quote:I believe the claim is this creates non-artifact compressed video, hard to see by the tiny keynote quicktime broadcast. (also posted below) http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc03/ Post up if you have some thoughts. Interim
Pixlet is the first studio-grade codec for filmmakers. Pixlet provides 20-25:1 compression, allowing a 75MB/sec series of frames to be delivered in a 3MB/sec movie, similar to DV data rates. Or a series of frames that are over 6GB in size can be contained within a 250MB movie. Pixlet lets high-end digital film frames play in real time with any Panther Mac, without investing in costly, proprietary playback hardware.
18 users logged in
Proud partner of GDC 2025
Before posting, review our community guidelines.
Support GameDev.net with a monthly GDNet+ subscription!
Opinions: Apple G5
June 23, 2003 07:32 PM
Not sure how many Apple users there actually are in this forum, but wanted to get the opinions (since we all have one... right?)
Apple announced their G5 hardware. It''s on line with their usual top end systems in terms of price(starting at 3k for dual) and if the performance is on part to reality (vs the marketing hype), pretty sweet. Jobs made some impressive claims and showed some incredible demos (particular in video-audio editing). (see the link to the quicktime keynot, you''ll have to watch most of it to get to the end though, long feed).
http://www.apple.com/powermac/
Of course slashdot covering the news:
http://slashdot.org/apple/
I believe the new hardware may return Apple back to prime choice of video and audio professionals. Particularly considering how easy it would be to convert those proprietary Linux programs to FreeBSD + Cocoa UI. (Hell, they could just keep using X since Panther has a built in X server).
They also released a new codec called Pixlet. (Influenced by demand by Pixar apparently). Check out http://www.apple.com/macosx/panther/. I copied the blurb on it for you.
2,123
June 23, 2003 08:22 PM
IBM PPC 370. How long is it going to take Apple to just bite the bullet and go Intel? They''re staking the existence of their entire company (consider that PowerMacs provide over 30% of profits/revenue) on a single product from another company! What if IBM decides the returns on the chip aren''t good enough? What if IBM pulls the plug on the chip?
It also doesn''t help that PPC chips lose the "Gigahertz war" (nee "Megahertz war"); yes, "informed" consumers like you or me know that GHz aren''t everything in determining a computer''s performance, but does the average computer buyer? This could be a factor in a lot of potential sales losses for Apple: "Hmm, looks great, performs decently... a bit expensive - how fast is it? 1.4GHz! Tommy''s computer costs less and is about twice as fast! No way, dude!"
The problem is the fact that most users don''t consider the premium for an Apple computer worth it. Right now, computers are purchased as cheap as possible while satisfying major needs. Yes, a Mac is "easier" to use (subjective opinion), more aesthetic (objective), better integrated with its system software (objective), but so what?
Despite the tone of this post, this is not a rant. I''ve had Mac Envy since the Titanium PowerBook and new iMac debuted, and the complement of components - and OS X - have done nothing to alleviate it. I want a Mac, badly, but I can''t afford somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 for a PC (please don''t bring up the eMac as an alternative, or iMacs with less than 17 inches of viewspace), and even if I could afford it, it''s hard to justify.
Apple are painting themselves into a corner as far as their computer hardware business is concerned, and that concerns me. I love what they''ve been doing with the industrial designs of their machines for a while now; I absolutely love the iPod! The Pixlet codec is impressive according to spec, and may help to make interactive video-on-demand applications a reality in the very near future, for which I will eternally be grateful. But I think that moving to the Intel platform would be better for both Apple and consumers in general in the long run. Apple would bring their attention to detail and finish to the Intel-based product arena, where boring PC manufacturers definitely need a shot of imagination in the arm, and Apple products would be available to a much broader spectrum of users - from those who would run OS X on Dells, Sony VAIOs and beige boxes to those who would insist on quad-Xeon Apple PowerMac P4s. Or whatever.
Porting OS X to Intel would also bring a legitimate contender into the desktop OS space, which is good for consumers - and even for Microsoft, as it would quickly eliminate the accusations of monopoly.
Of course, such a move would have incredible technical issues to overcome, due to the nature of the IBM PC/Intel-compatible hardware space, but I''m confident it would be worth it in the long run.
Well, I can dream.
It also doesn''t help that PPC chips lose the "Gigahertz war" (nee "Megahertz war"); yes, "informed" consumers like you or me know that GHz aren''t everything in determining a computer''s performance, but does the average computer buyer? This could be a factor in a lot of potential sales losses for Apple: "Hmm, looks great, performs decently... a bit expensive - how fast is it? 1.4GHz! Tommy''s computer costs less and is about twice as fast! No way, dude!"
The problem is the fact that most users don''t consider the premium for an Apple computer worth it. Right now, computers are purchased as cheap as possible while satisfying major needs. Yes, a Mac is "easier" to use (subjective opinion), more aesthetic (objective), better integrated with its system software (objective), but so what?
