Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

The spec makes it pretty clear that nodes need to be
G5's.  They also need gig ethernet.  Does the mini
have gigE or just 100 Mbit? Memory is also limited to
1GB, which isn't great, either.  They'd certainly be
useful for running virtual instruments which could be
controlled via midi from a logic host, though.  Do
they have digital audio out or would it require a USB
or firewire audio adaptor?  It would make such a great
home theater PC that I have to assume that it will
have some form of digital audio out.  I've got 2 gigs
of RAM and a 1.25Ghz G4 in my powerbook and I can run
a surprising number of virtual instrument tracks,
depending upon the instrument.  Seems like a good way
to offload all virtual instrument to another machine
(or two or three) leaving the logic host free for live
audio, effects, and midi input.

--sam

--- GAmoore@... wrote:

> Hey did you see the new Apple mini? A G4/1.25 @
> $500... and it seems to have 
> an ethernet connection.... I wonder if these would
> be good nodes to run off a 
> G5 mother cpu.
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

On Jan 11, 2005, at 7:16 PM, Samuel Gendler wrote:

> The spec makes it pretty clear that nodes need to be
>  G5's.  They also need gig ethernet. 
I actually use a g4 dual gig with 100b network and it works fine.
Chris

Chris Caouette wrote:

> 
> On Jan 11, 2005, at 7:16 PM, Samuel Gendler wrote:
> 
> 
>>The spec makes it pretty clear that nodes need to be
>> G5's.  They also need gig ethernet. 
> 
> I actually use a g4 dual gig with 100b network and it works fine.
> Chris

Now THAT's interesting. :-)

How well does it work? i.e. Got any more specs that'd give us a better 
idea of what one could expect?

TIA.

On Jan 11, 2005, at 7:30 PM, Bill Canty wrote:
>  > I actually use a g4 dual gig with 100b network and it works fine.
>  > Chris
>
>  Now THAT's interesting. :-)
>
>  How well does it work? i.e. Got any more specs that'd give us a better
>  idea of what one could expect?
>
>  TIA.
Well the main Mac is a dual 1.42 with 2 gigs of ram and the node it a 
Dual 1gig with 1.25 gigs or ram.  I do a lot of VI work but any audio 
tracks usually get sent to the node.
Chris

>>> I actually use a g4 dual gig with 100b network and it works fine.
>>> Chris
>>
>>  Now THAT's interesting. :-)
>>
>>  How well does it work? i.e. Got any more specs that'd give us a 
>> better
>>  idea of what one could expect?
>>
>>  TIA.
> Well the main Mac is a dual 1.42 with 2 gigs of ram and the node it a
> Dual 1gig with 1.25 gigs or ram.  I do a lot of VI work but any audio
> tracks usually get sent to the node.
> Chris

Would the Minimac have a similar performance to a Powerbook G4? Or is 
the bus slower?

Has anyone used a Powerbook as a node?

Steve

If memory serves (from a few minutes ago) the mini has a 167MHz bus. What
speed is the PowerBook's?

Kamm

> -----Original Message-----

> 
> Would the Minimac have a similar performance to a Powerbook 
> G4? Or is the bus slower?
> 
> Has anyone used a Powerbook as a node?
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> --------------------~--> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do 
> not own computers.
> At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/c9hWNA/3MnJAA/n1hLAA/JPJolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------~-> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>

Powerbook:

	◦ 	1.33GHz or 1.5GHz PowerPC G4 processor with Velocity Engine, 512K 
SRAM on-chip L2 cache, 167MHz system bus
	◦ 	256MB or 512MB of PC2700 (333MHz) DDR SDRAM; two SO-DIMM slots 
support up to 2GB

Minimac:

	▪ 	1.25GHz or 1.42GHz PowerPC G4 processor with Velocity Engine
	▪ 	512K on-chip level 2 cache at full processor speed
	▪ 	167MHz system bus
	▪ 	256MB of PC2700 (333MHz) DDR SDRAM, expandable to up to 1GB5


Apart from the memory capacity seems identical... (although the minimac 
doesn't say SRAM cache.. don't know if this is important)

Obviously no gigabit ethernet, so the node performance won't be 
comparable from that point of view.

But very interesting considering the price...

>
> If memory serves (from a few minutes ago) the mini has a 167MHz bus. 
> What
> speed is the PowerBook's?
>
> Kamm
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>>
>> Would the Minimac have a similar performance to a Powerbook
>> G4? Or is the bus slower?
>>
>> Has anyone used a Powerbook as a node?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>> --------------------~--> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do
>> not own computers.
>> At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
>> http://us.click.yahoo.com/c9hWNA/3MnJAA/n1hLAA/JPJolB/TM
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------~->
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Jan 11, 2005, at 7:16 PM, Samuel Gendler wrote:
>  >>The spec makes it pretty clear that nodes need to be
>  >> G5's.  They also need gig ethernet.

Chris Caouette wrote:

>  >
>>  I actually use a g4 dual gig with 100b network and it works fine.
>>  Chris

  From: Bill Canty <bill@...>

>Now THAT's interesting. :-)
>
>How well does it work? i.e. Got any more specs that'd give us a better
>idea of what one could expect?

According to Apple, it'll work with a G4 but you might get a 20% 
boost instead of an 80% one.
-- 

Nick Batzdorf
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434

Nick Batzdorf wrote:

>>How well does it work? i.e. Got any more specs that'd give us a better
>>idea of what one could expect?
> 
> According to Apple, it'll work with a G4 but you might get a 20% 
> boost instead of an 80% one.

Thanks Nick. Pity.

Is that about what you get, Chris - a 20% boost?

>  > According to Apple, it'll work with a G4 but you might get a 20%
>  > boost instead of an 80% one.
>
>  Thanks Nick. Pity.
>
>  Is that about what you get, Chris - a 20% boost?
Hard to tell until I get the gigabit switchers.  Right now I have 
nothing to judge it against.
Chris

--- GAmoore@... wrote:
> If it were 
> only midi connections, then what good would a node
> be? You can hook up multiple 
> computers with midi already - maybe even PCs & Macs
> running different programs 
> (Logic, Cubase, Performer, etc.).
> 

I know that when acting as a node, the audio transfers
over ethernet, but if you have mac only software that
you could control over midi, the $500 mini mac is a
pretty cost effective way to run it.  For that matter,
the audio units interface is well known, I've never
looked into it, but I'm betting that it wouldn't be
all that difficult to make a standalone app that just
instantiates audio units plugins and lets you control
them via midi.  It seems like the kind of thing that
probably already exists, but if not, it probably
wouldn't be that hard to generate, either.  It could
even be possible, with a bit of work, to make the
logic specific audio units run standalone in such a
system, although that is almost certainly a violation
of the license.  Useful though.  I'm not much of a
reverse engineer, so that one might be a bit of a
stretch.  Still, I do almost all of my work in virtual
instruments, and my PC is a dinosaur, so a cheap box
for layering up virtual instruments would be damn
useful to me, even outside of the context of a logic
node, and it could live under my 43" DLP DVI tv,
acting as DVD player, digital audio box, and as
occasional midi instrument box (controlled via
bluetooth keyboard and mouse), not to mention a MUCH
cheaper computer to risk taking to a live environment
than my powerbook, and sufficient for the live virtual
instrument playing I do. Lugging a monitor around
would suck, I suppose.

Regardless, I'm merely justifying the overwhelming
urge I feel to buy a computer I totally don't need,
just cause...

