Well ... anyone actually seen one of these yet?
Does this Mac/Intel paradigm shift make any difference to the way RADIANCE and Photosphere, etc. are implemented in Mac OSX? (sorry for the Mac-specific detour here....).
Pretty cool.
kirk
Hi Kirk,
Radiance should definitely be recompiled for the Intel platform, and I will endeavor to supply binaries for both architectures in the next release. Photosphere can be cross-compiled using Xcode 2, and I will be testing that just as soon as someone I know picks up one of the new Intel-based Apples. (It seems very strange to use "Intel" and "Apple" in the same sentence without "versus" in between.) The iMac is supposedly out as of today, but the Mac Book Pro isn't shipping until February.
The main difference from a programming standpoint between the two machines is that the PowerPC family is BigEndian while Intel is LittleEndian (different byte orders). This can affect binary files that are not machine-independent. In Radiance, this includes holodeck files and depth buffers (-z option of rpict). I think that's it. All the other standard file types are designed to port across architectures. Photosphere uses a byte-ordering translator on its binary catalog file, but I haven't had the chance to actually test it up until now. It will be working when I make an universal version available.
You can see <http://www.apple.com/rosetta/> for more information.
-Greg
P.S. I'm kicking myself a bit for having bought a new PowerBook last Summer. Hopefully, Rob Guglielmetti held off with his Christmas purchase. Everyone said that the iBooks would be the first to switch, but apparently not.
···
From: Kirk Thibault <[email protected]>
Date: January 10, 2006 7:30:39 PM PSTWell ... anyone actually seen one of these yet?
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/
Does this Mac/Intel paradigm shift make any difference to the way RADIANCE and Photosphere, etc. are implemented in Mac OSX? (sorry for the Mac-specific detour here....).
Pretty cool.
kirk
Greg Ward wrote:
Hi Kirk,
Radiance should definitely be recompiled for the Intel platform, and I will endeavor to supply binaries for both architectures in the next release. Photosphere can be cross-compiled using Xcode 2, and I will be testing that just as soon as someone I know picks up one of the new Intel-based Apples...
P.S. I'm kicking myself a bit for having bought a new PowerBook last Summer. Hopefully, Rob Guglielmetti held off with his Christmas purchase. Everyone said that the iBooks would be the first to switch, but apparently not.
Yup, and very glad I did (thanks to you and another friend who told me to wait). I'm gonna order one very soon, I think. Thanks for the detailed response to Kirk's question; I'm ready to take the plunge! Dual core laptop? Yes, please...
Rob Guglielmetti
www.rumblestrip.org
please just wait until april... you know, apple release 1.0 is always a
little buggy....
just my suggestion, based on previous past experiences 
ciao!
G.
···
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rob
Guglielmetti
Sent: 11 January 2006 05:20
To: Radiance general discussion
Subject: Re: [Radiance-general] MacBook Pro - Apple and Intel
Greg Ward wrote:
Hi Kirk,
Radiance should definitely be recompiled for the Intel platform, and
I will endeavor to supply binaries for both architectures in the next
release. Photosphere can be cross-compiled using Xcode 2, and I will
be testing that just as soon as someone I know picks up one of the
new Intel-based Apples...P.S. I'm kicking myself a bit for having bought a new PowerBook last
Summer. Hopefully, Rob Guglielmetti held off with his Christmas
purchase. Everyone said that the iBooks would be the first to
switch, but apparently not.
Yup, and very glad I did (thanks to you and another friend who told me
to wait). I'm gonna order one very soon, I think. Thanks for the
detailed response to Kirk's question; I'm ready to take the plunge!
Dual core laptop? Yes, please...
Rob Guglielmetti
www.rumblestrip.org
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
Greg - thanks for the explanation and your dedication to staying ahead of the curve and supporting all of the RADIANCE user communities.
