Mac vs PC

[uruk]

I currently have Maya 2010 for Mac. (I got it before you posted.)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/243294af12de885969.jpg[/qimg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodesk_Maya...oh, yeah it is a really professional piece of software. Oh...sorry. I really am. I don't mean to embarrass you. I will declare that 1+6=67 just to make you feel better.

A couple of days after I made the post I found out that Autodesk did indeed port Maya 2010 to the Mac. The Mac port of Maya 2010 was released a few weeks after the Windows and Linux release. Autodesk is now putting the Mac ports out sooner than they used to.

I was intending to make the correction, But it seems you did it for me. Thanks.

Yeah...that really makes sense.....okay the truth is the world works in such a way in which...and brace yourself...Windows users will use Windows Avid for industry standard film work in Windows, and...get this..Mac users will use the industry standard MAYA for CGI on a Mac. OMG!!!!!!! CRAP!!!!

As I mentioned in other posts before, the industry has been pressuring the software companies to put out Mac ports and put them out sooner than the companies used to. This was brought on by the advent of NVIDIA and others finally making highend graphic cards available to the Mac. This has been an ongoing process that was started not too many years ago.

I can point you to several CGI industry publications where there are articles on the subject of "proffesional level" CGI software "finally" being ported or available to the Mac. Computer Graphics world and 3Dworld are just two.
http://www.cgw.com/home.aspx
http://www.3dworldmag.com/
Do a search onthier site for Mac and you will find the articles.

There are many that I can't recall right now, but they are actually almost as many as are on Windows, because most CGI is developed on Windows and OSX and then rendered on Linux systems.

Yes, for many years the CGI pipeline was SGI workstations and render farms. PCs became cheap and powerfull, so the mantra changed to PC workstations and linux on intel Render farms. Finally now Macs are in the pipline as workstations.

There are companies that make CGI software for MAC. Sorry..you are embarrassed, and I will let you run off and clean yourself up.

Yes there are many 3D software available for the Mac. You have Cheeta3D, Electric Image Animation System, and Kinemac. these are Mac only software and with the exception of Electric image, none of these are "professional level" software. Electric Image was once considered professional level, but it has fallen way down the ladder.

You also have Blender (which is open source or free BTW) Carrara and Animation Master. Blender was first developed on linux and then made its way to windows then finally the Mac. Carrara and animation master were devloped for windows then Mac. All of these are considered "hobbiest" software. That does not mean that you can't produce some outstanding work with them though.

Then you have the "professional software". like Lightwave 3D, and Maya. Lightwave was originaly developed on the amiga as part of the video toaster system. it was the first professional video production system that was affordable by John Q Public. Well $4,000.00 was not exactly John Q Public folding money back in the 80's But you get the idea. the effects for Babylon V was all done on videotoasters and lightwave. But by that time Amiga folded up and Newtek ported all the hardware and software to Windows PCs.

Maya was originaly devloped on the SGI/Irix system. Maya started out as two separate programs one from Alias and the other from Wavefront.

When the two Canadian companies merged they created Maya. Which is used by every effects house there is. From ILM to WETA to Digital Domain. But don't expect thier version to be the same as the one you buy out of the box from Autodesk.

Then there is Cinema 4D which is a new comer but is used mainly in the print industry.
Then have a plethora of tools like Mojoworld, Bodypaint, Modo and soforth, Some of which are used by the big effects houses.

BTW...The issue is that you said that only Autodesk is making things easy..it is a dead give away that you know nothing of CGI and are actually not telling the truth. Autodesk is the one company that only have a handfull of software available for OSX, and that is how I know you are not right here.

No, I said that Autodesk now owns all the proffesional level 3D animation software used by the big animation houses like ILM, WETA, DD and soforth. Autodesk owns Maya, Softimage XSI, 3D Studio Max, Motion Builder, and Mudbox. The also own almost all of the film/video compositing and processing software used in the film/entertainment industry. They own Flame, Smoke, Flint, Luster, and Toxik.

For a more complete list of what they own, go here: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?id=8909451&siteID=123112

So tell me..how does it feel to be called out and exposed as not really honest infront of everyone on this thread by someone who actually knows the software? Also I have a subscription to 3DArtist and 3DWorld, which are the big two. I know because they cost me $30 a month to get.

Hey, so do I. I even provided links. I have a subscriptions to 3D World, ( I have every single issue too) 3Dcreative( A new publication that came out this year: http://www.3dcreativemag.com/ ), and Computer Graphics World, which has been around since nearly the begining of the computer graphics industry.

