If I’m not mistaking, the very first Blender version ran on an Amiga, which is of course enough reason for me to support it until death do us part.
There have been numerous attempts to revive the Amiga in the course of years. Do you think this will be the definitive attempt? I still like to install an Amiga emulator every now and then, and dive into the warm pool of childhood nostalgia. I used to be a designer of commercial Amiga games. I’ve got many precious memories of that time.
Oh, I don’t mind the console/shell/terminal at all - it’s part of the attraction actually. This is simply the most userfriendly flavour of a Unix-alike system I’ve come across. Tons of apps to choose from, too.
My opinion of Linux however has not changed since the mid 90’s : constant work-in-progress; too much trouble to maintain a system over the years. Plus: commercial apps can be a chore on the wrong distro and quite a few good ones are not on the platform.
Reading manpages and googling for obscure workarounds for problems long solved anywhere else is not fun.
On the other hand Apple gear not only does ‘just work’ but they also make the neatest Laptops so we can take Blender with us and look fashionable at Starbucks.
Actually, assuming grandpa was a 3D artist working (as in paid ) back in the day he would have most likely worked on an SGI. And I do believe that’s what Blender was originally written for when it was an inhouse app?
Except when it “just doesn’t work”, like when you’re trying to develop software using OpenGL or (worse yet) OpenCL.
You rarely get to see that as user, because developers don’t like to ship software that doesn’t actually work. You never get to see the projects that are canned mid-development. You never get to see software that isn’t developed or ported in the first place, because of the bad reputation that Mac OS has accrued in this regard.
Maybe, sometimes, you get to see it as user of FOSS software like Blender, with a “let the users do the QA” attitude. But then those Mac OS bugs don’t necessarily get fixed either, because the only way to reproduce them is to buy thousands of dollars worth of “designer hardware”.
Yeah, maybe that’s the problem. People don’t actually want to do any real work on proper computers, they want to look affluent while pretending to work while sitting in a coffee shop.
SGI offered the high-end CGI systems back in the Amiga days, only affordable for bigger studios. The Amiga was a mid-end system, affordable for consumers and small-scale developers. I was a 2D pixel artist, working with Deluxe Paint (a.k.a. DPaint), a fabulous pixel editor that would be comparable to Photoshop + After Effects these days.
Between creating pixel graphics I did fiddle around with Sculpt 3D, the first consumer-level 3D editor as far as I know. Very elementary, but nevertheless an exciting early 3D tool. The famous Juggler demo was created with Sculpt 3D:
Yeah I know - hence the ‘3D artist’. Unlike SGI Amiga as far as I’m aware had no hardware 3D acceleration and a CPU a good chunk weaker than the PC’s to brute force it i software (perhaps though with one of those addon graphics boards?) and there was no Softimage or Alias equivalent which is what you had on IRIX.
I do recall Sculpt (but I think it was called ‘4D’?) Played with it as a kid.
Btw. SGI started at the ‘low end’ with the Indy at around 5000+ which was already very decent and made the Amiga look weak - it wasn’t ALL machines more expensive than the parent’s house.
I get that - heard this plenty of times from developers. Also there are some really weak/restricted Mac ports around for a few apps. It’s just that for the end user that is a pleasant system IMO. Easy to keep up to date, install/deinstall, etc. Also very responsive when busy with background tasks. If all you want is to be productive then I find it to be a good choice.
And yeah, definitely there are those that buy into the platform for posing - and I like to make fun of them (I never go to Starbucks either) . It’s the only tech brand with high street fashion cred after all. But the machines I know and had from them so far are also really sturdy and reliable.
Sure MacOS is not important other than the fact that it is iOS.
Fun fact neither MacOS or iOS are actually OSes. Even though Apple claims so, it does so in order not to confuse users with technical details.
The real OS is called Darwin built on top of a kernel (like Linux) called XNU
Dawrin is 100% open source and provides all the libraries need to so the usual OS stuff (driver support, filesystem, network etc) . Darwin is designed to run on Intel/AMD and mobile platforms. So it forms the foundation of both MacOS and iOS. MacOS is nothing more than collection of user focuses libraries , its usually all the fancy visual stuff like GUI etc.
iOS in turn is build on top of MacOS , iOS add a few additional libraries to support the “special” features of the mobile devices like iPhone and iPad.
So there is Dawrin as the core, around it is MacOS and around MacOS is iOS. iOS role is pretty minor for Apple mainly because even though iPhones make by far the largest part of Apple revenue , technology wise they offer very little over the mac platform which still drives hardware forward for Apple.
As such even though visually iOS has played a big role in influencing MacOS , iOS is nothing more than minor project compared to the massive amount of technologies Apple developes on MacOS and the OS is by far its driving technology wise for third party tools and software that depens on its extra juice.
