"Apple pushes the reset button on the Mac Pro"
- Thread starter nutmegger
- Start date
I'm not the only ex-Apple-Acolyte who is having trouble with its current "professional" line of hardware.
https://www.macrumors.com/2018/06/15/developer-slams-lack-of-mac-updates/
Thomas Smet
Veteran
That article isn’t really about pro hardware as it is hardware in general like the Mac Mini. It is more about the frustration of a lack of updates and not so much about the current state of hardware capabilities. Updates need to be meaningful and unfortunately we have reached a time in computer hardware where not much changes anymore.
The pro apps are also built very efficiently and get a lot more performance out of a modest 4 core machine than what Premiere can do with a 6-8 core machine. Lots of pros still use Macs 2-3 years old without feeling held back at all. This hardware obsession is just that, an obsession. The iMac Pro is pretty darn new and a very solid system designed specifically for pro users. The Cuda argument is no longer valid since Adobe and most other GPU based applications can no use OpenCL as well. There is absolutely nothing non professional about the iMac Pro.
The pro apps are also built very efficiently and get a lot more performance out of a modest 4 core machine than what Premiere can do with a 6-8 core machine. Lots of pros still use Macs 2-3 years old without feeling held back at all. This hardware obsession is just that, an obsession. The iMac Pro is pretty darn new and a very solid system designed specifically for pro users. The Cuda argument is no longer valid since Adobe and most other GPU based applications can no use OpenCL as well. There is absolutely nothing non professional about the iMac Pro.
cyvideo
Veteran
Well I guess it all depends on whether Apple decide to drop Intel as to how certain software will work on Apple. No journalist pushed the Apple guys what their future hardware would comprise of in this new world of Apple mac Pro. How is this for where the future may go.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...an-move-from-intel-to-own-mac-chips-from-2020
"Currently, all iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, and Apple TVs use main processors designed by Apple and based on technology from Arm Holdings Plc. Moving to its own chips inside Macs would let Apple release new models on its own timelines, instead of relying on Intel’s processor road map."
Incidentally Arm Holdings are based out of Cambridge in the UK. There is some very strong industry talk that Apple will possibly move to ARM based processors for their desktops by 2020. if Apple are to move towards ARM technology what does that say to the current existing user base on Intel based architecture. Would we see circumstances like we did when Apple moved from Power PC to Intel. Within twenty four months of that move the Power PC based community were left high and dry with no further updates, upgrades or support. I would hate to invest in a new iMac Pro 18 core box to see it totally outdated within two years because Apple decided to go ARM architecture on the desktop.
Along with the news that Apple is dropping support for OpenGL and OpenCL, or "deprecating" support for OpenCL and OpenGL as they put it in favor of their own Metal is also an indication something is stirring. Not that it is a massive loss as current Macs ship with an eight year openCL as it is anyway.
Apple is pushing developers to use Metal, this is a huge blow to smaller developers making cross-platform apps. Apple should reconsider this move as it is a very anti-developer, anti-consumer move to try and push their own API in place of open standards. Apple don't want open standards. They want to control their own closed ecosystem.
Developers are already saying that at the present time it isn't a massive undertaking to port certain software from Mac to PC or vic-a-versa as they both are Intel based and do use OpenCL/GL. The concerns developers are bringing to the fore is that to port their software to a totally new ARM architecture using Metal would necessitate a total rewrite of their API code base. Quite a few are saying that the cost of doing that for the percentage of Apple based software they sell couldn't be justified in many cases. Think of the rewrites Adobe would have across all of their software platforms. Or Blackmagic having to totally rewrite Resolve with a separate version that works with Metal rendering and not Cuda OpenCL/GL.
So I feel if Apple are going to within the next couple of years develop new Mac Pro machines they won't be doing on an outgoing Intel platform would they? The rumor of a move to new ARM CPUs has been strong enough to drop Intel shares by 9%. Apple account for about 5% of Intel sales.
To sum up I would be fearful to invest heavily into Apple for two main reasons. One I wouldn't do it until I knew exactly where they were going with their hardware, staying with Intel OpenCL/GL or going with their own ARM based architecture and Metal graphics development. Admittedly OpenGL is nearing its end and more developers are using Vulcan.