--sam



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

On 1/11/05 8:16 PM, "Bill Canty" <bill@...> wrote:

> 
> Nick Batzdorf wrote:
> 
>>> How well does it work? i.e. Got any more specs that'd give us a better
>>> idea of what one could expect?
>> 
>> According to Apple, it'll work with a G4 but you might get a 20%
>> boost instead of an 80% one.
> 
> Thanks Nick. Pity.

Still if you're able to instance 5 software synthesizers and you get one
more, that's pretty good for $500. What does a hardware synth cost?

Eddie
IMS

> 
> Is that about what you get, Chris - a 20% boost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

The Mac mini is a copy of a PC idea. Wintergreen had (maybe still has) what
they called the minibook. See the link below.

I don't think the idea ever caught on because it wasn't expandable except
for externally.

http://www.computer-and-printer-reviews.com/Wintergreen-Minibook.html

Kamm

--- Kamm Schreiner <kamm@...> wrote:

> I don't think the idea ever caught on because it
wasn't expandable except
> for externally.

>
http://www.computer-and-printer-reviews.com/Wintergreen-Minibook.html

Other than in form factor, they aren't terribly
similar. 1.3Ghz Celeron, 128MB RAM, USB 1.0, no
firewire, and runs windows.  That is just nowhere near
as compelling as what is being offered in the Mac
mini, with USB 2.0 and firewire, a much faster CPU,
twice as much RAM with twice as much RAM capacity and
OS X. Besides, I don't really see a lack of
expandability.  I've been a laptop-only guy for years,
and I can't remember the last time I felt left out
because I couldn't install a PCI card.  Personal
computing has matured quite a bit since that
wintergreen thing came out, apparently.  Regardless, I
know lots of folks with Mini-ATX pcs in their living
room, my company has one buried in the table of every
boardroom, etc.  Small form factor machines seem to be
quite popular.  But what really sets the Mac mini
apart, is that it is the first mac that is price
competitive with a PC and available at a low price
point.  Also, the wintergreen was ugly.

--sam





		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page \ufffd Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com

Hi Sam,

I wasn't comparing the two as alternative computers. I was just pointing out
that it wasn't a new idea. Apple copies too. The Wintergreen Minibook came
out a lloonngg time ago and so of course it isn't a comparable product. I
don't think they even make the Minibook anymore. However, I don't think the
mini is as compelling a product as it may seem at first glance. The Mac mini
isn't really an inexpensive computer. Especially when you add a reasonable
amount of RAM (it only comes with 256Meg and it costs an extra $425 to get
it with a Gig).

For example, at Tiger.com, you can currently buy the following PC (mini
tower) for only $549. Its specs are far more impressive than the mini and it
is, obviously, more expandable.

==============================
HP Pavilion A742X AMD Athlon XP 3100+
512MB DDR
160GB HDD
DVD+RW
7-in-1 Media Reader
Windows XP Home
Wireless keyboard and mouse (included)
1 FireWire port
4 USB ports

NOTE: It does *not* have a DVI connector, but it's expandable so a DVI video
board could be added for probably $70 - $100. Who knows, maybe even less.

Overall, it is a far better value than the mini. Try adding all of that to a
mini and see what it costs. All of a sudden, that mini is probably going to
cost about $1000 - maybe more.

The bottom line is that I don't think it is going to create a lot of
"switchers". I don't really think it will be a hot seller. But I've been
wrong before. ;)

Kamm

> -----Original Message-----
> Other than in form factor, they aren't terribly similar. 
> 1.3Ghz Celeron, 128MB RAM, USB 1.0, no firewire, and runs 
> windows.  That is just nowhere near as compelling as what is 
> being offered in the Mac mini, with USB 2.0 and firewire, a 
> much faster CPU, twice as much RAM with twice as much RAM 
> capacity and OS X. Besides, I don't really see a lack of 
> expandability.  I've been a laptop-only guy for years, and I 
> can't remember the last time I felt left out because I 
> couldn't install a PCI card.  Personal computing has matured 
> quite a bit since that wintergreen thing came out, 
> apparently.  Regardless, I know lots of folks with Mini-ATX 
> pcs in their living room, my company has one buried in the 
> table of every boardroom, etc.  Small form factor machines 
> seem to be quite popular.  But what really sets the Mac mini 
> apart, is that it is the first mac that is price competitive 
> with a PC and available at a low price point.  Also, the 
> wintergreen was ugly.
> 
> --sam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> All your favorites on one personal page  Try My Yahoo!
> http://my.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> --------------------~--> 
> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
> Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/rKxVKC/SOnJAA/n1hLAA/JPJolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------~-> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

--- Kamm Schreiner <kamm@...> wrote:
> The bottom line is that I don't think it is going to
create a lot of
> "switchers". I don't really think it will be a hot
seller. But I've been
wrong before. ;)

At the $500 price point, it isn't so much about value
for money as it is just about affordability.  Sure,
you can get slightly more computer for your money,
although you'll have to run windows or linux, but 
there is finally an affordable mac, which is the whole
point.  I know lots of people who, upon mention of the
mac, talk about how they'd like one but can't afford
one.  When spending $3K on a computer, you want the
best value for money and you want it to last a long
time without needing upgrade.  At $500, those same
requirements just aren't there.

And it can only be a matter of time before someone
(maybe even apple?) makes a box with the same form
factor, containing a 300GB 7200RPM hard drive, has 4
firewire and 4 USB 2.0 ports on the FRONT, a digital
audio 5.1 audio out on the back, and maybe a card
reader, too.  Just stack it under your Mac mini, just 
like the monstrous old 20MB hard drive I had under my
Mac SE back in the day.  With really well thought out
accessories (and god knows, apple never have those!),
the Mac mini becomes quite compelling, in my opinion.

In the end, however, for someone who uses their
computer a lot, OS X is worth a small fortune compared
to windows. Sure, XP has gotten better, but my parents
still call me with computer problems on a weekly
basis, and the problem is still almost always due to
poor interface and/or compatibility issues.  OS X is
actually worth paying for, while XP is just something
you put up with.

--sam




		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com

OS X is actually worth paying for, while XP is just 
> something you put up with.

Not to start a Mac vs. PC war, but for me, it is the reverse. I strongly
prefer WinXP over OSX and have used both extensively. I use Logic on a Mac
only because it isn't available for PC. ;)

Kamm

On 12 Jan 2005, at 21:03, Kamm Schreiner wrote:

> I strongly
>  prefer WinXP over OSX and have used both extensively. I use Logic on 
> a Mac
>  only because it isn't available for PC. ;)
>
>

All this PC v Mac talk is a complete nonsense. At the end of the day, 
they are a means to an end. A tool used to realise a project be it 
music, animation etc etc. I think the overwhelming number of people on 
this or any forum, faced with the fact that there was a computer 
system/application that was going to enable them to work more 
effectively and efficiently would use it. No matter whet platform it 
was.

The whole point about the Mini Mac is that it is affordable. I started 
using Macs as far back as the Mac II, the good old days when a Mac 
would cost £3,500 and everything else was an optional extra, the mouse, 
keyboard everything.

It's not the best computer in the world, the smallest, the 
fastest...... it's just affordable and of a good enough specification 
to enable you to do most things that you may want to do on a computer.

Uzo

Eddie Sullivan wrote:
> 
> Still if you're able to instance 5 software synthesizers and you get one
> more, that's pretty good for $500. What does a hardware synth cost?

Yeah, you're right.

But, to me, it seems sorta messy to add a computer, even a tiny one, to 
yr setup just to get an extra instance of a softsynth.

Still waiting for a consumer (i.e. cheaper, but still dual G5) version 
of the Xserve cluster node! :-)

> I was just pointing out
> that it wasn't a new idea. Apple copies too. 
> 

Its a bit like the Apple "Cube" that came out about 5 years ago - which never 
really caught on either. But that was about $1200 as I recall. Maybe its the 
price thats different. The original imac came out what 7 years ago and it 
doesn't even have a separate computer box, having it buried in monitor unit   
which was not expandable either. I'm really surprised that Apple hasn't produced 
some sort of economical G5 single rack unit, that could act as expander 
modules. 


> you can currently buy the following PC (mini
> tower) for only $549. Its specs are far more impressive than the mini and it
> is, obviously, more expandable.
> 

PC's are often cheaper, but its a bit like saying why is Mercedes selling 
thier sedan for $100,000 when you can get a KIA for $10,000? In the past, the 
cheap PCs didn't include the sound boards and SCSI that came standard, adn the 
price differential disappeared when similarly configured. Apple computers have 
always been built with top quality parts - and usually they become obsolete 
before breaking down - i still have a mac 7500/100mhz in the garage which works 
fine. On the other hand, at my college, they bought 50 new cheapo PCs and 
immediately and continually 4 or 5 were broken. There is also the economy of scale.

I heard a good analogy once ... if there were no Microsoft then Apple would 
be selling PCs for $10,000 each. If there were no Apple, then everyone would be 
using Microsoft DOS version 57. Its the interplay and competition that makes 
the best of both worlds for us.

On 12 Jan 2005, at 22:29, GAmoore@... wrote:

> you can currently buy the following PC (mini
>  tower) for only $549. Its specs are far more impressive than the mini 
> and it
>  is, obviously, more expandable.
>


In the economics world they call it something like 'scales of economy'. 
Trying to compare the cost of a pc with that of a mac is like trying to 
compare the size of a paper plane with that of a Jumbo 848 or whatever 
they are now.

The pc due to being available at the right time for the price captured 
the mass imagination. Apple is a small player in the game compared to 
some pc manufactures. A company like dell has a turnover of 
$100million+ while apple is around $30million.

But saying all of that, apple can still do itself a big favor sometimes 
.. like not trying to introduce a machine for which the cost of extra 
memory is almost as expensive as the computer itself!

GAmoore@... wrote:
> 
> I'm really surprised 
> that Apple hasn't produced some sort of economical G5 single 
> rack unit, that could act as expander modules.

Bill Canty wrote:
 >
 > Still waiting for a consumer (i.e. cheaper, but still dual G5)
 > version of the Xserve cluster node! :-)


Do I see a similarity of thought here...? ;-)

> The pc due to being available at the right time for the price 
> captured the mass imagination. Apple is a small player in the 
> game compared to some pc manufactures. A company like dell 
> has a turnover of $100million+ while apple is around $30million.

At last look, Apple was the sixth largest computer company in the world, so
I don't buy that at all. Apple *chooses* to charge a lot for their
computers. There are smaller PC companies that sell much more competitively
priced products.

Kamm

> All this PC v Mac talk is a complete nonsense. At the end of 
> the day, they are a means to an end.

I agree to a large degree. Sam's comment was rather egotistical and I just
couldn't help myself and had to let him know that I prefer a PC. That's all
there was to it. Not everyone on this list uses a Mac because that is there
platform of choice.

> The whole point about the Mini Mac is that it is affordable. 
> I started using Macs as far back as the Mac II, the good old 
> days when a Mac would cost £3,500 and everything else was an 
> optional extra, the mouse, keyboard everything.

Well, yes and no. As it stands it is affordable, but if you want to add
anything to it, that changes quickly. External expansion is more expensive
than internal expansion and Apple also has a knack for designing computers
that can't be user expanded (like changing the internal hard drive or
memory). Someone mentioned (and I'm not sure if it is true) that the memory
in the mini is not user installable. I personally suspect it is like the
iMac I currently have which has one user serviceable slot and one technician
serviceable slot. Don’t know though.

For those who really want a Mac, and can't afford the current lineup, it
will make those people happy. I don't think that is a very large number of
people personally. But hey, who am I to say? I don't have a crystal ball.

Kamm

On 12 Jan 2005, at 23:42, Kamm Schreiner wrote:

>  At last look, Apple was the sixth largest computer company in the 
> world, so
>  I don't buy that at all

I think the point i'm trying to make is that like should be compared 
with like. There is more demand for pc because they are the norm, they 
appeal to a greater audience, and cost less.... fact. But like you 
rightly say, apple do not help themselves with their pricing strategy 
and need to be more competitively priced.
After a while the notion of paying over the odds for a 'Life Style' 
will wear thin with general public as a whole, especially when you can 
get a pc that also play your cds/dvds/mp3/cook your meals for less 
money...

> PC's are often cheaper, but its a bit like saying why is 
> Mercedes selling thier sedan for $100,000 when you can get a 
> KIA for $10,000?

There is some, but only a modest amount of truth to this. There are "elite"
PC brands that still sell more affordable products. I do agree that Apple's
computers are frequently a notch or two higher in the quality of parts for
the average PC. I think my iMac is a very well built computer. No question.
However!! There are PCs that are every bit as well built as Apples. Part of
what Apple buyers are paying for is the custom packaging. Apple is
continually repackaging their products. Design and retooling for those
repackaged computers costs money.

Kamm

> I think the point i'm trying to make is that like should be 
> compared with like. There is more demand for pc because they 
> are the norm, they appeal to a greater audience, and cost 
> less.... fact. But like you rightly say, apple do not help 
> themselves with their pricing strategy and need to be more 
> competitively priced.
> After a while the notion of paying over the odds for a 'Life 
> Style' will wear thin with general public as a whole, 
> especially when you can get a pc that also play your 
> cds/dvds/mp3/cook your meals for less money...

Well, I guess I misinterpreted your post. I agree with the above.

Kamm

On 13 Jan 2005, at 00:00, GAmoore@... wrote:

> To me it was worth it to spend $500 more to have less trouble and more 
> ease of use. Among my PC using friends there are two types - tinkerers 
> who spend a lot of time learning the intricacies, and those who call 
> the tinkerers to help them solve problems

hmmmm.. If it's all well put together and it works then fine, i'm all 
for it. but that is not always the case as a number of us are 
experiencing with Logic 7 and problems with plugin and hardware 
compatibility, all of which worked perfectly fine on the last previous 
release of logic. But that's another story.

On the Mac mini front, just for a minute, I can't quite understand what 
the rational was to not include a gigabit interface, apart from cost 
that is. But then i'm sure a number of us would have welcomed the 
inclusion of just a gigabit interface at the expense of not having 
either the firewire 400 or ethernet 10/100 port.

On Jan 13, 2005, at 6:49 AM, beyaRecords wrote:

>
> On 12 Jan 2005, at 21:03, Kamm Schreiner wrote:
>
>> I strongly
>>  prefer WinXP over OSX and have used both extensively. I use Logic on 
>> a Mac
>>  only because it isn't available for PC. ;)
>>
>>
>
> All this PC v Mac talk is a complete nonsense. At the end of the day, 
> they are a means to an end.

Not really.  I hate PCs and have been using Macs for 19 years but last 
month I was shopping for a computer for my mother and was having a very 
hard time deciding whether to get her a Mac or a PC.

Why?

Because Macs are simply nowhere near as trouble free as they are 
advertised as being and I live in a different country than she does so 
I can't pop over and straighten things out for her every time she runs 
into a problem.

