Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

Hi everyone,

I have a rather silly question.
I would like to upgrade to Logic 7.1 Pro.
I have Logic Platinum 6.4.3 now.
Is it possibble to upgrade to 7.1 and upgrade 6.4.3 platinum to 6.4.3 Pro?
In other words, if I upgrade to Logic 7.1 Platinum will I be entitled to use 
a copy of 6.4.3 platinum as well?
The reason why I am asking is the performance issues.
I knkow Logic 7.1 works better with G5 processors.
However, I have a Mac Mini and I have a powerbook G4 1Ghz.
I am not planning (can not afford to) upgrade in the next year either.

So, has anybody ever done this?
Any ideas?

Yavuz

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, YAVUZ AKYAZICI wrote:

> In other words, if I upgrade to Logic 7.1 Platinum will I be entitled to
> use
> a copy of 6.4.3 platinum as well?

I run 6 Pro and 7 Pro concurrently on my g4.  I've even managed to swap 
files back and forth between the two (but I wouldn't recommend it).  YOu 
should be alright.

_______________________________________________________
Eric Oehler / wonko@... / www.nulldevice.com
Synthetic music for synthetic people.

Hi,

Thanks for your reply...

>> In other words, if I upgrade to Logic 7.1 Platinum will I be entitled to
>> use
>> a copy of 6.4.3 platinum as well?
> 
> I run 6 Pro and 7 Pro concurrently on my g4.  I've even managed to swap 
> files back and forth between the two (but I wouldn't recommend it).  You 
> should be alright.
> 

Did you upgrade from Logic 6 Pro or Platinum?
Or... Did you just buy Logic 7 Pro and downloaded Logic 6 later?

I have Logic 6.4.3 Platinum now. Not Pro....

Thanks

Yavuz

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, YAVUZ AKYAZICI wrote:

> Did you upgrade from Logic 6 Pro or Platinum?

Well, I've gomne through every upgrade path since 5.5.  5.5->6.0->6.4->6 
Pro -> 7.

I probably even have 6.4 on my drive someplace.  So far, every version 
I've installed has left previous versions alone.

_______________________________________________________
Eric Oehler / wonko@... / www.nulldevice.com
Synthetic music for synthetic people.

OK. That is why I was asking if it was possibble to use Logic 6Pro when I 
upgrade to Logic 7 from 6Plat.
See, I have Logic 6 Platinum authorization in my XSKey.
I do not have Logic 6 Pro authorization.
If i upgrade to Logic 7 Pro I will have Logic 6 Platinum auth. and Logic Pro 
auth in the XSKey.
However, there will be no Logic 6 Pro auth.
That has to be given to me by Emagic/Apple unless Logic 6.4.3 Pro will run 
with Logic 7 Platinum authorization.

When you check you XSKey, do you have seperate authorizations for Logic 6 
Pro and 7 Pro?

One last question:
This whole thing would not be an issue if I had a G5 computer.
Do you have a G4 or G5?
If you have G4, how does the performance of Logic 7 compare to 6?

>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, YAVUZ AKYAZICI wrote:
>
>> Did you upgrade from Logic 6 Pro or Platinum?
>
> Well, I've gomne through every upgrade path since 5.5.  5.5->6.0->6.4->6
> Pro -> 7.
>
> I probably even have 6.4 on my drive someplace.  So far, every version
> I've installed has left previous versions alone.
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Eric Oehler / wonko@... / www.nulldevice.com
> Synthetic music for synthetic people.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, YAVUZ AKYAZICI wrote:

> When you check you XSKey, do you have seperate authorizations for Logic 6
> Pro and 7 Pro?

I remember authorizing the new previously-commercial plugins like ES2, 
Space designer, etc, but I don't think I've needed a new XSKey code since 
then.  I can't be sure, though, it's been a while.  
 
> Do you have a G4 or G5?

G4 667.  It's getting a bit sluggish.

> If you have G4, how does the performance of Logic 7 compare to 6?
> 
7 is slower.  I've found it not totally unworkable, though.  I've been 
using it sort of tentatively.  Space Designer and Sculpture are 
pretty much too processor-intensive for me to run with any frequency, and 
7 has some irritating quirks still.  I get better performance out of 6 Pro 
but 7 is not unusuable.

I'm hoping to get a G5 soon.  Anyone know of there are rumoured price 
drops for around WWDC?


_______________________________________________________
Eric Oehler / wonko@... / www.nulldevice.com
Synthetic music for synthetic people.

Op Tuesday 15 March 2005 18:00, schreef wonko@...:
> > If you have G4, how does the performance of Logic 7 compare to 6?
>
> 7 is slower.  I've found it not totally unworkable, though.  I've been
> using it sort of tentatively.

