Slashdot Mirror


Shake 2.5 for Mac OS X Half Off

dtype writes "Now we can begin to see where some of Apple's latest purchases are heading. Shake 2.5 for Mac OS X was announced today. It is notable that the Mac OS X version costs half as much as versions for other operating systems, and that current customers have the option of doubling their current number of licenses at no cost by migrating to Mac OS X." Mac OS X 10.2 will be required, so add $120 to the cost of each license, too. It's still a bargain at just over $5,000, though.

69 comments

  1. shake by the+way,+what're+you · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    mmm... forbidden shake...

    --
    example.org - powered by Linux!
  2. A bargain at half the cost! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's still a bargain at just over $5,000, though.
    I don't know....depends on what it does. Anyone?
    1. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      From the website (never heard of it before) It appears to be a professional video compositing program. They said it was used in many major motion pictures, and had a story about its use in Ice Age.

    2. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Informative



      Shake is a compositor. It's kind of like Photoshop at 24 frames per second. Kind of.

      You start with a collection of images or sequences of images; these may come from any number of sources, but they usually come from a special type of scanner called a ``datacine'' (or ``telecine,'' if you're old-fashioned). When you scan film, each frame is stored on disk as a separate image file (usually in DPX or Cineon format) and given a number, so you end up with nastytroll.0001.dpx through nastytroll.0048.dpx.

      You import these sequences-- and other elements, like stills-- into Shake, where you can do things like key out the background behind this green-screen shot and put the result on top of that background plate, and add that character who was also shot on a green-screen, but paint out the wires holding him up and add a glow around his shoes, then add some CG spaceships and stuff (provided as sequences by the animation group) to the background.

      Once you do all that artistic stuff, you end up with a result, which gets rendered out into a (you guessed it) sequence of images. That sequence can then be used with other software, or it can be printed to film using a laser film printer.

      That's basically what Shake does, in a nutshell.

      Oh, and they used it on movies like Fight Club, The Matrix, and LOTR.

    3. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      thanks. useful. (i'm your parent)

    4. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by piznut · · Score: 0

      The $5000 you "save" on the software will be quickly lost in the time that it takes to render scenes on Apple hardware. Anyone else notice that the specs require a 500mhz P3 and an 800hmz g4? Kind of an inverse mhz myth thing goin on there eh?

    5. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by medcalf · · Score: 5, Funny
      <whore type="karma">

      You forgot to put in the end tag! Now all of the following posts will be karma whores.

      </whore>

      Whew!

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    6. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      And I woulda got away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those nosy kids!

      Bwa-ha-ha.

    7. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not my real parent!

    8. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Next time, try reading about the product.

      quoted from http://www.apple.com/shake/
      "Resolution Independence and Extensibility
      Shake simultaneously handles 8, 16 and 32-bit (float) images for the highest-quality productions in the industry. Its scanline/tiled-based renderer provides efficient processing of the most complex projects and features an almost unlimited number of layers, custom macros, concatenation of contiguous color and transformation processes for better quality and render times, an extensive scripting language and distributed rendering for larger projects."

      So if you're not rendering fast enough, you can render to server farm easily enough and solve your issue rather quickly. After all, what else are you going to do with your old PC hardware?

    9. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by Emrys · · Score: 3, Funny



      except that you opened a nested whore tag before you closed his, so there's still one open.

      </comment>

      </whore>

    10. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by BitGeek · · Score: 2



      Just keep wishing and hoping and praying.

      Lets see, an 800MHz G4 is only, what, 24 times as fast as a 500MHz P3 when doing floating point math.

      Its funny- PC people still think their processors cant' do fractions..... and they're right!

      At least, not very fast.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    11. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by medcalf · · Score: 2

      Ah, but the comment is currently at +2, so obviously I was whoring. :-) (Is there a down-mod for using a smiley???)

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    12. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by owenc · · Score: 1

      Some poor reader probably reads at a threshold of four, so until you get one more point that whore comment is going to remain opened for them.

      Don't worry, i've got it taken care of:

    13. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably why Intel has a 3 gHz Pentium 4 coming out in a couple of months. mHz vs mHz, go Apple, mHz vs multiple gHz...

