Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Mac OSX running on a PC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61769 is a reply to message #61760] |
Thu, 22 December 2005 12:45   |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
, I just got this.. there be a comma in between that 512 and GB pardner
>>LOL
>>
>>AA
>>
>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43c315c1$1@linux...
>>>
>>> "Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>Just give it at least 512GB if you can...
>>>
>>> WOOHA!! That's a big swap file... or ram... or whatever it is you
>>> were
>>> saying. ;o)
>>>
>>> I assume you're saying give XP at least 512MB of ram?
>>
>>
> http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2006/SM-Pro-Audio-CT1.h tmlHI John,
Unless you have a dedicated drive just for a swap file which no one
except a server would really see any benefit from keep it on the C
drive. WE had good luck setting the MIn-Max to 1536 no matter what the
amount of ram was. You might want to think about going to 1 gig of ram
if you are using any VST/DX plug ins. If not then 512 should be fine.
Never put swap files on separate partitions on the same drive or on a
drive that is being used for other purposes.
Chris
John wrote:
> Running XP on Drive 1 and using drive 2 for Paris audio files, should I
> keep the swap file on drive 1 or should it go on drive 2? I have 512
> ram currently. Thanks,
> John
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762Hi Chris,
What motherboard are you using?
Chris
Chris Lang wrote:
> Hopefully, some of you experts can clear this up:
>
> I have PARIS on my home desktop, Windows XP Athlon AMD 1400.
> I have done all sorts of cleaning, tweaking, etc., and maxed
> out the RAM at 1GB. Despite all of this work, and the fact that
> it runs "only" about 26 processes at a time, the CPU load
> "idles" at about 50%. Wassup??????!!!!
>
> My laptop at work, a Compaq Evo N1000v, Pentium 4 XP, on which
> I have done no tweaking or cleaning, idles at 8-10% CPU load.
> This is with 41 processes running, including a lot of junk.
>
> I have tried two different programs, Spped Up My PC and Tweak
> XP, with no appreciable effect on the CPU load.
>
> Is it my McAfee Virus shi
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61770 is a reply to message #61759] |
Thu, 22 December 2005 12:50 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
eld thing? It doesn't show any
> activity, but is enabled. if I need to disable it, how can I
> continue to scan incoming e-mail?
>
> Any light shed on this would be most welcome!!!!
>
> Chris
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762HI Chas,
How are you doing?
Sense the upgrade from Wavelab 3 to 5 is only 299.00 direct from
Steinberg that would be the best way to go. You would probably be paying
close to that from somebody used. You will also at least be able to
register it and get support.
Any other programs that offer some sort of cross grade will end up cost
that much or more. The only one that is comparable in features, sound,
usability would be Samplitude.
Chris
Chas. Duncan wrote:
> Want to buy, acquire, own a copy of Wavelab 4.1... Have 3.1 here and
> would be glad to keep on using it, but I'm needing to move it to an XP
> box, and 3.1 doesn't do XP. Not really interested in the surround
> features and all the other complications of 5.0, and would like to
> avoid spending money on features I don't need or want -- just need to
> be doing that work under XP -- hence the search for 4.0...
>
> Any ideas? thanks -- Chas.
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762HI Dedric,
You dead on in your description.
Do you notice that it
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61771 is a reply to message #61760] |
Thu, 22 December 2005 12:54 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
sound better when rewired thru Nuendo?
Chris
Dedric Terry wrote:
> Using it here with Nuendo via rewire - works great. There are other synths
> and effects that sound better than comparable components in Reason, but for
> putting together electronica, dance, and even pop or rap rhythm tracks it's
> a cool app. It's also a great app to use for some composing work on the
> road on a laptop as it's cpu friendly - you can get a lot of tracks/sounds
> going pretty easily for sketching out ideas.
>
> Combinator patches are a bit more applicable for standalone synth use since
> you can layer/combine synths and effects to create broader and more dynamic
> sounds.
>
> For the money, it's a lot of fun, and can be quite useful. I believe the
> track for the show Alias was composed on a laptop with Reason, FWIW.
>
> I'm doing some tracks in it, but remixing in Nuendo for better reverbs, EQ,
> etc.
>
> Dedric
>
> On 1/6/06 10:44 AM, in article 43be9e63$1@linux, "Pete Ruthenburg"
> <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>So is anybody using this?Seems like it could be useful or is it
>>just popular with the electronica/dance crowd?Obviously the
>>orchestral type sounds don't compare to other libraries,but it
>>seems like you get alot for the money.
>>Or is that the selling point;alot of good but not great sounds
>>for the money.
>>
>>Pete
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762HI Lance,
It's even more fun to do this to a whole folder of files using the batch
converter.
Chris
Lance Reichert wrote:
> You can import a 24 bit stereo wav and export the file as an mp3
> without mixing down to 16 bit. Since I post online roughs for clients as
> mp3s,
> that's pretty darn handy.
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762K7T Turbo 2...
In response to Jeff's earlier question, the task manager
screen has a reading of the CPU load, as does the main
screen in the WinTask program; Tweak XP also agrees that
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61775 is a reply to message #61770] |
Thu, 22 December 2005 14:27 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
target="_blank">1@linux...
>>
>> A lot could be said here.
>>
>> I think you should talk him in to recutting the necessary parts, kind of
>> a, A mix/cut, B mix/cut. Tell him this wouldn't be redoing everything,
> this
>> would be giving him more options to choose from. Offer to do this for
> free,
>> tell him you just want the project to be all that it can be. Tell him
> you
>> know your stuff, and ask him to trust you. Tell him you'd feel much
> better
>> about the project this way. This would give him more choices, plus he
> would
>> have the final say anyways. Tell him that this would be a chance for you
>> to really show him what you can do (What you can really do for him!). If
>> he doesn't like it he won't have to use it, but you think more than likely
>> he would use at least some of the recuts.
>>
>> If he goes for it, do your own great mix and present it to him. Then tell
>> him that if he uses it you wouldn't want any extra credits. Hopefully he
>> will hear/see the light.
>>
>> I know you love your work, so doing extra work for free won't kill you,
> putting
>> out a piece of crap with your name on it would.
>>
>> Remember, it never goes quite the way you would like it to in life.
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>>
>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>>> I'm doing a mix here. We've got a lot of acoustic instruments goin on
> this
>>> mix and the client/producer/songwriter/arranger is sitting in on the mix
>>> making decisions as t6o which instruments he wants up in the holes in the
>>> mix, since we have many options. The players on this project are really
>> good
>>> and it's sorta' agonizing for him to sacrifice hearing one part when
> another
>>> equally good riff is being played on the same timeline and a decision has
>> to
>>> be made as to one or the other. Well, this is all part of the game and
> just
>>> takes time. What's making me nuts is that the client really respects
> these
>>> players. These guys, as good as they are, occasionally had a clam or two
>> as
>>> far as the number of notes that may have been played o
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61776 is a reply to message #61770] |
Thu, 22 December 2005 15:35 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ver a certain
> passage.
>>> He doesn't want to change this stuff our of *respect* for the
> performance.
>>> It just doesn't work in some cases and sounds like a trainwreck in
> others.
>> I
>>> can easily fix it in the editor, but he's uncomfortable with this. This
>> mix
>>> isn't going to work with certain of these unedited passages......it just
>>> won't........trust me. My problem is, and this is why I could never last
>>> long in a band, is that I *know* what needs to be done and everyone else
>> is
>>> wrong............am I right?
>>>
>>> ;o)
>>>
>>>
>
>Thanks Aaron- I'm on it. I know I have that Sony thing, because I can see
it on the list. Thanks for your help.
I'll post again in the morning after I try this...
"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>sheesh.. I mean * www.microsoft.com *
>
>"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>news:43c340ac$1@linux...
>> you got a spyware problem bro?
>>
>> Go to http:\\housecall.antivirus.com and scan the whole computer. Sounds
>> like a hidden process to me.
>> Also, go to www.micorosoft.com and get their sony rootkit tool if you
>> think there's even a "slight" chance you put a Sony audio CD in your drive
>> that has this malware built in
>>
>> AA
>>
>>
>>
>> "Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote in message news:43c33ec6$1@linux...
>>>
>>> OK, so I disabled all McAfee-related processes, and anything
>>> else that looked expendable. No effect. None. CPU load
>>> still hovering at 50+%. The task manager screen shows nothing
>>> happening; just System Idle. at 93-99. Yet somehow, the CPU
>>> load remains at 50+.
>>>
>>> Any other ideas? Thanks, Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> "Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>K7T Turbo 2...
>>>>
>>>>In response to Jeff's earlier question, the task manager
>>>>screen has a reading of the CPU load, as does the main
>>>>screen in the WinTask program; Tweak XP also agrees that
>>>>it is at 50%.
>>>>
>>>>I will try DJ's suggestion to disable all the McAfee stuff.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks to everyone for your input- Chris
>>&
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61777 is a reply to message #61769] |
Thu, 22 December 2005 15:04 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt;>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>>Hi Chris,
>>>>>What motherboard are you using?
>>>>>
>>>>>Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Chris Lang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully, some of you experts can clear this up:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have PARIS on my home desktop, Windows XP Athlon AMD 1400.
>>>>>> I have done all sorts of cleaning, tweaking, etc., and maxed
>>>>>> out the RAM at 1GB. Despite all of this work, and the fact that
>>>>>> it runs "only" about 26 processes at a time, the CPU load
>>>>>> "idles" at about 50%. Wassup??????!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My laptop at work, a Compaq Evo N1000v, Pentium 4 XP, on which
>>>>>> I have done no tweaking or cleaning, idles at 8-10% CPU load.
>>>>>> This is with 41 processes running, including a lot of junk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have tried two different programs, Spped Up My PC and Tweak
>>>>>> XP, with no appreciable effect on the CPU load.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it my McAfee Virus shield thing? It doesn't show any
>>>>>> activity, but is enabled. if I need to disable it, how can I
>>>>>> continue to scan incoming e-mail?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any light shed on this would be most welcome!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>ADK
>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>WOOHOO!!!
[chanted like ricky lake]
Go D.J... Go D.J... Go D.J... Go D.J...
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>He just left. I put the mix up that I did this afternoon. It differs quite
a
>bit from the one we did last night. I carved out the sloppy clams and
>retuned the notes that were butting heads that I thought would work for
what
>we were trying to achieve. I also did some comping of this and that and
>dropped it on the4 timeline where needed. I took him on a tour of both mixes
>and showed him exactly what I did and why.
>
>He loved it. We just finished remixing the song with a few more decisions
he
>made based on my basic groundwork. I think they were good decisions. His
>last words before leaving tonight were" OK man, you just go ahead and get
it
>done and call me when you feel like we're close. I trust your judgment."
>
>Life is good.
>
>:o)
>
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:43c31d75$1@linux...
>>
>> A lot could be said here.
>>
>> I think you should talk him in to recutting the necessary parts, kind
of
>> a, A mix/cut, B mix/cut. Tell him this wouldn't be redoing everything,
>this
>> would be giving him more options to choose from. Offer to do this for
>free,
>> tell him you just want the project to be all that it can be. Tell him
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61780 is a reply to message #61775] |
Thu, 22 December 2005 16:29 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ing, including a lot of junk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have tried two different programs, Spped Up My PC and Tweak
>>>>>>> XP, with no appreciable effect on the CPU load.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it my McAfee Virus shield thing? It doesn't show any
>>>>>>> activity, but is enabled. if I need to disable it, how can I
>>>>>>> continue to scan incoming e-mail?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any light shed on this would be most welcome!!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>>ADK
>>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>Hey Miguel,
Sorry I missed your post here...
You can go to http://www.shareit.com/product.html?productid=300031433
there you can buy it.
Then let me know and I post to Andrian your name and that you are a Paris
user !
Regards,
Dimitrios
"Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>Hello Dimitrios,
>
>Finally I'm ready to support your outstanding efforts to show support for
>Paris.
>
>I want to buy the Paris Wormhole version.
>
>How to do this?
>
>where Is the Chainer plug to buy?
>
>Happy New Year,
>
>
>
>El Miguel
>
>
>
>
>
>"Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote in message news:43b861cb$1@linux...
>>
>> I am really amazed as what Chainer can do with Paris.
>> Not only it is a very very stable VST chainer that can load and save its
>> own presets of your vst's on specific Paris tracks with exact vst own
>presets
>> on a push of a button but it can be handy for other things too.
>> One great thing is to use Chainer to achieve the "New York" type of
>mixing.
>> Means to have the unprocessed and the processed (heavily compressed and
>eq'ed)
>> version of the audio tracks at the same "no latency"
>> Of course for this you will be needing 0 latency VST compressors but most
>> of the VST compressors available including many freeones are 0 latency.
>> C1 from Waves (not Rcomp )
>> Dave Brown comp
>> Sonalksis
>> TC works from TC electronics
>> mda comp
>> D_limiter
>> Camelphatfree
>> Classic compressor
>> Neodynium
>> etc
>>
>> You can easily check if your favoured comp is 0 latency.
>> T-racks are not 0 latency (64 samples) same as Rcomp from waves.
>>
>> Now inside Chainer you do the following.
>> Put an input module on first slot.
>> Then your comp on second slot
>> Your EQ on third slot
>> Compress heavily and eq to taste...
>> Then put AGAIN on fourth slot the input module.
>> This adds again the "dry" sound along with your processed.
>> You can only imagine what you can do.
>> Thre-four compressors to really smash your sound then your EQ (all eq's
>are
>> 0 latency) you can use here the Paris VST eq if you like...
>> Thus by trimming the volumes you can add more or less dry or wet sound...
>> If you wanna do it on more than one drumtrack copy the chainer preset
to
>> hav
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61782 is a reply to message #61777] |
Thu, 22 December 2005 16:35 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>move to new york or florida.
On 10 Jan 2006 10:49:09 +1000, "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>LOL! Nice work guys.
>
>Funny, I never thought of roaches as pets... ;o)
>
>Cheers,
>Kim.
>
>"justcron" <pachinko@hydrorecords.com> wrote:
>>The website said they make good pets!
>>
>>:)
>>
>>all in good fun amigo.
>>
>>"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43c2e8e7@linux...
>>> Well, I must not have been good last year cuz when I asked justcron for
>
>>> only 3 presents (ski boat, jet ski and motocross, though I did add on
>some
>>> yorkville monitors and an allen and heath 16:2 mixwizard) he only sent
>me
>>> one and it wasn't even one of them on my list.
>>>
>>> Imagine my wife's surprise when she opened a fedex box with live "lobster"
>
>>> cochroaches. I just thank you for keeping them in a plastic container.
>
>>> It was hilarious to me but my wife was freaking out, seriously freaking
>
>>> out. Meanwhile I'm reading to her how they make great pets (according
>to
>>> the enclosed document) but she really didn't want to adopt them. Sorry.
>
>>> I mean you could have just sent a bag of primo weed (it's still not too
>
>>> late)! hehe
>>>
>>> Merry Christmas Justcron and I thought it was hilarous.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>these boots were made for talkin'
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:24:02 -0700, "DJ"
<animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>He just left. I put the mix up that I did this afternoon. It differs quite a
>bit from the one we did last night. I carved out the sloppy clams and
>retuned the notes that were butting heads that I thought would work for what
>we were trying to achieve. I also did some comping of this and that and
>dropped it on the4 timeline where needed. I took him on a tour of both mixes
>and showed him exactly what I did and why.
>
>He loved it. We just finished remixing the song with a few more decisions he
>made based on my basic groundwork. I think they were good decisions. His
>last words before leaving tonight were" OK man, you just go ahead and get it
>done and call me when you feel like we're close. I trust your judgment."
>
>Life is good.
>
>:o)
>
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:43c31d75$1@linux...
>>
>> A lot could be said here.
>>
>> I think you should talk him in to recutting the necessary parts, kind of
>> a, A mix/cut, B mix/cut. Tell him this wouldn't be redoing everything,
>this
>> would be giving him more options to choose from. Offer to do this for
>free,
>> tell him you just want the project to be all that it can be. Tell him
>you
>> know your stuff, and ask him to trust you. Tell him you'd feel much
>better
>> about the project this way. This would give him more choices, plus he
>would
>> have the final say anyways. Tell him that this would be a chance for you
>> to really show him what you can do (What you can really do for him!). If
>> he doesn't like it he won't have to use it, but you think more than likely
>> he would use at least some of the recuts.
>>
>> If he goes for it, do your own great mix and present it to him. Then tell
>> him that if he uses it you wouldn't want any extra credits. Hopefully he
>> will hear/see the light.
>>
>> I know you love your work, so doing extra work for free won't kill you,
>putting
>> out a piece of crap with your name on it would.
>>
>> Remember, it never goes quite the way you would like it to in life.
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>>
>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >I'm doing a mix here. We've got a lot of acoustic instruments goin on
>this
>> >mix and the client/producer/songwriter/arranger is sitting in on the mix
>> >making decisions as t6o which instruments he wants up in the holes in the
>> >mix, since we have many options. The players on this project are really
>> good
>> >and it's sorta' agonizing for him to sacrifice hearing one part when
>another
>> >equally good riff is being played on the same timeline and a decision has
>> to
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61795 is a reply to message #61780] |
Thu, 22 December 2005 22:42 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
to achieve. I also did some comping of this and that and
>dropped it on the4 timeline where needed. I took him on a tour of both mixes
>and showed him exactly what I did and why.
>
>He loved it. We just finished remixing the song with a few more decisions
he
>made based on my basic groundwork. I think they were good decisions. His
>last words before leaving tonight were" OK man, you just go ahead and get
it
>done and call me when you feel like we're close. I trust your judgment."
>
>Life is good.
>
>:o)
>
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:43c31d75$1@linux...
>>
>> A lot could be said here.
>>
>> I think you should talk him in to recutting the necessary parts, kind
of
>> a, A mix/cut, B mix/cut. Tell him this wouldn't be redoing everything,
>this
>> would be giving him more options to choose from. Offer to do this for
>free,
>> tell him you just want the project to be all that it can be. Tell him
>you
>> know your stuff, and ask him to trust you. Tell him you'd feel much
>better
>> about the project this way. This would give him more choices, plus he
>would
>> have the final say anyways. Tell him that this would be a chance for
you
>> to really show him what you can do (What you can really do for him!).
If
>> he doesn't like it he won't have to use it, but you think more than likely
>> he would use at least some of the recuts.
>>
>> If he goes for it, do your own great mix and present it to him. Then
tell
>> him that if he uses it you wouldn't want any extra credits. Hopefully
he
>> will hear/see the light.
>>
>> I know you love your work, so doing extra work for free won't kill you,
>putting
>> out a piece of crap with your name on it would.
>>
>> Remember, it never goes quite the way you would like it to in life.
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>>
>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >I'm doing a mix here. We've got a lot of acoustic instruments goin on
>this
>> >mix and the client/producer/songwriter/arranger is sitting in on the
mix
>> >making decisions as t6o which instruments he wants up in the holes in
the
>> >mix, since we have many options. The players on this project are really
>> good
>> >and it's sorta' agonizing for him to sacrifice hearing one part when
>another
>> >equally good riff is being played on the same timeline and a decision
has
>> to
>> >be made as to one or the other. Well, this is all part of the game and
>just
>> >takes time. What's making me nuts is that the client really respects
>these
>> >players. These guys, as good as they are, occasionally had a clam or
two
>> as
>> >far as the number of notes that may have been played over a certain
>passage.
>> >He doesn't want to change this stuff our of *respect* for the
>performance.
>> >It just doesn't work in some cases and sounds like a trainwreck in
>others.
>> I
>> >can easily fix it in the editor, but he's uncomfortable with this. This
>> mix
>> >isn't going to work with certain of these unedited passages......it just
>> >won't........trust me. My problem is, and this is why I could never last
>> >long in a band, is that I *know* what needs to be done and everyone else
>> is
>> >wrong............am I right?
>> >
>> >;o)
>> >
>> >
>
>Hi Chris,
I highly recommend the following piece of software:
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/
It works great and has removed crap from my kids' computer when no other
tool would work (even stuff I couldn't edit out with regedit by hand). It's
well worth the money and will likely resolve your issue.
I've followed your thread and it sounds to me like you've got a hidden process
running. Some of these things are so insidious that they're nearly impossible
to kill.
Spyware Doctor also provides near daily updates for free as it appears the
*&*%ers that write these "programs" never sleep.
I hope this helps!
Mark
"Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote:
>
>Hopefully, some of you experts can clear this up:
>
>I have PARIS on my home desktop, Windows XP Athlon AMD 1400.
>I have done all sorts of cleaning, tweaking, etc., and maxed
>out the RAM at 1GB. Despite all of this work, and the fact that
>it runs "only" about 26 processes at a time, the CPU load
>"idles" at about 50%. Wassup??????!!!!
>
>My laptop at work, a Compaq Evo N1000v, Pentium 4 XP, on which
>I have done no tweaking or cleaning, idles at 8-10% CPU load.
>This is with 41 processes running, including a lot of junk.
>
>I have tried two different programs, Spped Up My PC and Tweak
>XP, with no appreciable effect on the CPU load.
>
>Is it my McAfee Virus shield thing? It doesn't show any
>activity, but is enabled. if I need to disable it, how can I
>continue to scan incoming e-mail?
>
>Any light shed on this would be most welcome!!!!
>
>ChrisApple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster than the
G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top 15.3"
screen, that is 5 to 6 tomes faster than the current PowerBook. Pro app.
will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will be
$49.00.
JamesSorry about the type-O!
Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster than the
G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top 15.3"
screen, that is 5 to 6 times faster than the current PowerBook. Pro app.
will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will be
$49.00.
James
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster than
the
>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top 15.3"
>screen, that is 5 to 6 tomes faster than the current PowerBook. Pro app.
>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will be
>$49.00.
>
>JamesWow!! So, it finnaly happend!!
I sold my G4 last year because it was just too slow for my VSti
modern recording studio needs. Tok the money, and got a nice speedy PC..
Now, I'm Mac excited!!!
However, as excited as I am for Apple and it's new Macs, I'm wondering if
it's too late to the Party?
This move proves all they ney sayer's and Mac loverswrong in the speed arguments
over the years. Even worse is when Apple purchases
"James McCloskey" <Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61803 is a reply to message #61795] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 08:15 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
we like and listen to it however we
want to?
"DC" <dc@spamyermama.org> wrote:
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/060110164416.p4z0rn x6.html
>
>I find this disturbing and further, I think it ties directly into why so
>new and challenging music is being made.
>
>DCThank you again Matt Drudge.
I read that and I thought people are apathetic because music sucks so bad
nowadays.
"DC" <dc@spamyermama.org> wrote in message news:43c40c33$1@linux...
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/060110164416.p4z0rn x6.html
>
> I find this disturbing and further, I think it ties directly into why so
> new and challenging music is being made.
>
> DCHi Chris,
I think you have to actually purchase the software and then let it download
the latest updates before it will catch all the late-breaking variants.
After rebuilding my kids' PC for the 2nd time I went ahead and bought it
and they haven't had a single problem since.
You might want to call the folks at PC Tools to see if my previous statement
is correct. Their LiveUpdate utility has a new database available for me
nearly everyday so I'd ask.
Hope you find the culprit(s)!
Mark
"Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote:
>
>Thanks Mark, I tried it. Looks like a nice program. it found
>some stuff that the others did not. Cool.
>
>Still at 50% load. Sigh...
>
>
>"Mark McDermott" <mark@stateofwail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Chris,
>>
>>I highly recommend the following piece of software:
>>
>>http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/
>>
>>It works great and has removed crap from my kids' computer when no other
>>tool would work (even stuff I couldn't edit out with regedit by hand).
It's
>>well worth the money and will likely resolve your issue.
>>
>>I've followed your thread and it sounds to me like you've got a hidden
process
>>running. Some of these things are so insidious that they're nearly impossible
>>to kill.
>>
>>Spyware Doctor also provides near daily updates for free as it appears
the
>>*&*%ers that write these "programs" never sleep.
>>
>>I hope this helps!
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>"Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hopefully, some of you experts can clear this up:
>>>
>>>I have PARIS on my home desktop, Windows XP Athlon AMD 1400.
>>>I have done all sorts of cleaning, tweaking, etc., and maxed
>>>out the RAM at 1GB. Despite all of this work, and the fact that
>>>it runs "only" about 26 processes at a time, the CPU load
>>>"idles" at about 50%. Wassup??????!!!!
>>>
>>>My laptop at work, a Compaq Evo N1000v, Pentium 4 XP, on which
>>>I have done no tweaking or cleaning, idles at 8-10% CPU load.
>>>This is with 41 processes running, including a lot of junk.
>>>
>>>I have tried two different programs, Spped Up My PC and Tweak
>>>XP, with no appreciable effect on the CPU load.
>>>
>>>Is it my McAfee Virus shield thing? It doesn't show any
>>>activity, but is enabled. if I need to disable it, how can I
>>>continue to scan incoming e-mail?
>>>
>>>Any light shed on this would be most welcome!!!!
