Why use a G4?

drush · Post by **drush** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:54 pm

AdamJay wrote:i think autechre supports No Logo (nologo.org). its a great community and subsequent book worth reading.

probably not the book you are referring to but immediately makes me think of Pattern Recognition by William Gibson. great book.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:09 am

pattern recognition is probably his best book for years , but Naomi Kleins 'no logo' is more important.

it made me political.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:26 am

well guys though its a thread that must end... i gotta say this much....

the last few days i've been using the Release Candidate 1 for Windows XP Pro 64-bit Edition, and if you like a "snappy" OS... you'd really love this one.

There is an extremely noticable difference in speed within just the basic GUI of Windows. I haven't seen an hour glass symbol since i started using it Wednesday night. Its fast but not in that jittery jaggedy way Windows typically is. Its more of an immediacy kind of "fast". I think the fact they made SSE2 instruction truley 64-bit was the best move MS has made in 3 years. Its like they put a nitrous tank in my machine. Live 4.1 works great. Many users are seeing better performance with Live 4.1 under x64 Windows, i'm getting identical performance personally. All my plugins work great too.

If anyone out there has been sampling Tiger before its release, please chime in with your findings. because its really the next generation Operating Systems that are gonna be the main source of debate in the Apple vs. PC wars in the years to come.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:59 am

AdamJay wrote: because its really the next generation Operating Systems that are gonna be the main source of debate in the Apple vs. PC wars in the years to come.

I doubt it, I suspect it will always be about hardware in the end,( the source of debate between mac/PC that is ).
Think about this....
I would love to use Live alongside a video VJ App like Jitter. A laptop fast enough to let me fire high resolution video clips, and audio clips at the same time without choking will soon be an issue for me. So it will depend on third party software, and hardware.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:04 am

Machinesworking wrote:
AdamJay wrote: because its really the next generation Operating Systems that are gonna be the main source of debate in the Apple vs. PC wars in the years to come.
I doubt it, I suspect it will always be about hardware in the end,( the source of debate between mac/PC that is ).
Think about this....
I would love to use Live alongside a video VJ App like Jitter. A laptop fast enough to let me fire high resolution video clips, and audio clips at the same time without choking will soon be an issue for me. So it will depend on third party software, and hardware.

true, these are factors. but what say you of every other live user on Mac that has gotten a 11% average overall performance boost IN LIVE by going from 10.3.7 to 10.3.8.

or PC users getting 12% overall by going to 64 bit (yet still running Live, a 32bit app) ?

in the case with Jitter, its all about GPU.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:29 am

AdamJay wrote:true, these are factors. but what say you of every other live user on Mac that has gotten a 11% average overall performance boost IN LIVE by going from 10.3.7 to 10.3.8.

or PC users getting 12% overall by going to 64 bit (yet still running Live, a 32bit app) ?

in the case with Jitter, its all about GPU.

True enough with the 10.38 update Adam, except I'm sceptical of results that vary from user to user.
There is a total crock of shit article in Electronic Musician written by a very well meaning guy who stated that reducing your OS size by removing unused languages, and fonts, plus defragging your hard drive afterwards would actually improve your CPU and track count. I ran your Live 4 test on my powerbook before and after completely erasing my hard drive, doing everything he said, and got a big fat ZERO improvement. The OS matters, but it's not the main bottleneck in modern systems IMO. Then again, just to contradict myself, a proprietary Linux OS designed with audio in mind would probably get a bit more out of our chips than Windows or OSX!
I'll instal 10.3.8 soon, and let you know, but I seriously doubt I'll see any improvement in performance from it.

Also, a 64 bit machine has plenty of advantages over a 32 bit machine, it explains why the 2.5 G5 is even in the running against 3.4 chips and Centrinos.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:41 am

Machinesworking wrote:True enough with the 10.38 update Adam, except I'm sceptical of results that vary from user to user.
There is a total crock of shit article in Electronic Musician written by a very well meaning guy who stated that reducing your OS size by removing unused languages, and fonts, plus defragging your hard drive afterwards would actually improve your CPU and track count. I ran your Live 4 test on my powerbook before and after completely erasing my hard drive, doing everything he said, and got a big fat ZERO improvement. The OS matters, but it's not the main bottleneck in modern systems IMO. Then again, just to contradict myself, a proprietary Linux OS designed with audio in mind would probably get a bit more out of our chips than Windows or OSX!
I'll instal 10.3.8 soon, and let you know, but I seriously doubt I'll see any improvement in performance from it.

Also, a 64 bit machine has plenty of advantages over a 32 bit machine, it explains why the 2.5 G5 is even in the running against 3.4 chips and Centrinos.

I'm also skeptical that only some users are seeing improvements, but it does show that streamlining an OS can improve performance, and 2005 is certainly the year of next generation OS's.

RE: total crock of shit article in EM:
yea thats nuts. it will give you disk space, but thats it. maybe he saw that somewhere else, like on an optimization site and misinterpretted it. thats the only explanation i can think of.

