Universal Shake Shipping in May

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacRumors, Apr 25, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]

    Macworld.co.uk reports that the Universal version of Shake was discussed at the National Association of Broadcasters conference.

    According to Paulsen with these high end applications processors are no longer the bottleneck, but instead the hard drive. Shake 4.1 will natively support Intel Macs and will be shipping in May.
     
  2. macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #2
    Shake. On an iMac. Now that, is very, very cool.
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    #3
    In other news, shares of western digital went up 2.22%

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=WDC

    I wonder if there is a connection here?

    Raptor 150's are going to become even more popular in a Striped RAID setup
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    amateurmacfreak

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    #4
    Cool... although I don't know too much about the software, nice to have another one going universal.
    The possibilities of Intel.
    And it looks like a cool software. :D
     
  5. macrumors P6

    twoodcc

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Location:
    Right side of wrong
    #5
    i agree. can only be good news
     
  6. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago
    #6
    The fact that the harddrive is the limiting factor could say some things about the speeds of the harddrives in the upcoming Intel Power Macs.
     
  7. macrumors member

    kskill

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Location:
    new york, ny
    #7
    what is shake?

    What exactly is Shake? 3D graphics generators?
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    boncellis

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City
    #8
    It could also shed some light on the future of Firewire 800 in Apple's new machines. Was it serendipity or did Apple know something about hard drive speeds being the source of potential bottlenecks that gave them the foresight to keep it in the 17" MBP when it was eliminated from the 15"?

    Maybe it will stick around a while longer.
     
  9. macrumors G3

    puckhead193

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    NY
    #9
    i'm still am confused between shake and motion? I think shake its more like computer graphics (CGI) :eek: :eek: :confused:
     
  10. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #10
    Hi Kskill,

    This is my first post -- so please forgive me if it appears to be in the wrong format or something!

    Kskill -- I just wondered if you ever got an answer to your question? I, too, am curious about what "Shake" is...?

    Thanks,

    calli2
     
  11. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    #11
  12. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    #12
    As far as I know, FW800 requires an extra chip, and there was no room for this in the 15".
     
  13. macrumors member

    200paul

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #13
    Shake does compositing = like you have live elements, effects, mattes etc and they all need to go together.

    Motion does titles etc = Titles and 2D or 3D text elements that are a sometimes are a tenth of the entire program
     
  14. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    #14
    Absolutely not.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Lollypop

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Location:
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    #15
    Still not really sure what shake does, but eitherway, more universal is very good! Lot of the high end intel chipsets have raid built in, wonder if the new mac pros might not come with raid then?
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #16
    Hate to be a grammar snob, but this sentence is confusing. It sounds like you're saying that processors are now hard drives, not bottlenecks.

    Edit to: ...with these high end applications, processors are no longer the bottleneck; instead, hard drives are the bottleneck.

    Or something like that.:eek:
     
  17. macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #17
    Who needs Firewire 800 when you have dual channel eSata? eSata is SO much faster!

    How does a sustained write of 146MB/s on a MBP grab you?

    http://www.barefeats.com/hard71.html
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #18
    is SCSI still the superior (if more expensive) hard drive interface? if hard drives are becoming more and more the bottleneck, i wonder if Apple will opt to use SCSI and the new faster perpendicular disks that can really take advantage of it in their intel power[but not]macs. i'm ready for Apple to release a workstation that really just owns. if not SCSI maybe something like SATA II. i'm not really sure how SCSI and SATA II compare or what the difference is.

    i'm just conjecturing with little else than wikipedia as my resource. who out there actually knows about this stuff?
     
  19. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    The Amalgamated States of Central North America
    #19
    RAM disk

    Do you all remember in mac os 9 in below you could turn part of the RAM into a hard disk? I must admit I don't know what the purpose of it was ---but makes me wonder if RAM used as a hard disk would be faster than a physical hard disk?
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    Kingsly

    #20
    Yeah, I thought they were saying that the processor is the hard drive too.

    I am looking forward to shake on something other than a quad. If only I could afford it!
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #21
    Oh man, please, no more ultra-expensive, proprietary, poorly-supported interfaces! One thing that compelled me to switch to Mac was its adoption of quality standard interfaces like USB 2.0 and DVI. A return to emphasis on SCSI gives me flashbacks to the silly days of SCSI Zip drives.
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #22
    Yes, without question. But you'd need a TON of RAM to make it useful for video and graphics editing.

    There's some talk of replacing hard drives (which tend to slow things down and waste more energy as mechanical devices) with varying forms of memory chips, such as flash memory or MRAM. Flash memory will probably see limited use in laptops, while MRAM is years away from affordable commerical use.
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    #23
    I agree completely. From everything I have read SATA is still much faster then the actual drives using it. I think the best thing you could do now is a raid 0 striped array with WD raptor HDs. I may be wrong though.

    Some day flash based storage, or MRAM could be used but that is a long ways off.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #24
    I did a bit of poking around the web. Alienware does have some insane 10,000 & 15,000 RPM SCSI drives for their servers (but NOT their desktops). Perhaps future Xserves will have SCSI options?
     
  25. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    #25
    Good point Bluebomberman. I had to read the sentence three times before I gave up.
     

Share This Page