>>>
>>>Chris
>>
>I'm shocked, shocked! that you would choose to ignore the clear
effects of technology and commoditization upon the arts!
heh heh
Now, play some Alban Berg, or heck, some Morton Lauridsen or even
Barber before your next show and notice a few folks asking you
"what was that cool music?" afterwards.
I've done it, and you have to ask how anything other than
commodity-music gets any exposure today?
Know anyone that had a required music-appreciation course in
college who is under 40?
Even Adorno wasn't wrong about everything.
DC
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Blah blah blah. Fatigue of the machine age, the emptiness of modernity,
blah
>blah blah. I'm reading a book about the building of the trans-continental
>railway in the US. I'm sure the indentured Chinese laborers had a much "deeper
>emotional involvement with music" blah blah blah. Theodor Adorno wrote "The
>Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" in freaking 1936, so
blah
>blah blah can't we just go find music we like and listen to it however we
>want to?
>
>"DC" <dc@spamyermama.org> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/060110164416.p4z0rn x6.html
>>
>>I find this disturbing and further, I think it ties directly into why so
>>new and challenging music is being made.
>>
>>DC
>Thanks Mark, my message was unclear- I did purchase the program, and removed
the files it found. Again, seems like a great program, and I look forward
to using it to keep stuff from invading my space.
But I'm still at 50% load.
With computers as cheap as they are, I may just get a new DAW-only machine,
and then I won't have to worry about the crazy ol' web clogging up my PARIS
stuff...
Chris
"Mark McDermott" <mark@stateofwail.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>I think you have to actually purchase the software and then let it download
>the latest updates before it will catch all the late-breaking variants.
>
>After rebuilding my kids' PC for the 2nd time I went ahead and bought it
>and they haven't had a single problem since.
>
>You might want to call the folks at PC Tools to see if my previous statement
>is correct. Their LiveUpdate utility has a new database available for me
>nearly everyday so I'd ask.
>
>Hope you find the culprit(s)!
>
>Mark
>
>"Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote:
>>
>>Thanks Mark, I tried it. Looks like a nice program. it found
>>some stuff that the others did not. Cool.
>>
>>Still at 50% load. Sigh...
>>
>>
>>"Mark McDermott" <mark@stateofwail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hi Chris,
>>>
>>>I highly recommend the following piece of software:
>>>
>>>http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/
>>>
>>>It works great and has removed crap from my kids' computer when no other
>>>tool would work (even stuff I couldn't edit out with regedit by hand).
>It's
>>>well worth the money and will likely resolve your issue.
>>>
>>>I've followed your thread and it sounds to me like you've got a hidden
>process
>>>running. Some of these things are so insidious that they're nearly impossible
>>>to kill.
>>>
>>>Spyware Doctor also provides near daily updates for free as it appears
>the
>>>*&*%ers that write these "programs" never sleep.
>>>
>>>I hope this helps!
>>>
>>>Mark
>>>
>>>"Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hopefully, some of you experts can clear this up:
>>>>
>>>>I have PARIS on my home desktop, Windows XP Athlon AMD 1400.
>>>>I have done all sorts of cleaning, tweaking, etc., and maxed
>>>>out the RAM at 1GB. Despite all of this work, and the fact that
>>>>it runs "only" about 26 processes at a time, the CPU load
>>>>"idles" at about 50%. Wassup??????!!!!
>>>>
>>>>My laptop at work, a Compaq Evo N1000v, Pentium 4 XP, on which
>>>>I have done no tweaking or cleaning, idles at 8-10% CPU load.
>>>>This is with 41 processes running, including a lot of junk.
>>>>
>>>>I have tried two different programs, Spped Up My PC and Tweak
>>>>XP, with no appreciable effect on the CPU load.
>>>>
>>>>Is it my McAfee Virus shield thing? It doesn't show any
>>>>activity, but is enabled. if I need to disable it, how can I
>>>>continue to scan incoming e-mail?
>>>>
>>>>Any light shed on this would be most welcome!!!!
>>>>
>>>>Chris
>>>
>>
>Dimitrios- you said you found a bad video card that was eating
up 50% of your CPU load.
How did you discover that? Is there any way to know if my
nVidia card is doing the same thing? Or do i have to buy a
new one to find out?
Just curious,
Chris http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=st.util.pri nt"DC" <dc@spamamodernist.org> wrote:
>
> http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=st.util.pri nt
Gee, that's annoying. ;o)
Cheers,
Kim."Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Gee, that's annoying. ;o)
bwaah hah hah
off to jail with me then!"justcron" <pachinko@hydrorecords.com> wrote:
>I read that and I thought people are apathetic because music sucks so bad
>nowadays.
Hehe. Yes you could be on to something there also. Perhaps it's just a co-incidence
that the MP3's and downloading co-incided with the bad music. I'd be interested
to know if they bothered to seperate genres in the study to see if the effects
were actually universal to everyone with a player, or only to those
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61806 is a reply to message #61803] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 08:53 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
or. Saying that a new lap top with
two new generation Intel dual core 1.8 MHz processors, faster memory and
faster bussing, is 4x faster than a single 1.6 MHz G4 power book, shouldn't
surprise anybody.
The thing that bums me out is, they kept their price structure, which means
higher profits for Apple per unit, but smaller market share. And no new
computer for me for awhile
I'll wait for the iBook and Mac mini, should be April, or May. Hopefully
the pricing will be a lot better.
The thing that people should be excited about is the ability to run what
ever software you want on one machine. This way the hardware does not restrict
you. Or as my sister, the holder of a masters in computer science once
said, " I don't care what hardware I use, as long as it doesn't get in the
way of the software!"
I think it's a good start.
James
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Wow!! So, it finnaly happend!!
>
>I sold my G4 last year because it was just too slow for my VSti
>modern recording studio needs. Tok the money, and got a nice speedy PC..
>Now, I'm Mac excited!!!
>
>However, as excited as I am for Apple and it's new Macs, I'm wondering if
>it's too late to the Party?
>This move proves all they ney sayer's and Mac loverswrong in the speed arguments
>over the years. Even worse is when Apple purchases
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Sorry about the type-O!
>>
>>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster than
>the
>>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top 15.3"
>>screen, that is 5 to 6 times faster than the current PowerBook. Pro app.
>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will be
>>$49.00.
>>
>>James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster than
>>the
>>>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top 15.3"
>>>screen, that is 5 to 6 tomes faster than the current PowerBook. Pro app.
>>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will
be
>>>$49.00.
>>>
>>>James
>>
>I don't get the blog thing. I have yet to read one blog that makes me
want to go back. I just don't get it. Newgroups and chat rooms make
sense to me but I don't get blogs at all. oh well
DC wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> New blog about guitar, sound, and recording.
>
> Take a look.
>
> thanks
>
> DC
>
> http://dcguitarjournal.blogspot.com/Treat the comments section like a user group and it works better.
It's really a way to present a larger idea in a longer format without
posting something huge on a user group.
Just don't ANNOY me!
grrrr
snork
DC
John <no@no.com> wrote:
>I don't get the blog thing. I have yet to read one blog that makes me
>want to go back. I just don't get it. Newgroups and chat rooms make
>sense to me but I don't get blogs at all. oh well
>
>DC wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> New blog about guitar, sound, and recording.
>>
>> Take a look.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> DC
>>
>> http://dcguitarjournal.blogspot.com/Yes....no daughtercard.
"TC" <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote in message
news:43c435c7@linux...
> DJ wrote:
> > I sold one to a Parisite named will wilson about 3 years ago. You might
> > search the archives and see if you can find him.
> >
> > Deej
> >
> > "Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:43c3b280$1@linux...
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> Was that the one without the daughter card?
>
> I've got one EDS sitting here that has a non-functioning daughter card (no
eds effects work, but otherwise works normally).
> Cheers,
>
> TCThat's what i thought... Found a v.4 "competitive upgrade" in a box
for $167 -- gonna order that one...
chas.
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:24:53 -0700, EK Sound
<spamnot.info@eksoundNO.com> wrote:
>Except the price.... ridiculous!
>
>David.
>
>Martin Harrington wrote:
>> No Problems with V5I thought I already did? hehe
DC wrote:
> Treat the comments section like a user group and it works better.
>
> It's really a way to present a larger idea in a longer format without
> posting something huge on a user group.
>
> Just don't ANNOY me!
>
> grrrr
>
> snork
>
> DC
>
>
> John <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't get the blog thing. I have yet to read one blog that makes me
>>want to go back. I just don't get it. Newgroups and chat rooms make
>>sense to me but I don't get blogs at all. oh well
>>
>>DC wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>New blog about guitar, sound, and recording.
>>>
>>>Take a look.
>>>
>>>thanks
>>>
>>>DC
>>>
>>>http://dcguitarjournal.blogspot.com/
>
>Right, off to jail with you then!
John <no@no.com> wrote:
>I thought I already did? hehe
>
>DC wrote:
>> Treat the comments section like a user group and it works better.
>>
>> It's really a way to present a larger idea in a longer format without
>> posting something huge on a user group.
>>
>> Just don't ANNOY me!
>>
>> grrrr
>>
>> snork
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>> John <no@no.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't get the blog thing. I have yet to read one blog that makes me
>>>want to go back. I just don't get it. Newgroups and chat rooms make
>>>sense to me but I don't get blogs at all. oh well
>>>
>>>DC wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>New blog about guitar, sound, and recording.
>>>>
>>>>Take a look.
>>>>
>>>>thanks
>>>>
>>>>DC
>>>>
>>>>http://dcguitarjournal.blogspot.com/
>>
>>Hi Chris -- I'm hanging in there, and thanks for asking... Still
lurking around here and learning a thing or two about Paris usage from
time to time... Moved the Cubase side of my operation to SX3 on a
separate box a while ago, but staying with Paris for its tape-ness
and for its console-ness... (How's that for a hi-tech overview?)
As for Wavelab -- I just don't want all that surround and video stuff
cluttering up my life -- and I don't want to pay for stuff I probably
won't use... I found v.4 in a box (at B&H) for $167 -- as a
"competitive upgrade"... Might go that way -- but I'm wondering how
Steinberg may be handling the qualifying/verifying aspect of that sort
of deal as it concerns what is essentially an obsolete product...
Don't want to get that box open and then find out that Steinberg is no
longer in the business of un-locking v.4 in a transaction of this
type... Your thoughts?
And -- while I have your undivided attention -- I'm thinking about
getting a laptop setup with a lean and mean interface (the RME
Fireface, maybe) for live stuff... I'd run SX3 for recording at
24bitsx48k, then drag everything into Wavelab for batch conversion to
PAF's, then open in Paris, do the mojo, rinse and repeat... Question
for you, my good man, is: what's the cool laptop for this? Wanting to
run 12-16 inputs max, doing nothing but record (no messing around in
there with plugins, processing, nada)... Enlighten, if you can, and
thanks in advance -- Chas.
(and: where are you working these days, anyway?)
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:51:34 -0500, Chris Ludwig
<chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>HI Chas,
>How are you doing?
>
>Sense the upgrade from Wavelab 3 to 5 is only 299.00 direct from
>Steinberg that would be the best way to go. You would probably be paying
>close to that from somebody used. You will also at least be able to
>register it and get support.
>
>Any other programs that offer some sort of cross grade will end up cost
>that much or more. The only one that is comparable in features, sound,
>usability would be Samplitude.
>
>
>
>Chris
>
>
>Chas. Duncan wrote:
>
>> Want to buy, acquire, own a copy of Wavelab 4.1... Have 3.1 here and
>> would be glad to keep on using it, but I'm needing to move it to an XP
>> box, and 3.1 doesn't do XP. Not really interested in the surround
>> features and all the other complications of 5.0, and would like to
>> avoid spending money on features I don't need or want -- just need to
>> be doing that work under XP -- hence the search for 4.0...
>>
>> Any ideas? thanks -- Chas.Comments?
See below ------- for descriptions
2 audio Partitions
Use NTFS drives with 64k clusters
In BIOS disable USB, LPT1, Serial port
Remove Messenger
Classic Mode
Classic Start Menu
Disable Screen Savers
Power Schemes: you can have the monitor turn off but set Turn Hard
Drives off to NEVER
Disable Hibernation
Disable automatic update
Disable system restore
Disable the Computer Browser in Services to improve mapped drive browsing.
Disable your network card by right clicking on the nic icon
Defrag regularly
Keep your desktop clean
No wallpapers
No screensavers
Set video to highest color depth
Visual Effects for best performance
Processor Scheduling for Background Services
Uncheck Remote Assitance
Increase your IRQ priority
Turn off your visual effects
Disable Error Reporting
Disable Power Management
Set graphic acceleration to full
Disable your system sounds
Disable background applications
Specify your own virtual memory settings, If you have 512MB RAM or
higher set this to 384 for Min and Max on same drive as XP
Disable auto-insert notification
Disable USB
Graphical window settings
Remove Taskbar popup baloon
Speed up Menus
Disable offline files
Disable Internet Synchronise Time
Disable Hide Inactive Icons
Disable Automatic Desktop Cleanup Wizard
Disable NTFS Last Access Time Logging (NTFS Only)
Disable disc indexing
Maker sure DMA mode is enabled on drives
Do Not Map through Soundcard
Restart your machine at this point in time. When you come back the first
thing you should do is defrag the main drive even if it doesn't say it
needs it. This way the swap file has been truly set and you're ready to
continue.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------
Partitioning. A useful tip when configuring your audio disc, is to
split this into two partitions. Set up a smaller "audio scratch"
partition - say 6GB of a 30GB hard disc. This partition will be used for
the songs that you are currently working on. The benefit of a smaller
partition is obviously quicker defragmentation. If you use the entire
30GB as one partition, then this will take ages to defragment. When you
are finished with a song, transfer the audio files to the non-scratch
partition, where disc I/O performance isn't so critical.
Messenger starts up at the windows load up but we can get rid of that in
no time at all..
Start Menu>Run
Type this in exactly as it is here:
RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove
Hit Enter...you will see a DOS-like shell appear and disappear very
quickly and then it will ask you to restart.
Right-click on your desktop, and then click Properties.
Click on Themes tab
Set Themes to Windows Classic
Also do this for th
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61810 is a reply to message #61806] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 11:23 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
et to "full" to reduce the load on your CPU.
Disable your system sounds - Go to Start» Settings » Control Panel »
Sounds and select "No Sounds" as the sound scheme.
Disable background applications - Background applications start up when
your computer starts up and can use up unneccicary resources. To prevent
these from starting up go to Start » Run and type "msconfig" in the run
box. Click on the "startup tab" and disable (uncheck) programs such as
"taskmon", "load power profile", "real player", "office startup",
"winamp agent" and so on. Keep programs like "scan registry", "system
tray" and programs relating to interfacing with your audio card (such as
console software to control its features).
Specify your own virtual memory settings - You can tell Windows to set
your virtual memory settings to a fixed size so that it will not re-size
its swap file as you work (causing glitches with your audio). To do
this, right click on the "My Computer" icon on your desktop and select
"Properties". Click on the "Performance" tab and select "Virtual
Memory". Click on "Let me Specify my own virtual memory settings" and
for hard disk select your "working disk" (generally the fastest one you
use in your system for audio) and set the "minimum" RAM to twice the
amount of physical RAM in your system. If you have 256 megabyts, set it
to 512. The "Maximum" will already be set for you as the remainder of
the free space on your drive. Windows will warn you once you click "ok"
(ignore the warning) and you will have to reboot before the settings
take efect.
Disable auto-insert notification - Disabling this for all of your
CDROM/DVD-ROM/CDR drives will be benificial. To do this, right click on
the "My Computer" icon on your desktop and select "Properties". Click on
the "Device Manager" tab and locate your CD-ROM/DVD-ROM drives under the
CD-ROM section. Click on "Properties" for each drive and un-check "Auto
Instert Notification". You will likely have to reboot for these settings
to take effect.
Disable USB - If you do not have any devices actively using USB in your
system (this includes dongles for your software), disable USB as it is
known to sometimes cause problems in certain DAW configurations. Not
only will this help to increase system performance, but it will also
free up an IRQ. Right click on your "My Computer" icon on your desktop
and select "Properties". Click on the "Device Manager" tab and scroll
down until you see the USB section. Click on the "Properties" for the
USB device and check off "Disable in this Hardware Profile". You will
have to reboot for these settings to take effect.
Graphical window settings - Go to Start » Settings » Folder options and
click on the "View" tab. Under "Visual settings" check off "Show window
contents while dragging. This is more of a usability tweak, as it will
allow you to see the contents of windows on the screen as you drag them
around (instead of them going blank).
Now, let's stop that annoying balloon from popping up from our system
tray, Click Start , click Run , type regedit , and then press ENTER.
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\
CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced Right-click the right pane, create a
new DWORD value, and then name it EnableBalloonTips . Double-click this
new entry, and then give it a hexadecimal value of 0 . Quit Registry
Editor. Log off Windows, and then log back on.
Speed Up Menus
You can use this tip to speed up the Start Menu in Windows XP. You can
customize the speed of the Start Menu by editing a Registry Key. Click
Start, and then click Run. Type Regedit in the box, and then click OK.
Expand the menu in the left panel and select the
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop folder. Scroll down in the right
panel and double click on the MenuShowDelay file. In the Value Data box,
change to default value for the menu speed from 400 to a lesser number,
such as 1. Click OK.
Disable Offline Files. Start > Settings > Control Panel > Folder
Options > Offline Files > Untick "Enable Offline Files"
Disable Internet Synchronise Time -- Start > Settings > Control Panel >
Date and Time > Internet Time > Untick "Automatically synchronize with
an internet time server"
Disable Hide Inactive Icons, Start > Settings > Taskbar and Start Menu
> Taskbar TAB > Uncheck "Hide Inactive Icons"
Disable Automatic Desktop Cleanup Wizard, Start > Settings > Control
Panel > Display > Desktop > Customise Desktop > Untick "Run Desktop
Cleanup Wizard every 60 days"
Disable NTFS Last Access Time Logging (NTFS Only), Start > Run >
regedit > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > SYSTEM > CURRENTCONTROLSET > CONTROL >
FILESYSTEM Add a new DWORD value - "NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate"
(without quotes) and set the value to 1. Then reboot to make changes
effective
Disable Disc Indexing, Indexing Service is a service that extracts the
information from a set of documents and organizes it in a way that makes
it quick and easy to access that information through the Windows XP
Search function, the Indexing Service query form, or a Web browser.
This information can include text from within a document, (its
contents), and the characteristics and parameters of the document, (its
properties), such as the author's name. Once the index is created, you
can search, or query the index for documents that contain key words,
phrases, or properties.
Do Not Map Through Soundcard, Start > Settings > Control Panel > Sounds
and Audio Devices > Hardware Tab > (highlight your soundcard from the
list) > Properties > Audio Devices > (highlight your soundcard from the
list) > Properties, and check the "Do not map through this device"
checkbox.most excellent. can i take my pets with me?
DC wrote:
> Right, off to jail with you then!
>
>
> John <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>>I thought I already did? hehe
>>
>>DC wrote:
>>
>>>Treat the comments section like a user group and it works better.
>>>
>>>It's really a way to present a larger idea in a longer format without
>>>posting something huge on a user group.
>>>
>>>Just don't ANNOY me!
>>>
>>>grrrr
>>>
>>>snork
>>>
>>>DC
>>>
>>>
>>>John <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't get the blog thing. I have yet to read one blog that makes me
>
>
>>>>want to go back. I just don't get it. Newgroups and chat rooms make
>
>
>>>>sense to me but I don't get blogs at all. oh well
>>>>
>>>>DC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>New blog about guitar, sound, and recording.
>>>>>
>>>>>Take a look.
>>>>>
>>>>>thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>DC
>>>>>
>>>>>http://dcguitarjournal.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>Hi all,
I just upgraded a couple of plugins, namely Guitar Rig 2 and Amp Farm 3 and wanted to share a couple of brief observations.
I am extremely impressed with Amp Farm 3, although I only used one or two settings last night but played for a couple hours. It has a definite amp feel and response, especially for bluesy tones, which is mainly what I've tried so far. This is a big improvement over previous versions. The downside of course is that it's a TDM plug, but for those of you who also use TDM systems, it's worth checking out.
I was much less impressed with guitar rig 2, which sounded sterile by comparison. It's still a nice plugin, but seems to excel more in the effects and mic placement aspects, rather than amp emulation IMO. I'll have to fool around with it more. I've used GR 1 quite a bit, but this didn't feel like a big sonic leap to me yet.
Cheers,
TC"DC" <dc@spamyermama.org> wrote:
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/060110164416.p4z0rn x6.html
>
>I find this disturbing and further, I think it ties directly into why so
>new and challenging music is being made.
>
>DC
leaving out that word was annoying.
Off to jail!
-anonymousHI John,
Most of this info looks like it's from 98SE and windows 2000.
The tuning tips page on www.musicxp.net is all you really have to do.
Anything else will have no or very little positive impact.
Don't over tweak!!!
:)
Chris
John wrote:
> Comments?
>
>
> See below ------- for descriptions
>
> 2 audio Partitions
No Point at all. The second partition will be just as slow as if you
left the drive as a full partition. Also if you were trying to write to
both partitions at once your gonna kill the throughput of the drive big
time. You will also add to to the confusion of have to always be moving
files back and forth.
> Use NTFS drives with 64k clusters
Very Very minor difference.
> In BIOS disable USB, LPT1, Serial port
You shouldn't ever need to disable the USB ports unless your motherboard
is not functioning properly. I usually disable the serial port and LPT
sense I haven't used on of these in years.
> Remove Messenger
No point if it not running it is not effecting the system. Just disable
it from start when windows starts.
> Classic Mode
Only if you don't like the look of the new xp theme. You will save a
little bit of ram and thats about it. If you have a really old video
card then you might need to use this mode.
> Classic Start Menu
Ditto
> Disable Screen Savers
Yep
> Power Schemes: you can have the monitor turn off but set Turn Hard
yes
> Drives off to NEVER
yes
> Disable Hibernation
yes
> Disable automatic update
yes
> Disable system restore
yes but not until you are sure everything is running stable. Such as a
fresh install of xp.
Then just us drive imaging software to do roll backs.
> Disable the Computer Browser in Services to improve mapped drive browsing.
pointless
> Disable your network card by right clicking on the nic icon
Same as USB. Unless you are having specific issues with there is no
point. I personally would be able to work with out. At least not easily.
> Defrag regularly
Only system drive!!!!
> Keep your desktop clean
That will never happen ...:)
> No wallpapers
Makes no difference. You'll save a minor amount of ram.
> No screensavers
yep
> Set video to highest color depth
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61814 is a reply to message #61810] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 10:58 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ab under Performance Visual Affects tab:
> set to Adjust for Best Performance.
> Advanced tab: Processor Scheduling: Set this for Background Services
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Increase your IRQ priority - You can increase the IRQ priority of the
> real-time CMOS clock to gain some system performance by doing the
> following:
> 1.) First create a text file with the extension .reg
> 2.) Paste the following into the file:
>
> REGEDIT4
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Priorit yControl]
> "IRQ8Priority"=dword:00000001
>
> 3.) Double-click on the file to enter the tweak into your registry.
>
> This can be un-installed should you need to by repeating the three steps
> above with a new file, except this time use the following in your .reg
> file:
>
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Priorit yControl]
> "IRQ8Priority"=dword:00000000
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Turn off your visual effects (aka, eye-candy) - This can be done by
> going to "Control Panel" » "System" » "Advanced" » "Performance
> Settings" » "Visual Effects". Select "Custom" and deselect the visual
> effect options. Next, set the Windows theme to "Classic". It'll make
> your OS look a bit more boring (and less like a Barbie toy), by right
> clicking on your desktop, and selecting "Properties", select "Windows
> theme" and choose "Classic".
>
> Disable Error Reporting - You can use this for troubleshooting, but you
> can also disable it. Go to "Control Panel" » "System" » "Advanced" and
> choose "Disable" to disable error reporting.
>
> Disable Power Management - Power management can be disabled by going
> Start» Settings » Control Panel » Power Management. Set the Power Scheme
> to "Always On" and set "System Standby", "Turn off hard disks" and "Turn
> off monitor" to "Never".
>
> Disable Screen Savers - Screen savers can cause unexpected performance
> glitches, so you'll want to disable them. Disable any screen savers by
> right clicking on your desktop and right clicking » Click on
> "Properties" » Click on the "Screen Saver" tab and set it to "None".
>
> Set graphic acceleration to full - You can do this by going to your
> desktop, right clicking and clicking on "Properties" then on "Settings",
> "Advanced" and the "Performance" tab. Make sure the Hardware
> Acceleration slider is set to "full" to reduce the load on your CPU.
>
> Disable your system sounds - Go to Start» Settings » Control Panel »
> Sounds and select "No Sounds" as the sound scheme.
