Pixar also had 500 computers running Linux that were slated to move to Mac OS X"

Unless they were playing around with Aqsis or 3Delight on PPC Macs running linux my guess is that these are x86 boxen slated for replacement :)

But I guess it wouldnt be too hard for the developers of PRman to compile the linux version to PPC... is there a ppc version.. should I stop talking now?

[MonkeyNinja]

Originally posted by playmesumch00ns
It would be quite nice to be on an OSX workstation. From what I hear from the people who are testing them here tho is that there are some problems getting macs to interface well with a linux network.

My iBook is the multilingual geek on my LAN, but thats prolly because im steering way clear of the NFS exports :P

[playmesumch00ns]

Here it's just dog slow to pick up the network disks apparently.

[malducin]

Actually their renderfarm, was switched to Intel achines from RackSaver earlier this year:

Pixar switches from SUN to Intel (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983898.html)

So this raises the question: either they have OSX compiled for x86 to put in in the Linux renderfarm machines, or the conversion was for 500 (artists, non-renderfarm) other machines. The first case is even a bit risky because you usually don't change anything mid production like that, the diferent archtectuer might produce slight differences in rendered frames, though I guess they'll have final renders (or rerender) until a much later date.

[policarpo]

I don't think they have OSX compiled for x86 architecture, so they'll have Intel boxes running Linux and not SUN Solaris boxes anymore for the renderfarm.

Artists and such will run OSX and Linux and the farm will be Linux. Nice setup. :)

[Nicodemus]

I know this is very rumour like but.....I know I saw something about OS X being compiled to run on X86 machines. Also, the only reason I throw this out there (agian) is that it was on a reputable site not one of the rumour sites. I am trying to track it down. If I do I will put the link on here.

~L~

[onlooker]

I hate posting right behind you twice in a row cuz it looks like I'm chasing you down to dispute you, :shrug: but the fact is I just popped in to look up a tutorial, and stopped in to see what has transpired in here. :)

I'd like to add one thing never to forget. There are no reputable sites that post rumor.
But if it was Buisness Week, or something. The closest they would come would be to report on a rumor on another site which would be your rumor site. The line between fact, and rumor is a universe wide. There is no fine lines when it comes to rumors. Unless It's a total leak of course, but Apple wont go x86. Not now. Believe me.;)

[Array]

Originally posted by onlooker
I new someone would come blow that horn again, but those would be Macs.

There is no x86 OS 10.

There is indeed an x86 variant of OSX, but it doesnt exist outside of apple's offices. They even demonstrated OSX on a welded shut x86 box (presumably opteron) before plans for the G5 were finalized.

[onlooker]

THis is where rumors start. I can see them now.


"OS X is running on opteron inside Apple HQ"

"CONFIRMED"
Apple has secretly been running OS X variants on AMD processors for some time now, and apparently is going to dump IBM, and the Power Revamp to do a complete switcharoo, and adapt their systems to x86. :cool:

[Nicodemus]

AHHH....he is chasing me down....ahhhhh.....beware the monkeyssssss.

LOL, no biggie. I am not afraid of a friendly dispute. Hell, I amy learn something.

I guess that is true.....I might have been a reputable place quoting a less reputable site.

It does seem quite possible though. Not in terms of them abandoning the hardware side of apple.....just porting OSX to x86 machines. It would expand there software sales and add revenue.

Not that I am particularly pressed to see this come to pass. I am more than happy to have them still be all about OSX only on an apple. If they close the speed gap then it will really all be good since that will elimnate the one thing that has hindered them lately (well that and the video card thing).

~L~

[dmaas]

OS X has (or at least had, prior to Panther) a pretty bad NFS implementation. Very slow and somewhat unstable. I think that's the "problems integrating OS X with a Linux network." This is certainly the case with my OS X system, but I haven't upgraded to Panther.

(to my knowledge, Pixar uses NetApp Filers for their NFS servers, not Linux)

The UNIX heritage of OS X definitely makes a huge difference for software developers. As it stands today there are fundamentally two different kinds of operating systems: Windows and Everything Else. It takes virtually no effort to port software between any two operating systems that are not Windows. But crossing the gulf to or from Windows is incredibly difficult. (I ported our internal codebase from Linux to OS X in one day, whereas the Windows port has taken weeks, and it's still not functionally equivalent to the other ports).

I bet not releasing OS X on x86 is part of the unwritten deal between Microsoft and Apple. (Apple does Microsoft a favor by pretending to be "competition," but as long as it stays on PPC it is not a true threat).

[Array]

Originally posted by onlooker
THis is where rumors start. I can see them now.