As far as I can tell (on a G4/400) Logic 7 particularly takes a long time 
responding to keypresses and clicks in the arrange window, but this delay 
depends on the number of tracks you're using. Actually this delay is so 
consistent (and seems so unnecessary) that it looks like a bug in the 
eventhandler or something, instead of a real performance issue. (However, on 
a G5 the delay is not noticeable). I haven't really noticed a performance 
difference between 7 and 5 (I skipped 6) with regards to plugins etc, but I 
haven't really carefully compared them.

Overall I find it usable on my humble G4 but slightly annoying on larger 
projects. :o) A G5 is planned though, but mostly because I want to make much 
more use of softsynths and the heavier effects than I did so far.

(A single Guitar Amp Pro instance without anything else going on, eats 1/3 of 
my processor power, or 2/3 if I use the spring reverb on it). :o)

Maurits.

I was running LP 6 on a dual 1G G4 for about a year and a half, 
then did the upgrade to 7 last November. The response of the 
program in general was similar to LP6, but I found things like 
Sculpture were taking up around a third of a processor, and 
Garritan Personal Orchestra was suddenly *very* flaky. 
Problems became bad enough that I decided I had to get a G5, 
despite being smack in the middle of a big project that I needed 
to get done quickly. The switch (to a dual 2.5 G5) took a total of 
about 6 hours, and LP7 has been running, for the most part, very 
reliably. I still get occasional crashes - mostly when trying to 
make some global change in a notation window, or when 
changing a preference in GPO, but on the whole things have 
gone very smoothly, and I was able to finish my project 3 days 
ahead of time. 

I'd say if you're planning to run any of the more processor-heavy 
instruments, effects, or 3rd-party plugs in L7, you'll want to 
upgrade to a G5. 

 - PH

> > > If you have G4, how does the performance of Logic 7 
compare to 6?
> >
> > 7 is slower.  I've found it not totally unworkable, though.  I've 
been
> > using it sort of tentatively.
> 
> As far as I can tell (on a G4/400) Logic 7 particularly takes a 
long time 
> responding to keypresses and clicks in the arrange window, 
but this delay 
> depends on the number of tracks you're using. Actually this 
delay is so 
> consistent (and seems so unnecessary) that it looks like a bug 
in the 
> eventhandler or something, instead of a real performance 
issue. (However, on 
> a G5 the delay is not noticeable). I haven't really noticed a 
performance 
> difference between 7 and 5 (I skipped 6) with regards to 
plugins etc, but I 
> haven't really carefully compared them.
> 
> Overall I find it usable on my humble G4 but slightly annoying 
on larger 
> projects. :o) A G5 is planned though, but mostly because I want 
to make much 
> more use of softsynths and the heavier effects than I did so far.
> 
> (A single Guitar Amp Pro instance without anything else going 
on, eats 1/3 of 

> my processor power, or 2/3 if I use the spring reverb on it). :o)
> 
> Maurits.

Sorry!  This has to be an inaccurate statement!
Apple would be out of business if the acceptance rate was that low.
I am not doubting that Apple only accepts the highest
quality RAM - but 1 in 1000 is a little crazy!  I am just doubting
the "genius" that said that!

Dave S

On Mar 19, 2005, at 1:12 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> I took my new G5 into the apple store for the 2nd time now in 3 weeks 
> when it would not power up at all. One thing the "genius" told me is 
> that Apple checks like 10,000 memory strips and only accepts 10 or so. 
> Evidently Apple pushes them pretty hard and tests far more than any 
> company does. This might explain why I continue to get crashes even 
> after installing Geil "Apple" special edition memory.
>

Apple obviously goes to great pains to verify
their RAM - But they also use RAM as a Money Maker.
They try to price their basic boxes with minimal RAM
as cheap as they can.  But they are out to make a profit -
so part of the RAM high price is also profit.  I have used
Crucial Ram (2X1GB) in my 2X2G5 now for 4 months
(6GB total)  and have had no problems.  And yes - it is
less than Apple supplied RAM.

	I am not sure what the answer is here.  But I do know
that the Apple dual g5's do push the limits of Ram sticks!

Dave S

On Mar 19, 2005, at 1:38 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> ts possible that Apple has an arrangement where they test then return 
> rejected memory. I just checked the prices now. Apple is selling a 2 
> GB kit for the G5 for $800....compare to $350 I paid for the Geil and 
> $280 I paid for other brand. Thats expensive! The genius told me she 
> has sold G5's to customers who literally paid more for the RAM than 
> the CPU.
>
>

Dave wrote:

> Apple obviously goes to great pains to verify their RAM - But 
> they also use RAM as a Money Maker.
> They try to price their basic boxes with minimal RAM as cheap 
> as they can. But they are out to make a profit - so part of 
> the RAM high price is also profit.