>
> Disable background applications - Background applications start up when
> your computer starts up and can use up unneccicary resources. To prevent
> these from starting up go to Start » Run and type "msconfig" in the run
> box. Click on the "startup tab" and disable (uncheck) programs such as
> "taskmon", "load power profile", "real player", "office startup",
> "winamp agent" and so on. Keep programs like "scan registry", "system
> tray" and programs relating to interfacing with your audio card (such as
> console software to control its features).
>
> Specify your own virtual memory settings - You can tell Windows to set
> your virtual memory settings to a fixed size so that it will not re-size
> its swap file as you work (causing glitches with your audio). To do
> this, right click on the "My Computer" icon on your desktop and select
> "Properties". Click on the "Performance" tab and select "Virtual
> Memory". Click on "Let me Specify my own virtual memory settings" and
> for hard disk select your "working disk" (generally the fastest one you
> use in your system for audio) and set the "minimum" RAM to twice the
> amount of physical RAM in your system. If you have 256 megabyts, set it
> to 512. The "Maximum" will already be set for you as the remainder of
> the free space on your drive. Windows will warn you once you click "ok"
> (ignore the warning) and you will have to reboot before the settings
> take efect.
>
> Disable auto-insert notification - Disabling this for all of your
> CDROM/DVD-ROM/CDR drives will be benificial. To do this, right click on
> the "My Computer" icon on your desktop and select "Properties". Click on
> the "Device Manager" tab and locate your CD-ROM/DVD-ROM drives under the
> CD-ROM section. Click on "Properties" for each drive and un-check "Auto
> Instert Notification". You will likely have to reboot for these settings
> to take effect.
>
> Disable USB - If you do not have any devices actively using USB in your
> system (this includes dongles for your software), disable USB as it is
> known to sometimes cause problems in certain DAW configurations. Not
> only will this help to increase system performance, but it will also
> free up an IRQ. Right click on your "My Computer" icon on your desktop
> and select "Properties". Click on the "Device Manager" tab and scroll
> down until you see the USB section. Click on the "Properties" for the
> USB device and check off "Disable in this Hardware Profile". You will
> have to reboot for these settings to take effect.
>
> Graphical window settings - Go to Start » Settings » Folder options and
> click on the "View" tab. Under "Visual settings" check off "Show window
> contents while dragging. This is more of a usability tweak, as it will
> allow you to see the contents of windows on the screen as you drag them
> around (instead of them going blank).
>
> Now, let's stop that annoying balloon from popping up from our system
> tray, Click Start , click Run , type regedit , and then press ENTER.
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\
> CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced Right-click the right pane, create a
> new DWORD value, and then name it EnableBalloonTips . Double-click this
> new entry, and then give it a hexadecimal value of 0 . Quit Registry
> Editor. Log off Windows, and then log back on.
>
> Speed Up Menus
> You can use this tip to speed up the Start Menu in Windows XP. You can
> customize the speed of the Start Menu by editing a Registry Key. Click
> Start, and then click Run. Type Regedit in the box, and then click OK.
> Expand the menu in the left panel and select the
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop folder. Scroll down in the right
> panel and double click on the MenuShowDelay file. In the Value Data box,
> change to default value for the menu speed from 400 to a lesser number,
> such as 1. Click OK.
>
> Disable Offline Files. Start > Settings > Control Panel > Folder
> Options > Offline Files > Untick "Enable Offline Files"
>
> Disable Internet Synchronise Time -- Start > Settings > Control Panel >
> Date and Time > Internet Time > Untick "Automatically synchronize with
> an internet time server"
>
> Disable Hide Inactive Icons, Start > Settings > Taskbar and Start Menu
> > Taskbar TAB > Uncheck "Hide Inactive Icons"
>
> Disable Automatic Desktop Cleanup Wizard, Start > Settings > Control
> Panel > Display > Desktop > Customise Desktop > Untick "Run Desktop
> Cleanup Wizard every 60 days"
>
> Disable NTFS Last Access Time Logging (NTFS Only), Start > Run >
> regedit > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > SYSTEM > CURRENTCONTROLSET > CONTROL >
> FILESYSTEM Add a new DWORD value - "NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate"
> (without quotes) and set the value to 1. Then reboot to make changes
> effective
>
> Disable Disc Indexing, Indexing Service is a service that extracts the
> information from a set of documents and organizes it in a way that makes
> it quick and easy to access that information through the Windows XP
> Search function, the Indexing Service query form, or a Web browser. This
> information can include text from within a document, (its contents), and
> the characteristics and parameters of the document, (its properties),
> such as the author's name. Once the index is created, you can search, or
> query the index for documents that contain key words, phrases, or
> properties.
>
> Do Not Map Through Soundcard, Start > Settings > Control Panel > Sounds
> and Audio Devices > Hardware Tab > (highlight your soundcard from the
> list) > Properties > Audio Devices > (highlight your soundcard from the
> list) > Properties, and check the "Do not map through this device"
> checkbox.
>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762You've noticed it. There are cheezy 3D everythings now. A frightening 3D rendered
version of Popeye. 3D commercial everythings. 3D knobs on VSTis. 3D desktops.
3D CGI effects everywhere.
Kids nowadays don't even have to read books and imagine for a second what
a real 3D world would be like. It's handed to them like a cheap dish of onion
fries!
Oh wait. We're in a real 3D world. I forgot.
**start again**
You've noticed it. There are cheezy 3D everythings now. A frightening 3D
car in your driveway. 3D stores and businesses, staffed with 3D people. Real
3D instruments, that make real noises. 3D desks. The entire world, once you
know what to look for (from studying modern 3D CGI effects) is in 3D!
Kids nowadays don't even have to look at 3D video games (much less red and
green lensed 3D glasses!) and imagine for a second what a real 3D world would
be like. It's handed to them like a cheap dish of onion fries!
This commodification of the 3D world is just cheapening the experience.
It's getting as bad as real stereo sound. I can remember when that 3D Stereophonic
Demonstration record was new - the one with the locomotive on it. Soon thereafter,
if a person happened to be next to a real train, the first thing they'd think
is, hey, that's almost as good a stereo effect as that locomotive on the
Stereo Demo Record!
Now, with everyone plugged into their iPods, stereo sound is just a cheapened
commodity!
But, seriously, the world of Simulated Reality has so infiltrated Authentic
Experience that few even notice it anymore.
It's curious that that article relates back to the 1800s, before Edison,
since that was when things were either Real or imagined through Reading.
The claims it makes for iPods strike me as bogus, since virtually the same
claims could be (and were) made for records, then radio broadcasts, then
television (first black and white, then, gasp! Color!), stereo, etc.
-steve the artguy
yes, I have a cold. That is my excuse.Thanks!
"Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
news:43c32ff7$1@linux...
> HI Lance,
> It's even more fun to do this to a whole folder of files using the batch
> converter.
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> Lance Reichert wrote:
>
> > You can import a 24 bit stereo wav and export the file as an mp3
> > without mixing down to 16 bit. Since I post online roughs for clients as
> > mp3s,
> > that's pretty darn handy.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Chris Ludwig
> ADK
> chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
> (859) 635-5762Chas. Duncan wrote:
> Hi Chris -- I'm hanging in there, and thanks for asking... Still
> lurking around here and learning a thing or two about Paris usage from
> time to time... Moved the Cubase side of my operation to SX3 on a
> separate box a while ago, but staying with Paris for its tape-ness
> and for its console-ness... (How's that for a hi-tech overview?)
A perfect description.
>
> As for Wavelab -- I just don't want all that surround and video stuff
> cluttering up my life -- and I don't want to pay for stuff I probably
> won't use... I found v.4 in a box (at B&H) for $167 -- as a
> "competitive upgrade"... Might go that way -- but I'm wo
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61815 is a reply to message #61810] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 11:57 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ndering how
> Steinberg may be handling the qualifying/verifying aspect of that sort
> of deal as it concerns what is essentially an obsolete product...
> Don't want to get that box open and then find out that Steinberg is no
> longer in the business of un-locking v.4 in a transaction of this
> type... Your thoughts?
I would call them. They haven;t made the competitive upgrade in awhile.
So I'm not sure how they would handle it.
I think this is the number you need to call. (877) 253 3900
>
> And -- while I have your undivided attention -- I'm thinking about
> getting a laptop setup with a lean and mean interface (the RME
> Fireface, maybe) for live stuff... I'd run SX3 for recording at
> 24bitsx48k, then drag everything into Wavelab for batch conversion to
> PAF's, then open in Paris, do the mojo, rinse and repeat... Question
> for you, my good man, is: what's the cool laptop for this? Wanting to
> run 12-16 inputs max, doing nothing but record (no messing around in
> there with plugins, processing, nada)... Enlighten, if you can, and
> thanks in advance -- Chas.
This system will work great for that.
http://www.adkproaudio.com/systems/saved_system.cfm?systemid =89&saved_id=7529
I can work a nice price if you are getting the Fireface at the same
time. We are RME's #3 independent dealer in the US.
You can use an external USB2 drive for transferring the files to Paris
or use the on board network.
If you want to use firewire to transfer files then use a Lacie firewire
card bus for either the drives or the Fireface 800.
The Fireface works and sounds excellent.
It by the way can be configured to work stand alone so you can use as an
AD/DA for Paris if you want too.
>
> (and: where are you working these days, anyway?)
>
>
Been working at ADK for a little over a year now.
Here is our client page to see what we are up to. It is couple months
out of date and haven;t had time to update it yet.
Give me a call (859) 635-5762
Chris
>
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:51:34 -0500, Chris Ludwig
> <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>>HI Chas,
>>How are you doing?
>>
>>Sense the upgrade from Wavelab 3 to 5 is only 299.00 direct from
>>Steinberg that would be the best way to go. You would probably be paying
>>close to that from somebody used. You will also at least be able to
>>register it and get support.
>>
>>Any other programs that offer some sort of cross grade will end up cost
>>that much or more. The only one that is comparable in features, sound,
>>usability would be Samplitude.
>>
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>Chas. Duncan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Want to buy, acquire, own a copy of Wavelab 4.1... Have 3.1 here and
>>>would be glad to keep on using it, but I'm needing to move it to an XP
>>>box, and 3.1 doesn't do XP. Not really interested in the surround
>>>features and all the other complications of 5.0, and would like to
>>>avoid spending money on features I don't need or want -- just need to
>>>be doing that work under XP -- hence the search for 4.0...
>>>
>>>Any ideas? thanks -- Chas.
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762Hey Mr T,
Damn liberal New Englander!!!
I thought Stalin got rid of all you intellectuals.
:)
Chris
TAB wrote:
> Blah blah blah. Fatigue of the machine age, the emptiness of modernity, blah
> blah blah. I'm reading a book about the building of the trans-continental
> railway in the US. I'm sure the indentured Chinese laborers had a much "deeper
> emotional involvement with music" blah blah blah. Theodor Adorno wrote "The
> Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" in freaking 1936, so blah
> blah blah can't we just go find music we like and listen to it however we
> want to?
>
> "DC" <dc@spamyermama.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/060110164416.p4z0rn x6.html
>>
>>I find this disturbing and further, I think it ties directly into why so
>>new and challenging music is being made.
>>
>>DC
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762"steve the artguy" <artguy@svnartichokespittle.net> wrote:
>virtually the same
>claims could be (and were) made for records, then radio broadcasts, then
>television (first black and white, then, gasp! Color!), stereo, etc.
That would be true, and I'd suggest that each of those steps did, in fact,
cheapen the experience, hence those claims were all actually valid, as is
this one. The steps were each small, but I'd suggest that prior to radio
and recorded music, hearing music in any form would have been a much more
treasured experience.
In any case, prior to this technology, music was a tribal/social event. Nowadays,
with an IPod, it's an isolating event.
News was once news. Now it's largely infotainment. It all got cheaper along
the way. It was a gradual process, but it's been happenning...
Cheers,
Kim.Hi James,
I would agree with you, but me and other PC zealots having been taking the
Apple "marketing" machine down our throats for years. I mean (Apple)just
paln O'll lying about it's processor prowess during those keynotes from Mr
Jobs. I'm a Comp/Sci grad who works
(day gig) as a SeniorLevel GroupWare Consultant. I have and still maintain
all types of CPU harware since 1986..I have to say that while the mac os
is nice, the processing power was always lacking behind intel & amd. But
Apple spewing that "we have the fastest machines" and pc's were a distant
second.
As a fomer mac owner, I always feft I was getting shafted and just buying
'hype'. looking back, Mr jobs has to recognised as thee biggest snake oil
salesman ever to walk this earth..
Now, all bets are off. Why should anyone purchase a new Mac? When you can
buy the same intel machine a proven os thtat doesnot require devolpers to
rewrite code from scratch ie:(plugins).. Most speculators say that it will
take most mac developers at 2-3 years to to have a mac/intel compatible apps
and plugins..I hope that they are wrong..
Best..Lamont
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Over the years the processors from Apple, intel and AMD have all leapfrogged
>each other in speed at times. It's like a feature in a sequencer software
>package, somebody comes out with a new feature, and six months later every
>body else catches up. It will always be this way.
>
>The need for speed will always drive us, but it's not the whole story, ease
>of use, usefulness, and productivity are more important.
>
>You have to look at what they are really saying. The Power book with its
>G4 processor is a Pentium III era processor. Saying that a new lap top
with
>two new generation Intel dual core 1.8 MHz processors, faster memory and
>faster bussing, is 4x faster than a single 1.6 MHz G4 power book, shouldn't
>surprise anybody.
>
>The thing that bums me out is, they kept their price structure, which means
>higher profits for Apple per unit, but smaller market share. And no new
>computer for me for awhile
>
>I'll wait for the iBook and Mac mini, should be April, or May. Hopefully
>the pricing will be a lot better.
>
>The thing that people should be excited about is the ability to run what
>ever software you want on one machine. This way the hardware does not restrict
>you. Or as my sister, the holder of a masters in computer science once
>said, " I don't care what hardware I use, as long as it doesn't get in the
>way of the software!"
>
>I think it's a good start.
>
>James
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Wow!! So, it finnaly happend!!
>>
>>I sold my G4 last year because it was just too slow for my VSti
>>modern recording studio needs. Tok the money, and got a nice speedy PC..
>>Now, I'm Mac excited!!!
>>
>>However, as excited as I am for Apple and it's new Macs, I'm wondering
if
>>it's too late to the Party?
>>This move proves all they ney sayer's and Mac loverswrong in the speed
arguments
>>over the years. Even worse is when Apple purchases
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Sorry about the type-O!
>>>
>>>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster than
>>the
>>>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top 15.3"
>>>screen, that is 5 to 6 times faster than the current PowerBook. Pro app.
>>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will
be
>>>$49.00.
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster than
>>>the
>>>>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top 15.3"
>>>>screen, that is 5 to 6 tomes faster than the current PowerBook. Pro
app.
>>>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will
>be
>>>>$49.00.
>>>>
>>>>James
>>>
>>
>I guess I'm going to have to post my full name nowadays if I wasnt to piss
somebody off......nawwwwwwww...........I'm just going to change my legal
name to Deej
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43c42b43$1@linux...
>
> "DC" <dc@spamamodernist.org> wrote:
> >off to jail with me then!
>
> Nah, surely we can find a way to lock up the people who made th
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61816 is a reply to message #61814] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 14:15 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
e law. I
mean
> they're the ones who are doing the actual annoying. You're just the
messenger.
>
> I can see the headline now "Internet annoyance jail law causes annoyance
> and jail"... ;o)
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.WHAT THE?!? That's not your birthname????? ;o)
Gee now I'm *really* annoyed... ;o)
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>I guess I'm going to have to post my full name nowadays if I wasnt to piss
>somebody off......nawwwwwwww...........I'm just going to change my legal
>name to Deej
>
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43c42b43$1@linux...
>>
>> "DC" <dc@spamamodernist.org> wrote:
>> >off to jail with me then!
>>
>> Nah, surely we can find a way to lock up the people who made the law.
I
>mean
>> they're the ones who are doing the actual annoying. You're just the
>messenger.
>>
>> I can see the headline now "Internet annoyance jail law causes annoyance
>> and jail"... ;o)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kim.
>
>You know, I did audio and video for the Claude Gordon trumpet
seminar one summer. This is a master-class for brass people.
Sitting there recording for a week, listening to all these world-class
players lecture and demonstrate, I learned something I never would
have suspected:
That the level of technical skill and musicianship is actually lower
now than in the late 19th century. Claude unearthed pieces from
back then, that you had to be able to play to be a good trumpet
player, that almost no one could play today. His goal was to
restore a 19th-century level of musicianship to brass players, and
the people who demonstrated that week played brass like I have
never heard before. Brass with balls is the best way to put it.
Hearing people like Frank Kaderabek play was bracing, but watching
the brass profs with their jaws on their chest was even more so.
The point? That music, pumped into your ears, as the soundtrack
to, say riding the train, or jogging, is likely to be different music than
that from a world with no TV and no radio, where families sang
together, and learning an instrument was like learning to read;
pretty much everyone did it.
Reasoning backward from technology to art reduces art. The gear
should not have too much control over the shape of music, but
with most of us, it does.
Creating forward from art to technology is possible, but it requires
a level of discipline and vision that few can muster today.
Hence; bad music.I believe the competitive upgrade is sold at a dealers
discretion... and V4 does not use a dongle, just the serial
number on the package.
David.
Chas. Duncan wrote:
> Hi Chris -- I'm hanging in there, and thanks for asking... Still
> lurking around here and learning a thing or two about Paris usage from
> time to time... Moved the Cubase side of my operation to SX3 on a
> separate box a while ago, but staying with Paris for its tape-ness
> and for its console-ness... (How's that for a hi-tech overview?)
>
> As for Wavelab -- I just don't want all that surround and video stuff
> cluttering up my life -- and I don't want to pay for stuff I probably
> won't use... I found v.4 in a box (at B&H) for $167 -- as a
> "competitive upgrade"... Might go that way -- but I'm wondering how
> Steinberg may be handling the qualifying/verifying aspect of that sort
> of deal as it concerns what is essentially an obsolete product...
> Don't want to get that box open and then find out that Steinberg is no
> longer in the business of un-locking v.4 in a transaction of this
> type... Your thoughts?
>
> And -- while I have your undivided attention -- I'm thinking about
> getting a laptop setup with a lean and mean interface (the RME
> Fireface, maybe) for live stuff... I'd run SX3 for recording at
> 24bitsx48k, then drag everything into Wavelab for batch conversion to
> PAF's, then open in Paris, do the mojo, rinse and repeat... Question
> for you, my good man, is: what's the cool laptop for this? Wanting to
> run 12-16 inputs max, doing nothing but record (no messing around in
> there with plugins, processing, nada)... Enlighten, if you can, and
> thanks in advance -- Chas.
>
> (and: where are you working these days, anyway?)
>
>
>
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:51:34 -0500, Chris Ludwig
> <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>>HI Chas,
>>How are you doing?
>>
>>Sense the upgrade from Wavelab 3 to 5 is only 299.00 direct from
>>Steinberg that would be the best way to go. You would probably be paying
>>close to that from somebody used. You will also at least be able to
>>register it and get support.
>>
>>Any other programs that offer some sort of cross grade will end up cost
>>that much or more. The only one that is comparable in features, sound,
>>usability would be Samplitude.
>>
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>Chas. Duncan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Want to buy, acquire, own a copy of Wavelab 4.1... Have 3.1 here and
>>>would be glad to keep on using it, but I'm needing to move it to an XP
>>>box, and 3.1 doesn't do XP. Not really interested in the surround
>>>features and all the other complications of 5.0, and would like to
>>>avoid spending money on features I don't need or want -- just need to
>>>be doing that work under XP -- hence the search for 4.0...
>>>
>>>Any ideas? thanks -- Chas.
>
>Very interesting stuff. It does make sense that with nothing else to do people
would learn an instrument.
And one sense, the instruments WERE the MP3 players of the day. No doubt
there were voices back then complaining that "with all this new fandangled
musical instrument technology we're losing the art of conversation"...
and they may have been correct also. At least playing exercised the mind
and promoted self discipline though...
....as opposed to promoting a generation of "give me more and give me now"...
Cheers,
Kim.
"DC" <dc@spamthehorns.com> wrote:
>
>You know, I did audio and video for the Claude Gordon trumpet
>seminar one summer. This is a master-class for brass people.
>
>Sitting there recording for a week, listening to all these world-class
>players lecture and demonstrate, I learned something I never would
>have suspected:
>
>That the level of technical skill and musicianship is actually lower
>now than in the late 19th century. Claude unearthed pieces from
>back then, that you had to be able to play to be a good trumpet
>player, that almost no one could play today. His goal was to
>restore a 19th-century level of musicianship to brass players, and
>the people who demonstrated that week played brass like I have
>never heard before. Brass with balls is the best way to put it.
>
>Hearing people like Frank Kaderabek play was bracing, but watching
>the brass profs with their jaws on their chest was even more so.
>
>The point? That music, pumped into your ears, as the soundtrack
>to, say riding the train, or jogging, is likely to be different music than
>that from a world with no TV and no radio, where families sang
>together, and learning an instrument was like learning to read;
>pretty much everyone did it.
>
>Reasoning backward from technology to art reduces art. The gear
>should not have too much control over the shape of music, but
>with most of us, it does.
>
>Creating forward from art to technology is possible, but it requires
>a level of discipline and vision that few can muster today.
>
>Hence; bad music.As far as software running on the new Intel Macs, they have a emulator software
so you can run Mac applications now. All of the apps. that come with the
machines are native. There are already some third party apps. that are native
now. MS made a five year plus commitment, and stated that their apps will
be native soon.
The speed, well, I know that independent labs tested the Macs with industry
testing software and used industry testing standards in the past. I believe
those results were true at the time, however those results didn't stand for
long. There is constant speed development in the PC world. I guess it's
a matter of beliefs, so there is no sense in debating it.
I'm sure the next argument will be, that a machine that is running Windows,
runs software faster than the Mac running the same software. It will never
end.
The biggest problems with the new Mactel machines is the price.
The best thing to come out of MacWorld to day for me was the iLife apps.
and iWork. GarageBand is cool song writing software. It is a little weird,
but it's the closest thing to a quick song writing scratch pad to get ideas
down with. I think most of us would agree that we all need something like
that,
If you got QT and you have the time, You should check out the keynote speech.
By the way, you PC Zealots that hate Apple no matter what, are going to really
hate Apple when you see the new Apple Intel TV commercial; )
I wonder if they are going to play it during the Super Bowl???
Check it out, they played it not once, but twice during the Keynote!
http://macworld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/mw/index.html
www.apple.com
"Lamont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Hi James,
>
>I would agree with you, but me and other PC zealots having been taking the
>Apple "marketing" machine down our throats for years. I mean (Apple)just
>paln O'll lying about it's processor prowess during those keynotes from
Mr
>Jobs. I'm a Comp/Sci grad who works
>(day gig) as a SeniorLevel GroupWare Consultant. I have and still maintain
>all types of CPU harware since 1986..I have to say that while the mac os
>is nice, the processing power was always lacking behind intel & amd. But
>Apple spewing that "we have the fastest machines" and pc's were a distant
>second.
>
>As a fomer mac owner, I always feft I was getting shafted and just buying
>'hype'. looking back, Mr jobs has to recognised as thee biggest snake oil
>salesman ever to walk this earth..
>
>Now, all bets are off. Why should anyone purchase a new Mac? When you can
>buy the same intel machine a proven os thtat doesnot require devolpers to
>rewrite code from scratch ie:(plugins).. Most speculators say that it will
>take most mac developers at 2-3 years to to have a mac/intel compatible
apps
>and plugins..I hope that they are wrong..
>Best..Lamont
>
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Over the years the processors from Apple, intel and AMD have all leapfrogged
>>each other in speed at times. It's like a feature in a sequencer software
>>package, somebody comes out with a new feature, and six months later every
>>body else catches up. It will always be this way.
>>
>>The need for speed will always drive us, but it's not the whole story,
ease
>>of use, usefulness, and productivity are more important.
>>
>>You have to look at what they are really saying. The Power book with its
>>G4 processor is a Pentium III era processor. Saying that a new lap top
>with
>>two new generation Intel dual core 1.8 MHz processors, faster memory and
>>faster bussing, is 4x faster than a single 1.6 MHz G4 power book, shouldn't
>>surprise anybody.
>>
>>The thing that bums me out is, they kept their price structure, which means
>>higher profits for Apple per unit, but smaller market share. And no new
>>computer for me for awhile
>>
>>I'll wait for the iBook and Mac mini, should be April, or May. Hopefully
>>the pricing will be a lot better.
>>
>>The thing that people should be excited about is the ability to run what
>>ever software you want on one machine. This way the hardware does not
restrict
>>you. Or as my sister, the holder of a masters in computer science once
>>said, " I don't care what hardware I use, as long as it doesn't get in
the
>>way of the software!"
>>
>>I think it's a good start.
>>
>>James
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Wow!! So, it finnaly happend!!
