Does anyone want Rhino on Mac / Linux?

[Tim B]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I know a few of you use Linux, and a few use Mac-OS (of varying types). However, it would seem that we are more-or-less agreed that MaxSurf, Rhino and AutoCAD are the cornerstone of the small craft world.

For CFD, FEA and general developement work, Mac and Linux are really good platforms. Now thanks to SUN we have OpenOffice 2 which is easily a rival for MS Office. The CAD is lacking though. There is 2D CAD software for Linux beginning to become mainstream (and some is quite good) but there isn't really much that is as powerful and user-friendly as Rhino for 3D work.

So, who'd like to see Rhino ported to work on MacOS / Linux?

Tim B.

Nb. Rhino v1+2 will run under the wine emulator in Linux. They may work under similar emulation on Mac OS

[marshmat]

Natively supported CAD software for Mac and Unix/Linux would be a great idea.
I should note that most new Macs, with the addition of a few $$ worth of extra software, can run MacOS AND Windows natively. Certainly beats emulation, although it still sucks to be stuck with Windows for anything.

[nevd]

Yes, I would really like to be able to run Rhino on Linux.

[nero]

No need for AutoCad. VectorWorks is easier and just as powerful ...?

TouchCad does an excellent job at modeling small craft and has marine calculations built in.
http://www.strata3d.com/ Strata is a well established and powerful. Lacks a marine design module tho.

So why buy a more expensive computer to run windows programs?

But all that aside, It would be super to have the choice.

[dougfrolich]

What is wrong with the way it is now? Why do you think windows "Sucks so much"??? I like my PC, I like Rhino,Maxsurf,etc...I Like the add ins that run with them---From my perspective it is smooth sailing---what is the problem???

[Tim B]

I specifically didn't say that windows sucked. The primary reason being that I didn't want to make this a Windows v Linux v MacOS three-way argument. I will say, though that MS Windows (in all versions I have ever used) is the least developer-friendly environment I have ever used and without doubt the least stable.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't an anti-microsoft poll, I'd just like to see people's views on porting Rhino,

Tim B.

[ludesign]

No need for AutoCad. VectorWorks is easier and just as powerful ...?

TouchCad does an excellent job at modeling small craft and has marine calculations built in.
http://www.strata3d.com/ Strata is a well established and powerful. Lacks a marine design module tho.

So why buy a more expensive computer to run windows programs?

But all that aside, It would be super to have the choice.

VectorWorks is, i my opinion, usually better than even a combination of Rhino and AutoCAD. TouchCAD is by a wide margin my choice for hull fairing and modeling. Strata is more of a rendering program and I would not use it for any serious modeling. Use to use it a lot, but nowadays I mostly use the built in rendering and and animation features in TouchCAD and VectorWorks, with the exception of a few times using Artlantis and Cheetah3D.

[nero]

I agree with ludesign. My reference to strata3D was it is capable of high-end renderings and animations. TouchCad is more than capable for all design and modeling work. And it has been running on Mac for awhile so it is stable now.

New ports of Rhino would be error ridden for the first few years after it was ported. AutoCad abandoned the Mac Platform several years ago.

Perhaps instead of porting programs, someone should intergrate FEA, CAD, and Modeling. One program for at least the basic functions of each. Yes some have done this already but the price is reserved for the big boys.

I am loosing my passion for Macintosh Hardware. Soon it will be just another PC box.

[ludesign]

I agree with ludesign. My reference to strata3D was it is capable of high-end renderings and animations. TouchCad is more than capable for all design and modeling work. And it has been running on Mac for awhile so it is stable now.

New ports of Rhino would be error ridden for the first few years after it was ported. AutoCad abandoned the Mac Platform several years ago.

Perhaps instead of porting programs, someone should intergrate FEA, CAD, and Modeling. One program for at least the basic functions of each. Yes some have done this already but the price is reserved for the big boys.

I am loosing my passion for Macintosh Hardware. Soon it will be just another PC box.

AutoCAD for Mac was abandoned because Mac users did not like the crude DOS-style user interface it had then, and still partially have. It felt like one step forward and 30 steps backwards.

At this point, the Mac is not just another PC box. True that you can now run Windows at full speed on a Mac, but why bother. Macs may be more stylish, cool and elegant, but my reason for sticking to Macs is spelled RELIABILITY. Viruses, for example. Sure you can get it on Macs too. I have had it. Last time was in 1988, I think.......

[Jeff]

my reason for sticking to Macs is spelled RELIABILITY.
So to put you on the spot :D... how frequently does TouchCAD 3.5 runnning on Windows actually crash and lose data or time? My guess - not often.

[Raggi_Thor]

No need for AutoCad. VectorWorks is easier and just as powerful ...?
...
But all that aside, It would be super to have the choice.


Bricscad is an AutoCAD clone running on Linux (and Windows).
www.bricscad.com

I use it for general 2D drawings, nesting of parts etc.

[ludesign]

So to put you on the spot :D... how frequently does TouchCAD 3.5 running on Windows actually crash and lose data or time? My guess - not often.

I was referring to the platform / operating system and not to specific programs. Several large studies show that Windows comes out at the bottom and Mac OSX and Linux at the top in terms of security, for example with viruses.

