Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

I just switched from Logic 6 on OS9 to Logic 7 on OSX (Tiger).  At this point, I don't know my way around all that well.  In OS9 there was a way to allocate RAM to Logic.  Is there a similar way to do this in OSX?  Is there a need to?  I am running a G4 PowerMac and things are a bit slow.

Is there anything I should (need to) do to speed things up?  I already 
altered some things in the Directory Access.

Thanks,
Dave




-----------------

Chris Coccia wrote:

>Well hopefully you didnt break anything by playing with Directory Access..
>  
>
So far no problems there...I followed the FAQs posted by LUG.  If I get 
problems I can always reset, I suppose.

>One of the key points of upgrading to OS X over 9 was better memory 
>management.. The OS now does this on its own.  Welcome to what weve all been dealing with for the past 5 years or so already hehehe.
>  
>
This is why I held onto OS9 for so long.  Logic is certainly better now, 
but I have yet to see why OSX is any better.  Other than the snazzy new 
look and the slower response, the only difference is that now I get core 
audio overloads where I used to get ASIO overloads.

Thanks for the response. 

Dave

System X is never a snappy and direct as 9.

Actually I find it quite usable on my indigo G3 iMacs, certainly better than XP on PCs from the same era, so the reusability of old hardware for modern OSes is not that bad.

If your old software, OS and plugins were so good compared to the new stuff, why would one get a new computer in the first place?

Besides I don't understand this whole grudge with OSX being somewhat slower than OS9; when in the history of computers, was a newer and more versatile version of an operating system EVER faster than the old one?

Ultimately - my goal is to import one of my old albums from a CD ( believe
it or not - it's the only copy I have of the master) ...  And put the aiff
files into logic for some re mastering...

- - -

I'm curious what is the best way to import CD audio as .aiff files from a
store-bought CD? The only concern here is the finest audio quality to be
stored as .aiff...

1 -  in OSX you can simply drag the file -  from the CD to the hard drive
2 -  iTunes can import as AIFF files
3 -  other programs that can import - LOGIC TOAST etc...?

Notes:  several years ago - I imported audio using an extra application that
came with toast ( I think was called something like audio extractor) - the
1.0 version had a weird bug that caused clicks and pops - and the 1.1
version supposedly fixed that...

-  any way - that's why I am asking now... If one sonically sounds any
better than another one - or has any associated problems...

--
Thanks - RevDave
CoolCat@...
[db-lists]

amgshaffer wrote:
> I just switched from Logic 6 on OS9 to Logic 7 on OSX (Tiger).  At this point, I don't know my way around all that well.  In OS9 there was a way to allocate RAM to Logic.  Is there a similar way to do this in OSX?  Is there a need to?  I am running a G4 PowerMac and things are a bit slow.
> 
> Is there anything I should (need to) do to speed things up?  I already 
> altered some things in the Directory Access.
> 

Well hopefully you didnt break anything by playing with Directory Access..
One of the key points of upgrading to OS X over 9 was better memory 
management.. The OS now does this on its own.
Welcome to what weve all been dealing with for the past 5 years or so 
already hehehe.
There arent any easy tweaks like there were in OS 9, gone is the 
Extension Manager, Control Panels, etc.. Basically, you want OS X to run 
  like OS 9, get a brand new whatever model is out at the moment.. And 
MAYBE it might be as snappy as things were 5-6 years ago..
Theres probably something you can do via the Command Line, but I steer 
clear of the Unix underside as far as 'enhancing system performance' 
goes and just let it be..

-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

System X is never a snappy and direct as 9. 

-----Original Message-----
From: amgshaffer <cedar.bay@...>
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:17:10 -0400
Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Speeding up OSX


I just switched from Logic 6 on OS9 to Logic 7 on OSX (Tiger).  At this point, I 
don't know my way around all that well.  In OS9 there was a way to allocate RAM 
to Logic.  Is there a similar way to do this in OSX?  Is there a need to?  I am 
running a G4 PowerMac and things are a bit slow.

Is there anything I should (need to) do to speed things up?  I already 
altered some things in the Directory Access.

Thanks,
Dave




-----------------




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

On 14/09/2005, at 10:36 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> System X is never a snappy and direct as 9.

