Why doesn't Steve Jobs' company like Macs?
Edwin
DVDs are great. They have clear, flicker free pause... let's use it to
look in the film credits for which computers were used to make the movie...
Hmm...
Final render... Sun Microsystems
Workstations... Silicon Graphics..
Networking... Cisco...
No mention of the Mac anywhere in the credits...
How odd!
Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
Edwin
Flip
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> I watched Monsters, Inc. on DVD last night.
I hope it wasn't too intellectually challenging for you.
James Boswell
>
> Workstations... Silicon Graphics..
>
> Networking... Cisco...
>
> No mention of the Mac anywhere in the credits...
>
> How odd!
>
> Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
Same reason they don't use x86 hardware, Macs are high end
consumer/low-to-midrange workstation machines.
SGI and Sun hardware of the type they are most probably using is decidedly
high end.
We _might_ see a swing towards Macs if the GPUL lives up to expectations
however.
-JB
Edwin
"James Boswell" <jamesb...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:an1rbr$91c$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > Final render... Sun Microsystems
> >
> > Workstations... Silicon Graphics..
> >
> > Networking... Cisco...
> >
> > No mention of the Mac anywhere in the credits...
> >
> > How odd!
> >
> > Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
>
> Same reason they don't use x86 hardware,
So Macs are no better than x86 hardware? Thanks for that admission.
>Macs are high end
> consumer/low-to-midrange workstation machines.
IOW, too expensive to be a consumer machine, and too underpowered to be a
workstation.
> SGI and Sun hardware of the type they are most probably using is decidedly
> high end.
Steve Jobs can't find any use for Mac at his own compamy, Pixar?
> We _might_ see a swing towards Macs if the GPUL lives up to expectations
> however.
Someday, over the rainbow...
Edwin
Edwin
"Flip" <fli...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:flippo-BFB672....@nnrp05.earthlink.net...
You were in it for a short time, but you oozed through an open grate.
Edwin
John Jensen
> > Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
> Same reason they don't use x86 hardware, Macs are high end
> consumer/low-to-midrange workstation machines. [...]
Actually, I've seen a few articles about x86 hardware (with Linux) at
Pixar. A quick google yields:
http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-01/2002c-0130-linuxpixar.phtml
"It is now clear that Mac OS X will not be replacing IRIX for Pixar's
future workstations anytime soon. The Linux workstation market for highend
3D has made similar beachheads at Dreamworks too. What is important to
realize however is that one of Linux's great strengths is its remarkable
scalability (IBM has it running on mainframes with dozens and dozens of
processors and yet we see Sony is shipping Linux for the PlayStation 2
game machine)."
That was written 30 Jan 2002 ... perhaps they've changed their plan since
then?
John
--
33° 39' 43N 117° 45' 06W
James Boswell
>
> So Macs are no better than x86 hardware? Thanks for that admission.
Except I didn't say that...
Neither x86 machines nor macs are "high end workstations"
THIS is a high end workstation : http://www.sgi.com/workstations/octane2/
you of course, might have lower standards and think of a machine with a pair
of Xeons in it as "A high end workstation".. but you'd be wrong ;)
>> Macs are high end
>> consumer/low-to-midrange workstation machines.
> IOW, too expensive to be a consumer machine, and too underpowered to
> be a workstation.
IOW, too expensive to be a cheapass-emachines-buying-consumer machine, and not
equipped with specific features that are kinda vital for high end rendering
(videocard that keeps12-bits per channel in the framebuffer and outputs to the
monitor(s) at 10-bits per channel, only AGP videocard that springs to mind
that gets anywhere near that is the Matrox Parhelia.. though some of the
(very) expensive 3dlabs gear might also be capable.)
>> SGI and Sun hardware of the type they are most probably using is
>> decidedly high end.
> Steve Jobs can't find any use for Mac at his own compamy, Pixar?
How do we know they AREN'T using Macs for everything but the 3d
modelling/scene layout/rendering ?
(If there were hard evidence that they were using Windows boxes for things
there I'd be incredibly amused.)
-JB
WinMan
Macs are incapable of doing work in an efficient manner therefore were
not used.
Peter Pediaditakis
"WinMan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Can that arguement be extended to Windows since of course Windows was
not used either?
--
Peter Pediaditakis
path...@mac.com
Edwin
> >> Same reason they don't use x86 hardware,
> >
> > So Macs are no better than x86 hardware? Thanks for that admission.
>
> Except I didn't say that...
Yes you did.
> Neither x86 machines nor macs are "high end workstations"
Wrong. There are high end x86 workstations. Dell, HP, IBM, Intergraph,
and wait for it... Silicon Graphics (among others) make them.
> THIS is a high end workstation : http://www.sgi.com/workstations/octane2/
Gee, it don't look anything like a Mac, does it?
> you of course, might have lower standards and think of a machine with a
pair
> of Xeons in it as "A high end workstation".. but you'd be wrong ;)
No I wouldn't. I judge a workstation by what's in it, not your way, by the
price Apple charges for it.
> >> Macs are high end
> >> consumer/low-to-midrange workstation machines.
> > IOW, too expensive to be a consumer machine, and too underpowered to
> > be a workstation.
>
> IOW, too expensive to be a cheapass-emachines-buying-consumer machine,
eMachines is the only inexpensive PC you know about? You need to get out
more.
>and not
> equipped with specific features that are kinda vital for high end
rendering
> (videocard that keeps12-bits per channel in the framebuffer and outputs to
the
> monitor(s) at 10-bits per channel, only AGP videocard that springs to mind
> that gets anywhere near that is the Matrox Parhelia.. though some of the
> (very) expensive 3dlabs gear might also be capable.)
PCs equiped that way are cheaper than Macs.
> >> SGI and Sun hardware of the type they are most probably using is
> >> decidedly high end.
> > Steve Jobs can't find any use for Mac at his own compamy, Pixar?
>
> How do we know they AREN'T using Macs for everything but the 3d
> modelling/scene layout/rendering ?
How do you know they're not using PCs for that? John Jensen posted proof
they ARE using PCs for that.
Why do you suppose Steve Jobs kept mention of the Macs out of the movie
credits if Pixar is using them?
> (If there were hard evidence that they were using Windows boxes for things
> there I'd be incredibly amused.)
Read John's post, laughing boy.
Edwin
Edwin
"Peter Pediaditakis" <path...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:pathos49-62C9F4...@usenet.pitt.edu...
Is Steve Jobs the head of Microsoft or the head of Apple Computer, Inc?
Edwin
Brian Lewis
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote in message
news:an280e$ai79o$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de...
Irrelevent. Answer the question.
>
> Edwin
>
>
George Graves
Having been to the old Pixar building (the new one is too far away) I
can tell you that they do use Macs. Macs are all over the building,
sitting on most people's desks. Individual frame clean-up is done using
Photoshop on Macs, BTW. But the high-end animation programs that they
use didn't run on Macs at the time that 'Monster's Inc' was made, but I
was told that even this was going to change (Maya was one of them, but
they use something else a lot too, something I've never heard of and
don't remember the name of).
--
George Graves
"Outside of a dog, a book is probably a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, its too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
James Boswell
>
> Yes you did.
Link me to a post on Google where I said that.
>> Neither x86 machines nor macs are "high end workstations"
>
> Wrong. There are high end x86 workstations. Dell, HP, IBM,
> Intergraph, and wait for it... Silicon Graphics (among others) make
> them.
"High end x86", not "High End".. see the distinction.
>> THIS is a high end workstation :
>> http://www.sgi.com/workstations/octane2/
>
> Gee, it don't look anything like a Mac, does it?
Doesn't look anything like an x86 machine running Windows either..
> No I wouldn't. I judge a workstation by what's in it, not your way,
> by the price Apple charges for it.
just drop the "Making fun of Mac advocates" shit Edwin, you aren't very good
at it.
(hint, I have three machines in the house, none of them are Macs)
> eMachines is the only inexpensive PC you know about? You need to
> get out more.
eMachines are not "inexpensive" they're "cheap", there is a difference, it's
subtle but it's there.
> PCs equiped that way are cheaper than Macs.
Have you ANY idea how much a Wildcat 6210 costs? (
http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcatIII_6210_index.htm )
*google fu*
http://www.amazoninternational.com/html/hardware/pricing/graphics/prof_graphic
s_cards.asp
£1900 + VAT (that's 17.5% here)
PowerMacs OTOH start at £1148 + VAT, the 1Ghz DP model is £1701 + VAT
> How do you know they're not using PCs for that? John Jensen posted
> proof they ARE using PCs for that.
link to google groups archive of the post please? (my news server sucks quite
majorly)
> Why do you suppose Steve Jobs kept mention of the Macs out of the
> movie credits if Pixar is using them?
Because Macs weren't DIRECTLY involved in the making of the movie?
Do other companies list the equipment used by the art department to make the
DVD case cover?
-JB
James Boswell
> can tell you that they do use Macs. Macs are all over the building,
> sitting on most people's desks. Individual frame clean-up is done
> using Photoshop on Macs, BTW. But the high-end animation programs
> that they use didn't run on Macs at the time that 'Monster's Inc' was
> made, but I was told that even this was going to change (Maya was one
> of them, but they use something else a lot too, something I've never
> heard of and don't remember the name of).
Shake ?