    14. Re:A bargain at half the cost! by Edgewize · · Score: 1
      No no, the tag is a singleton that describes the relationship with the poster's intentions. For XHTML compliance, it would be properly closed as />.

      In case you didn't know, the <whore> tag is related to the 'Content-Moderation' MIME header. There are plans to include it in CSS4, but because of implementation issues, it will probably be an optional component. Browsers will have the choice to skip past any items below a fixed value without displaying them.

  3. i think that'll make people switch by cheezus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The price difference between the linux/windows version and the OS X version is about $5000. You can buy one really nice new pimped out pro mac with that kind of money. My guess is they are tempting current shake users to make the "switch"

    --
    /bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
    1. Re:i think that'll make people switch by piznut · · Score: 0

      "My guess is they are tempting current shake users to make the "switch" Yeah...all 200 of em.

    2. Re:i think that'll make people switch by chrismear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This doesn't seem like a bad tactic on the part of Apple to get some film studios to use Macs more. There was some worry that Apple would simply discontinue the Windows/Linux versions, and force people to switch in order to stay upgraded and supported.

      Also, I'm pretty certain that the $5000 Mac price is a discount off the original price, rather than the Windows/Linux prices being hiked up from the original price. All in all, it seems a pretty decent policy, IMHO.

  4. Plus a new mouse.... by stu_coates · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Taking a look at the tech specs for Shake, reveals that a 3 button mouse is required on the Mac platform... now where can I find one of those on the Apple store? ;-)

    1. Re:Plus a new mouse.... by Surlyboi · · Score: 1

      Right about here. Scroll down, baby. Scroll down.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    2. Re:Plus a new mouse.... by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Taking a look at the tech specs for Shake, reveals that a 3 button mouse is required on the Mac platform... now where can I find one of those on the Apple store? ;-)

      Right here. There are several available.

    3. Re:Plus a new mouse.... by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Okay, you and I posted exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. That's just plain creepy.

    4. Re:Plus a new mouse.... by Space+Coyote · · Score: 2
      now where can I find one of those on the Apple store? ;-)

      Right here. There's a whole page full of mice from Kensington and Microsoft, not to mention tablets from Wacom, which is probably what you really want if you're into this kind of thing.

      --
      ___
      Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
    5. Re:Plus a new mouse.... by Maserati · · Score: 1

      And that Wacom tablet should support handwriting using Ink under OS X 10.2.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    6. Re:Plus a new mouse.... by Surlyboi · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the haters out there could attribute it to
      "Mac zealot groupthink" =D

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    7. Re:Plus a new mouse.... by dcstimm · · Score: 1

      gezz mod the parent up, that should be considered funny, because I started laughing my ass off.... Doesnt deserve flamebait!

  5. Going after MS users by stealthv · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I found this on the pre-order page.

    *Shake 2.5 for Windows is available to existing Shake 2.46 Windows customers only.

    Makes you wonder how long the Windows version will be around?

    1. Re:Going after MS users by pi+radians · · Score: 2

      From what I remember, Apple said that they'll release one more version for Windows. So this looks like it's it for Wintel users.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    2. Re:Going after MS users by iso · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is no surprise. Shake announced that they were going to cancel Windows development even before Apple purchased them.

    3. Re:Going after MS users by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

      *Shake 2.5 for Windows is available to existing Shake 2.46 Windows customers only.

      Interestingly the IRIX and Linux versions don't have that little bit of fineprint. hmm... Perhaps the linux and IRIX versions will stay around. Looks like Apple would like to push Microsoft right out of that market niche and only compete with SGI and Linux (which it would probably like to confine to the render farm.)

    4. Re:Going after MS users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is simply not true. Post a reference, please.

  6. That would be $129 by Orbital+Sander · · Score: 1

    Mac OS X 10.2 will be required, so add $120 to the cost of each license, too.

    That would be $129, plus tax where applicable.

    1. Re:That would be $129 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, or $20 with coupon or free from the Apple Store. Gimme a break.

    2. Re:That would be $129 by BitGeek · · Score: 2



      Which is bullshit-- someone who's just switched platforms doesn't have to buy the OS-- they get it ON THEIR BOX.