>>>
>>>I sold my G4 last year because it was just too slow for my VSti
>>>modern recording studio needs. Tok the money, and got a nice speedy PC..
>>>Now, I'm Mac excited!!!
>>>
>>>However, as excited as I am for Apple and it's new Macs, I'm wondering
>if
>>>it's too late to the Party?
>>>This move proves all they ney sayer's and Mac loverswrong in the speed
>arguments
>>>over the years. Even worse is when Apple purchases
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Sorry about the type-O!
>>>>
>>>>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster than
>>>the
>>>>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top 15.3"
>>>>screen, that is 5 to 6 times faster than the current PowerBook. Pro
app.
>>>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will
>be
>>>>$49.00.
>>>>
>>>>James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster than
>>>>the
>>>>>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top
15.3"
>>>>>screen, that is 5 to 6 tomes faster than the current PowerBook. Pro
>app.
>>>>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will
>>be
>>>>>$49.00.
>>>>>
>>>>>James
>>>>
>>>
>>
> http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2006/MOTU-Intel-Mac-Dri vers.htmlJust seeing the mention of AmpFarm reminded of a recent comment that was
made on
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61817 is a reply to message #61816] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 13:39 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
a Nashville song demo session ...
After the 5th or 6th take to get a track on a song, the players came back
into the control room and listened to the playback. After which the
songwriter commented, "I don't know, it's still missing something." The
bass player replied, "Just run the whole track through SincerityFarm, and
that should do the trick."
CLI'll be using that one, Chris... :)
"Chris Latham" <latham_c@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Just seeing the mention of AmpFarm reminded of a recent comment that was
>made on a Nashville song demo session ...
>After the 5th or 6th take to get a track on a song, the players came back
>into the control room and listened to the playback. After which the
>songwriter commented, "I don't know, it's still missing something." The
>bass player replied, "Just run the whole track through SincerityFarm, and
>that should do the trick."
>
>CL
>
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43c48528$1@linux...
> News was once news. Now it's largely infotainment. It all got cheaper
> along
> the way. It was a gradual process, but it's been happenning...
That literally disgusts me.... I hate when the evening news talks about
celebrity bullshit.This is a reply to a similar question on the R.A.M.P.S. newsgroup....
>>>That's not completely true. Programs that depend on real time processing
(like recorders and editors or Multimedia software) will probably NOT be
supported by Rosetta.
Apple has stated on their website that all of their PRO programs (Final Cut
Pro, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro and many of the 3D Graphics programs)
will not be supported by Rosetta. They will all have to be replaced by
Intel Native programs. or their so-called "Universal" versions. Universal
versions of the Pro apps are not available yet and Apple will charge fees
from $99 to $699 to Upgrade when they are available.
Read more here: http://www.apple.com/rosetta/<<<<
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43c49f77$1@linux...
>
> As far as software running on the new Intel Macs, they have a emulator
> software
> so you can run Mac applications now. All of the apps. that come with the
> machines are native. There are already some third party apps. that are
> native
> now. MS made a five year plus commitment, and stated that their apps
> will
> be native soon.
>
> The speed, well, I know that independent labs tested the Macs with
> industry
> testing software and used industry testing standards in the past. I
> believe
> those results were true at the time, however those results didn't stand
> for
> long. There is constant speed development in the PC world. I guess it's
> a matter of beliefs, so there is no sense in debating it.
>
> I'm sure the next argument will be, that a machine that is running
> Windows,
> runs software faster than the Mac running the same software. It will
> never
> end.
>
> The biggest problems with the new Mactel machines is the price.
>
> The best thing to come out of MacWorld to day for me was the iLife apps.
> and iWork. GarageBand is cool song writing software. It is a little
> weird,
> but it's the closest thing to a quick song writing scratch pad to get
> ideas
> down with. I think most of us would agree that we all need something like
> that,
>
> If you got QT and you have the time, You should check out the keynote
> speech.
>
> By the way, you PC Zealots that hate Apple no matter what, are going to
> really
> hate Apple when you see the new Apple Intel TV commercial; )
>
> I wonder if they are going to play it during the Super Bowl???
>
> Check it out, they played it not once, but twice during the Keynote!
>
> http://macworld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/mw/index.html
>
> www.apple.com
>
>
>
>
> "Lamont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hi James,
>>
>>I would agree with you, but me and other PC zealots having been taking the
>>Apple "marketing" machine down our throats for years. I mean (Apple)just
>>paln O'll lying about it's processor prowess during those keynotes from
> Mr
>>Jobs. I'm a Comp/Sci grad who works
>>(day gig) as a SeniorLevel GroupWare Consultant. I have and still maintain
>>all types of CPU harware since 1986..I have to say that while the mac os
>>is nice, the processing power was always lacking behind intel & amd. But
>>Apple spewing that "we have the fastest machines" and pc's were a distant
>>second.
>>
>>As a fomer mac owner, I always feft I was getting shafted and just buying
>>'hype'. looking back, Mr jobs has to recognised as thee biggest snake oil
>>salesman ever to walk this earth..
>>
>>Now, all bets are off. Why should anyone purchase a new Mac? When you can
>>buy the same intel machine a proven os thtat doesnot require devolpers to
>>rewrite code from scratch ie:(plugins).. Most speculators say that it will
>>take most mac developers at 2-3 years to to have a mac/intel compatible
> apps
>>and plugins..I hope that they are wrong..
>>Best..Lamont
>>
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Over the years the processors from Apple, intel and AMD have all
>>>leapfrogged
>>>each other in speed at times. It's like a feature in a sequencer
>>>software
>>>package, somebody comes out with a new feature, and six months later
>>>every
>>>body else catches up. It will always be this way.
>>>
>>>The need for speed will always drive us, but it's not the whole story,
> ease
>>>of use, usefulness, and productivity are more important.
>>>
>>>You have to look at what they are really saying. The Power book with its
>>>G4 processor is a Pentium III era processor. Saying that a new lap top
>>with
>>>two new generation Intel dual core 1.8 MHz processors, faster memory and
>>>faster bussing, is 4x faster than a single 1.6 MHz G4 power book,
>>>shouldn't
>>>surprise anybody.
>>>
>>>The thing that bums me out is, they kept their price structure, which
>>>means
>>>higher profits for Apple per unit, but smaller market share. And no new
>>>computer for me for awhile
>>>
>>>I'll wait for the iBook and Mac mini, should be April, or May. Hopefully
>>>the pricing will be a lot better.
>>>
>>>The thing that people should be excited about is the ability to run what
>>>ever software you want on one machine. This way the hardware does not
> restrict
>>>you. Or as my sister, the holder of a masters in computer science once
>>>said, " I don't care what hardware I use, as long as it doesn't get in
> the
>>>way of the software!"
>>>
>>>I think it's a good start.
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Wow!! So, it finnaly happend!!
>>>>
>>>>I sold my G4 last year because it was just too slow for my VSti
>>>>modern recording studio needs. Tok the money, and got a nice speedy PC..
>>>>Now, I'm Mac excited!!!
>>>>
>>>>However, as excited as I am for Apple and it's new Macs, I'm wondering
>>if
>>>>it's too late to the Party?
>>>>This move proves all they ney sayer's and Mac loverswrong in the speed
>>arguments
>>>>over the years. Even worse is when Apple purchases
>>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry about the type-O!
>>>>>
>>>>>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster than
>>>>the
>>>>>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top
>>>>>15.3"
>>>>>screen, that is 5 to 6 times faster than the current PowerBook. Pro
> app.
>>>>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will
>>be
>>>>>$49.00.
>>>>>
>>>>>James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster
>>>>>>than
>>>>>the
>>>>>>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top
> 15.3"
>>>>>>screen, that is 5 to 6 tomes faster than the current PowerBook. Pro
>>app.
>>>>>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will
>>>be
>>>>>>$49.00.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>James
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>They demoed MS Word and Adobe Photoshop running on the intel macs today using
Rosetta. Jobs said the upgrades for the pro apps. would be $49.00, but I
may have misunderstood what he was saying. Check out the Keynote speech
for yourself.
http://macworld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/mw/index.html
"Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>This is a reply to a similar question on the R.A.M.P.S. newsgroup....
>
>>>>That's not completely true. Programs that depend on real time processing
>(like recorders and editors or Multimedia software) will probably NOT be
>supported by Rosetta.
> Apple has stated on their website that all of their PRO programs (Final
Cut
>Pro, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro and many of the 3D Graphics programs)
>will not be supported by Rosetta. They will all have to be replaced by
>Intel Native programs. or their so-called "Universal" versions. Universal
>versions of the Pro apps are not available yet and Apple will charge fees
>from $99 to $699 to Upgrade when they are available.
>Read more here: http://www.apple.com/rosetta/<<<<
>
>--
>Martin Harrington
>www.lendanear-sound.com
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:43c49f77$1@linux...
>>
>> As far as software running on the new Intel Macs, they have a emulator
>> software
>> so you can run Mac applications now. All of the apps. that come with
the
>> machines are native. There are already some third party apps. that are
>> native
>> now. MS made a five year plus commitment, and stated that their apps
>> will
>> be native soon.
>>
>> The speed, well, I know that independent labs tested the Macs with
>> industry
>> testing software and used industry testing standards in the past. I
>> believe
>> those results were true at the time, however those results didn't stand
>> for
>> long. There is constant speed development in the PC world. I guess it's
>> a matter of beliefs, so there is no sense in debating it.
>>
>> I'm sure the next argument will be, that a machine that is running
>> Windows,
>> runs software faster than the Mac running the same software. It will
>> never
>> end.
>>
>> The biggest problems with the new Mactel machines is the price.
>>
>> The best thing to come out of MacWorld to day for me was the iLife apps.
>> and iWork. GarageBand is cool song writing software. It is a little
>> weird,
>> but it's the closest thing to a quick song writing scratch pad to get
>> ideas
>> down with. I think most of us would agree that we all need something
like
>> that,
>>
>> If you got QT and you have the time, You should check out the keynote
>> speech.
>>
>> By the way, you PC Zealots that hate Apple no matter what, are going to
>> really
>> hate Apple when you see the new Apple Intel TV commercial; )
>>
>> I wonder if they are going to play it during the Super Bowl???
>>
>> Check it out, they played it not once, but twice during the Keynote!
>>
>> http://macworld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/mw/index.html
>>
>> www.apple.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Lamont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hi James,
>>>
>>>I would agree with you, but me and other PC zealots having been taking
the
>>>Apple "marketing" machine down our throats for years. I mean (Apple)just
>>>paln O'll lying about it's processor prowess during those keynotes from
>> Mr
>>>Jobs. I'm a Comp/Sci grad who works
>>>(day gig) as a SeniorLevel GroupWare Consultant. I have and still maintain
>>>all types of CPU harware since 1986..I have to say that while the mac
os
>>>is nice, the processing power was always lacking behind intel & amd. But
>>>Apple spewing that "we have the fastest machines" and pc's were a distant
>>>second.
>>>
>>>As a fomer mac owner, I always feft I was getting shafted and just buying
>>>'hype'. looking back, Mr jobs has to recognised as thee biggest snake
oil
>>>salesman ever to walk this earth..
>>>
>>>Now, all bets are off. Why should anyone purchase a new Mac? When you
can
>>>buy the same intel machine a proven os thtat doesnot require devolpers
to
>>>rewrite code from scratch ie:(plugins).. Most speculators say that it
will
>>>take most mac developers at 2-3 years to to have a mac/intel compatible
>> apps
>>>and plugins..I hope that they are wrong..
>>>Best..Lamont
>>>
>>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Over the years the processors from Apple, intel and AMD have all
>>>>leapfrogged
>>>>each other in speed at times. It's like a feature in a sequencer
>>>>software
>>>>package, somebody comes out with a new feature, and six months later
>>>>every
>>>>body else catches up. It will always be this way.
>>>>
>>>>The need for speed will always drive us, but it's not the whole story,
>> ease
>>>>of use, usefulness, and productivity are more important.
>>>>
>>>>You have to look at what they are really saying. The Power book with
its
>>>>G4 processor is a Pentium III era processor. Saying that a new lap top
>>>with
>>>>two new generation Intel dual core 1.8 MHz processors, faster memory
and
>>>>faster bussing, is 4x faster than a single 1.6 MHz G4 power book,
>>>>shouldn't
>>>>surprise anybody.
>>>>
>>>>The thing that bums me out is, they kept their price structure, which
>>>>means
>>>>higher profits for Apple per unit, but smaller market share. And no
new
>>>>computer for me for awhile
>>>>
>>>>I'll wait for the iBook and Mac mini, should be April, or May. Hopefully
>>>>the pricing will be a lot better.
>>>>
>>>>The thing that people should be excited about is the ability to run what
>>>>ever software you want on one machine. This way the hardware does not
>> restrict
>>>>you. Or as my sister, the holder of a masters in computer science once
>>>>said, " I don't care what hardware I use, as long as it doesn't get in
>> the
>>>>way of the software!"
>>>>
>>>>I think it's a good start.
>&g
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61820 is a reply to message #61817] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 16:24 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
eir website that all of their PRO programs (Final
Cut
>Pro, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro and many of the 3D Graphics programs)
>will not be supported by Rosetta. They will all have to be replaced by
>Intel Native programs. or their so-called "Universal" versions. Universal
>versions of the Pro apps are not available yet and Apple will charge fees
>from $99 to $699 to Upgrade when they are available.
>Read more here: http://www.apple.com/rosetta/<<<<
>
>--
>Martin Harrington
>www.lendanear-sound.com
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:43c49f77$1@linux...
>>
>> As far as software running on the new Intel Macs, they have a emulator
>> software
>> so you can run Mac applications now. All of the apps. that come with
the
>> machines are native. There are already some third party apps. that are
>> native
>> now. MS made a five year plus commitment, and stated that their apps
>> will
>> be native soon.
>>
>> The speed, well, I know that independent labs tested the Macs with
>> industry
>> testing software and used industry testing standards in the past. I
>> believe
>> those results were true at the time, however those results didn't stand
>> for
>> long. There is constant speed development in the PC world. I guess it's
>> a matter of beliefs, so there is no sense in debating it.
>>
>> I'm sure the next argument will be, that a machine that is running
>> Windows,
>> runs software faster than the Mac running the same software. It will
>> never
>> end.
>>
>> The biggest problems with the new Mactel machines is the price.
>>
>> The best thing to come out of MacWorld to day for me was the iLife apps.
>> and iWork. GarageBand is cool song writing software. It is a little
>> weird,
>> but it's the closest thing to a quick song writing scratch pad to get
>> ideas
>> down with. I think most of us would agree that we all need something
like
>> that,
>>
>> If you got QT and you have the time, You should check out the keynote
>> speech.
>>
>> By the way, you PC Zealots that hate Apple no matter what, are going to
>> really
>> hate Apple when you see the new Apple Intel TV commercial; )
>>
>> I wonder if they are going to play it during the Super Bowl???
>>
>> Check it out, they played it not once, but twice during the Keynote!
>>
>> http://macworld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/mw/index.html
>>
>> www.apple.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Lamont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hi James,
>>>
>>>I would agree with you, but me and other PC zealots having been taking
the
>>>Apple "marketing" machine down our throats for years. I mean (Apple)just
>>>paln O'll lying about it's processor prowess during those keynotes from
>> Mr
>>>Jobs. I'm a Comp/Sci grad who works
>>>(day gig) as a SeniorLevel GroupWare Consultant. I have and still maintain
>>>all types of CPU harware since 1986..I have to say that while the mac
os
>>>is nice, the processing power was always lacking behind intel & amd. But
>>>Apple spewing that "we have the fastest machines" and pc's were a distant
>>>second.
>>>
>>>As a fomer mac owner, I always feft I was getting shafted and just buying
>>>'hype'. looking back, Mr jobs has to recognised as thee biggest snake
oil
>>>salesman ever to walk this earth..
>>>
>>>Now, all bets are off. Why should anyone purchase a new Mac? When you
can
>>>buy the same intel machine a proven os thtat doesnot require devolpers
to
>>>rewrite code from scratch ie:(plugins).. Most speculators say that it
will
>>>take most mac developers at 2-3 years to to have a mac/intel compatible
>> apps
>>>and plugins..I hope that they are wrong..
>>>Best..Lamont
>>>
>>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Over the years the processors from Apple, intel and AMD have all
>>>>leapfrogged
>>>>each other in speed at times. It's like a feature in a sequencer
>>>>software
>>>>package, somebody comes out with a new feature, and six months later
>>>>every
>>>>body else catches up. It will always be this way.
>>>>
>>>>The need for speed will always drive us, but it's not the whole story,
>> ease
>>>>of use, usefulness, and productivity are more important.
>>>>
>>>>You have to look at what they are really saying. The Power book with
its
>>>>G4 processor is a Pentium III era processor. Saying that a new lap top
>>>with
>>>>two new generation Intel dual core 1.8 MHz processors, faster memory
and
>>>>faster bussing, is 4x faster than a single 1.6 MHz G4 power book,
>>>>shouldn't
>>>>surprise anybody.
>>>>
>>>>The thing that bums me out is, they kept their price structure, which
>>>>means
>>>>higher profits for Apple per unit, but smaller market share. And no
new
>>>>computer for me for awhile
>>>>
>>>>I'll wait for the iBook and Mac mini, should be April, or May. Hopefully
>>>>the pricing will be a lot better.
>>>>
>>>>The thing that people should be excited about is the ability to run what
>>>>ever software you want on one machine. This way the hardware does not
>> restrict
>>>>you. Or as my sister, the holder of a masters in computer science once
>>>>said, " I don't care what hardware I use, as long as it doesn't get in
>> the
>>>>way of the software!"
>>>>
>>>>I think it's a good start.
>>>>
>>>>James
>>>>
>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow!! So, it finnaly happend!!
>>>>>
>>>>>I sold my G4 last year because it was just too slow for my VSti
>>>>>modern recording studio needs. Tok the money, and got a nice speedy
PC..
>>>>>Now, I'm Mac excited!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>However, as excited as I am for Apple and it's new Macs, I'm wondering
>>>if
>>>>>it's too late to the Party?
>>>>>This move proves all they ney sayer's and Mac loverswrong in the speed
>>>arguments
>>>>>over the years. Even worse is when Apple purchases
>>>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry about the type-O!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster
than
>>>>>the
>>>>>>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top
>>>>>>15.3"
>>>>>>screen, that is 5 to 6 times faster than the current PowerBook. Pro
>> app.
>>>>>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will
>>>be
>>>>>>$49.00.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>James
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster
>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top
>> 15.3"
>>>>>>>screen, that is 5 to 6 tomes faster than the current PowerBook. Pro
>>>app.
>>>>>>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will
>>>>be
>>>>>>>$49.00.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>James
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>Hi James,
No, you understood correctly concerning the $49.00 upgrade price. The
prices listed in the link below refer to upgrades to Final Cut Studio
from other Apple video software.
-Michele Hobbs
James McCloskey wrote:
> They demoed MS Word and Adobe Photoshop running on the intel macs today using
> Rosetta. Jobs said the upgrades for the pro apps. would be $49.00, but I
> may have misunderstood what he was saying. Check out the Keynote speech
> for yourself.
>
> http://macworld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/mw/index.html
>
>
> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>This is a reply to a similar question on the R.A.M.P.S. newsgroup....
>>
>>
>>>>>That's not completely true. Programs that depend on real time processing
>>
>>(like recorders and editors or Multimedia software) will probably NOT be
>>supported by Rosetta.
>>Apple has stated on their website that all of their PRO programs (Final
>
> Cut
>
>>Pro, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro and many of the 3D Graphics programs)
>>will not be supported by Rosetta. They will all have to be replaced by
>>Intel Native programs. or their so-called "Universal" versions. Universal
>>versions of the Pro apps are not available yet and Apple will charge fees
>
>>from $99 to $699 to Upgrade when they are available.
>
>>Read more here: http://www.apple.com/rosetta/<<<<
>>
>>--
>>Martin Harrington
>>www.lendanear-sound.comHi TC,
Sure it works with multi system EDS cards ?
If so how much the core card ?
Thanks
Dimitrios
TC <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote:
>DJ wrote:
>> I sold one to a Parisite named will wilson about 3 years ago. You might
>> search the archives and see if you can find him.
>>
>> Deej
>>
>> "Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote in message news:43c3b280$1@linux...
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>Was that the one without the daughter card?
>
>I've got one EDS sitting here that has a non-functioning daughter card (no
eds effects
>work, but otherwise works normally).
>Cheers,
>
>TCHello everyone,
It's been around a year since I've played around with Paris and it's good to
see there are still some folks determined to hang on. I remember reading a
post a couple of years back were someone stated that in order for Paris to
read some .wav files, that header information would have to be removed
first....I'm trying to import a track from an off-the-shelf cd and I can't
get Paris to see/play the files in the right way. I have Wavelab 4.0, which
I used to copy the cd track into. I've tried saving in both .wav and .paf
formats, stereo (i take it Paris can't read an interleavened stereo file)
and left and right mono with no luck. When I import the file as two mono
tracks using .paf extensions, I end up with tracks that are are three times
as fast as the originals (I have my record path set to 44.1 khz). If I save
and add them as .wavs, I end with no audio and tiny file sizes, which
indicates to me that the audio isn't being saved, only header info.
I hope I have explained myself well and would appreciate any tips.
Thanks,
EdricOne more thing...I realize this topic has been beaten to death, but I must
ask...I have been successful with using Wavelab 4.0 with Paris hardware in
the past, using the updated ASIO driver, but I am having problems now. Since
it has been so long since I have used Paris or Wavelab (1 year), my memory
fails as to when I fist started having problems, but if I remember
correctly, when I installed Finale's PrintMusic! notation program, Wavelab
no longer showed the Paris soundcard in the Prefences dialog box. I think
during that time that I also installed the drivers to my onboard sound as
well as install a midi driver for my keyboard. From that point on, Wavelab
only showed the onboard sound and not the Paris hardware. Is there anything
that I can do to get Paris back online with Wavelab. I have disabled or
uninstalled all of the culprits mentioned above except the notation program
and now Wavelab does not see any soundcard whatsoever.
Is ASIO directly tied to MIDI in some way. The reason I ask is because the
midi tab in my multimedia properties (windows 98se) states that the Paris
card in working, but has unknown problems with MIDI out. Please excuse my
ignorance. It's been awhile since I've sunk myself into this stuff. Thanks,
EdricYep, that's the header info. ;o)
You need to either:
Download a program called "stripwav" and use it to strip the header info.
It comes as a shareware option which you would be able to use to get the
job done if it's a one off...
....or...
....there is an option menu somewhere in wavelab which turns the header info
off. If you switch that and resave the wavs you'll be cool. I beleive the
tick box refers to the header info as something like "Broadcast Wavs" or
something. If you find a tick option in wavelab for "broadcast wavs" turn
it off and re-open and re-save the files and you should find you're cool.
Mind you you might be cool already, but you'll be even cooler. ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.
"Edric" <seboriah@juno.com> wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>It's been around a year since I've played around with Paris and it's good
to
>see there are still some folks determined to hang on. I remember reading
a
>post a couple of years back were someone stated that in order for Paris
to
>read some .wav files, that header information would have to be removed
>first....I'm trying to import a track from an off-the-shelf cd and I can't
>get Paris to see/play the files in the right way. I have Wavelab 4.0, which
>I used to copy the cd track into. I've tried saving in both .wav and .paf
>formats, stereo (i take it Paris can't read an interleavened stereo file)
>and left and right mono with no luck. When I import the file as two mono
>tracks using .paf extensions, I end up with tracks that are are three times
>as fast as the originals (I have my record path set to 44.1 khz). If I save
>and add them as .wavs, I end with no audio and tiny file sizes, which
>indicates to me that the audio isn't being saved, only header info.
>I hope I have explained myself well and would appreciate any tips.
>Thanks,
>Edric
>
>Damn thing wont play on Quicktime Alternative...
....if they think I'm loading the QT virus on my machine they've got another
thing coming. ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>As far as software running on the new Intel Macs, they have a emulator software
>so you can run Mac applications now. All of the apps. that come with the
>machines are native. There are already some third party apps. that are
native
>now. MS made a five year plus commitment, and stated that their apps will
>be native soon.
>
>The speed, well, I know that independent labs tested the Macs with industry
>testing software and used industry testing standards in the past. I believe
>those results were true at the time, however those results didn't stand
for
>long. There is constant speed development in the PC world. I guess it's
>a matter of beliefs, so there is no sense in debating it.
>
>I'm sure the next argument will be, that a machine that is running Windows,
>runs software faster than the Mac running the same software. It will never
>end.
>
>The biggest problems with the new Mactel machines is the price.
>
>The best thing to come out of MacWorld to day for me was the iLife apps.
>and iWork. GarageBand is cool song writing software. It is a little weird,
>but it's the closest thing to a quick song writing scratch pad to get ideas
>down with. I think most of us would agree that we all need something like
>that,
>
>If you got QT and you have the time, You should check out the keynote speech.