(which Apple recently purchased :) )
-JB
Edwin
"Brian Lewis" <ble...@radioactivefrog.com> wrote in message
news:Tx1l9.12032$Cz.15...@twister.neo.rr.com...
It's "irrelevant" that Steve Jobs doesn't use Macs at Pixar?
Edwin
Edwin
"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgraves-D0EB3D...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <an1prf$aef15$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > I watched Monsters, Inc. on DVD last night.
> >
> > DVDs are great. They have clear, flicker free pause... let's use it to
> > look in the film credits for which computers were used to make the
movie...
> >
> > Hmm...
> >
> > Final render... Sun Microsystems
> >
> > Workstations... Silicon Graphics..
> >
> > Networking... Cisco...
> >
> > No mention of the Mac anywhere in the credits...
> >
> > How odd!
> >
> > Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
> >
> > Edwin
> >
> >
>
> Having been to the old Pixar building (the new one is too far away) I
> can tell you that they do use Macs.
Yet the Mac is not mentioned in the movie credits.
> Macs are all over the building,
> sitting on most people's desks. Individual frame clean-up is done using
> Photoshop on Macs, BTW. But the high-end animation programs that they
> use didn't run on Macs at the time that 'Monster's Inc' was made, but I
> was told that even this was going to change (Maya was one of them, but
> they use something else a lot too, something I've never heard of and
> don't remember the name of).
Neither Photoshop nor Maya are mentioned in the movie credits.
Alias/Wavefront and Marionette are mentioned.
Edwin
Brian Lewis
Answer please.
>
> Edwin
>
>
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:gmgraves-D0EB3D...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <an1prf$aef15$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I watched Monsters, Inc. on DVD last night.
> > >
> > > DVDs are great. They have clear, flicker free pause... let's use it to
> > > look in the film credits for which computers were used to make the
> movie...
> > >
> > > Hmm...
> > >
> > > Final render... Sun Microsystems
> > >
> > > Workstations... Silicon Graphics..
> > >
> > > Networking... Cisco...
> > >
> > > No mention of the Mac anywhere in the credits...
> > >
> > > How odd!
> > >
> > > Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
> > >
> > > Edwin
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Having been to the old Pixar building (the new one is too far away) I
> > can tell you that they do use Macs.
>
> Yet the Mac is not mentioned in the movie credits.
Which of course doesn't address that your *assumption* that since
they're not mentioned they weren't being used.
>
> > Macs are all over the building,
> > sitting on most people's desks. Individual frame clean-up is done using
> > Photoshop on Macs, BTW. But the high-end animation programs that they
> > use didn't run on Macs at the time that 'Monster's Inc' was made, but I
> > was told that even this was going to change (Maya was one of them, but
> > they use something else a lot too, something I've never heard of and
> > don't remember the name of).
>
> Neither Photoshop nor Maya are mentioned in the movie credits.
>
> Alias/Wavefront
Who *make* Maya, you twit.
Edwin
> >> Except I didn't say that...
> >
> > Yes you did.
>
> Link me to a post on Google where I said that.
>
> >> Neither x86 machines nor macs are "high end workstations"
> >
> > Wrong. There are high end x86 workstations. Dell, HP, IBM,
> > Intergraph, and wait for it... Silicon Graphics (among others) make
> > them.
>
> "High end x86", not "High End".. see the distinction.
No.
> >> THIS is a high end workstation :
> >> http://www.sgi.com/workstations/octane2/
> >
> > Gee, it don't look anything like a Mac, does it?
>
> Doesn't look anything like an x86 machine running Windows either..
Does Steve Jobs produce x86 machines at Apple?
> > No I wouldn't. I judge a workstation by what's in it, not your way,
> > by the price Apple charges for it.
>
> just drop the "Making fun of Mac advocates" shit Edwin, you aren't very
good
> at it.
> (hint, I have three machines in the house, none of them are Macs)
>
> > eMachines is the only inexpensive PC you know about? You need to
> > get out more.
>
> eMachines are not "inexpensive" they're "cheap", there is a difference,
it's
> subtle but it's there.
Your PC experience is limited, however you slice it.
> > PCs equiped that way are cheaper than Macs.
>
> Have you ANY idea how much a Wildcat 6210 costs? (
> http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcatIII_6210_index.htm )
"Drivers
Microsoft® Windows NT
Microsoft Windows 2000
Microsoft Windows XP "
So there's no using that in a Mac.
> *google fu*
>
>
http://www.amazoninternational.com/html/hardware/pricing/graphics/prof_graph
ic
> s_cards.asp
> £1900 + VAT (that's 17.5% here)
>
> PowerMacs OTOH start at £1148 + VAT, the 1Ghz DP model is £1701 + VAT
OTOH the PowerMacs you quote the price of don't have a chance in hell of
matching the performance of a PC with a Wildcat 6210.
Those Macs are overpriced for what they can do.
> > How do you know they're not using PCs for that? John Jensen posted
> > proof they ARE using PCs for that.
>
> link to google groups archive of the post please? (my news server sucks
quite
> majorly)
It's posted to this same thread, about a couple of hours before your last
post.
> > Why do you suppose Steve Jobs kept mention of the Macs out of the
> > movie credits if Pixar is using them?
>
> Because Macs weren't DIRECTLY involved in the making of the movie?
You think maybe they used some Macs for doorstops while the caterers were
making deliveries?
> Do other companies list the equipment used by the art department to make
the
> DVD case cover?
Shall we also give credit to PCs for making "Monsters, Inc." even though
they weren't listed in the credits?
Edwin
James Boswell
>> difference, it's subtle but it's there.
>
> Your PC experience is limited, however you slice it.
My PC experience is limited ?
I'm sitting at an AthlonXP, to my left is a Pentium 3, downstairs is another
Pentium 3...
NEXT
-JB
Josiah Fizer
You just don't understand. You disagree with the wild assed assertions Edwin is spewing, therefor there must be something wrong with you.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Steve Carroll
> "George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:gmgraves-D0EB3D...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <an1prf$aef15$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I watched Monsters, Inc. on DVD last night.
> > >
> > > DVDs are great. They have clear, flicker free pause.. let's use it to
> > > look in the film credits for which computers were used to make the
> movie...
> > >
> > > Hmm...
> > >
> > > Final render... Sun Microsystems
> > >
> > > Workstations... Silicon Graphics..
> > >
> > > Networking... Cisco...
> > >
> > > No mention of the Mac anywhere in the credits...
> > >
> > > How odd!
> > >
> > > Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
> > >
> > > Edwin
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Having been to the old Pixar building (the new one is too far away) I
> > can tell you that they do use Macs.
>
> Yet the Mac is not mentioned in the movie credits.
>
> > Macs are all over the building,
> > sitting on most people's desks. Individual frame clean-up is done using
> > Photoshop on Macs, BTW. But the high-end animation programs that they
> > use didn't run on Macs at the time that 'Monster's Inc' was made, but I
> > was told that even this was going to change (Maya was one of them, but
> > they use something else a lot too, something I've never heard of and
> > don't remember the name of).
>
> Neither Photoshop nor Maya are mentioned in the movie credits.
>
> Alias/Wavefront and Marionette are mentioned.
>
> Edwin
>
FFR - Alias/Wavefront = Maya
I have a full featured demo for OSX on my tower. Nice program, WAY too
deep for me.
Steve
Edwin
"Josiah Fizer" <jfi...@klassy.com> wrote in message
news:5oe9pukkrop6jbb32...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:02:41 +0000 (UTC), "James Boswell"
<jamesb...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >>> eMachines are not "inexpensive" they're "cheap", there is a
> >>> difference, it's subtle but it's there.
> >>
> >> Your PC experience is limited, however you slice it.
> >
> >My PC experience is limited ?
> >
> >I'm sitting at an AthlonXP, to my left is a Pentium 3, downstairs is
another
> >Pentium 3...
> >
> >NEXT
> >
> >-JB
> >
>
> You just don't understand. You disagree with the wild assed assertions
Edwin is spewing, therefor there must be something wrong with you.
Yeah! Thanks for setting him straight.
Edwin
Edwin
Yet when you talk about PCs, you have to resort to mentioning eMachines.
Why didn't you use your PCs as an example instead?
And why do you have all those PCs instead of Macs?
Edwin
Edwin
You first.
Edwin
Brian Lewis
You might not have noticed that your question is farther up in the queue.
>
> Edwin
>
>
Edwin
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-101ED...@news.telus.net...
> In article <an29u5$al1c5$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > "George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:gmgraves-D0EB3D...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > > In article <an1prf$aef15$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > > "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I watched Monsters, Inc. on DVD last night.
> > > >
> > > > DVDs are great. They have clear, flicker free pause... let's use
it to
> > > > look in the film credits for which computers were used to make the
> > movie...
> > > >
> > > > Hmm...
> > > >
> > > > Final render... Sun Microsystems
> > > >
> > > > Workstations... Silicon Graphics..
> > > >
> > > > Networking... Cisco...
> > > >
> > > > No mention of the Mac anywhere in the credits...
> > > >
> > > > How odd!
> > > >
> > > > Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
> > > >
> > > > Edwin
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Having been to the old Pixar building (the new one is too far away) I
> > > can tell you that they do use Macs.
> >
> > Yet the Mac is not mentioned in the movie credits.
>
> Which of course doesn't address that your *assumption* that since
> they're not mentioned they weren't being used.