From what I read leading up to this release, it was clear that Apple wanted to finally move its laptops to the next level, hence the Intel chipset. I have a feeling that, as with most things Apple, there will be issues - but the Apple faithful (me included) are willing to be beta testers and see the bugginess as a badge of honor in some convoluted way (paying money to be a beta tester will do that to your rationalizing psyche I suppose). It is weird to mention Apple and Intel as complements, but I think all Mac users (again, me included) realize Apple's shortcomings, even if we tend to defend the brand to the death.
As Rob said:
Dual core laptop? Yes, please...
I imagine that a 17" version of the Intel dual core laptop can;t be far behind, given the performance-oriented, graphics-driven market the new platform will benefit..... Wouldn't it be interesting if Apple offered a 17" HDR display laptop someday? [wink]
···
------------------------------
Kirk L. Thibault, Ph.D.
[email protected]
p. 215.271.7720
f. 215.271.7740
c. 267.918.6908
skype. kirkthibault
On Jan 11, 2006, at 4:49 AM, Giulio Antonutto wrote:
please just wait until april... you know, apple release 1.0 is always a
little buggy....
just my suggestion, based on previous past experiences
ciao!
G.-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rob
Guglielmetti
Sent: 11 January 2006 05:20
To: Radiance general discussion
Subject: Re: [Radiance-general] MacBook Pro - Apple and IntelGreg Ward wrote:
Hi Kirk,
Radiance should definitely be recompiled for the Intel platform, and
I will endeavor to supply binaries for both architectures in the nextrelease. Photosphere can be cross-compiled using Xcode 2, and I will
be testing that just as soon as someone I know picks up one of the
new Intel-based Apples...P.S. I'm kicking myself a bit for having bought a new PowerBook last
Summer. Hopefully, Rob Guglielmetti held off with his Christmas
purchase. Everyone said that the iBooks would be the first to
switch, but apparently not.Yup, and very glad I did (thanks to you and another friend who told me
to wait). I'm gonna order one very soon, I think. Thanks for the
detailed response to Kirk's question; I'm ready to take the plunge!
Dual core laptop? Yes, please...Rob Guglielmetti
www.rumblestrip.org_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
Kirk Thibault wrote:
From what I read leading up to this release, it was clear that Apple wanted to finally move its laptops to the next level, hence the Intel chipset. I have a feeling that, as with most things Apple, there will be issues - but the Apple faithful (me included) are willing to be beta testers and see the bugginess as a badge of honor in some convoluted way (paying money to be a beta tester will do that to your rationalizing psyche I suppose). It is weird to mention Apple and Intel as complements, but I think all Mac users (again, me included) realize Apple's shortcomings, even if we tend to defend the brand to the death.
I was a defender (and early-adopter of the PPC with a PowerMac 7600 (33 MHz!!)), then a hater for a few years as I grew tired of bomb icons and the like, but it was Greg's statement that he got Radiance compiled on OSX that brought me back to the fold. It is really OSX that I love so much, more so than Apple, but their product design is quite pretty too (altho that magnetic power adapter looks a bit flaky). Giulio, I hear ya. But it's been a long time since I've done the early adopter thing, and I've been putting off upgrading my PB for a while as well, so I'm gonna make the gamble. I'll be sure and let you all know how it works out; I ordered mine last night!
I imagine that a 17" version of the Intel dual core laptop can;t be far behind..
Although it seems as if they lost money having three sizes and decided to focus on the best seller, slightly increasing the size (15.4" instead of the old 15"). It just may be the sweet spot. Who knows? Interesting times ahead...
- Rob
Congratulations 
It'd love to do the same actually...
May be.......
Ciao!
G.