Apple has been also suprised by the grow of popularity of MacOS and the mac platform in general. Even Steve jobs himself projected that the company could hoped to achieve no more than the 3.5% popularity MacOS enjoyed after IPhone massively successful release but after his death he was proven very wrong by MacOS climbing to 9% on the desktop market, while Linux is still stuck on 1% (although more than 70% of servers use Linux) and Windows dropping to 90% after thenVista and Windows Mobile fiasco.
The mac platform has been stronger than ever.
While on the matters of Metal, according to Apple it has been embraced by over 90% of 3d software developers (including games, 3d apps, multi media applicattions) and Apple is also a boarding member in the Khronos group that pushes Vulkan forwared. Metal also has been instrumental to the demise of OpenGL way before Apple stopped supporting it, Khronos the group behind both OpenGL and Vulkan they have shifted their entire focus to Vulkan.
This is a useless way to look at it. MacOS and iOS are two very different software platforms from a developer’s and a user’s perspective, even if they share some of the same technology under the hood. It’s not just “a few additional libraries”, it’s entirely different frameworks, entirely different applications, entirely different hardware.
I’m also not so much talking about the unclear future regarding Metal, I’m talking about the past years. Back when OpenGL and OpenCL was the only way to do 3D graphics and GPGPU on MacOS, support was garbage. The only way to get high-performance hardware was to spend a fortune on a soon outdated trashcan Mac Pro. So what’s the explanation for that, other than the creative professional market not being important for Apple?
In terms of raw market share, maybe Apple gained a few points on the average user, but creative professionals have been abandoning the platform - at least in my estimation.
they are not hidden, on mouse over the addresses you see at the bottom of the browser, or at least somewhere.
mostly they are “comments”. the links are something more, that do not want to make too much noise, if you want to deepen click on the link, otherwise ignore them and move on.
nobody forces you to pay attention to them.
if I post the links directly, the system would create a preview of the links or videos and since I’m not entirely on topic I do not think this is the case, I prefer to stay “comments”.
in short, do not tell me how I should post comments if you do not feel well. ignore and move on, or flag as of-topic and let the system hide the commends, hide do not offend me, I’m used to it.
Is this substantiated or an assertion? I’m a creative professional who has abandoned Windows after many years, and I’m very content using macOS. I’m not a ‘my OS is better than yours’ type of guy, I just personally prefer macOS over Windows after having worked extensively with both. My positive impression of macOS is probably mainly due to the fact that macOS is optimized for hardware from the same publisher. I guess in terms of functionality macOS and Windows don’t differ that much.
Anyway, I love Blender, and really hope the developers won’t put the macOS version on the backburner because Apple tries to promote Metal and doesn’t support NVidia GPUs (apart from eGPU devices).
Okay, but does that publisher (Apple) make all the software that you use? Graphics performance on Mac OS is generally worse than how the same hardware would perform on Windows or Linux, sometimes significantly so.
Depends on how you look at it, a lot of software doesn’t run on Mac OS. Plus, on Windows you can realistically afford a system with two high-end GPUs without taking up an extra mortgage. That’s a functional difference in my view.
That’s the wrong way to look at it. From a developer’s perspective, Apple is saying “here’s a ton of extra work for you to ship on our platform”. That’s the opposite of promotion. With OpenGL or Vulkan, at least in theory, developers don’t have to do anything special to support Apple.
My belief is that, all other things being equal, any platform that is developer hostile has to make up for it with a commensurate user share, otherwise supporting that platform comes at cost that is unfair to all other users. In practice, developer resources are spent as they are available, so if there’s a maintainer to fix Apple issues, it’ll happen. You’d think Apple could spend a few dollars on making sure their desktop platform isn’t a long-running joke, as opposed to buying back their own stock.
Hi @BeerBaron, I’m not going to defend macOS, because OS wars are never-ending and needlessly suck energy, like hardware wars, renderer wars and so on.
If Windows is the OS of your choice, then by all means enjoy it as much as I enjoy macOS. I just wanted to state that like you I’m very content with my choice, and would be disappointed if macOS Blender users would be discriminated. But I’m confident that OS-specific issues will be solved in consultation with the developers, like they have always been solved so far. In that regard I’m looking forward to interesting improvements after reading @LoboTommy’s posted links regarding GPU assessment.
I don’t “enjoy” operating systems, I have to work with them to get things done. It’s not even a choice.
Again, your choice is fine but I don’t like the way you phrase it. “Discrimination” is a very loaded term. Any software project has a limited amount of resources. Blender has to discriminate, for example against people that don’t meet the minimum system requirements. That’s cutting out potentially millions of people in developing nations! Mac users on the other hand are generally affluent. They can install Windows or Linux on their Macs. They can even get a cheap extra computer.
Not going the extra mile specifically for Mac users to me is more like not rolling out the red carpet for a relatively small group of users. On the other hand, if there are Mac developers willing to take care of the situation, that would be just fine. That’s the way it should go. Either way, that’s my personal opinion. I don’t have a say in the matter anyway.