      Sheesh. Shake 2.5 won't be out before 10.2- as 10.2 IS REQUIRED to run it. so anyone making the switch will get their box with 10.2 on it.

      Hell, they'll probably order the whole kit and kaboodle from apple pre-installed with shake and jaguar.

      Why this constant harping on Apple as if its expensive-- its only expensive if you don't value your time (and even then, its cheaper than the windows alternative.)

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
  7. I don't know... by Ecko_viLAn · · Score: 1

    but to me apple is starting to look like they are buying out all the competition of the film industry little by little and isn't that a monoply? correct me if I am wrong. I love apple, kick ass products but with their making you pay for .mac and the such seems like apple is getting a little to greedy.

    --

    --
    If we don't end war, War will end us. - H.G. Wells
    1. Re:I don't know... by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First of all, I think you need to look up the words ``competition'' and ``monopoly.'' I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

      Apple's competition is Dell, IBM, and other makers of Windows PCs, and to a much lesser extent, SGI and other makers of Unix workstations. Nothing Real isn't Apple's competition.

      And a monopoly is a situation in which only one source exists for a class of product or service. It's not meaningful to talk of monopolies on single products. You could say that Apple now has a monopoly on Shake... but that would be a meaningless statement. If every other compositor-- including things like After Effects and, hell, Photoshop and Microsoft Paint-- ceased to exist, then Apple would have a monopoly on compositing tools. But that's not the case, and it's not bloody likely to happen.

      And as far as .mac goes, I for one would rather see Apple stay solvent and profitable (I'm a shareholder). They were losing money big-time on iTools, because it was far more popular than they expected it to be. It was either turn it into a for-pay service, or dump it entirely. I agree completely that the current situation isn't wonderful, but I consider it the lesser of two evils.

    2. Re:I don't know... by Ecko_viLAn · · Score: 1

      Thank you, for correcting me. I did have monoply quite mixed up.

      --
      If we don't end war, War will end us. - H.G. Wells
    3. Re:I don't know... by MrResistor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple has had the advantage in video ever since Amiga died. There are a lot of video hardware manufacturers that only make hardware for Mac because the QuickTime framework makes it so easy to do so.

      That said, though, I think that this move with Shake is an indication that Apple is coming to the realization that it may not matter given the fact that Apple is currently losing the hardware race.

      I'm not writing Apple off, but I think it's time to recognize that IBM/Motorola aren't supporting them. PPC, despite being superior on a clock-for-clock basis, is now so far behind on clock speed that said superiority is no longer enough. My advice would be to start porting OS X to a 64-bit arch now. Naturally, I'd love to see OS X on Hammer, and it seems like that is the more likely choice, but considering that Apple has no legacy x86 code to support, maybe Itanium would be a better choice for them?

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    4. Re:I don't know... by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      You're under the mistaken impression that people buy Macs because Macs are fast, therefore the fact that Macs aren't as fast as PCs means more people will buy PCs. That's wrong.

      People buy Macs so that they (the people, not the computers) will be productive. I have a 750 MHz PIII on my desk (using it now) and a 500 MHz iBook. Right now, I'm using the PC to surf and goof off, but in a minute I'm going to go back to using Illustrator and InDesign on my iBook. It's not that my iBook is faster, and it's not that I'm using software that's not available on Windows. It's that I'm more productive when I'm using a Mac. Lots and lots of people feel the same way; even if it's only 5-10% of the desktop computer market, it's still millions of people.

      Bottom line: fast is nice and all, but there are things that are more important than fast. That's where Apple's market share comes from.

    5. Re:I don't know... by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      How about Opteron? They could make a custom chipset to insure that the mobo is still propritary and use the x86 compatiblity to make softwindows smoke.

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    6. Re:I don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it's also the model that's been best rewarded by the marketplace.

      Say what you will about the uncoolness of the tactic for buying it out and taking it all, it gets the company money. And money is what keeps the company alive.

      As much as people like Apple for having good design, they haven't gotten more market share, have they? As much as people hate Microsoft for being evil, they're on top, aren't they?

