yeah fraizer, chiill dude. its ironic that in the same post that you totally diss the negativity, that you yourself are being quite negative and making sweeping judgements, then getting on your high horse and looking down at all of us non-musician live people that couldn't possibly have anything to say that you want to hear. First of all, there are some killer musicians using live. I play bass (uright, 6 string,fretless) mandonlin, guitar, keys, Hammond organ, drums, and banjo amongst other things, and I know a lot of other multi-instrumentalists are using live. People in every computer forum out there are sensative about their computers and sometimes the mac vs pc thing goes too far, but i'd say the majority of the posts here are very helpful, and in general this forum has some of the most creative and helpful ideas of forums out there. Why not check it out a bit before coming on, slagging everyone on it in general, and contributing nothing but negatvity.
Ryan
Ableton What Do The New Macs Mean In Terms Of Live???
-
Guest
Re: Why are there so many morons on this forum?
[quote="Frasier"]Logic-users yahoo, motu-mac yahoo, digidesign's duc, sospubs, daw-mac:
all these forums have intelligent posters
apparently someone likes macs, and can only handle forums where all of the mac guys live in harmony together. well, out in the real world, people have budgets, and actually care about performance instead of whatever image apple sells. for those of us that care about money and performance, and use Live primarily, we buy toshibas and sonys, and use all the extra money for RME's and external drives. take your intelligence and go back to your mac forums, and let us morons carry on here, we won't miss you.
all these forums have intelligent posters
apparently someone likes macs, and can only handle forums where all of the mac guys live in harmony together. well, out in the real world, people have budgets, and actually care about performance instead of whatever image apple sells. for those of us that care about money and performance, and use Live primarily, we buy toshibas and sonys, and use all the extra money for RME's and external drives. take your intelligence and go back to your mac forums, and let us morons carry on here, we won't miss you.
-
Guest
Re: Why are there so many morons on this forum?
well mr. academic training, if you're so special, why don't you post some links to the spectacular music you must be able to make with all that training. maybe us jack-asses using Live could benefit from your wisdom and maybe even steal some of you academically influenced ideas. or not. where do you get off dude? how on earth can you place yourself on such a high pedestal without even knowing a damn thing about what your talking about (except that you love stirctly mac based forums). You get on our forums and insult everyone in general, then try to distance yourself from us because you are acadmically trained. Where did you get this fabulous education--i went to berklee, and know many other berklee grads that use Live, but the school makes us burn our diplomas because Live is only for "idiotic, moronic, un-educated djs". step off.Frasier wrote:(I have confirmed what I assumed which is Live allows non-musicians to make music. And I assume that in the DJ culture, this idiotic interchange is desirable. And that I am too much of a stiff, with too much academic training; which I am trying to shed.) I just figure this forum would be more useful if it focused on quality arguments.
-
Guest
-
Frazier
All sincere Apologies
I was up late, and I still haven't gone to sleep. (I was audited by the IRS). You are right in that I have only seen a few of the past months posts (and therefore shouldn't diss the few lame-flame ones I've run across.) I am greatly looking forward to digging in the archives of this forum. (The posts that annoyed me were the ones where people were using arguments like dudes buy macs to get laid; and I think I saw the word jism thrown around; stuff that I expect to see in my aol mailbox.)
And, here I am cluttering and lowering the quality of these posts with my ramblings. Again, I did not mean to offend; I'll go lurk. I am sure there are going to be gems of tips here; Live is a revolutionary way to work, and most surely inspire new work methods. I love it. (What I saw I could after arranging the session view. Damn.) It's scary good - in the best way. (I love how I don't have to waste the click to cut and paste; just select the portion, and move the selected portion with or without the appropriate modifier.)
For the record, I own many more pcs than my one (soon to be 3) macs. Love 'em all. (The Frazier pseudonym refers to that dork who lives in Seattle, and has a tv show in his name; I knew I put on my high-horse mask.) Anyway, I've been appropriately humbled (better by some; a little lamer by the guy who has to incorrectly make me out to be a mac guy, and then go ahead and crap on me as if I am that generalized mac zealot.) (I only got into macs recently; started my music making on pcs, when Reality and Giga were the only viable softsynth/samplers on the scene.) (I've always wished I was a mac guy; but I am glad to be genuinely bi. I love building a pc. I love that moment before you add the OS, and it's just you and the hardware; completely pristine; no bugs; no resource-sucking quirks.) (And the ability to get the quiet ennermaxes and papsts and panaflos.)
The whole mac-pc thing is scary. Too religous. Too 1930's Germany. Sigh.
While I'm here, I would like to appreciate this opportunity to rave and rant; I don't contribute much to these forums yet. I thought it was a problem, but I think it is cool how Ableton set up this forum which allows you to post and reply annonymously without setting anything up; very much in the spirit of Live.
