Revit for Apple's OS X (formerly An old but long overdue wish) [Archive]

dazza163968596

2004-09-08, 07:46 AM

Revit on Mac OSX.
I have been using windows since 3.1, apart form the time I spent at university, where we had the choice of using PC's running windows for work groups 3.11 (an absolute nightmare), The HP UNIX workstations with a lovely X11 interface similar but a lot better than win 95 which at the time was still 12 months from being released. (But you could never get on one of these an the computer science students filled them 24 hours a day). Your final choice (and the best ) was the mac cluster of 50 macs in the main computer center.(so long cues there as well) the macs at the time where fully loaded with Office and all the other stuff that the PC's had but a hell of a lot faster and easier to use. the OS was at the same level as win 98 SE at least this was back in 94. (Why wasn't everyone using the mac?).

Now Revit needs a mac version looking at the new version of OSX coming out net year, it has all the features such as searching (win fs) that where supposed to go into longhorn (which Microsoft has said won't be ready for longhorn) isn't it time that autodesk gave us the choice? Please stop making us use an outdated operating system. The only reason we use PC's is that you can't get Revit & Autocad on Mac. If we could the entire company would be on Mac's instead of PC's.

Microsoft produces some truly excellent software the office suite is by far the best office software out there and this is available on Mac so why not the best BIM (come on autodesk throw some money at the problem). I like Microsoft products, I even quite like Win XP its just not in the same league as OSX. We should have the choice, especially since AutoCAD started out on UNIX

Sorry to go on but choice is essential for growth. Thanks for listening.

Vincent Valentijn

2004-09-08, 08:27 AM

Dazza's got a point

I personally like to have the possibility to choose -
That in fact is the one thing that irritates me the most about Windows XP pro SP2, all of a sudden there's even -more- things that them microsofties try to organise for me, taking away even more choises from me... and bugging into my private system without me asking for it.

That might be fine for the general public that has not a clue about the processes behind it. But for me it's a lot of extra work, having to override all these automated systems by hand [which is becoming harder every time since microsoft is connecting everything with everything]. If I could I'd go to Mac [though I think iPod's even worse than the Microsoft monopoly games] or at best UNIX.

Andre Baros

2004-09-08, 01:39 PM

Isn't the OSX kernal UNIX based... so adding one would facilitate adding the other.

The bigger problem would be making the interface meet Mac standards... Mac users are accustomed to more refined interfaces.

hand471037

2004-09-08, 04:39 PM

I wish I could run Revit on a system that gave it all the speed and Ram it needed.
I wish I could run Revit on a system that didn't waste my time with security, maintenance, and stability issues.
I wish I could run Revit on a system that also supports all the other software I use.

All three of these would be met by having Revit on OS X. I can buy a G5 64-bit system that works *today* that's faster and has more available Ram than anything on the Windows side. I can buy a OS X box that's secure, stable, and requires less maintenance overhead. And OS X, being based on BSD, also runs all the Unix software I use. I use OS X daily, both for applications and as a server, and I've found that it provides an increadable value, even tho the hardware costs a little more sometimes. It's got enough value that I've even stopped using Linux, for the most part, just due to the fact that I can do everything I need within OS X, yet do it faster and easier, than I can with Linux. I now only use Linux because I have to run Windows too, and you can dual boot the two quite nicely.

It will be years before Windows is fully working on 64-bit. I doubt Windows will ever reach the level of security and stability that Unix-based systems can offer. And while I can run some Unix programs under Cygwin, it's still not full speed or ability. Revit is the last and *only* software I use that's tied to Windows. Otherwise, everything I use can run on either Mac, Windows, or even Linux (with Crossover for Photoshop). Windows becomes more of a liability and a hindrance with every passing year, and Open Source based solutions (which includes OS X) have more and more value to me.

But I doubt this will ever happen, because Autodesk is too stupid to understand the real threats facing it. They have decided, years ago, to hitch their wagon to Microsoft's, and will be forced to follow. My hope is that, on the movie side, Discrete will get into Linux for the Render farm segment, and that some of that might spill over into our market, but I doubt it. Rather than focusing on what gives it's customers the most Value, they commonly focus on making as much money as possible. And after working as a reseller, and working directly with the Autodesk sales staff, I have to admit that I have no hope of Autodesk ever changing this stance. The development side of Autodesk is fantastic but the sales side is so out of touch and money hungry that I personally watched, on more than occasion, them completely drop the ball on major accounts, not live up to promises given, and really have no clue as to how to provide their customers real value. They are very much stuck in this 80's software company mentality, much like Microsoft, where they will 'lock-in' customers and then bilk them for all they can rather than provide value, and I think it will be very painful for them in the coming years- for the game is changing.

Scott D Davis

2004-09-08, 05:03 PM

I think there are much deeper reasons why a company like Autodesk can't simply produce Revit for PC's and Macs.

First, to develop one piece of software for two different platforms completely changes the "Rapid Release Cycle" that Revit and now other Autodesk products are on. Programming for two platforms increases the time necessary to produce it, increases the number of programmers necessary, and complicates the 'de-bugging' process of software development. Some feature works on a PC, not on a Mac, then they fix it. Now it works on a Mac, and not on a PC. I would imagine it makes it really tough to assure that both work equally as well on both platforms. I've herad some ArchiCAD'rs say there are things that the MAC version has that the PC version doesn't.

Second, API development. I think we all can safely assume that some sort of API will be included in Revit 7 or later. Now outside developers have a double-duty task of their own software developement.