    7. Re:I don't know... by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      Opteron == Hammer

      Opteron is the product name for the core which has been refered to as Hammer for the last year or so.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    8. Re:I don't know... by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      Did you read the article I linked. Are you honestly suggesting that a 50% performance hit doesn't adversely affect productivity?

      For general office work and such, you're right, it isn't going to matter that much. For Photoshop and AfterEffects, commonly used apps in fields traditionally dominated by Macs, it obviously will make a difference.

      That you feel more productive in the environment you are most familiar working in is something I can't argue with, but perhaps you should ask yourself how much of that productivity increase is simply due to familiarity?

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    9. Re:I don't know... by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Let's get back to the subject at hand: we're talking about Shake here. If you're using Shake, you send jobs to the render farm to render; you don't use your desktop for that. This is true no matter what your desktop system is. So the only performance question revolves around interactivity: is the computer fast enough for you to interact creatively with the software? I played with Shake running on a dual-processor G4 at NAB, and it was very interactive. So the answer to that question is a qualified yes.

      I could put a dozen 2 GHz Pentium-whatevers on my desk, but they'd just spend most of their time waiting on me. The heavy lifting is being done by the render farm in the basement.

      So yup, I'm suggesting that a 50% speed difference between a Mac and a PC doesn't mean jack shit, as long as both PC and Mac are fast enough for the artist.

    10. Re:I don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, I thought Hammer was a chipset, eh not enough coffee today.
      Neeever mind.

    11. Re:I don't know... by JoeWalsh · · Score: 4, Funny

      They were losing money big-time on iTools, because it was far more popular than they expected it to be.

      Fortunately, the $100 charge will take care of Apple's popularity problem.

    12. Re:I don't know... by dhamsaic · · Score: 2
      I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
      I like that movie too.
      --
      Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
    13. Re:I don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Did you read the article I linked. Are you honestly suggesting that a 50% performance hit doesn't adversely affect productivity?

      If what you're doing involves heavy number crunching, sure. But that's what render farms of cheap linux boxes are for. For common interactive use, it's not that big a deal.

  8. Dell courting Hollywood by qurob · · Score: 1

    Apple better be going after the market....

    "Minority Report" Mobile Editing Studio Uses Dell

    Excerpt:

    Dell Precision Workstations and Other Dell Equipment Saved Production Crew Valuable Time and Money

    Dell played a major role in creating "Minority Report," an action thriller directed by Steven Spielberg. It is set in Washington in the year 2054 and takes place in a world where the police have developed a psychic technology to arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crimes. Detective John Anderton, head of this "pre-crime" unit, finds himself accused of a murder he hasn't yet committed.

    The futuristic nature of the film, based on the story by famed science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, required the actors to interact with virtual objects. The crew needed a fast way to create these complex effects in real time to ensure they would fit precisely with what the actors were doing on screen.

    Dell equipment used by the "Minority Report" production crew helped accomplish this difficult task. The solution was to rent a 47-foot trailer and equip it with the latest Dell computer hardware to capture, monitor and edit video in real-time on the set.

    The production team installed six Dell PrecisionTM workstations and 10 Dell OptiPlexTM desktops, all with flat panel monitors to save valuable real estate inside the trailer. The systems were loaded with Adobe® Photoshop® , Adobe Premiere® and Macromedia® Director® Shockwave® Studio. Each Dell Precision workstation was configured with a dual 36GB SCSI RAID setup, an IEEE 1394 card and 512MB RDRAM to play back the uncompressed video in full motion as it was streaming in from the set.

    The crew used Dell InspironTM laptops for real-time monitoring and for distributing pre-compressed digital information. They also built a complete communication system to stay in contact with the set. This enabled the crew to take this mobile editing setup to the different locations during production.

    "Our goal on the set was to create the technical environment that gives maximum flexibility to the actors and the director; it was up to us to work to their rhythm, not the other way around," said Bonnie Curtis, producer, "Minority Report." "Set and talent time are very expensive and the last thing the director wants to hear is 'hold on.' Fortunately, we never had to say those words."

    "We saved a 'man-month' of labor at each location because we didn't have to rebuild, reconfigure and rewire every time, not to mention how much we saved by choosing standards-based hardware," said Matthew Morrissey, the film's playback supervisor.

