The second issue concerns product cycles. Once a product or configuration has been made obsolete by the emergence of a new one, should a review then be withdrawn from publication because the information is stale?
You might see if any of the Mac CPU upgrade vendors can provide you with a dual MP card, qualified by them for the G4 7450; otherwise you will have to wait until the summer to get your hands on a stock Apple dual/quad machine that has the same total MHz as the Intel box, which is much too long to repair the damage done by a review written so many months ago.
In the future, you should have a much more rigorous regime for creating and implementing reviews and benchmarks.
|A formZ bottle model was ideal for testing high-end rendering functions on both the PC and Mac.|
The main goal of the article was to see how two different systems similar in price compared to one another. The underlying de sign of the Mac and PC is so dissimilar that using technical specifications alone, even the standard MHz rating, would not have produced a valid comparison.
So I went to both Apple and Dell, told them what I would be doing, and asked for their best system under $3000. The way I look at it, it would have been the same system they would have sent to a customer making the same inquiry.
Sure I could have upgraded the Mac with third-party additions but that would have skewed the price. Then readers might rightfully ask how I could justify comparing a $5000 Mac to a PC at almost half the cost.
The article showed what has been true for the last decade: As far as bang for the buck, the Mac is still a little behind in 3D CAD and DCC.
We wanted to add that the purpose of a review in Computer Graphics World is not to report how a machine performed under laboratory testing conditions, but to provide a first-hand account of a graphics professional's experience with the tools. This extends to using those configurations available to the general public at the time of the review.
We think the future of 3D on the Mac is bright, and you're sure to see many more articles and reviews concerning it in the pages of this magazine.
I enjoy your in-depth coverage of innovative 3D work, but often this work has been created with software that's too expensive for 3D artists with thinner wallets. I wish your competence would lend itself to lower and middle-end 3D software as well.
I'd be interested in finding out the strengths and weaknesses of these packages, and how they compare with the higher end items.
We agree that it's important to cover a wide range of 3D tools, particularly as the features of even low- and mid-range packages are growing more powerful. In the June 2001 issue, we reviewed Caligari's TrueSpace, an $800 modeling and animation package, and this month we look at Digital Immersion's Merlin 3D, a modeling, animation, and rendering program for $595.
The price for the Viper si2 solid imaging system that appeared on pg. 71 of the May 2001 issue should have read $179,000. The $799,000 price that appeared is for the company's high-end SLA 7000 system On pg. 10 of the April 2001 issue, the price for Studio, the Web-based authoring tool from Anark. should have been reported as under $2000.
We welcome any insights you have to offer that would further our readers' understanding of topics discussed in this issue, or that concern the computer graphics industry in general. We may edit your comments to conform to our style and space requirements.
Please address letters to:
Computer Graphics World
98 Spit Brook Road
Nashua, NH 03062-5737