"OS X is running on opteron inside Apple HQ"

"CONFIRMED"
Apple has secretly been running OS X variants on AMD processors for some time now, and apparently is going to dump IBM, and the Power Revamp to do a complete switcharoo, and adapt their systems to x86. :cool:

Are you allways so rediculously sarcastic? Please do some research before posting next time and before you attempt to belittle any of our forum members.

Enjoy the link:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/30372.html

[onlooker]

I was joking arround with. :D Not belittling. a fellow member.
:annoyed: Got it? :banghead:


theRegister is a known Mac rumor site. (at least to Mac users) This is far from a reputable news source. Although they try.

The Register is extremely self opinionated, and even when they come to their senses they still tell you what they believe. This time they put enough stuff in that article to fall back on that there was no way the involvement with AMD would have been noticed as an inaccuracy. Everybody knew about the Hyper-Transport Consortium by that time anyway. I don't think any long time Mac users were believing any of that x86 stuff to begin with.

It's an old article anyway. Pre G5 announcment at WWDC.

The-Register Quote
We're more inclined to believe that any recent co-operation between the two companies centres on Apple's move to HyperTransport as the basis of future Power Mac systems. Apple is a founding member of the HyperTransport Consortium, and its next-generation Power Macs are rumoured to sport an HT bus. The PowerPC 970 has a frontside bus capable of 6.4GBps throughput - exactly what you'd expect from a coherent HT link.

Note the bold text. Reputable news sources don't tell you what they believe.
They report news, and let you make your own assumptions if you are inclined to assume more than what they tell you.

[beaker]

Originally when osx was in beta there was a version of it that ran on x86 hardware. Alot of OSX is based on OpenStep which ran on x86 hardware for many years. I have the original beta disks for osx on x86(called Rhapsody at the time). I can scan them in if anyone wants to see them. Also the BSD/kernel part of osx is opensource and runs on x86 hardware. It is called Darwin.
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
So it's really not that hard for them to have a version of osx ported to x86 hardware. The only trouble is that none of the old OS9 compatibility code will work on it or the Carbon API which over half the developers used for porting their code over from the old system.

As for the Pixar thing, when they said PC's running osx they meant mac's, not x86 boxes. A mac technically is a PC.

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by onlooker
I was joking arround with. :D Not belittling. a fellow member.
:annoyed: Got it? :banghead:


That's what *I* thought. :)


theRegister is a known Mac rumor site. (at least to Mac users) This is far from a reputable news source. Although they try.


You can take "mac" out of that sentence, and your sentence is
still true.

[onlooker]

Originally posted by Thalaxis
That's what *I* thought. :)



You can take "mac" out of that sentence, and your sentence is
still true.

I wasn't really sure if it was read by PC users.

[malducin]

Let me get this straight, so you are implying the Linux machines that got converted were all artists machines? After all the rackSaver machines are usually multiprocessor, so the 1024 Intel processors of the renderfarm could actually correspond to 512 dual proc blades (very close to the 500 mentioned). Anyway I have no idea so any more info is appreciated. I never thought I would see PRman ported to OSX so quick (even after seeing that video of Catmull at macworld that showed the Pixar logo in an OSX), so strange things do happen.

[paultheplumber]

I like how this thread got side tracked into rehashing the old OSX on x86 rumor........ :rolleyes:


Moving the 500 linux boxes over to OSX means the bulk of the work is going to be done on shiny new G5s. (Think we will see any adds about that once it starts happening?)

But this is a good thing for both parties. Pixar gets a hardware vendor that will likely be responsive to their needs. And Apple gets their hardware stretched to limits in the 3d realm. Hopefully this will force Apple to stay on it's toes in terms of performance. And not just Gaussian blur performance. But specialized 3d production performance.

So I assume this means Pixar's proprietary animation software has been ported over to OSX too.. mmm I bet that's nice...

[agreenster]

Originally posted by paultheplumber
So I assume this means Pixar's proprietary animation software has been ported over to OSX too.. mmm I bet that's nice...

I was thinking the same thing...I wouldnt mind finding a copy of THAT laying around to install on my Powerbook. I must say its nice to see Pixar using G5's as workstations, and Linux in their renderfarms. Windows be damned!

About the OSX on x86....Apple does have a build of it internally, called Marklar. Heres the link (http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3048,a=30554,00.asp)

Its a year-old (pre-G5) eweek article and basically says that Apple keeps Marklar (or x86 OSX) up-to-date with relative versions of OSX as a fall-back plan. It was obviously more important to have it around before Apple committed to IBM as the new chip manufacturer.