TouchCAD for Mac and Windows have identical source code up to 99.4%, and the rest is mostly to cope with differences in window sizes and that sort of thing. The users are also fairly evenly distributed between the platforms. In theory, it would be possible to compile it for Linux too, if there was a demand for it. It would however miss a few features that the other versions have.

[Chris Ostlind]

Hi Claes,

Perhaps I'm out of the loop when it comes to crashing platform issues...

I'm running a WinTel platform for Rhino along with a generous amount of powerful support programs to my design work and, other than a single, mechanical hard drive spin-out, I've never had a truly significant issue with crashing, viruses or any of the maladies that are spoken of. Hard drives crash for any platform, so that's not platform specific.

There are some really great programs for viruses and other gremlins, so I don't see the bulk of the haggle over the on-going argument in support of Mac or Linux.

Now, maybe I've been really lucky with all my stuff for boat work. I also use a Mac for all my photography image processing and video editing work, so I'm familiar with the benefits of each platform.

I would guess that the real question would be... Why do Mac's include full WinTel emulation at all, if the machine can stand on its own?

Smart software makers write to platforms where they feel they will see the most benefit to their on-going efforts as a function of an overall business plan. Since there's no doubt that Rhino has more than managed to expand their influence in many design markets beyond their original intent, you'd have to agree that they made the correct decision at the outset.

Chris

[ludesign]

There are some really great programs for viruses and other gremlins, so I don't see the bulk of the haggle over the on-going argument in support of Mac or Linux.

Now, maybe I've been really lucky with all my stuff for boat work. I also use a Mac for all my photography image processing and video editing work, so I'm familiar with the benefits of each platform.

I would guess that the real question would be... Why do Mac's include full WinTel emulation at all, if the machine can stand on its own?


In the end it is a matter of taste. Some prefer Macs and some prefer Wintels. I also use both platforms, but I personally prefer Macs.

Both TouchCAD and VectorWorks (12) licenses are cross platform and allow you to run on either Mac or Windows within a license. It is up to your personal taste.

The current Mac generation runs on Intel processors too, so you can in fact run either MacOSX, Linux or Windows on them if you like. With BootCamp, one at the time, with Parallels Desktop (www.parallels.com) some or all of them at the same time.

[antonfourie]

Do you think that companies will want to market expensive CAD software to people who don't want to pay for their operating system software ?

[hansp77]

I have always been a Mac user.
That said, I really don't like windows.
I have never even been able to get virtual PC running, and in spite of trying a couple of times, actually don't want to.

I would however like to start playing around with some designing- on my Mac.
I have the very last generation of Mac Powerbooks they released before the Intel Chips came out, so some of the solutions offered don't apply to me.

Are there any programs that I can use?
Preferably some user/learner friendly ones?
Preferably (but not necessarily) free ones?

Thanks, Hans.

[CGN]

TouchCad

[ludesign]

I have always been a Mac user.
That said, I really don't like windows.
I have never even been able to get virtual PC running, and in spite of trying a couple of times, actually don't want to.

I would however like to start playing around with some designing- on my Mac.
I have the very last generation of Mac Powerbooks they released before the Intel Chips came out, so some of the solutions offered don't apply to me.

Are there any programs that I can use?
Preferably some user/learner friendly ones?
Preferably (but not necessarily) free ones?

Thanks, Hans.

Check out TouchCAD.

Not free but very easy to use. It comes with modern 3D push-pull modeling handles to allow shaping from any view, dynamic cross sectioning, unlimited number of surfaces, very powerful and highly parametric integrated unfolding features that are dynamically linked to the 3D objects, integrated nesting of unfolded parts, marine calculations with offsets and weight calculations, integrated OpenGL renderings and animation abilities, etc. Works on Classic and OSX, including Intel Macs.

You will find free demos of both the Mac and Windows versions at www.touchcad.com

Another suggestion would be to check out the "Training" section of this web site. Here you will find well over three hours of tutorial movies, including an example where a sailboat sketch is being done in sixteen minutes. This movie shows some basic hull fairing, how to add a deck, transom, cabin, keel, some interior elements, how to apply some waterline stripes, how to balance the sail plan, calculate weights and center of gravity, etc. Run it in segments, and you will learn a lot from it.

[tandu]

Rhino on Linux can be an opportunity if the stability and the performance can be improved, linux is more stable than windows (I'm a computer Engineer). Further
I think that a Linux version of Rhino can be used from students, private non professionals and university where, generally, there are less money (Linux is free and need a less expansive machine).

Giuseppe
www.dreamadvisor.eu

[nico]

This is part of a post i found here (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/15/0612227):

''I've been trying to get several software vendors to port various program I still have to use on the PC side. One of them was McNeel and Assoc. Their webpage FAQs suggest using Virtual PC for Rhino 3D, which I thought was ridiculous. Here was tech@mcneel.com reply to my intial request,

We don't think we are missing out on much at all. I'm sorry but it is not at all likely that there will ever be a MAC version of Rhino. We do our software development in Microsoft Developer Studio. There is no MAC based equivalent for this product and it's resources. This is the first problem. Secondly, it is nearly impossible to find MAC programmers with the PhD level math skills needed for this kind of programming at any price. Thirdly, there are not enough potential sales of a MAC based product to keep it affordable. At present projections, assuming we could find the programmers and they could co-develop a product similar enough to the Windows based product to make it viable, each copy would have to be priced over $20,000 per seat. At that price, a $1,000 Windows computer running Windows based Rhino makes a lot more sense. Don't you think? ''

[marshmat]

Seeing as the current Macs can run just about any Windows software under emulation, and can run a parallel copy of Windows natively, and might be able to run a considerable amount of Windows software natively by the next generation, the question seems academic.