Sure, they problably also used everything from DOS 1.0 to Windows 3.0 to
Windows XP to make the movie. We can't "assume" they didn't just because
those things weren't mentioned in the credits.
They probably brought Mel Blanc back from the Dead to do the voices. We
can't "assume" this didn't happend because the credits don't say it did.
> >
> > > Macs are all over the building,
> > > sitting on most people's desks. Individual frame clean-up is done
using
> > > Photoshop on Macs, BTW. But the high-end animation programs that they
> > > use didn't run on Macs at the time that 'Monster's Inc' was made, but
I
> > > was told that even this was going to change (Maya was one of them, but
> > > they use something else a lot too, something I've never heard of and
> > > don't remember the name of).
> >
> > Neither Photoshop nor Maya are mentioned in the movie credits.
> >
> > Alias/Wavefront
>
> Who *make* Maya, you twit.
It's not the only product they make.
Edwin
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:fretwizz-1F8542...@netnews.attbi.com...
Incorrect. Maya is only one of the products you'll find at
http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/news/home.shtml
> I have a full featured demo for OSX on my tower. Nice program, WAY too
> deep for me.
That's nice, but Pixar doesn't use Macs for it.
Edwin
Edwin
So go ahead and answer it. My question started this thread.
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
Your original premise was that Pixar must not like Macs because they
weren't mentioned in the credits of the movie "Monsters, Inc.". We now
know that they *do* in fact use Macs at Pixar.
Hence -- as usual, you premise is wrong.
>
> They probably brought Mel Blanc back from the Dead to do the voices. We
> can't "assume" this didn't happend because the credits don't say it did.
>
> > >
> > > > Macs are all over the building,
> > > > sitting on most people's desks. Individual frame clean-up is done
> using
> > > > Photoshop on Macs, BTW. But the high-end animation programs that they
> > > > use didn't run on Macs at the time that 'Monster's Inc' was made, but
> I
> > > > was told that even this was going to change (Maya was one of them, but
> > > > they use something else a lot too, something I've never heard of and
> > > > don't remember the name of).
> > >
> > > Neither Photoshop nor Maya are mentioned in the movie credits.
> > >
> > > Alias/Wavefront
> >
> > Who *make* Maya, you twit.
>
> It's not the only product they make.
True. Irrelevant, but true. But you can't state that a credit to
Alias/Wavefront shows that they *didn't* use Maya. On the contrary, it
suggests that they may indeed have used it.
Wrong. Again. <g>
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
They have three product families:
"PortfolioWall: the digital corkboard"
A product for doing design review.
StudioTools
No film companies listed on their customers page...
<http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/products/studiotools/customerwork/stori
es.shtml>
And then there's Maya:
<http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/products/maya/customerwork/stories.shtm
l>
Nothing *but* film companies...
So -- as usual, your statement was true, but irrelevant.
While Alias/Wavefront do make other products, Maya is just the only
product they make that would be used to make a computer-animated film...
James Boswell
> eMachines.
When I spoke of _low end consumer_ computers, eMachines were the first that
sprang to mind simply because they have a reputation for being cheap in
addition to inexpensive, I could just as easily have said Hewlett Packards
Pavillion line or Packard Bells anything-whatsoever or Compaqs Presario line
> Why didn't you use your PCs as an example instead?
because my PCs aren't low end (1.6Ghz Athlons with a gig of ram and 21"
monitors weren't low end last I checked...), I used eMachines as an example of
LOW END _consumer_ machines..
If you want to use Alienware or Falcon Northwest as a comparison to Apple
hardware, fine, but Apple gear is substantially better from an engineering
standpoint than lowend x86 vendors _like_ emachines.
> And why do you have all those PCs instead of Macs?
Because last time I was in the market for a new machine from scratch, OSX was
still pretty infantile (April 2000 was the last time I actually purchased an
entire rig rather than rolling replacements of hardware in existing machines)
and MacOS9 gives me hives... coming from an AmigaOS background CMT is like the
ickiest thing ever.
if the GPUL pans out, my next machine might very well be a PowerMac, a
direction which is especially leveraged by Palladium, Microsoft DRM can suck a
pecan!
-JB
Edwin
I concede that Pixar may have some Macs in use as doorstops. They don't
use them to do their work, however. Their work is making movies, and the
Mac does not appear in the credits for those movies.
> Hence -- as usual, you premise is wrong.
You found some Macs in the credits? For which Pixar movie?
John Jensen posted proof PCs are in use at Pixar. Shall we assume the PC is
responsible for Pixar movies?
The only premises which are "wrong as usual" here are all your own.
> >
> > They probably brought Mel Blanc back from the Dead to do the voices.
We
> > can't "assume" this didn't happend because the credits don't say it did.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Macs are all over the building,
> > > > > sitting on most people's desks. Individual frame clean-up is done
> > using
> > > > > Photoshop on Macs, BTW. But the high-end animation programs that
they
> > > > > use didn't run on Macs at the time that 'Monster's Inc' was made,
but
> > I
> > > > > was told that even this was going to change (Maya was one of them,
but
> > > > > they use something else a lot too, something I've never heard of
and
> > > > > don't remember the name of).
> > > >
> > > > Neither Photoshop nor Maya are mentioned in the movie credits.
> > > >
> > > > Alias/Wavefront
> > >
> > > Who *make* Maya, you twit.
> >
> > It's not the only product they make.
>
> True. Irrelevant, but true.
The truth is irrelevant to you?
> But you can't state that a credit to
> Alias/Wavefront shows that they *didn't* use Maya. On the contrary, it
> suggests that they may indeed have used it.
What's your explanation for why both Maya and the Mac are omitted from the
credits, if they were used?
> Wrong. Again. <g>
Yes you are.
George Graves
Marionette is the program I was thinking of that I had never heard of.
Thanks. And I should have mentioned that what I saw being worked on was
not 'Monster's Inc' even though it was in production at that time. My
acquaintance who works there was working on a TV commercial (I think)
and that's what I saw in production. They were using Maya and Marionette.
George Graves
But since I saw them using Maya, we can assume that it was the
Alias/Wavefront application they were crediting, can we not? I believe
that Marionette is some sort of motion capture/motion animation program,
but I could be wrong.
George Graves
"James Boswell" <jamesb...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
No it was Marionette. Edwin just refreshed my memory (good ol' RAS
before CAS Edwin).
Edwin
> > Yet when you talk about PCs, you have to resort to mentioning
> > eMachines.
>
> When I spoke of _low end consumer_ computers, eMachines were the first
that
> sprang to mind simply because they have a reputation for being cheap in
> addition to inexpensive, I could just as easily have said Hewlett Packards
> Pavillion line or Packard Bells anything-whatsoever or Compaqs Presario
line
IOW you were just regurgitating things other Maccies have said.
> > Why didn't you use your PCs as an example instead?
>
> because my PCs aren't low end (1.6Ghz Athlons with a gig of ram and 21"
> monitors weren't low end last I checked...), I used eMachines as an
example of
> LOW END _consumer_ machines..
Machines like that can be had in the U.S. for less than $1K. As I said,
your PC experience is limited. Now it seems outdated as well. You had
better go back and do some more checking.
> If you want to use Alienware or Falcon Northwest as a comparison to Apple
> hardware, fine, but Apple gear is substantially better from an engineering
> standpoint than lowend x86 vendors _like_ emachines.
>
> > And why do you have all those PCs instead of Macs?
>
> Because last time I was in the market for a new machine from scratch, OSX
was
> still pretty infantile (April 2000 was the last time I actually purchased
an
> entire rig rather than rolling replacements of hardware in existing
machines)
That explains why you don't know how much the low end PCs have improved.
> and MacOS9 gives me hives... coming from an AmigaOS background CMT is like
the
> ickiest thing ever.
>
> if the GPUL pans out, my next machine might very well be a PowerMac, a
> direction which is especially leveraged by Palladium, Microsoft DRM can
suck a
> pecan!
It's nice to have a dream, isn't it?
Edwin
Edwin
So what? How does that prove Pixar doesn't use it?
> <http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/products/studiotools/customerwork/stori
> es.shtml>
>
> And then there's Maya:
>
> <http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/products/maya/customerwork/stories.shtm
> l>
>
> Nothing *but* film companies...
>
> So -- as usual, your statement was true, but irrelevant.
The truth is irrelevant to you, as usual?
> While Alias/Wavefront do make other products, Maya is just the only
> product they make that would be used to make a computer-animated film...
Yet the film credits don't mention its use. It seems you were unable to
understand what the other software is used for, and so you limited yourself
to looking at the customer list.
James Boswell
country that I'm not in?
> That explains why you don't know how much the low end PCs have
> improved.
We seem to differ in our definition of "low end", would you care to lay your
definition out please...
> It's nice to have a dream, isn't it?
Better than feeling utterly trapped by nightmares like Palladium!
-JB
Edwin
I could be wrong here... but don't they have credits at the end of a movie
so people won't have to assume what was used to make it?
Edwin
Edwin
> > Machines like that can be had in the U.S. for less than $1K.
> I'm not in the U.S., why the hell would I care how much Macs OR PCs cost
in a
> country that I'm not in?
PCs are a world-wide phenomenon. Most originate in Asia, and low PC prices
can be had virtually anywhere. Always much lower than Mac prices.