Secondly, but and it's a BIG but if they do move to Apple ARM CPUs and totally drop OpenCL/GL in 2020 I would want to know what software companies are going to follow Apple's lead and totally rewrite new code for all their existing software to coexist with this new world of Apple hardware and firmware. Can you imagine Resolve performing on Apple's new hardware/firmware from day one as well as it currently does on a modern box running two or three GTX 1080i GPUs using OpenCL. That level of performance has taken years to get to where it is. All to scary for me in the near future. Will stick with something I can upgrade bit by bit as and when necessary as power and performance requirements increase.
Chris Young
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...an-move-from-intel-to-own-mac-chips-from-2020
"Currently, all iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, and Apple TVs use main processors designed by Apple and based on technology from Arm Holdings Plc. Moving to its own chips inside Macs would let Apple release new models on its own timelines, instead of relying on Intel’s processor road map."
Incidentally Arm Holdings are based out of Cambridge in the UK. There is some very strong industry talk that Apple will possibly move to ARM based processors for their desktops by 2020. if Apple are to move towards ARM technology what does that say to the current existing user base on Intel based architecture. Would we see circumstances like we did when Apple moved from Power PC to Intel. Within twenty four months of that move the Power PC based community were left high and dry with no further updates, upgrades or support. I would hate to invest in a new iMac Pro 18 core box to see it totally outdated within two years because Apple decided to go ARM architecture on the desktop.
Along with the news that Apple is dropping support for OpenGL and OpenCL, or "deprecating" support for OpenCL and OpenGL as they put it in favor of their own Metal is also an indication something is stirring. Not that it is a massive loss as current Macs ship with an eight year openCL as it is anyway.
Apple is pushing developers to use Metal, this is a huge blow to smaller developers making cross-platform apps. Apple should reconsider this move as it is a very anti-developer, anti-consumer move to try and push their own API in place of open standards. Apple don't want open standards. They want to control their own closed ecosystem.
Developers are already saying that at the present time it isn't a massive undertaking to port certain software from Mac to PC or vic-a-versa as they both are Intel based and do use OpenCL/GL. The concerns developers are bringing to the fore is that to port their software to a totally new ARM architecture using Metal would necessitate a total rewrite of their API code base. Quite a few are saying that the cost of doing that for the percentage of Apple based software they sell couldn't be justified in many cases. Think of the rewrites Adobe would have across all of their software platforms. Or Blackmagic having to totally rewrite Resolve with a separate version that works with Metal rendering and not Cuda OpenCL/GL.
So I feel if Apple are going to within the next couple of years develop new Mac Pro machines they won't be doing on an outgoing Intel platform would they? The rumor of a move to new ARM CPUs has been strong enough to drop Intel shares by 9%. Apple account for about 5% of Intel sales.
To sum up I would be fearful to invest heavily into Apple for two main reasons. One I wouldn't do it until I knew exactly where they were going with their hardware, staying with Intel OpenCL/GL or going with their own ARM based architecture and Metal graphics development. Admittedly OpenGL is nearing its end and more developers are using Vulcan.
Secondly, but and it's a BIG but if they do move to Apple ARM CPUs and totally drop OpenCL/GL in 2020 I would want to know what software companies are going to follow Apple's lead and totally rewrite new code for all their existing software to coexist with this new world of Apple hardware and firmware. Can you imagine Resolve performing on Apple's new hardware/firmware from day one as well as it currently does on a modern box running two or three GTX 1080i GPUs using OpenCL. That level of performance has taken years to get to where it is. All to scary for me in the near future. Will stick with something I can upgrade bit by bit as and when necessary as power and performance requirements increase.
Chris Young
joema
Active member
The situation is complex. Most commentators are not thinking deeply just giving an emotional outburst that merges many different Mac computers to a single morose outlook.
Apple is limited by what Intel provides, and Intel's perf. upgrades are generally modest. That's largely the state of things at this point of CPU evolution. Despite this in certain cases Apple has hugely improved performance. In FCPX my 2017 iMac 27 is about 2x faster than my 2015 iMac 27 when transcoding H264 material. This is apparently due to how FCPX uses the upgraded Kaby Lake Quick Sync on the i7-7700K.