So finally, put this silly discussion and rumor to bed!:rolleyes:

[MacRonin]

Originally posted by malducin
Let me get this straight, so you are implying the Linux machines that got converted were all artists machines? After all the rackSaver machines are usually multiprocessor, so the 1024 Intel processors of the renderfarm could actually correspond to 512 dual proc blades (very close to the 500 mentioned). Anyway I have no idea so any more info is appreciated. I never thought I would see PRman ported to OSX so quick (even after seeing that video of Catmull at macworld that showed the Pixar logo in an OSX), so strange things do happen.

Seeing as how Pixar has over 700 employees, I would say that the Linux boxes being 'switched' are artist & development machines, not renderfarm units.

So it looks as if Pixar is getting ready to pull a VT and order up a bunch of new G5s (dualies?!?) for it's employees...

If you look at the breakdown of platforms @ Pixar (numbers provided BY Pixar...)

375 Desktops -> Mac
100 Powerbooks -> Mac
500 Computers Running Linux
(likely becoming OS X boxes in the future)

125 Computers Running Windows. -> PC

Keeping in mind the 700+ employees (again, numbers provided by Pixar)

That makes it 1100 machines for 700+ employees...

1100, interesting number... Almost a supercomputer cluster worth of machines...

I would think the Windows machines are mainly administrative & some development (RenderMan for Windows, duh) boxes...

The 500 Linux boxes are probably ALL artist & development machines, with the 375 Mac desktops & 100 PowerBooks being spread out amongst various artists & admin/dev folk... Desktops to run Photoshop/2D apps for the artists, and the laptops for those who need to work remotely and whatnot...

So some folks have two machines on their desk...

Now the G5 replaces both machines, and runs everything!

Where can I get a copy of Marionette for OS X?!?

And once the lease is up on the Xeon/RackServe renderfarm, I would bet that G5s (or, dare I say it? G6s!) of the Xserve variety will be tapped for the replacement...

;^p

[Mazer]

500 Computers Running Linux -> Mac

What on hearth makes you think they are macs?
Yes, that would be very smart: run linux ppc on dual g4 with geforce2 cards... recomplile all apps including maya for ppc linux..when you can run linux on faster dual X86 with professional level cards... I gess they also replaced they Sgi monitors by cinema displays just because they look better....
Don't take me wrong I would love a Mac if I could afford-it, but... Mac users sometimes are very mutch fanatic about they choice to realise the simple truth... Macs are still slower, more expensive, less upgradable, and too restricted.
X86 is still the best way to keep your sistem current with a few bucks per year, and to this moment they are the fastest more configurable and affordable machines. And by the look of it they will be for some time...
Macs are cool, prety ,a Microsoft competitors, finaly have a unix Os and that's about-it. They are more of a luxury item than a tool...
Now...if Osx for x86 is more than a rumor... then its a very díferent story...

[MacRonin]

Originally posted by Mazer
What on hearth makes you think they are macs?
Yes, that would be very smart: run linux ppc on dual g4 with geforce2 cards... recomplile all apps including maya for ppc linux..when you can run linux on faster dual X86 with professional level cards... I gess they also replaced they Sgi monitors by cinema displays just because they look better....
Don't take me wrong I would love a Mac if I could afford-it, but... Mac users sometimes are very mutch fanatic about they choice to realise the simple truth... Macs are still slower, more expensive, less upgradable, and too restricted.
X86 is still the best way to keep your sistem current with a few bucks per year, and to this moment they are the fastest more configurable and affordable machines. And by the look of it they will be for some time...
Macs are cool, prety ,a Microsoft competitors, finaly have a unix Os and that's about-it. They are more of a luxury item than a tool...
Now...if Osx for x86 is more than a rumor... then its a very díferent story...


My bad, I cut & pasted that #s list from another post...

SO! I went back and looked at the slides from the Pixar presentation again...

And I corrected my original post...

500 Computers Running Linux
(likely becoming OS X boxes in the future)

But you will note, my original post (aside from the false paste) never stated that the Linux boxes were Macs...

But I DO think they are planning on moving the whole shooting match over to OS X...

As for the rest of your post, yeah sure, anyone can BUILD a PC cheaper, but can you go buy a Dell, or a BOXX, or a (insert favorite BRAND name PC here) for less? Not if you REALLY take care and match the specs...

Sure I can spec out a Dell cheaper than a new dual G5, but most folks who try that arguement go with one of the cheapie Dells, the consumer models...

Now try matching up a Dell WORKSTATION, or a BOXX workstation...

Potato, potahto...

Tomato, tomahto...