Despite the tone of this post, this is not a rant. I''ve had Mac Envy since the Titanium PowerBook and new iMac debuted, and the complement of components - and OS X - have done nothing to alleviate it. I want a Mac, badly, but I can''t afford somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 for a PC (please don''t bring up the eMac as an alternative, or iMacs with less than 17 inches of viewspace), and even if I could afford it, it''s hard to justify.
Apple are painting themselves into a corner as far as their computer hardware business is concerned, and that concerns me. I love what they''ve been doing with the industrial designs of their machines for a while now; I absolutely love the iPod! The Pixlet codec is impressive according to spec, and may help to make interactive video-on-demand applications a reality in the very near future, for which I will eternally be grateful. But I think that moving to the Intel platform would be better for both Apple and consumers in general in the long run. Apple would bring their attention to detail and finish to the Intel-based product arena, where boring PC manufacturers definitely need a shot of imagination in the arm, and Apple products would be available to a much broader spectrum of users - from those who would run OS X on Dells, Sony VAIOs and beige boxes to those who would insist on quad-Xeon Apple PowerMac P4s. Or whatever.
Porting OS X to Intel would also bring a legitimate contender into the desktop OS space, which is good for consumers - and even for Microsoft, as it would quickly eliminate the accusations of monopoly.
Of course, such a move would have incredible technical issues to overcome, due to the nature of the IBM PC/Intel-compatible hardware space, but I''m confident it would be worth it in the long run.
Well, I can dream.
112
June 23, 2003 08:48 PM
Definitely, $3,000 is way too much...
I don''t know much about Apple and/or Mac, but if they haven''t gone Intel in all these years, maybe they have a reason... what would that be?
Victor.
I don''t know much about Apple and/or Mac, but if they haven''t gone Intel in all these years, maybe they have a reason... what would that be?
Victor.
c[_]~~
June 23, 2003 09:02 PM
Apple is great at hype. However, once you get the machines, you realize they suck ass, unless you like sitting in a tight loop inside the CPU. Even then, they may suck ass, depending on what that loop is doing.
Why is this, you may ask? Well, usually it has to do with the fact that Apple has to live with the north bridge/memory controller infrastructure available for the PPC. Unfortunately, there isn''t as much competition (and thus low cost, high quality innovation) as over on the Intel side. Look how long it took them just to get to DDR266 memory, for chrissakes!
And if you think that Intel chip sets are buggy, you should try Motorola some time. VIA and SIS combined haven''t released as many bugs. My favourite was: "Oh, DMA is not consistent with the stack? Just require the kernel to always copy data."
Why is this, you may ask? Well, usually it has to do with the fact that Apple has to live with the north bridge/memory controller infrastructure available for the PPC. Unfortunately, there isn''t as much competition (and thus low cost, high quality innovation) as over on the Intel side. Look how long it took them just to get to DDR266 memory, for chrissakes!
And if you think that Intel chip sets are buggy, you should try Motorola some time. VIA and SIS combined haven''t released as many bugs. My favourite was: "Oh, DMA is not consistent with the stack? Just require the kernel to always copy data."
2,123
June 23, 2003 09:09 PM
quote:Ego. Inability to concede defeat. Monopolistic practices and tendencies. Did you know that Apple at one time allowed other companies to manufacture compatible hardware? For some reason, they then muscled those companies back out of the market (I forget the details, but you can find them easily).
Original post by -vic-
I don''t know much about Apple and/or Mac, but if they haven''t gone Intel in all these years, maybe they have a reason... what would that be?
For all the wrong Microsoft may have done, one thing I will always respect the company for is their ability to capitulate - such as in the case of the Internet. Apple would do well to understudy them.
June 23, 2003 09:22 PM
Well, as for why not Intel, that''s easy.
You go Intel. To get to the cheap Intel base, you need to have wide driver and vendor support almost immediately. Otherwise, what''s different? Besides the Motherboards and Processors, Apple at this point is pretty much industry standard x86 hardware:
ATI, nVidia, DDR SDRAM, Serial ATA.
They just stick to a select few manufacturers and guarantee tight hardware integration into the OS. It gives that "It just works" feeling. Of course, this means that you and I can''t always put in the cool hardware devices we find floating around in the Windows world and are forced to stick with equipment with Mac OS support from vendors (which isn''t many). One thing I do find annoying, since I work with routers and firewalls, is the lack of a serial port on my Powerbook Ti 15". I recently found a USB-Serial converter though, which I may buy soon.