[SeaSpark]

might be able to run a considerable amount of Windows software natively by the next generation

Worked with macs and pcs from the first moment, the evolution of both systems has been very disappointing so far.

Port Rhino to Linux Now!

[odysseus]

Those who say that since Macs now/soon can run Windows operating system and/or that a Mac version will be more expensive than a Windows computer are missing the point. The point is that even if a Mac can use Windows, and even if I as a Mac user can buy a Windows computer at a ridicolously low price, I DON'T WANT TO. Too unstable, too many security risks.

I last had a Mac virus back in 1991, but the other day I cleaned out hundreds of viruses from a friends Windows machine, to give you an idea (yeah, I buy a Mac to not have to deal with them, and then the *#% goes an buys a PC and asks me to fix it when it - predictably - stops working; you still wonder why I don't want Windows?). Another friend has no viruses but instead complains that the anti-virus software eats up all his CPU speed. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

A last point: Mac OS X is unix-based just like Linux. So if you port to one you might as well port to both.

[Raggi_Thor]

I think the McNeel Tech staff has the right answer.
Simple economics estimates was probably the reason for Autodesk to stop making AutoCAD for Mac and Unix 10(15?) years ago.

[ludesign]

I think the McNeel Tech staff has the right answer.
Simple economics estimates was probably the reason for Autodesk to stop making AutoCAD for Mac and Unix 10(15?) years ago.

More likely because the Mac users did not like the DOS style user interface it had then. Remember that this was before Windows. The situation was that the Mac had a state of art user interface and AutoCAD did not. In other words, one step forward, and ten steps backwards. The generic Mac based options where simply better. I also recall a visit to a Mac show where they released it. I asked the AutoDesk guy to demonstrate it. After a loooooooong eeeeehm...., it turned out he did not know how to start the program. Would you buyy something from such a person?

[Jeff]

Was that with a state-of-the-art one-button mac mouse though? :D

Personally, I love the autocad command line. I see the keyboard as a 104 key menu of shotcuts I can use without taking my eyes or attention off what I'm drawing now--I know where they are intuitively, so I don't have to hunt for icons or move my mouse away from what I'm drawing - you have two hands, why not use both. Context menus are great too, but I wouldn't trade the command line for them. I guess if we all liked the same thing, life would be pretty boring.

[Raggi_Thor]

Claes, I worked a lot on AutoCAD for Unix, DEC workstations.
I think it was after Windows NT became popular that the unix version of acad was discontinued. Acad for Mac did I never try, I have never liked the Mac OS :-) I think it's too much clicking and too much mouse movement :-) :-)

[Tim B]

So who do they think they're kidding?

1. We do our software development in Microsoft Developer Studio. There is no MAC based equivalent for this product and it's resources

response. Yes there is. MDS just helps you write C/C++/Fortran. There is at least two other (free) development studios, GTK and QT. These are not direct replacements but there is the wine libraries which should allow cross-compilation with no major change of sourcecode. (which is what pre-processor macros are for).


2. nearly impossible to find MAC programmers with the PhD level math skills needed for this kind of programming at any price.

Perhaps not MAC programmers, but there are a lot of people with degree level/PHD level maths here in the UK who are struggling to find work, I imagine it is not disimilar in the US. And let's face it, programming is no-longer meant to be platform-specific. And anyone with a PHD should be able to master C++ pretty quickly.


So in reality we're not talking about re-writing the whole of Rhino, merely re-writing the licencse manager and then re-compiling it under Linux against the winelibs, or against the equivalent libaries on MAC-OS.

If Rhino is well-written this should be no problem at all.

Tim B.

[Raggi_Thor]

I see no point in being angry at McNeel :-)
Rhino is very good value for money.
Just to organize more than one version would cost something.
They have to consider how many more licenses they would sell.
I think many programs will be available for Linux when there is a market for it.

[odysseus]

I think it was after Windows NT became popular that the unix version of acad was discontinued. Acad for Mac did I never try, I have never liked the Mac OS :-) I think it's too much clicking and too much mouse movement :-) :-)

In fact studies show that to do the same tasks on Windows and on Mac, you need significantly less steps on the Mac. That is why the productivity is higher, because what takes most time is not the CPU "thinking," but the user telling it what to do (in most programs). As regards AutoCAD I haven't used it, but a friend who is manufacturing tools and machines said that it is not a challenger for what they need (guess it lacks CAM?).

It is a fact that Apple has focused on the publishing segment and not on the technical side. Take LabVIEW, originally a Mac program for data collection and system control with a wonderful graphical programming language (called G), it is now mainly a Windows program although it runs on most OS:s. Why? Because when Steve Jobs were out of Apple the fools produced too many different computer models that each required a separate driver and sometimes hardware. Or take Map II/MapFactory/MFworks, originally a Mac GIS program, went Windows some 10 years ago and is now mainly Windows. They follow the market, and the sad fact is that Apple has neglected engineering users. For someone like me who is doing a bit of everything it is almost impossible not to use both systems - but if any software is available on the Mac I rather buy that, even at a higher price (and I have the receipts to prove it).

[DanishBagger]

Yes, please!