I agree with Dave. This reminds me of some house hunting I did last year. I
found a company that listed enormous homes at unbelievably low prices. Thing
is, if you wanted steps out the basement that was $7,000; a deck - $15,000;
tile or hardwood floors... Well you get the picture. Even with just the
basics, the homes became more expensive than the competitors.

Apple certainly isn't as bad as that, but it is pretty clear in my mind that
they use RAM as a money maker.

Kamm

On Mar 19, 2005, at 11:14 PM, Kamm Schreiner wrote:
>  Apple certainly isn't as bad as that, but it is pretty clear in my 
> mind that
>  they use RAM as a money maker.

It is a difficult issue I think.  Apple's RAM definitely seems over 
priced to me, OTOH bad RAM can definitely screw you, and if you are 
being picky about your RAM for a Windows PC it can get just about as 
expensive as it is for Apple RAM.

I wish it were easier to tell when RAM is bad but it is seems to be 
nearly impossible to sort out the bad RAM crashes from the various 
other kinds of problems that you can have.

> It is a difficult issue I think. Apple's RAM definitely seems 
> over priced to me, OTOH bad RAM can definitely screw you, and 
> if you are being picky about your RAM for a Windows PC it can 
> get just about as expensive as it is for Apple RAM.
> 
> I wish it were easier to tell when RAM is bad but it is seems 
> to be nearly impossible to sort out the bad RAM crashes from 
> the various other kinds of problems that you can have.

One thing to consider is that I don't think anyone has provided any real
'proof' that Apple's RAM is any better than Crucial's, etc.. I've been
reading phrases like: "So and so said...", "My Apple repair person said...".

I, personally, have strong doubts that it is. ;)

Kamm

> And while Apple is so far
> out of line with thier prices that its unbelievable on one hand, you can
> probably imagine that the ram makers just turn out stuff as fast as they can,
> sell 
> it cheap, if its messed up, then they rely on you to find this out in the way
> of crashes, and then try to pin it on them, and in the worst case they give
> you a new ram as a replacement .... to test for yourself.

Yes, but evidentially Apple misses some defective RAM too, so you're just
Apple paying extra for the privilege of testing the RAM, aren't you?

-m

So, I actually never got an answer about the original question.
And... It was...

I have Logic 6.4.3 Platinum.
Will I need to be able to use Logic 6.4.3 Pro if I upgrade to Logic 7 
Pro.

Yavuz

On Mar 19, 2005, at 5:41 PM, Mark Falchook wrote:

>
>> And while Apple is so far
>> out of line with thier prices that its unbelievable on one hand, you 
>> can
>> probably imagine that the ram makers just turn out stuff as fast as 
>> they can,
>> sell
>> it cheap, if its messed up, then they rely on you to find this out in 
>> the way
>> of crashes, and then try to pin it on them, and in the worst case 
>> they give
>> you a new ram as a replacement .... to test for yourself.
>
> Yes, but evidentially Apple misses some defective RAM too, so you're 
> just
> Apple paying extra for the privilege of testing the RAM, aren't you?
>
> -m
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yavuz AKYAZICI
http://yavuzakyazici.com
yavuzakyazici@...

Hi everyone,.

Does anybody know the release date of Logiv 7.1 Pro?
I do not want to upgrade to 7.0 Pro now and have to pay for 7.1 Pro again.

Yavuz AKYAZICI
http://yavuzakyazici.com

YAVUZ AKYAZICI wrote:
> Hi everyone,.
> 
> Does anybody know the release date of Logiv 7.1 Pro?
> I do not want to upgrade to 7.0 Pro now and have to pay for 7.1 Pro again.
> 
> Yavuz AKYAZICI
> http://yavuzakyazici.com
> 
> 

What makes you think Apple is going to all of a sudden start charging 
for point releases? Go buy your upgrade already and be done with it.


-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

Hi Chris,

> What makes you think Apple is going to all of a sudden start charging
> for point releases? Go buy your upgrade already and be done with it.

I have been told (by other Logic users at DUC) that this upgrade has a very 
good chance to be a paid upgrade.
I have also been told that the 7.1 release was very close.
I just do not want to gamble and pay 300 + 149 when the upgrade comes out 
when I can get 7.1 for just 299.-

Also, is it my imagination or does your email sound angry?
If so, may I ask why?
Never meant to bother anybody with my post.
I just want spend my money wisely.
Being a jazz musician in New York, I have to account for every cent. :-(

Sorry if I offended you with any part of my email w/o knowing.