>
>By the way, you PC Zealots that hate Apple no matter what, are going to
really
>hate Apple when you see the new Apple Intel TV commercial; )
>
>I wonder if they are going to play it during the Super Bowl???
>
>Check it out, they played it not once, but twice during the Keynote!
>
>http://macworld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/mw/index.html
>
>www.apple.com
>
>
>
>
>"Lamont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hi James,
>>
>>I would agree with you, but me and other PC zealots having been taking
the
>>Apple "marketing" machine down our throats for years. I mean (Apple)just
>>paln O'll lying about it's processor prowess during those keynotes from
>Mr
>>Jobs. I'm a Comp/Sci grad who works
>>(day gig) as a SeniorLevel GroupWare Consultant. I have and still maintain
>>all types of CPU harware since 1986..I have to say that while the mac os
>>is nice, the processing power was always lacking behind intel & amd. But
>>Apple spewing that "we have the fastest machines" and pc's were a distant
>>second.
>>
>>As a fomer mac owner, I always feft I was getting shafted and just buying
>>'hype'. looking back, Mr jobs has to recognised as thee biggest snake oil
>>salesman ever to walk this earth..
>>
>>Now, all bets are off. Why should anyone purchase a new Mac? When you can
>>buy the same intel machine a proven os thtat doesnot require devolpers
to
>>rewrite code from scratch ie:(plugins).. Most speculators say that it will
>>take most mac developers at 2-3 years to to have a mac/intel compatible
>apps
>>and plugins..I hope that they are wrong..
>>Best..Lamont
>>
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Over the years the processors from Apple, intel and AMD have all leapfrogged
>>>each other in speed at times. It's like a feature in a sequencer software
>>>package, somebody comes out with a new feature, and six months later every
>>>body else catches up. It will always be this way.
>>>
>>>The need for speed will always drive us, but it's not the whole story,
>ease
>>>of use, usefulness, and productivity are more important.
>>>
>>>You have to look at what they are really saying. The Power book with
its
>>>G4 processor is a Pentium III era processor. Saying that a new lap top
>>with
>>>two new generation Intel dual core 1.8 MHz processors, faster memory and
>>>faster bussing, is 4x faster than a single 1.6 MHz G4 power book, shouldn't
>>>surprise anybody.
>>>
>>>The thing that bums me out is, they kept their price structure, which
means
>>>higher profits for Apple per unit, but smaller market share. And no new
>>>computer for me for awhile
>>>
>>>I'll wait for the iBook and Mac mini, should be April, or May. Hopefully
>>>the pricing will be a lot better.
>>>
>>>The thing that people should be excited about is the ability to run what
>>>ever software you want on one machine. This way the hardware does not
>restrict
>>>you. Or as my sister, the holder of a masters in computer science once
>>>said, " I don't care what hardware I use, as long as it doesn't get in
>the
>>>way of the software!"
>>>
>>>I think it's a good start.
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Wow!! So, it finnaly happend!!
>>>>
>>>>I sold my G4 last year because it was just too slow for my VSti
>>>>modern recording studio needs. Tok the money, and got a nice speedy PC..
>>>>Now, I'm Mac excited!!!
>>>>
>>>>However, as excited as I am for Apple and it's new Macs, I'm wondering
>>if
>>>>it's too late to the Party?
>>>>This move proves all they ney sayer's and Mac loverswrong in the speed
>>arguments
>>>>ove
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61822 is a reply to message #61820] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 15:36 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
5 to 6 times faster than the current PowerBook. Pro
>app.
>>>>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will
>>be
>>>>>$49.00.
>>>>>
>>>>>James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Apple announced a new Intel based iMac that is 2 to 3 times faster
than
>>>>>the
>>>>>>G5 iMac. The one more thing, was the announcement of a new lap top
>15.3"
>>>>>>screen, that is 5 to 6 tomes faster than the current PowerBook. Pro
>>app.
>>>>>>will be available for the new Intel Macs in March. The upgrades will
>>>be
>>>>>>$49.00.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>James
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>Hi there D,
I don't have it currently installed, but I've had it running fine in a 4 card system. The only thing is that it does not have eds effects on the submix of that card. It went south on me for some reason. I did have a local audio repair guru try and touch up some of the connectors (he said some of the solders were sloppy) but it did not solve the problem and I didn't want to spring the $ yet to get it fixed at thesoniq. Whatever is wrong with it seems to be on the daughtercard, so if you are interested just shoot me an offer privately. You and I have had smooth transactions before on ebay.
Cheers,
TC
tc at soundloop dot com
Dimitrios wrote:
> Hi TC,
> Sure it works with multi system EDS cards ?
> If so how much the core card ?
> Thanks
> Dimitrios
>
> TC <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote:
>
>>DJ wrote:
>>
>>>I sold one to a Parisite named will wilson about 3 years ago. You might
>>>search the archives and see if you can find him.
>>>
>>>Deej
>>>
>>>"Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote in message news:43c3b280$1@linux...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Was that the one without the daughter card?
>>
>>I've got one EDS sitting here that has a non-functioning daughter card (no
>
> eds effects
>
>>work, but otherwise works normally).
>>Cheers,
>>
>>TC
>
>That is funny..
Cheers,
TC
Chris Latham wrote:
> Just seeing the mention of AmpFarm reminded of a recent comment that was
> made on a Nashville song demo session ...
> After the 5th or 6th take to get a track on a song, the players came back
> into the control room and listened to the playback. After which the
> songwriter commented, "I don't know, it's still missing something." The
> bass player replied, "Just run the whole track through SincerityFarm, and
> that should do the trick."
>
> CL
>
>
>are you telling me that i don't really need to know??? i remember
when the news weather and sports took 15 minutes.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 01:59:12 -0500, "justcron"
<pachinko@hydrorecords.com> wrote:
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43c48528$1@linux...
>
>> News was once news. Now it's largely infotainment. It all got cheaper
>> along
>> the way. It was a gradual process, but it's been happenning...
>
>That literally disgusts me.... I hate when the evening news talks about
>celebrity bullshit.
>bush annoys me...
On 11 Jan 2006 08:28:46 +1000, "DC" <dc@spamamodernist.org> wrote:
>
> http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=st.util.pri ntrick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>are you telling me that i don't really need to know??? i remember
>when the news weather and sports took 15 minutes.
Here in Oz, on one of the major three commercial channels as well as the
(generally better IMO) government world channel, the late news and weather
take 1/2 hour and sport then gets it's own 1/2 hour. Of course in the commercial
network by the time you take out the weather, the finance report, the Hollywood
story, and the cat stuck up a tree, you probably get about 3 proper news
stories...
....of course it is, and always has been, far more important that we know
the in depth on the upcoming tennis tournament than, say, an upcoming election
or war...
<rant off>
A Sheez.... new I should have gone to bed straight after posting on Don's
blog... ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.These tweaks were taken from pages that were specific to xp and even
intentionally left out things like vcache that now longer have any
effect. My impression is that these should make a difference though the
sites of course could be wrong. Many of these did come from musicxp.net
too. Anything specific that won't make a difference?
John
Chris Ludwig wrote:
> HI John,
>
> Most of this info looks like it's from 98SE and windows 2000.
> The tuning tips page on www.musicxp.net is all you really have to do.
> Anything else will have no or very little positive impact.
> Don't over tweak!!!
> :)
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> John wrote:
>
>> Comments?
>>
>>
>> See below ------- for descriptions
>>
>> 2 audio Partitions
>
>
> No Point at all. The second partition will be just as slow as if you
> left the drive as a full partition. Also if you were trying to write to
> both partitions at once your gonna kill the throughput of the drive big
> time. You will also add to to the confusion of have to always be moving
> files back and forth.
>
>> Use NTFS drives with 64k clusters
>
> Very Very minor difference.
>
>> In BIOS disable USB, LPT1, Serial port
>
>
> You shouldn't ever need to disable the USB ports unless your motherboard
> is not functioning properly. I usually disable the serial port and LPT
> sense I haven't used on of these in years.
>
>> Remove Messenger
>
>
> No point if it not running it is not effecting the system. Just disable
> it from start when windows starts.
>
>
>> Classic Mode
>
>
> Only if you don't like the look of the new xp theme. You will save a
> little bit of ram and thats about it. If you have a really old video
> card then you might need to use this mode.
>
>> Classic Start Menu
>
>
> Ditto
>
>
>> Disable Screen Savers
>
>
> Yep
>
>> Power Schemes: you can have the monitor turn off but set Turn Hard
>
>
> yes
>
>> Drives off to NEVER
>
>
> yes
>
>> Disable Hibernation
>
>
> yes
>
>> Disable automatic update
>
>
> yes
>
>
>> Disable system restore
>
>
> yes but not until you are sure everything is running stable. Such as a
> fresh install of xp.
> Then just us drive imaging software to do roll backs.
>
>> Disable the Computer Browser in Services to improve mapped drive
>> browsing.
>
>
> pointless
>
>> Disable your network card by right clicking on the nic icon
>
>
> Same as USB. Unless you are having specific issues with there is no
> point. I personally would be able to work with out. At least not easily.
>
>> Defrag regularly
>
>
> Only system drive!!!!
>
>
>> Keep your desktop clean
>
>
>
> That will never happen ...:)
>
>> No wallpapers
>
>
> Makes no difference. You'll save a minor amount of ram.
>
>
>> No screensavers
>
>
> yep
>
>> Set video to highest color depth
>
>
>
> yes most all video cards are native 32 bit. If you have on that doesn't
> work well with that setting then your video sucks.
>
>> Visual Effects for best performance
>
>
> Yes. Otherwise known as Classic Mode
>
>
>> Processor Scheduling for Background Services
>
>
> YES YES this is the only real tweak that makes the most difference.
>
>> Uncheck Remote Assitance
>
>
> I would but I use it allot. It has no impact unless you are using and
> its impact is minor.
>
>> Increase your IRQ priority
>
>
> No point. Worked well on 98 and on older motherboards but doesn't have
> any effect on current hardware.
>
>
>> Turn off your visual effects
>
>
> Your repeating yourself
>
>
>> Disable Error Reporting
>
>
> Make sure you leave the critical notification checked.
>
>
>> Disable Power Management
>
>
> As mentioned above yes
>
>
>> Set graphic acceleration to full
>
>
> Yes. You should never set it to anything else. When you do this you are
> tell the video card top let the CPU do all the work instead.
>
>
>> Disable your system sounds
>
>
> Of course
>
>
>> Disable background applications
>
>
> Depends on what you mean by that.
>
>> Specify your own virtual memory settings, If you have 512MB RAM or
>> higher set this to 384 for Min and Max on same drive as XP
>
>
> No. That was go good setting for 98 but not for XP. I usually set it to
> double or 3x the ram in the system but set the min/max to the same. If
> I'm using more than 2 gigs then I just set it to equal the amount of ram.
>
>
>> Disable auto-insert notification
>
>
> No point unless your system is really slow.
>
>> Disable USB
>
>
> Doh not again
>
>
>> Graphical window settings
>
>
> What?
>
>
>> Remove Taskbar popup baloon
>
> Why? You won't be able to mouse over the icon to see what it is as easily.
>
>> Speed up Menus
>
>
> If you want but I think they fast enough.
>
>
>> Disable offline files
>
>
> It will save disk space thats about it.
> Un-checking "use fast user switching will a more useful effect by not
> loading as much user info into ram if you have multiple account on the
> system.
>
>> Disable Internet Synchronise Time
>
>
> If you want but it won't have any effect on performance.
>
>
>> Disable Hide Inactive Icons
>
>
> Yes
>
>> Disable Automatic Desktop Cleanup Wizard
>
>
> Yes just because is annoying.
>
>> Disable NTFS Last Access Time Logging (NTFS Only)
>
>
> It helps a little but you probably won't be able to see a difference.
>
>
>> Disable disc indexing
>
>
> Yes
>
>> Maker sure DMA mode is enabled on drives
>
>
> Shouldn't be an issues at all on a current motherboard but might be on
> older motherboards running xp.
>
>
>> Do Not Map through Soundcard
>
>
> No
>
>>
>> Restart your machine at this point in time. When you come back the
>> first thing you should do is defrag the main drive even if it doesn't
>> say it needs it. This way the swap file has been truly set and you're
>> ready to continue.
>>
>
> If this is a fresh install and you have run disk clean up then yes this
> can make sense.
>
>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------
>>
>> Partitioning. A useful tip when configuring your audio disc, is to
>> split this into two partitions. Set up a smaller "audio scratch"
>> partition - say 6GB of a 30GB hard disc. This partition will be used
>> for the songs that you are currently working on. The benefit of a
>> smaller partition is obviously quicker defragmentation. If you use the
>> entire 30GB as one partition, then this will take ages to defragment.
>> When you are finished with a song, transfer the audio files to the
>> non-scratch partition, where disc I/O performance isn't so critical.
>>
>> Messenger starts up at the windows load up but we can get rid of that
>> in no time at all..
>> Start Menu>Run
>> Type this in exactly as it is here:
>> RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove
>> Hit Enter...you will see a DOS-like shell appear and disappear very
>> quickly and then it will ask you to restart.
>>
>> Right-click on your desktop, and then click Properties.
>> Click on Themes tab
>> Set Themes to Windows Classic
>>
>> Also do this for the Start Menu:
>> Right-click the Start button, and then click Properties.
>> Click Classic Start menu.
>> Click the Customize button to select items to display on the Start menu.
>> By default, selecting the Classic Start menu also adds the My
>> Documents, My Computer, My Network Places, and Internet Explorer icons
>> to your desktop.
>>
>> Click on the Screen Saver tab, Set Screensaver to None, Press the
>> Power button near the bottom
>>
>> Hibernate..If this is Enabled uncheck it. This is mainly for Laptops
>> but uses a very large chunk of data.(I've seen this not show up on the
>> first boot of XP..when you restart it will be there but it's disabled)
>>
>> Disable automatic update - Since Windows XP will connect to the
>> internet to find updates automatically for you, you will want to
>> disable this. Sometimes beneficial but unnecessary and often annoying,
>> you can ditch it by going to Start » Settings » Control Panel »
>> Performance and Maintenance » Automatic Updates and select "Turn off
>> automatic updates".
>>
>> Disable system restore - Windows XP has a built in function to back up
>> system files to help reduce the risk of crashes due to lost data,
>> software conflicts and so on. The drawback, is that a fair bit of
>> system overhead is used to perform this and can be disabled if you
>> choose by right clicking on "My Computer", clicking on "Properties" »
>> "System Restore" and choosing "Turn off system restore on all drives."
>>
>> Advanced tab: Press Settings tab under Performance Visual Affects tab:
>> set to Adjust for Best Performance.
>> Advanced tab: Processor Scheduling: Set this for Background Services
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> Increase your IRQ priority - You can increase the IRQ priority of the
>> real-time CMOS clock to gain some system performance by doing the
>> following:
>> 1.) First create a text file with the extension .reg
>> 2.) Paste the following into the file:
>>
>> REGEDIT4
>> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Priorit yControl]
>> "IRQ8Priority"=dword:00000001
>>
>> 3.) Double-click on the file to enter the tweak into your registry.
>>
>> This can be un-installed should you need to by repeating the three
>> steps above with a new file, except this time use the following in
>> your .reg file:
>>
>> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Priorit yControl]
>> "IRQ8Priority"=dword:00000000
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> Turn off your visual effects (aka, eye-candy) - This can be done by
>> going to "Control Panel" » "System" » "Advanced" » "Performance
>> Settings" » "Visual Effects". Select "Custom" and deselect the visual
>> effect options. Next, set the Windows theme to "Classic". It'll make
>> your OS look a bit more boring (and less like a Barbie toy), by right
>> clicking on your desktop, and selecting "Properties", select "Windows
>> theme" and choose "Classic".
>>
>> Disable Error Reporting - You can use this for troubleshooting, but
>> you can also disable it. Go to "Control Panel" » "System" » "Advanced"
>> and choose "Disable" to disable error reporting.
>>
>> Disable Power Management - Power management can be disabled by going
>> Start» Settings » Control Panel » Power Management. Set the Power
>> Scheme to "Always On" and set "System Standby", "Turn off hard disks"
>> and "Turn off monitor" to "Never".
>>
>> Disable Screen Savers - Screen savers can cause unexpected performance
>> glitches, so you'll want to disable them. Disable any screen savers by
>> right clicking on your desktop and right clicking » Click on
>> "Properties" » Click on the "Screen Saver" tab and set it to "None".
>>
>> Set graphic acceleration to full - You can do this by going to your
>> desktop, right clicking and clicking on "Properties" then on
>> "Settings", "Advanced" and the "Performance" tab. Make sure the
>> Hardware Acceleration slider is set to "full" to reduce the load on
>> your CPU.
>>
>> Disable your system sounds - Go to Start» Settings » Control Panel »
>> Sounds and select "No Sounds" as the sound scheme.
>>
>> Disable background applications - Background applications start up
>> when your computer starts up and can use up unneccicary resources. To
>> prevent these from starting up go to Start » Run and type "msconfig"
>> in the run box. Click on the "startup tab" and disable (uncheck)
>> programs such as "taskmon", "load power profile", "real player",
>> "office startup", "winamp agent" and so on. Keep programs like "scan
>> registry", "system tray" and programs relating to interfacing with
>> your audio card (such as console software to control its features).
>>
>> Specify your own virtual memory settings - You can tell Windows to set
>> your virtual memory settings to a fixed size so that it will not
>> re-size its swap file as you work (causing glitches with your audio).
>> To do this, right click on the "My Computer" icon on your desktop and
>> select "Properties". Click on the "Performance" tab and select
>> "Virtual Memory". Click on "Let me Specify my own virtual memory
>> settings" and for hard disk select your "working disk" (generally the
>> fastest one you use in your system for audio) and set the "minimum"
>> RAM to twice the amount of physical RAM in your system. If you have
>> 256 megabyts, set it to 512. The "Maximum" will already be set for you
>> as the remainder of the free space on your drive. Windows will warn
>> you once you click "ok" (ignore the warning) and you will have to
>> reboot before the settings take efect.
>>
>> Disable auto-insert notification - Disabling this for all of your
>> CDROM/DVD-ROM/CDR drives will be benificial. To do this, right click
>> on the "My Computer" icon on your desktop and select "Properties".
>> Click on the "Device Manager" tab and locate your CD-ROM/DVD-ROM
>> drives under the CD-ROM section. Click on "Properties" for each drive
>> and un-check "Auto Instert Notification". You will likely have to
>> reboot for these settings to take effect.
>>
>> Disable USB - If you do not have any devices actively using USB in
>> your system (this includes dongles for your software), disable USB as
>> it is known to sometimes cause problems in certain DAW configurations.
>> Not only will this help to increase system performance, but it will
>> also free up an IRQ. Right click on your "My Computer" icon on your
>> desktop and select "Properties". Click on the "Device Manager" tab and
>> scroll down until you see the USB section. Click on the "Properties"
>> for the USB device and check off "Disable in this Hardware Profile".
>> You will have to reboot for these settings to take effect.
>>
>> Graphical window settings - Go to Start » Settings » Folder options
>> and click on the "View" tab. Under "Visual settings" check off "Show
>> window contents while dragging. This is more of a usability tweak, as
>> it will allow you to see the contents of windows on the screen as you
>> drag them around (instead of them going blank).
>>
>> Now, let's stop that annoying balloon from popping up from our system
>> tray, Click Start , click Run , type regedit , and then press
>> ENTER. HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\
>> CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced Right-click the right pane, create a
>> new DWORD value, and then name it EnableBalloonTips . Double-click
>> this new entry, and then give it a hexadecimal value of 0 . Quit
>> Registry Editor. Log off Windows, and then log back on.
>>
>> Speed Up Menus
>> You can use this tip to speed up the Start Menu in Windows XP. You can
>> customize the speed of the Start Menu by editing a Registry Key. Click
>> Start, and then click Run. Type Regedit in the box, and then click OK.
>> Expand the menu in the left panel and select the
>> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop folder. Scroll down in the
>> right panel and double click on the MenuShowDelay file. In the Value
>> Data box, change to default value for the menu speed from 400 to a
>> lesser number, such as 1. Click OK.
>>
>> Disable Offline Files. Start > Settings > Control Panel > Folder
>> Options > Offline Files > Untick "Enable Offline Files"
>>
>> Disable Internet Synchronise Time -- Start > Settings > Control Panel
>> > Date and Time > Internet Time > Untick "Automatically synchronize
>> with an internet time server"
>>
>> Disable Hide Inactive Icons, Start > Settings > Taskbar and Start
>> Menu > Taskbar TAB > Uncheck "Hide Inactive Icons"
>>
>> Disable Automatic Desktop Cleanup Wizard, Start > Settings > Control
>> Panel > Display > Desktop > Customise Desktop > Untick "Run Desktop
>> Cleanup Wizard every 60 days"
>>
>> Disable NTFS Last Access Time Logging (NTFS Only), Start > Run >
>> regedit > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > SYSTEM > CURRENTCONTROLSET > CONTROL >
>> FILESYSTEM Add a new DWORD value - "NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate"
>> (without quotes) and set the value to 1. Then reboot to make changes
>> effective
>>
>> Disable Disc Indexing, Indexing Service is a service that extracts
>> the information from a set of documents and organizes it in a way that
>> makes it quick and easy to access that information through the Windows
>> XP Search function, the Indexing Service query form, or a Web browser.
>> This information can include text from within a document, (its
>> contents), and the characteristics and parameters of the document,
>> (its properties), such as the author's name. Once the index is
>> created, you can search, or query the index for documents that contain
>> key words, phrases, or properties.
>>
>> Do Not Map Through Soundcard, Start > Settings > Control Panel >
>> Sounds and Audio Devices > Hardware Tab > (highlight your soundcard
>> from the list) > Properties > Audio Devices > (highlight your
>> soundcard from the list) > Properties, and check the "Do not map
>> through this device" checkbox.
>>
>>
>>
>Be careful though. I hope they get it right but if you don't want to be
a beta tester you might wait 6 months.
John
James McCloskey wrote:
> http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2006/MOTU-Intel-Mac-Dri vers.htmlI seem to recall that the
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61825 is a reply to message #61822] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 16:57 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
the 3D world is just cheapening the experience.
>
> It's getting as bad as real stereo sound. I can remember when that 3D
Stereophonic
> Demonstration record was new - the one with the locomotive on it. Soon
thereafter,
> if a person happened to be next to a real train, the first thing they'd
think
> is, hey, that's almost as good a stereo effect as that locomotive on the
> Stereo Demo Record!
>
> Now, with everyone plugged into their iPods, stereo sound is just a
cheapened
> commodity!
>
> But, seriously, the world of Simulated Reality has so infiltrated
Authentic
> Experience that few even notice it anymore.
>
> It's curious that that article relates back to the 1800s, before Edison,
> since that was when things were either Real or imagined through Reading.
> The claims it makes for iPods strike me as bogus, since virtually the same
> claims could be (and were) made for records, then radio broadcasts, then
> television (first black and white, then, gasp! Color!), stereo, etc.
>
> -steve the artguy
>
> yes, I have a cold. That is my excuse.Damn right, Steve. And don't forget, we used to get along JUST FINE without
all this 3D crap lying around. Sure, it made getting the pasta and boiling
water into the colandar a little tricker, but after a few bouts with third
degree burns you'd learn to put the pot in in the same place and check the
damn thing to be sure both handles were visible from the front BEFORE boiling
the water. These days, I mean, kids just walk up to the stove, check the
pasta to see if it's done (do you believe that? they actually get a fork
out and pull out a strand to be sure it's done, no fear of buring themselves)
and then absentmindedly grab the pot and drain the pasta! All because of
all of this 3D stuff.
And if you think it's all great, this 3D crap? The other day I was hanging
out with my grandfather and we were talking. Kids can't even freaking SEE
these days. By the time he was nine he could have run a factory with one
eye closed and two prosthetic limbs. It just doesn't MEAN anything these
days.
TCB
"steve the artguy" <artguy@svnartichokespittle.net> wrote:
>
>You've noticed it. There are cheezy 3D everythings now. A frightening 3D
rendered
>version of Popeye. 3D commercial everythings. 3D knobs on VSTis. 3D desktops.
>3D CGI effects everywhere.
>
>Kids nowadays don't even have to read books and imagine for a second what
>a real 3D world would be like. It's handed to them like a cheap dish of
onion
>fries!
>
>Oh wait. We're in a real 3D world. I forgot.
>
>**start again**
>
>You've noticed it. There are cheezy 3D everythings now. A frightening 3D
>car in your driveway. 3D stores and businesses, staffed with 3D people.
Real
>3D instruments, that make real noises. 3D desks. The entire world, once
you
>know what to look for (from studying modern 3D CGI effects) is in 3D!
>
>Kids nowadays don't even have to look at 3D video games (much less red and
>green lensed 3D glasses!) and imagine for a second what a real 3D world
would
>be like. It's handed to them like a cheap dish of onion fries!