Pretty big statement!
My dual 2.0 Ghz G5 is pretty snappy. Perhaps we're being a tad  
unrealistic in trying to run OSX on an older G4...

michael

On Saturday, August 13, 2005, at 11:23  PM, amgshaffer wrote:

> GAmoore@aol.com wrote:
>
> System X is never a snappy and direct as 9.
>
> I guess this is a dumb question, but why is OSX so great?  I realize 
> there were a lot of good intentions with OSX, but I am not sure the 
> results are there.


I'm using Tiger on the same computer, same audio and MIDI hardware, 
nothing changed about my system going from OS9 to OSX except the 
operating system and the software.

Not only is everything more stable and faster, but I crash very rarely, 
and when I do crash I am often up and running again in seconds. Logic 
is very stable and works flawlessly, as does DP, Ableton, Reason, GB, 
and a bunch of other software synths and audio utilities I own.

The results are there with my machine.

Perhaps you can post details on you particular system configuration and 
the specific issues you are having and we can offer some suggestions on 
getting you running more smoothly.

Eddie
IMS


>
> Dave
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> +	 Visit your group "Logic_Cafe" on the web.
>  
> +	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  Logic_Cafe-unsubscribe@...m
>  
> +	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
<image.tiff>
>

>> > System X is never a snappy and direct as 9.
> 
> OSX Tiger is super fast and super stable on my g5 2x2 (4GB RAM) as well as my
> PowerBook g4 1.5 (1.25GB RAM).  I used to run sizeable sessions on my on my g4
> 2x1.25 OSX Panther (2GB RAM) with decent performance.  Perhaps RAM has
> something to do with it.
> 
> Best,
> JD
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
>

>> X does have a lot of advantages, but it exerts a heavy load because 
of the high resolution graphics,
>>and animated tools bars, and bouncing icons etc. 
> More detailed graphics only require more CPU power while they are 
drawn
>,... this is already pretty negligeable. It's nothing more than 
blitting a few bitmaps into video memory.


I don't know why we are arguing about this. I think its common 
knowledge that X is better and more modern but it also is signficiantly 
less efficient in many ways. If you go look on the box for something 
like Native Instruments plugs or Arturias Moog, you will see the 
requirements when running system 9 to be something like 500 mhz and 733 
mhz if you are running X. That means to run the same plug you need 
almost 50% more processor speed to compensate for the lower efficiency 
of X. I have used several computers over the past few years with both 9 
and X, and although 9 is looking more and more dated, it actually 
reacts faster.

About graphics being redrawn - they are re-drawn much more often than 
you might imagine. If you have several windows open, any time one 
obscures another, and you click on the back on, its redrawn. Anytime 
you click on any window I believe causes it to be redrawn (note the 
grayed out title bar change). Whenever you have things like graphic 
audio meters or knobs or things that move - they must be redrawn each 
time there is any movement. If you turn a knob on a softsynth I think 
each fraction of a turn causes a redraw. If there were not the case, 
then you could not see the pointer for the knob move until you reached 
the stoping point. But you actually see it moving as you turn it. So it 
might cause 50 redraws for that window in a second.


>So yes the fancy graphics make the look&feel slightly slower, but the 
decrese in real computational power
>(which we see in less possible tracks with Logic etc) comes from the 
more complex architecture of OSX.

Ok that might be true. It might be because of the better multi-process 
threading which 9 doesn't have. Actually there are a lot of processes 
going on at any given time in X.

>Switching off all fancy graphic things (which in fact you can) doesn't 
have much influence on that.

How do you do that?

>
> I don't know why we are arguing about this.

I wasn't aware that I was arguing.. but it sounds strange that you  
say this and then go on arguing. :o) I didn't even deny OSX is  
slower, I'm just pointing out some misunderstandings.

> I think its common
> knowledge that X is better and more modern but it also is  
> signficiantly
> less efficient in many ways.

That depends on how you define "less efficient"..:

> If you go look on the box for something
> like Native Instruments plugs or Arturias Moog, you will see the
> requirements when running system 9 to be something like 500 mhz and  
> 733
> mhz if you are running X. That means to run the same plug you need
> almost 50% more processor speed to compensate for the lower efficiency
> of X.

Well you can't just devide mhz's like that comparing entirely  
different operating systems. OSX simply does more and for that it  
requires more power. It's not devoting all of that 733 MHz to the  
plugin. Which is why "less efficient" isn't necessarily true. Only  
when you don't want what extra OSX has to offer this is less  
efficient, but then as I said you should stick to the old system. And  
if you say "but new stuff is only for OSX" then remember that OSX  
also makes things easier for developers.