All the commentary about the 2013 nMP "trash can" design making it impossible to update are wrong. The iMac Pro was totally redesigned and vastly updated while retaining the identical iMac form factor. Apple could have done something similar on the nMP, they just chose not to.
Maybe Apple was thinking of exiting the Pro market, which could explain why the nMP development was shelved and the iMac Pro had 18 cores. It's possible at one point in product planning the 18-core iMac Pro was to have been the top machine. That has now changed and the 2019 modular Mac Pro will probably be a very high end multi-socket machine -- otherwise it will overlap too much with the iMP. It is very unlikely the 2019 Mac Pro will be an ATX form factor "slot box". It will probably demonstrate Apple's engineering and manufacturing expertise.
The new MacBook Pro can be frustrating due to the lack of legacy ports, no SD card slot and keyboard issues. It does feel like a machine designed by French fashion house Louis Vuitton -- looks good on a satin pillow with a spotlight on it, but not as practical for real work. Chief designer Jony Ive has said in recent interviews Apple has gotten the message loud and clear that customers don't like this.
I have a 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro and it's pretty good and very quiet. Most reports show it's very fast on ProRes and RED RAW. For H264 this is less so. Unfortunately Intel doesn't put Quick Sync on Xeon CPUs, so FCPX must use AMD's UVD/VCE transcoding hardware which doesn't perform as well. However even a base 8-core iMac Pro is much faster than a 12-core D700 Mac Pro on this workflow.
The Mac Mini has languished for a long time; I don't know what Apple's plan is for that.
It's likely within 12 months Apple's Mac lineup will look quite different than today. Imagine if they improve the port and keyboard issues on the MacBook Pro, truly refresh (or just drop) the Mac Mini, put a 6-core CPU in the iMac and successfully execute the 2019 Mac Pro. In that short period the Mac lineup will look different.
Beyond that if Apple does move to ARM-type CPUs, that will cause some transition turbulence but it will free them from Intel's product restrictions and laggardly development.
There are several servers based on ARM processors, but the underlying OS is a little different and therefore a little bit tougher for the application integration. But there are plenty of ways you can make multiple processor ARM chips https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...rmance-networking-applications-293647261.html and that was 3 years ago.
https://www.top500.org/news/cray-to-deliver-arm-powered-supercomputer-to-uk-consortium/
And Microsoft is dabbling in the ARM ecosystem in a bigger way with having full Windows run on it (not RT) https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/19/...dows-10-on-arm-apps-games-limitations-support.
https://www.top500.org/news/cray-to-deliver-arm-powered-supercomputer-to-uk-consortium/
And Microsoft is dabbling in the ARM ecosystem in a bigger way with having full Windows run on it (not RT) https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/19/...dows-10-on-arm-apps-games-limitations-support.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I honestly don't care what brand of CPU is used as long as it works well and doesn't get in the way. If Apple thinks they can beat Intel in terms of performance and release schedule more power to them and I wish them luck but thats no small feat.
Intel CPU updates may seem minor because computer processing has hit a ceiling in general. Arm has more exciting upgrade cycle since it is still trying to catch up. It will get there eventually and also hit that same ceiling.
I'm not sure what Apple hopes to gain by switching to Arm. It may help their update cycle for now but at what cost to users? We use computers for the tools and not because of the CPU inside. If even a single tool is restricted that will be a show stopper for users. Many are already switching to PC vs Mac and if Apple does move to Arm and there is a limitation of what tools can be run on those Arm machines they will lose even more users.
I think while we may see Arm based Mac computers in the future I don't think they will all be exclusively Arm based. There needs to be a transition period and certain markets like video and post production will likely not go for arm based machines. Not unless Apple can wow the crap out of those people with amazing marketing and factual performance advantages. I think what we will see are MacBook Air and Mac Mini type machines going the arm route since 90% of the people that buy those machines basically surf the web and perform basic tasks with those computers. The same kind of people perfectly ok with a Chrome Book kind of computer.
I for one would be very tempted to return to a PC world if Apple went exclusively Arm based unless they figure out a way to blow me away and completely kill Intel overnight.
Intel CPU updates may seem minor because computer processing has hit a ceiling in general. Arm has more exciting upgrade cycle since it is still trying to catch up. It will get there eventually and also hit that same ceiling.
I'm not sure what Apple hopes to gain by switching to Arm. It may help their update cycle for now but at what cost to users? We use computers for the tools and not because of the CPU inside. If even a single tool is restricted that will be a show stopper for users. Many are already switching to PC vs Mac and if Apple does move to Arm and there is a limitation of what tools can be run on those Arm machines they will lose even more users.
I think while we may see Arm based Mac computers in the future I don't think they will all be exclusively Arm based. There needs to be a transition period and certain markets like video and post production will likely not go for arm based machines. Not unless Apple can wow the crap out of those people with amazing marketing and factual performance advantages. I think what we will see are MacBook Air and Mac Mini type machines going the arm route since 90% of the people that buy those machines basically surf the web and perform basic tasks with those computers. The same kind of people perfectly ok with a Chrome Book kind of computer.
I for one would be very tempted to return to a PC world if Apple went exclusively Arm based unless they figure out a way to blow me away and completely kill Intel overnight.
Licensing ARM is a fixed cost, so they can build as many processing cores as they want into a die (within reason), this is an area where Intel has put limits that it is only now fixing after many years. For the longest time you could only get up to 4 cores in the "consumer" level processors as an artificial limit unless you went up to the expensive "professional" processors in the XEON family. Now with the i9 they are starting to fix that. But you still need to step up to XEON if you want multiple processors and the XEON line is expensive compared to similar performance in the Core i# series. Compare Xeon E3 to intel i3 or even newer low end E5 to i3 or i5 and you'll see the price premium. This is a problem that Intel created and Apple are responding (can't blame them).
Moving to ARM also allows Apple to consolidate code, the iThings are ARM, so running desktops on ARM allows them to make the apps all the same and probably run on all your devices. It may further advance the Unix on ARM codebase (assuming Apple really contributes back, which they don't do very well). This could advance things like TrueOS and FreeNAS (both based on FreeBSD the same as OSX and probably the iOS).
Moving to ARM also allows Apple to consolidate code, the iThings are ARM, so running desktops on ARM allows them to make the apps all the same and probably run on all your devices. It may further advance the Unix on ARM codebase (assuming Apple really contributes back, which they don't do very well). This could advance things like TrueOS and FreeNAS (both based on FreeBSD the same as OSX and probably the iOS).
joema
Active member
Correct, the high end is difficult. To my knowledge no ARM-architecture CPU has ever matched the latest Xeon on the high end. However this is an unresolved issue -- even among CPU architects. One viewpoint is instruction set architecture doesn't matter that much in terms of performance and power consumption, it's more about fabrication process and implementation. This viewpoint holds that ARM (or Apple Axx) will encounter the same thermal and power problems on the high end as Intel -- provided they ever scale up that high.
The opposing view is ARM CPUs have an inherent power & efficiency advantage which will still exist on the high end.
Despite the transition problems, Apple has several incentives to seriously consider ARM-type CPUs on Macs:
- Binary commonality with their mobile devices.
- Lower prices than Intel (which includes more than the CPU -- also the supporting chipset)
- Control over the CPU development schedule and features. E.g, Intel still doesn't put Quick Sync on any Xeon CPU with > 4 cores. This is why the "trash can" Mac Pro is so slow at H264 -- no hardware transcode acceleration. For the iMac Pro this forced Apple to use AMD's UVD/VCE hardware which apparently isn't as good. If Apple controlled their own Mac CPU design, they could put in whatever features they want on whatever development schedule they want.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
6 core Intel CPUs have been out for many years. They never really took off due to a lack of interest. The vast majority of computer users barely use anything beyond 4 cores. The power users that need more cores are really the loud vocal minority.
I am happy to see so many people here (I hope they are not paid to express themselves here) who still have faith in Apple's support to pros.
Ha, hope dies last right?
I consider you all honest, decent, smart, conscious people...So please give me advice on this:
I have an option to continuein my biz.
Now there are two possibilities for this biz to go in future:
1-I can either make a PRO product and will have to develop support and network around it from head to toe, acordingly!
Now because of the nature of product and clients, I will probably have to do a TOP NOTCH job, no mistakes, I have to honnor the warranty and updates and firmwares as pormised, and be their nanny and babysitter on their side for another 5-10 years, hire expensive specialist to both make and maintain it, and be carefull what I do and say... other words, I will have a pain in a but biz that cateres for maybe 100.000-500.000 users WORLDWIDE but it will shrink because the indistries I am providing for are shrinkig... and I will be selling them product ranging from 2000-5000 $.
Or should I make a product that ie POC, made by child slaves for peanuts, no support since I will keep shmoozing them and just promise firmware and updates in next version and never do it realy, in a maket where I already have a monopoly! Oh, and my potential user base is around 2-3 BILLION users in China and India ALONE. and it will grow! I wil sell product for like 500-1000$ but because of my monopoly and indistry ties, I can force subordinates to work out the deal for me so that looks like user is not pay anything for it.
What do you think, which biz model should I go for?
Oh yey, My goas is to MAKE MONEEEEEEEEY AND PROFIT for myself, regardless of costs to others, social aspects, ethics or similar...
Ha, hope dies last right?
I consider you all honest, decent, smart, conscious people...So please give me advice on this:
I have an option to continuein my biz.
Now there are two possibilities for this biz to go in future:
1-I can either make a PRO product and will have to develop support and network around it from head to toe, acordingly!
Now because of the nature of product and clients, I will probably have to do a TOP NOTCH job, no mistakes, I have to honnor the warranty and updates and firmwares as pormised, and be their nanny and babysitter on their side for another 5-10 years, hire expensive specialist to both make and maintain it, and be carefull what I do and say... other words, I will have a pain in a but biz that cateres for maybe 100.000-500.000 users WORLDWIDE but it will shrink because the indistries I am providing for are shrinkig... and I will be selling them product ranging from 2000-5000 $.
Or should I make a product that ie POC, made by child slaves for peanuts, no support since I will keep shmoozing them and just promise firmware and updates in next version and never do it realy, in a maket where I already have a monopoly! Oh, and my potential user base is around 2-3 BILLION users in China and India ALONE. and it will grow! I wil sell product for like 500-1000$ but because of my monopoly and indistry ties, I can force subordinates to work out the deal for me so that looks like user is not pay anything for it.
What do you think, which biz model should I go for?
Oh yey, My goas is to MAKE MONEEEEEEEEY AND PROFIT for myself, regardless of costs to others, social aspects, ethics or similar...
cyvideo
Veteran
Well I know the way I went. I went for the systems I could maintain, upgrade, change and modify as production requirements changed. Since 1988 my business has produced in total in excess of four hundred productions. This covers TV entertainment and sports, including for the the Olympics. Included in that number are numerous corporates, commercials, training, medical and documentary productions. For world wide big name clients in the USA and networks in Europe and the UK. Including productions for network TV in Hong Kong along with productions for Australian FTA TV and of course cable networks like FOX. But wait there's MORE! Shock horror we did all of this on WINDOZ! We went from D-Vision to Panasonic Post Box to Discreet Edit to Premiere to Edius to Vegas and Resolve and all of those productions have been done on those horrible old operating systems like Win 3.1, NT, 2000 then XP followed by Win 7 and now Win 10.
The thing is I was in control of when and how the systems were changed, upgraded, modified etc. I never felt locked into a closed system dependent on the whims of some corporate entity. With our analogue and digital tape based edit suite equipment, rostrum cameras, switchers, mixers, paintboxes, CGs and the like we configured and did the bulk of our own servicing and maintenance. Why should we do any different with computer based production equipment? On Windows we had that flexibility. On the other OS side we didn't. I enjoyed not being too locked into closed architecture, enjoyed not having to be too dependent on matters beyond our control and enjoyed saving money on the way. Never regretted a minute of the journey. Mind you I was quite jealous at times. I envied FCP. Then heaved a sigh of relieve I wasn't locked in to it when it suddenly ended. Today I'm glad I went the way we did. Both worlds have heaps to offer. Though I do see more of my colleagues moving over to the darker side of the "Window" lately. We are lucky to have the choices we have today. Any system today beats editing tape with a white Chinagraph a blade and metal filings in solution
Chris Young.