Also, some of the other cool features that Apple has such as their heat control on the laptops, noise control on the G4 Towers, all comes from that hardware integrated into the OS. I think the new G5 fans (9 of them) are controlled by the OS and the hardware to keep the system cool and run quiet. (1/2 as quiet as the G4 according to Jobs, so probably 1/3 quieter in reality)
Apple does have their core OS, Darwin as an open source release on x86 (limited hardware support). Rumors have it they have an x86 version of OS X as well, ready to go should they want to go that way (loose chip support, etc). But with the IBM deal for the PowerPC 970 and if the new stats on the performance are true, they''ll probably retake some of their core markets in desktop publishing as well as video/audio editing.
Int
You go Intel. To get to the cheap Intel base, you need to have wide driver and vendor support almost immediately. Otherwise, what''s different? Besides the Motherboards and Processors, Apple at this point is pretty much industry standard x86 hardware:
ATI, nVidia, DDR SDRAM, Serial ATA.
They just stick to a select few manufacturers and guarantee tight hardware integration into the OS. It gives that "It just works" feeling. Of course, this means that you and I can''t always put in the cool hardware devices we find floating around in the Windows world and are forced to stick with equipment with Mac OS support from vendors (which isn''t many). One thing I do find annoying, since I work with routers and firewalls, is the lack of a serial port on my Powerbook Ti 15". I recently found a USB-Serial converter though, which I may buy soon.
Also, some of the other cool features that Apple has such as their heat control on the laptops, noise control on the G4 Towers, all comes from that hardware integrated into the OS. I think the new G5 fans (9 of them) are controlled by the OS and the hardware to keep the system cool and run quiet. (1/2 as quiet as the G4 according to Jobs, so probably 1/3 quieter in reality)
Apple does have their core OS, Darwin as an open source release on x86 (limited hardware support). Rumors have it they have an x86 version of OS X as well, ready to go should they want to go that way (loose chip support, etc). But with the IBM deal for the PowerPC 970 and if the new stats on the performance are true, they''ll probably retake some of their core markets in desktop publishing as well as video/audio editing.
Int
136
June 23, 2003 09:23 PM
Oluseyi:
I am typing this right now on one of those "clone" Mac-compatibles. Great machine. Love it to death. Apple should allow more cloning.
As for your comments on the Intel chip: No. Just no.
Apple can afford to make innovations like FireWire 800 and the like because they own the entire market of machines. This limited amount of machines also allows them to put OS versions out with less money in testing. Apple is primarily a hardware company (75% of their money last quarter came from hardware: $1.1B), and always has been. The concept of a bunch of dumbass Windows users making the leap to an OS X-based OS just because it''s free is stupid.
If Apple switched their OS to run on Intel-based machines right this very moment, there would be little or no difference in the market share. However, their hardware market would fall right out, and they''d be bankrupt. Hope is not a very good strategy for this kind of thing. Remember what happened to Amiga''s hardware profits the nanosecond some idiot released a way to run the OS on cheap commodity hardware.
You want a stable, mature, UNIX-ish OS on your x86 machine, download Darwin, Apple''s open-source core to OS X, and install that.
Resist everyone
Talk on RavForum(tm)
I am typing this right now on one of those "clone" Mac-compatibles. Great machine. Love it to death. Apple should allow more cloning.
As for your comments on the Intel chip: No. Just no.
Apple can afford to make innovations like FireWire 800 and the like because they own the entire market of machines. This limited amount of machines also allows them to put OS versions out with less money in testing. Apple is primarily a hardware company (75% of their money last quarter came from hardware: $1.1B), and always has been. The concept of a bunch of dumbass Windows users making the leap to an OS X-based OS just because it''s free is stupid.
If Apple switched their OS to run on Intel-based machines right this very moment, there would be little or no difference in the market share. However, their hardware market would fall right out, and they''d be bankrupt. Hope is not a very good strategy for this kind of thing. Remember what happened to Amiga''s hardware profits the nanosecond some idiot released a way to run the OS on cheap commodity hardware.
You want a stable, mature, UNIX-ish OS on your x86 machine, download Darwin, Apple''s open-source core to OS X, and install that.
Resist everyone
Talk on RavForum(tm)
127
June 23, 2003 09:31 PM
quote:
You want a stable, mature, UNIX-ish OS on your x86 machine, download Darwin, Apple''s open-source core to OS X, and install that.
Wrong... download FreeBSD because that is what Darwin was based off of. =)
The nightmare travels across the cosmos with his burning mane. The trail of ash that is produced.
?Have a nice day!?
122
June 23, 2003 09:31 PM
quote:
Original post by -vic-
Definitely, $3,000 is way too much...
I don''t know much about Apple and/or Mac, but if they haven''t gone Intel in all these years, maybe they have a reason... what would that be?
Victor.
The G5 is a 64-bit processor, while a Pentium 4 or Xeon is 32-bit. GO to http://www.apple.com/g5/ to find a CPU benchmark chart, plus some other info.
----------------------- I am 0x539. Are you?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement