Final Cut Studio 3?

[Demangone]

I was hoping for the FCS3 upgrade at the end of April, but I've heard the whispers of a June release coinciding with WWDC. The thing with the powerpc vs intel processors is I don't think the current software takes full advantage of what the multicore processors have to offer. There are some benchmarks posted on barefeats.com that essentially say you're better off with a quad core nehalem machine than you are with an octo core if you're using legacy software or have no intention to upgrade in the near future. The nehalem processors are the first set that really excite me about what Intel is doing. I notice huge differences in performance between my G4, G5, and intel machines. I think Snow Leopard and a 64 bit version of FCS3 will make your Intel machines fly and everything will make sense.

 

[ullanta]

i don't think so. i think the reason apple switched to intel was purely financial. the jump from g5 to xeon was the weakest performance improvement i have ever seen with apple. i have been in the mac world for a long time. in comparison, my jumps from 603 to 604e, from 604e to g3, from g3 to g4, and from g4 to g5 were all mind blowing and had me giggling like a schoolgirl each and every time. my jump from quad g5 to 8 core xeon was extremely subtle. no giggling......

You have to go one more step back... when Apple switched from 68k architecture to PowerPC, performance for most things slipped backwards.... for a little while.

Apple makes these switches with eyes a few years down the road, and seems to be (I think smartly) willing to take a performance hit in the short run in order to gain a smooth transition (read: pretty much full backwards compatibility). The G5 to the first Intel macs was a small change... but G5s have gone and are going nowhere. G5 to a current Mac? Even a second generation Intel Mac? No comparison.

 

[bikefilms]

... I think Snow Leopard and a 64 bit version of FCS3 will make your Intel machines fly and everything will make sense.

I totally agree with you. For professional compositors or music producers, the added horsepower will be nice.

I'd like to see 64 bit technology help with Media Cataloging. Something inbetween OSX's Cover Flow and Final Cut Server would be nice.

-andrew

 

[David Saraceno]

cheez, I am all with you. OSX is a dumb OS that tries to make an ipod out of a powermachine.

Apple seems to slowly leave all the pro-tools to themselves and concentrates on selling phones and musicplayers (with a much easier profit).

Basically they try to do what MS promised.

If you look at FCS2 and all the flaws it has, it is incredible they still get away with it.

I have a quadcore-windows machine that encodes just like a octacore apple.....with freeware.

Geez.

Can't we leave the NLE wars for some other web site?

 

[Justyn]

I do remember the nightmares that extensions caused though. When it worked it was great and when it didn't it was horrible. I had to have an extension set for Toast all by itself as it wouldn't work with anything else and when conflicts came up, it was a total nightmare to have the extension set turned on and that.


I perfer to stick to the act of cutting and geting onto my work and I keep the techie stuff to other people and frankly don't get caught up in too much on that end. I know what works and keep on keeping on.


Avid would have to do something to stay competitive. The major boys are holding true to their investments but I'm not them, and most of my peeps big and small are on FCP. If you were around and bought a high priced avid back in the day, you might still be on it.. but considering bang for the buck there's so many more options these days both on PC and Mac..


I do agree that it's more about what works for ya and sticking with it. I don't want to learn other platforms.. I just want to get the friggin work done.

 

[cheezweezl]

You have to go one more step back... when Apple switched from 68k architecture to PowerPC, performance for most things slipped backwards.... for a little while.

Apple makes these switches with eyes a few years down the road, and seems to be (I think smartly) willing to take a performance hit in the short run in order to gain a smooth transition (read: pretty much full backwards compatibility). The G5 to the first Intel macs was a small change... but G5s have gone and are going nowhere. G5 to a current Mac? Even a second generation Intel Mac? No comparison.

i think we disagree here. i forgot about the jump from 68k to ppc. i jumped from a performa 68k to a powermac 7500 which was a 601(ppc) 100mhz processor. huge diff from the performa. then later on i swapped out the processor in the 7500 (remember when you could do that?) to a 604e 150mhz. boom!!!! then g3 boom!!! g4 boom!!! g5 boom!!!! mac pro meh.... i'm not talking first gen either. i know apple well enough to wait for the bugs to get worked out. my 8 core has only just been updated here recently. i have the 8x 2.8ghz. yes i see a diff from my quad 2.5ghz g5 but subtle. not the kind of "wow" i have seen with every single mac upgrade i have ever done up till now.

am i still a mac fan? yes. as much so as i was 10 years ago? no.

i do have a working mac plus sitting in my living room. they are built to last.....

Geez.

Can't we leave the NLE wars for some other web site?

what NLE war? just talking about apple's biz practices. totally relevant.