I do not know if it is actually true but a lot of people insist that 
PCs can be set up to be trouble free, so which one do I get my mother 
who mainly cares about not having to care too much about the problems.

I do own a PC as well as a Mac and I do think it is pretty trouble free 
once it is set up, the thing is setting it up.

> I do not know if it is actually true but a lot of people 
> insist that PCs can be set up to be trouble free, so which 
> one do I get my mother who mainly cares about not having to 
> care too much about the problems.

There are trouble free PCs and trouble free Macs, there are also troublesome
PCs and troublesome Macs. It's like buying a car. Every once in awhile
someone gets a lemon. I don't care what company you buy from, that is true
of all of them.

> I do own a PC as well as a Mac and I do think it is pretty 
> trouble free once it is set up, the thing is setting it up.

What is difficult about setting up a PC? Or Mac for that matter. Every PC
I've bought in the last 5 or so years has come with a huge poster with about
4 or 5 steps for connecting all the cords (which are color coded and can't
physically fit in the wrong connector anyway). Then you turn it on and
answer a few easy questions while the OS gets installed. Mostly it's just a
pain waiting to get started. What's hard about it? Same deal with my iMac.
The connectors aren't color coded, but they can't possibly be put in where
they don't belong. Both are easy to setup from my perspective.

Software installation? Well... Stick the CD in the CD drive. The
installation program starts automatically. Click OK a few times, I agree
once and Finish once and it's done. Click "Start" and there are even help
balloons to let you know a new program has been installed, telling you how
to access it and the menu items are even highlighted for recently installed
programs. Similar situation for Macs. It isn't difficult on either platform.

My theory is this: The computer is there to help you get something done.
First, determine what programs you want to use, then choose a computer that
will run them. If cost is a factor, choose the cheapest computer that will
run them. Let's face it, the basic UI for both Windows and Mac is the same.
Anyone that can learn to use a Mac can learn to use Windows and anyone who
can learn to use Windows can learn to use a Mac.

I love Logic so much, that I'm probably going to buy a G5 iMac with at least
1 Gig of RAM. But hey... Logic is the sequencer I want to use, so I'll buy a
computer that it will run on. Know anyone who wants a used G4 iMac? ;)

Kamm

P.S. I provided a bit more detail on how setup and software installation
goes on a PC compared to Mac just in case you aren't familiar with PCs.

On 13 Jan 2005, at 01:38, GAmoore@... wrote:

> Apple tries to disable a few "power user" features that might be deal 
> breakers.

The BIG BLUE as they were known back then, IBM, are widely accredited 
for introducing the PC to a mass audience. They made one fundamental 
mistake:

1. trying to keep a reign on the market by keeping its inner secrets, 
the machines that is, a secret thus enabling them to over inflate the 
price of their products. In general providing what they wanted to at a 
price they wanted.

Then came along our friends from the east. Stripped the machines bare, 
found out how they worked and were put together, and then built their 
own versions of the pc for next to nothing (relatively speaking of 
course). The rest is history.

The analogy of this all is, a happy client makes for a successful 
company.

On Jan 13, 2005, at 11:11 AM, Kamm Schreiner wrote:

> > I do not know if it is actually true but a lot of people
>  > insist that PCs can be set up to be trouble free, so which
>  > one do I get my mother who mainly cares about not having to
>  > care too much about the problems.
>
>  There are trouble free PCs and trouble free Macs, there are also 
> troublesome PCs and troublesome Macs. It's like buying a car. Every 
> once in awhile someone gets a lemon. I don't care what company you buy 
> from, that is true of all of them.

Disagree.  Problems pop up with macs like for example choking on a 
simple print command or running into some corrupt internet connection 
preferences or whatever  and those of us who have been dealing with 
them for years just deal with them without even thinking because with 
have been dealing with them for years.  Those who haven't on the other 
hand may respond inappropriately and screw the system up a little more. 
Then each time something comes up the fuck it up a little more and a 
little more until it is just a tangled mess and they give up.  I have 
seen this pattern over and over again.

Those kinds of problems come up on windows machines too but the 
difference is the windows culture is better adapted to fix the problems 
and the Apple culture is all about pretending they don't exist because 
the reality of their existence is incompatible with Apple's marketing 
campaigns.

>  > I do own a PC as well as a Mac and I do think it is pretty
>  > trouble free once it is set up, the thing is setting it up.
>
>  What is difficult about setting up a PC? Or Mac for that matter. 
> Every PC I've bought in the last 5 or so years has come with a huge 
> poster with about 4 or 5 steps for connecting all the cords (which are 
> color coded and can't physically fit in the wrong connector anyway). 
> Then you turn it on and answer a few easy questions while the OS gets 
> installed. Mostly it's just a pain waiting to get started. What's hard 
> about it? Same deal with my iMac. The connectors aren't color coded, 
> but they can't possibly be put in where they don't belong. Both are 
> easy to setup from my perspective.

Macs are almost totally plug and play, windows are not.  There is 
really no comparison to be made, Macs are vastly easier to set up.

>  Software installation? Well... Stick the CD in the CD drive. The 
> installation program starts automatically. Click OK a few times, I 
> agree once and Finish once and it's done. Click "Start" and there are 
> even help balloons to let you know a new program has been installed, 
> telling you how to access it and the menu items are even highlighted 
> for recently installed programs. Similar situation for Macs. It isn't 
> difficult on either platform.

Sheer nonsense.  If you need to change something about the way some 
windows driver is working or reinstall it or make it find a device in a 
different slot or anything at all you have to go through all kinds of 
crap that apple users don't have to deal with.  The system takes care 
of so much of that stuff apple users are not usually even aware that it 
has happened or needs to happen.

>  My theory is this: The computer is there to help you get something 
> done. First, determine what programs you want to use, then choose a 
> computer that will run them. If cost is a factor, choose the cheapest 
> computer that will run them. Let's face it, the basic UI for both 
> Windows and Mac is the same. Anyone that can learn to use a Mac can 
> learn to use Windows and anyone who can learn to use Windows can learn 
> to use a Mac.
>
>  I love Logic so much, that I'm probably going to buy a G5 iMac with 
> at least 1 Gig of RAM. But hey... Logic is the sequencer I want to 
> use, so I'll buy a computer that it will run on. Know anyone who wants 
> a used G4 iMac? ;)
>

If I were you I would spend a few dollars more and get a dual 2X2.  The 
iMacs are cute and and an iMac was what I was thinking of getting my 
mother but for us DAW users cute is just no substitute for power which 
a tower will give you much more of, besides OS X's VM scheme is just 
plain not very appropriately designed for audio and sooner or later you 
are going to decide you want 2 gigs of memory or 3 gigs or whatever and 
it will not be an option with the iMac.

