The tinfoil hattery in the Blender community is astounding sometimes
You probably don’t remember what Microsoft’s hostility to its users, developers and competitors was, even Microsoft constantly sabotaged the standards …now things have changed from this point of view.
Spyware is everywhere, even on the web, and I don’t believe that Apple doesn’t use its systems to get data and statistics … yes, I don’t contradict you, we’re probably constantly spied on.
I’m a linux and opensource fanatic, but the facts are clear
If you are actually a Linux ‘fanatic’, you would be well aware that the vast majority of Linux users get their software (like Blender) directly through their distro package manager, which does not show up on Blender.org downloads.
we talk about night builds, so the percentage is quite credible, maybe it can grow up to 10% taking into account that linux user can easily be windows user and interchange …
I use both environments as needed.
But what I wanted to highlight most is the hegemony of windows users, not as much as the percentages of minor systems are true or not …
I highlighted the problems of Mac users, and the causes of this “recent” hostility from Apple towards standards … and it cannot be said that the reasoning is not consistent.
If you’re a serious user, you’re not getting Blender from your distro’s repo. Several distro’s haven’t updated Blender for years.
Like it or not, Linux has some very serious issues that greatly impact productivity, especially if you’re trying to use it as a desktop platform. The most concise list (which is still enormous) can be found here:
What do you base this upon ? Why would using a distro packaged version of Blender make you ‘non-serious’ ?
The big distros have Blender 2.80 in their repos, Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, OpenSuse, Arch Linux, Manjaro… which ones are you talking about ?
As for problems with using Linux as a desktop platform, for Blender usage I can’t see anything that would be problematic even if you are unaccustomed to unix systems. Ubuntu would likely be a great fit.
Because any serious Blender user needs version control in his hands, not in hands of some distro package or Steam. Getting Blender directly from Blender.org is a way to go.
So if you are doing production work on the latest stable version (2.80) you are not a ‘serious Blender user’ ?
Now if you really need some new beta/alpha feature or just want to play around you can go to blender.org, but I feel quite sure that the majority of ‘serious’ Blender work is being done in the latest stable version, which currently is 2.80.
I don’t see why you’d go to blender.org to download the same stable version that you get from your distro package management. Anyway, this discussion is very much off topic and I’m obviously a guilty party. If it continues then the Off-topic section is a better place for it.
You realize that latest stable versions might change mid way thru projects?
What if new latest stable version aren’t compatible with projects save or plug ins required for work?
People have multiple Blender versions installed and many still use 2.79 to finish work they started there… or even older versions. While also working in 2.80 for new projects.
What if stable release have bug that prevents finishing work, but fixed in daily?
What if there is stable rerelease with critical hotfixes lets say 2.80a, how long is delay on those distro package over downloading it directly from Blender.org? Why rely on 3rd party that might even fk something up to begin with, after all there is no 100% garantie that it’s going to be same stable version as from Blender.org nor no option for multiple versions.
I always have multiple versions installed, so it would be nice if settings where always stored locally in the correct unzipped folder without the whole folder malarky and also indication/warning of exactly what version was last used to edit a .blender file on opening would be cool…
Sorry but this reads as complete nonsense.
It’s all conjecture on your part and some of it is not even factual.
Apple doesn’t compete with Windows, they don’t need to. Apple is still the 4th largest PC OEM based on revenue. Considering the low percentage of their OS usage stats that has to tell you something. You act like MS didn’t already have a 90% install base for Windows even when they were being crappy. The only difference is that now they also track everything you do on your machine and are more willing to break things in every update.
…That Apple has thick profit margins?
Two factual inaccuracies there and the irony is this very thread is discussing what happens when an OS vendor, Apple, kills off APIs like OpenCL and OpenGL and breaks things.
Microsoft has a much better record of backward compatibility than Apple whose modus operandi is to routinely find a reason to obsolete your hardware. Helpfully before each OS update a list is published of the Macs it supports, if your Mac isn’t on it you’re out of luck.
I know several artists who are stranded on High Sierra because Apple invented a BS reason for keeping nVidia drivers off Mojave and onwards.
Apple with Metal has a single purpose.
Make the applications developed on it extremely difficult to carry on other platforms-hardware.
So every professional who strongly needs a certain type of software and that exists only on Apple hardware, is forced to buy Apple machines, in addition to the software he needs …
This factor will be increasingly evident in the future, when edge computers will be widespread.
I hope it’s clear to everyone.
Not a factual inaccuracy. Literally look up the last two updates MS released. They broke things. They broke hardware compatibility and they broke some software as well. If you are going say something about factual inaccuracy please do some research before slinging “factual inaccuracies” yourself.
MS does the same with DX. It’s just that MS doesn’t control the whole widget like Apple does so they don’t stop Nvidia or AMD from supporting OpenGL and Vulkan as well, but they could. Don’t believe me? Then take a look.
When Vista was first being worked on MS did in-fact try to lock down hardware acceleration to DX only. MS needs OEM and even that is changing. MS priorities are different now. As they try to move to other architectures (like ARM) they are going to try to exert as much control as they think they can get away with. Right now the money is too good to make a clean break but when that no longer concerns them? Yeah expect DX to be the only graphics subsystem they support and allow.
The main difference between directx and openGL is that directX has never really broken boxes to professional applications, Essentially because application developers have always favored openGLs …
instead apple with Metal overturns this paradigm, otherwise it could have developed its Metal without throttling openGL openCL, Cuda …
You yourself confirm that when microsoft tried we got a nice fuckoff from the application developers …
I don’t think things will change now in the long run … with vulkam and with moltenvk on apple.
The comparison you have on Windows on ARM I don’t know until what is really valid … what purpose would there be to limit the support if not what the platform is not compatible to hardware level with x86 software
It’s funny too hearing Apple people say soon everyone will be using metal and Apples new cards because they are going to be so much better. Remember when Apple moved from PowerPC to Intel? Apples CPU was not better and they had to admit it. Mac always says theirs is the best and most. Reality and real benchmarks show different. If you are happy spending 10x more for something slower go ahead, but don’t count on Cycles coming to Apple any time soon with only 7.6% of computers out there being Apples.
Nvidia has the games changing RTX which is giving Cycles a 2x speed boost. Apple people are going to be in the slow lane because they can only use Radeon even if Cycles did go metal.
That assuming AMD won’t add any ray tracing capabilities to it GPU, yet they are expected in next gen AMD GPU. (assuming Apple even going to offer Mac with RDNA2 cards)
RTX is a combination of hardware and software that not only does raytracing, but also AI, rasterization, and other compute tasks. The core of RTX is the hardware tensor cores that makes a very specific computation take 8x less than it would without the hardware. AMD will have some kind of raytracing, but without tensor cores it won’t be as good. It probably will only be ray traced shadows and maybe reflections. Real time ray traced GI will only be possible with RTX technology.
AMD is going for a software solution to get the raytracing where Nvidia has the hardware and software to make it much faster.