    The hardware performed flawlessly," added Morrissey. We needed wicked-fast equipment, huge amounts of storage and great support. Dell delivered."

    Dell's involvement with "Minority Report" is both an example of the value Dell delivers to the film industry and a demonstration of how Dell solutions can actually reduce a customer's cost of doing business by utilizing standards-based hardware.

    1. Re:Dell courting Hollywood by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      This reminds me of something funny-and-true I read a while back. Only one software tool has been used on every feature film since the advent of digital production. It's the single most popular tool in Hollywood. And the name of that tool is... vi.

      In other words, no matter who you are or what you do, you can find somebody who has used your product in making their film. Remember last winter when everybody and their sister was bragging about how Weta used their software or hardware or whatever to make LOTR? That's because Weta used one of everything to make LOTR.

      That said, the bit about using ``1384'' (i.e., FireWire) to capture uncompressed video sounds fishy to me. Although lord knows the bandwidth is there-- uncompressed serial digital video only needs 270 Mbps, while FireWire can handle up to 400-- I've never heard of anybody using FireWire for that yet. I'll bet the Dell boxes were capturing DV-compressed video at 25 Mbps over FireWire, just like you get out of your camcorder at home. No facts here, just an educated guess on my part.

    2. Re:Dell courting Hollywood by tuxedobob · · Score: 1

      If you believe the Apple ads, it seems like you could do pretty much the same thing in an airline seat. I don't suppose anyone's here who's actually used both in a production setting who can comment?

  9. WinXP Shows where MS is Going by poopbot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    Happy Troll Tuesday!

    Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.

    "I've heard WinXP removed the cmd/command prompt."

    No, Microsoft didn't remove the CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM prompt from Windows XP. But Windows XP has reduced functionality, in many ways, not just in the command line. The command line is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not documented.)

    The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.

    Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.

    The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.

    When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.

    There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.

    People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the command line interface DOS, and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.

    Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.

    Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.

    Although articles often say negative things about Microsoft, I've never seen an article that fully documents how bad the situation really is. Microsoft's management is so bad that the company has become self-destructive. For example, Windows XP is spyware. Here is a list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers:
    1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
    2. Fax Service
    3. File Signature Verification
    4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
    5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
    6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
    7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
    8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
    9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
    10. Microsoft Management Console
    11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
    12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
    13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
    14. MS DTC Console program
    15. Run DLL as an app
    16. Services and Controller app
    17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
    18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
    19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.
    These are just the ones I know. There may be others.

    So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 7, 2002, there are 18 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.

    It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking. The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.

    Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user.

    Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation. Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but they don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.

    Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.

    Note that Windows XP Professional can support only ten simultaneous incoming network connections. If you want more than that, you must use Windows 2000 server, and pay much, much more. (There is no Windows XP server yet.) Many businesses have very light network traffic; they just move files from staff member to staff member; they really don't need a dedicated server computer. The staff computers could easily handle the load except for this artificial limitation.

    Apparently because the Windows XP GUI comes from Windows 98, Windows XP has the same problem with desktop icons that Windows 98 has. The icons sometimes flicker. Sometimes they move themselves around, particularly after the user switches monitor resolutions. Also, sometimes the taskbar settings un-configure themselves, as they do in Windows 98.

    Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer. Most people are both honest and intimidated. Apparently about 95% do whatever they are asked on the screen. They give their personal information to Microsoft. They don't realize that, if they feel forced to get a Passport account, they should enter almost completely fictitious information, since the real question is not "What is your name and address", but "Can we invade your privacy". The honest answer to this is "No, you cannot invade my privacy", and the only effective way to communicate that is to give completely fictitious information. Since it is the educated people who have computers, Microsoft is building a database of the personal lives of educated people. Microsoft knows when they connect and from what IP address (which tends to show the area), what kind of help they ask, and information about what they are doing with their computers, including what music they like. It is not known, and there is no way to know, how much Microsoft or other organizations make use of this information, or their plans for future use.

    Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch requires that the user agree to a contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's computer. The contract says that if a user wants to patch his or her system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal control over the computer. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper. You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.

    This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS.

    Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.

    These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.