--- GAmoore@... wrote:

> 
> I think OS X is not as final and stable as they let
> on and I bet if you tell 
> Steve Jobs that, you're immediately fired from
> Apple. Just tonight, Logic 
> crashed as I imported screensets from another file -
> both small. I then created a 
> new user logon to try out the new preferences idea,
> and went all the way 
> through the setup wizard, then it crashed too. I
> have never felt less confident 
> about Macs - at least with Logic. (Photoshop and
> Excel rarely seem to crash). 
> 
> 

You are apparently just about the only person on the
planet with that experience. No desktop OS is utterly
crash proof, but it is easy enough to run for weeks or
months at a time on OS X.  My powerbook hasn't been
rebooted in weeks, and I've started and shutdown logic
with two different audio adaptors every day since
Xmas, and opened and closed the lid 5-10 times every
day, with various software packages running each time.
 I know for a fact that a windows pc won't put up with
that kind of abuse, because my windows laptop
inevitably fails to come back from being put to sleep
at least once per week.  Running linux on either my
powerbook or pc laptop results in an improvement over
windows, but nothing like what I get in OS X.  It
supports every piece of hardware I've thrown at it,
and only rarely do I have to install drivers for new
hardware, no matter how complex the hardware, because
there are standards for device types that are actually
adhered to.  My USB midi controller, bluetooth mouse,
USB hard drives all functioned with no software
installation.  On my windows box, a simple simple USB
hub required that I track down drivers online before
it would actually function in XP.  I jacked it into my
mac just to make sure it worked and it functioned
perfectly, instantly.  Windows required new drivers
and a reboot for the same hardware.  But then, if you
sneeze at windows, it asks you to reboot, so that's no
surprise.

OS X might not be perfectly stable, but I sure can't
imagine a more stable desktop OS. OK, I can imagine
one, but I've certainly never seen one.  

Software crashes (photoshop, excel, logic) almost
always have nothing to do with the operating system
and everything to do with the complexity of the
software running on top of it.

--sam




		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

--- dennis gunn <dennis@...> wrote:

>> Because Macs are simply nowhere near as trouble
free
> as they are 
> advertised as being and I live in a different
> country than she does so 
> I can't pop over and straighten things out for her
> every time she runs 
> into a problem.
> 
> I do not know if it is actually true but a lot of
> people insist that 
> PCs can be set up to be trouble free, so which one
> do I get my mother 
> who mainly cares about not having to care too much
> about the problems.
> 
> I do own a PC as well as a Mac and I do think it is
> pretty trouble free 
> once it is set up, the thing is setting it up.

My brother-in-law is a PC tech and he bought his
parents, who live 3k miles away a Gateway. He did set
it up carefully but still it has been a headache right
from the beginning. I'm going to suggest they by a
mini-mac and cut their losses with the PC. 
JP


>

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Chris Caouette <dragonwind@m...> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 11, 2005, at 7:16 PM, Samuel Gendler wrote:
> 
> > The spec makes it pretty clear that nodes need to be
> >  G5's.  They also need gig ethernet. 
> I actually use a g4 dual gig with 100b network and it works fine.
> Chris


When you create a new port in Network Port Configurations in the OS X
Network System
Preferences, one of the choices in addition to Ethernet is FireWire.
It should then be
possible to create a Logic node network with FireWire between say, an
iBook G4 and a Mac
mini without requiring fast Ethernet.

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gendler <logicusers@i...> wrote:
SNIP.....
>  not to mention a MUCH
> cheaper computer to risk taking to a live environment
> than my powerbook, and sufficient for the live virtual
> instrument playing I do. Lugging a monitor around
> would suck, I suppose.
> 
> Regardless, I'm merely justifying the overwhelming
> urge I feel to buy a computer I totally don't need,
> just cause...
> 

As to the lugging of the monitor:

Tiger has a talking deal where the computer "tells" you everything!  But would probably 
prove impractical on a gig.

Charlie

"Holy shit Batman..... Another PC/Mac war has broken out and on a primarily Mac chat 
group.........."

"Fire up the Batmobile Robin and let's go take a look.  I remember when they used to fuss 
over the Atari/Commodore Robin!"

Charlie, The Joker

P.S. It really gets old paging through these wars and all it does is make people mad.  Can't 
we use a little constraint???????  I may have to mention Yamaha NS 10m's again.........  
hahahahahahahahaha
 

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "Kamm Schreiner" <kamm@s...> wrote:

> > PC's are often cheaper, but its a bit like saying why is 
> > Mercedes selling thier sedan for $100,000 when you can get a 
> > KIA for $10,000?
> 
> There is some, but only a modest amount of truth to this. There are "elite"
> PC brands that still sell more affordable products. I do agree that Apple's
> computers are frequently a notch or two higher in the quality of parts for
> the average PC. I think my iMac is a very well built computer. No question.
> However!! There are PCs that are every bit as well built as Apples. Part of
> what Apple buyers are paying for is the custom packaging. Apple is
> continually repackaging their products. Design and retooling for those
> repackaged computers costs money.
> 
> Kamm

>  I know for a fact that a windows pc won't put up with that 
> kind of abuse, because my windows laptop inevitably fails to 
> come back from being put to sleep at least once per week.

So, because *your* pc doesn't come back from sleep at least once per week,
that means you know for a *fact* the same is true of *all* PCs? Come on Sam.
You can't make that kind of extrapolation. My Mac has crashed hard several
times in the last week requiring power off and back on. So yours must do the
same. Right? You get my point. Both OSs can be very stable on the right
combination of hardware and with well written device drivers.

> Running linux on either my powerbook or pc laptop results in 
> an improvement over windows, but nothing like what I get in 
> OS X.

I'm glad you told me. I'll turn in my Windows computer right away and get a
Mac instead. After all, *you* certainly know all there is to know about
Windows and Mac computers.

>  It supports every piece of hardware I've thrown at it, 
> and only rarely do I have to install drivers for new 
> hardware, no matter how complex the hardware, because there 
> are standards for device types that are actually adhered to.  
> My USB midi controller, bluetooth mouse, USB hard drives all 
> functioned with no software installation.

On my Mac, it used to be that if I unplugged my wireless network
transceiver, OSX would through a kernel panic. Every single time. This has
never been a problem on my WinXP machine. Apple has fixed that problem, but
I don't remember which update cured it. So, I guess *you* don't have every
combination of hardware and software device, do you? 

> On my windows box, 
> a simple simple USB hub required that I track down drivers 
> online before it would actually function in XP.

Same was true of my Tascam US-122 for my Mac. Worked okay on my WinXP
machine though.

> But then, if you sneeze at 
> windows, it asks you to reboot, so that's no surprise.

Haa chew, haa chew, haaaaa chewwwww. Hmmmm, no effect here. ;)

> Software crashes (photoshop, excel, logic) almost always have 
> nothing to do with the operating system and everything to do 
> with the complexity of the software running on top of it.

I agree, that is usually the case. In some cases it can be device driver
problems. Especially with Logic.

Kamm

Hi Dennis,

I love your honesty. I enjoyed reading your post, but still have a few
comments of my own. ;)
 
> Macs are almost totally plug and play, windows are not. There 
> is really no comparison to be made, Macs are vastly easier to set up.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Examples please. I'm especially interested in
the *vastly* part of your claim. ;)


> Sheer nonsense. If you need to change something about the way 
> some windows driver is working or reinstall it or make it 
> find a device in a different slot or anything at all you have 
> to go through all kinds of crap that apple users don't have 
> to deal with. The system takes care of so much of that stuff 
> apple users are not usually even aware that it has happened 
> or needs to happen.

On my Mac, I have to manually unlock my network settings and click on Renew
DHCP in order to get Internet access every time I reboot the computer.
That's plug and play? Now, I don't know all the devices that are supported
right out of the box for OSX and WinXP, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet
that the number is probably an order of magnitude higher for WinXP. However,
Macs are more proprietary and there simply aren't as many devices out there
that will work with a Mac. That makes it easier for Apple to support (out of
the box) the devices that Mac users are likely to encounter. So... Your
observation may well be true. We don't have material evidence of it at this
point though. Only an assertion by you which can only encompass your own
limited dealings with both platforms.