Decent CAD programmes for macs are as far between as swimsuits in greenland.

:)

[Tim B]

Just to show that I am an informed Linuxite, I have managed to download a Beta2 version of Windows Vista. It's still a pain to have CAD and Reasearch on different OSes, but the download is free, so perhaps it's a solution. It will be next week before I can try it, but I will post a full report when I've had time to look at it. If it will run Rhino stably it is at least a free solution.

The Only problem I foresee with Windows Vista (except the blindingly obvious) is the minimum spec. For the basic version - 800 MHz PC with 512MB Ram... Premium - 1.5GHz (I think) CPU with 1GB Ram. Both require about 15GB of Disk Space.

Most Linux users will be familiar with large root (system) partitions of 20GB, but these are rarely filled past 8GB. Ram Requirements are more like 300MB.

It sounds to me like the microsoft boys have a pretty big bit of software. It will be interesting to see if it stands up to the Linux assault. Don't forget that there will be several Linux releases before Vista hits the shelf.

KDE 3.5.3 is already available and looks like a hell of a GUI

Tim B.

[Jeff]

If it overcomes the 2 GB / process limitation of the 32-bit windows I'll be happy. I'd love to have a system that could fully utilize 16 GB of memory in a workstation configuration :D

[Tim B]

Linux will happily access as much memory as you like. However, only Rhino v 1+2 have been made to run. Vista may be able to access more but it is unlikely to be 16GB. That said I only know what little I have read on the subject. Since I'm looking at doing CFD jobs in Linux on multiple standard x86 (2.5GHz,2GB) platforms, it makes little difference.

Cheers,

Tim B.

[Kiteship]

In fact studies show that to do the same tasks on Windows and on Mac, you need significantly less steps on the Mac. That is why the productivity is higher, because what takes most time is not the CPU "thinking," but the user telling it what to do (in most programs). As regards AutoCAD I haven't used it, but a friend who is manufacturing tools and machines said that it is not a challenger for what they need (guess it lacks CAM?).

It is a fact that Apple has focused on the publishing segment and not on the technical side. Take LabVIEW, originally a Mac program for data collection and system control with a wonderful graphical programming language (called G), it is now mainly a Windows program although it runs on most OS:s. Why? Because when Steve Jobs were out of Apple the fools produced too many different computer models that each required a separate driver and sometimes hardware. Or take Map II/MapFactory/MFworks, originally a Mac GIS program, went Windows some 10 years ago and is now mainly Windows. They follow the market, and the sad fact is that Apple has neglected engineering users. For someone like me who is doing a bit of everything it is almost impossible not to use both systems - but if any software is available on the Mac I rather buy that, even at a higher price (and I have the receipts to prove it).


It is the same with MacSurf--now MaxSurf. Used to be the best NA design software on the market--and was Mac only. Now is Win only (stopped Mac development 2 years ago), and just one of the pile. (Still very good, just no longer Best). It took me 15 minutes to design my first boat hull with MacSurf; now??

Dave

[ludesign]

Yes, please!

Decent CAD programmes for macs are as far between as swimsuits in greenland.

:)

Not quite true. A search on Apple's Made4Mac indicated about 100 programs.

[SeaSpark]

Not quite true. A search on Apple's Made4Mac indicated about 100 programs.

Where there and decent programs among them?

[ludesign]

Where there and decent programs among them?

http://guide.apple.com/index.lasso

The database contains 23.000 programs. Not as many as Windows, I agree, but on the other hand, how many of us do actually install that many programs anyway?

The question is simply not how many programs there are, it is how many you actually want to USE yourself.

[SeaSpark]

Dear Claes,

Before we go into the classic Mac vs Windows debate i have to tell you i was responsible for the computer systems for several design and engineering companies for more than 10 years. Result is i now hate both. Two of the companies i worked for used Mac and Windows computers in the same network (was not my idea would NEVER recommend it). The sole reason they used both systems was that there is no decent CAD software for a mac on a professional level.

Jeroen

[SeaSpark]

The question is simply not how many programs there are, it is how many you actually want to USE yourself.


If you are a serious boat designer and have to make a choise for a operating system you are condemned to windows.

[ludesign]

If you are a serious boat designer and have to make a choise for a operating system you are condemned to windows.


So, apparently I'm not a serious boat designer even though I have designed over 70 realized projects, all done on Macs.:rolleyes:

[SeaSpark]

I'd just say you could have made a better choise.

[ludesign]

I'd just say you could have made a better choise.

Let's agree to disagree.

[SeaSpark]

The world would not be a more nice place to live in if we all had the same boat.

(edit)
No offence but you could have told before you are supplier of CAD software for mac.

[Kiteship]

I'm with Claes. Yes, there are some specialized programs unavailable on the Mac. And, yes, some of these are "industry standards." However, the attraction of the Mac OS has always been, for right-brained "designers," that the operation system is more, well, transparent than others. One works with one's data, one doesn't work with one's computer. (The whole success of iPod can be summed up similarly; one listens to one's music; not to one's mp3 player)

As to quality; leaving the excellent TouchCad aside, Maya, on the Mac, is an industry standard. Interestingly it makes its way--via Macs--into most PC and game console games. As is FormZ (I don't use FormZ, but a professional friend of mine tells me it runs circles around Rhino). Both Photoshop and Illustrator were developed--and remain--on the Mac (as were both Word and Excel). Final Cut Pro revolutionized the way television news run their businesses, just within the past few years. iPhoto, iMovie and iTunes have altered the very way ordinary people buy and use home computers--think of it; software driving user experiences; not the converse. There are *numerous* knock-offs of each of these applications, attempting to provide their functionality on various other OS's. I'm often reminded of the corrolary to McNeel's advice--how hard is it to just buy a Mac? Certainly not cost; a Mac Mini is less than the retail price of Rhino; refurbs approach 50% of that.