I have several issues of 3D artist. but they aren't around any more. They stopped publication back in 2002: http://www.3dartist.com/3dao/s/47/3da47sup.htm

EDIT: BTW...Linux is the most used...for rendering because you can run +1000 computers without buying the OS for each. And my pwnage of you a complete. Goodbye.

Yea, I know. I posted that twice in this thread. Effects companies use linux in thier render farms because it's free. And the render farms are all PC Intel based machines.


Edited to add: I recently found out that EI Technolgy Group recently ported Electric Image to Windows.

 

[GreNME]

I should correct both of you on the Linux point: the version they use in their render farms and many of the high-end design machines in the VFX studios is anything but a "free" software. The license is free, but they spend lots of money paying people to customize and optimize them to run in highly-efficient clusters in order to minimize render times and have a platform that can be easily ported to new hardware if they needed to. The benefits they're making use of are certainly still due in part to the nature of open-source software-- of which MacOS and Windows are not ( )-- but cost of the software is definitely not among those factors at the level of their operations.

Other than that, continue the OS Warz.

 

[uruk]

I will write this...the truth is that most CGI and 2d desing software is available for both systems, and so it really comes down to telling a company that you know how to run software...which means you will get the job regardless of what OS you run.

It was not untill the last four or five years that proffesional level CGI software became available for the MAC. Maya was available to the Mac as early as 2002. Read the magazines you said you have a subscription to. Well at least the one that is still in publication.

uruk> I really want you to defend youself, because I actually was able to debunk you without doing anything, being that I work in CGI and so I want you to defend the notion that Maya 2010 isn't available on OSX even though I have it, that and the large number of CGI software available for..well..all systems. Autodesk is really the only one that is Windows specific, and yet you tried to say they were the only one to...port...to Mac? Please defend this. I was simply trying to defend that people can make choices based on their own needs, but you....wanted to be an absolutest, and now you need to defend it.

See my response above. When I first upgraded to Maya 2010, It had not been ported to Mac yet. My info was old. After I made the post I looked around at the autodesk AREA forum and found that Autodesk had released the Mac port several weeks ago. My mistake.

My other mistake was saying that Autodesk makes "ALL" the professional level 3D software used in the industry. I should have said that Autodesk owns all the commercial "proffessional level" 3D animation software used in the industry. The Maya 2010 that you are using is owned by Autodesk.

Companies like ILM, Pixar, Digital Domain, WETA use Maya as thier main work horse for 3D animation but they all also use proprietary software (most of which are based off of the Maya platform). ILM has Zeno, Pixar has MenV, and WETA has Massive for huge crowd scenes

There are other programs from different developers like SideFX, who makes Houdini, which is almost exclusivly used for particle physics simulation such as fire and smoke and soft/hard body collision simulations. Not so much used for character animation.

And to be 100% truthfull ILM has used Newtek's Llightwave 3D on occasion. Ok, and ILM used the Mac only based (then, not now) Electric Image once. It was for the background scenes in the Pod Race sequence in the Phantom Menace. I remember this because EI Technolgy group tried to sue Lucasfilm because they had understood that Lucas was going to give EI and Electric Image credit in the film and Lucas didn't.
Here's an archived article: http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/apr99/0654.html

Oh yea. Everybody's useing Pixelogic's Zbrush now. It really is an awesome 3D modeling software.

Debunk my image that proves I have Maya 2010 on a Mac, or admit you were wrong. Only two options, and I look forward to your post.

I don't say that you don't have Maya 2010 for the Mac. When I upgraded to Maya 2010, the Mac port was not available then. My information was outdated.

Oh, but don't upgrade to Snow Leopard 10.6 just yet.: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/ps/dl/item?siteID=123112&id=13830094&linkID=9242258

 

[Ducky]

This thread has gone from irksome to full on donkey-shagging fail.

Amazing how fiercely people will argue about operating systems with the same fervent, spittle-frothing proselytising as the religious.

 

[uruk]

I should correct both of you on the Linux point: the version they use in their render farms and many of the high-end design machines in the VFX studios is anything but a "free" software. The license is free, but they spend lots of money paying people to customize and optimize them to run in highly-efficient clusters in order to minimize render times and have a platform that can be easily ported to new hardware if they needed to. The benefits they're making use of are certainly still due in part to the nature of open-source software-- of which MacOS and Windows are not ( )-- but cost of the software is definitely not among those factors at the level of their operations.

Other than that, continue the OS Warz.

Point well taken, but as you pointed out the cost are due to man hours whipping linux into the shape they need rather than license costs.

Imagin the costs of trying to whip Windows2008 into shape.

 

[uruk]

This thread has gone from irksome to full on donkey-shagging fail.