Yavuz AKYAZICI
http://yavuzakyazici.com

> What makes you think Apple is going to all of a sudden start 
> charging for point releases? Go buy your upgrade already and 
> be done with it.

OS X 10.1 to 10.2 was a paid upgrade. 10.2 to 10.3 was a paid upgrade. Even
though I don't think either had enough new material to warrant it. ;) Apple
loves to charge for updates, even minor ones.

Kamm

Kamm Schreiner wrote:
> 
>>What makes you think Apple is going to all of a sudden start 
>>charging for point releases? Go buy your upgrade already and 
>>be done with it.
> 
> 
> OS X 10.1 to 10.2 was a paid upgrade. 10.2 to 10.3 was a paid upgrade. Even
> though I don't think either had enough new material to warrant it. ;) Apple
> loves to charge for updates, even minor ones.
> 
> Kamm
> 

Well not trying to start a flame war or anything but.. I was about to 
say in my reply, not including OS X hehe.. But you really think those 
upgrades werent worth it? I dont know about the 10.0 to 10.1 or 10.1 to 
10.2, I think Jaguar is where OS X should have been at initially and 
that one I thought was a ridiculous upgrade.. But Panther just killed 
the previous 3 releases and IMHO was well worth it.. But yeah Im 
starting to get a little weary of paying $130 every year or so for a new 
OS hehe.
The OS is its own case but theyve never charged for stuff like Final Cut 
upgrades and whatnot. Even the upgrade to Final Cut Pro HD was free!
I think it would really a bad move on Apple's part if they decided to 
change this now heh.


-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

> OS X 10.1 to 10.2 was a paid upgrade. 10.2 to 10.3 was a paid upgrade.

You can't really compare that. First of all, the "minor" releases of OSX are 
all pretty big upgrades (OSX will always be 10.something). Second, these 
minor releases are viewed as such big development branches that support for 
the older one goes on after the new one is released.

So, even if Apple would use the same principle for Logic, 7.1 would be a 
pretty big upgrade and bugfixes for 7.0 would still be developed. Like with 
OSX, there'd be no hurry to jump to .1 as soon as it's out.

I doubt they would make such a weird change in versioning though. Maybe 
they'll charge for the bus delay compensation (as mentioned before) but I 
would be very surprised if they charged for an upgrade as minor as for 
example 6.0 to 6.1.

> Even 
> though I don't think either had enough new material to warrant it. ;)

That's just your opinion. :o) Maybe the changes didn't mean anything to you, 
but 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 have quite fundamental differences in the heart of 
the OS.

> Apple 
> loves to charge for updates, even minor ones.

"Minor" is just a name for the second number, but in the case of OSX (where 
the major number is actually part of the product name), it means something 
totally different than for Logic.

Maurits.

> The OS is its own case but theyve never charged for stuff 
> like Final Cut 
> upgrades and whatnot. Even the upgrade to Final Cut Pro HD was free!

True.

> I think it would really a bad move on Apple's part if they decided to 
> change this now heh.

I hope you are right and I agree that it would be a mistake. I'm fearful
that Logic 7.1 will coincide with the release of Tiger and that it will be a
paid upgrade and be "required" to work with Tiger. I truly hope I'm wrong
about that.

Kamm

Kamm Schreiner wrote:

> I hope you are right and I agree that it would be a mistake. I'm fearful
> that Logic 7.1 will coincide with the release of Tiger and that it will be a
> paid upgrade and be "required" to work with Tiger. I truly hope I'm wrong
> about that.
> 
> Kamm
> 

You know what though, that previous reply from Maurits has me wondering 
now... I forgot about the whole Delay Compensation thing being added..
I wonder if Apple may very well charge for it! But I would imagine if 
they did pull that, it couldnt be another $299 upgrade for Pro 7 users.
Guess well all have to wait and see hehe. Damn I hate that part!!


-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

> You can't really compare that.

Can and did. ;) (just trying to add a little humor)

> First of all, the "minor" 
> releases of OSX are all pretty big upgrades (OSX will always 
> be 10.something). Second, these minor releases are viewed as 
> such big development branches that support for the older one 
> goes on after the new one is released.

That's your opinion and I respect it. However, I don't think they were that
big a deal. Most of the features added were things that were blatantly
missing in the initial release. Like Expose. Sheesh. Windows has had similar
functionality (although not as flashy) through its task bar since 1995. I'm
trying to start a PC vs. Mac war. I'm just explaining why I didn't find
Expose something worth charging for. I'm sure you disagree. So we'll have to
agree to disagree.

> That's just your opinion. :o)

Yep and I'm sticking to it. :)

> Maybe the changes didn't mean 
> anything to you, but 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 have quite 
> fundamental differences in the heart of the OS.