We are soon entering the end of the road in terms of how much power we can squeeze out of 90 nanometer process cpu's. Dual core and Quad core chips on 90nm are going to be seen before the nanotechnology advances to even smaller dies. And its going to take Operating System advancements (yes as well as 3rd party application advancements - we're both right) to harness the power of dual and quad core chips while we wait for nanotechnology to make the next huge advancement.

We're both right i think

RE: 2.5ghz G5 as good as Centrino:
yep, too bad they're 3G's

majestic · Post by **majestic** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:51 am

AdamJay wrote:RE: total crock of shit article in EM:
yea thats nuts. it will give you disk space, but thats it.

Yep, absolutely right from my experience. Removing the languages reclaimed 1GB of disk space for me (!!!), but the Live perf test still returned my dismal 76% result.

HOWEVER...that was on 10.3.7. I just ran the test again, and I'm getting 67% peak - and nothing significant has changed on my system apart from the update to 10.3.8. So for me anyway, it does seem to have made a difference.

I'll post results for my new PB (1.67GHz) when it arrives in a week or so...

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:54 am

majestic wrote: I'll post results for my new PB (1.67GHz) when it arrives in a week or so...

ooooh.... thanks!

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:07 am

AdamJay wrote:We're both right i think

RE: 2.5ghz G5 as good as Centrino:
yep, too bad they're 3G's

Yeah, hence my' " now to totally contradict myself" comment!

Too bad only one of the 2.5 Ghz. cpus in the G5 is being used!

I'm with you on the price of macs, but I think it's a little more complicated than people have made it out to be. An old band mate of mine works in hardware testing at Apple now, ( I know quite a few Microsoft employees locally here in Seattle as well ), and he pretty much verified my thinking that Apple themselves pay more for their chips than people think. The overall cost to Apple themselves to manufacture the mac is higher than Dell, Compaq, or Gateway pay to manufacture PCs.
He also explained that the clone market was crushed for a very simple reason; Apple was spending huge amounts of manpower on troubleshooting the competitor's machines, when they were using cheap parts to undersell them, and creating the bugs this way. It was an endless cycle.

I think Steve jobs was pretty smart for throwing fancy cases on the iMac and adding a boutique element to the whole deal, but I think it became that much harder to explain to PC users why you would stick with mac. Consider that it's bad business practice to just come out and say,

"Hey look, we have a much smaller market share, so our cost per chip is higher, and we also design our OS as well, these things mean you will pay much more for our fastest machines than the equivalent PC, but bear with us, we're an underdog, and it's almost impossible for us to keep up with PC's but our OS is a lot more bullet proof, granted it isn't the one you use at work, and certain files and software titles won't run on it, but..."

personally I would love it, but I think a lot of mac types would jump ship.
I like the underdog in almost every situation, it's a given weakness of mine. Like I've said before I think, if Live 4 was ported to Linux, I would be using Linux.
Anyway yeah I concede price and speed to PC no problem. I'm not worried about speed too much, and I buy computers about every three years or more, so though macs cost more it's not like it's an expense I shill out every year. I'm also happy with the programs I have that are mac only, and cherish the thought of shelling out more for my various plugs in windows versions like I cherish getting teeth pulled.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:48 am

Machinesworking wrote: Yeah, hence my' " now to totally contradict myself" comment!

Too bad only one of the 2.5 Ghz. cpus in the G5 is being used!

True enough, this often does get overlooked and i'll admit myself that i overlook it occasionally. Those puppies are fast. Considering its on par with a 2.2ghz Athlon 64 or Opteron for that matter, if Live 4 was dual cpu optimized, yea i'd love to be running a dual Opteron. But back comes the price difference. I can build that opteron myself, spec'd out the same as the Dual 2.5ghz G5 for under $1800. And it really sucks because i really like OSX hehe.

I'm with you on the price of macs, but I think it's a little more complicated than people have made it out to be. An old band mate of mine works in hardware testing at Apple now, ( I know quite a few Microsoft employees locally here in Seattle as well ), and he pretty much verified my thinking that Apple themselves pay more for their chips than people think. The overall cost to Apple themselves to manufacture the mac is higher than Dell, Compaq, or Gateway pay to manufacture PCs.

Absolutely, and that's simple economics. HP lead the computer manufacters market last year (see: merger with Compaq) and this has made the machine i'm typing on right now - blazingly fast and sickeningly affordable. High volume = low prices, and vice versa. Yea there are downsides to that, a less secure OS (that i can secure myself), and it came loaded with 3GB worth of useless crap and every printer driver preinstalled for all HP printers. (clean install right out of the box took care of that). Out of the box, you get what you pay for i'd say with an HP, a Gateway, etc. and especially an Apple... but yea it takes some knowledge and a few hours of setup to get that PC to where its a "steal".

I think it is easy for Apple users, and former Apple users like myself, to get jaded about the price of their computers. Most Apple users follow the company as a corporate entity somewhat (macrumors.com, macbytes.com, spymac, etc.). We're watching Apple literally make a killing on ipods, and the powerbooks are still running Motu cpu's and costing way more than any other notebook on the market. Even Alienware, and that says alot. They are profiting more than ever, and other than $100 off 12" powerbooks (gee thanks), users aren't yet seeing these successes trickle down to them on the consumer level. This gets damn frustrating.