>
>This commodification of the 3D world is just cheapening the experience.
>
>It's getting as bad as real stereo sound. I can remember when that 3D Stereophonic
>Demonstration record was new - the one with the locomotive on it. Soon thereafter,
>if a person happened to be next to a real train, the first thing they'd
think
>is, hey, that's almost as good a stereo effect as that locomotive on the
>Stereo Demo Record!
>
>Now, with everyone plugged into their iPods, stereo sound is just a cheapened
>commodity!
>
>But, seriously, the world of Simulated Reality has so infiltrated Authentic
>Experience that few even notice it anymore.
>
>It's curious that that article relates back to the 1800s, before Edison,
>since that was when things were either Real or imagined through Reading.
>The claims it makes for iPods strike me as bogus, since virtually the same
>claims could be (and were) made for records, then radio broadcasts, then
>television (first black and white, then, gasp! Color!), stereo, etc.
>
>-steve the artguy
>
>yes, I have a cold. That is my excuse.OF COURSE the level of AVERAGE musicianship among orchestral musicians of
the 19th century would have been higher than today. There were more opportunities
for those type of musicians to work then, and training for classical musicians
has not changed dramtically since then. So, more jobs * same average talent
* similar training = better average musicians. No great mystery there.
Your original post referred to an article that claimed *listeners* have changed.
That's true, of course, people are differnet today than they were 150 years
ago, but I find it hard to believe that people with a vastly greater array
of music choices would find music less meaningful. Me, I like modernity.
If I want Thai food I walk two blocks from my house and order some. In the
gorgeous 19th century I'd have had to get on a steam (or even sailing) ship
and travel 'round South America to a French colony called Siam just for some
chicken pad-see-u. Does this mean that food *means* less to me?
TCB
"DC" <dc@spamthehorns.com> wrote:
>
>You know, I did audio and video for the Claude Gordon trumpet
>seminar one summer. This is a master-class for brass people.
>
>Sitting there recording for a week, listening to all these world-class
>players lecture and demonstrate, I learned something I never would
>have suspected:
>
>That the level of technical skill and musicianship is actually lower
>now than in the late 19th century. Claude unearthed pieces from
>back then, that you had to be able to play to be a good trumpet
>player, that almost no one could play today. His goal was to
>restore a 19th-century level of musicianship to brass players, and
>the people who demonstrated that week played brass like I have
>never heard before. Brass with balls is the best way to put it.
>
>Hearing people like Frank Kaderabek play was bracing, but watching
>the brass profs with their jaws on their chest was even more so.
>
>The point? That music, pumped into your ears, as the soundtrack
>to, say riding the train, or jogging, is likely to be different music than
>that from a world with no TV and no radio, where families sang
>together, and learning an instrument was like learning to read;
>pretty much everyone did it.
>
>Reasoning backward from technology to art reduces art. The gear
>should not have too much control over the shape of music, but
>with most of us, it does.
>
>Creating forward from art to technology is possible, but it requires
>a level of discipline and vision that few can muster today.
>
>Hence; bad music.Hi,
Everyone will be a beta tester for the MAC/Intel change for quite awhile
to come in both the software and hardware world. The majority of the
software companies I see didn't even have most of their major bugs
worked out for the current hardware. I wish all the MAC guys the best of
luck on this. Windows folks will be going through a similar experience
when Vista becomes ready for prime time.
Chris
John wrote:
> Be careful though. I hope they get it right but if you don't want to be
> a beta tester you might wait 6 months.
> John
>
> James McCloskey wrote:
>
>> http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2006/MOTU-Intel-Mac-Dri vers.html
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762HI Dave,
In the US Steinberg no longer sells the competitive upgrade. It seemed
to coincide with the Yamaha thing. Maybe they will again soon sens there
are many times I could sold it recently. I'm sure there are dealers that
probably still have stock of them.
Wavelab 5 does not use a dongle either.
Chris
Dave(EK Sound) wrote:
> I believe the competitive upgrade is sold at a dealers discretion... and
> V4 does not use a dongle, just the serial number on the package.
>
> David.
>
> Chas. Duncan wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris -- I'm hanging in there, and thanks for asking... Still
>> lurking around here and learning a thing or two about Paris usage from
>> time to time... Moved the Cubase side of my operation to SX3 on a
>> separate box a while ago, but staying with Paris for its tape-ness
>> and for its console-ness... (How's that for a hi-tech overview?)
>>
>> As for Wavelab -- I just don't want all that surround and video stuff
>> cluttering up my life -- and I don't want to pay for stuff I probably
>> won't use... I found v.4 in a box (at B&H) for $167 -- as a
>> "competitive upgrade"... Might go that way -- but I'm wondering how
>> Steinberg may be handling the qualifying/verifying aspect of that sort
>> of deal as it concerns what is essentially an obsolete product...
>> Don't want to get that box open and then find out that Steinberg is no
>> longer in the business of un-locking v.4 in a transaction of this
>> type... Your thoughts?
>>
>> And -- while I have your undivided attention -- I'm thinking about
>> getting a laptop setup with a lean and mean interface (the RME
>> Fireface, maybe) for live stuff... I'd run SX3 for recording at
>> 24bitsx48k, then drag everything into Wavelab for batch conversion to
>> PAF's, then open in Paris, do the mojo, rinse and repeat... Question
>> for you, my good man, is: what's the cool laptop for this? Wanting to
>> run 12-16 inputs max, doing nothing but record (no messing around in
>> there with plugins, processing, nada)... Enlighten, if you can, and
>> thanks in advance -- Chas.
>>
>> (and: where are you working these days, anyway?)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:51:34 -0500, Chris Ludwig
>> <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> HI Chas,
>>> How are you doing?
>>>
>>> Sense the upgrade from Wavelab 3 to 5 is only 299.00 direct from
>>> Steinberg that would be the best way to go. You would probably be
>>> paying close to that from somebody used. You will also at least be
>>> able to register it and get support.
>>>
>>> Any other programs that offer some sort of cross grade will end up
>>> cost that much or more. The only one that is comparable in features,
>>> sound, usability would be Samplitude.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> Chas. Duncan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Want to buy, acquire, own a copy of Wavelab 4.1... Have 3.1 here and
>>>> would be glad to keep on using it, but I'm needing to move it to an XP
>>>> box, and 3.1 doesn't do XP. Not really interested in the surround
>>>> features and all the other complications of 5.0, and would like to
>>>> avoid spending money on features I don't need or want -- just need to
>>>> be doing that work under XP -- hence the search for 4.0...
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas? thanks -- Chas.
>>
>>
>>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I chimed
in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
urban myths of the platform irrational.
Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed urban
M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's see,
a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in line
with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
agrees with me, right?This is not possible.... The EDS500 card does not have the daughter
board installed... the ribbon headers for jumping cards are on the
daughter board... hence, this card can NOT be used in a multicard system.
David.
TC wrote:
> Hi there D,
>
> I don't have it currently installed, but I've had it running fine in a 4
> card system. The only thing is that it does not have eds effects on the
> submix of that card. It went south on me for some reason. I did have a
> local audio repair guru try and touch up some of the connectors (he said
> some of the solders were sloppy) but it did not solve the problem and I
> didn't want to spring the $ yet to get it fixed at thesoniq. Whatever is
> wrong with it seems to be on the daughtercard, so if you are interested
> just shoot me an offer privately. You and I have had smooth transactions
> before on ebay.
>
> Cheers,
>
> TC
>
> tc at soundloop dot com
>
>
>
>
> Dimitrios wrote:
>
>> Hi TC,
>> Sure it works with multi system EDS cards ?
>> If so how much the core card ?
>> Thanks
>> Dimitrios
>>
>> TC <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote:
>>
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>
>>>> I sold one to a Parisite named will wilson about 3 years ago. You might
>>>> search the archives and see if you can find him.
>>>>
>>>> Deej
>>>>
>>>> "Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote in message
>>>> news:43c3b280$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Was that the one without the daughter card?
>>>
>>> I've got one EDS sitting here that has a non-functioning daughter
>>> card (no
>>
>>
>> eds effects
>>
>>> work, but otherwise works normally).
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> TC
>>
>>
>>As I understand it, WL5 DOES require a dongle... at least our copy does...
David.
Chris Ludwig wrote:
> HI Dave,
> In the US Steinberg no longer sells the competitive upgrade. It seemed
> to coincide with the Yamaha thing. Maybe they will again soon sens there
> are many times I could sold it recently. I'm sure there are dealers that
> probably still have stock of them.
> Wavelab 5 does not use a dongle either.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Dave(EK Sound) wrote:
>
>> I believe the competitive upgrade is sold at a dealers discretion...
>> and V4 does not use a dongle, just the serial number on the package.
>>
>> David.
>>
>> Chas. Duncan wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris -- I'm hanging in there, and thanks for asking... Still
>>> lurking around here and learning a thing or two about Paris usage from
>>> time to time... Moved the Cubase side of my operation to SX3 on a
>>> separate box a while ago, but staying with Paris for its tape-ness
>>> and for its console-ness... (How's that for a hi-tech overview?)
>>>
>>> As for Wavelab -- I just don't want all that surround and video stuff
>>> cluttering up my life -- and I don't want to pay for stuff I probably
>>> won't use... I found v.4 in a box (at B&H) for $167 -- as a
>>> "competitive upgrade"... Might go that way -- but I'm wondering how
>>> Steinberg may be handling the qualifying/verifying aspect of that sort
>>> of deal as it concerns what is essentially an obsolete product...
>>> Don't want to get that box open and then find out that Steinberg is no
>>> longer in the business of un-locking v.4 in a transaction of this
>>> type... Your thoughts?
>>>
>>> And -- while I have your undivided attention -- I'm thinking about
>>> getting a laptop setup with a lean and mean interface (the RME
>>> Fireface, maybe) for live stuff... I'd run SX3 for recording at
>>> 24bitsx48k, then drag everything into Wavelab for batch conversion to
>>> PAF's, then open in Paris, do the mojo, rinse and repeat... Question
>>> for you, my good man, is: what's the cool laptop for this? Wanting to
>>> run 12-16 inputs max, doing nothing but record (no messing around in
>>> there with plugins, processing, nada)... Enlighten, if you can, and
>>> thanks in advance -- Chas.
>>>
>>> (and: where are you working these days, anyway?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:51:34 -0500, Chris Ludwig
>>> <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> HI Chas,
>>>> How are you doing?
>>>>
>>>> Sense the upgrade from Wavelab 3 to 5 is only 299.00 direct from
>>>> Steinberg that would be the best way to go. You would probably be
>>>> paying close to that from somebody used. You will also at least be
>>>> able to register it and get support.
>>>>
>>>> Any other programs that offer some sort of cross grade will end up
>>>> cost that much or more. The only one that is comparable in features,
>>>> sound, usability would be Samplitude.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chas. Duncan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Want to buy, acquire, own a copy of Wavelab 4.1... Have 3.1 here and
>>>>> would be glad to keep on using it, but I'm needing to move it to an XP
>>>>> box, and 3.1 doesn't do XP. Not really interested in the surround
>>>>> features and all the other complications of 5.0, and would like to
>>>>> avoid spending money on features I don't need or want -- just need to
>>>>> be doing that work under XP -- hence the search for 4.0...
>>>>>
>>>>> Any ideas? thanks -- Chas.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>Sooo..........Macs do suck, as I always suspected?
;o)
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>
> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
Celeron
> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
chimed
> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
zealot--clearly
> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
urban
> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
see,
> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
line
> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>
> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
unintentionally)
> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
> agrees with me, right?....Hmmm... ...Stalin??? Is he an intellectual from New England???...
....hmmm....
;)
Erlilo
"Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> skrev i melding
news:43c48483$1@linux...
> Hey Mr T,
>
>
> Damn liberal New Englander!!!
> I thought Stalin got rid of all you intellectuals.
>
>
> :)
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> TAB wrote:
>
>> Blah blah blah. Fatigue of the machine age, the emptiness of modernity,
>> blah
>> blah blah. I'm reading a book about the building of the trans-continental
>> railway in the US. I'm sure the indentured Chinese laborers had a much
>> "deeper
>> emotional involvement with music" blah blah blah. Theodor Adorno wrote
>> "The
>> Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" in freaking 1936, so
>> blah
>> blah blah can't we just go find music we like and listen to it however we
>> want to? "DC" <dc@spamyermama.org> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/060110164416.p4z0rn x6.html
>>>
>>>I find this disturbing and further, I think it ties directly into why so
>>>new and challenging music is being made.
>>>
>>>DC
>>
>>
>
> --
> Chris Ludwig
> ADK
> chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
> (859) 635-5762Hey Thad,
I'm with you buddy..!! All of that Mac crap about G4 this G5 that from Apple
more specifically Mr Jobs was just lies!!
To think most MAc users just bought into that baloney instead of investigating
on their own speaks volume. Bashing PC's at evey turn. I know Mr jobs just
wave'd the "white flag", but it seems that most MAc user's still don;t understand
the ramifications of what just happended or their in denial that now more
so than ever their beloved Apple PC is just a PC..
P.S.
It not even a top of the line PC.. To do that, they would have wnt with AMD's
dual cores. Nope. A MAc PC is just middle of the pac PC not worht the price
their asking, but hey. A Tiger (wink wink!!) can't change it's stripes over
night...Can they???
LaMont
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
>system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
chimed
>in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
>I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
>far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
>Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed urban
>M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
see,
>a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in line
>with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>
>So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
>so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
>raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
>So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>agrees with me, right?What other choice do they have? Motu has hedged their life on Apple. they
have to try and keep up as best as possible.
It's funny, a company that is sworn to not port over it's Digital Performer
over to the ewindows platform is actually doing just that..
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2006/MOTU-Intel-Mac-Dri vers.htmlWanna hook my ol' trusty 442 to the MEC with the BNC. Is it better to have
the 442 (ext clock out) on card A (ext. clock out to the MEC) or B (clock in
from the MEC), and are there any configs in Paris you have to make or will
Paris initialize and recognize both units?
Thanks
KentI can't speak for a twio card system, but on a 3 x card system being clocked
externally, it works much better if the 442 is on card A.
"Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43c5346e@linux...
> Wanna hook my ol' trusty 442 to the MEC with the BNC. Is it better to
have
> the 442 (ext clock out) on card A (ext. clock out to the MEC) or B (clock
in
> from the MEC), and are there any configs in Paris you have to make or will
> Paris initialize and recognize both units?
>
> Thanks
>
> Kent
>
>I have two DVD recorders, so I solved my problems by making a copy of the
whole thing playing it straight through. (I have a LiteOn 5005 recorder
that I got at Costco for less than $130.)
--
-Doug
http://www.parisfaqs.comI will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. Shit.
“So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
agrees with me, right?”
I didn’t say that about you but:
No.
Jobs said the new IMac i
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61827 is a reply to message #61822] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 17:07 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hat’s where lives are at risk. This stuff is old and silly.
Gene
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
>system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
chimed
>in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
>I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
>far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
>Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed urban
>M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
see,
>a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in line
>with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>
>So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
>so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
>raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
>So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>agrees with me, right?"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
>I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
>I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. Shit.
>
>“So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>agrees with me, right?”
>
>I didn’t say that about you but:
>
>No.
>
>Jobs said the new IMac is 2X-3X times faster than the old IMac.
>The new IMac has a dual processor.
>It is faster because it is a dual …and a faster processor.
>
>It is true that OSX is reported to run faster on the Intel chip.
>
>
>“So then, did the PPC chips suck?”
>
>Never stopped me from getting covers, production deals etc. It also never
>stopped me from enjoying the Mac as a creative tool.
Of course the chips don't suck, if they did why would Sony put a derivative
of the same line in the PS3? We're not talking about usability, we're talking
about architicture.
TCB
>I don’t know why you are so upset about what is obviously just marketing.
>
>
>Do you know that all cars don’t actually get the listed MPG on the sticker?
>Does that make Toyota suck, because they show the same lack of accuracy
as
>Ford?
>
>AMD and Intel both lie in marketing literature. So what!
>
>If you are angered by lies and misrepresentations, we should talk about
our
>government. That’s where lives are at risk. This stuff is old and silly.
>
>Gene
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
>>system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
>chimed
>>in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
>>I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
>>far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>>urban myths of the platform irrational.
>>
>>Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
urban
>>M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>>hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
>see,
>>a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
line
>>with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>>
>>
>>So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>>right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>>version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>>the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
>>so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
>>raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>>
>>So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>>agrees with me, right?At the risk of being annoying and incarcerated, I have
another question. I have been brought to the brink of
insanity trying to find out what is causing my CPU to
idle at 50% load. I've tried evrything, and though my
computer is now a bit faster and more efficient, it still
mocks me at 50%.
A couple of you have suggested re-booting, and "wiping everything off", also
saying that this would be an "easy"
solution.
I haven't done this in years, and the last time, I remember re-loading software
for two days solid. That leads me to believe
that there is some way to re-boot, while indicating which
programs you want to stay; a "soft" or "partial" re-boot.
Is this right, or am I facing re-loading every friggin' plug-in,
program, etc.?
Help!I agree, people should wait to see how things go for a bit.
James
Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>Everyone will be a beta tester for the MAC/Intel change for quite awhile
>to come in both the software and hardware world. The majority of the
>software companies I see didn't even have most of their major bugs
>worked out for the current hardware. I wish all the MAC guys the best of
>luck on this. Windows folks will be going through a similar experience
>when Vista becomes ready for prime time.
>
>
>
>Chris
>
>
>John wrote:
>> Be careful though. I hope they get it right but if you don't want to
be
>> a beta tester you might wait 6 months.
>> John
>>
>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2006/MOTU-Intel-Mac-Dri vers.html
>
>--
>Chris Ludwig
>ADK
>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>(859) 635-5762I'm not sure what you are saying isn't possible. The card I'm referring to has
the daughtercard installed, it's just not working for eds effects but it passes
audio, and I did have it in a multicard system. I've never used an EDS 500 card.
Cheers,
TC
EK Sound wrote:
> This is not possible.... The EDS500 card does not have the daughter
> board installed... the ribbon headers for jumping cards are on the
> daughter board... hence, this card can NOT be used in a multicard system.
>
> David.
>
> TC wrote:Hey Chris --
Thanks for the response. I have a couple things I have to take care
of in the next day or two, but I'll get back to you about that
laptop/fireface combo... Appreciate the info, and nice to have you
back on my audio radar -- talk to you soon -- Chas.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:05:12 -0500, Chris Ludwig
<chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>Chas. Duncan wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris -- I'm hanging in there, and thanks for asking... Still
>> lurking around here and learning a thing or two about Paris usage from
>> time to time... Moved the Cubase side of my operation to SX3 on a
>> separate box a while ago, but staying with Paris for its tape-ness
>> and for its console-ness... (How's that for a hi-tech overview?)
>
>A perfect description.
>
>>
>> As for Wavelab -- I just don't want all that surround and video stuff
>> cluttering up my life -- and I don't want to pay for stuff I probably
>> won't use... I found v.4 in a box (at B&H) for $167 -- as a
>> "competitive upgrade"... Might go that way -- but I'm wondering how
>> Steinberg may be handling the qualifying/verifying aspect of that sort
>> of deal as it concerns what is essentially an obsolete product...
>> Don't want to get that box open and then find out that Steinberg is no
>> longer in the business of un-locking v.4 in a transaction of this
>> type... Your thoughts?
>
>I would call them. They haven;t made the competitive upgrade in awhile.
>So I'm not sure how they would handle it.
>I think this is the number you need to call. (877) 253 3900
>
>>
>> And -- while I have your undivided attention -- I'm thinking about
>> getting a laptop setup with a lean and mean interface (the RME
>> Fireface, maybe) for live stuff... I'd run SX3 for recording at
>> 24bitsx48k, then drag everything into Wavelab for batch conversion to
>> PAF's, then open in Paris, do the mojo, rinse and repeat... Question
>> for you, my good man, is: what's the cool laptop for this? Wanting to
>> run 12-16 inputs max, doing nothing but record (no messing around in
>> there with plugins, processing, nada)... Enlighten, if you can, and
>> thanks in advance -- Chas.
>
>
>This system will work great for that.
>
> http://www.adkproaudio.com/systems/saved_system.cfm?systemid =89&saved_id=7529
>I can work a nice price if you are getting the Fireface at the same
>time. We are RME's #3 independent dealer in the US.
>
>You can use an external USB2 drive for transferring the files to Paris
>or use the on board network.
>If you want to use firewire to transfer files then use a Lacie firewire
>card bus for either the drives or the Fireface 800.
>The Fireface works and sounds excellent.
>It by the way can be configured to work stand alone so you can use as an
>AD/DA for Paris if you want too.
>
>>
>> (and: where are you working these days, anyway?)
>>
>>
>
>Been working at ADK for a little over a year now.
>Here is our client page to see what we are up to. It is couple months
>out of date and haven;t had time to update it yet.
>
>Give me a call (859) 635-5762
>
>
>
>Chris
>
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:51:34 -0500, Chris Ludwig
>> <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>HI Chas,
>>>How are you doing?
>>>
>>>Sense the upgrade from Wavelab 3 to 5 is only 299.00 direct from
>>>Steinberg that would be the best way to go. You would probably be paying
>>>close to that from somebody used. You will also at least be able to
>>>register it and get support.
>>>
>>>Any other programs that offer some sort of cross grade will end up cost
>>>that much or more. The only one that is comparable in features, sound,
>>>usability would be Samplitude.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>Chas. Duncan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Want to buy, acquire, own a copy of Wavelab 4.1... Have 3.1 here and
>>>>would be glad to keep on using it, but I'm needing to move it to an XP
>>>>box, and 3.1 doesn't do XP. Not really interested in the surround
>>>>features and all the other complications of 5.0, and would like to
>>>>avoid spending money on features I don't need or want -- just need to
>>>>be doing that work under XP -- hence the search for 4.0...
>>>>
>>>>Any ideas? thanks -- Chas.
>>
>>Is your start menu clear?
"Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote in message news:43c53b67$1@linux...
>
> At the risk of being annoying and incarcerated, I have
> another question. I have been brought to the brink of
> insanity trying to find out what is causing my CPU to
> idle at 50% load. I've tried evrything, and though my
> computer is now a bit faster and more efficient, it still
> mocks me at 50%.
>
> A couple of you have suggested re-booting, and "wiping everything off",
> also
> saying that this would be an "easy"
> solution.
>
> I haven't done this in years, and the last time, I remember re-loading
> software
> for two days solid. That leads me to believe
> that there is some way to re-boot, while indicating which
> programs you want to stay; a "soft" or "partial" re-boot.
>
> Is this right, or am I facing re-loading every friggin' plug-in,
> program, etc.?
>
> Help! http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;task=view&id=1098
Macsters, see above for further insight.
El Miguel (yes, Thad's a cad, but for other reasons entirely :)-
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>
> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
Celeron
> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
chimed
> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
zealot--clearly
> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
urban
> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
see,
> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
line
> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>
> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
unintentionally)
> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
> agrees with me, right?Using GHOST 2003 is the only way I have kept what little sanity I have.
I make images like this.
Winxp1.gho raw xp install
Winxp2.gho with Paris installed
Winxp3.gho with Paris and 20 fav apps
Restoring an image takes 3 minutes typically, so I can play all I want
and always get back to a milestone.
John
Chris Lang wrote:
> At the risk of being annoying and incarcerated, I have
> another question. I have been brought to the brink of
> insanity trying to find out what is causing my CPU to
> idle at 50% load. I've tried evrything, and though my
> computer is now a bit faster and more efficient, it still
> mocks me at 50%.
>
> A couple of you have suggested re-booting, and "wiping everything off", also
> saying that this would be an "easy"
> solution.
>
> I haven't done this in years, and the last time, I remember re-loading software
> for two days solid. That leads me to believe
> that there is some way to re-boot, while indicating which
> programs you want to stay; a "soft" or "partial" re-boot.
>
> Is this right, or am I facing re-loading every friggin' plug-in,
> program, etc.?
>
> Help!"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
> I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
> I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. Shit.
Like the moth to the flame...! Heehee...
For a long time now (actually, a decade or more) I have chosen my operating
system and hardware AFTER I have chosen my application. I have used
Altiverb, Digital Performer, Logic, Final Cut Pro and other apps that only
work on Macs. Sure, we can argue about speeds and costs forever more, amen,
but when it comes down to it, isn't it the app that really matters?
Long time quote from my ParisFAQs site:
<quote>
I've come here for an argument!
Which OS is better??? X vs. XP
My answer? If you can run Paris, who cares?!!
</quote>
--
-Doug
http://www.parisfaqs.comAnother brainwashed zealot!
"Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;task=view&id=1098
>
>
>Macsters, see above for further insight.
>
>
>
>El Miguel (yes, Thad's a cad, but for other reasons entirely :)-
>
>
>
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>>
>> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
>Celeron
>> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed,
I
>chimed
>> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
that
>> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
>zealot--clearly
>> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>>
>> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
>urban
>> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
>see,
>> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
>line
>> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>>
>>
>> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches,
and
>> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
>unintentionally)
>> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>>
>> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>> agrees with me, right?