And that's your opinion. ;)

> "Minor" is just a name for the second number, but in the case 
> of OSX (where the major number is actually part of the 
> product name), it means something totally different than for Logic.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong!

Kind regards,

Kamm

Oops! That should have read:
 
I'm *not* trying to start a PC vs. Mac war. I'm just explaining why I 
didn't find Expose something worth charging for. ...

Dang! Must have been a Freudian slip. :)

Kamm

On Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 01:34 PM, Kamm Schreiner wrote:

>
> Oops! That should have read:
>
> I'm *not* trying to start a PC vs. Mac war. I'm just explaining why I
> didn't find Expose something worth charging for. ...

Expose was one of many OS improvements, it's just that Expose was one 
of the most obvious and flashy.

For every paid upgrade of every software that I've ever known about, 
there are always a significant number of people who complain that the 
cost of upgrading is too much. These developers can never make everyone 
happy, and I really don't think they are attempting to. Since OSX' 
inception Apple has provided free upgrades and system tweaks to a 
viable, operable product enough of the time that no one should be 
complaining. Keep in mind that the current OS is always free to new 
computer owners. Apple is primarily a hardware company and bundles it's 
very stable OS with it's very stable new computers. They do charge for 
major upgrades for those who choose to hang on to older machines. Not 
entirely unreasonable.

Eddie
IMS

>
> Dang! Must have been a Freudian slip. :)
>
> Kamm
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> You know what though, that previous reply from Maurits has me wondering
> now... I forgot about the whole Delay Compensation thing being added..
> I wonder if Apple may very well charge for it! But I would imagine if
> they did pull that, it couldnt be another $299 upgrade for Pro 7 users.

Heh probably not. :o) In general, Apple seems to abide to the general rule 
that an upgrade costs money when it adds fundamental pieces of functionality. 
As for BDC one can argue that this is a bugfix rather than new functionality, 
but I don't think Logic ever claimed to support delay compensation on busses 
(just insinuated it) ;) so strictly it is new functionality. So a paid 
upgrade to 7.1 with real new functionality added wouldn't necessarily be a 
bad thing (if you don't want the new stuff, don't upgrade) unless this means 
there will be no 7.0.2 with further bugfixes despite Apple's knowledge of 
7.0.1's state (so you have to buy the extra stuff in order to get your 7.0.1 
bugs fixed). THAT's when I'd start to feel let down. :o)

Last time I felt like that was when I bought CAB (a webbrowser on the Atari, 
long ago), found out it sucked, and then had to buy the next version to fix 
about 10% of the bugs. :o)

Maurits.

> > First of all, the "minor"
> > releases of OSX are all pretty big upgrades (OSX will always
> > be 10.something). Second, these minor releases are viewed as
> > such big development branches that support for the older one
> > goes on after the new one is released.
>
> That's your opinion and I respect it.

Well the amount of changes and improvements in the upgrade are not an opinion; 
just how important they are is an opinion. :o) And if they aren't, well then 
don't pay and don't upgrade. :o)

> However, I don't think they were that 
> big a deal. Most of the features added were things that were blatantly
> missing in the initial release.

That doesn't matter. You didn't buy those features in the first release.

> Like Expose. Sheesh. Windows has had 
> similar functionality (although not as flashy) through its task bar since
> 1995.

That's a very far-fetched comparison. :o) Anyway like I said, this is beside 
the point. You get new things you didn't pay for the last time, you pay for 
them. And actually I didn't even mean things like Expose.

> I'm trying to start a PC vs. Mac war. I'm just explaining why I 
> didn't find Expose something worth charging for. I'm sure you disagree.

No not really. I agree Expose isn't a big deal, and neither is a Finder with 
graphite look (I actually preferred the old one). :o) But the differences 
between 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 that are really important are in the core 
services etc. That's the only reason why many new programs can't work with 
the older OSX'es in the first place. Not because they miss Expose or the 
latest iTunes, but they miss core functionality.

If those added applications were the only difference and they are so 
unimportant, why buy 10.2 or 10.3 at all? Same thing for a paid Logic 
upgrade.. if you don't want the new stuff added, why buy it? (But as I said, 
if the next version is going to have lots of new stuff and should be paid 
for, I hope the 7.0 branch at least continues getting bugfixes).

Maurits.

> Dang! Must have been a Freudian slip. :)

Then it must have been a Freudian misreading of mine that I didn't even notice 
this :o)

Maurits.

> Well the amount of changes and improvements in the upgrade 
> are not an opinion; just how important they are is an 
> opinion. :o) And if they aren't, well then don't pay and 
> don't upgrade. :o)

Yes. I guess that's the bottom line, but there does come a point when people
will stop being willing to pay when they keep finding the upgrades
disappointing. As with me.