Amazing how fiercely people will argue about operating systems with the same fervent, spittle-frothing proselytising as the religious.

You ain't seen nothin' yet. You now have two graphics geeks swinging thier 3D space navigators* at each other.



*For the uninitiated: http://www.3dconnexion.com/3dmouse/spacenavigator.php


But then ya really didn't want to know that now, didn't ya.

 

[Ducky]

You ain't seen nothin' yet. You now have two graphics geeks swinging thier 3D space navigators* at each other.



*For the uninitiated: http://www.3dconnexion.com/3dmouse/spacenavigator.php


But then ya really didn't want to know that now, didn't ya.

Hah.

No I didn't.


But then I'm a pragmatist. I treat discussions of operating systems in social settings as I do politics or religion:

I don't get into the discussion. I don't care what anyone else's beliefs are and appreciate not being proselytised to.

Unless the discussion is costing you (and paying me) 200 an hour, I don't want any part of it.

For the record, I'd be happy to get into discussions of Politics and Religion for the same hourly rate. I take cash and paypal.

Cheers. I'll let everyone go back to their regularly scheduled crapfest now.

 

[uruk]

Hah.

No I didn't.


But then I'm a pragmatist. I treat discussions of operating systems in social settings as I do politics or religion:

I don't get into the discussion. I don't care what anyone else's beliefs are and appreciate not being proselytised to.

Unless the discussion is costing you (and paying me) 200 an hour, I don't want any part of it.

For the record, I'd be happy to get into discussions of Politics and Religion for the same hourly rate. I take cash and paypal.

Cheers. I'll let everyone go back to their regularly scheduled crapfest now.

Hey, I understand. Usualy I avoid the Mac PC Wars. They are both excellent computer systems each with thier own idosycracies.

But sometimes you just gotta swing with the monkeys, ya know. Sometimes I feel the need to wallow in the mud and sling dung for no good reason.

Maybe that is because I'm an instructor and am not allowed to have a personal opinion regarding religion and politics or computer platforms, lest a student or adminstrator get offended. The desire builds up after a while untill the volcano blows .

 

[nota]

"Hackintoshes"? Never heard of them.

The term refers to a non-Apple computer running OS X. It's a bit controversial due to the software's license agreement specifically forbidding the practice.

If I pay for the OS10.Xx disk
what right does steve jobs inc have to tell me how
I may decide to use that disk

I find the whole idea of such restrictions
very very close to being a monopoly
and as such illegal and unenforceable

btw who ever actually reads the lawyer talk
or worries about it if they do

like steve will come to my house and cry at me
that he and his kids are staving now that
apples monopoly is dodged

 

[nota]

you know I wouldnot mind if the price difference was minor
like the cost of a dell unit or the same spec HP
but apple thinks they can exploit 1000 or more
for about the same cost to make and same spec unit

now you can bwitch about how many firewire slots it has
or other arcane and cheap to add on cards vs MB native mounts
but mac just are way over priced
esp now that all most all the guts are the very same as a pc

 

[GreNME]

Point well taken, but as you pointed out the cost are due to man hours whipping linux into the shape they need rather than license costs.

Imagin the costs of trying to whip Windows2008 into shape.

You really don't know much about the different versions of WinServer 2008, do you? There's already a clustering system, you can pare it down pretty heavily, and you get configure it for some pretty high performance work.

However, for the job they needed, Linux served the purpose better. What you seemed to miss in my statement was that cost wasn't the primary determining factor, it was utility. Right tool for the specific desired job, and all that. Spinning it for more OS Warz nonsense just belies lack of understanding of that basic rule.

 

[tesscaline]

"Hackintoshes"? Never heard of them.




If I pay for the OS10.Xx disk
what right does steve jobs inc have to tell me how
I may decide to use that disk

I find the whole idea of such restrictions
very very close to being a monopoly
and as such illegal and unenforceable

btw who ever actually reads the lawyer talk
or worries about it if they do

like steve will come to my house and cry at me
that he and his kids are staving now that
apples monopoly is dodged

US Copyright law gives Apple the right to decide who may use their software, and how that software may be used, no matter how much you pay for it.

Don't like it? Don't use Mac OS.

 

[not daSkeptic]

If I pay for the OS10.Xx disk
what right does steve jobs inc have to tell me how
I may decide to use that disk

Nobody ever claimed that Apple could tell you how to use the disc. You bought it, you own it. You're free to smash it, paint it, or bake it in a pie. The content contained on the disc, however, is a different matter. You didn't buy that, you just bought permission to use it in certain limited ways.

The entire point of copyright legislation is to permit the owner of a created work to control how it's used. In that respect, what Apple is doing is no different than movie studios forbidding you from buying a DVD at Walmart and giving a public performance.

