More geek stuff-cascading digital signals through 3 x M-Audio Digipatch units.
PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (young cute guy) facing camera, standing side by side >between two computer monitors >> >> >> >> MAC >> >> Hi, I'm a Mac. >> >> >> >> PC >> >> Hi, I'm a PC. >> >> >> >> MAC >> >> I'm into music, video, games, stuff like that . . . >> >> >> >> PC >> >> Wow! Music, video, and games? Coooool . . . Wish I could >do that . . . (winks at camera) >> >> >> >> MAC >> >> Yeah, and I'm really cute and hip-looking, too. >> >> >> >> PC >> >> Yes, you are. Do you have the 2GHz processor, or the 1.83? >> >> >> >> MAC >> >> Um . . . processor? >> >> >> >> PC >> >>
Hehehe!!!!.....success!!!! I may need to sacrifice a chicken!!!!
between two computer monitors. >> >>MAC >> >>Hi, I'm a Mac. >> >>PC >> >>And I'm a PC. >> >>MAC >> >>I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >>like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >> >>PC >> >>Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >>much as a PC? >> >>MAC >> >>Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> > > FADE TO BLACKoops, sorryTry to make this file sound like the second shania file. Who's go the magic? Come on, help a brother out. http://tinyurl.com/qrcam You have a stereo pair, and kick,snare, hihat on separate wave files. Goal sound i'm going for http://tinyurl.com/gtacuMy humble opinion... Your snare needs a longer tail. It also needs to go down in pitch by about a tone or so. The kick needs more beater (I've eq'd some in, but that's always dodgy) and a nice tight bottom on it like the Shania one has. ....but here's my dodgy attempt in 10 minutes... http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&uf id=FD780B32378DCF5B Cheers, Kim. "John" <no@no.com> wrote: > >Try to make this file sound like the second shania file. Who's go the magic? > Come on, help a brother out. > >http://tinyurl.com/qrcam >You have a stereo pair, and kick,snare, hihat on separate wave files. > >Goal sound i'm going for >http://tinyurl.com/gtacu > > > >Yes, indeed. Jimmy "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote and a nice tight bottom on it like the Shania one has."uptown jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote: >Yes, indeed. ....or, indeed, like the one Shania has. ;o) > >Jimmy > > >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote > > and a nice tight bottom on it like the Shania one has. > > >ROTFLMA****'inAO!!!! ;oD "EK Sound" <askme@nospam.com> wrote in message news:4492ea34$<a href="mailto:1@l
Re: Hehehe!!!!.....success!!!! I may need to sacrifice a chicken!!!!
p gray dash. > Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for it > in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy aluminum > alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the Mac! > Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the quantities > that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five times > more than Cadillacs. > > There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, such > as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much time > spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC guys > here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware conflicts, > dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > > I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go searching > for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a program, > and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti Spyware > software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software is > minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the internet > and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, what > does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security administrator. > Macs are harder to hack. > > The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation studies > in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain and > administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and administrate. > Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is lower > with macs. > > So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time saved > and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! > > I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. > > I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a Windows > box! > > I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! > > I say use what works for you. > > James > > "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > > > >OK, my turn... > > > >>FADE IN: > >> > >>interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript > >>PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, > >>standing side by side between two computer monitors. > >> > >>MAC > >> > >>Hi, I'm a Mac. > >> > >>PC > >> > >>And I'm a PC. > >> > >>MAC > >> > >>I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built > >>like a PC with Intel chips & everything. > >> > >>PC > >> > >>Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as > >>much as a PC? > >> > >>MAC > >> > >>Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> > > > >FADE TO BLACK >If you didn't see all the ads, here are the links. Make sure you scroll down and read the reasons why! http://www.apple.com/getamac/ http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/ "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: > >I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said so here >in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare a >Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. The >Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray dash. > Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for it >in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy aluminum >alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the Mac! > Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the quantities >that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five times >more than Cadillacs. > >There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, such >as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much time >spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC guys >here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware conflicts, >dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > >I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go searching >for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a program, >and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti Spyware >software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software is >minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the internet >and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, what >does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security administrator. > Macs are harder to hack. > >The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation studies >in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain and >administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and administrate. > Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is lower >with macs. > >So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time saved >and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! > >I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. > >I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a Windows >box! > >I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! > >I say use what works for you. > >James > >"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >> >>OK, my turn... >> >>>FADE IN: >>> >>>interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript >>>PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, >>>standing side by side between two computer monitors. >>> >>>MAC >>> >>>Hi, I'm a Mac. >>> >>>PC >>> >>>And I'm a PC. >>> >>>MAC >>> >>>I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >>>like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >>> >>>PC >>> >>>Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >>>much as a PC? >>> >>>MAC >>> >>>Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >> >>FADE TO BLACK >Portable ExpressCard to PCI expansion systems announced from Magma, with a promise that MacBook expansion will be ready soon. http://www.mobl.com/expansion/products/expresscard_expansion /4slot/index.html geneThanks a lot. I can listen to it tomorrow. Can you tell me what you did to treat it? Thanks! John "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"uptown jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>Yes, indeed. > >...or, indeed, like the one Shania has. ;o) > >> >>Jimmy >> >> >>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote >> >> and a nice tight bottom on it like the Shania one has. >> >> >> >Well, yes and no. Would it be the same exact system for the same kind of money, no. Obviously your system is quite unique, so I think it is a little unfair to ask if I could duplicate it exactly. I think you could have a similar setup with all Macs and I think it would work a lot more problem free. Price never seems the be too much of an object, so here it is. Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) you could also upgrade to 1.8GHz G4 for more power. The G4 has 4 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot. Add a dual monitor PCI card for four monitors expanded desk top. Or you could add a four head AGP card and save a PCI slot. Add Magma for 13 PCI slots this would give you up to 15 PCI slots. You can install 2GB of memory in the G4 and 4 HDs, plus external FW HDs. 16GB of memory in the G5. You also have Gigabit Ethernet on both machines standard, that might come in handy. You also have FireWire as an option for audio I/O, and DSPs. FW actually works on a Mac. SX machine G5 Quad 2.5GHz with 16 GB of RAM, FW 400 & FW 800, USB 2, dual HDs, dual head video, if you needed more monitors you could add a 4 head AGP or add a dual PCI-E card. Add the Magma and add your cards. You can delete all the software you don't want. If your talking about stripping out the system software, I wouldn't do it!, but there are people that can. You can simply turn off the extensions on the O/S 9 machine, or you can throw the stuff away you don't want like the printer drivers or language libraries, etc. I think it would work, and I think you would find in time, that it would work trouble free for the most part. I think it would be rock solid and run smooth. But I think your system works for you, so why change. James "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >>PC guys >>here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >conflicts, >>dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >>you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > >OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set up >two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if >everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to know. My >Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 >(neither price includes montors or audio hardware). > >You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it >will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. The >Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G CPU, 4 >G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma >chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 Magma) >and three video heads. > >I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, (properly >meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did not >put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had >total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I encountered >until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just >lots of options when I needed them while I configured the >system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be >sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS handed >to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and I'm >expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like you >can with Windows? I'm curious. > >Regards, > >Deej > > >. > > > >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:44934f4e$1@linux... >> >> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said so >here >> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare a >> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. >The >> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray >dash. >> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for it >> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy >aluminum >> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the >Mac! >> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the quantities >> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five times >> more than Cadillacs. >> >> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, such >> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much time >> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC guys >> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >conflicts, >> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >> >> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go >searching >> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a >program, >> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti >Spyware >> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software is >> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the >internet >> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, >what >> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security >administrator. >> Macs are harder to hack. >> >> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation >studies >> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain and >> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and >administrate. >> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is >lower >> with macs. >> >> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time saved >> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! >> >> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. >> >> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a Windows >> box! >> >> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! >> >> I say use what works for you. >> >> James >> >> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >> > >> >OK, my turn... >> > >> >>FADE IN: >> >> >> >>interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript >> >>PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, >> >>standing side by side between two computer monitors. >> >> >> >>MAC >> >> >> >>Hi, I'm a Mac. >> >> >> >>PC >> >> >> >>And I'm a PC. >> >> >> >>MAC >> >> >> >>I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >> >>like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >> >> >> >>PC >> >> >> >>Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >> >>much as a PC? >> >> >> >>MAC >> >> >> >>Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >> > >> >FADE TO BLACK >> > >I wouldn't want to be in charge of supporting the setup you've got, Deej. But your stories are great. The amount of time you've taken to just relate your tweaking adventures is enough to pay for a fast Mac several times over, let alone the time and money it took to actually do the tweaking, researching and buying of more zippy stuff to hang off your hot rod. It's all very cool and more power to you! Someday I will make a pilgrimage to your studio just to bow in awe. I will say this: The latest version of Logic on a dual 2.5GHZ OSX mac with the cool AU plugins I have is one amazing setup. It blows away what I could accomplish in PARIS. It has a much better integrated work flow. And it all only takes one Mac (Logic can split processes to additional machines but I've never needed to do that with this rig). It took a long time to get here. But it's here. There's also a learning curve (couple weeks) but I'm well past that. BTW, there is NO need to strip anything out of MacOSX for audio on this machine. I can be online, run several other major programs, and be working on a massive Logic project, no prob. Core audio, dood. ;^) It's working pretty well. If I need to I can drop in up to 8GB RAM for more play room (I have 2.5GB right now). This machine is two years old and rocks hard. It's good to go for the next few years. There have still been a few Logic weirdnesses now and then, so there's more development work to do. But nothing that's brought down the OS or lost any work. I've enjoyed reading everyone's commercials. :^) Cheers, -Jamie http://www.JamieKrutz.com DJ wrote: >> PC guys >> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > conflicts, >> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > > OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set up > two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if > everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to know. My > Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 > (neither price includes montors or audio hardware). > > You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it > will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. The > Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G CPU, 4 > G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma > chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 Magma) > and three video heads. > > I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, (properly > meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did not > put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had > total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I encountered > until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just > lots of options when I needed them while I configured the > system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be > sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS handed > to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and I'm > expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like you > can with Windows? I'm curious. > > Regards, > > Deej > > > . > > > > "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:44934f4e$1@linux... >> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said so > here >> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare a >> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. > The >> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray > dash. >> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for it >> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy > aluminum >> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the > Mac! >> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the quantities >> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five times >> more than Cadillacs. >> >> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, such >> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much time >> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC guys >> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > conflicts, >> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >> >> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go > searching >> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a > program, >> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti > Spyware >> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software is >> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the > internet >> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, > what >> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security > administrator. >> Macs are harder to hack. >> >> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation > studies >> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain and >> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and > administrate. >> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is > lower >> with macs. >> >> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time saved >> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! >> >> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. >> >> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a Windows >> box! >> >> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! >> >> I say use what works for you. >> >> James >> >> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >>> OK, my turn... >>> >>>> FADE IN: >>>> >>>> interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript >>>> PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, >>>> standing side by side between two computer monitors. >>>> >>>> MAC >>>> >>>> Hi, I'm a Mac. >>>> >>>> PC >>>> >>>> And I'm a PC. >>>> >>>> MAC >>>> >>>> I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >>>> like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >>>> >>>> PC >>>> >>>> Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >>>> much as a PC? >>>> >>>> MAC >>>> >>>> Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >>> FADE TO BLACK > >I'm all for ease of use...........so tell me, if I was using a Mac for my native rig, do you think I could have use of all 13 PCI slots in the Magma? If there are no IRQ's with the Mac, then does this translate that any PCI card I put in any PCI slot is going to work with the Mac with no conflicts with other PCI cards? The reason I ask is that with a 13 slot Magma, I can use only 7 of the slots for UAD-1 cards due to IRQ conflicts and if I were to actually use 7 of the 13 slots, there would be massive PCI bus overload. This wouldn't happen on a Mac? I can fill up a Magma with whatever I want, insert the host card into a PCI slot in a new G5 and all of the cards will just work because it's a Mac? Thanks, Deej "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:44936c3c$1@linux... > > Well, yes and no. Would it be the same exact system for the same kind of > money, no. Obviously your system is quite unique, so I think it is a little > unfair to ask if I could duplicate it exactly. I think you could have a > similar setup with all Macs and I think it would work a lot more problem > free. Price never seems the be too much of an object, so here it is. > > Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) you could also upgrade > to 1.8GHz G4 for more power. The G4 has 4 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot. > > Add a dual monitor PCI card for four monitors expanded desk top. Or you > could add a four head AGP card and save a PCI slot. > > Add Magma for 13 PCI slots this would give you up to 15 PCI slots. > > You can install 2GB of memory in the G4 and 4 HDs, plus external FW HDs. > 16GB of memory in the G5. You also have Gigabit Ethernet on both machines > standard, that might come in handy. You also have FireWire as an option > for audio I/O, and DSPs. FW actually works on a Mac. > > SX machine G5 Quad 2.5GHz with 16 GB of RAM, FW 400 & FW 800, USB 2, dual > HDs, dual head video, if you needed more monitors you could add a 4 head > AGP or add a dual PCI-E card. > > Add the Magma and add your cards. > > You can delete all the software you don't want. If your talking about stripping > out the system software, I wouldn't do it!, but there are people that can. > You can simply turn off the extensions on the O/S 9 machine, or you can > throw the stuff away you don't want like the printer drivers or language > libraries, etc. > > I think it would work, and I think you would find in time, that it would > work trouble free for the most part. I think it would be rock solid and > run smooth. But I think your system works for you, so why change. > > James > > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: > >>PC guys > >>here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > >conflicts, > >>dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > >>you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > > > >OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set up > >two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if > >everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to know. > My > >Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 > >(neither price includes montors or audio hardware). > > > >You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it > >will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. The > >Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G CPU, > 4 > >G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma > >chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 Magma) > >and three video heads. > > > >I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, (properly > >meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did not > >put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had > >total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I encountered > >until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just > >lots of options when I needed them while I configured the > >system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be > >sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS handed > >to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and > I'm > >expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like you > >can with Windows? I'm curious. > > > >Regards, > > > >Deej > > > > > >. > > > > > > > >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:44934f4e$1@linux... > >> > >> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said > so > >here > >> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare > a > >> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. > >The > >> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray > >dash. > >> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for > it > >> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy > >aluminum > >> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the > >Mac! > >> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the quantities > >> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five times > >> more than Cadillacs. > >> > >> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, such > >> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much > time > >> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC guys > >> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > >conflicts, > >> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > >> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > >> > >> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go > >searching > >> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a > >program, > >> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti > >Spyware > >> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software > is > >> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the > >internet > >> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, > >what > >> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security > >administrator. > >> Macs are harder to hack. > >> > >> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation > >studies > >> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain > and > >> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and > >administrate. > >> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is > >lower > >> with macs. > >> > >> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time saved > >> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! > >> > >> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. > >> > >> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a Windows > >> box! > >> > >> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! > >> > >> I say use what works for you. > >> > >> James > >> > >> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >OK, my turn... > >> > > >> >>FADE IN: > >> >> > >> >>interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript > >> >>PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, > >> >>standing side by side between two computer monitors. > >> >> > >> >>MAC > >> >> > >> >>Hi, I'm a Mac. > >> >> > >> >>PC > >> >> > >> >>And I'm a PC. > >> >> > >> >>MAC > >> >> > >> >>I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built > >> >>like a PC with Intel chips & everything. > >> >> > >> >>PC > >> >> > >> >>Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as > >> >>much as a PC? > >> >> > >> >>MAC > >> >> > >> >>Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> > >> > > >> >FADE TO BLACK > >> > > > > >Oh yeah...............there is a 4 head video card for the Mac? Link please. Thanks again, Deej "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:44936c3c$1@linux... > > Well, yes and no. Would it be the same exact system for the same kind of > money, no. Obviously your system is quite unique, so I think it is a little > unfair to ask if I could duplicate it exactly. I think you could have a > similar setup with all Macs and I think it would work a lot more problem > free. Price never seems the be too much of an object, so here it is. > > Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) you could also upgrade > to 1.8GHz G4 for more power. The G4 has 4 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot. > > Add a dual monitor PCI card for four monitors expanded desk top. Or you > could add a four head AGP card and save a PCI slot. > > Add Magma for 13 PCI slots this would give you up to 15 PCI slots. > > You can install 2GB of memory in the G4 and 4 HDs, plus external FW HDs. > 16GB of memory in the G5. You also have Gigabit Ethernet on both machines > standard, that might come in handy. You also have FireWire as an option > for audio I/O, and DSPs. FW actually works on a Mac. > > SX machine G5 Quad 2.5GHz with 16 GB of RAM, FW 400 & FW 800, USB 2, dual > HDs, dual head video, if you needed more monitors you could add a 4 head > AGP or add a dual PCI-E card. > > Add the Magma and add your cards. > > You can delete all the software you don't want. If your talking about stripping > out the system software, I wouldn't do it!, but there are people that can. > You can simply turn off the extensions on the O/S 9 machine, or you can > throw the stuff away you don't want like the printer drivers or language > libraries, etc. > > I think it would work, and I think you would find in time, that it would > work trouble free for the most part. I think it would be rock solid and > run smooth. But I think your system works for you, so why change. > > James > > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: > >>PC guys > >>here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > >conflicts, > >>dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > >>you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > > > >OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set up > >two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if > >everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to know. > My > >Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 > >(neither price includes montors or audio hardware). > > > >You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it > >will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. The > >Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G CPU, > 4 > >G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma > >chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 Magma) > >and three video heads. > > > >I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, (properly > >meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did not > >put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had > >total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I encountered > >until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just > >lots of options when I needed them while I configured the > >system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be > >sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS handed > >to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and > I'm > >expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like you > >can with Windows? I'm curious. > > > >Regards, > > > >Deej > > > > > >. > > > > > > > >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:44934f4e$1@linux... > >> > >> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said > so > >here > >> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare > a > >> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. > >The > >> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray > >dash. > >> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for > it > >> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy > >aluminum > >> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the > >Mac! > >> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the quantities > >> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five times > >> more than Cadillacs. > >> > >> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, such > >> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much > time > >> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC guys > >> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > >conflicts, > >> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > >> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > >> > >> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go > >searching > >> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a > >program, > >> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti > >Spyware > >> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software > is > >> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the > >internet > >> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, > >what > >> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security > >administrator. > >> Macs are harder to hack. > >> > >> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation > >studies > >> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain > and > >> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and > >administrate. > >> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is > >lower > >> with macs. > >> > >> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time saved > >> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! > >> > >> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. > >> > >> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a Windows > >> box! > >> > >> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! > >> > >> I say use what works for you. > >> > >> James > >> > >> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >OK, my turn... > >> > > >> >>FADE IN: > >> >> > >> >>interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript > >> >>PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, > >> >>standing side by side between two computer monitors. > >> >> > >> >>MAC > >> >> > >> >>Hi, I'm a Mac. > >> >> > >> >>PC > >> >> > >> >>And I'm a PC. > >> >> > >> >>MAC > >> >> > >> >>I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built > >> >>like a PC with Intel chips & everything. > >> >> > >> >>PC > >> >> > >> >>Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as > >> >>much as a PC? > >> >> > >> >>MAC > >> >> > >> >>Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> > >> > > >> >FADE TO BLACK > >> > > > > >You know, the Mac / pc bash is pretty senseless, BUT, and this is a BIG "BUT", to say that Macs "work" is truly a fallacy. Many of my friends and colleagues are Mac users / owners, many of them the new generation, and they have as many problems with them crashing as do pc's, often more. They're computers, they crash...deal with it. -- Martin Harrington www.lendanear-sound.com "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:44934f4e$1@linux... > > I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said so > here > in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare a > Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. > The > Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray > dash. > Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for it > in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy > aluminum > alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the > Mac! > Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the quantities > that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five times > more than Cadillacs. > > There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, such > as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much time > spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC guys > here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > conflicts, > dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > > I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go > searching > for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a > program, > and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti > Spyware > software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software is > minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the > internet > and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, > what > does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security > administrator. > Macs are harder to hack. > > The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation > studies > in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain and > administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and > administrate. > Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is lower > with macs. > > So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time saved > and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! > > I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. > > I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a Windows > box! > > I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! > > I say use what works for you. > > James > > "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >> >>OK, my turn... >> >>>FADE IN: >>> >>>interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript >>>PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, >>>standing side by side between two computer monitors. >>> >>>MAC >>> >>>Hi, I'm a Mac. >>> >>>PC >>> >>>And I'm a PC. >>> >>>MAC >>> >>>I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >>>like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >>> >>>PC >>> >>>Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >>>much as a PC? >>> >>>MAC >>> >>>Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >> >>FADE TO BLACK >If you like it I'll send you the project file for it. You can have a look yourself. Cheers, Kim. "John" <no@no.com> wrote: > >Thanks a lot. I can listen to it tomorrow. Can you tell me what you did >to treat it? > >Thanks! >John > > >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>"uptown jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>Yes, indeed. >> >>...or, indeed, like the one Shania has. ;o) >> >>> >>>Jimmy >>> >>> >>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote >>> >>> and a nice tight bottom on it like the Shania one has. >>> >>> >>> >> >Heh, heh, heh........well, it is kinda like tricking out a hotrod sometimes I guess. I probably spend much more time tweaking this than is necessary just because it interests me. Anyway, you're certainly welcome to drop by anc take the jalopy for a test drive. As far as it not being necessary to strip anything out of the Mac OS, that's the exact mindset that I see with most Mac users........it seems to be an assumption that the Mac can do no wrong so why change it? The Mac OS is omnipotent and superior. I've played around with OS X here