View Full Version : AM: MAC or PC?
02 February 2003, 05:42 AM
Which platform do you use?
Mac OS 9
Mac OS X
I use AM on Windows 2000.
02 February 2003, 05:54 AM
I use Mac OSX for everything but A:M. I could run A:M in classic mode in OSX but it runs very slow when you do anything with bones. So if I use A:M, I either don't do anything with bones or I have to reboot in to OS9. At least if I use it in OSX under classic mode when (not if) A:M crashes the finder it won't take down my whole system. I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE OSX VERSION!!!!!
02 February 2003, 02:58 PM
I started on the Mac but it was to flaky and slow. I switched to PC and made a huge change. I actually felt like I coul model and not close my eyes scared s&#tless that Hash would crash. Hey that rhymed! If Hash cleans up their act I may try it on OSX.
02 February 2003, 03:58 PM
I'm using win2k and it's really stable! But of course A:M runs not much better on it than it does on win98. I've also used the mac operating systems very much and I find then too unstable and A:M is really unstable. Of course when I tried it I was using v9.0, so that might of been the problem. :)
02 February 2003, 04:04 PM
I use a mac for everything I do.... Actually, it's a powertower pro mac clone with a g4 upgrade card and 3dfx voodoo 5500 dual processor video graphics card.... I rarely crash.... I mean, I'd say I crash maybe once every 30 or 40 sessions...
It's been said before and it's very true.... you have to slim down your system extensions to find the right spot for AM to live in.
02 February 2003, 04:39 PM
Win2k is very stable, I've had it crash twice and I've had it running for 5 months! The first time I was trying to crash it and the second time it was a game that didn't like my video card. But It's a matter of taste I guess.
02 February 2003, 05:38 PM
This poll should be interesting. I've wondered for a while what the ratio of Mac toPC users was. I expect it's higher than the 10% Mac market share. Hopfully this will show it's worthwile to port the plugins to the Mac.
I use a G4/400. It hardly ever crashes, except when using A:M and sometimes with IE. Hmm, both MS base apps, I wonder. I run OS 9.2.2 because A:M sucks in OSX and I hate rebooting. I haven't filtered my extension for A:M, but I run A:M alone, at least for 9.5. Version 10 seems much better at playing with PS, and the unlimited undos work. I'm too am really looking forward to the OSX version, but I'm not holding my breath.
02 February 2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Graham Clark
This poll should be interesting. I've wondered for a while what the ratio of Mac toPC users was.
When I spoke to Steve earlier this week, he reaffirmed to me their commitment to the Mac and their Mac users, which he said accounted for 30% of their business. Not a bad percentage.
02 February 2003, 05:51 PM
You forgot the button for "both". I use AM on my Windows desktop and my iBook.
02 February 2003, 09:38 PM
I'm an XP user, only prob I get is that my videocard causes crashes every now and again. I want to replace it just never got around to it. As far as A:M you should have an option that says "in box on shelf" cause that's where mine is now :annoyed:
02 February 2003, 10:10 PM
this may sound odd but when i first loaded am8.5 on my pc with 98 it crashed so much i nearly gave it up but slowly the more i used it the more stable it got, i now use the same version on win2k, it's so stable i use it with winamp, imesh, at least 2 web sites and photoshop running simultainiously, no crashing, ever, what am i doing wrong?, at least i still have creases, so i'm not totaly left out of the forum grumbles.
02 February 2003, 10:23 PM
well I'm afraid you will just have to upgrade if you want to crash more. Try version 9 on for size ;)
02 February 2003, 11:00 PM
02 February 2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by kloak
but slowly the more i used it the more stable it got
This is an absolute Hash Fact: The more proficient you are at using A:M the way Hash programmed it to be used - the more stable the program is.
This is a point of contention for me... Because the only feature testing that gets done by Hash is by veteran users or in house programmers - no one really tries to "break" things. Once you go outside the methodology the programmers laid down - you crash...a lot.
If, however, you learn to work the way they expect you too - you will be a happy hash user (minus the munchies)
02 February 2003, 11:38 PM
perhaps, i just think my pc had to get used to this fussy intruder that is the product of Martin's loins.
i do however spend an average of 10-14 hours a day on hash, so maybe i've been "broken in" without knowing it?
02 February 2003, 12:23 AM
fussy intruder indeed:curious:
02 February 2003, 11:22 AM
Sign me up on both platforms please.
Dan Shimmyo once posted me off list when I was learning the Dark Side (PC's) about the differences - and they DO exist-
Ever try the "reload project at start-up" button in the tools folder on a Mac pre- AM vs9?
Ever try loading an AM produced Targa?
Better memory handling (but that's a general Mac issue anyway)
I won't go into all as I actually prefer modelling on my Mac to my PC.
05 May 2003, 10:56 AM
How is the support for Open GL hardware accelleration in AM on the Mac now. Last time I checked (somewhere in the early days of v.8 or late v.7), there was no hardware accelleration only Conix Open GL.
If switching to Mac, should I wait till the OS X release of AM?
05 May 2003, 12:13 PM
I use both platforms for AM, but recently I found the PC has been a more pleasurable experience. There are just too many little quirks in AM on the Mac side that mount up to one large headache.
I haven't checked recently, but displacement maps don't work on the Mac side, for example.
Beside that, you miss out on a lot of interface niceties, like workbook mode, 3D preview of a model, the ability to use a mouse wheel to scroll in the PWS and zoom in a window.
Hopefully with the advent of an OSX version of AM, all this will change, and the Mac won't be the poor relation in the AM world.
Oh, the Mac version is hardware accelerated now and no problems in OS9.2, but not good in OSX classic.
Hopefully Raf won't mind too much, but I've finished watching my Anzovin Secrets of AM 2003, does anybody in the UK want my copy? (free)
05 May 2003, 02:46 PM
Another cross-platform user here. I've recently built my own PC just to run A:M and a few other 3D apps.
I'd have to say that I'm having better luck with A:M on Win2K than in OSX Classic. The program is much more responsive (probably a functiong of my Mac, not A:M) and OGL seems to run better... Stability is about the same (I'm using v10) with a few crashes per month.
To me, A:M has always felt like it was written for the PC and then ported to the Mac. (no offense to Ken Baer)
An added bonus is the wealth of PC-only plugins (like Arctic Pigs) that I can now tap into.
One surprising thing... My 1.8 GHz Athlon isn't much faster than my 500MHz G4 when it comes to rendering. I'd guess it's about 10 or 15% faster, but I haven't gotten into over-clocking yet! :)
05 May 2003, 02:07 PM
I've got a similar setup to you. I built a PC with an Athlon 1700 processor after having used a Mac G4 500. The speed increase on the PC was phenomenal.
I've just done a quick comparison test using the obligatory 'Toys' prj on the v10 CD. I used the setting it opened with and rendered frame 280 (and 279 to get up to speed).
On the Mac, it was 3 minutes and 31 seconds per frame and on the PC, it was 58 seconds!
Things could be different if AM supported Altivec.
01 January 2006, 11:00 AM
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.