···
On 11/1/06 3:50 pm, "Rob Guglielmetti" <[email protected]> wrote:
Kirk Thibault wrote:
From what I read leading up to this release, it was clear that Apple
wanted to finally move its laptops to the next level, hence the Intel
chipset. I have a feeling that, as with most things Apple, there
will be issues - but the Apple faithful (me included) are willing to
be beta testers and see the bugginess as a badge of honor in some
convoluted way (paying money to be a beta tester will do that to your
rationalizing psyche I suppose). It is weird to mention Apple and
Intel as complements, but I think all Mac users (again, me included)
realize Apple's shortcomings, even if we tend to defend the brand to
the death.I was a defender (and early-adopter of the PPC with a PowerMac 7600 (33
MHz!!)), then a hater for a few years as I grew tired of bomb icons and
the like, but it was Greg's statement that he got Radiance compiled on
OSX that brought me back to the fold. It is really OSX that I love so
much, more so than Apple, but their product design is quite pretty too
(altho that magnetic power adapter looks a bit flaky). Giulio, I hear
ya. But it's been a long time since I've done the early adopter thing,
and I've been putting off upgrading my PB for a while as well, so I'm
gonna make the gamble. I'll be sure and let you all know how it works
out; I ordered mine last night!I imagine that a 17" version of the Intel dual core laptop can;t be
far behind..Although it seems as if they lost money having three sizes and decided
to focus on the best seller, slightly increasing the size (15.4" instead
of the old 15"). It just may be the sweet spot. Who knows?
Interesting times ahead...- Rob
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
Hey Rob and other Apple afficianados,
Greg suggested that it might be worth it to by a mac-mini so I can run photosphere. Any hints, comments or otherwise about what might be a suitable configuration. As you know I am a Linux fanatic, so I really do not know that much about Apple configs.....
Surprise ;->
-Jack
Rob Guglielmetti wrote:
···
Kirk Thibault wrote:
From what I read leading up to this release, it was clear that Apple wanted to finally move its laptops to the next level, hence the Intel chipset. I have a feeling that, as with most things Apple, there will be issues - but the Apple faithful (me included) are willing to be beta testers and see the bugginess as a badge of honor in some convoluted way (paying money to be a beta tester will do that to your rationalizing psyche I suppose). It is weird to mention Apple and Intel as complements, but I think all Mac users (again, me included) realize Apple's shortcomings, even if we tend to defend the brand to the death.
I was a defender (and early-adopter of the PPC with a PowerMac 7600 (33 MHz!!)), then a hater for a few years as I grew tired of bomb icons and the like, but it was Greg's statement that he got Radiance compiled on OSX that brought me back to the fold. It is really OSX that I love so much, more so than Apple, but their product design is quite pretty too (altho that magnetic power adapter looks a bit flaky). Giulio, I hear ya. But it's been a long time since I've done the early adopter thing, and I've been putting off upgrading my PB for a while as well, so I'm gonna make the gamble. I'll be sure and let you all know how it works out; I ordered mine last night!
I imagine that a 17" version of the Intel dual core laptop can;t be far behind..
Although it seems as if they lost money having three sizes and decided to focus on the best seller, slightly increasing the size (15.4" instead of the old 15"). It just may be the sweet spot. Who knows? Interesting times ahead...
- Rob
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
--
# Jack de Valpine
# president
#
# visarc incorporated
# http://www.visarc.com
#
# channeling technology for superior design and construction
Jack de Valpine wrote:
Hey Rob and other Apple afficianados,
Greg suggested that it might be worth it to by a mac-mini so I can run photosphere. Any hints, comments or otherwise about what might be a suitable configuration. As you know I am a Linux fanatic, so I really do not know that much about Apple configs.....
I haven't spent much time looking at minis, but from what I can tell, for what you want to do, the base config (the $500 one Greg mentioned) would be fine. The other ones cost $100-$200 more for incremental cpu speed increases and a DVD burner (which you probably already have).
Of course, once you start using OSX, you'll want to keep on using it, for more than just Photosphere. Honestly, the only thing keeping a Windows machine on my desk at work is AutoCAD. Everything else is much more pleasant to do on OSX, especially Radiance and all things command line. But I know you have a well-established workflow, so if you truly only want this Mac hardware for Photosphere, I'd go for the basic $500 Mini.