> > That explains why you don't know how much the low end PCs have
> > improved.
>
> We seem to differ in our definition of "low end", would you care to lay
your
> definition out please...
17" monitor, 1 GHz to 1.8 GHz processor, 32 MB video card (minimum).
> > It's nice to have a dream, isn't it?
>
> Better than feeling utterly trapped by nightmares like Palladium!
Relax, Chicken Little. The sky isn't really falling.
Edwin
James Boswell
improved.
>>
>> We seem to differ in our definition of "low end", would you care to
>> lay your definition out please...
>
> 17" monitor,
don't even bother mentioning it infront of me. gah
have you SEEN the monitors HP Pavillions come with these days?.. ick.
>1 GHz to 1.8 GHz processor,
slowest chip I've seen for sale recently was a 1.3Ghz Duron... I'm informed
that AMD aren't even making those anymore...
And processor speed isn't the whole story, you should know that (supporting
components matter.)
> 32 MB video card (minimum).
the amount of memory on a videocard does not directly correspond with it's
performance, I think you'll find those cards are Geforce 2 MX's (or Geforce 4
MX's, or integrated video) and pretty much suck in comparison with a midrange
or high end card (Geforce 4 Ti4200 through to the Radeon 9700)
I'm fully aware of those 'checkbox specs' for a low end PC these days, the
problem is the checkboxes are usually backed up by crappy components, most
notably the monitors.. videocards.. then the ram (slow timings amongst other
things, especially on P4's, they lean very heavily on their memory subsystem
to perform and 2.5-3-3 timings from the DDR Sdram just doesn't cut it.) so
whilst it might look decent on paper, in reality it'll be a dog.
-JB
George Graves
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
Alias/Wavefront makes a number of applications, and perhaps Pixar uses
more than one of them, but the 3D modeling program they use is
definately Maya.
Edwin
My PC came with a nice 17" monitor, a 1.3 GHz P4 on an Intel motherboard,
and a 32 MB NVidia card, all for less than $1K, and all work great. I also
got a 52X CD and a CD-RW. You can get even better prices and parts if you
build your own PC.
Edwin
James Boswell
Really?, what refresh rates is it capable of at high resolutions?
is the visible surface of the tube flat?
how accurate is it's geometry and colour reproduction?
> a 1.3 GHz P4 on an Intel motherboard,
You do know that a P3-933 will smack the crap out of a 1.3Ghz Willamette P4
about 90% of the time don't you?
> and a 32 MB NVidia card,
Geforce 2 MX200 ?
> all for less than $1K, and all work great.
Works ? yes, okay, I'll give you that.
Works GREAT?, no, it's a bottom of the barrel POS from start to finish.
> I also got a 52X CD and a CD-RW.
BFD, I got a new CD-RW in a box of cornflakes last week.
>You can get even
> better prices and parts if you build your own PC.
...
I build my own PC's, I just wouldn't even consider building one out of crappy
components like that.
-JB
Mayor of R'lyeh
wrote:
One of these days I'm going to show you numbnuts how to use a search
engine 8).
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,48052,00.html
http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/WhoWeAre/press_releases/maya/oscars2002/index.shtml
--
I am so old that I can remember when other people's
achievements were considered to be an inspiration,
rather than a grievance.
Thomas Sowell
Tim Smith
>> Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
>
> consumer/low-to-midrange workstation machines. SGI and Sun hardware of
> the type they are most probably using is decidedly high end.
More likely they are not using x86 hardware because the Sun and SGI hardware
was fast enough. Typically, a place like that buys hardware beefy enough to
last for a few years, and then replaces it. When it is time to replace the
Sun and SGI hardware, they most likely will do what most of the other
studios are doing: get x86 hardware.
Sun and SGI used to be high end hardware compared to x86, but now they are
not, except for things that require huge address spaces. Then, Sun still
wins. On nearly everything else, including rendering movies, x86 hardware
is faster, and costs less (which makes it really kick ass on
price/performance).
The x86 speed advantage is actually larger than what you would expect just
from the CPU speed. If you buy a $30k Sun or SGI to render, you might not
have the budget to replace that for, say, 6 years. Compare to, say, a $3K
x86 machine. Suppose the x86 machine is exactly the same speed. So, all
you've done is save money. But, that means you can afford to replace the
x86 machine quicker...say, in two years. So, your x86 render farm gets
updated every two years. That means, on average, over 6 years, if you had
went with Sun, you'd be rendering on 3 year old hardware, whereas if you
went x86, on average you render on 1 year old hardware. 2 years is a long
time in computers--that puts your Sun render farm on average more than a
generation behind the x86 render farm.
The trend in movie computing is toward x86 and Linux for render farms. I
don't know what's going on with workstations, although there has been a lot
of Linux activity there, with things like Film Gimp being used for a fair
amount of work. I've read that Mac laptops are quite popular. A Mac laptop
with Final Cut Pro on the set lets the editor and director check out
potential edits of a scene right at the filming, and reshoot anything that
isn't working out right immediately, which beats the hell out of having to
get everything set up weeks later to reshoot a scene. The future in movies
looks quite bright for Linux, Mac, and x86. It is Sun and SGI and Windows
that are losing out.
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
> In article <an1rbr$91c$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, James Boswell wrote:
>>> Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
>>
>> Same reason they don't use x86 hardware, Macs are high end
>> consumer/low-to-midrange workstation machines. SGI and Sun hardware of
>> the type they are most probably using is decidedly high end.
>
> More likely they are not using x86 hardware because the Sun and SGI
> hardware was fast enough. Typically, a place like that buys hardware
> beefy enough to last for a few years, and then replaces it. When it is
> time to replace the Sun and SGI hardware, they most likely will do what
> most of the other studios are doing: get x86 hardware.
...and, doing some searching on the web, that appears to be what they did.
They started replacing their SGI workstations after "Monsters,
Inc"--replacing them with IBM x86 machines running Linux, and anticipated
being completely Linux/x86 by last March. Pixar apparently uses mostly
their own software on their workstations, so they were able to port
everything to Linux, instead of having to convince a vendor to add a Linux
port. They expect their movies released in 2003 to be made primarly on
Linux, so I assume they are replacing the render farm Suns also by then.
--Tim Smith
Mike Dee
> I watched Monsters, Inc. on DVD last night.
Gee. So how was the home DVD starring all of your relations, then? Get any
good business tips?
D.
Vareck Bostrom
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> It's "irrelevant" that Steve Jobs doesn't use Macs at Pixar?
>
> Edwin
>
>
At one point, around the time when Steve got his stock from Apple which
he sold, sometime before he became temporary CEO of Apple, I saw a
photograph of him at a meeting with a Toshiba laptop. I think I've also
heard it mentioned that he bought a windows laptop for one of his
children at one point. Steve seemed distinctly anti-Apple at the time,
selling off his Apple stock because it was a "non-starter".
Sandman
> I watched Monsters, Inc. on DVD last night.
Do you own a DVD player? I always took you for the VHS type.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> > Macs are all over the building,
> > sitting on most people's desks. Individual frame clean-up is done using
> > Photoshop on Macs, BTW. But the high-end animation programs that they
> > use didn't run on Macs at the time that 'Monster's Inc' was made, but I
> > was told that even this was going to change (Maya was one of them, but
> > they use something else a lot too, something I've never heard of and
> > don't remember the name of).
>
> Neither Photoshop nor Maya are mentioned in the movie credits.
>
> Alias/Wavefront and Marionette are mentioned.
Which company is it that makes Maya?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"James Boswell" <jamesb...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > Final render... Sun Microsystems
> >
> > Workstations... Silicon Graphics..
> >
> > Networking... Cisco...
> >
> > No mention of the Mac anywhere in the credits...
> >
> > How odd!
> >
> > Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
>
> Same reason they don't use x86 hardware, Macs are high end
> consumer/low-to-midrange workstation machines.
> SGI and Sun hardware of the type they are most probably using is decidedly
> high end.
Actually, Pixar has recently finnished their entire transition to PCs with
Redhat as workstations. They aren't using SGI anymore.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> My PC came with a nice 17" monitor, a 1.3 GHz P4 on an Intel motherboard,
> and a 32 MB NVidia card, all for less than $1K, and all work great. I also
> got a 52X CD and a CD-RW. You can get even better prices and parts if you
> build your own PC.
Why are you using a low-end PC, Edwin?
--
Sandman[.net]
James Arveson
>
> >> SGI and Sun hardware of the type they are most probably using is
> >> decidedly high end.
>
> How do we know they AREN'T using Macs for everything but the 3d
> modelling/scene layout/rendering ?
> (If there were hard evidence that they were using Windows boxes for things
> there I'd be incredibly amused.)
>
Probably not Windows, but those Xeon-based work stations are starting to
show up in the high end work at Pixar , using Linux.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-829275.html
IBM unifies Unix, Intel workstation lines:
"IBM has made some progress, luring Pixar Animation Studios for animation
work once done on SGI machines. The Pixar deal is important to IBM in part
because the customer is using Linux, a clone of Unix that's growing from a
hobbyist curiosity into a full-fledged corporate product. IBM said last week
it nearly recouped the $1 billion it spent on Linux in 2001. "
I'm also personally familiar with a smaller shop, Giant Studios, that uses
high end Athlon work stations for converting 3D video images into real time
animation.
http://www.giantstudios.com/
James
flip
Vareck Bostrom <v.bo...@attbi.com> wrote:
That Toshiba laptop was reportedly running NeXTStep.