Third, Autodesk has almost one hundred different software applications. If the port Revit over to MAC, they would have to do the same to every other application they have, or face the wrath from users of AutoCAD products or others that want a Mac version. Now you take the complications of software development across multiple platforms from point one, above, and multiply it 100 times. I think if Revit was still RTC, and not Autodesk, we would have a better chance of seeing a MAC version.

Fourth, PC's still outnumber Macs at 10 to one, or some number like that. (90% / 10% ?) It's still not feasable to spend the time or money for Autodesk to cater to such small crowd in the overall scheme of things. Out of those 10 PC users currently, there is probably on average 1 that would make the switch to Mac. So then it would be an 80/20 split. Still not worth it.

My 2 pesos....

hand471037

2004-09-08, 05:36 PM

First off, Revit's written in C++, and from talking with the folks at the factory, they said that other than a specific library for the GUI, everything else could be ported over to Linux or OS X without too many issues. Of course there would be multi-platform issues, there always are, but I've seen companies that are much smaller and have a much smaller user base than Autodesk, yet offer just as many products, handle this very well- Macromedia, Alias, & Adobe. So its certainly possibly, esp. for the fourth largest software company in the world. Other companies have figured out how to make their code portable enough so that supporting it on different platforms doesn't break the bank.

The API, if it was based upon again common standards, wouldn't be an issue either. Photoshop plug-ins are written in C, and Actions are nothing more than Macros. Macros & Plug-ins work for both Mac & PC's the majority of the time. So again, it's about picking something that's machine-neutral. But if they pick VBA as the API, then you are totally correct in that it would become a multi-platform nightmare.

While I've heard from the Factory folks that porting Revit to something else is quite possible, except for a certain library that's windows-only that would have to be recreated, I totally understand the nightmare of, say, porting Raster Design (or some other software). Revit was developed, at least initially, outside of Autodesk; Autodesk's software tries to maximize their close bond with Microsoft to make the software work really well, but only work on Microsoft. It's a bit of a deal with the devil, for now Autodesk's future is tied to a much larger company that really doesn't care about them. If Microsoft decided that Visio was going to be the future 2D CAD standard, for example, there isn't much Autodesk could do about that. I think this close tie between Autodesk and Microsoft could prove to be foolish in the long run, when other options become available, attractive, and such.

The only reason I have to use Windows is because of Revit, and the only reason I have to use Revit is that someone hasn't (yet) made something cheaper or Open source that does the same job. Even if it was only 'good enough', and not as good as Revit, I might still consider just using that instead, and leave the large companies to use the very expensive and very good software. While that doesn't matter much today, I'm a future business owner, and if I find that I can do my work with cheaper tools, why in the future would I suddenly decide I need Autodesk?

And as for the tired (sorry man) argument that Macs outnumber PC's 10 to 1, well, that's going off of how many are sold per year, not the actual installed base. Mac ownership is really the same as owning a Subaru or BMW. Yeah, there are a lot more Chevy's sold every year than Subaru's or BMW's, but that doesn't mean that you don't see them on the road all the time. I know that Mac ownership is higher out here in the Bay Area, but I'd say that number is more like a quarter-to-half of the people I know own Macs. And these aren't all artist-types, major geeks to small business owners. The market is definitely there. Saying that you should only make things for Windows is very much like being someone who makes car parts deciding to only make car accessories for GMC, because, hey, they sell ten-to-one over the other cars...

juggergnat

2004-09-08, 05:46 PM

Totally agree with Scott. One of the things that put Autodesk ahead of Bentley is the fact that they didn't develop for as many platforms simoultaneously. 15 years ago Microstation was completely superior to Autocad, they could have owned the entire world of CAD if they had the marketing savvy of Autodesk. Their technology was so far ahead it was completely ridiculous. But the reality is that they had too many versions of Microstation running on everything from MACs to Sun workstations, to PC´s to other forms of UNIX. Each one of those platforms had to have updated releases. Each one of those platforms had to have bug fixes, incremental updates, updated instructions to users...etc...etc. What a nightmare for a development team, to keep their technology ahead.

I don't doubt for a second that Linux is a completely superior operating system to Windows XP. But then again XP works fine for me, and the majority of other users. Data security is fine, speed is fine, etc. Why fix something that works? When there is a truly compelling reason to switch...I'll be open minded. Also, MACs are certainly nice machines...but I have no incentive to switch for the same reasons. Operating systems are complex enough as it is...who wants to bother with another one?

JG

hand471037

2004-09-08, 06:27 PM

Jug, I agree with your second point totally. Don't fix what isn't broke. But for me, and others, Windows is broken, and there is value in using other systems for things. It's total speculation, but I just can't see how this isn't going to be the case for more and more people as Computers get cheaper, Microsoft gets more expensive, and other options become more and more viable. For you, staying with Microsoft for now makes sense. For me, it doesn't, for I simply can't afford it when I've got other options that are eaither cheaper or provide more bang for the buck. I'd be stupid to stay with Microsoft-only, you'd be stupid not too. :-)

As for your first point, I'd say it's debatable. I completely agree that it commonly comes down to marketing, and that no matter how good the tech is it will fail without proper marketing (I know this first hand as I was an Amiga user ;-) ). I don't know if I agree that developing for multiple platforms killed Microstation. I think Bentley killed Microstation. Autocad was cheap, well marketed, became a standard, lucky, and easy to pirate back in the day. I think that had a lot more to do with it than anything else. :-)

I just don't buy the argument that developing for multiple platforms is inherently bad. Again, if that's the case then why isn't Adobe, Macromedia, and such in trouble?