No, I'm not trying to start the Mac/everyone else "debate;" but rather to point out that it is always quality of software, not quantity, which is important. You can--and will--work on whatever platform you wish. Isn't it a wonderful world which allows you to do so?

Dave

[SeaSpark]

Yes, there are some specialized programs unavailable on the Mac


Software for naval architecture is one of those specialized programs unavailable on the Mac.

I just hope nobody is recommending the mac platform to a starting naval architect here.

[nero]

"Software for naval architecture is one of those specialized programs unavailable on the Mac."

Not true. TouchCad does marine calculations and is excellent in modeling. What TouchCad can't or should not do VectorWorks can. There are also some high end FEA programs that run on mac as well as other OS's a few free FEA programs like GID too.

Perhaps the future is in KDE (linux) and a Sun computer. ... After all mac has jumped on the intel wagon and unix as it's core. What use to be the stability of mac has gone with OSX. (my personal opinion)

[SeaSpark]

What TouchCad can't or should not do VectorWorks can

Now try to compare Vectorworks with Solidworks:

What Vectorworks can't or should not do Solidworks can (no it's not available for mac).


Quote of my own:

Worked with macs and pcs from the first moment, the evolution of both systems has been very disappointing so far.

Port Rhino to Linux Now!

I would like to include any other software of use to the naval architect:

Port to Linux Now!

About Sun and KDE:

It seems a bit of forum/topic to start a discussion about hardware and interfacethingies specific Linux stuff.

About Maya:

It's great, one of the best features is the rightmousebutton sensitive circular user interface. Many operating systems have tried to copy other succesfull systems while they forgot the shape with the largest volume and smallest circumreference is the circle!

To make things more clear:

Imagine Right-Clicking anywhere on your screen and beeing presented with the most logical choices in a consistent* circular shape under your cursor.

Studies and practice have shown, this is the most efficient way to manipulate a computer.

Please copy it!

(edit)
* consistent: no pull/drag/tear down menu's or toolbars floating around in the last place you used them or any other place where you cursor/selecting arrow happens not to be at the moment you are trying to build a shape representing what you have in mind.

Just the commands you need at the moment you need them at the shortest possible distance from where your pointer happens to be. And always in the same place related to your pointer.

[nero]

Would not compare Vectorworks to Solid... Vectorworks is comparable to Autocad ... only easier to use. It seems to have quite a few users in the architectural design business. Runs on Windows as well.

Relative to marine design, TouchCAD is an excellent modeler. One can create the shape and look at its marine calculations easily. If you design hardchine hulls, it unfolds them and gives the offsets. It will even print this out.

Vectorworks can take exported TouchCAd files and clean them up for 2D presentations and drawings. At least this is how I use it.

And to be honest about all this, everybody has their prefered tool and nobody likes to change unless that tool is broken or can not do what they want to do. I left adobe illustrator for MiniCad (now Vectoworks) because It could do 3D. I bought TouchCAD because it was the best value marine design and NURBS modeler. No regrets ... except that I do not have more time to use it. Someday, I will leave Macintosh for ?

[ludesign]

Now try to compare Vectorworks with Solidworks:

What Vectorworks can't or should not do Solidworks can (no it's not available for mac).

Imagine Right-Clicking anywhere on your screen and beeing presented with the most logical choices in a consistent* circular shape under your cursor.
[/COLOR]


As far as I know both SolidWorks and VectorWorks are actually based on the same solid modleing engine.....

Having said that, it may not be fair to compare a program that costs like AutoCAD LT with something that starts at at least five times that level.

VectorWorks is however a great program and excellent value for money, regardless of platform.

Right-click and Macs? Are you aware of the fact that you can do that on Macs too, and it's been there for years. Press Control if you have a single mouse button, or right-click if you have more than one button. All new Macs now ship with several buttons and a scrool wheel. Most major suppliers, such as Logitech, Microsoft,etc supply Mac drivers for their products, so it is easy to install it if you like.

[SeaSpark]

Was making the vectorworks / solidworks comparison after Nero's statement "What TouchCad can't or should not do VectorWorks can" it was to illustrate there are many high end CAD programs to choose from for use on the windows platform. For mac's the choices are 0 after some programs regarded as "middle end"

Solidworks is much more advanced compared to autocad (Acad is as stated comparable with vectorworks) it is a complete parametric mechanical design solution. Autocad is more a huge collection of tools to draw lines (sorry if i am oversimplifying things but thats how it feels when you switch from Acad to solidworks). If someone would like to try parametric modeling, you can download the FREE version of Alibre, a reasonable solidworks clone.

Good luck all with your design projects regardless of type of computer or software you use.