As for Windows computers for his kids, so what? Lots of people use both
platforms.
flip
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Nah, Eddie's more the etch-a-sketch type.
Richard K. McPike
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
They don't use Macs for the animation work in their movies, which is
what the systems that they mention in the credits are used for. If they
wrote the film using Final Draft, which most studios use, then they
likely used Macs, since Final Draft's customer base is still very
Mac-heavy. They probably used Windows computers and software like
Microsoft Project for scheduling resources and mapping out the
production timeline. Don't see Windows mentioned in the credits.
Monsters Inc. was made before Mac OS X was released, and Mac OS 9 was
not a platform usable for animation. Neither is Windows, apparently.
Were Macs used in the animation of Monsters, Inc? No. So what?
Do they use Macs in other capacities at Pixar? Yes.
So what's your point, Edwin? For a system to be good it has to be able
to straddle the entire market, from low end Internet terminal to high
end animation rendering iron?
Kirk
Richard K. McPike
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
Credits are generally for the "who" made it, not for "what they used to
make it." Pixar throws in a few credits to the systems it uses for
animation and rendering. Credits don't catalogue every piece of software
and hardware used every step of the way from concept to pre-prod to
turnaround to production to post.
Kirk
Richard K. McPike
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
Edwin,
You do not know what film credits are for, the politics of what is
listed and what is not, nor do you seem to realize that credits are not
a complete listing of every device, person or item used to make the film.
Where's your film degree from, Edwin?
Kirk
Mayor of R'lyeh
Sure it was.
>
>As for Windows computers for his kids, so what? Lots of people use both
>platforms.
'Lots of people' aren't CEOs of computer companies that regularly give
speeches on how much superior his product is to Windows either.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<mcpik...@attbi.com> wrote:
>In article <an2lom$9oq3p$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
[Snip]
>>
>> > While Alias/Wavefront do make other products, Maya is just the only
>> > product they make that would be used to make a computer-animated film...
>>
>> Yet the film credits don't mention its use. It seems you were unable to
>> understand what the other software is used for, and so you limited yourself
>> to looking at the customer list.
>
>Edwin,
>
>You do not know what film credits are for, the politics of what is
>listed and what is not, nor do you seem to realize that credits are not
>a complete listing of every device, person or item used to make the film.
>
>Where's your film degree from, Edwin?
>
>Kirk
Where's yours from? Did you go to school with Nathan by some chance?
8)
flip
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:45:43 GMT, flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <v.bostrom-E777D...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> > Vareck Bostrom <v.bo...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <an29p2$ajh5i$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> >> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It's "irrelevant" that Steve Jobs doesn't use Macs at Pixar?
> >> >
> >> > Edwin
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> At one point, around the time when Steve got his stock from Apple which
> >> he sold, sometime before he became temporary CEO of Apple, I saw a
> >> photograph of him at a meeting with a Toshiba laptop. I think I've also
> >> heard it mentioned that he bought a windows laptop for one of his
> >> children at one point. Steve seemed distinctly anti-Apple at the time,
> >> selling off his Apple stock because it was a "non-starter".
> >
> >That Toshiba laptop was reportedly running NeXTStep.
>
> Sure it was.
> >
> >As for Windows computers for his kids, so what? Lots of people use both
> >platforms.
>
> 'Lots of people' aren't CEOs of computer companies that regularly give
> speeches on how much superior his product is to Windows either.
So? Mac OS _is_ superior. That doesn't mean that Windows is useless.
BTW, I see you're still ignoring the fact that people who use _both_
platforms are in a vastly better position to comment on which one is
better than you bigots who only use one - and then bash the other.
Ari Ukkonen
news:an2h2e$am176$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de...><snip>
> > FFR - Alias/Wavefront = Maya
>
> Incorrect. Maya is only one of the products you'll find at
> http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/news/home.shtml
>
> > deep for me.
>
> That's nice, but Pixar doesn't use Macs for it.
*Sigh*
http://www.apple.com/shake/stories/index.html
http://www.apple.com/cinematools/
Use the right tool for the job. It's that simple. A windows PC is not the
right tool for professional film production. End of story.
> Edwin
>
--
Ari
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 21/08/2002
Mayor of R'lyeh
>In article <3d960ffe$0$1424$272e...@news.execpc.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:45:43 GMT, flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <v.bostrom-E777D...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> > Vareck Bostrom <v.bo...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <an29p2$ajh5i$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
>> >> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > It's "irrelevant" that Steve Jobs doesn't use Macs at Pixar?
>> >> >
>> >> > Edwin
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> At one point, around the time when Steve got his stock from Apple which
>> >> he sold, sometime before he became temporary CEO of Apple, I saw a
>> >> photograph of him at a meeting with a Toshiba laptop. I think I've also
>> >> heard it mentioned that he bought a windows laptop for one of his
>> >> children at one point. Steve seemed distinctly anti-Apple at the time,
>> >> selling off his Apple stock because it was a "non-starter".
>> >
>> >That Toshiba laptop was reportedly running NeXTStep.
>>
>> Sure it was.
>> >
>> >As for Windows computers for his kids, so what? Lots of people use both
>> >platforms.
>>
>> 'Lots of people' aren't CEOs of computer companies that regularly give
>> speeches on how much superior his product is to Windows either.
>
>So? Mac OS _is_ superior.
Spoken like a true braindead zealot.
> That doesn't mean that Windows is useless.
LOL! 95% of the market and Joe finally figures out it isn't 'useless'.
Now we just have to wait for Joe to figure out the sky is blue and
we'll be all set! 8)
>
>BTW, I see you're still ignoring the fact that people who use _both_
>platforms are in a vastly better position to comment on which one is
>better than you bigots who only use one - and then bash the other.
As I've noted elsewhere these people who 'use' Windows don't seem to
know much about it. I enter data on an AS/400 at one of my jobs. I use
an AS/400. Do I know much about it? Not really. I certainly wouldn't
go around wailing that I use both platforms and I find Windows to be
more usefull and expect to be taken seriously.
Richard K. McPike
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:53:13 GMT, "Richard K. McPike"
> <mcpik...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <an2lom$9oq3p$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> >>
> >> > While Alias/Wavefront do make other products, Maya is just the only
> >> > product they make that would be used to make a computer-animated film...
> >>
> >> Yet the film credits don't mention its use. It seems you were unable to
> >> understand what the other software is used for, and so you limited yourself
> >> to looking at the customer list.
> >
> >Edwin,
> >
> >You do not know what film credits are for, the politics of what is
> >listed and what is not, nor do you seem to realize that credits are not
> >a complete listing of every device, person or item used to make the film.
> >
> >Where's your film degree from, Edwin?
> >
> >Kirk
>
> Where's yours from? Did you go to school with Nathan by some chance?
> 8)
It will be from Southern Methodist University, along with my political
science degree.
How many films have you worked on, Mayor of Nowhere?
Kirk
flip
Well, no. I've given reasons over and over again why Mac OS is superior.
Heck, security alone is enough justification. Add in ease of use, TCO,
and avoidance of feeding a monopoly and it's an easy decision for me.
>
> > That doesn't mean that Windows is useless.
>
> LOL! 95% of the market and Joe finally figures out it isn't 'useless'.
> Now we just have to wait for Joe to figure out the sky is blue and
> we'll be all set! 8)
I never claimed that Windows was useless. Your braindead bigot way of
thinking somehow can't tell the difference between "Mac OS is better"
and "Windows is useless".
As near as I can figure, that's your problem, not mine.
> >
> >BTW, I see you're still ignoring the fact that people who use _both_
> >platforms are in a vastly better position to comment on which one is
> >better than you bigots who only use one - and then bash the other.
>
> As I've noted elsewhere these people who 'use' Windows don't seem to
> know much about it. I enter data on an AS/400 at one of my jobs. I use
> an AS/400. Do I know much about it? Not really. I certainly wouldn't
> go around wailing that I use both platforms and I find Windows to be
> more usefull and expect to be taken seriously.
IOW, you _are_ ignoring the fact that people who use both regularly tend
to prefer the Mac. Thanks for admitting it.
Alan Baker
<snip>
> > > > FFR - Alias/Wavefront = Maya
> > >
> > > Incorrect. Maya is only one of the products you'll find at
> > > http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/news/home.shtml
> >
> > They have three product families:
> >
> > "PortfolioWall: the digital corkboard"
> > A product for doing design review.
> >
> > StudioTools
> >
> > No film companies listed on their customers page...
>
> So what? How does that prove Pixar doesn't use it?
>
> > <http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/products/studiotools/customerwork/stori
> > es.shtml>
> >
> > And then there's Maya:
> >
> > <http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/products/maya/customerwork/stories.shtm
> > l>
> >
> > Nothing *but* film companies...
> >
> > So -- as usual, your statement was true, but irrelevant.
>
> The truth is irrelevant to you, as usual?
That particular truth is irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
To wit (and I'm spelling it out because it's Edwin): the fact that A/W
makes products that aren't useful in the film business is irrelevant to
an attempt to prove Pixar didn't use the *one* product that A/W makes
that *is* for the film business.