Give me a G5 running OS X any day!

PC wankers burn in hell!

BWahahahahahahahaha!

;^p

[onlooker]

[edited] :p

[Mazer]

MacRonin: Ok, sory, I thought this was your statement. I still have to disagree on the g5 stuff thought... But I dont think this discution would lead aniwere so...

onlooker: I'm sure you can do some very interesting tings with that Banana, so wy dont you go do-it, grow-up, and stop acting like such an ass.
Thank God most Mac users aren't like you...

[onlooker]

Originally posted by Mazer
MacRonin: Ok, sory, I thought this was your statement. I still have to disagree on the g5 stuff thought... But I dont think this discution would lead aniwere so...

onlooker: I'm sure you can do some very interesting tings with that Banana, so wy dont you go do-it, grow-up, and stop acting like such an ass.
Thank God most Mac users aren't like you...

I wish I help you find a sense of humor, but that is a task beyond me at this late hour.

I will delete the post. I didn't realize that the humorless were so rampant at night.

[agreenster]

Originally posted by Mazer
... Macs are still slower, more expensive, less upgradable, and too restricted.
X86 is still the best way to keep your sistem current with a few bucks per year, and to this moment they are the fastest more configurable and affordable machines. And by the look of it they will be for some time...

I dunno about that...remember Siggraph?

There was a picture floating around displaying Renderman Performance, and it shows that Renderman for the G5 has been optimized to be faster than a dual 2.8 gHz Xeon, and that was still under development phases.... 4:05 for the Xeon and 3:36 for the G5. (render times) [I have the pic but cant attach it in this thread for some reason?]

I think Apple is getting back on the wagon, promising the G5 to be 3gHz by next year and Pro NVidia cards debuting after Christmas (give or take). Dont doubt it. Pixar wouldnt sacrifice performance to market a product for another company, despite the CEO.

[malducin]

Well performance wise they might be comparable and competitive. But they are still less flexible. It's not like anyone can go to a store, buy the video or souncard you like, plop open a Mac and install it. For some people that's not a big del but for others it is.

And yes the performance or PRMan on the G5 at SIGGRAPH was extremely impressive (though we all know how sometime convention demos are ;-).

[Mazer]

Ok, assuming that that renderman numbers are, not a bit twisted... we all know how apple makes they'r benchmarks and marketing... Remember the g5 was the first 64 bits desktop sistem, wem Boxx whas already selling Amd opterons?...
But assuming they realy have an edge on performance, the question is, for how long?
The apple development is extremely slow in comparison with the Amd/Intel race (remember how they did the impossible: outperform the highend, hipper expensive, Sgi workstations....) They will soon, if not already outperform G5s and in some months, run circles around-it and sell today's top of the line processors at consumer prices, the same is true for video cards....
Macs are not top of the line racers, they are top of the line in durability, value along years, and overall quality. Theys are extremely good machines but, for CG or extreme gamers they ar not liquely to become a solution. Plus, I realy don't see why they should... they would gain the pc's advantages but also they'r faults. For instance if you could upgrade macs so easily as a pc, it would loose one of Mac's advantages.. the used market value...
It's a very diferent filosophy for diferent markets...

[agreenster]

Originally posted by malducin
But they are still less flexible. It's not like anyone can go to a store, buy the video or souncard you like, plop open a Mac and install it.

I've done this with nearly every Mac I've ever owned....?? Granted, you have to buy a card specifically for the mac, but that's understood. Just because it isnt sold at Best Buy doesnt mean its junk (usually the opposite is true). And I think the ATI cards for the mac are pretty impressive. The 9800 Pro has 256 mb DDR texture memory and 8 pixel pipelines...and the ATI driver problems experienced on the PC dont typically exist as much on the Mac.

Originally posted by malducin
And yes the performance or PRMan on the G5 at SIGGRAPH was extremely impressive (though we all know how sometime convention demos are ;-).

Well, that could be true, but Pixar isnt in the Apple-marketing business. They use what works best for them. Thats why they havent used macs for all these years!!

Originally posted by Mazer
The apple development is extremely slow in comparison with the Amd/Intel race (remember how they did the impossible: outperform the highend, hipper expensive, Sgi workstations....)

Agreed, but that was when Motorola was supplying the chips. Things have changed for the better in Apple land. IBM is making their chips now, and have committed to be 3ghz by next year. If the 2 ghz can compete with dual 3 ghz Xeons (According to PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274182,00.asp)) then imagine what the dual 3gHz G5 can do. Hell, even Microsoft is now going to IBM for their chips for the XBox 2 (http://www.xbox365.com/news/zcomment.cgi/article/EpyZlZAFputvwpPePy/tmpl/xxt_zc_template/prof/dev). Notice they are also using ATI for their graphic support....