> I have used several computers over the past few years with both 9
> and X, and although 9 is looking more and more dated, it actually
> reacts faster.

I never disagreed with that. All I said in my previous mail is that  
the responsiveness of the graphics has got nothing to do with the  
amount of cpu required for other tasks (even if it is higher, which  
it is!), they're two different factors.

> About graphics being redrawn - they are re-drawn much more often than
> you might imagine.

Being a software architect, I doubt that unless there is something  
severely wrong with my imagination. :o)

> If you have several windows open, any time one
> obscures another, and you click on the back on, its redrawn.

But this redraw could be a simple blit of cached data. But even if  
not, this only happens during user interaction, and still happens  
only a few percent of the processor's time.

> Anytime
> you click on any window I believe causes it to be redrawn (note the
> grayed out title bar change).

Nope. The titlebar is handled completely separate from the rest of  
the window. Redraws are done per area anyway, but the titlebar and  
window widgets are owned by the window manager which is a completely  
separate process.

As for the rest of the redraw story, it seems you're really  
overestimating the amount of power it takes to draw a graphic. The  
original point was that OSX is slower because its graphics are  
fancier. Once we start talking about meters and knobs, this actually  
depends on the application, not the os. Furthermore, as I said, no  
matter how taxing the graphics are, they will not slow down the rest  
of the system since the drawing is only carried out when the CPU has  
nothing else to do (lowest priority). So the speed at which the  
graphics are drawn says nothing (directly) about the speed of the  
rest of the system.

> Ok that might be true. It might be because of the better multi-process
> threading which 9 doesn't have. Actually there are a lot of processes
> going on at any given time in X.

Yes, in X everything is "daemonized" as it is in Unixy systems, which  
makes it slightly slower but much more flexible, which has its effect  
on the power of new applications written for it. So the bottom line  
is, yes you require some more power (and get it by the way) but it  
does raise the level of computing even if you don't notice and -  
unfortunately - even if you don't need it. But well if OSX had to  
take that into account it would turn into an enormously complex (and  
probably unstable) beast - hence; the choice is to stick to the old  
or fully go with the new.

>> Switching off all fancy graphic things (which in fact you can)  
>> doesn't
>>
> have much influence on that.
>
> How do you do that?

Well not all I just noticed ;) but in the dock preferences you can  
switch off the genie effect and the bouncing icon, and in the  
appearance preferences you can switch off font smoothing. Now  
obviously not using the genie effect makes minimizing applications  
faster on a slow system, but apart from that I don't really notice  
any difference in performance (500MHz G3 iBook and 400MHz G3 iMac).

So again, I'm not denying OSX is slower, I'm just saying the root  
causes are different than they might seem.

Maurits.

OSX can place higher graphics demands on the computer, I resolved this 
by upgrading my video card (which you cannot do on a portable)

Actually, I replaced the video card, not because OSX wasn't 
functioning, it was actually nearly as fast as OS9. I actually replaced 
the video card to conform to the minimum system requirements of a video 
game I wanted to play. I noticed a vast improvement in the 'snappiness' 
of the OS, I feel I actually got speed increases over OS9.

Graphics rendering and the lack of higher end video cards does impact 
the overall performance of the machine. If you have an older laptop and 
you are doing low impact computing, like internet you won't notice the 
hit, but when you start to run more processor intensive software you're 
gonna notice the machine bogging down.

Operating systems, with time, are going to get more complex. People ask 
for more complex applications, and they also ask for more computing 
power and more powerful hardware architectures.

Eddie
IMS

On Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at 12:35  AM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> There are articles on this. X is a modern OS (the unix, and 
> multi-tasking, and memory management). I read an article by one of the 
> original Mac engineers who just died in the past few months, and he 
> was saying quite a few negative things about the new OS too. I think 
> the lack of responsiveness comes from the heavy graphics shell to make 
> things look pretty. I would prefer a ugly but fast mode without the 
> prettiness sometimes. X is so slow, that the titanium powerbook 550 
> that I got a few years ago, I would say is almost worthless as a 
> computing device because it gets so bogged down by X. But Apple sort 
> of forced people onto X by making their machines not boot into 9 
> anymore.