Less of a complaint, more of a request really. I'd be a lot more receptive to working with Red if codec support for PowerPC Mac's and/or Windows machines was written - not all facilities have seen the need to make the jump to Intel Mac's yet, nor do we intend to for some time. But I'm sure there's a very good reason why these systems can't be supported.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
PowerPC / Windows codec support
- Thread starter pmcdonald
- Start date
Craig Bowman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 322
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Full native PC support is coming and has been promised. The old Mac PowerPC was a RISK processing environment. You won't see any support for that architecture. The new beta Redcine was released today. The SDK is being developed and will be released in the next few months, which will allow third party companies to be making their Red support announcements for PC soon.
Lots of things are happening, its just taking a bit of time.
Lots of things are happening, its just taking a bit of time.
- Banned
- #3
Matthew Rogers
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 1,497
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 44
- Website
- www.macvilleproductions.com
PowerPC support would be great, but let's face it. With Snow Leopard's release next year dropping PowerPC support there's not much reason to support PowerPC. Not to mention that it would take a ton of work to program REDCODE Plugin, RedCine, and RedAlert for PPC.
Matthew
Matthew
- Moderator
- #4
Jeff Kilgroe
Well-known member
Actually, that would be RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing). Not that the acronym means much these days. True RISC style CPUs went the way of the Dodo somewhere about 1992. The PowerPC architecture was just as much a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing) architecture as the x86 platform that now dominates the Windows and Mac world.
RISC is just one of those stupid industry buzz-words used by marketing guys to try and make something sound better. It's like a lot of SGI and big-iron Unix guys trying to claim that their systems are/were better because they were "big-endian" and not "little-endian" like a "PeeCee". I used to get a kick out of SGI guys saying that and I'd call them on it asking them to explain how "big-endian" was better... Most of them didn't even know what it was or why it would be supposedly better... It just sounded better to them, i guess.