Look, Im not an uber-Mac enthusiast, but you have to admit that they have made SERIOUS strides in the last few months. Plus, I have to re-iterate that even though Pixar and Apple share a CEO, I cant imagine Pixar putting their workflow at risk just to make a marketing statement about Apple.

As far as I know, Jobs is simply a figure-head, one of the founders, but leaves the desicion-making to people who know what they are doing, and what is best for Pixar, not Apple.

[ilasolomon]

Originally posted by agreenster
As far as I know, Jobs is simply a figure-head, one of the founders, but leaves the desicion-making to people who know what they are doing, and what is best for Pixar, not Apple.

Well, I'm not sure about that, but maybe true, I just read an article in CG History, and these are some lines:

"Early in 1991, Steve Jobs gave the ax to all application development at Pixar. Fearing that the selling of application software would discourage other third party software developers from writing software for Job's NeXT computer he halted all application development at Pixar. He gave the employees 30 days to try and spin off a separate company to focus on application software. This of course did not prove to be enough time, so the president of Pixar, Chuck Kolstad, along with about 30 employees (almost half of Pixar's workers) were laid off. Ed Catmull moved back into the position of president. Pixar lost a lot of talent including Alvy Ray Smith who went on to start a new company called Altamira (funded by Autodesk) and created a PC version of his IceMan image editing software he created at Pixar. This product is now commercially available on the market
under the name, Altamira Composer. "

This makes me think more about Job's strategy. ;)

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by ila_solomon

This makes me think more about Job's strategy. ;)

Jobs has a strategy?

[ilasolomon]

Originally posted by Thalaxis
Jobs has a strategy?
Everybody has one! bad ... or good. :)

[ages]

Makes me laugh when i read all these pc ppl's talk about why apple should switch to x86... They never took a plunge to buy an apple yet think their comments are the bible.
Things they should know-

OSX is based on Darwin bsd. This kernel has exhisted for x86 for decades.
Apple has toyed with x86 for 20 years, one of their closest implementations was called "Enterprise" which had copeland on x86.
Intel chips are too huge, too hot to ever have apple consider them as they wont play well with apples design cases and laptops. (hence xbox 2 and nintendo using PPC)

Apple wants to distingish itself from the pc crowd, x86 would confuse all.


Steve is apple is pixar, apple just invested in millions in IBM, intel is scared cause they dropped the ball with itanium and no 32bit addressing.

When u talk xeon setups, g5 is actually cheaper to buy, add the apple special employee discount to pixar and u get.....

[Joviex]

After having used apple for 15 years, growing up with an apple ][ and integer basic through IIgs hell, into Mac land, and now???

Now I use a PC.

I have yet to see one real world benchmark that proves the G5 is all that and a bag of doughnuts, for ANY area.

Aftereffects? Premeire Pro? Even those just recently got schooled by PC's (AMD no less) in a POS magazine called PC World.

Go ahead, tell me how the mag is slanted.

THe long and short is, all this Hyberbole hype came sh!tstorming ahead of the G5 release (as with anything nowadays) and after having read all about it, gone to my local Apple Store, played with the G5 box, talked for a few hours with two friends who own one, the guys at the store, and listening to the whispering wind on the internet ..... (where did all the hype go??)

I still wait for come concrete evidence that this new Mac, which will now be in the market for years to come, distances my "POS" PC which, at 1.5 years old, still beats the living f*** out of a G4.

Mac's for brute force, bleh, Mac's for working on?? Sure if I have a few more firstborn to sell into slavery for upgrades on vid cards and memory, not to mention the sticker price.

Its analgous to buying Nikes and Keds. But the difference here is, if I buy the Nike's, how do they make me run faster exactly? With the Keds, I get the same speed (which already makes this a poor analogy for PC users since PC's ARE faster), but save money ....

What is the point again? To look cool? You Apple guys go ahead, look cool with the computer at your desk. I will look cool with the money I saved in HW and the 120% production increase (to get more client jobs done and make more money), sitting off long island sound fishing Sword and drinking Mahi-Tai's on the yacht.

[malducin]

And I think the ATI cards for the mac are pretty impressive

You're right. I was more referring to the past when the Macs were a whole more limited for doing 3D. Now they are much better. Though paying a premium for a general purpose computer that's a tad inflexible is a bit offputting. Too bad the Mac clone market didn't take off.

but Pixar isnt in the Apple-marketing business.