> That doesn't matter. You didn't buy those features in the 
> first release.

I understand your point of view, but I suspect you understand mine too.


> > Like Expose. Sheesh. Windows has had
> > similar functionality (although not as flashy) through its task bar 
> > since 1995.
> 
> That's a very far-fetched comparison.

How so? It is true.

> Anyway like I said, 
> this is beside the point. You get new things you didn't pay 
> for the last time, you pay for them. And actually I didn't 
> even mean things like Expose.

That's true. It just wasn't enough to make me feel like I really got an
upgrade.

Kamm

>
> I've griped about the Abynth updates ... I realized that I will have 
> spent over $450 if I upgrade to v3 - for one soft synth. Meanwhile I 
> have half a dozen other soft synths that cost $99-$150 (discounted) 
> which still work fine. These NI upgrades to Absynth and Battery are 
> fine, but in many cases they are fixing clumsy original designs or 
> limitations. Like some of big features of Abs3 is that the clumsy 
> multiple window thing that didn't work well, is now replaced with a 
> single window.

I never found it that clumsy, I haven't upgraded yet because frankly I 
really love Absynth as is. That was really the gist of my post though, 
that there is a tremendous range of values that people will accept from 
developers.


> And Battery had attrocious file handling and kit remembering features 
> which are now corrected. But pay $100 for each upgrade? Its greedy.
>
> I think what is happening in general, is that software companies are 
> trying to maximize profit. Native Instruments is going to subscription 
> plan, and Waves has such a plan. Many of the big pro software packages 
> are sold like that too... one year license only. Instead of convincing 
> you to buy and that being it, they now want a steady stream of money 
> flowing from you to them.

Which is a great strategy if you ask me, it's slowly progressing 
towards the much better software model of 'pay-per-use.' In other words 
you only pay for the software when you want to use it. Renting software 
could solve many of these problems as developers will accept extremely 
low micro payments for continued use of software, upgrades for which 
will always be free. If you decide the software is not for you, or if 
you don't like the upgrades- simply cancel the subscription. Of course, 
like magazines, there would be a free 'trial subscription,' where users 
would have say a one month period to learn the software.

>
> Apple has something of a monopoly on us too... when they go to Tiger 
> (whom no one is very excited about)... then they will make iLife, 
> iCal, and all the security updates only work for Tiger. And probably 
> logic too. They will find some way to include features in 7.1 which 
> won't work in Panther so you need to upgrade your OS along with Logic.

A fact of life is that there are a significant number of users who 
desire increased computing power as it becomes available. This means 
changes in the hardware architecture of new computers. This means that 
operating systems require upgrades. That is the real reason why 
operating systems get upgraded. People want better computers so they 
can do more with them. The only people for whom software upgrade costs 
are a problem are people who want to hang on to legacy hardware. If 
this 'software tied to hardware' system was not in place none of us 
would have computers as fast as we have now and none of us would be 
using the operating systems we have now. We would still be using Mac 
Classics and having racks of outboard MIDI gear and clunky tape 
machines.

Mac OSX is a great value in that it supports and G3-G4 or G5 processors 
or after the first iMac. How long do you think Apple can support legacy 
hardware and still provide new, faster computers, which people demand?



>
> It seems that Apple doesn't want to release a lot of little upgrades 
> the way Emagic used to. I think they want to present a stable simple 
> situation like with all their software. The problem is that Logic 7 
> and 7.01 were not ready for prime time, and not beta tested properly. 
> And they don't care. Its been six months now and only the most minor 
> upgrade.
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
<image.tiff>

>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> • 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Logic_Cafe/
>  
> • 	To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Logic_Cafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> • 	Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>

> Apple and Jobs were running around touting X as the greatest 
> thing since the light bulb - not really being honest that 
> there were a lot of limitations, bottlenecks, and so forth. 
> Then when Jaguar came out they said was so much faster it was 
> like a hardware upgrade, then the same thing when Panther 
> came out. So in other words they turned out mediocre software 
> to begin with but touted it as great. They did the same thing 
> when the PowerPC came out 1994. For years later they were 
> still converting code from 68000 to PowerPc. 

Yes. There was a lot of press about how slow OS X was when it first came
out. As far as I'm concerned, it still is. At least it is slow on my 800MHz
G4. Logic takes about 45 seconds to a minute to load. I'll have to time it
tonight. Almost all applications take a long time to load on that computer.

> Its the marketing/dishonesty which is the issue. As you know, 
> you can't buy software and try it out then decide. You buy it 
> on the hype, then deal with it. 

