Screw this...I'm going Mac...

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:35 am

subterFUSE wrote:
I've read that intel is customizing a 64 bit monster processor for Apple.

I wouldn't count on it. The Apple account is worthless to Intel in terms of sales numbers. Accepting the Apple deal was nothing more to Intel than an ego boost.

Mac accounts for less than about 2% of the computers worldwide. Do you think a company the size of Intel would make accomodations for that? Not bloody likely.

Expect the new Apple computers to utilize the upcoming Intel dual-core architecture such as Yonah.

This one is interesting. First of all, in the larger corporate world 2% is a huge amount, to a small business that's not much, but to a major organization that's a lot.

Secondly reports are that the deal basically gave Intel a computer and OS manufacture that actually cares to implement their ideas, Microsoft is so huge that they move like molasses when it comes to change, remember every change has to be tested to death on a thousand machines...... Apple will implement changes to the OS to accommodate for new architecture ideas in a faster way than Microsoft can, or ever could, it's the advantage of a closed hardware OS. What this just might mean to me as an end user is that macs might actually be able to claim better performance for months before PC's catch up.
It doesn't matter if the chip has new design ideas that allow for faster operation if it's not supported by the OS. This has been a problem for Intel with windows, and considering how into Altivec Apple got, I can't see any reason why we shouldn't expect to see Intel try out new design ideas on macs first. So it's not as much Intel bending over backwards to design chips for Apple as much as Intel being happy that they have a company willing to implement their design ideas as soon as they are cooked.

Intel are happy about this in much more ways than an ego boost.

LOFA · Post by **LOFA** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 6:12 am

I think OS 10.5 will be a Lion. Seeing as 1.5 is multiple of 5 and dramatic. Also, it will serve as a metaphor for Apple finally making territorial threats. Personally though, I would prefer OSX Domesticus.

Quick question:

PC are recycable/interchangeable for parts and become cheap very fast. Are apples getting there yet? Does anyone think there will be a point with intel based macs where this would be a reality? As it is I really don't know my machine, and I see myself holding onto it as Long as I run Logic 7. I don't believe I will need more power for it, and I believe that part of apples strategy is that the same users constantly have to buy new machines instead of upgrading individual parts. Yes I know that for proffessional systems this is almost always necessary, but it seems more dramatic on Apples.

Specialized chips means specialized setups, which often means- less room internally for hardware changes. Am I wrong? Could I never end this huge cycle, or would it not make more sense as a consumer (other than a professional with an AMEX card) to try to integrate oneself with the Microsoft workflow?

futureproof · Post by **futureproof** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 6:24 am

Machinesworking wrote:I don't think anybody has mentioned this, but the OSX browser is miles above XP in usefulness. Basically OSX is a better OS than XP, I don't think that can really be debated

For every time I use XPs file browser I use Live/Reasons browser 100 times. Live/Reasons browser is not platform specific right?

again, what about people like me who simply:
1. turn on their comp
2. open an audio app
3. make music

would it be fair to say that OSX is good for those who like to use all the apps/features that come with their OS? dashboard etc?
basically everything I UNINSTALLED when I got a new comp.

I guess Im basically the kind of person that would rather do just about anything than dig around in their OS messing around with shit. My comp is for making music, email, and a bit of forums.

amo · Post by **amo** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 6:32 am

I don't think anybody has mentioned this, but the OSX browser is miles above XP in usefulness. Basically OSX is a better OS than XP, I don't think that can really be debated

I for one don't agree at all. I'm using both, know better XP maybe that's why I prefer it, BUT: Using Protools at work, every day, on OSX. Four different machines (from single G4 to iMAC G5) with either PT LE or TDM.
Exemple: I open a browser window, I browse to the folder my project is, I open my project. Within PT, I create a new folder in my project folder, while importing sounds, just to put those sounds into the new folder. Well, I work, I save my session, quit PT. Guess what ? The new folder that I created is no to be seen in the left-open browser window. I have either to close and reopen it, either to click another up-folder and come back to it and now it is visible. Ok that's just a detail I hate. Tell me if I'm doing anything wrong.
Also, I much prefer the Win explorer. Very convenient to move or copy things around with just one window opened... Just a taste.

So not to enter a war, but I wanted to share small things. And maybe those things are only UI things....