Well but with Jobs at hand you never know ;-). It hasn't stopped Apple from using LOTR to promote Shake, though the fact that it was Shake on Linux is rarely mentioned by them ;-). (Kinda the what happened with Hotmail when M$ bought it). But yes (I hope) he leaves all those decisions to people that know (after all the used SUN in the renderfarm, when everyone used SGI back then).

Pixar lost a lot of talent including Alvy Ray Smith

Thanks for that tidbit. I had read about it, long time ago, but I always wondered why Alvy Ray Smith, Pat Hanrahan and others left. I guess this refers to all non-PRMan related development.

[beaker]

Originally posted by malducin
Well but with Jobs at hand you never know ;-). It hasn't stopped Apple from using LOTR to promote Shake, though the fact that it was Shake on Linux is rarely mentioned by them ;-).

First, when has any 2d/3d software company not mentioned when their software is used in a certain movie. Every single website has atleast a dozen stories talking about how so and so used their software on some big project. This is nothing new, it is free advertising. Who in the world would not take advantage of something like LOTR or any other big movie. I would declare their marketing people dumbasses if they didn't do this. I guess they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

As for not mentioning that they used linux. At siggraph meetings(local or the big one) the only time I hear people even mention hardware is when they are asked specifically what they used by an audience member. Otherwise they just say what apps and what they did. Hardware is ususally the last thing on the artists mind when talking about the process. Just read any article in cinefex, it is the same there.

[beaker]

Originally posted by amorano
Its analgous to buying Nikes and Keds. But the difference here is, if I buy the Nike's, how do they make me run faster exactly? With the Keds, I get the same speed (which already makes this a poor analogy for PC users since PC's ARE faster), but save money ....

What is the point again? To look cool? You Apple guys go ahead, look cool with the computer at your desk. I will look cool with the money I saved in HW and the 120% production increase (to get more client jobs done and make more money), sitting off long island sound fishing Sword and drinking Mahi-Tai's on the yacht.
I have worked for many places that use Boxx workstations and they cost the exact same as a machine from Apple.

The only time they are cheaper is when you build them yourselves. Most people tend to forget that that Sysadmin(or yourself) that you pay 20-50$ and hour is going to spend a couple weeks getting all those machines built and up and running and then you might as well have bought them whole. People don't think about those additional costs because techincally that person is allready an expense that you are paying for. But most people don't see the whole picture like that.

[Marc Andreoli]

Originally posted by amorano
What is the point again? To look cool? You Apple guys go ahead, look cool with the computer at your desk. I will look cool with the money I saved in HW and the 120% production increase (to get more client jobs done and make more money), sitting off long island sound fishing Sword and drinking Mahi-Tai's on the yacht.

Yes, that is exactly the point. That is why Virginia Tech bought Mac's to build the world's 3rd fastest cluster: 1100 G5 just look so sexy when they are lined up like that...ok, it also happened to be the cheapest option according to them (HW&setup).

I think the only argument against Mac's in 3D at the moment is software (apps, not the OS)... which is probably not that much of a problem for Pixar. Pro graphics cards are overrated IMHO, but that really depends on what you do, I guess.

Anyway, if you haven't seen OSX10.3 and the G5 in action, you should check it out...just to see that things have changed quite a bit in 'Mac land' since, ehrm...a few months ago ;)

[OFX]

Nice analogy, but if I'm running everyday all day, I'd much rather use the shoes that actually feel good, look good and make running a good experience rather then messing with the crap quality and painful blisters that come from the less expensive shoe with the heavier soles, not to mention the numerous trips to the store for shoe goo to hold the whole mess together. Also, the Keds tend to be taken off regularly for virus protection spray while the Nikes keep running.

BTW, I use both (4 dual G5's and a half dozen PC's including 2 dual 2.66 Xeons and Athlons). Both have their strengths and weaknesses. The speed of the G5, while not quite as hyped, is very very solid. It wins on some projects and loses on others . I'm not talking benchmarks, but constant use of both over 5 weeks on real projects. Not just Maya renders (where the PC wins hands down), but the whole pipeline from texture creation through compositing and laying off to tape.

Pricing is very close, and RAM prices are exactly the same as PC's (industry standard DDR400).

While never true in the past, I think Apple has released a very competitive computer on performance and price. It's a happy time for those of us that use both platforms!

[Saurus]

Originally posted by beaker
The only time they are cheaper is when you build them yourselves. Most people tend to forget that that Sysadmin(or yourself) that you pay 20-50$ and hour is going to spend a couple weeks getting all those machines built and up and running and then you might as well have bought them whole. People don't think about those additional costs because techincally that person is allready an expense that you are paying for. But most people don't see the whole picture like that.