Steve_Stafford

2004-09-08, 06:54 PM

...I think Bentley killed Microstation... I don't agree that Bentley killed Microstation...yet. I do think they are chasing a different market segment(s) and mindset(s) entirely and it isn't architects primarily. Microstation was a very attractive option at the beginning of Windows success because it was supporting Win 95 and AutoCAD did not. My last firm made it's decision to go with Bentley partly because of this. It appeared more forward thinking at the time. Now I think they are "out of touch"...with me as a customer at least... Microstation is as good a product as AutoCAD is...just appeals to different people.

For me, long term, I think the question isn't whether OSX or Windows but rather what is the next great leap forward in operating systems. Is it a better gui wrapped around the same technology or is it a better technology wrapped up in a better gui or something of both? Microsoft has diversified it's product offerings because it could not exist on just an OS product. That diversification has lead to a dilution of the focus of MS of the "operating system" product. The OS market is "stagnating" in my view...and we need the "next" thing to rejuvenate it... so what is that and what will it look like? How soon will we "see" it?

juggergnat

2004-09-08, 07:26 PM

Well I guess my point about Microstation was only this, that once upon a time they were 10 years ahead of everybody else. Today we are comparing it to be "similar to" or "almost as good as" something. Therein lies the tragedy, they had such a ridiculous head start. If I was the product manager for Microstation back then I'd be asking myself today "how could I possibly have screwed that up?"

I remember Triforma, too. Back 6-7 years ago there was some hype about it being this great future option. They had the iniative, the early lead, all the potential. Maybe today its good product, but who knows ;)? All that time Revit quitely marched forward with its one product, one focus, one direction. And here we are, talking on the Autodesk Revit forum. There is something to be said about simplicity of product and approach as contributing to your marketing efforts. And to what degree I cannot say, but I would still argue that on a technical level developing for multiple platforms must inevitably divide your resources. Always better to kill two birds with one stone, than the exact opposite approach.

Mac's a fine platform (as is Linux) and I'm sure if things became compelling Autodesk would not swim against the stream.

JG

Steve_Stafford

2004-09-08, 07:52 PM

Continuing off course...

...once upon a time they [Bentley Microstation] were 10 years ahead of everybody else... I don't think so...mostly feature for feature they were on par with Acad as much as today except in the OS. In fact Microstation didn't catch up to AutoCAD on some features until SE or perhaps J....on some fronts, surely open for debate on some level. My point is "they" don't think they have "failed", they are dancing to someone else's tune (market) and they have kept that musician (customer) happy, very happy depending on who you talk to.

We had a couple demonstrations of the architecture configuration for Microstation/Triforma and at the time it was totally fragmented (my opinion) no integrated approach to data managment. Couldn't create a schedule internally for example. This told me that they aren't focused on the architectural client in the same way as their "bread and butter". The demonstrator also had no knowledge of the competition and therefore couldn't defend or provide insight into why the product was "better". It appeared to be trying to "warp" existing features to deliver the end product for a different client type...not very elegantly in my view at the time. I haven't seen it in two years now...hopefully it's improving.

Not picking at your opinion(s) just offering a differing perspective...

back on thread....OSX crashes too...nyaaah...(Evil Steve sneaking out...he has no idea if it's even true but then ES doesn't care....) :razz:

hand471037

2004-09-08, 08:34 PM

Steve: OS X I think is closer than you think to that 'next big thing'. I'm no Mac fanboy, and yes, they do crash too, ;-) but there are a lot of reasons why OS X is *years* ahead of the other OS's out there. I just think a lot of people's experance with Mac's are with system 9, and so they just don't know.

Use one for a while, and you'll see what I mean. Serously, I'm not a switcher, I'm pragmatic, and when I look at the details and the ability of OS X vs. anything else, Linux included, I'm hard pressed to come up with anything other than specilized reasons (Revit) that you would want to use anything else right now.

But then just wait five years, or more, and Windows will catch up, and finally be 64-bit, be secure, have a real command line, use a database file system, not have design flaws that allow for viruses, be easy to set up, easy to update, polite, powerful....

J. Grouchy

2004-09-08, 09:01 PM

But then just wait five years, or more, and Windows will catch up, and finally be 64-bit, be secure, have a real command line, use a database file system, not have design flaws that allow for viruses, be easy to set up, easy to update, polite, powerful....

I'm sure you were being facetious...

My experiences with macs have rarely been good, and I can't think of anything I need to use that I need a mac for...perhaps you can enlighten me.

Is anyone truly happy...truly content...with either? We've all got gripes.

I would tend to agree, however, that there isn't sufficient market to create a mac version. Of the 30 or so firms I've interviewed with in the past 5 years, only one used macs. Even those running Bentley software were using pc's exclusively. I'd be interested to know how many people take advantage of the mac version of Microstation...what percentage of their sales are within that market.

Steve_Stafford

2004-09-08, 09:44 PM

...OS X I think is closer than you think to that 'next big thing I haven't used a MAC seriously since my MAC SE and I played with the iMAC when it came out a bit. That doesn't qualify me to judge OSX obviously. Regardless, I'm just wondering aloud, looking beyond...to what I can't imagine our "PC" to be...the OS etc...

hand471037

2004-09-08, 10:18 PM

For me, it's the fact that I leverage Unix & Open Source based stuff. If you don't, then there (obviously) isn't going to be a lot of value there for you. If you can't imagine why you would want to leverage Unix into your business, then I highly recommend you learn a little about it, or pay the price of remaining ignorant and believing whatever Microsoft says. ;-)

But seriously, there is an immense value in Unix, and it's abilities. OS X just makes that a much easier thing to leverage, for the only other routes to take are Linux (time consuming & hard), or getting a 'true' Unix box, like a Sun or SGI (expensive & hard).