>
> > While Alias/Wavefront do make other products, Maya is just the only
> > product they make that would be used to make a computer-animated film...
>
> Yet the film credits don't mention its use. It seems you were unable to
> understand what the other software is used for, and so you limited yourself
> to looking at the customer list.
I didn't limit myself to that.
Just to refresh your memory: the film's credits don't mention *any*
Alias/Wavefront product by name.
What's hilarious is that you are arguing that that fact makes it somehow
*less* likely that Pixar used A/W's Maya, and instead were using some
other, non-film-related, product of theirs.
<snip>
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-69533...@news.telus.net...
> > In article <an2gtg$ahh0u$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > > news:alangbaker-101ED...@news.telus.net...
> > > > In article <an29u5$al1c5$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > > > "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > > >
> news:gmgraves-D0EB3D...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > In article <an1prf$aef15$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > > > > > "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I watched Monsters, Inc. on DVD last night.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DVDs are great. They have clear, flicker free pause... let's
> use
> > > it to
> > > > > > > look in the film credits for which computers were used to make
> the
> > > > > movie...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hmm...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Final render... Sun Microsystems
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Workstations... Silicon Graphics..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Networking... Cisco...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No mention of the Mac anywhere in the credits...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How odd!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Edwin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having been to the old Pixar building (the new one is too far
> away) I
> > > > > > can tell you that they do use Macs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet the Mac is not mentioned in the movie credits.
> > > >
> > > > Which of course doesn't address that your *assumption* that since
> > > > they're not mentioned they weren't being used.
> > >
> > > Sure, they problably also used everything from DOS 1.0 to Windows 3.0 to
> > > Windows XP to make the movie. We can't "assume" they didn't just
> because
> > > those things weren't mentioned in the credits.
> >
> > Your original premise was that Pixar must not like Macs because they
> > weren't mentioned in the credits of the movie "Monsters, Inc.". We now
> > know that they *do* in fact use Macs at Pixar.
>
> I concede that Pixar may have some Macs in use as doorstops. They don't
> use them to do their work, however. Their work is making movies, and the
> Mac does not appear in the credits for those movies.
All that show is that they didn't put Apple in the credits. Do you think
that every single company who's products were used at Pixar on
"Monsters, Inc." is in the credits?
>
> > Hence -- as usual, you premise is wrong.
>
> You found some Macs in the credits? For which Pixar movie?
Your premise was that [Pixar] "doesn't like Macs". You can't prove that
premise by the fact that they're not in the credits of "Monsters, Inc."
>
> John Jensen posted proof PCs are in use at Pixar. Shall we assume the PC is
> responsible for Pixar movies?
I'm sure that PCs were used.
>
> The only premises which are "wrong as usual" here are all your own.
Try arguing that one out using logic. I won't wait up.
>
> > >
> > > They probably brought Mel Blanc back from the Dead to do the voices.
> We
> > > can't "assume" this didn't happend because the credits don't say it did.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Macs are all over the building,
> > > > > > sitting on most people's desks. Individual frame clean-up is done
> > > using
> > > > > > Photoshop on Macs, BTW. But the high-end animation programs that
> they
> > > > > > use didn't run on Macs at the time that 'Monster's Inc' was made,
> but
> > > I
> > > > > > was told that even this was going to change (Maya was one of them,
> but
> > > > > > they use something else a lot too, something I've never heard of
> and
> > > > > > don't remember the name of).
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither Photoshop nor Maya are mentioned in the movie credits.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alias/Wavefront
> > > >
> > > > Who *make* Maya, you twit.
> > >
> > > It's not the only product they make.
> >
> > True. Irrelevant, but true.
>
> The truth is irrelevant to you?
Are you incapable of reading? Or is this just a pose.
"Irrelevant, but true" means that your statement has both those
qualities in this context, not that "truth is irrelevant".
Happy to help.
When the only product that A/W makes that is appropriate for the film
business is Maya, then the fact that they make other products is
irrelevant to trying to prove that A/W didn't use Maya.
>
> > But you can't state that a credit to
> > Alias/Wavefront shows that they *didn't* use Maya. On the contrary, it
> > suggests that they may indeed have used it.
>
> What's your explanation for why both Maya and the Mac are omitted from the
> credits, if they were used?
You twit. *All* of Alias/Wavefront's products are omitted from the
credits. Therefore, I pose this nonsense question as the logical
extension of your ridiculous position:
"What's your explanation for why all of A/W's products are omitted from
the credits, if they were used?"
Do you get it, Eddie? You are arguing that the presence of A/W and the
absence of Maya in the credits somehow shows that Maya wasn't used. But
by the same argument, you can eliminate *all* of A/W's products.
Which leads to a logical fallacy: an Edwin speciality. <g>
<snip>
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
<snip>
> > But since I saw them using Maya, we can assume that it was the
> > Alias/Wavefront application they were crediting, can we not? I believe
> > that Marionette is some sort of motion capture/motion animation program,
> > but I could be wrong.
>
> I could be wrong here... but don't they have credits at the end of a movie
> so people won't have to assume what was used to make it?
Twit for brains: if the absence of *one* Alias/Wavefront product
indicates that it wasn't used, then the absence of all the rest means
the same thing, right?
So what was A/W doing in the credits?
What you don't get is that if A/W is listed in the credits, and we know
that Maya is the product that they make for doing CGI animated films
(and we know it's in use at Pixar -- thanks, George), doesn't that make
it the most likely of all the A/W products to be the reason that A/W is
in the credits in the first place?
Alan Baker
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Look, everybody!
Edwin was wrong...
...again!
Peter Pediaditakis
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> > Can that arguement be extended to Windows since of course Windows was
> > not used either?
>
> Is Steve Jobs the head of Microsoft or the head of Apple Computer, Inc?
But that says nothing about my question. If Pixar which is in business
to make money making movies does not see fit to use windows, is it not
as worthless to them as MacOS?
Why not stop tring to always change the question to fit your answer.
And yes it is a loaded question you moron
--
Peter Pediaditakis
path...@mac.com
Sandman
Peter Pediaditakis <path...@mac.com> wrote:
Whenever I see your name, I think of the movie Godzilla and how everyone
mispronounce Nick Tatopulous (or whatever) name all the time. I bet people
have a hard time with yours aswell? :)
I always tend to read it Peter Pediatrician in my head when I see it. :)
No offense, though, just thought it was funny. Hopefully, your surname
hasn't given you huge traumas in your life which I just reinvoked. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Peter Pediaditakis
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> I bet people
> have a hard time with yours aswell? :)
That is a masive understatement. Grew up in North Carolina and no one
could pronounce it. Now I am living in Pittsburgh and people here do
not even bat an eye when saying it correctly. While my name is long,
there are many polish, slavic, russian and greek names that make mine
look short. Funny how different two areas of america seperated by only
500 miles are.
--
Peter Pediaditakis
path...@mac.com
Edwin
Did you give those reasons to your employees?
> Heck, security alone is enough justification. Add in ease of use, TCO,
> and avoidance of feeding a monopoly and it's an easy decision for me.
Then why doesn't your company run on Macs instead of on PCs?
>>>That doesn't mean that Windows is useless.
>>
>>LOL! 95% of the market and Joe finally figures out it isn't 'useless'.
>>Now we just have to wait for Joe to figure out the sky is blue and
>>we'll be all set! 8)
>
>
> I never claimed that Windows was useless.
You claimed that Windows is not secure, buggy, hard to use, and has high
maintenance costs. How could all your long, bitter rants against
Windows and the PC add up to anything else but calling them "useless?"
>Your braindead bigot way of
> thinking somehow can't tell the difference between "Mac OS is better"
> and "Windows is useless".
If the Mac is better, why doesn't your company use it instead of the PC?
Don't you want your company to be "better?"
> As near as I can figure, that's your problem, not mine.
That says a lot about the way you "figure."
>>>BTW, I see you're still ignoring the fact that people who use _both_
>>>platforms are in a vastly better position to comment on which one is
>>>better than you bigots who only use one - and then bash the other.
>>
>>As I've noted elsewhere these people who 'use' Windows don't seem to
>>know much about it. I enter data on an AS/400 at one of my jobs. I use
>>an AS/400. Do I know much about it? Not really. I certainly wouldn't
>>go around wailing that I use both platforms and I find Windows to be
>>more usefull and expect to be taken seriously.
>
>
> IOW, you _are_ ignoring the fact that people who use both regularly tend
> to prefer the Mac. Thanks for admitting it.
Your lack of reading comprehension is appalling. Aren't English classes
required to get a Ph.D.? I ask for information only.
Edwin
--
"I use MacOS X (and ported *nix apps), MacOS 9, YDL linux, and window$
(though not voluntarily). Why do you call e a Linux user?" -- Rick
Hatton, March 29, 2002
Edwin
Is Apple just any company, or is it also a company that Steve Jobs is
head of? Explain why Steve Jobs as head of Pixar failed to promote
Macs in the movie credits if they were used to make the movie.
>
>>>Hence -- as usual, you premise is wrong.
>>
>>You found some Macs in the credits? For which Pixar movie?
>
>
> Your premise was that [Pixar] "doesn't like Macs". You can't prove that
> premise by the fact that they're not in the credits of "Monsters, Inc."
Sure I can. They're not absent from the credits because Pixar likes Macs.
