Received: from relay7.UU.NET (relay7.UU.NET [192.48.96.17]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id SAA19097 for <dwarner@albany.net>; Fri, 5 Jan 1996 18:56:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from garcia.com by relay7.UU.NET with SMTP
id QQzxgp22256; Fri, 5 Jan 1996 18:54:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost) by garcia.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA13461; Fri, 5 Jan 1996 18:55:07 -0500
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 18:55:07 -0500
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Message-Id: <9601051555.ZM10236@war.agames.com>
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: "Bob Ingold" <ingold@agames.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lightwave@garcia.com>
Subject: Re: SGI
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
> >On Fri, 5 Jan 1996, Dana Decker wrote:
> >
> >> What does you all think about Lightwave on the SGI???
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dana Decker
> >> 415-487-7054
> >> dana@xaostools.com
> >> Xaos Tools
> >> 600 Townsend Street
> >> Suite 270E
> >> San Francisco, CA 94103
I am not personally using the SGI version but here at our company we have had
concerns about SGI's cooperation in the lightwave program on their platform.
It appears SGI is putting the squeeze on NewTek since they are now working on
their own 3D software.
I'm talking more specifically about the network licensing of the
rendering engine. It looks like we would have to pay for every SGI we run it
on and SGI's response is "Thats the way it is and there is nothing we can do
about it". Yet we have 3D Studio on the SGI and can render on as many SGI's as
we want.
I should explain that I'm getting this information second hand in the hallways