    - posted by poopbot: providing truth in a deceitful world

    ePsCWGge0x Post #480
  10. hello ya tard....matrix, FightClub, lotr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can you even read, or did your mom post for you again?

  11. I wonder if Logic will see a price cut by Steve+Cowan · · Score: 2
    Now I wonder if Apple will also cut prices on software from recently-acquired emagic.

    Think about it: somebody who wants to get into computer music can buy a PC and pay $$$ for Cubase or get a Mac and a deeply discounted copy of Logic.

    This is a brilliant way for Apple to even out the costs of pro solutions without lowering the price of their CPUs.

  12. Shake demo possible? by TexTex · · Score: 2

    Now that Apple's offering a higher-end software that can compete against some of the bigger players, I wonder if they'll be offering some type of demo. Many of the others like Discreet who sell compositing software--especially the one's you usually purchase through a distributor or licensed reseller--will gladly give in-house demos of their hardware or software to try and lure new business. An artist will usually want to feel comfortable with a toolset before plunking down the purchase price.

    I hope this happens in some form...whether via Apple or via the retailers. It'd show a solid desire to grow this market, and boost Shake's appeal to those who are looking for something similar to Combustion (and to some extend After Effects) but with full OS X support.

    --
    -Barkeep, a draft of your most hazardous brew, for the world is slowly stepping into focus, and I don't like what I see.
  13. Concerned about hardware requirements by Steve+Cowan · · Score: 2
    ...I wonder why the Mac version requires an 800 MHz G4 while the Windows version only requires a 550 MHz P3?

    I guess they have the Mac CPU doing some of the work that is left for the high-end PC graphics card to do, since the market is pretty scarce for Mac workstation-class graphic cards.

    This is not a troll - I'm just wondering if it's a good idea for Apple to post requirements like this, which I took directly from their Shake specs page, when Apple has for so long been touting the "Megahertz Myth".

    1. Re:Concerned about hardware requirements by tuxedobob · · Score: 1

      I suppose that could be for several reasons. First, maybe it's like Final Cut Pro in that you need that speed for real-time effects.

      Secondly, look at the graphics card requirements for the Windows version. I've never heard of any of those. Looking them up at their respective web sites, I can see why. The PC version requires what's considered a "workstation" video card. The Mac version can use factory cards. Sounds like the CPU gets more work to do on the Mac side of things. Let's hope it's Alti-Vec enabled.

    2. Re:Concerned about hardware requirements by trash+eighty · · Score: 1

      because the lowest spec pro Mac available these days is an 800Mhz one (i'm talking the quicksilver powermacs - there are 700Mhz G4 iMacs and eMacs).

  14. Studios don't care (5core: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Studios don't care if they use Mac or PC or SGI, they just care about how fast the thing renders. If they can't keep up with the P4 / Athlon / Hammer, they're screwed. People will simply move to other compositors like Discreet Combustion or Digital Fusion, that run much faster on x86.

    Apple may treat its regular users as idiots (which is what they are) but that doesn't work in the professional market. All major effects studios are replacing their workstations with Intel / AMD machines. Look here and here.

    Now mod me down so people can't see the truth, you fucking iTrolls.

  15. Troll-MOD 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make even a slight complaint about anything Apple and you're modded down. Works every time.

    Most Mac users can't even cope with a single mouse button; if you gave them 3, their heads would explode.

    Sorry, I meant implode.

  16. MHz myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But MHz are a myth. Do you want better proof than the fact an 800 MHz iMac only runs about as fast as a 500 MHz Pentium...?

  17. Good Price by Perdo · · Score: 2

    Renders take twice as long so it should cost half as much.

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

    1. Re:Good Price by pauldy · · Score: 1

      Did you happen to read that the dual proc mac was also running an distributed.net client and serving pages for a tier 1 p0rn site.

      Seriously looks a bit biases to me esp with the way they neglect to mention such important factors as the video cards used in each. I know one of the machines comes with a nice ELSA video card.

      That being said I wouldn't take that article to seriously for nothing else than the testing and reporting are kind of lacking.

