transducr wrote:
"Andrew M." wrote in message ...

transducr wrote:

"Andrew M." wrote in message ...


transducr wrote:



"Andrew M." wrote in message ...



I would like to see some hard numbers regarding the number of users for
each platform. The assertion that the vast majority of the music world
is MAC based seems wrong in my experience. It seems that every studio
with a MAC has at least one PC running audio software. Most of the
musicians that I know and work with are now running ProTools Digi 001
and 002 on a PC (90+%).


honestly not a single one of my friends who makes or records music for
money uses a PC. i guess, i'm just lucky.

Fear of the PC is another topic of discussion. re.audio.psych should be
of some help for you. ha ha ha


yeah, maybe so if i hadn't owned numerous PCs before becoming a
"defector" (or is it "switcher"?) to the Mac platform.

when i started working on a Mac everyday (using PT) at my first staff
engineering gig i would come home after a session and sit down in
front of my PC and just get depressed at how it looked and felt to
use. i got spoiled using the studio's Mac. so, once i had the scratch
i bought my first Mac and have never once looked back...

since that time i've had two family members and one friend (all
non-musician or studio folks) switch platforms just from their
experiences using my Mac when staying with me or just using it
whenever they were over...

however, you do have a valid point: i must admit i am afraid of
PCs...sometimes i have nightmares where someone has replaced my Mac
with a Sony Vaio and i wake up in a cold sweat screaming...

....this is the kind of talk that excites flame wars. You give no
tangible reason as to what is better about one over the other, and
that's not the point of the discussion anyhow. Please start another
thread for that.

snipped and re-arranged

Quit bashing the PC and get down from your soap box....and stop making
the MAC seem like some god sent device. They are just operating sytems.
If you are scared of PC's that's a personal problem. Your lack of
knowledge using one computer or the other is to blame for your troubles
and is a discussion for a different thread. Many of us use both
platforms with no problems.


wow. take a ****ing 'lude man. i took from the tone of your original
response to me about having "a fear of PC" ending with a "ha ha ha"
that this was a light-hearted exchange and replied in jovial tone
accordingly. it was not my intention to start a "flame-war". i
honestly thought there was no danger of that anyway, i think it's been
done to death.

i gave you my tangible reasons for switching: i love the way a mac
feels and looks when i interact with it. coming home to my PC and the
way it looked and felt after a long day's work on a Mac was depressing
to me and reason enough to switch...YMMV

but, here's more since my original, intangible reasons weren't good
enough: i love the way that they are constructed aesthetically as well
as functionally. it's like drivng a benz instead of driving a hyundai.
they both get you where you need to go (well, my old hyundai sometimes
didn't), but there is marked difference in appearance, feel,
performance and resale vaule. which brings to another reason i like
macs: they hold their value longer than a PC and seemingly their
usefullness. i like the fact that i know someone that still uses a mac
9600 (his only computer) to make/record music with "professionally". i
think you'd be hard-pressed to find a stock PC from the same period
still being employed in that fashion.


I use both platforms on a regular basis and neither is actually
better...They both are capable of getting the same amount of work done
in the same amount of time. They both do the same things and just as
well as each other. Neither SOUNDS better than the other. In my
experience (and I push my machines hard) both machines crash just as
often as one another. None of them are bullet proof.


this is true, but as i said, i still have a preference. and, honestly,
i don't think any of them even have to be "tangible".


MY original post is about the number of people using DAW's and their
choice of platform and I still haven't gotten any good feedback on that.
I am guessing it's because the PC people are afraid to speak up because
the MAC coalition is so vocal.


my original reply was me giving you feedback about the
pro-audio/pro-music users that i know using a DAW. every single one
uses Mac. as i'm sure that i'm an exceptional case in having that
experience, i said: "i guess i'm just lucky", as i obviously favor the
Mac platform and it makes things easier easier when exchanging files,
working tips, etc. with my peers.


Can't we all just get along. My computers all get along just fine
regardless of OS (mac OR pc). Too bad the users don't.


i thought we were getting along. my mistake.

I took a lude...sorry about that. I'll try not to assume what your
intended tone is in the future.

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
m...
I wouldn't buy a G5 in its
current form, either.

ulysses

Just out of curiosity, what do you not like about it?

jb

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
I wouldn't buy a G5 in its
current form, either.

ulysses

reddred wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what do you not like about it?