I'm going to bed now. (Looking forward to putting Live on my Athlon-Sis 735 that I built recently. I've got gigastudio on it, and I don't want to add anything to it - but, as you guys know, Live on a bottom-end TiBook ain't too powerful. (But, yeah, the reverb does sound good.)
Hope you guys answer my questions; cause I do have a few. Hope to learn some tricks so that I may be of service here.
humbly,
Fray-Fray
And, here I am cluttering and lowering the quality of these posts with my ramblings. Again, I did not mean to offend; I'll go lurk. I am sure there are going to be gems of tips here; Live is a revolutionary way to work, and most surely inspire new work methods. I love it. (What I saw I could after arranging the session view. Damn.) It's scary good - in the best way. (I love how I don't have to waste the click to cut and paste; just select the portion, and move the selected portion with or without the appropriate modifier.)
For the record, I own many more pcs than my one (soon to be 3) macs. Love 'em all. (The Frazier pseudonym refers to that dork who lives in Seattle, and has a tv show in his name; I knew I put on my high-horse mask.) Anyway, I've been appropriately humbled (better by some; a little lamer by the guy who has to incorrectly make me out to be a mac guy, and then go ahead and crap on me as if I am that generalized mac zealot.) (I only got into macs recently; started my music making on pcs, when Reality and Giga were the only viable softsynth/samplers on the scene.) (I've always wished I was a mac guy; but I am glad to be genuinely bi. I love building a pc. I love that moment before you add the OS, and it's just you and the hardware; completely pristine; no bugs; no resource-sucking quirks.) (And the ability to get the quiet ennermaxes and papsts and panaflos.)
The whole mac-pc thing is scary. Too religous. Too 1930's Germany. Sigh.
While I'm here, I would like to appreciate this opportunity to rave and rant; I don't contribute much to these forums yet. I thought it was a problem, but I think it is cool how Ableton set up this forum which allows you to post and reply annonymously without setting anything up; very much in the spirit of Live.
I'm going to bed now. (Looking forward to putting Live on my Athlon-Sis 735 that I built recently. I've got gigastudio on it, and I don't want to add anything to it - but, as you guys know, Live on a bottom-end TiBook ain't too powerful. (But, yeah, the reverb does sound good.)
Hope you guys answer my questions; cause I do have a few. Hope to learn some tricks so that I may be of service here.
humbly,
Fray-Fray
yes,
bacon and eggs
and always remeber....
"i still get clicks when i render"
dpel
bacon and eggs
and always remeber....
"i still get clicks when i render"
dpel
Dave Pelman Music
http://www.davepelman.com
http://www.davepelman.com
-
Guest
Alex, just for your info on something you podted re SPEC benches.
Anyway, not important but that's what it means.
Agreed but then all such tests are within their own context and Apple themselves chose to use SPEC for whatever reason in this case.AMD's SPEC numbers leave out a lot and seem flaky.
What that actually means is that it was a SPEC generated by by an Apple setup P4 system as opposed to the others quoted by Dell etc. They differ somewhat.Apple doesn't make a 3 GHz P4, for one.
Anyway, not important but that's what it means.
-
Alex Reynolds
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:48 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Contact:
I agree with the general view on benchmarking. Ultimately, use of Live for the purpose of evaluating Live is the only meaningful measure, if Live is the target application.
Here is an alternative viewpoint to the benchmarking debate:
-- http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?si ... 26&tid=181
``[Greg Joswiak, vice president of hardware product marketing at Apple] said Veritest used gcc for both platforms, instead of Intel's compiler, simply because the benchmarks measure two things at the same time: compiler, and hardware. To test the hardware alone, you must normalize the compiler out of the equation -- using the same version and similar settings -- and, if anything, Joswiak said, gcc has been available on the Intel platform for a lot longer and is more optimized for Intel than for PowerPC.
``He conceded readily that the Dell numbers would be higher with the Intel compiler, but that the Apple numbers could be higher with a different compiler too.
``Joswiak added that in the Intel modifications for the tests, they chose the option that provided higher scores for the Intel machine, not lower. The scores were higher under Linux than under Windows, and in the rate test, the scores were higher with hyperthreading disabled than enabled. He also said they would be happy to do the tests on Windows and with hyperthreading enabled, if people wanted it, as it would only make the G5 look better.
``In the G5 modifications, they were made because shipping systems will have those options available. For example, memory read bypass was turned on, for even though it is not on by default in the tested prototypes, it will be on by default for the shipping systems. Software-based prefetching was turned off and a high-performance malloc was used because those options will be available on the shipping systems (Joswiak did not know whether this malloc, which is faster but less memory efficient, will be the default in the shipping systems).