I agree with you about the hype problem, but there are many programs that
you can download demos of before buying. Unfortunately, Logic, and OS X
aren't included in them.

> I still have a Tibook 550mhz and running Panther even is so 
> slow that as to be unbelievable ... the endless colored 
> beachball... something that didn't happen on the machine I 
> upgraded from..a g3/333 powerbook. That tibook is primarily 
> used as a $3000 paperweight now, while I write this on an ibook. 

I suspect that my iMac is barely faster than your Tibook. How does your new
G5 compare? I'm hoping you'll say that apps open instantly in general. I'm
an impatient person. <grin>

Kamm

Kamm Schreiner wrote:
> 
> Yes. There was a lot of press about how slow OS X was when it first came
> out. As far as I'm concerned, it still is. At least it is slow on my 800MHz
> G4. Logic takes about 45 seconds to a minute to load. I'll have to time it
> tonight. Almost all applications take a long time to load on that computer.
> 
> 

OS X.1 SUCKED!!! Sorry just had to throw that in hehe.

What kinda G4 800? iMac or a Quicksilver.. Youre on Logic 7 right?
Im still on 6.4.3 (Quicksilver 2002 800Mhz/1 GB Ram) and Logic takes 
about that time to load over here too.. In fact 5 wasnt that much 
quicker come to think of it even under OS 9.. I dont have too many 
virtual instruments or anything anymore either, pretty much just 
Absynth, Crystal, iDrum, and wrapped VSTs of the Waldorf Attack and PPGWave.


-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

> Yes. There was a lot of press about how slow OS X was when it first 
> came
> out. As far as I'm concerned, it still is. At least it is slow on my 
> 800MHz
> G4. Logic takes about 45 seconds to a minute to load. I'll have to 
> time it
> tonight. Almost all applications take a long time to load on that 
> computer.


I have a dual processor 533 G4 Powermac and OSX is significantly faster 
on my machine   than the OS it came with. Also applications like Logic, 
Reason, DP, Waves plugs, which I had on OS9, are much faster and I get 
more instances in OSX than OS9. I have not had to upgrade anything 
except the video card to get this to happen either. When I first went 
to OSX the screen redraws seemed sluggish so I upgraded the video card 
from the 32MB one it came with to a 128MB one, and it's been smooth 
sailing. I cannot run multiple instances of some of the new plug ins 
that Logic comes with (Sculpture, SpaceDesigner, etc...)and some 
Reaktor ensembles are much too complex for my G4, but everything else 
runs much better and smoother in OSX than OS9. The increased speed, 
efficiency, makes the upgrade cost worth it to me as I have not felt 
the need to buy a new computer for what I do. My computer is 4 years 
old!

>
>> Its the marketing/dishonesty which is the issue. As you know,
>> you can't buy software and try it out then decide. You buy it
>> on the hype, then deal with it.


Because Apple's track record is so good- it never seems like a risk to 
me. it took a long time for them to build this reputation with me, but 
pretty much I have never been disappointed with Apple products. Except 
maybe my iSight, only because I don't know many other people with one. 
It works great tho-

Eddie
IMS

> What kinda G4 800? iMac or a Quicksilver.. Youre on Logic 7 right?

iMac w/768MB and yes, 7 Pro.

> Im still on 6.4.3 (Quicksilver 2002 800Mhz/1 GB Ram) and 
> Logic takes about that time to load over here too.. In fact 5 
> wasnt that much quicker come to think of it even under OS 9.. 
> I dont have too many virtual instruments or anything anymore 
> either, pretty much just Absynth, Crystal, iDrum, and wrapped 
> VSTs of the Waldorf Attack and PPGWave.

The only softsynth I've got other than what comes with Logic is EWQSLO Gold.
I cringe when I open songs that use it because the samples take so long to
load. I'm soooo impatient.

I just timed how long it takes Logic to load. 35 seconds. That's after
waiting for a full minute after the desktop icons appeared. I normally don't
do that, so I suspect the 45 second figure is pretty accurate for how long
it normally takes because I start Logic right after booting and there is
probably still a bit going on in the background which slows down the startup
a bit.

Kamm

> I have a dual processor 533 G4 Powermac and OSX is 
> significantly faster 
> on my machine   than the OS it came with. Also applications 
> like Logic, 
> Reason, DP, Waves plugs, which I had on OS9, are much faster 
> and I get more instances in OSX than OS9. I have not had to 
> upgrade anything except the video card to get this to happen 
> either.

Yes. Most of what I've read blames OSX's high demand on video boards for
much of the slowness. Unfortunately, you can't upgrade an iMac's video
board, so I'm stuck. :(

Out of curiosity, did changing video boards make your apps load faster?