Here's just one thing I'm able to do, for free, because of using Unix (it's long, skip ahead if you hate my ranting):

I've got a computer at home running OS X. There is a open-source rendering software called Radiance. I've got it running on that computer at home. Due to something called SSH, and a service called DYNDNS, I can connect to that computer, anywhere in the world, over the internet and give it things to do, remotely. So I export Revit models out, translate them into Radiance's format, then send them off to the home computer to render, freeing up my computer for other work. I can even do this while at work, working at my 'real job'. I can check it remotely, change things, and get the images back. I can trust that it will finish too, for Radiance, being Unix-based, has full crash recovery. If a job crashes, it picks up where it left off. You can even start and stop them at will.

OK, so, for free, I've got a remote render server that's allowing me to learn a immensely powerful Rendering software (even when I'm at work, and doing other things). As soon as I figure out enough Perl, I'm going to write a program that will translate a DXF from Revit into Radiance automatically. Then, I can simply feed it DXF's all day, and have it produce very high quality renderings. I could even start up a business doing Rendering work for other Revit users, and be cheaper than anybody else, for I hardly have to even touch the files, I can trust that they will come out right, and my overhead is stupidly low- I could even do it while working for someone else.

This was all for free, other than the Mac we have running at home, and obviously my time learning. And yeah, someone will come back and say 'oh but I can do that with blah blah blah....'. That's not the point. I did this for free, and it works well for me.

And I'm just a shmoe Architect, who doesn't even understand this stuff very well.

This very site we're all on now runs on Linux, and PHP, both open source things.

And I wasn't really being facetious, OS X is all of those things I was talking about, other than one (database file system) which it will be in the next version. Every single one of those features I mentioned are slated to be included in the next version of Windows, due out in two years, unless it gets set back more, and some of those features have been dropped altogether. That's what I meant when I was saying that OS X is really what I think Windows will look like, both visually and under the hood, within the near future. You're right tho, if it holds no value to you in it, you'd be stupid to buy it. I'm not saying everyone should use Mac for gods sake, I'm just saying that they are cool, and that Revit is the only thing that's got enough value in it to keep me tied into Windows- and as soon as that's not the case (Revit becomes available for other systems, or there is something else better) then I'll not use Windows anymore. Because it really does suck, and waste my time, and not present me with opportunities like other systems do...

dazza163968596

2004-09-09, 12:22 PM

Why fix something that works?
JG
Have you seen the Honda advert in the UK I think it sums up your statement.
It says " If candles are OK why invent the light bulb" Things need to improve if Windows is OK why should we help our customers by giving people the option to improve there user experience by releasing a Mac version

Vincent Valentijn

2004-09-09, 01:18 PM

justin.73647

2004-09-14, 04:15 PM

About 18 months ago I ran across a few forums and a few news articles related to the development of Autodesk Revit for Apple's OS X platfrom. A few screenshots were posted as proof which I have copied below. I have not seen or heard anything else on this matter since that time. Does anyone know of any new developments in this area. Can anyone at Autodesk confirm if an OS X version is in development or ever was for that matter. I think it would be wonderful if they did bring Revit to the Apple platform. Im a mac guy myself so when I go home at night it would be great to be able to fire up Revit on my Mac and catch up on some side projects or on the weekend when I am out of the office.

http://img90.exs.cx/img90/4196/AboutBox1.jpg

http://img90.exs.cx/img90/7108/FamilyEditor.jpg

http://img90.exs.cx/img90/9893/ViewMenu.jpg

http://img90.exs.cx/img90/9729/WorksetDialog.jpg

PeterJ

2004-09-14, 04:32 PM

I've merged these threads as they seem to be a duplicate of one another.

The screen shots posted might be different to the ones that were previosuly posted as my memory fades but I am pretty certain there has never been any definitive answer to your query from the developers, but you can read back and see the speculation that goes on....

Steve_Stafford

2004-09-14, 05:30 PM

...Can anyone at Autodesk confirm if an OS X version is in development or ever was for that matter... These images were posted on the old newsgroup if I recall correctly and on April Fool's day. The explanation I've heard is a practical joke on internal staff at Revit. Don't know if that is factual...so spreading a rumor essentially. But then how else are urban legends created.

There has been a consistent denial of any MAC development...

justin.73647

2004-09-14, 05:57 PM

Wired featured an article this week on a company called Transitive. If their companie's product gets off the ground we could all be satisfied with Revit on the PC or Mac or Unix or Linux or whatever. Transitive has essentially created a way to run any code on any processor regardless of its original design. Very similar to an emulator but far superior as there is no slow-down. Everything occurs in realtime. Here is the article: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,64914,00.html

Here is their website: http://www.transitive.com/

PS Steve. If those pictures were a practical joke for April Fool's someone sure had a whole lot of time on their hands to pull of a prank that looks that professionally done and convincing. Thats not just a simple Photoshop edit.

