Page 1 of 1
OS X + Live 3
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 4:53 am
by Alex Reynolds
Can anyone familiar with Live 3 under OS X reply if it is appreciably slower than Live 2.1.2 with the same hardware?
Or at the same (or better, god forbid) performance level?
Thanks,
Alex
Live 3 and OSX
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 6:25 am
by madlab
Sorry, that's partly OT :
haven't tried version 3 with OSX, but what would you say about version 2.1.2 ? Older 2.03 seemed to work better for me…
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:31 pm
by the dur
i've run all the 3 betas on 10.2
currently i'm running beta 3.06 w/10.2.8
it seems a little slower to launch, particularly in 3b6 compared to earlier betas, and about the same as 2.1 performancewise
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:38 pm
by The Hulk
Well, it does seem slower to launch, but I didn't notice any reduction of speed aside from that. Although, it does have limited effects settings so on that end it hasn't been pushed to the limit (and effects still take up quite a bit of CPU, especially reverbs)
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:52 am
by kent_sandvik
I didn't use the same song when testing 2.1 and 3.0, but when running 2.1 with lots of effects I could get up to 80% CPU use (dual G4 867 Mhz system), while doing something similar with the 3.0beta-x versions seldom climbed above 60% CPU use.
So it felt snappier, but I don't know the details. Needless to say, the betas were very stable! (this was a OSX 10.2.7 system with M-Audio Firewire 410).
--Kent
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:33 am
by stew
But it does still seem to me as if no Version of Live on OS X came near the performance of Live on OS 9, or does anyone have different experiences?
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:20 am
by bensuthers
I noticed a slight performance hit, when just using one or two tracks;
but I noticed that things were a lot more stable with no dropouts when processing approached 80%...and I got away with a lot more.
so I'd say that 3.00 is better than 2.1....
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:22 am
by jOop.
When things hit 70%, my system would stutter pretty bad (g4 powerbook, 867 with 1024 ram).
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 4:22 pm
by Alex
Hi folks,
...to defense Live 3 :) a longer startup time on OS X could be based on the fact that Live 3 also handles Mach-O VSTs and scans also the global system VST folder.
Live 2.x does none of them.
regards,
Alex
Ok enhancement
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:06 pm
by Akhros
Ok we understand Live 3 be optimized for future OSX, but what about cpu charge on higher projects containing live dsps multi vst etc...
How it will behave because for instance Live works correctly in previous version on Jaguar. Is that a limitation of the beta itself that it freezes on more heavy published tracks ?
Any idea... shall it be enhnaced for Dual processor G5 - do we need to upgrade to Dual later on ??A Pentium 4 is working good on a Live 2.
Es gerade gibt "frustrations"
Akhros