Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,031
17,414


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.

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.
 

phatpat88

macrumors member
Jun 28, 2005
55
0
According to Paulsen with these high end applications processors are no longer the bottleneck, but instead the hard drive.
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
 

amateurmacfreak

macrumors 6502a
Sep 8, 2005
992
0
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
 

Qdub

macrumors newbie
Apr 25, 2006
2
0
Chicago
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.
 

boncellis

macrumors 6502
Feb 9, 2006
474
0
Salt Lake City
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.

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.
 

calli2

macrumors newbie
Apr 25, 2006
2
0
Minnesota
kskill said:
What exactly is Shake? 3D graphics generators?

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
 

vmardian

macrumors newbie
Oct 20, 2005
26
0
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"?

As far as I know, FW800 requires an extra chip, and there was no room for this in the 15".
 

200paul

macrumors member
Jan 5, 2004
42
0
San Francisco, CA
puckhead193 said:
i'm still am confused between shake and motion? I think shake its more like computer graphics (CGI) :eek: :eek: :confused:

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
 

Lollypop

macrumors 6502a
Sep 13, 2004
829
0
Johannesburg, South Africa
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?
 

bluebomberman

macrumors 6502a
Jan 9, 2005
919
0
Queens, NYC
Macrumors said:


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

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:
 

firestarter

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2002
5,506
226
Green and pleasant land
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.

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
 

ifjake

macrumors 6502a
Jan 19, 2004
562
1
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?
 

Kingsly

macrumors 68040
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:
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!
 

bluebomberman

macrumors 6502a
Jan 9, 2005
919
0
Queens, NYC
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?

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.
 

bluebomberman

macrumors 6502a
Jan 9, 2005
919
0
Queens, NYC
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?

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.
 

danielwsmithee

macrumors 65816
Mar 12, 2005
1,121
402
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.

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.
 

bluebomberman

macrumors 6502a
Jan 9, 2005
919
0
Queens, NYC
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.

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?
 

richinspace

macrumors newbie
Oct 11, 2005
21
0
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:

Good point Bluebomberman. I had to read the sentence three times before I gave up.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.