I find the whole idea of such restrictions
very very close to being a monopoly
and as such illegal and unenforceable

Not all monopolies are illegal. Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are all forms of legal monopolies.

 

[nota]

to quote a english pm on the law
''the law is an ass''

I have little problem with copy rights to insure payment
but draw a hard line of the use of copy rights to limit use
like apples monopoly ideas

 

[JWideman]

US Copyright law gives Apple the right to decide who may use their software, and how that software may be used, no matter how much you pay for it.

Don't like it? Don't use Mac OS.

Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with it. Copyright law is only concerned with distribution. That's why it's called copyright - right to copy - and not How You Get to Use My Stuff.
Where the issue of hackintosh legality came up was where some guy was selling them. Outside of that, it's like the tag on your mattress. It's not actually illegal to remove those tags from your own mattress. And even if it is (honestly, it isn't) there's no mattress police.
Incidentally, the debate is still on about that hackintosh vendor, since the counter-argument is that Apple's violating anti-trust laws.

 

[not daSkeptic]

I have little problem with copy rights to insure payment
but draw a hard line of the use of copy rights to limit use

You can't have the first without the second. If usage rights were not limited, nobody would pay. They would just take a thing and use it.

like apples monopoly ideas

Once again, copyright is a monopoly. In fact it's the whole point.

 

[uruk]

You really don't know much about the different versions of WinServer 2008, do you? There's already a clustering system, you can pare it down pretty heavily, and you get configure it for some pretty high performance work.

However, for the job they needed, Linux served the purpose better. What you seemed to miss in my statement was that cost wasn't the primary determining factor, it was utility. Right tool for the specific desired job, and all that. Spinning it for more OS Warz nonsense just belies lack of understanding of that basic rule.

Actually the big effects houses do not only stick with proprietary renderfarm software and clusters. or even inhouse renderfarms. There are many companies out there that offer render farm servers and produce software and OSes specificaly for renderfarm networking not to mention renderfarm services to big and small houses alike. Many of which are optimized to the popular rendering software like Mentalray, and Renderman.

And yes, the renderfarm software run on linux because ofthe open source and customizable nature. You don't need a whole lot of the OS extras when you are just running one or two applications.

Nowadays the big houses use thier inhouse render farms for propritary rendering software
or custom stuff. Once the scene has been crammed into a mentalray or Renderman file it can go off to a third party renderfarm.

 

[uruk]

Oops Just wanted to make a correction to a previous post. #321 to be specific.

I mentioned the wrong 3D artist magazine. The 3d artist I was familiar with stopped publication eight years ago. http://www.3dartist.com/3dao/s/47/3da47sup.htm


3D Artist magazine by Imagine publishing is a recent publication whch started out earlier this year. http://www.3dartistonline.com/back_issues.php

3D Creative has been around for sometime. http://www.3dcreativemag.com/

Sorry.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Incidentally, the debate is still on about that hackintosh vendor, since the counter-argument is that Apple's violating anti-trust laws.

Actually, the counterclaim was dismissed. Psystar has since filed another action, but the only significant difference is the version of OS X (Leopard vs. Snow Leopard).

To summarize the dismissal:

1. An antitrust violation requires, among other things, that a party be enjoying monopoly status in the market in question. The market in which MacOS exists has many viable competitors, thus Apple has no monopoly.
2. Apple's marketing behavior is inconsistent with that of someone exploiting a monopolistic position.
3. It is not illegal for one product to only be usable in conjunction with another product, so long as that restriction is made known to the customer prior to purchase. Apple makes it quite clear that MacOS requires an Apple-branded computer. It's in the EULA, it's on their website, it's printed on the box.

 

[GreNME]

Actually the big effects houses do not only stick with proprietary renderfarm software and clusters. or even inhouse renderfarms. There are many companies out there that offer render farm servers and produce software and OSes specificaly for renderfarm networking not to mention renderfarm services to big and small houses alike. Many of which are optimized to the popular rendering software like Mentalray, and Renderman.

And yes, the renderfarm software run on linux because ofthe open source and customizable nature. You don't need a whole lot of the OS extras when you are just running one or two applications.

Nowadays the big houses use thier inhouse render farms for propritary rendering software
or custom stuff. Once the scene has been crammed into a mentalray or Renderman file it can go off to a third party renderfarm.

You completely missed my point. The issue with the platforms they choose is not one of cost, but utility. Trying to spin it as one of cost is typical OS Warz nonsense and has no bearing on operating a business of that scale. Even the proprietary stuff becomes affordable at the scale WETA and ILM operate at.