Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Universal Shake Shipping in May

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
70,423
42,076


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

Kirk Paulsen, senior director of pro applications marketing, demonstrated Apple’s high-end digital compositing software running on an Intel Duo Core iMac. This, admitted Paulsen, is not something that could have been done with the PowerPC iMac.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2006/04/26/universal-shake-shipping-in-may/
According to Paulsen with these high end applications processors are no longer the bottleneck, but instead the hard drive.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Qdub said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kskill said:
What exactly is Shake? 3D graphics generators?
Click to expand...

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
 
boncellis said:
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"?
Click to expand...

As far as I know, FW800 requires an extra chip, and there was no room for this in the 15".
 
puckhead193 said:
i'm still am confused between shake and motion? I think shake its more like computer graphics (CGI) :eek: :eek: :confused:
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
 
Macrumors said:


...with these high end applications processors are no longer the bottleneck, but instead the hard drive.
Click to expand...

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:
 
boncellis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
 
bluebomberman said:
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:
Click to expand...
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!
 
ifjake said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
swingerofbirch said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
bluebomberman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
danielwsmithee said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
bluebomberman said:
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:
Click to expand...

Good point Bluebomberman. I had to read the sentence three times before I gave up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back