at the local Mac store and I agree that it's elegant, but there is a ton of crap that I would never use in a million years in an audio computer and the first thing I would want to do is to rip the superfulous crap right out of this OS.. I'm not criticizing you personally, but I can assure you that I never will think that a macrofunctional OS is going to be the best solution for a narrow function such as audio.........but then again, if I would never have to deal with another conflict/incompatibility issue, I might overlook the bloat. I remember your threads years ago about BEOS. I really wish this had survived. I was talking to the factory rep for the Muse Receptor the other day. We talked for a couple of hours. The Receptor uses a derivative of BEOS and from what I gathered in our conversation, BEOS is probably the best platform ever invented for audio apps. It's a shame it didn't fare well in the market and eventually dropped off the radar.. Despite my taking potshots at Macs (a lot), I'm not necessarily a Windows fan. I'd go to something different if I thought it was better. If Cubase SX and all of my peripherals would run on Linux, that's where I'd be right now. I've just seen the way Apple plays the corporate *hose the end user* game. It reminds me of Digidesign and the Cupertino faction has, at times, seemed to me to be at least the equal of the Redmond guys when it came to cutthroat tactics and greed, so considering the facade that Mac puts up to the public of being the *cool computer* it's just about the untimate in hypocracy, IMHO. ............but I keep telling myself........it's just a machine.........it's just a machine.......... ;o) Cheers, Deej ;o) "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44937365@linux... > > I wouldn't want to be in charge of supporting the setup you've got, > Deej. But your stories are great. > > The amount of time you've taken to just relate your tweaking adventures > is enough to pay for a fast Mac several times over, let alone the time > and money it took to actually do the tweaking, researching and buying of > more zippy stuff to hang off your hot rod. It's all very cool and more > power to you! Someday I will make a pilgrimage to your studio just to > bow in awe. > > I will say this: The latest version of Logic on a dual 2.5GHZ OSX mac > with the cool AU plugins I have is one amazing setup. It blows away what > I could accomplish in PARIS. It has a much better integrated work flow. > And it all only takes one Mac (Logic can split processes to additional > machines but I've never needed to do that with this rig). > > It took a long time to get here. But it's here. There's also a learning > curve (couple weeks) but I'm well past that. > > BTW, there is NO need to strip anything out of MacOSX for audio on this > machine. I can be online, run several other major programs, and be > working on a massive Logic project, no prob. Core audio, dood. ;^) It's > working pretty well. > > If I need to I can drop in up to 8GB RAM for more play room (I have > 2.5GB right now). This machine is two years old and rocks hard. It's > good to go for the next few years. > > There have still been a few Logic weirdnesses now and then, so there's > more development work to do. But nothing that's brought down the OS or > lost any work. > > I've enjoyed reading everyone's commercials. :^) > > Cheers, > -Jamie > http://www.JamieKrutz.com > > > > DJ wrote: > >> PC guys > >> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > > conflicts, > >> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > >> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > > > > OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set up > > two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if > > everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to know. My > > Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 > > (neither price includes montors or audio hardware). > > > > You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it > > will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. The > > Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G CPU, 4 > > G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma > > chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 Magma) > > and three video heads. > > > > I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, (properly > > meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did not > > put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had > > total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I encountered > > until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just > > lots of options when I needed them while I configured the > > system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be > > sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS handed > > to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and I'm > > expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like you > > can with Windows? I'm curious. > > > > Regards, > > > > Deej > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:44934f4e$1@linux... > >> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said so > > here > >> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare a > >> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. > > The > >> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray > > dash. > >> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for it > >> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy > > aluminum > >> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the > > Mac! > >> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the quantities > >> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five times > >> more than Cadillacs. > >> > >> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, such > >> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much time > >> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC guys > >> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > > conflicts, > >> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > >> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > >> > >> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go > > searching > >> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a > > program, > >> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti > > Spyware > >> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software is > >> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the > > internet > >> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, > > what > >> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security > > administrator. > >> Macs are harder to hack. > >> > >> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation > > studies > >> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain and > >> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and > > administrate. > >> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is > > lower > >> with macs. > >> > >> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time saved > >> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! > >> > >> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. > >> > >> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a Windows > >> box! > >> > >> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! > >> > >> I say use what works for you. > >> > >> James > >> > >> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >>> OK, my turn... > >>> > >>>> FADE IN: > >>>> > >>>> interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript > >>>> PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, > >>>> standing side by side between two computer monitors. > >>>> > >>>> MAC > >>>> > >>>> Hi, I'm a Mac. > >>>> > >>>> PC > >>>> > >>>> And I'm a PC. > >>>> > >>>> MAC > >>>> > >>>> I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built > >>>> like a PC with Intel chips & everything. > >>>> > >>>> PC > >>>> > >>>> Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as > >>>> much as a PC? > >>>> > >>>> MAC > >>>> > >>>> Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> > >>> FADE TO BLACK > > > >Do any of you Mac programming wizards have any idea if it's possible to make the newer UAD-1 plugins (v.4.3) like the Neve EQ (!!!) work in OS 9 w/ Paris? Am I just dreaming? GanttWell Deej, you would know more about the Magma and over loading, than I would. I sold them and SBS at one time, but never really used them. I did do tech support on them but it's been years and don't remember much. I think you questions about the Mac and the Magma could be answered better by Magma or on the PT NG. Mixing different types of PCI cards with different power requirements and filling a magma is questionable. There is only so much power and throughput Theoretically everything works, reality is a different story. "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >I'm all for ease of use...........so tell me, if I was using a Mac for my >native rig, do you think I could have use of all 13 PCI slots in the Magma? >If there are no IRQ's with the Mac, then does this translate that any PCI >card I put in any PCI slot is going to work with the Mac with no conflicts >with other PCI cards? The reason I ask is that with a 13 slot Magma, I can >use only 7 of the slots for UAD-1 cards due to IRQ conflicts and if I were >to actually use 7 of the 13 slots, there would be massive PCI bus overload. >This wouldn't happen on a Mac? I can fill up a Magma with whatever I want, >insert the host card into a PCI slot in a new G5 and all of the cards will >just work because it's a Mac? >Thanks, > >Deej > > > >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:44936c3c$1@linux... >> >> Well, yes and no. Would it be the same exact system for the same kind of >> money, no. Obviously your system is quite unique, so I think it is a >little >> unfair to ask if I could duplicate it exactly. I think you could have a >> similar setup with all Macs and I think it would work a lot more problem >> free. Price never seems the be too much of an object, so here it is. >> >> Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) you could also >upgrade >> to 1.8GHz G4 for more power. The G4 has 4 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot. >> >> Add a dual monitor PCI card for four monitors expanded desk top. Or you >> could add a four head AGP card and save a PCI slot. >> >> Add Magma for 13 PCI slots this would give you up to 15 PCI slots. >> >> You can install 2GB of memory in the G4 and 4 HDs, plus external FW HDs. >> 16GB of memory in the G5. You also have Gigabit Ethernet on both >machines >> standard, that might come in handy. You also have FireWire as an option >> for audio I/O, and DSPs. FW actually works on a Mac. >> >> SX machine G5 Quad 2.5GHz with 16 GB of RAM, FW 400 & FW 800, USB 2, dual >> HDs, dual head video, if you needed more monitors you could add a 4 head >> AGP or add a dual PCI-E card. >> >> Add the Magma and add your cards. >> >> You can delete all the software you don't want. If your talking about >stripping >> out the system software, I wouldn't do it!, but there are people that can. >> You can simply turn off the extensions on the O/S 9 machine, or you can >> throw the stuff away you don't want like the printer drivers or language >> libraries, etc. >> >> I think it would work, and I think you would find in time, that it would >> work trouble free for the most part. I think it would be rock solid and >> run smooth. But I think your system works for you, so why change. >> >> James >> >> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >> >>PC guys >> >>here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >> >conflicts, >> >>dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >> >>you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >> > >> >OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set up >> >two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if >> >everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to know. >> My >> >Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 >> >(neither price includes montors or audio hardware). >> > >> >You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it >> >will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. The >> >Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G >CPU, >> 4 >> >G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma >> >chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 >Magma) >> >and three video heads. >> > >> >I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, >(properly >> >meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did >not >> >put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had >> >total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I >encountered >> >until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just >> >lots of options when I needed them while I configured the >> >system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be >> >sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS >handed >> >to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and >> I'm >> >expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like >you >> >can with Windows? I'm curious. >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> >Deej >> > >> > >> >. >> > >> > >> > >> >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:44934f4e$1@linux... >> >> >> >> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said >> so >> >here >> >> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare >> a >> >> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. >> >The >> >> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray >> >dash. >> >> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for >> it >> >> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy >> >aluminum >> >> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the >> >Mac! >> >> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the >quantities >> >> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five >times >> >> more than Cadillacs. >> >> >> >> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, >such >> >> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much >> time >> >> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC >guys >> >> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >> >conflicts, >> >> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >> >> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >> >> >> >> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go >> >searching >> >> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a >> >program, >> >> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti >> >Spyware >> >> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software >> is >> >> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the >> >internet >> >> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, >> >what >> >> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security >> >administrator. >> >> Macs are harder to hack. >> >> >> >> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation >> >studies >> >> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain >> and >> >> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and >> >administrate. >> >> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is >> >lower >> >> with macs. >> >> >> >> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time >saved >> >> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! >> >> >> >> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. >> >> >> >> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a >Windows >> >> box! >> >> >> >> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! >> >> >> >> I say use what works for you. >> >> >> >> James >> >> >> >> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >OK, my turn... >> >> > >> >> >>FADE IN: >> >> >> >> >> >>interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript >> >> >>PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, >> >> >>standing side by side between two computer monitors. >> >> >> >> >> >>MAC >> >> >> >> >> >>Hi, I'm a Mac. >> >> >> >> >> >>PC >> >> >> >> >> >>And I'm a PC. >> >> >> >> >> >>MAC >> >> >> >> >> >>I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >> >> >>like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >> >> >> >> >> >>PC >> >> >> >> >> >>Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >> >> >>much as a PC? >> >> >> >> >> >>MAC >> >> >> >> >> >>Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >> >> > >> >> >FADE TO BLACK >> >> >> > >> > >> > >Rich, load that drive up as the ONLY drive on your 6195. Boot to a floppy (any 9x should work but ME boot floppy definitely works). Fdisk the 400GB drive in DOS mode. The methodology for creating and setting logical partitions (drives) is self-explanatory with the ME boot. When you go to format the drive, do that in DOS too. DOS may tell you that the formatted size is (or will be) something less than what you created but let it go. This process takes longer but you can walk away and do other things while the drive formats. Dubya PS... if you don't have an ME boot floppy, do a search for "ME boot floppy" on google.... there's a bunch of extractables on the web... dl and go.Thanks for the invite, Deej. Next time I'm down your way I'll try and stop by. Same here, if you get up to the front range please feel welcome to look me up. Speaking of BeOS, here's my Mac ad: ***** FADE IN: interior, dark, background ominous PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (young cute guy) facing camera, standing side by side between two computer monitors MAC Hi, I'm a Mac. PC Hi, I'm a PC. MAC I peed on BeOS. PC I killed it. Cut off its air supply! MAC Heh heh. PC Huh, huh, heh. PC Huh, heh, snort. Mac You wanna get a beer? PC OK. Fade to very black. ***** But anyway, on the topic of "stripping" OSX, what do you want to take out? It's not like OS9 or, apparently, MSWindows - in that you really don't need to strip it down to do audio work. Seriously. I can tell you it's just not a problem here. You can remove any apps you don't want, of course, if you need the HD space. You can get down and dirty with UNIX on the command line if you like. Or not if you're not into that. You can load a Mac up with a ton of cool stuff like Ivory, B4, Battery 2, Zebra, etc. etc. and run a truckload of plug-ins without breaking a sweat. You can also do video, graphics and animation production. Run your office (for example NeoOffice works great, it's a native version of Open Office). Monitor over-the-air HDTV at full resolution. Write software. Do internet browsing/email. That's all stuff I do with OSX. This box is a workhorse. BTW, you don't need to get stuck on having 4 (smaller?) screens. It might be possible to do that on the Mac (haven't looked into it), but two 24" Dells or two 30" Apple monitors is probably plenty. Heck, one of either of those is enough if you're running an app like Logic that can show any number of tracks in a mixer window and can have multiple mixer windows showing whatever you want arranged however you want. Logic takes great advantage of the screen space. I had two monitors but I'm down to one BIG monitor and I like it better for the software I'm using and the physical space available. (For Paris I liked having two smaller monitors because of the way the Paris interface is designed). If we get together I'll show you all the stuff running and hanging off this box. It's not in the same league with your Rube Goldbergian shrine but it's pretty amazing in its own right. OSX carries the weight in the studio right now and I am impressed with what Apple has achieved with it. Meanwhile, Linux keeps moving forward and that's exciting, too. Choice is good. Cheers, -Jamie