(Oops: as of last month the free version of alibre is no longer available they now have a 30day trial version on offer)

[ludesign]

Was making the vectorworks / solidworks comparison after Nero's statement "What TouchCad can't or should not do VectorWorks can" it was to illustrate there are many high end CAD programs to choose from for use on the windows platform. For mac's the choices are 0 after some programs regarded as "middle end"

Solidworks is much more advanced compared to autocad (Acad is as stated is comparable with vectorworks) it is a complete parametric mechanical design solution. Autocad is more a huge collection of tools to draw lines (sorry if i am oversimplifying things but thats how it feels when you switch from Acad to solidworks). If someone would like to try parametric modeling, you can download the FREE version of Alibre, a reasonable solidworks clone.

Good luck all with your design projects regardless of type of computer or software you use.

I somehow agree about AutoCAD being "a huge collection of tools to draw lines". After having having done lots of training of ex AutoCadders, the biggest obsticle seems to get them to stop thinking in lines and starting to think in surfaces and solids, which is what you do in VectorWorks.

I frequently exchange files with SolidWorks, Solid Edge, Pro E, etc and VectorWorks, including solids. No problems at all, regardless of platform.

True that the Mac has fewer options than Windows on the high end side.
Besides VectrWorks, few other options are: Concepts Unlimited, Graphite by Ashlar-Vellum, VersaCAD, Argon by Ashlar-Vellum, Cobalt by Ashlar-Vellum, Form•Z, FRESDAM, Pro/CONCEPT, solidThinking DESIGN, solidThinking FORMA , solidThinking VANTAGE, Xenon by Ashlar-Vellum

[Kiteship]

Right-click and Macs? Are you aware of the fact that you can do that on Macs too, and it's been there for years. Press Control if you have a single mouse button, or right-click if you have more than one button. All new Macs now ship with several buttons and a scrool wheel. Most major suppliers, such as Logitech, Microsoft,etc supply Mac drivers for their products, so it is easy to install it if you like.

Macintosh has had native right-click support for at least 10 years. That's as long as I have used 2- and 3-button mice. I have never installed a mouse driver since Mac began using USB ports--the OS handles the job just fine with its installed drivers--yes, even with Microsoft mice. A bit different on a laptop, but if you are doing serious design work on a laptop with touchpad only you are a better man than I!

All this talk of "better" systems is putting me to sleep. PC guys will always equate "better" with "more features;" Mac guys will always equate it with more/faster/easier production. It seems everyone fits one role or the other--and fundamentally does not understand the other. If you use a Mac, you will like TouchCAD. Claes has amply demonstrated the app's production ability, intuitive interface and speed. If you use a PC, you will lust after the most feature-rich program you can find--at whatever cost.

Po-TAY-toes; po-TAH-toes. It does not matter, in the end.

Dave

[Tim B]

Well, About a week ago (give or take) I said I would have a look at the Publicly available Windows Vista Beta 2. Whilst this Beta expires in June 2007, it is more or less a free licence for a year.

With regard to my next comments, please remember that this is a beta edition and the release date is currently 2007, and most Linux Distros will see a lot of updates and probably a release or two before then. Also, the test machine is a 2.5GHz P4 (2.4 overclocked) with 2GB ram and an ATI Rage 9550 gfx card.

So what is Linux / MacOS up against. Well, the installer is a great step up from the WinXP one, but it does not come close to the Mandriva Installer (one of the nice linux ones). The Disk Partitioning is very poor and there is only ntfs/non-ntfs type descriptions. Formatting partitions is much faster than it used to be though. Installing the files themselves is chronically slow. In fact I had lunch while it was copying. The installer does not give any details of the files being installed, which is nothing new with MS, but is a nice touch under Mandriva Linux.

After Reboot, some of the old XP sillyness remains. It asks you for a country and keyboard layout (for a second time) and later defaults to GMT-8 in date and time. it is a persistant shortcoming that has been in every MS install since... well, ever. At this stage, with minimal setup, transition between installation stages is rather slow, with little on-screen info which may be a worry on a lower-spec machine.

Running Vista takes a bit of getting used to. It feels a bit like a cuddly version of XP. From a systems point of view I don't like it much, the useful settings are down another level of menus/icons, and it generally feels "difficult".

From a users perspective, though, it's a beautiful system. The old menu bars at the top of the windows have gone and everything is done with context-sensitive right clicks. Unfortunately they've moved useful buttons like up and refresh on the file browser and internet explorer to non-intuitive places. I'm sure, with time I'll get used to it.

At this point the OS base install has taken 11GB and is using about 500MB of RAM.

So how does it run Rhino? Not great I'm afraid. You have to run Rhino in administrator mode, so it can access the registry, but after that 3D view manipulation is a bit jerky. That said I am using the Microsoft drivers for my video card.

Subsequently I re-installed Mandriva Linux 2006, to solve a dynamic USB device problem. It went on with no hassle at all, much more quickly than Vista installed. It isn't as "nice" visually, but shall we describe KDE as a "Visual Working Environment", not a "Gooey".

Vista is a neat bit of software, no doubt about it. But in 2007 I doubt it will have changed that much, and KDE 3.5 looks to be hot on it's heels. Linux will fit into smaller and older machines, whereas Vista will need big machines to stand a chance of running. Ultimately, I don't think Vista is a big enough step from XP to offer anything that Linux can't with the exception of some software. Personally, I'll be upgrading when Mandriva 2007 comes out, and I reckon it'll be just as good.

Sorry Microsoft, Good Operating System, but I think the linux folks will overtaken you by the time it's released.