    2. Re:Good Price by Perdo · · Score: 2

      So what you are really saying is OS X can't walk and chew gum at the same time... No, OS X has no trouble prioritizing background tasks. Running a distributed net client would not affect it in the slightest. Since a single Mac could never hope to host a tier 1 pr0n site, I'm going to assume that was a joke.

      Video card has no bearing on render time. Rendering is done by the CPU only. We're making a file not a frame. Lucky we don't have to put A Quadro 4 in every box in a render farm.

      Ars Technica Said it best:

      "Dear Steve, more bogomips. Love, Johnny.
      Posted 7/20/2002 - 9:21PM, by johnnyace

      The guys over at Digital Video Editing have taken the "what should I buy, PC or Mac" argument to its "logical" *cough* conclusion: Benchmarks. In their Benchmark Duel: Mac vs. PC, Round II, they've taken three machines, a Dell Precision 340 ( Single P4 2.53Ghz), an Apple PowerMac G4 dual 1Ghz, and a BOXX dual Athlon 2000+MP, and ran them head to head. 'Tis a shootout of high end prebuilt boxen with one goal in mind: "Which one is fastest?" In some tests, the results are negligible. In a photoshop benchmark, the dual G4 takes two seconds while the x86 machines take 1. Statistics say that I should care, but when I'm working hard, one or two seconds probably won't be a big deal. However, in the digital video tests, the Apple machine gets spanked! In render intensive tests, the G4 weighs in at 11:57, and the Athlon machine flies by at 7:11. I didn't care that the G4 box took an extra second on a photoshop render, but four minutes is a little more difficult to ignore.

      With the prosumer interest in digital video production ramping up, many people are buying Apple hardware for the convenience of iMovie and assured compatibility with Apple branded DVD-R drives. But, articles such as this aren't going to help. And to be honest, as an ex-Mac poweruser I find the entire situation to be incredibly frustrating. From a hardware enthusiast's historical point of view, Apple had some of the best pre-built systems to be had for any price, when considering hardware alone. PPC processors with SCSI disk systems were, in theory, going to kick the crap out of your standard PC, and in many ways, they were superior technologies that appealed to a number of people.

      Yet at this very same time, this killer hardware was trapped under an OS that couldn't keep up with the times. I'm sure some will disagree vehemently, but OS 9.2 and its predecessors, especially pre-8.5 systems, were the fences that kept impressive technology caged in a 10x10 foot back yard.

      And what do we have today? The reverse! Except among those who are reticent to adapt, the MacOS of yester-century is nothing more than a bad memory. OS X rectifies almost all of the problems I ever had with the earlier OS, but now that the OS is up to date, the hardware is woefully out of date. So Apple, what gives? Does Steve Jobs' brain run on OS 8? I've seen good hardware, and good software; can you please try to do both of these things at the same time? If you do, I might even switch back."


      --

      If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

    3. Re:Good Price by pauldy · · Score: 1

      Boy boy boy. Are you trolling or being serious.

      There are such things as hardware 3d accelerator cards that will accelerate certain rendering functions in hardware. In high end shops you will find a lot of these type cards. Many SGIs weren't so good at their jobs because of the fabulous mips processor it was the video card they put in them that made them do such fabulous real time stuff. The Macintosh had them for a short period of time for their quick draw and quick draw 3d features but I doubt one was used in this setup. So this has a very high impact on the job at hand and not having the facts at the finger tips in the report takes away from it's credibility. Obviously you fail to see this and all I can say is march on lemming the cliff is just over there.

    4. Re:Good Price by alernon · · Score: 1
      I believed I read, that the researchers later discovered that it was only a single processor application, so It becomes a bit more obvious why it was so far behind.

      Can anyone confirm this?

    5. Re:Good Price by Perdo · · Score: 2

      So the Athlon MP was at the same disadvantage... Two processors with one sitting idle.

      --

      If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  18. Mouse by zapfie · · Score: 2

    I don't think Apple is going to start making 3 button mice. First, there are already plenty of quality ones out there. Second, it might set a precedent that some Mac software requires a 3 button mouse. For power users, it's ok, but for regular users, it makes a lot more sense to have one button. I am guessing this is a case where three mouse buttons are needed, but I am guessing they will try to avoid that situation unless they have to.

    --
    slashdot!=valid HTML