I think that in a way, Apple has fallen victim to their own propriety. They can't just come out and say "Powerbooks, from $1299 to $1999 on the full range" anyone that bought a PB or iBook in the last year would certainly throw stones. Their novelty (for lack of a better word) has given them no real competitor. This makes it harder to cut prices as well. Jobs is smart enough to know that if he priced his machines on par with the rest of the PC world, volume would go up (prices on chips would go down), and in the end the fluctuation in net profit would be minimal, and in the end you have a larger base of users on OSX. But you can't do that overnight without pissing off anyone that paid the standard price for a new Apple in the last 5 years. So, lets just hope that these steady drops in powerbook prices continue across the Apple product line, especially on PowerMacs.

I'm not worried about speed too much, and I buy computers about every three years or more, so though macs cost more it's not like it's an expense I shill out every year.

One great things the macs have going for them is the highest resell price of any computer. 667mhz G4 TiBooks still get $1,000 on eBay. any one just needing raw speed could trade up to a 12" 1.2ghz ibook for nothing.
ebay is your friend

great conversation btw.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:20 am

AdamJay wrote:I think that in a way, Apple has fallen victim to their own propriety. They can't just come out and say "Powerbooks, from $1299 to $1999 on the full range" anyone that bought a PB or iBook in the last year would certainly throw stones. Their novelty (for lack of a better word) has given them no real competitor. This makes it harder to cut prices as well. Jobs is smart enough to know that if he priced his machines on par with the rest of the PC world, volume would go up (prices on chips would go down), and in the end the fluctuation in net profit would be minimal, and in the end you have a larger base of users on OSX. But you can't do that overnight without pissing off anyone that paid the standard price for a new Apple in the last 5 years. So, lets just hope that these steady drops in powerbook prices continue across the Apple product line, especially on PowerMacs.

The only real problem with this is that the end user is basically a fickle bitch ( for lack of a better word!); you lower the price of a premium line like the powerbook, and it's quite possible that people see it as a sign of your companies demise. Stupid I know, but the same thing applies to software, if Ableton started selling Live 4 for 1/2 the price it costs now, people would assume that Acid is a better program...

I'm betting you're on the money with the thought that what they'll do is slowly lower the price to closer to PC level, it makes more sense to subtly drop prices than cut it in half because the G4 is at the end of the line, that sort of thing scares customers away.

One great things the macs have going for them is the highest resell price of any computer. 667mhz G4 TiBooks still get $1,000 on eBay. any one just needing raw speed could trade up to a 12" 1.2ghz ibook for nothing.
ebay is your friend

great conversation btw.

Yeah I sold a first revision 667mhz powerbook on ebay for $1600!

I'm keeping the one I have now though, a good friend of mine is a teacher who wrote some specific Apple Scripts in OS 9 that he can't be bothered to rewrite in OSX, so I'll sell it to him eventually.

Oddly enough, the girl who turns out to be absolutely perfect for the sort of noise I do has a Powerbook as well, so I think I'll end up just using both in a Live situation. One with Live 4 on it, and the other with Logic running VI's for live use!

Yeah, funny how people can chat decently when they don't squeal at each other about their choice of machines?

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:23 am

Actually about optimisation -

Linux will usually use a seperate partition for yer swap file, and some even set up one for /tmp, meaning there's always enough space for these things. This might not be the case for OSX, so reclaiming that gigabyte of space from extra fonts etc. *might* give you an improvement if space is tight - but then you should always have a few gigs free on / anyways... I recently switched over to a one-partition scheme and having that extra free space (I'm on a 40GB HD here..!) helps a lot more than having my audio files on a seperate partition might've.

-Paws

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:44 am

Personally i've bought and sold so many gear with loss. That buying a dual g5 really did not matter that much.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as broke as most of you guys are.
But still, i don't mind paying for something that repays itself.
If i would have minded, i would probably haven't bought Live either.

As a mac "fanatic" i too got dragged into the whole debate at some times. But as time progresses, my arguments carry less meaning. Maybe it's because i discuss the matter with people who use their p.c. to work instead of using it to jerk.

My beef with microsoft has become more of a moral thing instead of just glancing between comparison charts without a thought.

This mac / p.c. thing will eventually die down though. How longer will there be compatibility issue's?
How long before you can hook up to processor of a pc to use with a mac or vice versa?
I'm being realistic enough to think in terms of us all having supercomputers by 2010. Even a futuristic scenario like the matrix was partially based on research from A.I. pioneers like Ray Kurzweill (read "the age of spiritual machines")

The pace of change is accelerating and his been since the inception of invention. This acceleration is an inherent feature of technology. The result will be far greater transformations in the first two decades of the 21st century then we saw in the entire 20th century.

Cheers

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:58 am

hoffman2k wrote:How long before you can hook up to processor of a pc to use with a mac or vice versa?

Not going to happen. The day Apple port their OS to x86 is the day they go out of business - and also the day OSX stops working as well as it does now.

-Paws