Tim B.

[Tim B]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for your input on this subject. I shall send the results of this poll to McNeel. Hopefully it will inspire them to do something positive. Especially as the system efficiency will drop with the next Windows OS.

Keep Watching the forums for more information.

Thanks for your input,

Tim Brocklehurst.

[marshmat]

Re: Vista.
I'm running XP Pro now. I don't really like it, but there's so much CAD stuff that doesn't run under anything else.
Each successive Windows version has become more bloated and less efficient than the last. If Tim's estimates are correct, Vista will use more than twice the base resources that XP does. Every megabyte the OS takes up, every percentage of CPU bandwidth it uses while idle, detracts from the computer's response to my commands in CAD and graphics work.
What really peeves me off about XP is its automation. The darn thing makes piles of decisions on its own, that I'd much rather it just leave be. I make my own changes, it'll reverse them a week later of its own accord. Give XP a year on its own and it will bog a computer down beyond recognition. Vista will almost certainly be worse.
So yes, CAD firms, please compile your wares for Linux. Compile them for Mac. What has sucking up to Bill Gates got us? Bloated and unstable OSes, and a dominant but incredibly cumbersome and inefficient office suite. Surely, in the 21st century, we can do better!
My XP laptop (3GHz P4M, 512 ram, Radeon 9000 graphics, 60G drive) is really not much faster than the Pentium 3 unit I use now and then at work (Win2K). Computers are getting much more powerful, and we're just clogging them up with more inefficiencies. I'd love to run Mandriva or SUSE on this thing so I could actually take advantage of its capabilities- so please, get the ported software coming!

[westlawn5554X]

The problem would be Is MAC better PC than an IBM version for designer? I am thinking of searching the right machine for the program I have bought and still confuse. Thanks

Student

[marshmat]

5554x,
Your grammar's a bit confusing which makes it hard to tell what you're asking. If you've already bought software without having a computer, you're being pretty weird to say the least. As for the compy itself, most people who have used Macs think they're better, but the software selection (especially with CAD) is limited.

[Tim B]

Recieved From Bob McNeel:

Hi Tim,



Thank you for your interest.



Yes, we have looked into porting to the Mac but there are a few things that
keep us from doing it. I'm sure that many developers have the same issues.

1. Developing for the Mac is completely different from developing for
Windows. To port to the Mac we would need to rewrite Rhino from the ground
up. That would double our development staff and development costs. But more
importantly the new team would need to be expert Mac developers. As near as
we can tell, expert Mac developers are nearly impossible to find (relative
to Windows programmers). By the way, the announcement that Macs will have
Intel processors in the future does not help. The operating system is the
issue.

2. We use some 3rd party libraries. For example, the STEP export tools
are licensed. Some of these libraries are not available for the Mac. We
would have to write libraries, buy a different one (with potential different
features) or leave out those features.

3. Testing on two different operating systems could delay release of one
or both versions.

4. Rhino takes advantage of Windows and will take more advantage with
each new release. It will become more and more difficult to port. For
example, Windows 2000 and XP include VBScript
<http://intranet.mcneel.com/wiki/wikiedit.aspx?topic=Worldwide.VBScript&retu
rn=Worldwide.NoMac> and JScript
<http://intranet.mcneel.com/wiki/wikiedit.aspx?topic=Worldwide.JScript&retur
n=Worldwide.NoMac> . We only need to write a few lines of code to provide
robust scripting in Rhino. I'm sure that Mac has something like that, but it
would require a rewrite and new documentation. Tech support would be crazy
with two different scripting languages. Scripting is only one small example.


5. Since our development, testing, and support costs could nearly double,
would the Mac users be willing to pay the difference? Mac users make up only
about 10% of the potential users. (Designers are a much higher percentage of
Mac users, but they are not the only market for Rhino.) To pay for these
additional development costs, we would need to price the Mac version of
Rhino at $8,950 (assuming the same percentage purchased at that price). I
don't expect we would sell many copies at that price.

6. The worst part about porting to the Mac is that it requires an upfront
bet of millions of dollars and 3 years of work to find out if these things
are really true.

Having said all of that, we would love to port to the Mac and to other
operating systems. If we did, I don't think we could do a good job. As a
result, our existing customers would suffer.



Sorry I don't have better news for you.



- Bob

[Robert Miller]

I think the difiiculty of recompiling the code is overestimated here.

Certainly, there are any number of important and complicated programs that are routinely compiled for Mac, as well as Windows.

Moreover, with Vista somewhere on the horizon (distant horizon?), the program will need to be recompiled anyway... which absent the backward compatibilty, typical of the way Microsoft has generally handled development of their operating system, may not be so easy a task as developers may wish.

Just a few other points might be mentioned... 1. Mac OSX is UNIX based... hence its stability far far in excess of that available with Windows. 2. Few to no viruses exist for Mac. (140,000, or so, for Windows just last year alone) 3. Add a piece of hardware or software and your PC will freeze for the next month until you figure out the problem... while the Mac will just configure itself for anything new on its own in the first minute. 4. Being UNIX, one can run Linux and open-source without dificulty. (For those who read eWeek or the equivalent, you are aware that Microsoft is fighting to stop development of both Linux and open source apps.) 5. And now (for better or worse), Mac can also run Windows in native mode... NOT emulation. (Bootcamp's code will actually be written into the next release of OSX, "Leopard". For those who have tried this, or who might follow PC forums.. Windows is evidently more stable and runs faster on the Intel based Macs, than on PC's. 6. Inasmuch as even smaller developers (check out TouchCad, or Vectorworks) are having no real difficulty compiling for both platforms, it would seem something as popular as Rhino might be able to cross this great divide.