Actually you can get the vendor to build it for you. The only time you work on them is during application installation and networking. Same process as Mac machine, but cheaper price. You just got to hook up with a vender that knows their stuff. Sometimes they will even do personal visit to maintain the machine just to keep your business. If they don't satisfy your need, move on to another vendor. There are so many vendors out there that will bend over backward just to have your business. Something I doubt Apple will do. Considering they nagged on peoples G5 order so that they can fill Virginia Tech order...I can see Mac Marketing guys just salivating at that accomplishment. Man, If a company nag on my order....I say see ya! Ahhhh...how sweet it is to have a choice.

Saurus

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by ages

Intel chips are too huge, too hot to ever have apple consider them as they wont play well with apples design cases and laptops. (hence xbox 2 and nintendo using PPC)


That, after this -- "Makes me laugh when i read all these pc ppl's talk about why apple should switch to x86... They never took a plunge to buy an apple yet think their comments are the bible."

Speak for yourself.


Steve is apple is pixar, apple just invested in millions in IBM, intel is scared cause they dropped the ball with itanium and no 32bit addressing.



Reality doesn't agree with that. Even IBM has disclosed definite
plans to deploy large-scale Itanium supercomputing clusters.

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by malducin
You're right. I was more referring to the past when the Macs were a whole more limited for doing 3D. Now they are much better. Though paying a premium for a general purpose computer that's a tad inflexible is a bit offputting. Too bad the Mac clone market didn't take off.

It probably would have if Jobs hadn't killed it just as it was
starting to get off the ground. I'm sure Motorola wasn't too happy
about having the clone market killed off just as they were getting
ready to launch their own clone.


This is nothing new, it is free advertising. Who in the world would not take advantage of something like LOTR or any other big movie. I would declare their marketing people dumbasses if they didn't do this. I guess they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Totally agree.


I have worked for many places that use Boxx workstations and they cost the exact same as a machine from Apple.


Then you're saying that the Boxx machines are providing a better
bang for the buck.

[b]
The only time they are cheaper is when you build them yourselves.
[/q]

That's pure bogus. It's been disproven too often to be worth
disproving yet again.

[MacRonin]

Originally posted by Thalaxis
It probably would have if Jobs hadn't killed it just as it was
starting to get off the ground. I'm sure Motorola wasn't too happy
about having the clone market killed off just as they were getting
ready to launch their own clone.

Uh, Moto DID release their own clone, had it out for at least a year before Jobs returned and killed ALL the clones...

Bet you folks didn't know, but there were 20+ different manufacturers doing Apple clones at the peak of it all...

Was the return of Jobs and the impending introduction of the G3 (aka 'Arthur', aka PPC 750) which killed the clones...

Steve (rightly so) recognized the fact that the only thing clones would do for Apple would be to steal sales away from Apple branded hardware...

But I still bought a Power Computing box when they went on sale...! As for the question of the 500 Linux boxes being used by Pixar...

E: What kind of computers do you use at Pixar?

V: For animation we use Intel workstations running Linux.


Taken from this link...

http://www.esmaya.org/popups/articleswindow.php?id=29

About half way down...

Cannot wait to see the Pixar release after 'Incredibles', or probably the one after that... End of the flick, and on the credit crawl, up comes the pronouncement:

Made on a Macintosh

Apple fanboy craziness ensues...!

;^p

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by MacRonin

Steve (rightly so) recognized the fact that the only thing clones would do for Apple would be to steal sales away from Apple branded hardware...


That was only because Apple's own hardware was identical but
considerably costlier. They wanted to be the "high end" mac
vendor, but they didn't offer anything that the clones didn't
other than a price tag.

They just went about it backwards; their most successful products
since have been iMacs and laptops. They could have let the clone
makers compete for the high end, and kept the bigger consumer
market for themselves :)

[MacRonin]

Originally posted by Thalaxis
That was only because Apple's own hardware was identical but
considerably costlier. They wanted to be the "high end" mac
vendor, but they didn't offer anything that the clones didn't
other than a price tag.

They just went about it backwards; their most successful products
since have been iMacs and laptops. They could have let the clone
makers compete for the high end, and kept the bigger consumer
market for themselves :)

He said, she said; all night long...

Some say Steve made the right choice, so say he didn't...

The Clone Wars are over folks, nothing to see here, move along...

Oh, and there were NO iMacs when Steve killed the clones...

Just the beige G3 desktops & towers, hottest thing from Apple (at the time)...

Back on subject, Pixars migration to Mac OS X...