>
>>John Jensen posted proof PCs are in use at Pixar. Shall we assume the PC is
>>responsible for Pixar movies?
>
>
> I'm sure that PCs were used.
Good for you.
>
>>The only premises which are "wrong as usual" here are all your own.
>
>
> Try arguing that one out using logic. I won't wait up.
Seeing how you don't understand or use logic.
>
>>>>They probably brought Mel Blanc back from the Dead to do the voices.
>>>
>>We
>>
>>>>can't "assume" this didn't happend because the credits don't say it did.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Macs are all over the building,
>>>>>>>sitting on most people's desks. Individual frame clean-up is done
>>>>>>
>>>>using
>>>>
>>>>>>>Photoshop on Macs, BTW. But the high-end animation programs that
>>>>>>
>>they
>>
>>>>>>>use didn't run on Macs at the time that 'Monster's Inc' was made,
>>>>>>
>>but
>>
>>>>I
>>>>
>>>>>>>was told that even this was going to change (Maya was one of them,
>>>>>>
>>but
>>
>>>>>>>they use something else a lot too, something I've never heard of
>>>>>>
>>and
>>
>>>>>>>don't remember the name of).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Neither Photoshop nor Maya are mentioned in the movie credits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Alias/Wavefront
>>>>>
>>>>>Who *make* Maya, you twit.
>>>>
>>>>It's not the only product they make.
>>>
>>>True. Irrelevant, but true.
>>
>>The truth is irrelevant to you?
>
>
> Are you incapable of reading? Or is this just a pose.
Whatever that means.
> "Irrelevant, but true" means that your statement has both those
> qualities in this context, not that "truth is irrelevant".
Illogical.
> Happy to help.
If you really wanted to be helpful, you'd hold your breath for six minutes.
> When the only product that A/W makes that is appropriate for the film
> business is Maya,
What makes you think a film business can't use those other products? Is
there a law against it or something?
>then the fact that they make other products is
> irrelevant to trying to prove that A/W didn't use Maya.
When was I trying to prove they didn't use it? I simply said there's
nothing in the credits that proves they did use it.
>>>But you can't state that a credit to
>>>Alias/Wavefront shows that they *didn't* use Maya. On the contrary, it
>>>suggests that they may indeed have used it.
>>
>>What's your explanation for why both Maya and the Mac are omitted from the
>>credits, if they were used?
>
>
> You twit. *All* of Alias/Wavefront's products are omitted from the
> credits. Therefore, I pose this nonsense question as the logical
> extension of your ridiculous position:
Therefore you have only assumptions to tell you what products were used.
Software companies have been known to write special software for
their clients. You have no way to know that wasn't why a product name
wasn't given in the credits.
> "What's your explanation for why all of A/W's products are omitted from
> the credits, if they were used?"
>
> Do you get it, Eddie? You are arguing that the presence of A/W and the
> absence of Maya in the credits somehow shows that Maya wasn't used.
Wrong as usual, Alan. I'm arguing you can't know what products were
used if they weren't named in the credits.
> But
> by the same argument, you can eliminate *all* of A/W's products.
Wrong as usual, Alan. See above.
> Which leads to a logical fallacy: an Edwin speciality. <g>
You're projecting again. That's an Alan specialty. <g>
Edwin
Is Steve Jobs the head of Microsoft or the head of Apple Computer, Inc.?
What's your explanation for why Steve Jobs as head of Pixar didn't get
Macs mentioned in the credits if they were used to make the movie?
> Monsters Inc. was made before Mac OS X was released, and Mac OS 9 was
> not a platform usable for animation. Neither is Windows, apparently.
Was that apparent while Pixar was using Windows NT to make "Toy Story?"
> Were Macs used in the animation of Monsters, Inc? No. So what?
Were Macs used in any way to make "Monsters, Inc.?" The credits don't
say they were.
> Do they use Macs in other capacities at Pixar? Yes.
Prove it.
> So what's your point, Edwin? For a system to be good it has to be able
> to straddle the entire market, from low end Internet terminal to high
> end animation rendering iron?
Did you forget Apple's claims that the Mac is a "supercomputer?" I can
understand why you would want to.
John Jensen
> Is Apple just any company, or is it also a company that Steve Jobs is
> head of? Explain why Steve Jobs as head of Pixar failed to promote
> Macs in the movie credits if they were used to make the movie.
Even though I'm happy Pixar uses x86 Linux machines, I think it actually
speaks well for Jobs that he _doesn't_ try to force that kind of issue.
He has different responsibilities at the two companies, and it would
probably be wrong to make one company serve the other.
John
--
33° 47' 36N 117° 54' 53W
Edwin
Look, everybody! For the umpteenth time, Alan "Loony Tunes" Baker is
declaring me to be "wrong again" in a case where I'm not wrong at all.
Edwin
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <an2mek$age6u$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
>
>>"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>>>But since I saw them using Maya, we can assume that it was the
>>>Alias/Wavefront application they were crediting, can we not? I believe
>>>that Marionette is some sort of motion capture/motion animation program,
>>>but I could be wrong.
>>
>>I could be wrong here... but don't they have credits at the end of a movie
>>so people won't have to assume what was used to make it?
>
>
> Twit for brains: if the absence of *one* Alias/Wavefront product
> indicates that it wasn't used, then the absence of all the rest means
> the same thing, right?
It means you can't prove which product was used.
> So what was A/W doing in the credits?
They may have provided custom software. I have no way to tell, and
neither do you.
> What you don't get is that if A/W is listed in the credits, and we know
> that Maya is the product that they make for doing CGI animated films
> (and we know it's in use at Pixar -- thanks, George), doesn't that make
> it the most likely of all the A/W products to be the reason that A/W is
> in the credits in the first place?
All you're working with is assumptions and guesses. Thanks for making
that clear.
Alan Baker
You went on and on about how Maya wasn't mentioned in the credits and
how that must mean it wasn't used. And since I *do* know how to use a
search engine, I can have all the references posted here pretty quick. I
don't even need very much encouragement. <g>
Edwin
It isn't. So I'm not wrong.
> and
> how that must mean it wasn't used.
And how that means you can't prove it was used. You're wrong... again!
>And since I *do* know how to use a
> search engine, I can have all the references posted here pretty quick. I
> don't even need very much encouragement. <g>
Knock yourself out. Give lots of references to you being wrong... again!
Mayor of R'lyeh
>
>
>Alan Baker wrote:
>> In article <an2mek$age6u$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
>> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>But since I saw them using Maya, we can assume that it was the
>>>>Alias/Wavefront application they were crediting, can we not? I believe
>>>>that Marionette is some sort of motion capture/motion animation program,
>>>>but I could be wrong.
>>>
>>>I could be wrong here... but don't they have credits at the end of a movie
>>>so people won't have to assume what was used to make it?
>>
>>
>> Twit for brains: if the absence of *one* Alias/Wavefront product
>> indicates that it wasn't used, then the absence of all the rest means
>> the same thing, right?
>
>It means you can't prove which product was used.
>
>> So what was A/W doing in the credits?
>
>They may have provided custom software. I have no way to tell, and
>neither do you.
Ahem! from:
http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/WhoWeAre/press_releases/maya/oscars2002/index.shtml
"Moreover, Maya was used in the production of Monsters Inc., also
nominated in the "best animated feature" category."
>
>> What you don't get is that if A/W is listed in the credits, and we know
>> that Maya is the product that they make for doing CGI animated films
>> (and we know it's in use at Pixar -- thanks, George), doesn't that make
>> it the most likely of all the A/W products to be the reason that A/W is
>> in the credits in the first place?
>
>All you're working with is assumptions and guesses. Thanks for making
>that clear.
>
>Edwin
--
Edwin
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:14:15 -0500, Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>>In article <an2mek$age6u$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
>>> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>But since I saw them using Maya, we can assume that it was the
>>>>>Alias/Wavefront application they were crediting, can we not? I believe
>>>>>that Marionette is some sort of motion capture/motion animation program,
>>>>>but I could be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>I could be wrong here... but don't they have credits at the end of a movie
>>>>so people won't have to assume what was used to make it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Twit for brains: if the absence of *one* Alias/Wavefront product
>>>indicates that it wasn't used, then the absence of all the rest means
>>>the same thing, right?
>>
>>It means you can't prove which product was used.
>>
>>
>>>So what was A/W doing in the credits?
>>
>>They may have provided custom software. I have no way to tell, and
>>neither do you.
>
>
> Ahem! from:
> http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/WhoWeAre/press_releases/maya/oscars2002/index.shtml
>
> "Moreover, Maya was used in the production of Monsters Inc., also
> nominated in the "best animated feature" category."
Sure, that shows Maya was used. But Alan didn't go by that. He just
made assumptions about what was missing from the film's credits.
>
>>>What you don't get is that if A/W is listed in the credits, and we know
>>>that Maya is the product that they make for doing CGI animated films
>>>(and we know it's in use at Pixar -- thanks, George), doesn't that make
>>>it the most likely of all the A/W products to be the reason that A/W is
>>>in the credits in the first place?
>>
>>All you're working with is assumptions and guesses. Thanks for making
>>that clear.