Kamm

> Does anybody know the release date of Logiv 7.1 Pro?
> I do not want to upgrade to 7.0 Pro now and have to pay for 
> 7.1 Pro again.

Orren Merton was kind enough to post this link of interest on the LUG:

http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM05/Content/Apple/PR/Logic-Update.html

Apparently there *will* be a charge. No specific mention of how much.

Kamm

On Mar 23, 2005, at 5:23 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:

>
>  In a message dated 3/22/05 11:59:17 AM, maurits@... writes:
>
> > Most of the features added were things that were blatantly
>  > missing in the initial release.
>
>  That doesn't matter. You didn't buy those features in the first 
> release.

Exactly.


>  Apple and Jobs were running around touting X as the greatest thing 
> since the light bulb - not really being honest that there were a lot 
> of limitations, bottlenecks, and so forth. Then when Jaguar came out 
> they said was so much faster it was like a hardware upgrade, then the 
> same thing when Panther came out. So in other words they turned out 
> mediocre software to begin with but touted it as great. They did the 
> same thing when the PowerPC came out 1994. For years later they were 
> still converting code from 68000 to PowerPc.
>
>  Its the marketing/dishonesty which is the issue. As you know, you 
> can't buy software and try it out then decide. You buy it on the hype, 
> then deal with it.

This seems to totally disregard the obvious reality that it is an 
ongoing process and in the computer world that the "best" of any 
particular item 2000 is going to be downright pathetic when compared to 
the 2005 version of the same item.

Why does everybody expect that the developers are just going to work 
for free,  why should they do anything to improve this stuff if nobody 
feels they should buy it.


>  I still have a Tibook 550mhz and running Panther even is so slow that 
> as to be unbelievable ... the endless colored beachball... something 
> that didn't happen on the machine I upgraded from..a g3/333 powerbook. 
> That tibook is primarily used as a $3000 paperweight now, while I 
> write this on an ibook.

Hmmm.  My wife is running the latest OSX on a 500mhz G3 ibook and she 
does not have any complaints.

--- YAVUZ AKYAZICI <forums@...> wrote:
> 
> I have been told (by other Logic users at DUC) that
> this upgrade has a very 
> good chance to be a paid upgrade.
>

What's DUC? 
 JP

> The G5/dual1.8 is better of course, but Logic still takes a 
> while to open. I have gotten to crash twice while something 
> else was going on while it was opening, but it opened by 
> itself ok. I can't really check since its in the shop again. 
> I had a weird problem - the graphics board had a broken 
> little mini divider that separates two pins - so when I 
> plugged the monitor in, the machine booted up on its own 
> immediately without touching the power button. 

Man, you've had horrible luck with computers and software lately haven't
you? I really feel sorry for you. I hope that things straighten out once you
get your G5 back from the shop.

Kamm

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:39:16PM +0100, Maurits van de Kamp wrote:
> As far as I can tell (on a G4/400) Logic 7 particularly takes a long time 
> responding to keypresses and clicks in the arrange window, but this delay 
> depends on the number of tracks you're using. Actually this delay is so 
> consistent (and seems so unnecessary) that it looks like a bug in the 
> eventhandler or something, instead of a real performance issue. (However, on 
> a G5 the delay is not noticeable). I haven't really noticed a performance 
> difference between 7 and 5 (I skipped 6) with regards to plugins etc, but I 
> haven't really carefully compared them.

It's still annoying and slow on a dual 2.5ghz G5 when you have a
significant amount of tracks and regions on the screen. Definitely a
bug. A big bug.

-- 
Ben Harrison

> > > As far as I can tell (on a G4/400) Logic 7 particularly takes a long
> > > time responding to keypresses and clicks in the arrange window
>
> I used to have a G4/400 although upgraded with a Sonnet board to 1.25 ghz,
> and I never saw that on LP7.

Well the jump from 400 to 1250 MHz could very well be enough to hide the 
problem.

> On that machine and my G5/dual, I get 
> audio/systemm overload messages long before the number of tracks is that
> big (maybe16 or so). Do you have a lot of audio tracks with very little
> plugins or virtual instrument usage?

The message you responded to is pretty old, but yes that was my situation at 
the time. :o) Now I have a dual G5, I am addicted to softsynths and heavy 
plugins.

Anyway when I used the G4, I didn't run out of processing power noticeably 
sooner than with Logic 5.5, so that wasn't the problem. It was really just 
the slow response that bugged me, and I really think it's just an unnecessary 
loop that happens every time you click something in the arrange window. On my 
G5 I don't notice it anymore but it wouldn't surprise me if the problem comes 
back if you have enough tracks, like Ben just mentioned. You just need a lot 
more tracks to see it than on a slow G4. :o)

Maurits.