Cheers,
amo

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 6:45 am

futureproof wrote:For every time I use XPs file browser I use Live/Reasons browser 100 times. Live/Reasons browser is not platform specific right?

Right, and actually they suffer for it, Live's browser is akin to win98 in structure.....

again, what about people like me who simply:
1. turn on their comp
2. open an audio app
3. make music

Well that is the person OSX and macs are designed to sell to. If you are interested in optimizing a system, then XP is cool too, but for plug and play, OSX and macs are better.

would it be fair to say that OSX is good for those who like to use all the apps/features that come with their OS? dashboard etc?
basically everything I UNINSTALLED when I got a new comp.

Here's a clincher, people have tried to "optimize" OSX for audio, and none of it does dick. The only significant improvement in performance comes from turning off the airport card in the powerbook, about 3%. you do this from the menu in the desktop. Unix and OSX basically assign resources to the application that is running, all available RAM and CPU etc... there are no optimizations that improve on what the OS already does.

I guess Im basically the kind of person that would rather do just about anything than dig around in their OS messing around with shit. My comp is for making music, email, and a bit of forums.

You are most definitely Apple's main audience. I dunno, I think you'll be happy with a mac.
The nice thing is when the Intel macs come out, any machine you buy now will still have really good resale value, it's something people forget about when comparing the price of PC's to mac.

futureproof · Post by **futureproof** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:01 am

machines...Im a reverse switcher. I switched to PC a couple years ago after years of using a mac.

Your point about macs holding their resale value is very true indeed....I sold my ibook, used that money to buy a pc laptop (plus$100 for extra RAM) and was AMAZED at the performance increase.

There is a Reaktor ensemble called Flatblaster that I literally couldnt even open up at 44k on my ibook. When i tried it on my pc it opened at 44k and used 15% CPU. I was already excited but then I went and DL'ed SIR, retro delay etc etc...well you get my point. Ive been thrilled with my decision.

As far as stability is concerned...my pc crashes/freezes just about as often as my macs did...once in a while.

that said, I will be keeping an eye out for those intel macs. macs ARE beautifull machines...that I cant deny

On the other hand...I really cant stand apples marketing...its just awful.

also, will the intel macs be able to run pc apps? I know this has been widely discussed on various forums but all the threads were like 10 pages long. short answer?

DISUYE · Post by **DISUYE** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:11 am

There's been a couple posts here essentially stating 'XP is better than OSX if you want to customize your OS' ... one thing to say about that -- http://macosxhints.com

Windows throws all it's options at the user whether they want to see them or not -- OSX is built on the grounding that a certain level of customization is sufficient for the average user BUT if you are in a position to actually find a limitation with the OS, then you'll also have the wherewithall to tweak under the hood.

Dan

p.s: it's amazing how many working Macs I've seen which still have the default blue desktop background. That kind of sums up many people's relationships with their Mac. It's like a toaster or something. My own machine has been tweaked a bit to make working easier (didn't have to do much); and I've seen a few which have been rutted beyond belief.

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:33 am

subterFUSE wrote:I wouldn't count on it. The Apple account is worthless to Intel in terms of sales numbers. Accepting the Apple deal was nothing more to Intel than an ego boost.

I suppose one could look at it like that, but don't forget that the Windows world is incredibly slow in accepting changes to hardware... don't they still have to put PS/2 ports on most motherboards? Etc. etc. - the thing with Apple is that if they want to implement a new whatsit or thingymajig, they just do it. Like with USB and AltiVec and such - maybe Intel wants some real world testing of some of its more out there technologies? Apple could give them that.

Also, I don't think you should underestimate the power of this 'ego boost'. Apple might only have a 2-3% market share (I think that's the correct figure), but I reckon it accounts for more than 3% of the pages written about computing... Market share or no, Apple do play a quite important part in the modern PC (broadest sense) world.

-Paws

Living_Fiction · Post by **Living_Fiction** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:58 am

noisetonepause wrote:
subterFUSE wrote:I wouldn't count on it. The Apple account is worthless to Intel in terms of sales numbers. Accepting the Apple deal was nothing more to Intel than an ego boost.
I suppose one could look at it like that, but don't forget that the Windows world is incredibly slow in accepting changes to hardware... don't they still have to put PS/2 ports on most motherboards? Etc. etc. - the thing with Apple is that if they want to implement a new whatsit or thingymajig, they just do it. Like with USB and AltiVec and such - maybe Intel wants some real world testing of some of its more out there technologies? Apple could give them that.