>
>I am assuming that you have two EDS cards to hook these interfaces
to... With the MEC on the "A" card, patch from word clock out on the
MEC to word clock in on the 442. Use a good quality 75 Ohm cable, as
short as possible to make the connection.
David.
Kent wrote:
> Wanna hook my ol' trusty 442 to the MEC with the BNC. Is it better to have
> the 442 (ext clock out) on card A (ext. clock out to the MEC) or B (clock in
> from the MEC), and are there any configs in Paris you have to make or will
> Paris initialize and recognize both units?
>
> Thanks
>
> Kent
>
>So you have an EDS1000 with bum effects then... OK, I thought you said
you had an EDS500... sorry.
David.
TC wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are saying isn't possible. The card I'm referring
> to has
> the daughtercard installed, it's just not working for eds effects but it
> passes
> audio, and I did have it in a multicard system. I've never used an EDS
> 500 card.
>
> Cheers,
>
> TC
>
> EK Sound wrote:
>
>> This is not possible.... The EDS500 card does not have the daughter
>> board installed... the ribbon headers for jumping cards are on the
>> daughter board... hence, this card can NOT be used in a multicard system.
>>
>> David.
>>
>> TC wrote:For me the new laptop looks particularly interesting. Since Apple
laptops never got the benefit of the G5 due to power/heat/battery
issues, they've lagged with the G4. So the jump in processing speed with
a dual Intel using a brand spankin new chip design seems to offer a
pretty compelling jump in speed. Of course the speed jump depends on
having software compiled for it so it won't kick in for another month or
longer for some some software.
The new Intel chips will also be interesting with other operating systems.
I look forward to finding out about Thunderbird, Firefox, Open Office
and other open source project plans for running on OSX with Intel.
TCB wrote:
> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I chimed
> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
> urban myths of the platform irrational.
Well, now you're an exaggerator, too. ;^)
Heh, no matter how you deny it, I think you're still a writer at your
core. From the Hunter S. school, most likely. :^)
> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed urban
> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's see,
> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in line
> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
(grin) Well it seems fairly probable that a dual processor chip could
possibly be twice as fast as a single processor chip, minus the overhead
but plus any advantages from the newer design. Let us know if you
discover anything about design problems or improvements with the new
chips, OSX upgrade and compiler upgrades.
> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
Let us know what you find out.
> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
> agrees with me, right?
It was only lil' ol' me that said you said something that sounded like
an urban myth. But we settled all that already. Nothing left to take
back. Oh, and I also called you dude. I take that back. Oh, and I think
I called you an Linux zealot. But that's a complement, so I'll let that
stand.
Not the brainwashed bit, though, that was someone else.
If you find out further info about kernel or compiler issues or
improvements during the Intel transition, please keep us posted.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.comKudos to MOTU. This is great support.
Mac developers have known about this transition for more than a year,
and have had systems available for developing and testing. We'll see how
well they each one does with the transition but MOTU's announcement is a
good sign.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
James McCloskey wrote:
> I agree, people should wait to see how things go for a bit.
>
> James
>
> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>Everyone will be a beta tester for the MAC/Intel change for quite awhile
>
>
>>to come in both the software and hardware world. The majority of the
>>software companies I see didn't even have most of their major bugs
>>worked out for the current hardware. I wish all the MAC guys the best of
>
>
>>luck on this. Windows folks will be going through a similar experience
>>when Vista becomes ready for prime time.
>>
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>Be careful though. I hope they get it right but if you don't want to
>
> be
>
>>>a beta tester you might wait 6 months.
>>>John
>>>
>>>James McCloskey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2006/MOTU-Intel-Mac-Dri vers.html
>>
>>--
>>Chris Ludwig
>>ADK
>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>(859) 635-5762Yawn.
Thad, I use Macs at home (for music,etc.) and PC's at work so my comments
are based on my experiences with both OSX and XP. I haven't used an open
source OS yet, so I can't speak to that. I also don't dispute any factual
observations you make about computer code. How can I? I'm not a programmer.
I just plain like OSX better than XP. The speed of the machine in my case is
almost a moot point, as long as it does what I want it to reasonably
quickly. I don't care if I have to wait 3 seconds longer to process a file.
I don't care if I can only run 50 VST plug ins vs. 70. For me, it's all
about comfort, and I'm more comfortable with OSX.
I'm not an expert on benchmark testing so please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm sure when Apple puts up benchmark results, that they choose those tests
that show the Mac in the best light. What company wouldn't? To my
recollection, the benchmark tests shown by Apple show how the Mac performs
certain things (usually Photoshop processes) compared to much higher clock
rate PC's. So if Apple shows a dual 2.0 GHz G5 benchmarks faster in a
certain task than a dual 2.0 GHz (or faster) P4, Xeon, etc. are they lying?
If Apple says they make the fastest personal computers and they are lying,
why haven't Intel, Microsoft, Dell, etc. sued their ass into oblivion? Mind
you, I'm not being argumentative, I'm just curious. It's a pretty big claim,
so I'd think these much bigger companies would call them on it.
Now, about the new Intel Macs. I don't dispute with you that Apple may have
crappy code or kernel or whatever running the PPC. I remember the promise of
RISC chips was always touted over CISC chips and I suppose this "bad" kernel
implementation by Apple could explain why the promised potential was never
realized. Again, I'm not an expert in this area. So now we find that OSX
runs much faster on Intel chips. I don't see the downside here. Yippee for
us Mac guys! I just bought a NOS Dual 2GHz G5 a month ago. I knew the Intel
boxes were coming, but I also knew there could be some bugs to work out and
some wait for the software vendors to catch up and I don't like to be a beta
tester when that much money is involved. I got the G5 at a good price and
the speed increase over my G4 is very noticeable. I'm happy with my
purchase. In 18 months or so I'll probably go for the fastest Intel Mac
available. Not because I'll necessarily need it, but because I'm a gear slut
and that's just what we do. Plus, by then I'm sure there will be some cool
super demanding app out there that might require more horsepower.
Anyway, I know your post wasn't directed at me, as I didn't dispute any of
your previous comments, but I can see how you can be viewed as a Mac basher.
Maybe it's just your style of communicating and maybe it's an unfair
characterization, but I can see why some Mac users could take offense. I
think both Mac and PC users have a certain sense of pride in their gear and
it's hard not to take an attack on that gear as somewhat personal. My two
cents anyway.
Tony
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>
> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
> Celeron
> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
> chimed
> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
> zealot--clearly
> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
> urban
> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
> see,
> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
> line
> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>
> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
> unintentionally)
> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
> agrees with me, right?Was working on a project last night and Paris kinda crashed with a "failure
to calculate overview" and when I tried to save, got a disk read error.
I rebooted and now it asks if I want for format the drive, that it is unformatted.
A pretty recent WD 80 gig with light use. I really need some st
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61829 is a reply to message #61825] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 17:29 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
than today. There were more opportunities
>for those type of musicians to work then, and training for classical musicians
>has not changed dramtically since then. So, more jobs * same average talent
>* similar training = better average musicians. No great mystery there.
Where did they come from? Average homes where they sang
non-classical songs and played non-classical tunes, and learned
to listen to music. This has an effect far outside of the orchestral
world as you should know.
At any rate, there are millions more classical musicians, many more
good schools, and orchestras, and many new ways of teaching
today, but all that is really irrelevant.
>Your original post referred to an article that claimed *listeners* have
changed.
>That's true, of course, people are differnet today than they were 150 years
>ago, but I find it hard to believe that people with a vastly greater array
>of music choices would find music less meaningful.
Did you read the article? I don't think "choices" was causal...
The very *idea* of meaning is laughable to many musicians today
so what should the public do? Well they listen to tired oldies don't
they, and some search for great new stuff and sometimes find it,
while many embrace a postmodern world so as not to lose any self respect
as a sophisticated person.
>Me, I like modernity.
But that is a period style too! Nothing new there. Even "shocking
the bourgoisie" is boring.
>If I want Thai food I walk two blocks from my house and order some. In the
>gorgeous 19th century
Just a minute, **straw man alert**
The concept here is improving musicianship and the appreciation
of music in our time. Try to stay on-topic...
>I'd have had to get on a steam (or even sailing) ship
>and travel 'round South America to a French colony called Siam just for
some
>chicken pad-see-u. Does this mean that food *means* less to me?
Of course it does. The trip would have elevated the food to a near
religious experience.
Go to your local church, sing a cute song or two. Now take a boat
to Borobudur. Now climb the site slowly, and you cannot go further
until you understand each scene in front of you. Above lies
enlightenment. 10 years later, you reach the summit...
Which experience (regardless of you personal beliefs) is likely to be
more intense and meangingful? (assuming of course that you
could find it within yourself to give Borobudur that much of your
time, and do so sincerely)
No one is suggesting that we return to any other time, nor make
things arbitrarily more difficult.
I would suggest that there are lessons to be learned however.
Just a thought...
DC
>
>TCB
>
>"DC" <dc@spamthehorns.com> wrote:
>>
>>You know, I did audio and video for the Claude Gordon trumpet
>>seminar one summer. This is a master-class for brass people.
>>
>>Sitting there recording for a week, listening to all these world-class
>>players lecture and demonstrate, I learned something I never would
>>have suspected:
>>
>>That the level of technical skill and musicianship is actually lower
>>now than in the late 19th century. Claude unearthed pieces from
>>back then, that you had to be able to play to be a good trumpet
>>player, that almost no one could play today. His goal was to
>>restore a 19th-century level of musicianship to brass players, and
>>the people who demonstrated that week played brass like I have
>>never heard before. Brass with balls is the best way to put it.
>>
>>Hearing people like Frank Kaderabek play was bracing, but watching
>>the brass profs with their jaws on their chest was even more so.
>>
>>The point? That music, pumped into your ears, as the soundtrack
>>to, say riding the train, or jogging, is likely to be different music than
>>that from a world with no TV and no radio, where families sang
>>together, and learning an instrument was like learning to read;
>>pretty much everyone did it.
>>
>>Reasoning backward from technology to art reduces art. The gear
>>should not have too much control over the shape of music, but
>>with most of us, it does.
>>
>>Creating forward from art to technology is possible, but it requires
>>a level of discipline and vision that few can muster today.
>>
>>Hence; bad music.
>"John Macy" <spamlessjohn@johnmacy.com> wrote:
>
>Was working on a project last night and Paris kinda crashed with a "failure
>to calculate overview" and when I tried to save, got a disk read error.
>
>I rebooted and now it asks if I want for format the drive, that it is unformatted.
>
>A pretty recent WD 80 gig with light use. I really need some stuff off
it.
>
>Ideas????
>
>TIA
EasyRecovery Professional 6.1
Expensive, but it works if you don’t have a true hardware failure
A free trial version will tell you what files it can restore, but it must
be run from a working system drive.
A second PC with a removable sled is a good approach to this kind of repair.
Gene
http://www.ontrackdatarecovery.com.au/easyrecoveryprofession al/GetDATABack... had this happen last week... best $69US I have ever spent:
http://www.runtime.org/gdb.htm
David.
John Macy wrote:
> Was working on a project last night and Paris kinda crashed with a "failure
> to calculate overview" and when I tried to save, got a disk read error.
>
> I rebooted and now it asks if I want for format the drive, that it is unformatted.
>
> A pretty recent WD 80 gig with light use. I really need some stuff off it.
>
> Ideas????
>
> TIAI have decided that enough is enough. I will no longer be subject to this
invasive hounding and persecution by our government. In order to fully
express my outrage however, I'm going to have to revert back to my previous
life as a liberal/borderline anarchist. To that end, I have decided to
become a moving target. I will no longer have a permanent name. I will
henceforth become a citizen of the world community, My moniker will change
in keeping with the philosophy that there are no absolutes....only shades of
grey......and I will be a free spirit....adopting whatever identity suits my
mood. It is my right as a citizen of the world.
As a liberal returning to the fold, in order to get into the swing of things
as quickly as possible, I will need a reason to be really paranoid. In order
to fulfill this need, and in keeping with my anarchistic leanings, I think
I'll revert back to my previously held beliefs that whatever I want to do
that, in my opinion doesn't hurt anyone else(and to hell with what anyone
else thiniks) should be my right to do, and to **** the law. To that end,
I'm going to start smoking dope again and calling my supplier and talking
about it on the phone. Hopefully the NSA will pick up on this and my
supplier and I will get busted. Then we can get the ACLU to challenge the
Patriot Act in federal court and while they're at it, they can try out this
new law by proving that I can't piss people off unless I use my real
name......so what's my name now Mr.
Bush?????...huh???...........HUH?????......what'cha gonna do?
Cheers,
Ngyuen O'Brady
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43c48c22$1@linux...
>
>
> WHAT THE?!? That's not your birthname????? ;o)
>
> Gee now I'm *really* annoyed... ;o)
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >I guess I'm going to have to post my full name nowadays if I wasnt to
piss
> >somebody off......nawwwwwwww...........I'm just going to change my legal
> >name to Deej
> >
> >
> >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43c42b43$1@linux...
> >>
> >> "DC" <dc@spamamodernist.org> wrote:
> >> >off to jail with me then!
> >>
> >> Nah, surely we can find a way to lock up the people who made the law.
> I
> >mean
> >> they're the ones who are doing the actual annoying. You're just the
> >messenger.
> >>
> >> I can see the headline now "Internet annoyance jail law causes
annoyance
> >> and jail"... ;o)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Kim.
> >
> >
>make backup it's free !!!
EK Sound wrote:
> GetDATABack... had this happen last week... best $69US I have ever spent:
>
> http://www.runtime.org/gdb.htm
>
> David.
>
> John Macy wrote:
>
>> Was working on a project last night and Paris kinda crashed with a
>> "failure
>> to calculate overview" and when I tried to save, got a disk read error.
>>
>> I rebooted and now it asks if I want for format the drive, that it is
>> unformatted.
>>
>> A pretty recent WD 80 gig with light use. I really need some stuff
>> off it.
>>
>> Ideas????
>>
>> TIAWelcome to Canada.... ;-)
David.
Hrothgar Jiminez wrote:
> I have decided that enough is enough. I will no longer be subject to this
> invasive hounding and persecution by our government. In order to fully
> express my outrage however, I'm going to have to revert back to my previous
> life as a liberal/borderline anarchist. To that end, I have decided to
> become a moving target. I will no longer have a permanent name. I will
> henceforth become a citizen of the world community, My moniker will change
> in keeping with the philosophy that there are no absolutes....only shades of
> grey......and I will be a free spirit....adopting whatever identity suits my
> mood. It is my right as a citizen of the world.
>
>
> As a liberal returning to the fold, in order to get into the swing of things
> as quickly as possible, I will need a reason to be really paranoid. In order
> to fulfill this need, and in keeping with my anarchistic leanings, I think
> I'll revert back to my previously held beliefs that whatever I want to do
> that, in my opinion doesn't hurt anyone else(and to hell with what anyone
> else thiniks) should be my right to do, and to **** the law. To that end,
> I'm going to start smoking dope again and calling my supplier and talking
> about it on the phone. Hopefully the NSA will pick up on this and my
> supplier and I will get busted. Then we can get the ACLU to challenge the
> Patriot Act in federal court and while they're at it, they can try out this
> new law by proving that I can't piss people off unless I use my real
> name......so what's my name now Mr.
> Bush?????...huh???...........HUH?????......what'cha gonna do?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ngyuen O'Brady
>
> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43c48c22$1@linux...
>
>>
>>WHAT THE?!? That's not your birthname????? ;o)
>>
>>Gee now I'm *really* annoyed... ;o)
>>
>>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I guess I'm going to have to post my full name nowadays if I wasnt to
>
> piss
>
>>>somebody off......nawwwwwwww...........I'm just going to change my legal
>>>name to Deej
>>>
>>>
>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:43c42b43$1@linux...
>
>>>>"DC" <dc@spamamodernist.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>off to jail with me then!
>>>>
>>>>Nah, surely we can find a way to lock up the people who made the law.
>>
>>I
>>
>>>mean
>>>
>>>>they're the ones who are doing the actual annoying. You're just the
>>>
>>>messenger.
>>>
>>>>I can see the headline now "Internet annoyance jail law causes
>
> annoyance
>
>>>>and jail"... ;o)
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Kim.
>>>
>>>
>
>He'll be the first anarchist-liberal. An interesting branch, that.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
EK Sound wrote:
> Welcome to Canada.... ;-)
>
> David.
>
> Hrothgar Jiminez wrote:
>
>> I have decided that enough is enough. I will no longer be subject to this
>> invasive hounding and persecution by our government. In order to fully
>> express my outrage however, I'm going to have to revert back to my
>> previous
>> life as a liberal/borderline anarchist. To that end, I have decided to
>> become a moving target. I will no longer have a permanent name. I will
>> henceforth become a citizen of the world community, My moniker will
>> change
>> in keeping with the philosophy that there are no absolutes....only
>> shades of
>> grey......and I will be a free spirit....adopting whatever identity
>> suits my
>> mood. It is my right as a citizen of the world.
>>
>>
>> As a liberal returning to the fold, in order to get into the swing of
>> things
>> as quickly as possible, I will need a reason to be really paranoid. In
>> order
>> to fulfill this need, and in keeping with my anarchistic leanings, I
>> think
>> I'll revert back to my previously held beliefs that whatever I want to do
>> that, in my opinion doesn't hurt anyone else(and to hell with what anyone
>> else thiniks) should be my right to do, and to **** the law. To that end,
>> I'm going to start smoking dope again and calling my supplier and talking
>> about it on the phone. Hopefully the NSA will pick up on this and my
>> supplier and I will get busted. Then we can get the ACLU to challenge the
>> Patriot Act in federal court and while they're at it, they can try out
>> this
>> new law by proving that I can't piss people off unless I use my real
>> name......so what's my name now Mr.
>> Bush?????...huh???...........HUH?????......what'cha gonna do?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ngyuen O'Brady
>>
>> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:43c48c22$1@linux...
>>
>>>
>>> WHAT THE?!? That's not your birthname????? ;o)
>>>
>>> Gee now I'm *really* annoyed... ;o)
>>>
>>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess I'm going to have to post my full name nowadays if I wasnt to
>>
>>
>> piss
>>
>>>> somebody off......nawwwwwwww...........I'm just going to change my
>>>> legal
>>>> name to Deej
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> news:43c42b43$1@linux...
>>
>>>>> "DC" <dc@spamamodernist.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> off to jail with me then!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, surely we can find a way to lock up the people who made the law.
>>>
>>>
>>> I
>>>
>>>> mean
>>>>
>>>>> they're the ones who are doing the actual annoying. You're just the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> messenger.
>>>>
>>>>> I can see the headline now "Internet annoyance jail law causes
>>
>>
>> annoyance
>>
>>>>> and jail"... ;o)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Kim.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>I always backup--I have over a terrabyte of drive space here. I worked on
this all day, and was 10 minutes away from backing up and heading home.
David--were you getting the same "not formatted message"? I like the price
:)
EK Sound <spamnot.info@eksoundNO.com> wrote:
>GetDATABack... had this happen last week... best $69US I have ever spent:
>
>http://www.runtime.org/gdb.htm
>
>David.
>
>John Macy wrote:
>
>> Was working on a project last night and Paris kinda crashed with a "failure
>> to calculate overview" and when I tried to save, got a disk read error.
>>
>> I rebooted and now it asks if I want for format the drive, that it is
unformatted.
>>
>> A pretty recent WD 80 gig with light use. I really need some stuff off
it.
>>
>> Ideas????
>>
>> TIAI said *borderline anarchist* goddammit.......errr.......sorry, this should
be , accursed diety.....or not, depending upon your religious or secular
persuasion. Damn! Sorry, I'm a bit rusty.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:43c56a3e@linux...
>
> He'll be the first anarchist-liberal. An interesting branch, that.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
> EK Sound wrote:
> > Welcome to Canada.... ;-)
> >
> > David.
> >
> > Hrothgar Jiminez wrote:
> >
> >> I have decided that enough is enough. I will no longer be subject to
this
> >> invasive hounding and persecution by our government. In order to fully
> >> express my outrage however, I'm going to have to revert back to my
> >> previous
> >> life as a liberal/borderline anarchist. To that end, I have decided to
> >> become a moving target. I will no longer have a permanent name. I will
> >> henceforth become a citizen of the world community, My moniker will
> >> change
> >> in keeping with the philosophy that there are no absolutes....only
> >> shades of
> >> grey......and I will be a free spirit....adopting whatever identity
> >> suits my
> >> mood. It is my right as a citizen of the world.
> >>
> >>
> >> As a liberal returning to the fold, in order to get into the swing of
> >> things
> >> as quickly as possible, I will need a reason to be really paranoid. In
> >> order
> >> to fulfill this need, and in keeping with my anarchistic leanings, I
> >> think
> >> I'll revert back to my previously held beliefs that whatever I want to
do
> >> that, in my opinion doesn't hurt anyone else(and to hell with what
anyone
> >> else thiniks) should be my right to do, and to **** the law. To that
end,
> >> I'm going to start smoking dope again and calling my supplier and
talking
> >> about it on the phone. Hopefully the NSA will pick up on this and my
> >> supplier and I will get busted. Then we can get the ACLU to challenge
the
> >> Patriot Act in federal court and while they're at it, they can try out
> >> this
> >> new law by proving that I can't piss people off unless I use my real
> >> name......so what's my name now Mr.
> >> Bush?????...huh???...........HUH?????......what'cha gonna do?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Ngyuen O'Brady
> >>
> >> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:43c48c22$1@linux...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> WHAT THE?!? That's not your birthname????? ;o)
> >>>
> >>> Gee now I'm *really* annoyed... ;o)
> >>>
> >>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I guess I'm going to have to post my full name nowadays if I wasnt to
> >>
> >>
> >> piss
> >>
> >>>> somebody off......nawwwwwwww...........I'm just going to change my
> >>>> legal
> >>>> name to Deej
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> news:43c42b43$1@linux...
> >>
> >>>>> "DC" <dc@spamamodernist.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> off to jail with me then!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nah, surely we can find a way to lock up the people who made the
law.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I
> >>>
> >>>> mean
> >>>>
> >>>>> they're the ones who are doing the actual annoying. You're just the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> messenger.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I can see the headline now "Internet annoyance jail law causes
> >>
> >>
> >> annoyance
> >>
> >>>>> and jail"... ;o)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Kim.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>Anyone using Drumagog? Does it work with PARIS ?Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>For me the new laptop looks particularly interesting. Since Apple
>laptops never got the benefit of the G5 due to power/heat/battery
>issues, they've lagged with the G4. So the jump in processing speed with
>a dual Intel using a brand spankin new chip design seems to offer a
>pretty compelling jump in speed. Of course the speed jump depends on
>having software compiled for it so it won't kick in for another month or
>longer for some some software.
>
>The new Intel chips will also be interesting with other operating systems.
>
>I look forward to finding out about Thunderbird, Firefox, Open Office
>and other open source project plans for running on OSX with Intel.
Since those apps use X86 compilers with a long and superb development tree
I can't imagine it will be that long before they move over. In fact, I would
expect things like Firefox the be running nearly bug free on Intel OS X before
most commercial apps get there.
>TCB wrote:
>> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
>> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed,
I chimed
>> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
that
>> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
>> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
>Well, now you're an exaggerator, too. ;^)
>
>Heh, no matter how you deny it, I think you're still a writer at your
>core. From the Hunter S. school, most likely. :^)
>
>
>> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
urban
>> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
see,
>> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
line
>> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>(grin) Well it seems fairly probable that a dual processor chip could
>possibly be twice as fast as a single processor chip, minus the overhead
>but plus any advantages from the newer design. Let us know if you
>discover anything about design problems or improvements with the new
>chips, OSX upgrade and compiler upgrades.
>
Come now, Jamie, you know better than that. Dual processor machines don't
get anywhere near twice the performance in the absolute best of situations.
Getting 1.5X is considered very good unless apps are specifically designed
for many processors. And the more processes one tacks on the board the less
the performance improvement until essentially all that's left is some advantages
in multi-threading when some processes can just take their own chip to run
on.
Now then, I went back and checked the original post and I got it only partially
right. It was a 3 Ghz Celeron that "spanked a Dual G5 in a HUGE way." This
comes from Pete Leoni, who has forgotten more about computer hardware than
I'll ever know. It would not surprise me at all to find that Apple is the
first computer company ever to under report their performance. We'll see.
>
>> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches,
and
>> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
>> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
>Let us know what you find out.
I think that will be the most interesting piece of this puzzle, for sure.
>
>> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>> agrees with me, right?
>
>It was only lil' ol' me that said you said something that sounded like
>an urban myth. But we settled all that already. Nothing left to take
>back. Oh, and I also called you dude. I take that back. Oh, and I think
>I called you an Linux zealot. But that's a complement, so I'll let that
>stand.