> If I were you I would spend a few dollars more and get a dual 
> 2X2. The iMacs are cute and and an iMac was what I was 
> thinking of getting my mother but for us DAW users cute is 
> just no substitute for power which a tower will give you much 
> more of, besides OS X's VM scheme is just plain not very 
> appropriately designed for audio and sooner or later you are 
> going to decide you want 2 gigs of memory or 3 gigs or 
> whatever and it will not be an option with the iMac.

Well, I actually agree with you, but money *is* a factor for me and music is
a hobby, not a money maker for me. I have to be realistic about this. Thank
goodness I'm not married or I'd have a battle on my hands just to get the
iMac. :)

Kamm

> Actually I thought its the opposite. I think they made it so 
> open that those hardware companies could copy (recall the 
> BIOS lawsuits) and let Microsoft take over. When Apple tried 
> opening up and let other companies sell Macs it nearly ran 
> the company out of business. In fact, I don't think they ever 
> got back their 10% market share from a few years back. 

What happened is that the BIOS was so simple, that other companies were able
to duplicate the functionality of the BIOS with their own code. That is how
they got around the legal problems. The Mac ROMs were much more difficult to
duplicate functionality wise and I think, but don't know for sure that that
is why it never happened to Macs.

Kamm

> I think OS X is not as final and stable as they let on and I 
> bet if you tell Steve Jobs that, you're immediately fired 
> from Apple. Just tonight, Logic crashed as I imported 
> screensets from another file - both small. I then created a 
> new user logon to try out the new preferences idea, and went 
> all the way through the setup wizard, then it crashed too. I 
> have never felt less confident about Macs - at least with 
> Logic. (Photoshop and Excel rarely seem to crash). 

I suspect this is more likely a device driver or hardware problem than an
OSX (or Logic) problem. Unfortunately, those kinds of problems are extremely
hard to track down.

Kamm

From: GAmoore@...

>I think OS X is not as final and stable as they let on and I bet if you tell
>Steve Jobs that, you're immediately fired from Apple. Just tonight, Logic
>crashed

Aieee!

Logic 7.0 has some problems. Everyone knows that, even religious 
Logic zealots who whitewash it ("some people are having problems but 
my rig is more stable than a barn").

But why go on and on? All that's going to do is dishearten 
programmers who read these posts (if anyone from the Logic department 
reads this list). If you've uncovered more problems, okay, but 
otherwise my guess is that we'll see an update that fixes a lot of 
the problems.

That's a separate issue from OS X.

It's true that there appear to be some versions of Panther that are 
better than others - I'm still on 10.3.4 - but I've been using it for 
a year, and there's no question that it's more stable than the 
original Mac OS.

I used to need to restart my machine at least three times a day for 
one reason or another, and that wasn't when I was troubleshooting, it 
was just under normal use. That's not an exaggeration, it's pretty 
realistic. (Bear in mind that every one of our rigs is a house of PCI 
cards, of course, so I'm not saying that everyone who used Macs had 
the same experience.)

Now I rarely have to restart, and when I do, booting up in Panther is 
about five times as fast. For a long time I felt OS X was just a huge 
pain in my ass - everything worked, so why buy it all over again - 
but that was before Panther. It's a huge improvement.

I have to disagree that it's not final or stable.
-- 

Nick Batzdorf
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434

> 
> For those who really want a Mac, and can't afford the current lineup, it
> will make those people happy. I don't think that is a very large number of
> people personally. But hey, who am I to say? I don't have a crystal ball.
> 
> Kamm
> 
First off the fact that Mac's have been perceived as 'more expensive' is
really a bad myth. You CAN go up to Alienware or go to comp USA or anywhere
else and buy PC's that are much more money than any Mac. We build PC's here
and our typical PC sale is about $1500-$2300, or approximately in the range
of what a Powermac costs. This is because we design PC's that are robust
enough to handle the needs of digital audio and video. This is not to say
you can't run digital audio apps on a $599 Wall-Mart special, it's just our
customers want professional machines, not some cheez-ball consumer internet
box. 

The only real difference between Mac's and PC's has nothing to do with price
or performance. It has to do with stability and the OS. Apple designs the
Operating System and the hardware it runs on. The OS is very tightly
integrated into the hardware, and for this reason you get more stability
than it's PC counterpart. Microsoft makes an OS that, to it's credit, runs
on a multitude of hardware architectures, and does this fairly well, but MS
cannot possibly cope with the sheer number of variables this produces. This
is the only difference. For the performance you receive Apple Computers are
not over-priced at all. You just have less options and choices than in the
PC world, and no competition.

Also, currently Logic only runs on a Mac.

Eddie Sullivan
Integrated Midi Systems
The Stony Brook Technology Center
21 Technology Drive
E. Setauket NY 11733
1800 344 6434 X 108

> First off the fact that Mac's have been perceived as 'more 
> expensive' is really a bad myth.

I want solid examples. Saying it doesn't make it true. Give me a current Mac
model and I'll find a PC that has more RAM, a larger hard drive, probably a
faster bus speed, more ports a better/more flexible DVD writer, larger
monitor, and so on for less money. It isn't a myth. Please feel free to test
me. I'm up to the challenge.

Kamm

On 13 Jan 2005, at 16:30, Nick Batzdorf wrote:

>  Logic zealots who whitewash it ("some people are having problems but
>  my rig is more stable than a barn").
>
>

We are all still missing one point here. I got into Mac in the 
early/mid 90s because they were the only guys doing hard disk recording 
via StudioVision. If it had been a PC application that was only 
available at the time, then I would have had that instead. I don't 
actually give a monkies whether one is better than the other. I didn't 
pay thousands of pounds to marvel at the sleek lines of the machinery, 
I bought it to do a job. mine, like other peoples here, happens to be 
making music. The current inception of Logic does not allow a lot of 
people to do that. If I open word dor mac and it crashes, I will not 
blame that on logic. If I open iPhoto and it crashes, I will not blame 
logic. If ,on the other hand, I open Logic and it crashes your damn 
right i'm gonna make noise. After all i've invested very good money in 
the application and expect it to work. if a feature in the application 
doesn't work, don't bloody put it in. i'd rather it was held out until 
it was ready to be put in!!
I don't understand the excuse making for these companies. I cannot turn 
round to any of my clients wen the machine crashes and say to them you 
know what it's just a feature of the application, but never mind we'll 
get this project done sometime!!!!

Excuses are unacceptable. If the product is not ready, don't release 
it!!

On 13 Jan 2005, at 16:52, Kamm Schreiner wrote:

> Please feel free to test
>  me. I'm up to the challenge.
>
>

Go on Kamm, I got your back ;-)

On 1/13/05 11:52 AM, "Kamm Schreiner" <kamm@...> wrote:

> 
>> First off the fact that Mac's have been perceived as 'more
>> expensive' is really a bad myth.
> 
> I want solid examples. Saying it doesn't make it true. Give me a current Mac
> model and I'll find a PC that has more RAM, a larger hard drive, probably a
> faster bus speed, more ports a better/more flexible DVD writer, larger
> monitor, and so on for less money. It isn't a myth. Please feel free to test
> me. I'm up to the challenge.
> 
> Kamm

We build PC's here all the time. When we build a robust PC for digital
audio, the price almost always is in the ballpark of it's Mac equivalent. I
am well aware of the price points for the various components of PC hardware.
'Larger,' 'Bigger,' and 'More' isn't always what a digital audio workstation
requires. And it doesn't always translate into cost-effectiveness either.
There have been several major studies that have analyzed the cost
effectiveness of the Windows OS, which is a major factor to consider. It is
why some major corporations and even entire governments are considering
flavors of Linux and Unix as alternatives. And the fact that there are
'cheap' PC alternatives to the Mac doesn't diminish the value of having a
secure and stable OS tied to very high quality hardware. If you build your
PC that matches the price of my Mac, even though the specifications of the
components may exceed the stated specifications of the Mac, it will not
guarantee that the performance of the PC will exceed the performance of the
Mac, especially with digital audio apps. (And I have tested this with cross
platform apps like ProTools, all other things being equal...) The reason?
The Operating System. Windows presents more technical challenges to the end
user than is necessary, the fact that Apple Computers do not is also worth
something. 