Also, I don't think you should underestimate the power of this 'ego boost'. Apple might only have a 2-3% market share (I think that's the correct figure), but I reckon it accounts for more than 3% of the pages written about computing... Market share or no, Apple do play a quite important part in the modern PC (broadest sense) world.

-Paws

You clearly haven't used any PC's lately...If you think they are behind in terms of hardware, you must have used some Dell or something...PC's always have the latest technology out. My friend Jason could go on, and on about some new AMD processor or something...If you went "custom", you could easly build an upgradable rig. If anything, Mac's are the slower ones when you think about it. They do have the more stable OS, but they lack being able to upgrade, upgrade, and upgrade some more for a reasonable price.If you keep up (It's not easy, but possible) with the technology that comes out all the time for PC, you'd be quite amazed at how much new technology is being pumped out. Also, I have worked with OS X Tiger quite a bit, and I can tell you first hand, you can't really do as much as tweaking, modding, etc...Unless of course you actually had the tools to do it from Apple.

In simple terms...Multi Media regular computer use with easy plug-n-play = Mac

Professional upgradable computers that give you endless of tweaking, modding, and flexability = PC's.

Now, I am not at all saying that Mac's aren't professional. I'm just saying you spend alot more $ for what you get with Apple. If I was loaded with a ton of money, I would easly get a G5.

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:07 pm

I agree.

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:09 pm

Yesyesyes... but it takes a long time for such things to go from fringes into the mainstream, hence still having PS/2 ports, floppy drives, etc etc... in the Cult of Mac, if Apple says 'Go Dual-core' or 'Use USB' or whatever, all the cultists bow down and say 'Yes, Steve'... this does not happen in Windows-land.

As you insinuate yourself, Dells are 'behind' (and ever so ugly)... and most Windows users use Dell or the like. QED etc. etc.

-Paws

anonymouse · Post by **anonymouse** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:12 pm

good luck on the mac. I'm very happy with XP; plus I've already bought a massive amount of windows software both for work and play. And both my laptops far outperform any mac hardware currently available.

I'm sure I must be missing out on some good design features, but I've few things to complain about in the windows world I am used to.

I'm a bit worried about this new Vista OS ... but I'm sure it will be 5 years time at least before an upgrade from XP becomes really necessary.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:26 pm

hambone1 wrote:It's the glowing Apple. It's a nondefinable, intangible, illogical quality that surpasses functionality, stability, security, cost, and speed.

If you don't understand it, you never will...

I've been the PC route. I'll never go back.

Especially with dual-core Macintels on the (distant) horizon.

Bone

P.S. I'm glad to see a reasonble platform discussion that doesn't deteriorate into moronic "mine is better than yours." I've learned a lot about PCs from this thread and am glad to see it's not just the bedroom geekboffins with zit-splats on their monitors using them, but professionals, too.

Per Boysen · Post by **Per Boysen** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 3:42 pm

futureproof wrote:What is it exactly about osx thats so great IYO? What does OSX offer that proves to be a bigger advantage than raw power?

I'm a great user of OS X's IAC Busses, the built in pipelines for MIDI. I can do stuff like running a live looping plug-in as the sync master and have Live 5 pick up the tempo. I can also set up all kind of MIDI clips that send controller data to plug-ins way outside what you can achieve by Live's own clip envelopes. I wouldn't be able to use a Windows lappy for the stuff I do on my powerbook. Just my 2 pence

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:59 pm

futureproof wrote: On the other hand...I really cant stand apples marketing...its just awful.

also, will the intel macs be able to run pc apps? I know this has been widely discussed on various forums but all the threads were like 10 pages long. short answer?

I agree about the marketing, but I can't name ANY marketing I like?

Here's the deal, Intel macs will not be able to run PC apps, but apparently it's much easier to port x86 windows to x86 mac, light years easier I've heard. So developers will actually be able to port quicker than ever before, and coders that never thought of porting to mac are now thinking about it.

Just to throw an odd one out there, I had a conversation with one of the guys from FXpansion who though it might be possible to write an adapter for VST/WIN to Mac/AU, that would be interesting.