Steve_Stafford

2004-09-14, 06:25 PM

PS Steve. If those pictures were a practical joke for April Fool's someone sure had a whole lot of time on their hands to pull of a prank that looks that professionally done and convincing. Thats not just a simple Photoshop edit. That's why we all had such a hard time "deciding" if it was for real or not. As clever as those folks are at the factory...it wouldn't surprise me if someone ported some of the kernal so it could actually "run" on a MAC to capture the images. All they'd have to do is get the UI to run without any underlying features. It would be nice to know how it was done after all, maybe someone will come forward if amnesty is offered?

sfaust

2004-09-14, 06:31 PM

If those pictures were a practical joke for April Fool's someone sure had a whole lot of time on their hands to pull of a prank that looks that professionally done and convincing. Thats not just a simple Photoshop edit.agreed. Possible, but that would be a LOT of work for a joke, especially to make 4 of them - interface, buttons, colors, and everything would have to be modified not to mention. Not much use speculating I suppose, but I would guess that it was more than a joke at least at some point. Then again I don't know how hard it would be from the programming side, just the photoshop side. Anyway, just musing...

hand471037

2004-09-14, 07:25 PM

Those are the April Fool's day images. And they are pretty well done, I figured (when I found it was a joke) that someone might have just made graphics that looked like Revit on OS X, and then just displayed them full-screen on a borrowed iBook, and then took pics.

Justin, there is something like that already, called VNC. However there is a speed hit, for it's not meant to run code full speed on any platform, but rather run multiple OS's at the same time on the same computer for program development, testing, and the like. I've looked into it, and (at this time) it doesn't seem like the best option for resource-hungry things like Revit or rendering. VNC uses a 'micro-kernel' made out of BSD which boots first, and then boots the other OS's on demand. It can even let you cut & paste from one to another...

There is also a project called 'Wine' that allows for Linux to run Windows Binaries, full speed, with no emulation. However mimicking Windows is such a huge task that it only really works for a handful of programs at this time. There is a commercial version called 'Crossover' that works better and can even run Photoshop, MS Office, and more. Neither work with Revit (or, more specifically, I couldn't get either to work with Revit).

And, not to be the cynic, but I'll believe the claims of this company when I see the product live. :D

J. Grouchy

2004-09-14, 08:44 PM

I'm betting those shots were actually very easily done. I know there are several products out there that allow skinning of Windows (Windowblinds comes to mind)...surely some Mac-nut out there created one for Windows users.

hand471037

2004-09-14, 08:52 PM

But it's running on a iBook. That's not a 'Mac-like' skin running over the top of XP. I've seen the Mac skins for XP, and they only look close (I use Macs too). Maybe, just maybe, it is, but then they would still either have to photoshop the image onto an iBook screen or have it as an static image on the screen of the iBook to take pics of.

Besides, they are fake, there is no Revit for OS X as far as anyone knows, so that's that.

justin.73647

2004-09-14, 08:57 PM

I have used WindowBlinds before and it is probably the only likely way this could be faked that well. However the pictures clearly show this all running on an Apple iBook. Are you suggesting that someone installed WindowBlinds and all its necessary addons including the application bar, dock, system icons, and application icons. Then they opened a copy of Revit and took some screenshots of it running in skinned mode on their PC. Then they copied these screenshots to an iBook and loaded them in fullscreen mode to appear as if that was the GUI running live at the time. Thats a bit of a stretch don't you think? Even the about box showing 5.5MAC would have had to be faked also. On the flipside though I guess it is no more of a stretch than believing that Autodesk was truly working on a Mac version of Revit and killed the project off without any reason or admitting to its existence.

hand471037

2004-09-14, 09:15 PM

Actually, I think that it's just a big photoshop'ed fullscreen graphic created to look like Revit on OS X, then loaded into OS X's Preview image viewer and made fullscreen. I think if it's really just an April fool's prank (a really stupid one at that) that this is the most likely way to have done it. Then all you do is take a picture of the iBook's screen, and tell people it's 'live' Revit when it's just a still...

It's also possible that it's a UI mockup done in OS X. The coding tools for making UI's in OS X are like the ones in Windows, in that it's very simple and quick for someone who knows what they are doing to throw together a non-working UI. But again, it was done as a (very) stupid prank.

The least likely thing is that it really is a beta of Revit on OS X that Autodesk is keeping under wraps as a fallback plan if Windows doesn't move toward 64 bit soon enough, and/or has a major catastrophe (like the theoretical 'Warhol Worm' or something) that drives many people to suddenly want to switch to Mac. I know if I was the 4th largest software company that I'd have something like that in the works. But I doubt that Autodesk has anything of the sort, and this is, in the end, just a really stupid prank.

BillyGrey

2004-09-14, 09:43 PM

Nice catch justin.73647

I'm hoping this port emulater turns out to be the real deal, this time.
I also hope it becomes available to the general pub.

Then I wipe, and reboot into Linux once and for all.

Steve_Stafford

2004-09-14, 09:57 PM

I've known a few programmers that would do that sort of thing for kicks in their spare time so it wouldn't surprise me if that is how it was done (consider the easter eggs found in programs, clearly that wasn't "billable" time). In terms of it being a prank perpetrated against "us"...the story I heard was that it was done internally for someone in particular internally and it ended up posted. It's been awhile and memory gets foggy...

hand471037

2004-09-14, 10:08 PM

Why I say that it was a stupid prank was the fact that it got leaked to the general public (which it probably didn't mean to be). However, knowing that there would be a Revit for OS X in the near future would *greatly* change my current plans. So it's stupid in just that, what to a small group might have thought funny, to others (such as myself) just confuses and upsets, for until I heard (through the grapevine) that it was a prank, I had no idea whether or not something was going to happen that would impact my current planning a great deal.

I know not to jump at rumors, esp. in regards to computers; but this would be like someone else as a 'prank' leaking a 'memo' from Autodesk about killing Revit off altogether. All it does is confuse things...

I don't think it was done with any negative intent, or targeted at anyone in particular. I just thought it was stupid, and in poor taste.

BomberAIA

2004-09-14, 10:16 PM

I would buy a Mac in a second and I hope Revit run soon on one.