>>
>>Edwin
>
>
--
"I use MacOS X (and ported *nix apps), MacOS 9, YDL linux, and window$
Richard K. McPike
> Richard K. McPike wrote:
>
> > They don't use Macs for the animation work in their movies, which is
> > what the systems that they mention in the credits are used for. If they
> > wrote the film using Final Draft, which most studios use, then they
> > likely used Macs, since Final Draft's customer base is still very
> > Mac-heavy. They probably used Windows computers and software like
> > Microsoft Project for scheduling resources and mapping out the
> > production timeline. Don't see Windows mentioned in the credits.
>
> Is Steve Jobs the head of Microsoft or the head of Apple Computer, Inc.?
Apple Computer.
> What's your explanation for why Steve Jobs as head of Pixar didn't get
> Macs mentioned in the credits if they were used to make the movie?
Why would he? The credits mentioned the systems and software used in the
animation and rendering of the film. Macs weren't involved in that. So
why would they be mentioned?
>
> > Monsters Inc. was made before Mac OS X was released, and Mac OS 9 was
> > not a platform usable for animation. Neither is Windows, apparently.
>
> Was that apparent while Pixar was using Windows NT to make "Toy Story?"
Apparently at that time Windows NT was the best solution for animation
and rendering. Apparently it no longer is. Apparently the Mac has never
been. So what?
> > Were Macs used in the animation of Monsters, Inc? No. So what?
>
> Were Macs used in any way to make "Monsters, Inc.?" The credits don't
> say they were.
They were apparently not used in any capacity that involved animation or
rendering, which appears to be all that was mentioned in the credits.
> > Do they use Macs in other capacities at Pixar? Yes.
>
> Prove it.
We have the first hand accounts of others on this forum to testify to
that fact. They've stated what they saw when they visited. You prove
them wrong.
> > So what's your point, Edwin? For a system to be good it has to be able
> > to straddle the entire market, from low end Internet terminal to high
> > end animation rendering iron?
>
> Did you forget Apple's claims that the Mac is a "supercomputer?" I can
> understand why you would want to.
Jesus Fucking Christ, Edwin. What the hell does that have to do with
anything? Apple never said "The Mac is the computer to use for animation
and rendering of CGI films."
Kirk
Peter Pediaditakis
> Is Steve Jobs the head of Microsoft or the head of Apple Computer, Inc.?
> What's your explanation for why Steve Jobs as head of Pixar didn't get
> Macs mentioned in the credits if they were used to make the movie?
You really have no clue do you? Jobs role as CEO of Apple is distinct
from his role as CEO of Pixar. Both are publicly traded companies and
both have to answer to their respective shareholders. Thus , who gets
listed as credits is not up for debate or stuffing. If a companies
products were used then credit should be given.
If Jobs were to use assets of anykind in one company to promote the
other company without fair compenstion or some sort of deal, Jobs could
be raked over the SEC fires.
--
Peter Pediaditakis
path...@mac.com
Peter Pediaditakis
John Jensen <jj...@primenet.com> wrote:
> He has different responsibilities at the two companies, and it would
> probably be wrong to make one company serve the other.
.....AND distinctly illegal. The shareholders could sue, even the
minority shareholders could go after Jobs. It is nice to know that
others (john) have a sense of ethics. From the arguements Edwin is
presenting, it is obvious he does not have a clue.
--
Peter Pediaditakis
path...@mac.com
Edwin
"Peter Pediaditakis" <path...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:pathos49-E85595...@usenet.pitt.edu...
Welcome back, Peter.
How are those Macs you pulled out of your school's dumpster holding up? I
Edwin
> In article <3D9B168A...@aiur.org>, Edwin <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> > Is Steve Jobs the head of Microsoft or the head of Apple Computer, Inc.?
> > What's your explanation for why Steve Jobs as head of Pixar didn't get
> > Macs mentioned in the credits if they were used to make the movie?
>
> You really have no clue do you? Jobs role as CEO of Apple is distinct
> from his role as CEO of Pixar. Both are publicly traded companies and
> both have to answer to their respective shareholders. Thus , who gets
> listed as credits is not up for debate or stuffing. If a companies
> products were used then credit should be given.
I accept your argument. No Macs were listed because no Macs were used.
Thanks for that.
> If Jobs were to use assets of anykind in one company to promote the
> other company without fair compenstion or some sort of deal, Jobs could
> be raked over the SEC fires.
Who said there would be no compensation?
Edwin
Flip
Peter Pediaditakis <path...@mac.com> wrote:
It's more a matter of Edwin not having any concept of how businesses are
run. He STILL can't understand that the fact that I like Macs is not
justification for me replacing all our PCs with Macs at work. There are
many, many considerations and he's too simplistic to understand that.
John Jensen
I wouldn't go too far in this direction. We agree that neither you nor
Jobs should _force_ Macs upon their companies ...
... but that only leads to the question of why force might be necessary.
;-)
John
--
33° 39' 43N 117° 45' 08W
Steve Carroll
> It isn't. So I'm not wrong.
>
Technically, no. You're wrong in the same way that you're always wrong,
which is why I caught you so easily. You've 'lumped' stuff together
again by asking the question,(directly below this paragraph) after
pointing out the Mac's absence in the creation of the Monsters Inc movie.
"Why doesn't Steve Jobs' own company (Pixar) like to use the Mac?"
With the question that you've asked and the wording that you used to ask
it, one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. When you
figure out what the word 'necessarily' actually means with respect to
what I just wrote, you should come to the realization that you're
question didn't really jibe with the way you intended to troll. If it
did jibe with your intentions, I'd say you need more polish. With that
said, you 'did' get over 80 hits with no one else catching it... for
this, I applaud your trolling ability.
Steve
Steve Carroll
> Is Steve Jobs the head of Microsoft or the head of Apple Computer, Inc.?
> What's your explanation for why Steve Jobs as head of Pixar didn't get
> Macs mentioned in the credits if they were used to make the movie?
I'll venture a guess...
He's not as vain as you are stupid?
Steve
Sandman
> > and how that must mean it wasn't used.
>
> And how that means you can't prove it was used. You're wrong... again!
Are you seriously saying that it can't be proved that Maya was used to make
Monsters Inc? Are you drunk?
http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/WhoWeAre/press_releases/maya/oscars2002/ind
ex.shtml
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> > All that show is that they didn't put Apple in the credits. Do you think
> > that every single company who's products were used at Pixar on
> > "Monsters, Inc." is in the credits?
>
> Is Apple just any company, or is it also a company that Steve Jobs is
> head of? Explain why Steve Jobs as head of Pixar failed to promote
> Macs in the movie credits if they were used to make the movie.
I don't think Steve Jobs writes the credits to these movies. I think Disney
does. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Peter Pediaditakis
"Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> How are those Macs you pulled out of your school's dumpster holding up? I
> ask for information only.
My 7100, 8500 at home are working great. I have not had to do squat for
upgrades in the last 1.5 years and figure I can get at least another 2
years out of each. My Rev B iMac still works great on my desk and had
to assume new duties since I have downed my Sun IPX (that was sad). Did
get a new Apple G4 workstation for gene chip analysis and Genebank
BLASTing. Oh and I now am the proud owner of a Dell Diminsion
workstation. And what a vile beast XP is. I will give it this though.
It is a significant improvement on NT and files finally seem to be where
one would expect them making disk navigation a lot more pleasant.
--
Peter Pediaditakis
path...@mac.com
Edwin
4C3B02.092...@nnrp06.earthlink.net:
> In article <pathos49-E85595...@usenet.pitt.edu>,
> Peter Pediaditakis <path...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <10335742...@nnrp2.phx1.gblx.net>,
>> John Jensen <jj...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > He has different responsibilities at the two companies, and it would
>> > probably be wrong to make one company serve the other.
>>
>> .....AND distinctly illegal. The shareholders could sue, even the
>> minority shareholders could go after Jobs. It is nice to know that
>> others (john) have a sense of ethics. From the arguements Edwin is
>> presenting, it is obvious he does not have a clue.
>
> It's more a matter of Edwin not having any concept of how businesses are
> run.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
> He STILL can't understand that the fact that I like Macs is not
> justification for me replacing all our PCs with Macs at work.
I never asked you to replace PCs with Macs where you work based on your
like of Macs, and you know it. You're being your usual dishonest self.
>There are
> many, many considerations and he's too simplistic to understand that.
You've told us that the PC is not secure, has buggy software, has
unreliable hardware, is hard to network, is unproductive, is hard to learn,
is hard to use, causes pollution, limits consumer rights, supports an
illegal monopoly, and has a high TCO.
Now tell us what "considerations" would make you tolerate all the aspects
of the PC you've told us they have, and use the PC instead of the Mac.
Edwin
Edwin
news:10336572...@nnrp2.phx1.gblx.net:
[snip]
> I wouldn't go too far in this direction. We agree that neither you
> nor Jobs should _force_ Macs upon their companies ...
>
> ... but that only leads to the question of why force might be
> necessary.
>
> ;-)
Yes, if even half the complaints Joe has posted about Wintel were true,
you'd think people would be flocking to the Mac in droves.
One demonstration should be enough to have his company clamoring for Macs,
and if not, just showing them a small part of what he posts here ought to
do it.
Edwin
Edwin
berlin.de:
> In article <an1prf$aef15$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
>> I watched Monsters, Inc. on DVD last night.
>
> Do you own a DVD player? I always took you for the VHS type.
I always took you for a kook. Look above for case in point.
Edwin