Also currently Logic only runs on a Mac.

Eddie
IMS

On Jan 13, 2005, at 6:56 AM, Kamm Schreiner wrote:

> On my Mac, I have to manually unlock my network settings and click on 
> Renew
> DHCP in order to get Internet access every time I reboot the computer.
> That's plug and play?

Actually thats wierd.. My network settings arent locked. Just opened 
them up on my tower and everythings available, I just hit renew DHCP 
lease and pulled my address back from my router again..
Odd though, my Powerbook, some of the control panels are locked like 
that but arent on my tower.. Ive never seen the network settings locked 
like that though.

These arguments are all really lame. I can keep an XP machine just as 
stable as my OS X machine. I can crash both just the same. Personally I 
prefer the Mac because I like its workflow and its more fun for me to 
use. Dont mind using XP either in fact Im trying to push my boss at 
work to let me upgrade our workstations from 2000 finally. What Ive 
found alot of it boils down to is the User himself.  Ive been doing 
user end tech support for almost 10 years now, and this is proving to 
hold very true. PC's being cheaper though? Sure you can go buy a nice 
$500 emachine (do they still make those even) or build yourself a 
pretty decent $1000 machine. But when you get into the higher end Dell 
workstations, which our University buys quite a bit of for our 
arcitects and designers that I have to support, you can easily pay just 
as much as a G5.

One thing I will say about plug and play.. I dont have to 'stop and 
eject' a simple USB compact flash drive, or my firewire Lacie DVD-R to 
disconnect it from my Mac, I literally can just plug and play with it.. 
:)

--
Chris Coccia
http://www.descentrecords.com

>>DHCP in order to get Internet access every time I reboot the computer.
>>That's plug and play?
>
>Actually thats wierd.. My network settings arent locked. Just opened
>them up on my tower and everythings available, I just hit renew DHCP
>lease and pulled my address back from my router again...

If that's what you have to do to get an internet connection, your IP 
settings and/or your router settings are screwed up.

Plus, the fact that you have to unlock (or "authenticate") your IP control 
panel means you aren't logged in as an administrator OR as an administrator, 
you locked ("de-authenticated") them yourself.


--Matt

Hi Matt,

> If that's what you have to do to get an internet connection, 
> your IP settings and/or your router settings are screwed up.
> 
> Plus, the fact that you have to unlock (or "authenticate") 
> your IP control panel means you aren't logged in as an 
> administrator OR as an administrator, you locked 
> ("de-authenticated") them yourself.

I agree that the something is screwed up. I was simply responding to the
statement that Macs are more plug-n-play than PCs. It wasn't plug-n-play for
me in this case. I'll double check, but to my knowledge, I only have one
account on the Mac and it is, obviously, an administrative one. Each time I
unlock the account, I leave it that way and each time I return, it is locked
again. Is there something about locking or unlocking that I don't
understand?

Kamm

> We build PC's here all the time. When we build a robust PC 
> for digital audio, the price almost always is in the ballpark 
> of it's Mac equivalent. I am well aware of the price points 
> for the various components of PC hardware.
> 'Larger,' 'Bigger,' and 'More' isn't always what a digital 
> audio workstation requires. And it doesn't always translate 
> into cost-effectiveness either.

Again, you aren't providing any verifiable facts. In fact, some of your
assertions can be proven wrong.

So, I'll start. Here is a comparison of a PC and Mac that were introduced at
virtually identical times and have identical prices (this considers that
fact that the PC is discounted and the Mac isn't and I personally purchased
the 780n for $1599 and so I know it is a fact that it can be purchased for
that price.).

HP 780n and PowerMac G4/800 QS Price is $1599 for each.

Here are a few of the specs that matter if you are looking for a
"performance" computer:

           Mac             PC
Bus speed: 133MHz          400MHz
HD speed:  UATA66 7200RPM  UATA100 7200RPM
HD size:   40MB            120MB
RAM:       256MB           512MB
CPU:       800MHz G4       1.8GHz P4
Max RAM:   1.5 Gig         2 Gig
CD-RW:     32X             48X
DVD:       None            DVD+RW
Ethernet   1000            100
Video:     ATI Radeon 7500 32 MB
Video:                     Nvidia GeForce2-MX400 64MB SDR
Ports (Mac): 2 FireWire + 2 USB
Ports (PC):  1 FireWire + 4 USB

The PC is simply better in almost every aspect. So, unless you want to give
me some facts. Not just assertions, don't suggest to me that Macs aren't
more expensive that PCs. I'm providing verifiable facts. You are providing
nothing but personal assertion.

> The Operating System. Windows presents more technical 
> challenges to the end user than is necessary, the fact that 
> Apple Computers do not is also worth something. 

Please tell me specifically what these technical "challenges" are. Unless
you can do so, I simply do not accept your conclusion because my experience
if quite different.

Finally, does it really hurt that much to admit that Macs are more
expensive? I mean, after all, if the Mac is so much better and doesn't cost
more, then why wouldn't its market share be going up instead of down?

Kamm

Hi,

y-a-w-n-n-n-n-n

I *really* like my microwave.  ;-)

Fernstudio

>Is there something about locking or unlocking that I don't
>understand?

Yes.  Go into System Preferences/Personal/Security and uncheck "Require 
password to unlock each secure system preference"

That should fix your parade of tiny tortures.

Next, what kind of internet connection do you have?
Go into System Preferences/Internet & Network/Network, then select your 
built-in ethernet port (if that is how you connect), then click Configure.

TCP/IP should be set to DHCP.

Click on the PPPoE tab, and please tell me it's not enabled (unless you're 
using Verizon DSL).  Don't go changing anything.  Just tell me what the 
settings are.


--Matt

> The PC is simply better in almost every aspect. So, unless you want to give
> me some facts. Not just assertions, don't suggest to me that Macs aren't
> more expensive that PCs. I'm providing verifiable facts. You are providing
> nothing but personal assertion.

You asserted a bunch of things regarding Mac's. I can't really speak about
that HP because I have no direct experience with that motherboard/chipset
etc. HP tends to make very stable configurations, so I imagine that that was
a good value. I do not have (an neither do you) any real world benchmark
measurements of performance between the two models. I never asserted that
the Mac was a better computer than the PC, hardware wise. What I do assert
is that I know that pretty much anything I throw at that Mac, including
digital audio applications like Logic, will simply work, with very little
technical issues. This is due to the fact that Apple closely ties the
development of their OS to their hardware. The Windows operating system, the
way it needs to deal with I/O, the layers of software one on top of another,
security, is an inferior OS to many other OS' including OSX. You can compare
hardware specifications all day long, but in the end the way the computer
performs with the OS, peripherals and the end user, should be factored in to
cost, as well as processor speed, hard drives, memory, etc...