PeterJ

2004-09-15, 07:57 AM

there is something like that already, called VNC. However there is a speed hit, for it's not meant to run code full speed on any platform, but rather run multiple OS's at the same time on the same computer for program development, testing, and the like. I've looked into it, and (at this time) it doesn't seem like the best option for resource-hungry things like Revit or rendering. VNC uses a 'micro-kernel' made out of BSD which boots first, and then boots the other OS's on demand. It can even let you cut & paste from one to another...
Jeffrey, I think you are mistaken there. VNC stands for Virtual Network Computer and is an open form of remote control, similar to MS Windows Remote Desktop sharing but platform independent. I use RealVNC and Ultra VNC, different flavours of the same thing. Real VNC runs on *nux, Mac and PC and simply allows you to gain access to the remote machine. In principle it is not dissimalr to ssh type transactions. Ultra VNC seems to be windows only but it allows file transfer to/from the remote machine which is handy when you're working at home and discover you left a file behind.

You might be thinking of Citrix's range of products. I have a developer friend who runs virtual machines through that technology for development and testing on an iBook, the software will be delivered to Windows PCs with chunkier server side machines. He can emulate both.

J. Grouchy

2004-09-15, 01:31 PM

didn't even notice the computer itself...only the image on the screen...heheh

hand471037

2004-09-15, 03:59 PM

Jeffrey, I think you are mistaken there. VNC stands for Virtual Network Computer and is an open form of remote control, similar to MS Windows Remote Desktop sharing but platform independent.

No, you're right, but I was close. I was thinking of VMW, or VMware: http://www.vmware.com/

same thing as your friend uses, just a different company. Got the acronym wrong!

Also, I know of VNC, but since I use OS X & Linux I use SSH instead. It's the same thing, but it's just a command line instead of the whole screen ala VNC. But you can move files with it. It's great to be able to pull stuff from the home server no matter where I might be! ;-)

gregcashen

2004-09-15, 04:47 PM

I allready stated which 'side' I'm on and Greg has very eloquently delivered some major issues to this discussion. I would just like to add my personal view as to what the 'Microsoft vs. the world' is about.
The problem is all down to the same thing again and again, who gets the money $$ I think you should realise that people out there are making money with knowledge which should in fact be available to everyone. In our laws it's said that companies can claim ideas to be their product... but is that 'good' for the people in general or only for the companies? I dare to state that it's the latter. Giants like Microsoft and Autodesk are keeping out other companies whom are in title of a good chance and at the same time the're pushing products in our faces without us having a say... we just need to go with the flow to not fall out the boat of progress.
Now That btw. is what open-source is about... I really hope that in a (short) while some developers will leave, let's say Autodesk Revit again.. like they left Autodesk before and start-up a good open-source alternative. The huge advantage is that such software can and will develop faster and faster, simply because anyone who finds it interesting can improve or modify it. I hear people say 'where's the money in that game?' well.. don't worry, there's a million ways that people can get a decent buck out of open-source without killing innocent consumers.

my torrent.. I know this is a bit much but I'm an idealist to the bone, loving that seventies idea of us, you, me .. changing the world for the best! hihi and I feel the Reviteers are those kind of revolutionaries ;)

later folks!

So, Vincent, can I expect to see free (read open source) copies of your company's programs for which you so vociferously request an API? I don't think your vision is especially idealistic...I think it is socialistic. Autodesk, being an American company, is not likely to embrace a socialist business philosophy anytime soon (the fact they're hq'd in Marin County notwithstanding) ;)

Also, I dont think Autodesk is "pushing" anything in our face without our having a say. The reason Autodesk is the industry standard is because we have a say and we've said overwhelmingly that Autodesk is the way to go. Granted, they don't do everything right, but they do a lot of things very right. I hate their EULAs to the bone, but their product is largely good and benefits me in numerous ways.

hand471037

2004-09-15, 06:01 PM

So, Vincent, can I expect to see free (read open source) copies of your company's programs for which you so vociferously request an API? I don't think your vision is especially idealistic...I think it is socialistic.

Yeah, the Open Source thing isn't really Socialist. It's different. It's where you give the Razors out for free (the software code) but charge for the blades (prepackaged & ready to go software and/or support). It's like me giving you the plans for the house, but if you pay me I'll build the house for you or help you build it yourself, and help you fix it when the roof leaks or change it if you want an extra room that's not on the plans...

I use open source software, namely Linux, but I also pay a company to give me a version of Linux that's easy to use and ready to go. If I had the time, I could get it for free, but if I pay for it I get it today, and I get there help when things go wrong...

Same thing goes for Radiance. It's open source, and because I've got time I'm learning to use the 'free' version. But there are people who have taken Radiance, and made it easyer to use (like as a plug-in for Max) and then charge for that package.

For some companies, like Apple and IBM, using open source stuff as the core of their products makes for a lot of business since, for they can then focus instead on their core business rather than reinventing the wheel yet again...

aaronrumple

2004-09-15, 06:10 PM

It's like me giving you the plans for the house, but if you pay me I'll build the house for you or help you build it yourself, and help you fix it when the roof leaks or change it if you want an extra room that's not on the plans...