``As to not using SSE2, Joswiak said they enabled the correct flags for it, as documented on the gcc web site, so that SSE2 was enabled (the Veritest report lists the options used for each test, which appears to include the appropriate flags).''
Though Joswiak is paid to market Apple products, I do not get the feeling he is being dishonest; in fact, he basically says that Intel parameters were set to give the P4 and Xeons every possible advantage while keeping the test parameters fair and equivalent.
He even offers to compare against real-world machines running Windows with HT enabled because he knows that those numbers make the G5 look even better. But to be as fair as possible -- knowing the inevitable Mac bashing to come -- the better results of the fair Intel speed tests are used.
So let's get back to how great Opterons are, supposedly.
Since I see no equivalence test made between dual Opterons and dual G5s, I'd suggest that AMD is simply playing the same game that all the manufacturers play. Their silence on a real comparison on what is being shipped is perhaps as damning, if not more so.
Basically what I read in this tiresome thread is that you can build an equivalent dual Opteron for about $100 less than a prebuilt dual G5 with a three year warranty and the same performance -- if not better, since AMD will not show us those numbers.
Forgive me for saying this, but where exactly are the benefits of all this labor and for being stuck running Linux? Can you run Live, for example, under Linux?
On one hand you have a dual Opteron that is really meant for the server crowd and will run Linux server applications really fast. Certainly Microsoft is not supporting Opteron at this time, and certainly there are no 64 bit desktop applications planned for Windows to be released on the same time frame as Panther.
On the other hand, you have a dual G5 that will run server and common desktop applications and has a user interface that is second to none. Not only will today's applications work fine, there is a clean upgrade path laid out by Apple for software developers to follow.
As an end user and a developer, to me this seems like a no-brainer. Maybe I'm deluded.
Either way I'm sorted with this discussion. See you in August!
Selah,
Alex
Here is an alternative viewpoint to the benchmarking debate:
-- http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?si ... 26&tid=181
``[Greg Joswiak, vice president of hardware product marketing at Apple] said Veritest used gcc for both platforms, instead of Intel's compiler, simply because the benchmarks measure two things at the same time: compiler, and hardware. To test the hardware alone, you must normalize the compiler out of the equation -- using the same version and similar settings -- and, if anything, Joswiak said, gcc has been available on the Intel platform for a lot longer and is more optimized for Intel than for PowerPC.
``He conceded readily that the Dell numbers would be higher with the Intel compiler, but that the Apple numbers could be higher with a different compiler too.
``Joswiak added that in the Intel modifications for the tests, they chose the option that provided higher scores for the Intel machine, not lower. The scores were higher under Linux than under Windows, and in the rate test, the scores were higher with hyperthreading disabled than enabled. He also said they would be happy to do the tests on Windows and with hyperthreading enabled, if people wanted it, as it would only make the G5 look better.
``In the G5 modifications, they were made because shipping systems will have those options available. For example, memory read bypass was turned on, for even though it is not on by default in the tested prototypes, it will be on by default for the shipping systems. Software-based prefetching was turned off and a high-performance malloc was used because those options will be available on the shipping systems (Joswiak did not know whether this malloc, which is faster but less memory efficient, will be the default in the shipping systems).
``As to not using SSE2, Joswiak said they enabled the correct flags for it, as documented on the gcc web site, so that SSE2 was enabled (the Veritest report lists the options used for each test, which appears to include the appropriate flags).''
Though Joswiak is paid to market Apple products, I do not get the feeling he is being dishonest; in fact, he basically says that Intel parameters were set to give the P4 and Xeons every possible advantage while keeping the test parameters fair and equivalent.
He even offers to compare against real-world machines running Windows with HT enabled because he knows that those numbers make the G5 look even better. But to be as fair as possible -- knowing the inevitable Mac bashing to come -- the better results of the fair Intel speed tests are used.
So let's get back to how great Opterons are, supposedly.
Since I see no equivalence test made between dual Opterons and dual G5s, I'd suggest that AMD is simply playing the same game that all the manufacturers play. Their silence on a real comparison on what is being shipped is perhaps as damning, if not more so.
Basically what I read in this tiresome thread is that you can build an equivalent dual Opteron for about $100 less than a prebuilt dual G5 with a three year warranty and the same performance -- if not better, since AMD will not show us those numbers.
Forgive me for saying this, but where exactly are the benefits of all this labor and for being stuck running Linux? Can you run Live, for example, under Linux?
On one hand you have a dual Opteron that is really meant for the server crowd and will run Linux server applications really fast. Certainly Microsoft is not supporting Opteron at this time, and certainly there are no 64 bit desktop applications planned for Windows to be released on the same time frame as Panther.