Compiling for the Mac is just not the problem suggested by Mr. McNeel. I am certain he would understand these points better than I do.

This is not an attempt to enter a religious war (Mac vs. PC), but rather to see the widest possible availability of Rhino become a reality. So... let's restrict ourselves to discussing Rhino, and the benefit to all of us if it were available on more than one platform.

Robert

Recieved From Bob McNeel:

Hi Tim,

Thank you for your interest.


Yes, we have looked into porting to the Mac but there are a few things that
keep us from doing it. I'm sure that many developers have the same issues.

1. Developing for the Mac is completely different from developing for
Windows. To port to the Mac we would need to rewrite Rhino from the ground
up. That would double our development staff and development costs. But more
importantly the new team would need to be expert Mac developers. As near as
we can tell, expert Mac developers are nearly impossible to find (relative
to Windows programmers). By the way, the announcement that Macs will have
Intel processors in the future does not help. The operating system is the
issue.

2. We use some 3rd party libraries. For example, the STEP export tools
are licensed. Some of these libraries are not available for the Mac. We
would have to write libraries, buy a different one (with potential different
features) or leave out those features.

3. Testing on two different operating systems could delay release of one
or both versions.

4. Rhino takes advantage of Windows and will take more advantage with
each new release. It will become more and more difficult to port. For
example, Windows 2000 and XP include VBScript
<http://intranet.mcneel.com/wiki/wikiedit.aspx?topic=Worldwide.VBScript&retu
rn=Worldwide.NoMac> and JScript
<http://intranet.mcneel.com/wiki/wikiedit.aspx?topic=Worldwide.JScript&retur
n=Worldwide.NoMac> . We only need to write a few lines of code to provide
robust scripting in Rhino. I'm sure that Mac has something like that, but it
would require a rewrite and new documentation. Tech support would be crazy
with two different scripting languages. Scripting is only one small example.


5. Since our development, testing, and support costs could nearly double,
would the Mac users be willing to pay the difference? Mac users make up only
about 10% of the potential users. (Designers are a much higher percentage of
Mac users, but they are not the only market for Rhino.) To pay for these
additional development costs, we would need to price the Mac version of
Rhino at $8,950 (assuming the same percentage purchased at that price). I
don't expect we would sell many copies at that price.

6. The worst part about porting to the Mac is that it requires an upfront
bet of millions of dollars and 3 years of work to find out if these things
are really true.

Having said all of that, we would love to port to the Mac and to other
operating systems. If we did, I don't think we could do a good job. As a
result, our existing customers would suffer.



Sorry I don't have better news for you.



- Bob

[Tim B]

In response to more linux-specific matters, including the nature of the licence manager problems that prevent Rhino 3 working under wine...

Interesting... you are one of the very few people to ask for a Linux port in
the last 3 or 4 years. Linux (or some version of Unix) always gets very hot
when a Windows version gets to the end of a cycle. It has been happening
since 1986 when we stopped developing and supporting our Unix applications.

Right now everyone is asking for a Mac port. We are watching... but frankly
we expect to not be hearing about the Mac in another 6-12 months.

I guess I'm just too old to jump on the latest fad. I'll let other companies
sort that out.

The last time we switched operating systems as in 1985 to the garbage PCs
that were available at the time. It made me crazy because the Unix systems
we had were 100 times better... just like the Linux systems are today.
Unfortunately, not enough people would buy them for us to stay in business
then and as near as I can tell the same is true now.

Each version of Rhino uses more of the Windows O/S. I expect if we got by
the license manager issue there would be 100 more issues in Rhino 3.0. Rhino
4.0 would be a nightmare.

Sorry I don't have better news for you.

- Bob

[Tim B]

I have to say, that despite the extra work required to get there, Rhino on Linux would be the first (currently) good 3D CAD Package we've seen. I'm sure Something will fill the gap though, and it had better be before June, because that's when the Windows Vista Beta2 release expires (If I haven't thrown it away long before then.

Tim B.

[Raggi_Thor]

Just read in UpFront eZine from Ralph Grabowski, who attended a meeting McNeel had with jouralists, that they are working on a version for Intel based Macs, http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/
"Now he's talkng about their new development partner. The big news, first broken by Roopinder Tara of Tenlinks, is that a beta of Rhino for Mac OS X will become available in a few weeks (spy photo below). The audience cheers. "

Roopinder Tara: http://cadinsider.typepad.com/my_weblog/

[Tim B]

Yes, I saw that, I don't want to buy a Mac, though, and even if MacOS X were "finished" so that it ran on common hardware, I'm not too keen on spending $$$ to run it.

Tim B.

[Jeff]

I'd buy OSX if it were priced along the lines of windows or Redhat Enterprise in a second... I'm just not ready to lock myself in with $3000-$5000 of hardware that is limited to only running OSX when I already have hardware that equally good. A leap of faith a magnitude smaller for the OS purchase doesn't bother me much, although I'd prefer linux.

[Tim B]

Debian is free.

[tandu]

... debian, ubuntu, fedora, gentoo, suse ... are free!