So that's how you charge for your plans?

hand471037

2004-09-15, 07:23 PM

I was using a metaphor to try to explain Open Source software in a simple way. Obviously this concept doesn't directly apply to Architecture as a business. Don't take this so literally. Many of the concepts don't apply to the physical world because in the physical world there is a cost associated with copying and building. With computers, once the source code is written once, it can be copied and 'built' for free, and (if written correctly) it can be Incorporated into other software too, for free, in the form of libraries and such. If I'm a developer, who's primary business isn't selling software directly, then by using other people's Open Source code, as well as allowing for others to look at and submit changes to my code, only makes my code better, faster, and stronger, while being cheaper to make. Apple sells hardware, IBM sells services. So, for them, having a killer OS is just a marketing feature to get you to buy something else, so it makes since that they would want that killer OS to be cheap to make. Mac focuses on making Open Source Unix really easy to use and nice to look at, and IBM makes Open Source Unix that will handle huge business services. However, both don't have to waste time writing the core, only altering the bits they need too, and by giving those back to the 'pool' they can have others use them too. By sharing the parts with everyone else that they don't make money on anyways, they get those parts to be better without having to do all the work.

OK, so imagine for a moment I get a bug up my *** and I write my own program that automates exporting a Revit model to Radiance, because nothing on the market meets my needs. Now, my business isn't writting programs, it's Architecture. So to spend a huge amount of time writting everything from scratch would be silly. So I use some open Source code that's allready out there as a foundation for my homebrew software, and then release my software as Open Source. Now other people start using my homebrew software, and they see something in there that could be better, and they change something. Now I get that change back, because it's open source, and everyone wins; because again my business isn't writting and selling software, it's Architecture. Now I can do what I do easyier/better, which makes me more money.

It's much closer to the way that Academics share knowledge about research findings. Open Source software isn't just giving your work away for free with some stupid idea that you'll make money somehow. It's different, and way off-topic for this thread.

Archimac

2004-09-15, 10:25 PM

Jeffrey, I don't understand why you don't just use Archicad 9. It appears to be much improved. I would appreciate your reasons for not using the closest thing available to Revit ... and it runs on the Mac.

It has been my dream to use a Mac for about four years now. Autodesk is the only reason and in particular it was Autocad. For the past couple of months I have been trying Revit and found that - yes - I can live without Autocad. It was frustrating at first.

At first, I thought Revit was just the most advanced way to go and unfortunately I would have to stay on windows. But, I was willing to do it. Then after trying to complete a project in Revit, I have come to realize that it is not for me. The interface just wears me out clicking through the properties boxes and visibility boxes etc. Just trying to use the Andersen windows took forever to modify any simple changes such as the number of mullions made the status bar at the bottom go crazy for a full minute.

This disillusionment has cause me much distress and embarrassment since I bragged that I had finally found the ideal software

So, the details add up and matter a great deal. The interface of OSX and the way it works make a subtle but powerful difference. The Revit interface needs much attention to detail. That said, Archicad has finally updated it's interface to be very refined. I just don't understand why you don't go to Archicad.

I am not going to buy Archicad until I get a full demo, because I'm starting to think a cheaper combination of Sketchup and Highdesign 2d www.ilexsoft.com could be a good way to go.

On MacOSX of course. I may be getting close to my dream. 8)

jim.awe

2004-09-15, 10:38 PM

I was using a metaphor to try to explain Open Source software in a simple way. Obviously this concept doesn't directly apply to Architecture as a business.

Software is intellectual property. Developers don't give away source code for the same reason architects don't hand out their original DWG files for free to anyone who asks.

Free music, free movies, free software, free designs... it all seems to be good unless you're the one losing money on the deal.

Just my personal opinion...

hand471037

2004-09-15, 10:48 PM

Jeffrey, I don't understand why you don't just use Archicad 9. It appears to be much improved. I would appreciate your reasons for not using the closest thing available to Revit ... and it runs on the Mac.

Because Archicad sucks. Unless they have made major improvements with 9, my past experiences with Archicad tell me that I wouldn't be able to do what I can do with Revit. That has more value to me than the added value of using a Mac.

I do a lot of side jobs. This is taxing, but doable, with Revit; for I find it fast enough to be able to do side jobs realistically. If I was using something slower, something that took more time, there would be no way I could do side jobs. So that's what it boils down to. I've been using Revit for years and find that it fits my work flow better than anything else I've ever used, so that's a factor as well.

What I *need* Linux/OS X for is Radiance. But I can run that within Cygwin to set up the jobs, and then send them out via SSH to the Mac at home, or dual-boot to Linux and run it there (this is what I do now).

What I *want* OS X for is that IMHO the Mac hardware & OS is really the best bang for the buck, and then everything I use would then be 'native', powerful, but easy to manage.

Almost everything I use, software-wise, runs on either, or has alternatives that are just as good. Revit is the only thing that's stuck on Windows. So, until there is an OS X alliterative (and again, unless Archicad 9 has really grown, there is none), whether that be Revit for OS X or something else, I'll lug around my Intel laptop & SSH to my Mac. ;-)

hand471037

2004-09-15, 10:51 PM

Software is intellectual property. Developers don't give away source code for the same reason architects don't hand out their original DWG files for free to anyone who asks.

Free music, free movies, free software, free designs... it all seems to be good unless you're the one losing money on the deal.

Just my personal opinion...

Jeeze, did you even read what I wrote, Jim? I wasn't saying any of it is free. Open Source doesn't mean 'free'. Please, serously, don't take my word for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

It's much more complex than you're making out.

Archimac

2004-09-16, 12:06 AM

Saying Archicad sucks is quite a strong statement. I would have said that about Revit after using it. It was only because of all the helpful people on this forum that I was able to discover the tricks and workarounds. There are many things about Revit I love, but I just can't stand the lack of a properties panel and visual family browser like ADT and Archicad. I also can't agree with the concept of roof design in Revit. Unless those things change I will always be frustrated.