The thing is I was in control of when and how the systems were changed, upgraded, modified etc. I never felt locked into a closed system dependent on the whims of some corporate entity. With our analogue and digital tape based edit suite equipment, rostrum cameras, switchers, mixers, paintboxes, CGs and the like we configured and did the bulk of our own servicing and maintenance. Why should we do any different with computer based production equipment? On Windows we had that flexibility. On the other OS side we didn't. I enjoyed not being too locked into closed architecture, enjoyed not having to be too dependent on matters beyond our control and enjoyed saving money on the way. Never regretted a minute of the journey. Mind you I was quite jealous at times. I envied FCP. Then heaved a sigh of relieve I wasn't locked in to it when it suddenly ended. Today I'm glad I went the way we did. Both worlds have heaps to offer. Though I do see more of my colleagues moving over to the darker side of the "Window" lately. We are lucky to have the choices we have today. Any system today beats editing tape with a white Chinagraph a blade and metal filings in solution
Chris Young.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Amen.
I think the funniest thing going is that while the pros in the creative industry (like colorists and VFX artists) are moving off of the mac platform because of how terrible the trashcan macs turned out to be, the IT industry is adopting them for software development, some of the most uncreative work ever... a nearly complete reversal from just a few years ago.
I think that Intel's been sandbagging because of the fact that it's having more and more trouble migrating to new process technologies, and because it's had no real competition for a while. That's probably why Intel was able to launch six-core processors for both consumer and professional/server applications so quickly in response to Ryzen and Threadripper, and also the i9 as another example thereof.
Intel's most likely just been ramping up its yields on what's working so that it could counter anything AMD did while working on Coffee Lake and so on, so as long as AMD stays competitive, pretty much anyone trying to break into the high performance personal computing market will most likely get steamrolled (anyone remember the G5, and the IBM execs' announcement around three months after launch that it was throwing in the towel?).
Apple is the only ARM licensee that doesn't sell SoCs, and is also therefore the only one that doesn't actually need to care that its ARM SoCs are oversized compared to everyone else's. It *is* possible that by throwing enough cores at it, Apple could make an ARM based workstation that could compete with a Xeon system, but it would have to convince a lot of 3rd party software vendors to port to an unknown. In the midst of an AMD+Intel and AMD+nVidia CPU + GPU war, launching a new workstation platform isn't going to be easy.
I think that Intel's been sandbagging because of the fact that it's having more and more trouble migrating to new process technologies, and because it's had no real competition for a while. That's probably why Intel was able to launch six-core processors for both consumer and professional/server applications so quickly in response to Ryzen and Threadripper, and also the i9 as another example thereof.
Intel's most likely just been ramping up its yields on what's working so that it could counter anything AMD did while working on Coffee Lake and so on, so as long as AMD stays competitive, pretty much anyone trying to break into the high performance personal computing market will most likely get steamrolled (anyone remember the G5, and the IBM execs' announcement around three months after launch that it was throwing in the towel?).
Apple is the only ARM licensee that doesn't sell SoCs, and is also therefore the only one that doesn't actually need to care that its ARM SoCs are oversized compared to everyone else's. It *is* possible that by throwing enough cores at it, Apple could make an ARM based workstation that could compete with a Xeon system, but it would have to convince a lot of 3rd party software vendors to port to an unknown. In the midst of an AMD+Intel and AMD+nVidia CPU + GPU war, launching a new workstation platform isn't going to be easy.
Apple's creating a way of making iOS App ports into Mac OS easier, and this will also make the transition to making ARM laptops a lot smoother, but I expect the high end will remain Intel for a very long time.
I agree. Even though I suspect that Apple is the only ARM licensee that might be able to pull off a high performance ARM processor, I'm not convinced that Apple would dedicate enough effort to making it happen. It's not something that would happen overnight... and in order to entice developers into making native ports, Apple would have to have enough of a market to convince them, and in the interim, provide an emulation layer which of course holds back performance significantly.
It would be a long road. I think it's possible, but unlikely.
flyingdisc
Active member
Please tell us your specs of the "PC" as everytime I spec out a Windows machine with the same
quality compnents as a Mac, the numbers are similar.
quality compnents as a Mac, the numbers are similar.
flyingdisc
Active member
BTW: FCP X and iMovie are the only ture non-linear video editors. All the other are hybrid linear/non-linear in nature.
flyingdisc
Active member
FCP X is not tied to only 2 tracks of anything.
Also, it is a "true non-linear editor" and not a "hybrid linear/non linear vide editor" like most of the rest.