On the other hand, you have a dual G5 that will run server and common desktop applications and has a user interface that is second to none. Not only will today's applications work fine, there is a clean upgrade path laid out by Apple for software developers to follow.
As an end user and a developer, to me this seems like a no-brainer. Maybe I'm deluded.
Either way I'm sorted with this discussion. See you in August!
Selah,
Alex
-
Guest
Opteron isn't the comparative cpu that Live will be running on within the MS platform. Athlon 64 is, which is in motherboard manufacters hands as we write. The last P4 core cpu has just been released, P5 is to be delivered according to what AMD do and when which looks to be last quarter. They are the 'desktop' processors and will indeed be supported by MS in their 64-bit OS.On one hand you have a dual Opteron that is really meant for the server crowd and will run Linux server applications really fast. Certainly Microsoft is not supporting Opteron at this time, and certainly there are no 64 bit desktop applications planned for Windows to be released on the same time frame as Panther.
As a developer yopu will of course know how nebulous it will be for both operating systems as to what does and what doesn't constitute a "64 bit desktop application", regardless they will run and moved over as the know-how gathers. Highly optimising existing 32-bit may yield better results than just slamming a few thunks, threads and core functions along with setting a few compiler flags but that's another story. We're all paying beta-testers effectively whatever platform.
It's a nice system to develop for and it's also a small target audience to develop for. Audio is a small target on any platform comparatively but thems the beans. Some will program for love, some will program to stay in business. High-end low-volume is where the money is and the occasional truly well-crafted offering will appear on either or both platforms regardless of how many flops/bits/MAC instrunctions are available.On the other hand, you have a dual G5 that will run server and common desktop applications and has a user interface that is second to none. Not only will today's applications work fine, there is a clean upgrade path laid out by Apple for software developers to follow.
[qoute]As an end user and a developer, to me this seems like a no-brainer. Maybe I'm deluded. [/quote]
Well, the new silicon from IBM is certainly a neat piece of kit. No doubt about that. But, imo, if you think it is leaps and bounds above the crowd in what it does then I personally think this is a delusion. Having it tied in with a lovely OS such as OSX does make the whole package where things need to go but how far ahead of anything else it is, well, part of the whole ethos of what 'they' ae trying to sell everyone I guess. Better? Well that's subjective to whatever fits someones needs. Best? Naaaaah. Nicheness has it's place and that's usually where it stays going on past performance. Ties usually bind and there's plenty of past wonder OS's/machines in wastebins to demonstrate what I mean by that.
Yep, it'll be nice to have some grunt on the Mac platform again. There's plenty to shout about. I wouldn't get too hard about it though personally, there was more pressure to get this cooking on the Apple front pronto than there was on the 'other' side. But it's around the corner, Athlon 64's coukld potentially burst a few bubbles and Intel know it. The first gen P5's (or whatever they end up calling them) will have 1MB caches and have a few goodies there already to unlock (Hyperthreading was in P3's for example).Either way I'm sorted with this discussion. See you in August!
All good fun. We'll compare notes later
-
Guest
-
Alex Reynolds
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:48 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Contact:
-
Agnishvatta
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:50 pm
- Location: Mie, Japan
I'm confused.... Are you saying that Ableton is releasing a 64bit version of Live for OSX and not for the X86-64 version of windows? 64bit is only one benefit of the PPC970 and Opteron. They both bring much interms of floating point performance and so on. You can use Opteron in Windows now with 32bit programs, so why start bringing issues of Linux into this?So Ableton's releasing a 64 bit clean version of Live that will run on a Opteron-based cluster running RH Linux?
I'm confused...
Apple performed their PC benchmarks in Linux anyways, so they left the Opteron out of the equation no matter how you look at it. But, why can't you just be happy about the performance you'll get on your platform of choice? Must it be perceived as having the ultimate CPU in order for you to be happy with it? It doesn't seem normal to attack possibilities and alternatives for no good reason. For me, I never get the best performing CPU regardless of what's available because I would rather spend $85 on an Athlon XP 2500+ than $450 on an Athlon XP 3200+; the 2500+ would be enough for me, atm.
Some people view the purchasing of the MAC as paying $450 for the 2500+, but even if it were true, it's clear that switching platforms can leave a sourer taste in the mouth. For example, Sonar is windows only and so is Project5, as well as some other software that I've dedicated a great deal of time learning, so going MAC would be out of the question. I know it's the same for many MAC users.
Now even though the Apple benchmarks were not accurate in judging performance for Intel CPUs and left out AMD CPUs, the numbers of the PPC970 were promising enough that if I were a MAC user then I wouldn't even think about performance anymore--unless money were an issue (it is for me). I'm sure no one will be complaining about the performance of the PPC970 when used with Live; just as no one complains about the PC performance of Live now.