>
>Not the brainwashed bit, though, that was someone else.
>
>If you find out further info about kernel or compiler issues or
>improvements during the Intel transition, please keep us posted.
Will do.
TCB
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>I wasn't sure how to describe this in the subject heading...
I've been on a bit of a project to get myself a DVD player to use as an MP3
player for the main stereo. To save myself the trouble of setting up a media
computer. Anyhow I was going to just buy a cheapo DVD player and be done
with it...
....but I got to the store and this DVD recorder caught my eye. It was only
$180 (no doubt that's not the cheap in the states but it's pretty good here)
and what I particularily liked was that it has a firewire and a USB port
on the front. Unfortunately nowhere in the manual does it tell you what you
can plug in to the USB port. I think the firewire only works with DV cameras.
I already tested the USB port with a USB memory stick and it worked perfectly.
What I'm wondering is, is there a difference between the driver for a USB
memory stick and a USB hdd. I had a feeling that I'd heard somewhere that
they both appear on your computer as the same device type.
I'm trying to work out whether the fact that the USB stick works means inherantly
that a USB hdd will work, or whether I'm going to have to try one.
If I can get this box to play MP3's off a USB hdd I'll be stoked.
Maybe I'm just going to have to buy an external USB case and try my luck...
Cheers,
Kim.I'm sorry I can't be of much help. Several months ago I "lost" 2 80gb
MAXTOR drives. I'm pretty sure its a hardware issue (though if I'm wrong I
may try the software David recommended.) I just wanted to let you know that
my thoughts are with you. Its a major domo drag.
May the road rise up to me you.
MR
"John Macy" <spamlessjohn@johnmacy.com> wrote in message
news:43c55fcf$1@linux...
>
> Was working on a project last night and Paris kinda crashed with a
"failure
> to calculate overview" and when I tried to save, got a disk read error.
>
> I rebooted and now it asks if I want for format the drive, that it is
unformatted.
>
> A pretty recent WD 80 gig with light use. I really need some stuff off
it.
>
> Ideas????
>
> TIAI use it in DP, but never tried in PARIS. It's a killer plug in.
Tony
"tonehouse" <zmcleod@comcast.net> wrote in message news:43c57ddf@linux...
> Anyone using Drumagog? Does it work with PARIS ?
>
>Thanks Kim. I had completely forgotten about the stripwav utility. I've been
away from this much too long. :-)
Edric
Kim <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43c4d1dc$1@linux...
>
>
> Yep, that's the header info.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OSX running on a PC [message #61845 is a reply to message #61829] |
Sat, 24 December 2005 10:22 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>
>Of course it does. The trip would have elevated the food to a near
>religious experience.
>
>Go to your local church, sing a cute song or two. Now take a boat
>to Borobudur. Now climb the site slowly, and you cannot go further
>until you understand each scene in front of you. Above lies
>enlightenment. 10 years later, you reach the summit...
>
>Which experience (regardless of you personal beliefs) is likely to be
>more intense and meangingful? (assuming of course that you
>could find it within yourself to give Borobudur that much of your
>time, and do so sincerely)
Glad you made that point so I don't have to. Had I the means and time in
1850 to dedicate three years to getting Thai food I could have had some and
it would have registered as more exotic, though not necessarily more meaningful.
As far as the stuff about what's meaningful, and that only difficult things
can be so, I think that's bunk. I've had lots of incredibly unmeaningful
experiences that were crushing hard work and some enourmously meaningful
experiences that were easy like Sunday morning.
But if you'll excuse me, I have to restring two guitars right now so I can
play a show tomorrow tonight. Which I probably shouldn't bother doing since
nobody really cares about music anymore.
TCB
>No one is suggesting that we return to any other time, nor make
>things arbitrarily more difficult.
>
>I would suggest that there are lessons to be learned however.
>
>Just a thought...
>
>DC
>
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"DC" <dc@spamthehorns.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>You know, I did audio and video for the Claude Gordon trumpet
>>>seminar one summer. This is a master-class for brass people.
>>>
>>>Sitting there recording for a week, listening to all these world-class
>>>players lecture and demonstrate, I learned something I never would
>>>have suspected:
>>>
>>>That the level of technical skill and musicianship is actually lower
>>>now than in the late 19th century. Claude unearthed pieces from
>>>back then, that you had to be able to play to be a good trumpet
>>>player, that almost no one could play today. His goal was to
>>>restore a 19th-century level of musicianship to brass players, and
>>>the people who demonstrated that week played brass like I have
>>>never heard before. Brass with balls is the best way to put it.
>>>
>>>Hearing people like Frank Kaderabek play was bracing, but watching
>>>the brass profs with their jaws on their chest was even more so.
>>>
>>>The point? That music, pumped into your ears, as the soundtrack
>>>to, say riding the train, or jogging, is likely to be different music
than
>>>that from a world with no TV and no radio, where families sang
>>>together, and learning an instrument was like learning to read;
>>>pretty much everyone did it.
>>>
>>>Reasoning backward from technology to art reduces art. The gear
>>>should not have too much control over the shape of music, but
>>>with most of us, it does.
>>>
>>>Creating forward from art to technology is possible, but it requires
>>>a level of discipline and vision that few can muster today.
>>>
>>>Hence; bad music.
>>
>>I asked Morgan to get the guy to post on the NG. Until then, it's hearsay.
I'd like to know what scientific testing standards he used??? I'd like
to know which model G5 was tested??? Where the machines similarly
equipped???
I'd like to know this too, but the *guy* you refer to, Pete Leoni, isn't
some wanker. He's been at this computer stuff since a lot of us were
molecular tidbits in the primordial ooze and I'm confident that Morgan
wouldn't come here and pound sand about something like this......unless it
wasn't really Morgan....... maybe it was George Bush lying again.
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43c5b865$1@linux...
>
> Once again, I just posted information about what is going on with the new
> Macs. I wasn't looking for an argument on what is faster, better, who is
> lying. So here we go again, somebody mentions something about Apple, and
> it's bash time! Well I'm glad at least some people can see through this
> and clearly see the axe you grind. It's Ok if you don't like Apple
computer,
> Steve Jobs, Mac OSX, Apple hardware, Apple software, or the G5 processor.
> What's not Ok is anytime any of these things or people are mentioned on
> this NG it turns in to a mud slinging fest. That sucks! This is getting
> old! But I'll Play!
>
> As for Apples announcements, it doesn't prove a thing accept that , newer
> designs, faster bussing speeds, faster memory, and two processors are
faster
> than one. Apple went with the first processor available and used it in
both
> models. It's not the fastest Intel chip that will be available to them.
> The iMac is a consumer model, they haven't released the Mac Tower Pros
yet!!!
> Although, when they do, I'll bet they won't be the fastest Intel based
machines
> available. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
>
> It's no secret that the PowerBook was lagging way behind. I believe that
> is why the got the Mac Book pro out to their business customers first.
Give
> it time, Intel will release faster chips and the Mac Book Pro will get
faster.
> Right now it's Apples first offering.
>
> Jobs does a great job as CEO, and he does know how to put a good spin on
> their products, he just did it yesterday! You should go find out for
yourself,
> and find out what he really did say, instead of hearing a tidbit of
information
> and jumping to a lot of wrong conclusions! I recommend watching the
keynote
> speech, although the PC zealots wouldn't be able to stomach the truth.
>
> Apple had to do what Apple had to do. IBM couldn't get a G5 mobile chip
> out that worked. On the desk top, IBM did not meet their time line for
releasing
> faster G5 chips, and I don't think they could tell Apple when they would
> be able to. Apple always knew that this would be a possibility, that is
> part of why they have been running Mac OSX on Intel systems for the past
> five years now. The other reason I believe they were doing this is in the
> event MS dropped Office for the Mac they would be ready to roll out Intel
> based Macs and or Mac OSX for the PC. sort of a computer software cold
war.
> Notice they signed a five year plus operating agreement on support and
product
> development. Well that's my opinion.
>
>
> As for the question on Apples past processor performance.
>
> In the past the Apple PowerMac G4 with a single processor were tested
against
> a standard Intel Pentium 4, by independent computer test labs, using
industry
> standard test software. An Apple PowerMac G4 1.25 single processor model
> tested in the speed range of a Pentium 4 2.8 to 3.0 GHz. Later the G4
1.42
> MHz's were tested against the original 1.6 to 2.0MHz G 5s. The G5s were
> about 70% faster than the G4. There has been all kinds of independent
testing,
> If Apple was lying about performance they would have gotten sued. So I
have
> my doubts about Celerons eating G 5s. Check out both links.
>
>
> Here is some performance info on the G5 dual 2.7GHz.
>
> http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
>
> Here is info on the performance of the Apple G5 quad 2.5 GHz compared to
> the G5 dual 2.7. About 70% faster performance.
>
> http://www.apple.com/au/powermac/
>
> It's not logical to think that a Celeron could eat a G5. So when I hear
> a rumor that a 2.8GHz Celeron ate a G5, it makes me think it's PURE
BULLSHIT!!!
> I asked Morgan to get the guy to post on the NG. Until then, it's
hearsay.
> I'd like to know what scientific testing standards he used??? I'd like
> to know which model G5 was tested??? Where the machines similarly
equipped???
>
> Anything is possible, but I think it is just another PC zealot spreading
> more bogus rumors about Macs. I'll stick with lab testing and real world
> usefulness, not B.S. rumors.
>
> Just because some guy says something is so, and ten thousand people repeat
> it, doesn't mean it's true. Even a bad rumor with one leg will find away
> to get around! Even though it has nothing to stand on!
>
> I think people can see from the test above that something is not right
about
> the rumors, but of corse the PC zealots will argue that it is the other
way
> around.
>
> Some people just won't let the facts get in the way of their opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
> >
> >Another brainwashed zealot!
>
> That's the pot calling kettle black!
>
> >
> >"Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;task=view&id=10
98
> >>
> >>
> >>Macsters, see above for further insight.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>El Miguel (yes, Thad's a cad, but for other reasons entirely :)-
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
> >>>
> >>> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
> >>Celeron
> >>> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed,
> >I
> >>chimed
> >>> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
> >that
> >>> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
> >>zealot--clearly
> >>> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie
peddling
> >>> urban myths of the platform irrational.
> >>>
> >>> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
> >>urban
> >>> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And
we're
> >>> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So,
let's
> >>see,
> >>> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
> >>line
> >>> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac
World.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the
railroad
> >>> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly
parallel
> >>> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a
decade,
> >>> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches,
> >and
> >>> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
> >>unintentionally)
> >>> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
> >>>
> >>> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that
Steve
> >>> agrees with me, right?
> >>
> >>
> >
>Jesus uses OSX to count souls.
Osama uses XP to plan attacks.
George Bush uses an Etch-a-Sketch to defend us against attacks.
Discuss.Hey guys. I got in the pieces to my new studio box (Athlon X2 3800+ aka
dual-core) and finally had a reason to put it all together and run Paris.
During my first recording session, I think I hit the typical problem of the
transport locking up. It reminded me of the same symptoms when the MIDI sync
channels were bogus. I'd hit play and the machine would pause for a second
or two, then go back to a stopped state. Restarting Paris would resolve it
for a short bit before it hit the issue again.
Anyway, I did a little research and found two boot switches, /onecpu and
/intaffinity. These make windows run in uniprocessor mode and force
interrupts to one processor, respectively.
Tonight I was trying these and I haven't hit the lockup yet, even exercising
the C16 rather aggressively (scrub while stopping, playing, etc.). No
guarantee of it now working as I didn't hit the problem the other night
until an hour into the recording session.
So I'm wondering, have other people with multi-proc / multi-core machines
tried these switches? If so, did they make any difference?
More info can be found here:
http://sysinternals.com/Information/bootini.html
-RohdeGive it a rest James, this is all getting really tiresome.
WHO CARES.....
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43c5b865$1@linux...
>
> Once again, I just posted information about what is going on with the new
> Macs. I wasn't looking for an argument on what is faster, better, who is
> lying. So here we go again, somebody mentions something about Apple, and
> it's bash time! Well I'm glad at least some people can see through this
> and clearly see the axe you grind. It's Ok if you don't like Apple
> computer,
> Steve Jobs, Mac OSX, Apple hardware, Apple software, or the G5 processor.
> What's not Ok is anytime any of these things or people are mentioned on
> this NG it turns in to a mud slinging fest. That sucks! This is getting
> old! But I'll Play!
>
> As for Apples announcements, it doesn't prove a thing accept that , newer
> designs, faster bussing speeds, faster memory, and two processors are
> faster
> than one. Apple went with the first processor available and used it in
> both
> models. It's not the fastest Intel chip that will be available to them.
> The iMac is a consumer model, they haven't released the Mac Tower Pros
> yet!!!
> Although, when they do, I'll bet they won't be the fastest Intel based
> machines
> available. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
>
> It's no secret that the PowerBook was lagging way behind. I believe that
> is why the got the Mac Book pro out to their business customers first.
> Give
> it time, Intel will release faster chips and the Mac Book Pro will get
> faster.
> Right now it's Apples first offering.
>
> Jobs does a great job as CEO, and he does know how to put a good spin on
> their products, he just did it yesterday! You should go find out for
> yourself,
> and find out what he really did say, instead of hearing a tidbit of
> information
> and jumping to a lot of wrong conclusions! I recommend watching the
> keynote
> speech, although the PC zealots wouldn't be able to stomach the truth.
>
> Apple had to do what Apple had to do. IBM couldn't get a G5 mobile chip
> out that worked. On the desk top, IBM did not meet their time line for
> releasing
> faster G5 chips, and I don't think they could tell Apple when they would
> be able to. Apple always knew that this would be a possibility, that is
> part of why they have been running Mac OSX on Intel systems for the past
> five years now. The other reason I believe they were doing this is in the
> event MS dropped Office for the Mac they would be ready to roll out Intel
> based Macs and or Mac OSX for the PC. sort of a computer software cold
> war.
> Notice they signed a five year plus operating agreement on support and
> product
> development. Well that's my opinion.
>
>
> As for the question on Apples past processor performance.
>
> In the past the Apple PowerMac G4 with a single processor were tested
> against
> a standard Intel Pentium 4, by independent computer test labs, using
> industry
> standard test software. An Apple PowerMac G4 1.25 single processor model
> tested in the speed range of a Pentium 4 2.8 to 3.0 GHz. Later the G4
> 1.42
> MHz's were tested against the original 1.6 to 2.0MHz G 5s. The G5s were
> about 70% faster than the G4. There has been all kinds of independent
> testing,
> If Apple was lying about performance they would have gotten sued. So I
> have
> my doubts about Celerons eating G 5s. Check out both links.
>
>
> Here is some performance info on the G5 dual 2.7GHz.
>
> http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
>
> Here is info on the performance of the Apple G5 quad 2.5 GHz compared to
> the G5 dual 2.7. About 70% faster performance.
>
> http://www.apple.com/au/powermac/
>
> It's not logical to think that a Celeron could eat a G5. So when I hear
> a rumor that a 2.8GHz Celeron ate a G5, it makes me think it's PURE
> BULLSHIT!!!
> I asked Morgan to get the guy to post on the NG. Until then, it's
> hearsay.
> I'd like to know what scientific testing standards he used??? I'd like
> to know which model G5 was tested??? Where the machines similarly
> equipped???
>
> Anything is possible, but I think it is just another PC zealot spreading
> more bogus rumors about Macs. I'll stick with lab testing and real world
> usefulness, not B.S. rumors.
>
> Just because some guy says something is so, and ten thousand people repeat
> it, doesn't mean it's true. Even a bad rumor with one leg will find away
> to get around! Even though it has nothing to stand on!
>
> I think people can see from the test above that something is not right
> about
> the rumors, but of corse the PC zealots will argue that it is the other
> way
> around.
>
> Some people just won't let the facts get in the way of their opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Another brainwashed zealot!
>
> That's the pot calling kettle black!
>
>>
>>"Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;task=view&id=1098
>>>
>>>
>>>Macsters, see above for further insight.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>El Miguel (yes, Thad's a cad, but for other reasons entirely :)-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
>>>Celeron
>>>> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed,
>>I
>>>chimed
>>>> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
>>that
>>>> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
>>>zealot--clearly
>>>> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie
>>>> peddling
>>>> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>>>>
>>>> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
>>>urban
>>>> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And
>>>> we're
>>>> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
>>>see,
>>>> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
>>>line
>>>> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac
>>>> World.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the
>>>> railroad
>>>> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly
>>>> parallel
>>>> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a
>>>> decade,
>>>> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches,
>>and
>>>> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
>>>unintentionally)
>>>> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>>>>
>>>> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that
>>>> Steve
>>>> agrees with me, right?
>>>
>>>
>>
>Hey Rohde,
I sent you an email--can you call me? 303.915.3774.
Cya!
"Rohde Wakefield" <rohde @ iname.com> wrote:
>Hey guys. I got in the pieces to my new studio box (Athlon X2 3800+ aka
>dual-core) and finally had a reason to put it all together and run Paris.
>
>During my first recording session, I think I hit the typical problem of
the
>transport locking up. It reminded me of the same symptoms when the MIDI
sync
>channels were bogus. I'd hit play and the machine would pause for a second
>or two, then go back to a stopped state. Restarting Paris would resolve
it
>for a short bit before it hit the issue again.
>
>Anyway, I did a little research and found two boot switches, /onecpu and
>/intaffinity. These make windows run in uniprocessor mode and force
>interrupts to one processor, respectively.
>
>Tonight I was trying these and I haven't hit the lockup yet, even exercising
>the C16 rather aggressively (scrub while stopping, playing, etc.). No
>guarantee of it now working as I didn't hit the problem the other night
>until an hour into the recording session.
>
>So I'm wondering, have other people with multi-proc / multi-core machines
>tried these switches? If so, did they make any difference?
>
>More info can be found here:
>
>http://sysinternals.com/Information/bootini.html
>
>-Rohde
>
>
>
>HI Lamont,
RME has had driver for the Fireface 800 sense November. They haven't
made a big announcement for it because they know the reality of the
situation of what Intel has forced upon Apples customers especially with
the coming PCI-E only desktops.
Chris
LaMont wrote:
> What other choice do they have? Motu has hedged their life on Apple. they
> have to try and keep up as best as possible.
>
> It's funny, a company that is sworn to not port over it's Digital Performer
> over to the ewindows platform is actually doing just that..
> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2006/MOTU-Intel-Mac-Dri vers.html
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762Hi James,
Can;t wait to see the Kaos when the desktops start becoming more
available that are PCI-E only. No more UAD or TC for at least at least a
year. Same with audio cards. Some people have already announced that
they are going to release them but they are still gonna be a few months
away. Then the beta testing stage begins.... :)
The PC side of things has had to start dealing with this PCI-E stuff for
about a year but thankfully motherboard makers have decided to ease this
new tech into the systems slower so they can work out issues before
going full PCI-E. The spec it still far from settled and will still be
going through revisions. Remember how many revisions PCI went through?
Expect to have just as many.
Currently I'm laughing at all the people who are yelling at
manufacturers that are taking their time pushing out windows p4 pro
drivers and software. Vista is right around the corner and is a totally
different driver model and the software end of things have changed quite
a bit in it too. XP64 is a short term 64 bit solution sort of the poor
mans server 2003 64. It looks like it will turn out to be the next
Windows ME.
I'd rather have them work on getting everything ready for Vista personally.
Although some software companies wouldn't have anything to list as a new
feature if they didn't have a XP64 version of their app...doh
Chris
James McCloskey wrote:
> I agree, people should wait to see how things go for a bit.
>
> James
>
> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>Everyone will be a beta tester for the MAC/Intel change for quite awhile
>
>
>>to come in both the software and hardware world. The majority of the
>>software companies I see didn't even have most of their major bugs
>>worked out for the current hardware. I wish all the MAC guys the best of
>
>
>>luck on this. Windows folks will be going through a similar experience
>>when Vista becomes ready for prime time.
>>
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>Be careful though. I hope they get it right but if you don't want to
>
> be
>
>>>a beta tester you might wait 6 months.
>>>John
>>>
>>>James McCloskey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2006/MOTU-Intel-Mac-Dri vers.html
>>
>>--
>>Chris Ludwig
>>ADK
>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>(859) 635-5762
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762Mike,
If you still have those drives, stuff them in the freezer in sleds for an
hour. Put some silica gel bags on them to keep out moisture. Take them
straight from the freezer to the PC, see what you might be able to salvage.
If the bearings are giving out, this will give you a window to nab some data
back.
Rinse, repeat as needed until the drive gives out.
AA
"Mike R." <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:43c58240@linux...
> I'm sorry I can't be of much help. Several months ago I "lost" 2 80gb
> MAXTOR drives. I'm pretty sure its a hardware issue (though if I'm wrong
> I
> may try the software David recommended.) I just wanted to let you know
> that
> my thoughts are with you. Its a major domo drag.
> May the road rise up to me you.
> MR
>
>
> "John Macy" <spamlessjohn@johnmacy.com> wrote in message
> news:43c55fcf$1@linux...
>>
>> Was working on a project last night and Paris kinda crashed with a
> "failure
>> to calculate overview" and when I tried to save, got a disk read error.
>>
>> I rebooted and now it asks if I want for format the drive, that it is
> unformatted.
>>
>> A pretty recent WD 80 gig with light use. I really need some stuff off
> it.
>>
>> Ideas????
>>
>> TIA
>
>FWIW, I used a MEC to 442 2 card, then 3 card rig for years. A card had the
MEC, C card the 442. Use a good quality BNC cable, keep it short as you can.
AA
"Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43c564e1@linux...
> Right on, thanks.
>
> Kent
>
> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43c5346e@linux...
>> Wanna hook my ol' trusty 442 to the MEC with the BNC. Is it better to
> have
>> the 442 (ext clock out) on card A (ext. clock out to the MEC) or B (clock
> in
>> from the MEC), and are there any configs in Paris you have to make or
>> will
>> Paris initialize and recognize both units?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
>
>Hey James,
Just to be clear, I did *not* respond to your post, I started a new thread.
Thread, of course, rhymes with red, which was the color of the most famous
cars made by Enzo Ferrari, and Ferrari rhymes with Campari (and they're both
red and Italian too). Campari of course is a drink, and drink rhymes with
think, and think is something I always do before I start to write. Think
I did before I posted on the original thread (which rhymes with red . . .)
in which I offered (at the point polite) references to how using OS X and
Yellow Dog Linux on the same Apple hardware showed, in some situatoins, DRASTIC
differences in performance and none of them good for OS X. Knowing a bit
about computers I tossed out some explanations for why this might be true,
centering on kernel design. Jamie gamely gave me a few good links that talked
about other things that argued against kernel issues and for potential problems
wtih compilers. You called me names.
So, we now had two pieces of evidence at hand. First, *proof* that OS X was
extremely inefficient in some not in any way unusual computing scenarios
*when compared to another operating system on the same Apple hardware.* Second
was a report from Morgan Pettinato that Pete Leoni had found some incredible
performance on pretty junky Intel hardware running a developer version of
OS X. If arguing about computers with me is usually a losing battle, arguing
with Pete is like trying to stop an airplane with a tennis racquet.
What I will find most interesting if is this guy Pete Leoni will post his
results comparing a non-developer version of OS X to the one he was using.
THAT would be insightful, because we could get an idea of whether Apple was
making some "quick and dirty" stuff available to developers to get going
on OS X Intel that wouldn't go to the end users, and would help us understand
if it's kernel changes or compiler changes that are making the OS run fast
on Intel hardware. Then again, judging by the links you've provided your
primary source for information about Apple performance comes from . . . apple.com.
Because, as I've said, the underlying technology in the Power family is great
stuff. One of the reasons the G4 and G5 chips have been so successful in
academia is that the vector units are truly something special. Code your
app for those and they'll chew through other processors like butter. Apparently
they weren't easy to code for (compilers again?) but I remenber a few years
back talking to a developer friend of mine. This guy was a REAL geek, he
built command line audio applications on SGI boxes back when adding reverb
to a file was an overnight process. He said to me, in essence over a long
dinner, "That vector unit on the G4s is incredible. I rewrote the filter
algorithms in [plug-in I can't name] just for fun and I could have gotten
at least 8 filters running instead of two. Maybe more, because it was pretty
ugly assembly code I wrote, but I can't move the assembly code to any other
processors [back then this meant both other PPC chips and X86 chips] so until
there are tools to really use those vector units I just can't really."
Let's hope the same thing doesn't happen this time.
TCB
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Once again, I just posted information about what is going on with the new
>Macs. I wasn't looking for an argument on what is faster, better, who is
>lying. So here we go again, somebody mentions something about Apple, and
>it's bash time! Well I'm glad at least some people can see through this
>and clearly see the axe you grind. It's Ok if you don't like Apple computer,
>Steve Jobs, Mac OSX, Apple hardware,
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Jul 29 11:54:02 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.22383 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