> 
>> The Operating System. Windows presents more technical
>> challenges to the end user than is necessary, the fact that
>> Apple Computers do not is also worth something.
> 
> Please tell me specifically what these technical "challenges" are. Unless
> you can do so, I simply do not accept your conclusion because my experience
> if quite different.

You are probably a very technically literate end user. I am equally
comfortable on both operating systems as well. I prefer a Mac because the
applications I want to use, Logic and DP, are only available on a Mac. I do
feel that my dual processor 533 performs better than it's nearest PC
equivalent, although dual processor PC's were not commonly available at the
time I bought my Mac, and they were way more money. Plus my Mac is over
three years old and easily runs the latest OS, this is often not the case in
the PC world. You tend to really need a more robust, current PC to run the
most current OS and applications. I have end users who own three year old
PC's who have trouble rendering modern internet protocols.

> 
> Finally, does it really hurt that much to admit that Macs are more
> expensive? I mean, after all, if the Mac is so much better and doesn't cost
> more, then why wouldn't its market share be going up instead of down?

Well an automobile is more expensive than a bicycle, but they are two
different things aren't they? There are a lot of PC's and PC configurations,
and a lot of people building PC's, and their prices are all over the place.
Apple has a very limited, functional product line. There is no PC equivalent
to an iMac, and very few real competitors to the G5. I'd really like some
current, real world examples and benchmarks that say otherwise. It would
help me price out the digital audio workstations we build here.

Here's an example of a config that we have tested and that performs (using
ProTools) very close to a G5 dual 2.5 GHz.

WS Full case 
550watt ps 12v    
X5DAL-TG2 : eATX DualXeon FSB533 DDR266 UD100 AGP8X w/ LAN
3.2GHz 533MHz L3-1M 604-Pin
3.2GHz 533MHz L3-1M 604-Pin
FireGL X2-256t     

Segate 250Gb Serial ATA
Segate 250Gb Serial ATA
CD-RW+DVD Combo 52X32X52+16X Internal
Plextor® PX-712A 12x DVD±R/W Drive
        
1gb ECC reg PC2100 
1gb ECC reg PC2100 
     
Logitec Mouse    
Logietc Muiltimedia KB Black
     
Intel 82546EB Gigabit Ethernet controller
Windows Xp Pro    

This machine is about $5000. You could build it yourself for probably $4300
maybe less. Note the FSB is 533 compared to 1.25 in the G5.

If you order a pimped out G5 off the Apple Store with the more expensive
'Apple' memory and Nvidia video card, you come in around $4700. Since you
can use 3rd party memory and the entry level video card you come in at about
$4000 for this config. I always recommend the phattest video card in case
Doom3 for the Mac comes out or something, but it's not necessary for digital
audio. 

Both of these represent very good hi-performance digital audio computers.

If you call the developer Digidesign and ask them which machine they are
more likely to get tech support calls on, they will say the Wintel box. It's
a fact of life. Digidesign loves the Mac. It's parent company Avid seems to
prefer the PC, because they develop for it first and port to the Mac. But we
consistently have audio and video I/O issues with AVID hardware and software
on the PC, we do not have as much of this on the Mac.

One thing I will conceed is that internationally it is often much more
expensive to be a Mac owner over a PC depending on the country.
      
Eddie
IMS     
     
        
     
     
     





> 
> Kamm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

"Wee have also Sound-Houses, wher wee practise and demonstrate all Sounds,
and their Generation. Wee have Harmonies which you have not, of
Quarter-Sounds and lesser Slides of Sounds. Diverse Instruments of Musick
likewise to you unknowne, some sweeter then any you have; Together with
Bells and Rings that are dainty and sweet. Wee represent Small Sounds as
Great and Deepe; Likewise Great Sounds, Extenuate and Sharpe; Wee make
diverse Tremblings and Warblings of Sounds, which in their Originall are
Entire. Wee rep resent and imitate all Articulate Sounds and Letters, and
the Voices and Notes of Beasts and Birds. Wee have certaine Helps, which
sett to the Eare doe further the Hearing greatly. Wee have also diverse
Strange and Artificiall Eccho's, Reflecting the Voice many times, and as it
were Tossing it; And some that give back the Voice Lowder then it came, some
Shriller, and some Deeper; Yea, some rendring the Voice, Differing in the
Letters or Articulate Sound, from that they receyve. Wee have also meanes to
convey Sounds in Trunks and Pipes, in strange Lines, and Distances."
Francis Bacon's New Atlantis (1624)

On Jan 13, 2005, at 12:32 PM, Fernstudio wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> y-a-w-n-n-n-n-n
>
> I *really* like my microwave.  ;-)
>
> Fernstudio
>

Its not a real microwave unless its made by GE.
(come on no ones ever had a household appliance flamewar!!)

--
Chris Coccia
http://www.descentrecords.com

> Yes.  Go into System Preferences/Personal/Security and 
> uncheck "Require password to unlock each secure system preference"
> 
> That should fix your parade of tiny tortures.

Thanks very much! I'll do that tonight.

> Next, what kind of internet connection do you have?
> Go into System Preferences/Internet & Network/Network, then 
> select your built-in ethernet port (if that is how you 
> connect), then click Configure.
> 
> TCP/IP should be set to DHCP.
> Click on the PPPoE tab, and please tell me it's not enabled 
> (unless you're using Verizon DSL).  Don't go changing 
> anything.  Just tell me what the settings are.

Broadband cable. I'm pretty sure it is setup correctly, but I'll reexamine
the settings and make sure they are as you suggest tonight.

Thanks for your assistance. It will certainly make my computing experience
more enjoyable if I can get this ironed out. :)

Kamm

> Its not a real microwave unless its made by GE.
> (come on no ones ever had a household appliance flamewar!!)

Since I saw airconditioners, heaters and dishwashers by some obscure brand 
called "Home Electronics", I want nothing else anymore!

(I'm being ironic though.. never saw such crap sold in real shops before) :o)

GE sucks, HE rules!

>  The PC is simply better in almost every aspect.

Except for one: it doesn't run Logic 7 (or Digital Performer for that matter).
-- 

Nick Batzdorf
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434

> Except for one: it doesn't run Logic 7 (or Digital Performer 
> for that matter).

You got me there. :)

Kamm

Hi Chris,

I have a Sharp and I bet it will heat a can of beans faster then your high priced GE........

<g>

Charlie

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Chris Coccia <mothra@d...> wrote:

> 
> On Jan 13, 2005, at 12:32 PM, Fernstudio wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > y-a-w-n-n-n-n-n
> >
> > I *really* like my microwave.  ;-)
> >
> > Fernstudio
> >
> 
> Its not a real microwave unless its made by GE.
> (come on no ones ever had a household appliance flamewar!!)
> 
> --
> Chris Coccia
> http://www.descentrecords.com

On Jan 13, 2005, at 11:42 PM, Charlie Massey wrote:

>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I have a Sharp and I bet it will heat a can of beans faster then your 
> high priced GE........
>
> <g>
>
> Charlie
>

Well thats only cause I routinely put actual cans in mine and see how 
long it can go before the little blue arcs start shooting out of the 
door and across the kitchen hehe.

--
Chris Coccia
http://www.descentrecords.com

Op Friday 14 January 2005 10:12, schreef Chris Coccia:

> > I have a Sharp and I bet it will heat a can of beans faster then your
> > high priced GE........
>
> Well thats only cause I routinely put actual cans in mine and see how
> long it can go before the little blue arcs start shooting out of the
> door and across the kitchen hehe.

That will actualy heat the beans inside the can pretty quickly, since the can 
will make a very nice heating element. :o)

Maurits.