I have found that using any cad software is about learning the workarounds. If you will notice Archicad has been adopting many Revit features. It started in 81 and continues in 9. If you have been using Revit for server years you have missed out on a much improved Archicad. Still there are things I will miss in Revit. I'm sure you would be an ace at Archicad in a few months.

The ideal software lies somewhere between the two .... and of course it will be available on Linux and MacOSX.

I hope some of those Revit programmers will be hired by Archicad soon! If they continue to work for Autodesk life will be constrained. Revit might soon be dropped if it does not produce enough revenue ... just like Architectural Studio.

Better yet! Creat an open source BIM It will develop faster and set the AEC world on fire! 8)

I am sure that many Revit programmers have learned a lot and would approach the concept of an easy to use BIM differently now. Come on - defect while you have a chance 8)

jim.awe

2004-09-16, 12:22 AM

Jeeze, did you even read what I wrote, Jim? I wasn't saying any of it is free. Open Source doesn't mean 'free'. Please, serously, don't take my word for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

It's much more complex than you're making out.

Ya, thanks... I do this for a living and am well versed in how it all works. While you can charge money for selling an OpenSource application, the licensing agreement dictates that you then have to make your product OpenSource as well. It still boils down to an intellectual property issue. How many professional developers are going to work long hours, coding, testing, documenting and *SUPPORTING* something they have very little legal protection for? Will other industries follow suit and publish their intellectual property? I guess we'll eventually find out.

It's a good philosophical debate (one that I am now removing myself from)

Scott D Davis

2004-09-16, 12:25 AM

There are many things about Revit I love, but I just can't stand the lack of a properties panel and visual family browser like ADT and Archicad. I also can't agree with the concept of roof design in Revit. Unless those things change I will always be frustrated.
I'm hopeful that a Properties window is in 7.0, that can be docked, floated, auto-hide (auto-hidden?) with an Apply button, or even better, without an Apply button so that a change I make in Porperties instanntly changes in the model so I can see it.

Visual Family Browser? It is visual in Revit if you switch to thumbnail view! (Unless you were talking about the Project Browser??? Which could benefit from a Thumbnail view....)

Roof design? What's the hang up with roof design?

hand471037

2004-09-16, 12:41 AM

Ya, thanks... I do this for a living and am well versed in how it all works. While you can charge money for selling an OpenSource application, the licensing agreement dictates that you then have to make your product OpenSource as well.

Not if it's under a BSD license. Heck, the TCP/IP stack in Windows that you're using right now uses BSD-licensed code from Berkeley. But whatever. Now someone will come back and talk about why THAT's stupid. sheesh.

Jim I was just saying that people here had the wrong idea about what Open Source is, I wasn't even implying that EVERYONE has to use it, care about it, develop for it, or anything. WTF? This whole thread is stupid. I say "Hey i'd like to use a Mac" or "I like Open Source" or something and everyone assumes I'm telling them that they MUST do this. I'm tired of arguing over what brand of typewriter we all use- because in the end that's what this all boils down to. This is a waste of time.

Archimac

2004-09-16, 02:32 AM

Scott, I did mean a more graphically rich family browser. Take a look at the one in Archicad.
For doing complex residential roofs I need to see the entire roof in plan or 3d with ridges and valleys. When you edit a roof in Revit all you see is the overhang outline. It is a trial and error process to get things to come together properly.

At least that is what I have found. I would rather be able to grab the ridge/valley lines and adjust them graphically.

gregcashen

2004-09-16, 04:54 AM

Not if it's under a BSD license. Heck, the TCP/IP stack in Windows that you're using right now uses BSD-licensed code from Berkeley. But whatever. Now someone will come back and talk about why THAT's stupid. sheesh.

Jim I was just saying that people here had the wrong idea about what Open Source is, I wasn't even implying that EVERYONE has to use it, care about it, develop for it, or anything. WTF? This whole thread is stupid. I say "Hey i'd like to use a Mac" or "I like Open Source" or something and everyone assumes I'm telling them that they MUST do this. I'm tired of arguing over what brand of typewriter we all use- because in the end that's what this all boils down to. This is a waste of time.

Actually, JMcG, I was referring more to this portion of VV's post:

I think you should realise that people out there are making money with knowledge which should in fact be available to everyone. In our laws it's said that companies can claim ideas to be their product... but is that 'good' for the people in general or only for the companies?

I understand open source. I don't understand the point of having discussions such as this where we try to hypothesize Autodesk going open-source. The same argument could be made that music (a form of knowledge...the knowledge of the words and beats that go into a song) should therefore be free too. What then is the incentive for anyone to produce anything? Not everyone (in fact, almost no one in the big scheme of things) wants to work hard to produce somthing to give it away. That is what VV was suggesting with this "idealistic" view of software. As much as I hate Autodesk's EULA's, I love their software and American capitalism and the idea that my ideas can make me rich...someday. ;)

Archimac

2004-09-16, 01:55 PM

In my naive views, I see open source software development as being more like a democratic society. Each developer does a little work and fulfills his responsibility to make things better (like voting in a democracy) The pride that they are working on a bigger idea and it's destiny is controlled by a larger worldwide team and not by a single / secretive profit driven company.

Like was said before there are plenty of ways to make money on top of the software. Just think if Revit was open source then someone would program a plug-in to fulfill the wish list items in no time.

This lights a fire under the commercial developers to compete. We need both. I am using the browser 'Firefox' from mozilla.org and it is so much better than ie and I never said that about Netscape. They also have an outlook replacement called 'Thunderbird' which is almost as good as Outlook ... better in some ways.