http://www.JamieKrutz.com DJ wrote: > Heh, heh, heh........well, it is kinda like tricking out a hotrod sometimes > I guess. I probably spend much more time tweaking this than is necessary > just because it interests me. Anyway, you're certainly welcome to drop by > anc take the jalopy for a test drive. > > As far as it not being necessary to strip anything out of the Mac OS, that's > the exact mindset that I see with most Mac users........it seems to be an > assumption that the Mac can do no wrong so why change it? The Mac OS is > omnipotent and superior. I've played around with OS X here at the local Mac > store and I agree that it's elegant, but there is a ton of crap that I would > never use in a million years in an audio computer and the first thing I > would want to do is to rip the superfulous crap right out of this OS.. I'm > not criticizing you personally, but I can assure you that I never will think > that a macrofunctional OS is going to be the best solution for a narrow > function such as audio.........but then again, if I would never have to deal > with another conflict/incompatibility issue, I might overlook the bloat. > > I remember your threads years ago about BEOS. I really wish this had > survived. I was talking to the factory rep for the Muse Receptor the other > day. We talked for a couple of hours. The Receptor uses a derivative of BEOS > and from what I gathered in our conversation, BEOS is probably the best > platform ever invented for audio apps. It's a shame it didn't fare well in > the market and eventually dropped off the radar.. > > Despite my taking potshots at Macs (a lot), I'm not necessarily a Windows > fan. I'd go to something different if I thought it was better. If Cubase SX > and all of my peripherals would run on Linux, that's where I'd be right now. > I've just seen the way Apple plays the corporate *hose the end user* game. > It reminds me of Digidesign and the Cupertino faction has, at times, seemed > to me to be at least the equal of the Redmond guys when it came to cutthroat > tactics and greed, so considering the facade that Mac puts up to the public > of being the *cool computer* it's just about the untimate in hypocracy, > IMHO. > > ...........but I keep telling myself........it's just a machine.........it's > just a machine.......... > > ;o) > > Cheers, > > Deej > > > ;o) > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44937365@linux... >> I wouldn't want to be in charge of supporting the setup you've got, >> Deej. But your stories are great. >> >> The amount of time you've taken to just relate your tweaking adventures >> is enough to pay for a fast Mac several times over, let alone the time >> and money it took to actually do the tweaking, researching and buying of >> more zippy stuff to hang off your hot rod. It's all very cool and more >> power to you! Someday I will make a pilgrimage to your studio just to >> bow in awe. >> >> I will say this: The latest version of Logic on a dual 2.5GHZ OSX mac >> with the cool AU plugins I have is one amazing setup. It blows away what >> I could accomplish in PARIS. It has a much better integrated work flow. >> And it all only takes one Mac (Logic can split processes to additional >> machines but I've never needed to do that with this rig). >> >> It took a long time to get here. But it's here. There's also a learning >> curve (couple weeks) but I'm well past that. >> >> BTW, there is NO need to strip anything out of MacOSX for audio on this >> machine. I can be online, run several other major programs, and be >> working on a massive Logic project, no prob. Core audio, dood. ;^) It's >> working pretty well. >> >> If I need to I can drop in up to 8GB RAM for more play room (I have >> 2.5GB right now). This machine is two years old and rocks hard. It's >> good to go for the next few years. >> >> There have still been a few Logic weirdnesses now and then, so there's >> more development work to do. But nothing that's brought down the OS or >> lost any work. >> >> I've enjoyed reading everyone's commercials. :^) >> >> Cheers, >> -Jamie >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com >> >> >> >> DJ wrote: >>>> PC guys >>>> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >>> conflicts, >>>> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >>>> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >>> OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set > up >>> two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if >>> everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to > know. My >>> Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 >>> (neither price includes montors or audio hardware). >>> >>> You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it >>> will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. > The >>> Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G > CPU, 4 >>> G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma >>> chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 > Magma) >>> and three video heads. >>> >>> I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, > (properly >>> meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did > not >>> put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had >>> total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I > encountered >>> until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just >>> lots of options when I needed them while I configured the >>> system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be >>> sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS > handed >>> to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and > I'm >>> expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like > you >>> can with Windows? I'm curious. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Deej >>> >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:44934f4e$1@linux... >>>> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said > so >>> here >>>> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare > a >>>> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. >>> The >>>> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray >>> dash. >>>> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for > it >>>> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy >>> aluminum >>>> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the >>> Mac! >>>> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the > quantities >>>> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five > times >>>> more than Cadillacs. >>>> >>>> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, > such >>>> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much > time >>>> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC > guys >>>> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >>> conflicts, >>>> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >>>> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >>>> >>>> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go >>> searching >>>> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a >>> program, >>>> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti >>> Spyware >>>> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software > is >>>> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the >>> internet >>>> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, >>> what >>>> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security >>> administrator. >>>> Macs are harder to hack. >>>> >>>> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation >>> studies >>>> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain > and >>>> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and >>> administrate. >>>> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is >>> lower >>>> with macs. >>>> >>>> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time > saved >>>> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! >>>> >>>> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. >>>> >>>> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a > Windows >>>> box! >>>> >>>> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! >>>> >>>> I say use what works for you. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >>>>> OK, my turn... >>>>> >>>>>> FADE IN: >>>>>> >>>>>> interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript >>>>>> PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, >>>>>> standing side by side between two computer monitors. >>>>>> >>>>>> MAC >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, I'm a Mac. >>>>>> >>>>>> PC >>>>>> >>>>>> And I'm a PC. >>>>>> >>>>>> MAC >>>>>> >>>>>> I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >>>>>> like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >>>>>> >>>>>> PC >>>>>> >>>>>> Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >>>>>> much as a PC? >>>>>> >>>>>> MAC >>>>>> >>>>>> Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >>>>> FADE TO BLACK >>> > >IRQ's are part of the PCI standard far as I know. Mac's can't run PCI and not have them. They may be invisable to the user, but they have to be there for PCI to function. Like you I share a concern that no self-managing IRQ system is likely to deal with what you would be doing. I could be wrong. It would be an interesting test. If a Mac could do it I'd be impressed. I worked on Mac's for three years. Far as I know you can't tweak IRQ's... though there must be a way, as they are obviously controlled somewhere, but I suspect it would require a hack more than anything. Could be wrong. Cheers, Kim. "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >I'm all for ease of use...........so tell me, if I was using a Mac for my >native rig, do you think I could have use of all 13 PCI slots in the Magma? >If there are no IRQ's with the Mac, then does this translate that any PCI >card I put in any PCI slot is going to work with the Mac with no conflicts >with other PCI cards? The reason I ask is that with a 13 slot Magma, I can >use only 7 of the slots for UAD-1 cards due to IRQ conflicts and if I were >to actually use 7 of the 13 slots, there would be massive PCI bus overload. >This wouldn't happen on a Mac? I can fill up a Magma with whatever I want, >insert the host card into a PCI slot in a new G5 and all of the cards will >just work because it's a Mac? >Thanks, > >Deej > > > >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:44936c3c$1@linux... >> >> Well, yes and no. Would it be the same exact system for the same kind of >> money, no. Obviously your system is quite unique, so I think it is a >little >> unfair to ask if I could duplicate it exactly. I think you could have a >> similar setup with all Macs and I think it would work a lot more problem >> free. Price never seems the be too much of an object, so here it is. >> >> Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) you could also >upgrade >> to 1.8GHz G4 for more power. The G4 has 4 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot. >> >> Add a dual monitor PCI card for four monitors expanded desk top. Or you >> could add a four head AGP card and save a PCI slot. >> >> Add Magma for 13 PCI slots this would give you up to 15 PCI slots. >> >> You can install 2GB of memory in the G4 and 4 HDs, plus external FW HDs. >> 16GB of memory in the G5. You also have Gigabit Ethernet on both >machines >> standard, that might come in handy. You also have FireWire as an option >> for audio I/O, and DSPs. FW actually works on a Mac. >> >> SX machine G5 Quad 2.5GHz with 16 GB of RAM, FW 400 & FW 800, USB 2, dual >> HDs, dual head video, if you needed more monitors you could add a 4 head >> AGP or add a dual PCI-E card. >> >> Add the Magma and add your cards. >> >> You can delete all the software you don't want. If your talking about >stripping >> out the system software, I wouldn't do it!, but there are people that can. >> You can simply turn off the extensions on the O/S 9 machine, or you can >> throw the stuff away you don't want like the printer drivers or language >> libraries, etc. >> >> I think it would work, and I think you would find in time, that it would >> work trouble free for the most part. I think it would be rock solid and >> run smooth. But I think your system works for you, so why change. >> >> James >> >> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >> >>PC guys >> >>here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >> >conflicts, >> >>dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >> >>you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >> > >> >OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set up >> >two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if >> >everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to know. >> My >> >Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 >> >(neither price includes montors or audio hardware). >> > >> >You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it >> >will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. The >> >Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G >CPU, >> 4 >> >G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma >> >chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 >Magma) >> >and three video heads. >> > >> >I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, >(properly >> >meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did >not >> >put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had >> >total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I >encountered >> >until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just >> >lots of options when I needed them while I configured the >> >system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be >> >sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS >handed >> >to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and >> I'm >> >expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like >you >> >can with Windows? I'm curious. >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> >Deej >> > >> > >> >. >> > >> > >> > >> >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:44934f4e$1@linux... >> >> >> >> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said >> so >> >here >> >> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare >> a >> >> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. >> >The >> >> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray >> >dash. >> >> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for >> it >> >> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy >> >aluminum >> >> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the >> >Mac! >> >> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the >quantities >> >> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five >times >> >> more than Cadillacs. >> >> >> >> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, >such >> >> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much >> time >> >> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC >guys >> >> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >> >conflicts, >> >> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >> >> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >> >> >> >> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go >> >searching >> >> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a >> >program, >> >> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti >> >Spyware >> >> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software >> is >> >> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the >> >internet >> >> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, >> >what >> >> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security >> >administrator. >> >> Macs are harder to hack. >> >> >> >> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation >> >studies >> >> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain >> and >> >> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and >> >administrate. >> >> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is >> >lower >> >> with macs. >> >> >> >> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time >saved >> >> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! >> >> >> >> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. >> >> >> >> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a >Windows >> >> box! >> >> >> >> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! >> >> >> >> I say use what works for you. >> >> >> >> James >> >> >> >> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >OK, my turn... >> >> > >> >> >>FADE IN: >> >> >> >> >> >>interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript >> >> >>PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, >> >> >>standing side by side between two computer monitors. >> >> >> >> >> >>MAC >> >> >> >> >> >>Hi, I'm a Mac. >> >> >> >> >> >>PC >> >> >> >> >> >>And I'm a PC. >> >> >> >> >> >>MAC >> >> >> >> >> >>I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >> >> >>like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >> >> >> >> >> >>PC >> >> >> >> >> >>Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >> >> >>much as a PC? >> >> >> >> >> >>MAC >> >> >> >> >> >>Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >> >> > >> >> >FADE TO BLACK >> >> >> > >> > >> > >"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >If Cubase SX >and all of my peripherals would run on Linux, that's where I'd be right now. Oddly, that is actually where you are right now. The newsgroup runs on Linux. If I could get Paris to run on Linux I'd be there in a flash. Cheers, Kim.I've got to say I worked supporting Macs for three years, and they didn't seem magical never fail machines. They failed roughly as often as PC's... more in fact, though they did carry a higher workload. Like PC's, some Macs were wonderful and never stepped wrong. Others had a problem every month. Others would crash every day or two for no reason. Some arrived with faulty hardware. Most were fine. And some Mac users seemed to have trouble on any machine you gave them, while others tended to keep their machines running nicely, whatever you gave them. Not that I'm anti-mac. If they were the same price as PC's I'd probably own one. They do have benefits, but so does the PC. Anyhow, haven't we done all this... ? ;o) Cheers, Kim. "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >You know, the Mac / pc bash is pretty senseless, BUT, and this is a BIG >"BUT", to say that Macs "work" is truly a fallacy. >Many of my friends and colleagues are Mac users / owners, many of them the >new generation, and they have as many problems with them crashing as do >pc's, often more. >They're computers, they crash...deal with it. >-- >Martin Harrington >www.lendanear-sound.com > >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:44934f4e$1@linux... >> >> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said so >> here >> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare a >> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. >> The >> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray >> dash. >> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for it >> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy >> aluminum >> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the >> Mac! >> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the quantities >> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five times >> more than Cadillacs. >> >> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, such >> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much time >> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC guys >> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >> conflicts, >> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >> >> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go >> searching >> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a >> program, >> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti >> Spyware >> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software is >> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the >> internet >> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, >> what >> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security >> administrator. >> Macs are harder to hack. >> >> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation >> studies >> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain and >> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and >> administrate. >> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is lower >> with macs. >> >> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time saved >> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! >> >> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. >> >> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a Windows >> box! >> >> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! >> >> I say use what works for you. >> >> James >> >> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >>> >>>OK, my turn... >>> >>>>FADE IN: >>>> >>>>interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript >>>>PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, >>>>standing side by side between two computer monitors. >>>> >>>>MAC >>>> >>>>Hi, I'm a Mac. >>>> >>>>PC >>>> >>>>And I'm a PC. >>>> >>>>MAC >>>> >>>>I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >>>>like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >>>> >>>>PC >>>> >>>>Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >>>>much as a PC? >>>> >>>>MAC >>>> >>>>Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >>> >>>FADE TO BLACK >> > >http://www.bootdisk.com AA "Dubya Mark Wilson" <mark.xspam@avidrecording.com> wrote in message news:4493923f@linux... > Rich, load that drive up as the ONLY drive on your 6195. Boot to a floppy > (any 9x should work but ME boot floppy definitely works). Fdisk the 400GB > drive in DOS mode. The methodology for creating and setting logical > partitions (drives) is self-explanatory with the ME boot. > > When you go to format the drive, do that in DOS too. DOS may tell you > that > the formatted size is (or will be) something less than what you created > but let it go. > > This process takes longer but you can walk away and do other things while > the drive formats. > > Dubya > PS... if you don't have an ME boot floppy, do a search for "ME boot > floppy" > on google.... there's a bunch of extractables on the web... dl and go. > I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? http://www.polesoft.com/refer.htmlLOL! and that's mr. dumbass...where has the respect gone these days??? On 17 Jun 2006 07:22:05 +1000, "John" <no@no.com> wrote: > >Hey dumbass, gimmie a break. I stood outside and looked up the road for >3 hours and never saw him.... gimmie a break...jeez!!! > >hehe > >rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote: >>he said "3 hours up the road from you"...sheesh. i think you need to >>decompress a little. >> >>On 17 Jun 2006 04:04:13 +1000, "John" <no@no.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>where are you at? >>damn...if i had read these first i wouldn't have posted the other...apology accepted. On 17 Jun 2006 08:38:45 +1000, "john" <no@no.com> wrote: > >oops, sorrytruer words never spoken. .. On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:55:20 +1000, "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >You know, the Mac / pc bash is pretty senseless, BUT, and this is a BIG >"BUT", to say that Macs "work" is truly a fallacy. >Many of my friends and colleagues are Mac users / owners, many of them the >new generation, and they have as many problems with them crashing as do >pc's, often more. >They're computers, they crash...deal with it.>Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) ..............so how do you arrive at this conclusion? Unless it's an Altivec enabled program, it's gonna be 1.25GHz, isn't it? I've seen this kind of propaganda put out by Apple for years saying that the the "Magic Mac" CPU runs faster than an Intel or AMD CPU. I had an Intel PII 350 around here for a while and it was roughly equivalent to my G4 400MHz machine performance wise. Nothing special, to be sure. Thanks, Deej "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:44936c3c$1@linux... > > Well, yes and no. Would it be the same exact system for the same kind of > money, no. Obviously your system is quite unique, so I think it is a little > unfair to ask if I could duplicate it exactly. I think you could have a > similar setup with all Macs and I think it would work a lot more problem > free. Price never seems the be too much of an object, so here it is. > > Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) you could also upgrade > to 1.8GHz G4 for more power. The G4 has 4 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot. > > Add a dual monitor PCI card for four monitors expanded desk top. Or you > could add a four head AGP card and save a PCI slot. > > Add Magma for 13 PCI slots this would give you up to 15 PCI slots. > > You can install 2GB of memory in the G4 and 4 HDs, plus external FW HDs. > 16GB of memory in the G5. You also have Gigabit Ethernet on both machines > standard, that might come in handy. You also have FireWire as an option > for audio I/O, and DSPs. FW actually works on a Mac. > > SX machine G5 Quad 2.5GHz with 16 GB of RAM, FW 400 & FW 800, USB 2, dual > HDs, dual head video, if you needed more monitors you could add a 4 head > AGP or add a dual PCI-E card. > > Add the Magma and add your cards. > > You can delete all the software you don't want. If your talking about stripping > out the system software, I wouldn't do it!, but there are people that can. > You can simply turn off the extensions on the O/S 9 machine, or you can > throw the stuff away you don't want like the printer drivers or language > libraries, etc. > > I think it would work, and I think you would find in time, that it would > work trouble free for the most part. I think it would be rock solid and > run smooth. But I think your system works for you, so why change. > > James > > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: > >>PC guys > >>here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > >conflicts, > >>dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > >>you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > > > >OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set up > >two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if > >everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to know. > My > >Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 > >(neither price includes montors or audio hardware). > > > >You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it > >will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. The > >Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G CPU, > 4 > >G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma > >chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 Magma) > >and three video heads. > > > >I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, (properly > >meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did not > >put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had > >total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I encountered > >until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just > >lots of options when I needed them while I configured the > >system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be > >sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS handed > >to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and > I'm > >expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like you > >can with Windows? I'm curious. > > > >Regards, > > > >Deej > > > > > >. > > > > > > > >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:44934f4e$1@linux... > >> > >> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said > so > >here > >> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare > a > >> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. > >The > >> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray > >dash. > >> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for > it > >> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy > >aluminum > >> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the > >Mac! > >> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the quantities > >> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five times > >> more than Cadillacs. > >> > >> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, such > >> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much > time > >> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC guys > >> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > >conflicts, > >> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > >> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > >> > >> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go > >searching > >> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a > >program, > >> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti > >Spyware > >> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software > is > >> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the > >internet > >> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, > >what > >> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security > >administrator. > >> Macs are harder to hack. > >> > >> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation > >studies > >> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain > and > >> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and > >administrate. > >> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is > >lower > >> with macs. > >> > >> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time saved > >> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! > >> > >> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. > >> > >> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a Windows > >> box! > >> > >> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! > >> > >> I say use what works for you. > >> > >> James > >> > >> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >OK, my turn... > >> > > >> >>FADE IN: > >> >> > >> >>interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript > >> >>PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, > >> >>standing side by side between two computer monitors. > >> >> > >> >>MAC > >> >> > >> >>Hi, I'm a Mac. > >> >> > >> >>PC > >> >> > >> >>And I'm a PC. > >> >> > >> >>MAC > >> >> > >> >>I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built > >> >>like a PC with Intel chips & everything. > >> >> > >> >>PC > >> >> > >> >>Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as > >> >>much as a PC? > >> >> > >> >>MAC > >> >> > >> >>Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> > >> > > >> >FADE TO BLACK > >> > > > > >UAD v4.0 (and higher) for PC will only run on Win XP. They may have made the same change as far as OSX goes. The UAD-1 forum would be the place to look. http://www.chrismilne.com/uadforums/ "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote in message news:44938b30$1@linux... > > Do any of you Mac programming wizards have any idea if it's possible to make > the newer UAD-1 plugins (v.4.3) like the Neve EQ (!!!) work in OS 9 w/ Paris? > Am I just dreaming? > > GanttComponents can fail. Software can have bugs. As consumers we shouldn't put up with faulty components or buggy software from any supplier. Apple has built-in reporting software to catch and send crash reports with one click. I think that's a step in the right direction and I think it's contributed to making the OSX environment and apps more stable over time. Apple also regularly puts OS and security updates out that are a couple of clicks to install. EVERY company should buy Redstone Software's software testing app "Eggplant" - it runs on OSX and it can test software on any platform. I know of it because I wrote their first set of docs. Different commercial operating systems are built on different designs in order to provide what the designers consider to be advantages, and what marketing people hope to use to differentiate in the market within the commercial constraints of what the managers think will make them money. They each carry different sets of baggage from previous iterations. It would be a mistake to think, for example, that MacOSX and MSWindows are alike. Linux has less of a commercial constraint but the same idea applies, it has areas of differentiation. It would be a mistake to think that all operating systems are alike. MacOSX carries less baggage and has a more elegant design overall than the current and previous versions of MSWindows. That may not make a difference to a lot of folks. Which is totally OK. The fact that they are different doesn't mean you can't get a lot of work done with either system. But it matters to me. Given the choice, OSX is currently a better value because it's easier to support and has better core integration for the audio/video stuff that I do. What's not a better value is the limited choice for hardware to run OSX. You can't build your own box from commodity components. But if you compare to similar pre-built MSWindows boxes using similar quality parts, the price of a Mac is pretty close. In some cases slightly more, in some cases not. Either way, you're getting what I think is a more elegant system. As elegant as a BeOS system would be had it not been sabotaged? As elegant as an Amiga would be if it had had steady development to date? As elegant as an Atari ST would be if it had lived on? Hard to say. But as elegant as you can buy at the moment, perhaps until the media apps and environment catch up on Linux. As always, use what works for you, and don't be surprised if someone else uses something different for their own reasons. Whatever you decide to put up with, take advantage of, suffer with or enjoy, what matters here is making great music. No one will care in 100 years what OS you used, that's just for your comfort, but they might care about the music if you make it great. Cheers, -Jamie http://www.JamieKrutz.com Kim wrote: > I've got to say I worked supporting Macs for three years, and they didn't > seem magical never fail machines. They failed roughly as often as PC's... > more in fact, though they did carry a higher workload. > > Like PC's, some Macs were wonderful and never stepped wrong. Others had a > problem every month. Others would crash every day or two for no reason. Some > arrived with faulty hardware. Most were fine. And some Mac users seemed to > have trouble on any machine you gave them, while others tended to keep their > machines running nicely, whatever you gave them. > > Not that I'm anti-mac. If they were the same price as PC's I'd probably own > one. They do have benefits, but so does the PC. > > Anyhow, haven't we done all this... ? ;o) > > Cheers, > Kim. > > "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> You know, the Mac / pc bash is pretty senseless, BUT, and this is a BIG > >> "BUT", to say that Macs "work" is truly a fallacy. >> Many of my friends and colleagues are Mac users / owners, many of them the > >> new generation, and they have as many problems with them crashing as do > >> pc's, often more. >> They're computers, they crash...deal with it. >> -- >> Martin Harrington >> www.lendanear-sound.com >> >> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:44934f4e$1@linux... >>> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said > so >>> here >>> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare > a >>> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. > >>> The >>> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray > >>> dash. >>> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for > it >>> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy >>> aluminum >>> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the > >>> Mac! >>> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the quantities >>> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five times >>> more than Cadillacs. >>> >>> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, such >>> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much > time >>> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC guys >>> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >>> conflicts, >>> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >>> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >>> >>> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go > >>> searching >>> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a >>> program, >>> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti > >>> Spyware >>> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software > is >>> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the >>> internet >>> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, > >>> what >>> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security > >>> administrator. >>> Macs are harder to hack. >>> >>> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation > >>> studies >>> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain > and >>> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and >>> administrate. >>> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is lower >>> with macs. >>> >>> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time saved >>> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! >>> >>> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. >>> >>> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a Windows >>> box! >>> >>> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! >>> >>> I say use what works for you. >>> >>> James >>> >>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >>>> OK, my turn... >>>> >>>>> FADE IN: >>>>> >>>>> interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript >>>>> PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, >>>>> standing side by side between two computer monitors. >>>>> >>>>> MAC >>>>> >>>>> Hi, I'm a Mac. >>>>> >>>>> PC >>>>> >>>>> And I'm a PC. >>>>> >>>>> MAC >>>>> >>>>> I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >>>>> like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >>>>> >>>>> PC >>>>> >>>>> Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >>>>> much as a PC? >>>>> >>>>> MAC >>>>> >>>>> Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >>>> FADE TO BLACK >> >Hello I'm in need of an 80 pin cable for my Magma box, too. Would appreciate a contact where I could get one, too. Thanks Craig On 6/13/06 10:32 AM, in article 448ef6b5$1@linux, "Mike Audet" <mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com> wrote: > > Hi DJ, > > This guy said he could build one for me, but he wasn't sure of the specs > and couldn't guanatee it would be right. > > bobp at sierratechnologies dot com > > Maybe if you could send him pictures of one, he could comment on it with > more confidence. > > He wrote, "Pricing would be $61.65 for a 1.5 foot cable and it could ship > in 3-4 days ARO". > > Hope this helps, > > Mike > > > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >> I'm looking for an external ribbon cable to an older 32bit Magma chassis. >> The cable is an 80 pin microcentronics (MC80) and the part name is CBL2PCI. >> It's a 3M branded connector. >> >> Calls to Magma have been about as useless as tits on a boar hog. I spent > the >> best part of yesterday trying to source one on the net with no luck. Any >> suggestions as to where to find one or how to build one would be welcome. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Deej >> >> >Hopefully I'm remembering this correctly, but I believe Brian T did a comparison of Photoshop render tests between his dual dual cores at Lakewood and a new dual G5 (at the time, not a MacIntel) - the AMDs smoked it. We've had Macs for years, and that's the main reason I've stuck with a PC - just way faster for less money. All the Nuendo performance tests I've seen bear out the same results - just far more power to be had on a PC if you are willing to do some research and build a system (buying one from a DAW builder will run close the same as a Mac, but will be faster for the same money at least). No, Macs aren't crash prone, my wife's Mac kernel panics or locks up 3-5 times a day. The repair bill (a new motherboard - bad USB, I almost positive) would be $700 so we are hanging on until we can buy or build a new machine. Given the cost of a new Mac vs. building a new PC we are considering the cost of crossgrading all of her software too, just as an option to have more speed and lower maintenance costs. I don't have anything against Macs at all - if the new machines compete better in speed for the cost, we'll consider a Macintel. I bought a Mac when I got into Paris just because I wanted a simple config to run and go with - and it did offer that. However, Paris had issues and it crashed projects, but I found a workaround. After realizing how much power I gave up for the less cost (compared to plugin counts on PCs at the time), I went back to a PC. For folks that really like Macs better and don't need to squeeze every last ounce of power out of their investment, Macs are great machines. Oh, a little misnomer, Macs really are PCs...personal computers... :-) That would make a funny ad! Regards, Dedric On 6/17/06 7:20 AM, in article 44940347@linux, "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >> Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) > > .............so how do you arrive at this conclusion? Unless it's an Altivec > enabled program, it's gonna be 1.25GHz, isn't it? I've seen this kind of > propaganda put out by Apple for years saying that the the "Magic Mac" CPU > runs faster than an Intel or AMD CPU. I had an Intel PII 350 around here for > a while and it was roughly equivalent to my G4 400MHz machine performance > wise. Nothing special, to be sure. > > Thanks, > > Deej > > "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:44936c3c$1@linux... >> >> Well, yes and no. Would it be the same exact system for the same kind of >> money, no. Obviously your system is quite unique, so I think it is a > little >> unfair to ask if I could duplicate it exactly. I think you could have a >> similar setup with all Macs and I think it would work a lot more problem >> free. Price never seems the be too much of an object, so here it is. >> >> Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) you could also > upgrade >> to 1.8GHz G4 for more power. The G4 has 4 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot. >> >> Add a dual monitor PCI card for four monitors expanded desk top. Or you >> could add a four head AGP card and save a PCI slot. >> >> Add Magma for 13 PCI slots this would give you up to 15 PCI slots. >> >> You can install 2GB of memory in the G4 and 4 HDs, plus external FW HDs. >> 16GB of memory in the G5. You also have Gigabit Ethernet on both > machines >> standard, that might come in handy. You also have FireWire as an option >> for audio I/O, and DSPs. FW actually works on a Mac. >> >> SX machine G5 Quad 2.5GHz with 16 GB of RAM, FW 400 & FW 800, USB 2, dual >> HDs, dual head video, if you needed more monitors you could add a 4 head >> AGP or add a dual PCI-E card. >> >> Add the Magma and add your cards. >> >> You can delete all the software you don't want. If your talking about > stripping >> out the system software, I wouldn't do it!, but there are people that can. >> You can simply turn off the extensions on the O/S 9 machine, or you can >> throw the stuff away you don't want like the printer drivers or language >> libraries, etc. >> >> I think it would work, and I think you would find in time, that it would >> work trouble free for the most part. I think it would be rock solid and >> run smooth. But I think your system works for you, so why change. >> >> James >> >> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >>>> PC guys >>>> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >>> conflicts, >>>> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >>>> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >>> >>> OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set up >>> two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if >>> everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to know. >> My >>> Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 >>> (neither price includes montors or audio hardware). >>> >>> You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it >>> will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. The >>> Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G > CPU, >> 4 >>> G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma >>> chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 > Magma) >>> and three video heads. >>> >>> I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, > (properly >>> meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did > not >>> put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had >>> total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I > encountered >>> until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just >>> lots of options when I needed them while I configured the >>> system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be >>> sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS > handed >>> to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and >> I'm >>> expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like > you >>> can with Windows? I'm curious. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Deej >>> >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:44934f4e$1@linux... >>>> >>>> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said >> so >>> here >>>> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare >> a >>>> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. >>> The >>>> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray >>> dash. >>>> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for >> it >>>> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy >>> aluminum >>>> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the >>> Mac! >>>> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the > quantities >>>> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five > times >>>> more than Cadillacs. >>>> >>>> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, > such >>>> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much >> time >>>> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC > guys >>>> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >>> conflicts, >>>> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >>>> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >>>> >>>> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go >>> searching >>>> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a >>> program, >>>> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti >>> Spyware >>>> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software >> is >>>> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the >>> internet >>>> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, >>> what >>>> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security >>> administrator. >>>> Macs are harder to hack. >>>> >>>> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation >>> studies >>>> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain >> and >>>> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and >>> administrate. >>>> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is >>> lower >>>> with macs. >>>> >>>> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time > saved >>>> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! >>>> >>>> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. >>>> >>>> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a > Windows >>>> box! >>>> >>>> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! >>>> >>>> I say use what works for you. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> OK, my turn... >>>>> >>>>>> FADE IN: >>>>>> >>>>>> interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript >>>>>> PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, >>>>>> standing side by side between two computer monitors. >>>>>> >>>>>> MAC >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, I'm a Mac. >>>>>> >>>>>> PC >>>>>> >>>>>> And I'm a PC. >>>>>> >>>>>> MAC >>>>>> >>>>>> I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >>>>>> like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >>>>>> >>>>>> PC >>>>>> >>>>>> Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >>>>>> much as a PC? >>>>>> >>>>>> MAC >>>>>> >>>>>> Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >>>>> >>>>> FADE TO BLACK >>>> >>> >>> >> > >Hey Paris Pals! I am bringing the family to Florida for the week. Coming to Orlando Sunday and Monday then Jacksonville on Tuesday thru Friday. If any Parisites want to get together in the evenings, get in touch with Craig Mitchell in Orlando or leave a message for me at the Best Western, Jacksonville Beach. See ya! - Paul Artola Ellicott City, Maryland100 Greatest (Rock/Blues) Guitar Solos of all time? http://guitar.about.com/library/bl100greatest.htm I'll start things off... 1.) I'm surprised there's only a couple of the Steely Dan guys' solos in the list. 2.) "Highway Star" (coming in at #19), while cool, is NOT Ritchie Blackmore's best solo... the one from "Gates of Babylon" is. I don't see how ANY guitar player could fail to make that distinction. 3.) There's nothing from Ulrich Roth on the list? WTF? He's not so obscure that "The Sails of Charon" would escape the poll's scrutiny, is he? 4.) The list seems to reflect a rather pedestrian point of view. Discuss...A while back, when I was in the throes of configiring my native DAW, I decided to stick wityh Matrox and replace my dual (AGP and PCI) Matrox G450's with a Matrox P750. Thad (somewhat vociferously/emphatically) responded that I should abandon Matrox entirely and go with a GE-Force graphics card. I was reluctant because I wanted 3 monitors. Well, I've jumped through quite a few hoops to use the P750 and I really don't like it's method of allowing the use of 3 x monitors. It's much better implemented when using two G450's than it is with the P750, IMO. Still I was getting some wierdness when I had my LAN controller enabled and sometimes even when I didn't. Cutting back the number of monitors I had enabled to two helped this some, but I still had to have my LAN controller disabled in the BIOS..........and still, there would be an occasional screen freeze if I walked away from the computer for around 10 minutes. It wasn't a problem as long as I was continuously using the machine, but letting it sit idle fro a while would result in my returning to the project only to find my mouse frozen and requiring a hard reboot. I just installed a GEForce 5500 dual head. There is a big difference in the way the system is running. It's one of those things that you dont really notice until you install a piece of hardware that works better than another piece of hardware that you really didn't think was behaving badly. So far, so good. The system is operating very smoothly with the LAN controller enabled and since I was only using 2 monitors on my native system most of the time, I'm not really missing the 3rd video head. I may try adding as GEForce 5500 PCI card. I'm pretty impressed by this hardware. I also just upgraded my AMD 64 dual core 4200 CPU to a 4400. It's making a bit of difference in my higher track count projects. Sort of like providing that little more *oomph* to the system. Now I'm probably going to have to reauthoraze a bunch of NI VSTi's............oh well......... ;o)Hey Dedric, There actually have been periods of time where the new G5s were the fastest box on the block. But there's always something new coming out so it changes week to week. Any benchmark is just a snapshot of the moment, to be precluded by the next speed champion. AMD has come out with some very speedy processors, and more power to them! Same with Intel and IBM/Motorola. Right now my dual 2.5GHZ G5 is not the fastest box on the block. On the Mac side there's a quad G5 that's been out for a while, and shortly there will be dual and perhaps quad Intel Macs out. Intel and AMD will battle on, and so it continues. As the CPU race goes on, nothing has yet been able to make my dual G5 box obsolete for audio because it's already more than fast enough to run Logic with a ton of tracks and amazing plugins. For what I do, it's a faster system to work with than anything I've used before. This dual G5 box also runs quiet (huge improvement over the G4) and drives a big monitor (or two), stock. It handles vast and fast hard drives, tons of RAM, and has great i/o support. And it runs an elegant modern operating system that made a clean and necessary break with past Apple OS baggage, and has been steadily upgraded and improved by Apple, which I appreciate. All of which means I spend very little time dealing with the computer itself. Which means more time using it. Back to your point, what will be quite interesting will be comparing Intel Macs with Intel boxes running other operating systems. That, at least, reduces the variables. Or Intel Macs running OSX vs. the same Intel Mac running another OS (Apple's "Bootcamp" allows you to run other operating systems on Intel Mac hardware). Then performance gets down to OS design efficiencies in data handling and workflow. Cheers, -Jamie http://www.JamieKrutz.com Dedric Terry wrote: > Hopefully I'm remembering this correctly, but I believe Brian T did a > comparison of Photoshop render tests between his dual dual cores at Lakewood > and a new dual G5 (at the time, not a MacIntel) - the AMDs smoked it. We've > had Macs for years, and that's the main reason I've stuck with a PC - just > way faster for less money. > > All the Nuendo performance tests I've seen bear out the same results - just > far more power to be had on a PC if you are willing to do some research and > build a system (buying one from a DAW builder will run close the same as a > Mac, but will be faster for the same money at least). > > No, Macs aren't crash prone, my wife's Mac kernel panics or locks up 3-5 > times a day. The repair bill (a new motherboard - bad USB, I almost > positive) would be $700 so we are hanging on until we can buy or build a new > machine. Given the cost of a new Mac vs. building a new PC we are > considering the cost of crossgrading all of her software too, just as an > option to have more speed and lower maintenance costs. I don't have > anything against Macs at all - if the new machines compete better in speed > for the cost, we'll consider a Macintel. > > I bought a Mac when I got into Paris just because I wanted a simple config > to run and go with - and it did offer that. However, Paris had issues and > it crashed projects, but I found a workaround. After realizing how much > power I gave up for the less cost (compared to plugin counts on PCs at the > time), I went back to a PC. > > For folks that really like Macs better and don't need to squeeze every last > ounce of power out of their investment, Macs are great machines. > > Oh, a little misnomer, Macs really are PCs...personal computers... :-) > > That would make a funny ad! > > Regards, > Dedric > > On 6/17/06 7:20 AM, in article 44940347@linux, "DJ" > <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: > >>> Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) >> .............so how do you arrive at this conclusion? Unless it's an Altivec >> enabled program, it's gonna be 1.25GHz, isn't it? I've seen this kind of >> propaganda put out by Apple for years saying that the the "Magic Mac" CPU >> runs faster than an Intel or AMD CPU. I had an Intel PII 350 around here for >> a while and it was roughly equivalent to my G4 400MHz machine performance >> wise. Nothing special, to be sure. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Deej >> >> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:44936c3c$1@linux... >>> Well, yes and no. Would it be the same exact system for the same kind of >>> money, no. Obviously your system is quite unique, so I think it is a >> little >>> unfair to ask if I could duplicate it exactly. I think you could have a >>> similar setup with all Macs and I think it would work a lot more problem >>> free. Price never seems the be too much of an object, so here it is. >>> >>> Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) you could also >> upgrade >>> to 1.8GHz G4 for more power. The G4 has 4 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot. >>> >>> Add a dual monitor PCI card for four monitors expanded desk top. Or you >>> could add a four head AGP card and save a PCI slot. >>> >>> Add Magma for 13 PCI slots this would give you up to 15 PCI slots. >>> >>> You can install 2GB of memory in the G4 and 4 HDs, plus external FW HDs. >>> 16GB of memory in the G5. You also have Gigabit Ethernet on both >> machines >>> standard, that might come in handy. You also have FireWire as an option >>> for audio I/O, and DSPs. FW actually works on a Mac. >>> >>> SX machine G5 Quad 2.5GHz with 16 GB of RAM, FW 400 & FW 800, USB 2, dual >>> HDs, dual head video, if you needed more monitors you could add a 4 head >>> AGP or add a dual PCI-E card. >>> >>> Add the Magma and add your cards. >>> >>> You can delete all the software you don't want. If your talking about >> stripping >>> out the system software, I wouldn't do it!, but there are people that can. >>> You can simply turn off the extensions on the O/S 9 machine, or you can >>> throw the stuff away you don't want like the printer drivers or language >>> libraries, etc. >>> >>> I think it would work, and I think you would find in time, that it would >>> work trouble free for the most part. I think it would be rock solid and >>> run smooth. But I think your system works for you, so why change. >>> >>> James >>> >>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >>>>> PC guys >>>>> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >>>> conflicts, >>>>> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >>>>> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >>>> OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set up >>>> two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if >>>> everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to know. >>> My >>>> Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 >>>> (neither price includes montors or audio hardware). >>>> >>>> You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it >>>> will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. The >>>> Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G >> CPU, >>> 4 >>>> G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma >>>> chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 >> Magma) >>>> and three video heads. >>>> >>>> I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, >> (properly >>>> meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did >> not >>>> put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had >>>> total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I >> encountered >>>> until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just >>>> lots of options when I needed them while I configured the >>>> system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be >>>> sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS >> handed >>>> to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and >>> I'm >>>> expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like >> you >>>> can with Windows? I'm curious. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Deej >>>> >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:44934f4e$1@linux... >>>>> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said >>> so >>>> here >>>>> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare >>> a >>>>> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. >>>> The >>>>> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray >>>> dash. >>>>> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for >>> it >>>>> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy >>>> aluminum >>>>> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the >>>> Mac! >>>>> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the >> quantities >>>>> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five >> times >>>>> more than Cadillacs. >>>>> >>>>> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, >> such >>>>> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much >>> time >>>>> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC >> guys >>>>> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >>>> conflicts, >>>>> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If >>>>> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >>>>> >>>>> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go >>>> searching >>>>> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a >>>> program, >>>>> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti >>>> Spyware >>>>> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software >>> is >>>>> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the >>>> internet >>>>> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, >>>> what >>>>> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security >>>> administrator. >>>>> Macs are harder to hack. >>>>> >>>>> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation >>>> studies >>>>> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain >>> and >>>>> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and >>>> administrate. >>>>> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is >>>> lower >>>>> with macs. >>>>> >>>>> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time >> saved >>>>> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! >>>>> >>>>> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a >> Windows >>>>> box! >>>>> >>>>> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! >>>>> >>>>> I say use what works for you. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >>>>>> OK, my turn... >>>>>> >>>>>>> FADE IN: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript >>>>>>> PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, >>>>>>> standing side by side between two computer monitors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MAC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, I'm a Mac. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And I'm a PC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MAC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built >>>>>>> like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >>>>>>> much as a PC? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MAC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >>>>>> FADE TO BLACK >>>> >> >Good luck with the NI reauthorization stuff, Deej, it's a hassle. I ran into it when changing a hard drive. They should never key their system ID on something as likely to be changed out as a HD, IMO. Cheers, -Jamie http://www.JamieKrutz.com DJ wrote: > A while back, when I was in the throes of configiring my native DAW, I > decided to stick wityh Matrox and replace my dual (AGP and PCI) Matrox > G450's with a Matrox P750. Thad (somewhat vociferously/emphatically) > responded that I should abandon Matrox entirely and go with a GE-Force > graphics card. I was reluctant because I wanted 3 monitors. Well, I've > jumped through quite a few hoops to use the P750 and I really don't like > it's method of allowing the use of 3 x monitors. It's much better > implemented when using two G450's than it is with the P750, IMO. Still I was > getting some wierdness when I had my LAN controller enabled and sometimes > even when I didn't. Cutting back the number of monitors I had enabled to two > helped this some, but I still had to have my LAN controller disabled in the > BIOS..........and still, there would be an occasional screen freeze if I > walked away from the computer for around 10 minutes. It wasn't a problem as > long as I was continuously using the machine, but letting it sit idle fro a > while would result in my returning to the project only to find my mouse > frozen and requiring a hard reboot. > > I just installed a GEForce 5500 dual head. There is a big difference in the > way the system is running. It's one of those things that you dont really > notice until you install a piece of hardware that works better than another > piece of hardware that you really didn't think was behaving badly. > > So far, so good. The system is operating very smoothly with the LAN > controller enabled and since I was only using 2 monitors on my native system > most of the time, I'm not really missing the 3rd video head. I may try > adding as GEForce 5500 PCI card. I'm pretty impressed by this hardware. > > I also just upgraded my AMD 64 dual core 4200 CPU to a 4400. It's making a > bit of difference in my higher track count projects. Sort of like providing > that little more *oomph* to the system. Now I'm probably going to have to > reauthoraze a bunch of NI VSTi's............oh well......... > > ;o) > >One thing about Macs that appeals to me is the 64 bit OS which can use lots of RAM. Some of the best audio PCI hardware out there (RME) doesn't yet have 64 bit drivers, though the Fireface does. The new Mac specific Apogee boxes look like a very nice option for a native system. I think it's going to be another year, at least, before the Vista OS is burned in enough to bring the developers to the table with fully functional 64 bit drivers for the UAD-1 and RME PCI cards........so to my thinking, OSX has some advantages, depending on what hardware you're using. I can tell you this, a big a kludge as my system is here, what basically is happening is that I have two computers linked together in a manner that produces audio that, s I continue to refine my methods, sounds less and less like a digital system and more and more like the old analog sound that I grew up with and prefer. I know Paris is a big part of that, but so are the UAD-1 processors in the native machine. All in all, I guess this could be done with Logic or Cubase on a Mac, as well. I haven't paid too much attention to Cubase on a Mac. Is it as well integrated as Logic? Somehow I doubt it since Logic is owned by Apple.. Deej "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44944280@linux... > > Hey Dedric, > > There actually have been periods of time where the new G5s were the > fastest box on the block. But there's always something new coming out so > it changes week to week. Any benchmark is just a snapshot of the moment, > to be precluded by the next speed champion. AMD has come out with some > very speedy processors, and more power to them! Same with Intel and > IBM/Motorola. > > Right now my dual 2.5GHZ G5 is not the fastest box on the block. On the > Mac side there's a quad G5 that's been out for a while, and shortly > there will be dual and perhaps quad Intel Macs out. Intel and AMD will > battle on, and so it continues. > > As the CPU race goes on, nothing has yet been able to make my dual G5 > box obsolete for audio because it's already more than fast enough to run > Logic with a ton of tracks and amazing plugins. For what I do, it's a > faster system to work with than anything I've used before. > > This dual G5 box also runs quiet (huge improvement over the G4) and > drives a big monitor (or two), stock. It handles vast and fast hard > drives, tons of RAM, and has great i/o support. And it runs an elegant > modern operating system that made a clean and necessary break with past > Apple OS baggage, and has been steadily upgraded and improved by Apple, > which I appreciate. > > All of which means I spend very little time dealing with the computer > itself. Which means more time using it. > > Back to your point, what will be quite interesting will be comparing > Intel Macs with Intel boxes running other operating systems. That, at > least, reduces the variables. > > Or Intel Macs running OSX vs. the same Intel Mac running another OS > (Apple's "Bootcamp" allows you to run other operating systems on Intel > Mac hardware). > > Then performance gets down to OS design efficiencies in data handling > and workflow. > > Cheers, > -Jamie > http://www.JamieKrutz.com > > > Dedric Terry wrote: > > Hopefully I'm remembering this correctly, but I believe Brian T did a > > comparison of Photoshop render tests between his dual dual cores at Lakewood > > and a new dual G5 (at the time, not a MacIntel) - the AMDs smoked it. We've > > had Macs for years, and that's the main reason I've stuck with a PC - just > > way faster for less money. > > > > All the Nuendo performance tests I've seen bear out the same results - just > > far more power to be had on a PC if you are willing to do some research and > > build a system (buying one from a DAW builder will run close the same as a > > Mac, but will be faster for the same money at least). > > > > No, Macs aren't crash prone, my wife's Mac kernel panics or locks up 3-5 > > times a day. The repair bill (a new motherboard - bad USB, I almost > > positive) would be $700 so we are hanging on until we can buy or build a new > > machine. Given the cost of a new Mac vs. building a new PC we are > > considering the cost of crossgrading all of her software too, just as an > > option to have more speed and lower maintenance costs. I don't have > > anything against Macs at all - if the new machines compete better in speed > > for the cost, we'll consider a Macintel. > > > > I bought a Mac when I got into Paris just because I wanted a simple config > > to run and go with - and it did offer that. However, Paris had issues and > > it crashed projects, but I found a workaround. After realizing how much > > power I gave up for the less cost (compared to plugin counts on PCs at the > > time), I went back to a PC. > > > > For folks that really like Macs better and don't need to squeeze every last > > ounce of power out of their investment, Macs are great machines. > > > > Oh, a little misnomer, Macs really are PCs...personal computers... :-) > > > > That would make a funny ad! > > > > Regards, > > Dedric > > > > On 6/17/06 7:20 AM, in article 44940347@linux, "DJ" > > <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: > > > >>> Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) > >> .............so how do you arrive at this conclusion? Unless it's an Altivec > >> enabled program, it's gonna be 1.25GHz, isn't it? I've seen this kind of > >> propaganda put out by Apple for years saying that the the "Magic Mac" CPU > >> runs faster than an Intel or AMD CPU. I had an Intel PII 350 around here for > >> a while and it was roughly equivalent to my G4 400MHz machine performance > >> wise. Nothing special, to be sure. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Deej > >> > >> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:44936c3c$1@linux... > >>> Well, yes and no. Would it be the same exact system for the same kind of > >>> money, no. Obviously your system is quite unique, so I think it is a > >> little > >>> unfair to ask if I could duplicate it exactly. I think you could have a > >>> similar setup with all Macs and I think it would work a lot more problem > >>> free. Price never seems the be too much of an object, so here it is. > >>> > >>> Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) you could also > >> upgrade > >>> to 1.8GHz G4 for more power. The G4 has 4 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot. > >>> > >>> Add a dual monitor PCI card for four monitors expanded desk top. Or you > >>> could add a four head AGP card and save a PCI slot. > >>> > >>> Add Magma for 13 PCI slots this would give you up to 15 PCI slots. > >>> > >>> You can install 2GB of memory in the G4 and 4 HDs, plus external FW HDs. > >>> 16GB of memory in the G5. You also have Gigabit Ethernet on both > >> machines > >>> standard, that might come in handy. You also have FireWire as an option > >>> for audio I/O, and DSPs. FW actually works on a Mac. > >>> > >>> SX machine G5 Quad 2.5GHz with 16 GB of RAM, FW 400 & FW 800, USB 2, dual > >>> HDs, dual head video, if you needed more monitors you could add a 4 head > >>> AGP or add a dual PCI-E card. > >>> > >>> Add the Magma and add your cards. > >>> > >>> You can delete all the software you don't want. If your talking about > >> stripping > >>> out the system software, I wouldn't do it!, but there are people that can. > >>> You can simply turn off the extensions on the O/S 9 machine, or you can > >>> throw the stuff away you don't want like the printer drivers or language > >>> libraries, etc. > >>> > >>> I think it would work, and I think you would find in time, that it would > >>> work trouble free for the most part. I think it would be rock solid and > >>> run smooth. But I think your system works for you, so why change. > >>> > >>> James > >>> > >>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: > >>>>> PC guys > >>>>> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > >>>> conflicts, > >>>>> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > >>>>> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > >>>> OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could set up > >>>> two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if > >>>> everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to know. > >>> My > >>>> Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 > >>>> (neither price includes montors or audio hardware). > >>>> > >>>> You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and it > >>>> will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. The > >>>> Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G > >> CPU, > >>> 4 > >>>> G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate Magma > >>>> chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 > >> Magma) > >>>> and three video heads. > >>>> > >>>> I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, > >> (properly > >>>> meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly did > >> not > >>>> put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I had > >>>> total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I > >> encountered > >>>> until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at all........just > >>>> lots of options when I needed them while I configured the > >>>> system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to be > >>>> sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS > >> handed > >>>> to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use and > >>> I'm > >>>> expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS like > >> you > >>>> can with Windows? I'm curious. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Deej > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> . > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:44934f4e$1@linux... > >>>>> I do believe Apple needs to come down on their pricing, and I've said > >>> so > >>>> here > >>>>> in the past. You get what you pay for though! If you were to compare > >>> a > >>>>> Hyundai or a KIA to a Cadillac, you have different pricing structures. > >>>> The > >>>>> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap gray > >>>> dash. > >>>>> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying for > >>> it > >>>>> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy > >>>> aluminum > >>>>> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of the > >>>> Mac! > >>>>> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the > >> quantities > >>>>> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five > >> times > >>>>> more than Cadillacs. > >>>>> > >>>>> There is other tangible and intangible value in the price of a Mac, > >> such > >>>>> as your time, Macs just work! Almost no down time, there's not much > >>> time > >>>>> spent on trying to get things to work. What is your time worth? PC > >> guys > >>>>> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware > >>>> conflicts, > >>>>> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. If > >>>>> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the Mac drivers are better, and they're built in. No need to go > >>>> searching > >>>>> for the drivers. The iLife software rocks! Figure about $100.00 a > >>>> program, > >>>>> and then figure in that they actually work! There is no need for Anti > >>>> Spyware > >>>>> software, pop up blocking software. The need for anti virus software > >>> is > >>>>> minimal, on a PC it is absolutely necessary if you are going on the > >>>> internet > >>>>> and down loading anything. Viruses still get buy the software on a PC, > >>>> what > >>>>> does time and lost data cost? On a mac you don't have to be a security > >>>> administrator. > >>>>> Macs are harder to hack. > >>>>> > >>>>> The united States Navy, Hues aircraft and Boeing did cost of operation > >>>> studies > >>>>> in the past. It was something like 6 IT guys per 100 PCs to maintain > >>> and > >>>>> administrate. It was 1 IT guy per 100 plus Macs to maintain and > >>>> administrate. > >>>>> Because of the lower labor costs, the over all costs for business is > >>>> lower > >>>>> with macs. > >>>>> > >>>>> So Macs do cost more initially, but that cost is offset by the time > >> saved > >>>>> and the rest of the above mentioned. You get what you pay for! > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the MacBook is a reasonable deal for what you get. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not saying a Mac is perfect, it just looks that way next to a > >> Windows > >>>>> box! > >>>>> > >>>>> I like my PCs too, I just know my Macs are better! > >>>>> > >>>>> I say use what works for you. > >>>>> > >>>>> James > >>>>> > >>>>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >>>>>> OK, my turn... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> FADE IN: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> interior, bright, spacious room, background non-descript > >>>>>>> PC (nerdy older guy) and MAC (younger guy) facing camera, > >>>>>>> standing side by side between two computer monitors. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> MAC > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi, I'm a Mac. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PC > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And I'm a PC. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> MAC > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I used to be different than him, but now I'm being built > >>>>>>> like a PC with Intel chips & everything. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PC > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as > >>>>>>> much as a PC? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> MAC > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> > >>>>>> FADE TO BLACK > >>>> > >> > >I thought it was keyed to the CPU, but apparently it's not. I just opened up Bandstand and B4II and they both played from my controller. TG for small favors ;o) "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:449443ad$1@linux... > > Good luck with the NI reauthorization stuff, Deej, it's a hassle. I ran > into it when changing a hard drive. They should never key their system > ID on something as likely to be changed out as a HD, IMO. > > Cheers, > -Jamie > http://www.JamieKrutz.com > > > DJ wrote: > > A while back, when I was in the throes of configiring my native DAW, I > > decided to stick wityh Matrox and replace my dual (AGP and PCI) Matrox > > G450's with a Matrox P750. Thad (somewhat vociferously/emphatically) > > responded that I should abandon Matrox entirely and go with a GE-Force > > graphics card. I was reluctant because I wanted 3 monitors. Well, I've > > jumped through quite a few hoops to use the P750 and I really don't like > > it's method of allowing the use of 3 x monitors. It's much better > > implemented when using two G450's than it is with the P750, IMO. Still I was > > getting some wierdness when I had my LAN controller enabled and sometimes > > even when I didn't. Cutting back the number of monitors I had enabled to two > > helped this some, but I still had to have my LAN controller disabled in the > > BIOS..........and still, there would be an occasional screen freeze if I > > walked away from the computer for around 10 minutes. It wasn't a problem as > > long as I was continuously using the machine, but letting it sit idle fro a > > while would result in my returning to the project only to find my mouse > > frozen and requiring a hard reboot. > > > > I just installed a GEForce 5500 dual head. There is a big difference in the > > way the system is running. It's one of those things that you dont really > > notice until you install a piece of hardware that works better than another > > piece of hardware that you really didn't think was behaving badly. > > > > So far, so good. The system is operating very smoothly with the LAN > > controller enabled and since I was only using 2 monitors on my native system > > most of the time, I'm not really missing the 3rd video head. I may try > > adding as GEForce 5500 PCI card. I'm pretty impressed by this hardware. > > > > I also just upgraded my AMD 64 dual core 4200 CPU to a 4400. It's making a > > bit of difference in my higher track count projects. Sort of like providing > > that little more *oomph* to the system. Now I'm probably going to have to > > reauthoraze a bunch of NI VSTi's............oh well......... > > > > ;o) > > > >Not including the solo from "Peg" is a major oversight. But that's pretty typical for that sort of crowd... Jimmy "Neil" <OIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:44942a06$1@linux... > > 100 Greatest (Rock/Blues) Guitar Solos of all time? > > http://guitar.about.com/library/bl100greatest.htm > > I'll start things off... > > 1.) I'm surprised there's only a couple of the Steely Dan guys' > solos in the list. > > 2.) "Highway Star" (coming in at #19), while cool, is NOT > Ritchie Blackmore's best solo... the one from "Gates of > Babylon" is. I don't see how ANY guitar player could fail to > make that distinction. > > 3.) There's nothing from Ulrich Roth on the list? WTF? He's not > so obscure that "The Sails of Charon" would escape the poll's > scrutiny, is he? > > 4.) The list seems to reflect a rather pedestrian point of view. > > Discuss... >On the Mac it's sorta 64 bit but not really. IOW, OSX GUI and OSX apps are currently 32 bit but there is underlying support for access to larger amounts of RAM, which as you point out is a great benefit. Being able to run everything on one computer and within one application is a huge workflow benefit. Whether a native system will give you the sound you want, I can't say. But using all native w/Logic does sound good to me, and my clients haven't complained. :^) I don't know how efficient Cubase is on OSX. When I was evaluating sequencers for the Mac, Logic got my $$. But Logic was efficient before Apple bought out eMagic, and it was efficient on other platforms before it came to OSX. There's no reason Cubase couldn't be efficient on OSX with core audio. Digital Performer also has a lot of fans. Cheers, -Jamie http://www.JamieKrutz.com DJ wrote: > One thing about Macs that appeals to me is the 64 bit OS which can use lots > of RAM. Some of the best audio PCI hardware out there (RME) doesn't yet have > 64 bit drivers, though the Fireface does. The new Mac specific Apogee boxes > look like a very nice option for a native system. I think it's going to be > another year, at least, before the Vista OS is burned in enough to bring the > developers to the table with fully functional 64 bit drivers for the UAD-1 > and RME PCI cards........so to my thinking, OSX has some advantages, > depending on what hardware you're using. I can tell you this, a big a kludge > as my system is here, what basically is happening is that I have two > computers linked together in a manner that produces audio that, s I continue > to refine my methods, sounds less and less like a digital system and more > and more like the old analog sound that I grew up with and prefer. I know > Paris is a big part of that, but so are the UAD-1 processors in the native > machine. All in all, I guess this could be done with Logic or Cubase on a > Mac, as well. I haven't paid too much attention to Cubase on a Mac. Is it as > well integrated as Logic? Somehow I doubt it since Logic is owned by Apple.. > > Deej > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44944280@linux... >> Hey Dedric, >> >> There actually have been periods of time where the new G5s were the >> fastest box on the block. But there's always something new coming out so >> it changes week to week. Any benchmark is just a snapshot of the moment, >> to be precluded by the next speed champion. AMD has come out with some >> very speedy processors, and more power to them! Same with Intel and >> IBM/Motorola. >> >> Right now my dual 2.5GHZ G5 is not the fastest box on the block. On the >> Mac side there's a quad G5 that's been out for a while, and shortly >> there will be dual and perhaps quad Intel Macs out. Intel and AMD will >> battle on, and so it continues. >> >> As the CPU race goes on, nothing has yet been able to make my dual G5 >> box obsolete for audio because it's already more than fast enough to run >> Logic with a ton of tracks and amazing plugins. For what I do, it's a >> faster system to work with than anything I've used before. >> >> This dual G5 box also runs quiet (huge improvement over the G4) and >> drives a big monitor (or two), stock. It handles vast and fast hard >> drives, tons of RAM, and has great i/o support. And it runs an elegant >> modern operating system that made a clean and necessary break with past >> Apple OS baggage, and has been steadily upgraded and improved by Apple, >> which I appreciate. >> >> All of which means I spend very little time dealing with the computer >> itself. Which means more time using it. >> >> Back to your point, what will be quite interesting will be comparing >> Intel Macs with Intel boxes running other operating systems. That, at >> least, reduces the variables. >> >> Or Intel Macs running OSX vs. the same Intel Mac running another OS >> (Apple's "Bootcamp" allows you to run other operating systems on Intel >> Mac hardware). >> >> Then performance gets down to OS design efficiencies in data handling >> and workflow. >> >> Cheers, >> -Jamie >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com >> >> >> Dedric Terry wrote: >>> Hopefully I'm remembering this correctly, but I believe Brian T did a >>> comparison of Photoshop render tests between his dual dual cores at > Lakewood >>> and a new dual G5 (at the time, not a MacIntel) - the AMDs smoked it. > We've >>> had Macs for years, and that's the main reason I've stuck with a PC - > just >>> way faster for less money. >>> >>> All the Nuendo performance tests I've seen bear out the same results - > just >>> far more power to be had on a PC if you are willing to do some research > and >>> build a system (buying one from a DAW builder will run close the same as > a >>> Mac, but will be faster for the same money at least). >>> >>> No, Macs aren't crash prone, my wife's Mac kernel panics or locks up 3-5 >>> times a day. The repair bill (a new motherboard - bad USB, I almost >>> positive) would be $700 so we are hanging on until we can buy or build a > new >>> machine. Given the cost of a new Mac vs. building a new PC we are >>> considering the cost of crossgrading all of her software too, just as an >>> option to have more speed and lower maintenance costs. I don't have >>> anything against Macs at all - if the new machines compete better in > speed >>> for the cost, we'll consider a Macintel. >>> >>> I bought a Mac when I got into Paris just because I wanted a simple > config >>> to run and go with - and it did offer that. However, Paris had issues > and >>> it crashed projects, but I found a workaround. After realizing how much >>> power I gave up for the less cost (compared to plugin counts on PCs at > the >>> time), I went back to a PC. >>> >>> For folks that really like Macs better and don't need to squeeze every > last >>> ounce of power out of their investment, Macs are great machines. >>> >>> Oh, a little misnomer, Macs really are PCs...personal computers... :-) >>> >>> That would make a funny ad! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dedric >>> >>> On 6/17/06 7:20 AM, in article 44940347@linux, "DJ" >>> <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >>> >>>>> Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) >>>> .............so how do you arrive at this conclusion? Unless it's an > Altivec >>>> enabled program, it's gonna be 1.25GHz, isn't it? I've seen this kind > of >>>> propaganda put out by Apple for years saying that the the "Magic Mac" > CPU >>>> runs faster than an Intel or AMD CPU. I had an Intel PII 350 around > here for >>>> a while and it was roughly equivalent to my G4 400MHz machine > performance >>>> wise. Nothing special, to be sure. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Deej >>>> >>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:44936c3c$1@linux... >>>>> Well, yes and no. Would it be the same exact system for the same kind > of >>>>> money, no. Obviously your system is quite unique, so I think it is a >>>> little >>>>> unfair to ask if I could duplicate it exactly. I think you could have > a >>>>> similar setup with all Macs and I think it would work a lot more > problem >>>>> free. Price never seems the be too much of an object, so here it is. >>>>> >>>>> Mac G4 1.25 GHz ( about equivalent to a P4 2.8 GHz) you could also >>>> upgrade >>>>> to 1.8GHz G4 for more power. The G4 has 4 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot. >>>>> >>>>> Add a dual monitor PCI card for four monitors expanded desk top. Or > you >>>>> could add a four head AGP card and save a PCI slot. >>>>> >>>>> Add Magma for 13 PCI slots this would give you up to 15 PCI slots. >>>>> >>>>> You can install 2GB of memory in the G4 and 4 HDs, plus external FW > HDs. >>>>> 16GB of memory in the G5. You also have Gigabit Ethernet on both >>>> machines >>>>> standard, that might come in handy. You also have FireWire as an > option >>>>> for audio I/O, and DSPs. FW actually works on a Mac. >>>>> >>>>> SX machine G5 Quad 2.5GHz with 16 GB of RAM, FW 400 & FW 800, USB 2, > dual >>>>> HDs, dual head video, if you needed more monitors you could add a 4 > head >>>>> AGP or add a dual PCI-E card. >>>>> >>>>> Add the Magma and add your cards. >>>>> >>>>> You can delete all the software you don't want. If your talking about >>>> stripping >>>>> out the system software, I wouldn't do it!, but there are people that > can. >>>>> You can simply turn off the extensions on the O/S 9 machine, or you > can >>>>> throw the stuff away you don't want like the printer drivers or > language >>>>> libraries, etc. >>>>> >>>>> I think it would work, and I think you would find in time, that it > would >>>>> work trouble free for the most part. I think it would be rock solid > and >>>>> run smooth. But I think your system works for you, so why change. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote: >>>>>>> PC guys >>>>>>> here are constantly fussing with their PCs, IRQ conflicts, hardware >>>>>> conflicts, >>>>>>> dll file issues, driver issues, malicious code and other headaches. > If >>>>>>> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. >>>>>> OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could > set up >>>>>> two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if >>>>>> everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to > know. >>>>> My >>>>>> Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 >>>>>> (neither price includes montors or audio hardware). >>>>>> >>>>>> You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and > it >>>>>> will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. > The >>>>>> Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G >>>> CPU, >>>>> 4 >>>>>> G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate > Magma >>>>>> chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 >>>> Magma) >>>>>> and three video heads. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, >>>> (properly >>>>>> meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly > did >>>> not >>>>>> put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I > had >>>>>> total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I >>>> encountered >>>>>> until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at > all........just >>>>>> lots of options when I needed them while I configured the >>>>>> system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to > be >>>>>> sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS >>>> handed >>>>>> to me that has ten tons of crap bundled with it that I'll never use > and >>>>> I'm >>>>>> expected to take or leave. Can you strip this stuff out of Mac OS > like >>>> you >>>>>> can with Windows? I'm curious. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Deej >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>><br /
Re: Hehehe!!!!.....success!!!! I may need to sacrifice a Behringer!!!!
t;>>>>>> Cadillac has a simulated birds eye maple dash, the KIA has a cheap > gray >>>>>> dash. >>>>>>> Do you need a fancy dash?, I don't know but your definitely paying > for >>>>> it >>>>>>> in the price of the Cadillac! Do you need a computer with a fancy >>>>>> aluminum >>>>>>> alloy case?, I don't know but you are paying for it in the price of > the >>>>>> Mac! >>>>>>> Macs also cost more because they are not mass produced in the >>>> quantities >>>>>>> that PCs are. It's like saying Ferraris suck because they cost five >>>> times >>>>>>> more than Cadillacs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is other tangibl
ow I'm being built >>>>>>>>> like a PC with Intel chips & everything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ummm... but you're still going to cost like three times as >>>>>>>>> much as a PC? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MAC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Uhhh... Yeah! <winks at camera> >>>>>>>> FADE TO BLACK > >Chech out these to guys jamming with only bass and drum machine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbReYWXSyjA&search=alvin% 20millsThanks for the info on this. I haven't ruled out getting a Macintel in the future. It would be nice to be able to access more RAM in Cubase SX. ;o) "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44944b6c@linux... > > On the Mac it's sorta 64 bit but not really. IOW, OSX GUI and OSX apps > are currently 32 bit but there is underlying support for access to > larger amounts of RAM, which as you p
oint out is a great benefit. > > Being able to run everything on one computer and within one application > is a huge workflow benefit. Whether a native system will give you the > sound you want, I can't say. But using all native w/Logic does sound > good to me, and my clients haven't complained. :^) > > I don't know how efficient Cubase is on OSX. When I was evaluating > sequencers for the Mac, Logic got my $$. But Logic was efficient before > Apple bought out eMagic, and it was efficient on other platforms before > it came to OSX. There's no reason Cubase couldn't be efficient on OSX > with core audio. Digital Performer also has a lot of fans. > > Cheers, > -Jamie > http://www.JamieKrutz.com > > > DJ wrote: > > One thing about Macs that appeals to me is the 64 bit OS which can use lots > > of RAM. Some of the best audio PCI hardware out there (RME) doesn't yet have > > 64 bit drivers, though the Fireface does. The new Mac specific Apogee boxes > > look like a very nice option for a native system. I think it's going to be > > another year, at least, before the Vista OS is burned in enough to bring the > > developers to the table with fully functional 64 bit drivers for the UAD-1 > > and RME PCI cards........so to my thinking, OSX has some advantages, > > depending on what hardware you're using. I can tell you this, a big a kludge > > as my system is here, what basically is happening is that I have two > > computers linked together in a manner that produces audio that, s I continue > > to refine my methods, sounds less and less like a digital system and more > > and more like the old analog sound that I grew up with and prefer. I know > > Paris is a big part of that, but so are the UAD-1 processors in the native > > machine. All in all, I guess this could be done with Logic or Cubase on a > > Mac, as well. I haven't paid too much attention to Cubase on a Mac. Is it as > > well integrated as Logic? Somehow I doubt it since Logic is owned by Apple.. > > > > Deej > > > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44944280@linux...
Re: More geek stuff-cascading digital signals through 3 x M-Audio Digipatch units.
> > If > >>>>>>> you want to fuss, cool, but time is money. > >>>>>> OK James. I would be really curious to know if you think you could > > set up > >>>>>> two Macs to work exactly like I've got my PC's working and tell me if > >>>>>> everything works perfectly first time. I would be really curious to > > know. > >>>>> My > >>>>>> Paris PC cost me about $500.00. My Native PC cost me around $700.00 > >>>>>> (neither price includes montors or audio hardware). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You will need a Mac for Paris (which I assume you've already got) and > > it > >>>>>> will need to have at least a 2G CPU, I G of RAM and 4 x video heads.. > > The > >>>>>> Native machine will need to be running Cubase SX and have a dual 2.5G > >>>> CPU, > >>>>> 4 > >>>>>> G RAM, 4 x UAD-1 cards 3 x RME HDSP cards running in two separate > > Magma > >>>>>> chassis' (unless you can somehow cram all of this into a mobo and 1 > >>>> Magma) > >>>>>> and three video heads. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I will admit it took a while to get this working properly on a PC, > >>>> (properly > >>>>>> meaning the *exact* way I had planned it to work) but it certainly > > did > >>>> not > >>>>>> put me out of business for one second or lose me any money because I > > had > >>>>>> total control of the OS and I could work around every glitch I > >>>> encountered > >>>>>> until I found the sweet spot. No downtime........none at > > all........just > >>>>>> lots of options when I needed them while I configured the > >>>>>> system..........and yes, there is some configuration time involved to > > be > >>>>>> sure, but I'm the one doing the configuring rather than having an OS > >>>> handed > >>>>>> to me that has ten tons of crap