- Rob "is it February yet?" Guglielmetti
Hey Rob,
Rob Guglielmetti wrote:
I haven't spent much time looking at minis, but from what I can tell, for what you want to do, the base config (the $500 one Greg mentioned) would be fine. The other ones cost $100-$200 more for incremental cpu speed increases and a DVD burner (which you probably already have).
Of course, once you start using OSX, you'll want to keep on using it, for more than just Photosphere. Honestly, the only thing keeping a Windows machine on my desk at work is AutoCAD. Everything else is much more pleasant to do on OSX, especially Radiance and all things command line. But I know you have a well-established workflow, so if you truly only want this Mac hardware for Photosphere, I'd go for the basic $500 Mini.
- Rob "is it February yet?" Guglielmetti
Yes this is my conclusion as well. And just FYI we are completely on the same page about Windows. The only reason I have a windows machine around is really to run AutoCAD. If there was some other reasonable/realiable alternate that would run on Linux then I could be free. Though I think that Intellicad has a Linux based version, but as with you, probably having maximum interoperability with client provided data is important (as if even then it is maximally interoperable)....
-Jack
···
--
# Jack de Valpine
# president
#
# visarc incorporated
# http://www.visarc.com
#
# channeling technology for superior design and construction
Bricscad offers a Linux version of their Intellicad based products.
From the newsgroups I get that this version (Windows) of Intellicad is
(once again ...) a big leap in terms of compatibility. But I guess there
are as many requirements for AutoCAD compatibility as there are companies
using it.
About the Mac mini:
You can stick with the base model but you should increase the memory
to at least 512 MB (base for the smallest mini was 256 MB, don't know
where it's now).
You could always bribe Greg to add the new features to the Linux
version of Photosphere, too.
Thomas
···
On 11.01.2006, at 18:55, Jack de Valpine wrote:
Yes this is my conclusion as well. And just FYI we are completely on the same page about Windows. The only reason I have a windows machine around is really to run AutoCAD. If there was some other reasonable/realiable alternate that would run on Linux then I could be free. Though I think that Intellicad has a Linux based version, but as with you, probably having maximum interoperability with client provided data is important (as if even then it is maximally interoperable)....
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Bleicher wrote:
Bricscad offers a Linux version of their Intellicad based products.
From the newsgroups I get that this version (Windows) of Intellicad is
(once again ...) a big leap in terms of compatibility. But I guess there
are as many requirements for AutoCAD compatibility as there are companies
using it.
Yes they seem to have the most stable well developed version of Intellicad. I keep meaning to take a more serious look at it. But it can even be a pain between different variants of Autocad (eg, basic autocad and adt for example).
About the Mac mini:
You can stick with the base model but you should increase the memory
to at least 512 MB (base for the smallest mini was 256 MB, don't know
where it's now).You could always bribe Greg to add the new features to the Linux
version of Photosphere, too.
Gee, I am pretty sure that there is not a Linux version of Photosphere. But if this is otherwise..... Though, there are several command line tools (hdrgen) that he has kindly made available in compiled form for Linux/Unix.
···
--
# Jack de Valpine
# president
#
# visarc incorporated
# http://www.visarc.com
#
# channeling technology for superior design and construction
About the Mac mini:
You can stick with the base model but you should increase the memory
to at least 512 MB (base for the smallest mini was 256 MB, don't know
where it's now).
It is 512 MB now, and usable but suboptimal for image stuff. Upgrading memory is a bit painful, but doable:
http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008276.html
You could always bribe Greg to add the new features to the Linux
version of Photosphere, too.
You must be thinking of hdrgen. There is no Photosphere for Linux (or Windows), unfortunately. Maybe in half a year or so, if things go as planned. I won't be doing the development myself, but I'm scheming to get BrightSide to pay for porting Photosphere to Windows, which they would offer commercially. Out of it, we would also get a free Linux version. It's all very iffy at this point, though... Sort of like counting on running Windows apps. natively on the new Intel-based Macs. It could happen.
-Greg