Wondering if they plan on switching all current (and future, 500 Intel/Linux boxes, remember?) Mac boxes to fresh new dual G5 PowerMacs...?

REALLY want to see pics whenever they make the switch to a fully Apple populated renderfarm...!

Ah, Mac & PC infighting; add water, makes its own sauce...!

[agreenster]

Wow, this thread has grown since I was here last.

First off, I agree that companies use examples of their software at work to promote their business. (ie: Apple Shake and LOTR)

HOWEVER, I still dont think that means that Steve Jobs would allow Pixar to lose performance (therefore money) just to make a movie using Macintosh workstations. In fact, everyone in the audience wont give a shit if it says "Made on a Mac" at the end of Incredibles. The bottom line is, Pixar like what it sees in PowerPC (as does Apple, IBM, and Microsoft via XBox) so they have decided to give the G5 a try. Simple as that.

I like Apple, not because its pretty or whatever, just because its more efficient to use, is a well thought out OS, is open-source, and I have RARELY had any hardware problems. I just think they are a solid company. But when it comes to raw power, I use my dual 2.0 gHz Xeon. But now that THAT kind of power is available on a Mac, Im more than happy to switch. Rumor is that Apple is announcing the PowerPC roadmap in January, and will be dual 3gHz.

And finally, thanks for the tidbit from 1991 about Jobs laying off some employess, but I'm not entirely sure thats relevant to this discussion. Considering it has nothing to with Apple, or the fact that Jobs has grown a monumentally successful company in Pixar without relying on Apple computers or hype, it seems more like a vain attempt to bring up some dirty 'Jobs' laundry, when in actuality its does nothing more than imply that he probably made a GOOD decision getting rid of them. I dont know that for a fact, but Pixar sure has managed to flourish without them.

Bottom line is, whether or not Jobs fired someone 12 years ago hardly proves that Jobs would abuse Pixar to help grow Apple's marketshare. I think its a safe bet that the folks at Pixar only use stuff that works the way they want it to, not the way Jobs' marketing machine wants it to. And if Apple can brag that Pixar chooses Apple over Linux or x86, then good for them. Maybe they finally got something right for a change.

[MacRonin]

But if I am in the audience, I will give a sh!t...

And there are many other long-time Mac users who will get a kick out of seeing that credit crawl...!

As for the 3GHz G5 roadmap...

Jobs introduced the new G5 PowerMac at WWDC 2003, and stated that they would be going up to 3GHz within a one year timeframe. So that gives us 3GHz G5 PowerMacs no later than September 2004...

Probably get a speedbump come Jan. 2004, and go to the 3GHz parts comethe later half of 2004...

The 3GHz parts will probably be a die shrink, from .13 to .09

The .09 point is probably when we will also see G5 PowerBooks...

And the G6 is supposed to be in development now, with sampling coming soon (RSN)...

As for the Jobs dirty laundry stuff...

Happens every time any kind of 'good' news comes out about Apple/Mac/OS X... Usually from PC users... Must be some sort of automatic defensive belittlement mechanism...

So now it is November, and Pixar should be 'releasing' RenderMan Pro Server for OS X about now... Start looking for a press release...

But the more important press release to watch for is the one outlining Pixars plans for releasing MTOR on OS X...

[agreenster]

MTOR = Marionette?



:shrug:

[Thalaxis]

MTOR: Maya To RenderMan.

[ages]

Whoever upgrades their pc's anyway?
Its all BS, ppl would rather upgrade every 2-3 years like that they get a noticible difference.

For consumer- clones are good
Pro work- Closed boxes better.

Better cause atleast it is tested to work 100%, theyre workhorses which never get upgraded, but thrashed and retired..



I believe in closed boxes.

[Saurus]

Closed Boxes? That would suck. Where I work depending on what we are working on, TV or film, we will configure our boxes according to the project. Just last week I needed more memory cuz my Photoshop files needed to be bigger. I went from 1 gig to 1.5 gig. Our old machines are gutted (they don’t need Quadro video cards) and added to our render farm. If you are referring to Macs as solid closed boxes, which they aren't, check out this thread:

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=101210

Nothing is solid!

Saurus

[ages]

I never buy first generation of anything.
The "hobby game card" is the weakness in apples fields.

A closed box made for a specific application is more solid than any well configured clone, this is taken from6 years experience.

SGI has a market for this, companies like BOXX are trying to do this and Apple does this.
Having certain options is another thing...

Apple needs a 3D based g5 with configs to piss off these gaming cards for real cards like Wildcat series, i think everyone agrees to that.

What good is a card if its drivers suck *cough ATI.

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.