It's too ****ing big. I'm very excited about computers getting smaller
and more efficient. The G5 is too big to mount in a rack, it uses too
much power, and takes up too much space. It's like checking your
e-mail on a freakin' Escalade. Exactly the opposite of where most Apple
users are going. Apple should have known better. I got rid of all my
Quadra 950s for a reason. I'd like to get rid of the 9650 and the B&W
too. I'll take the 12" Powerbook (and a 23" Cinema display for special
occasions).



ulysses

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

I wouldn't buy a G5 in its current form, either.

It's too ****ing big. I'm very excited about computers getting smaller
and more efficient. The G5 is too big to mount in a rack, it uses too
much power, and takes up too much space.

WHY don't the computer chip makers offer us options designed for the
real world?


Intel P3's were drawing something like 15 Watts in the 600 Mhz days.
When they went to 0.13µ process, the speeds went up to the point where
they were drawing ~23-28W. With the P4 it's anywhere from 45 to 85 Watts!

How about a 1-2 gHz chip on .09µ process that draws 15 Watts? I think
the future for audio will be laptop processors in desktop packages.
Link to a pile o'CPU resources in the machine room if you need them.

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote ...
Intel P3's were drawing something like 15 Watts in
the 600 Mhz days. When they went to 0.13µ process,
the speeds went up to the point where they were drawing
~23-28W. With the P4 it's anywhere from 45 to 85 Watts!

The number of transistors increased along with the clock speeds.
Translates directly into more functions implemented in hardware
(many of them related to manipulating media data).

How about a 1-2 gHz chip on .09µ process that draws 15 Watts?

Sure. Just decide what parts of the hardware you can afford to lose.

I think
the future for audio will be laptop processors in desktop packages.

Why compromise on CPU capabilities/capacity unless you are
constrained to portable-type space and power?

Actually Kurt, this stuff is already out there. I don't have a name or
URL for you, but I recently saw several websites for companies making
"micro-ATX" motherboards with onboard processors like you're
describing: Optimized for lower power consumption. So you're
basically getting the modern refinements in an 800MHz chip. These
motherboards have the footprint of a 5.25" drive bay, and have pretty
much everything you want on board. And they sell for like $90 with the
processor. I'd kind of like to have a little W2K machine mounted in a
drive bay in my Mac, just for the one app I use that demands it. I
don't know if they're quite able to do that yet, but they will be soon.

ulysses


In article , Kurt Albershardt
wrote:

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

I wouldn't buy a G5 in its current form, either.

It's too ****ing big. I'm very excited about computers getting smaller
and more efficient. The G5 is too big to mount in a rack, it uses too
much power, and takes up too much space.

WHY don't the computer chip makers offer us options designed for the
real world?


Intel P3's were drawing something like 15 Watts in the 600 Mhz days.
When they went to 0.13µ process, the speeds went up to the point where
they were drawing ~23-28W. With the P4 it's anywhere from 45 to 85 Watts!

How about a 1-2 gHz chip on .09µ process that draws 15 Watts? I think
the future for audio will be laptop processors in desktop packages.
Link to a pile o'CPU resources in the machine room if you need them.

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
I wouldn't buy a G5 in its
current form, either.

ulysses

reddred wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what do you not like about it?

It's too ****ing big. I'm very excited about computers getting smaller
and more efficient.

Checked out the Mini-ITX format for PCs ? The clever ones don't even need
fans !

Very small too. Also see Windows Media Center Edition.


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in
message
I wouldn't buy a G5 in its
current form, either.

ulysses

reddred wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what do you not like about it?

It's too ****ing big. I'm very excited about computers getting
smaller and more efficient.

Checked out the Mini-ITX format for PCs ? The clever ones don't even
need fans !

That would be the slow ones, like 600 MHz.

Very small too. Also see Windows Media Center Edition.

I have 2 - an 800 and a 1000. Both have fans, just quiet ones.

The 800 runs off a 12 volt 3.6 amp switching power supply - that's drives,
cpu, ram and various interfaces.

In article ,
Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
I wouldn't buy a G5 in its
current form, either.

ulysses

reddred wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what do you not like about it?


It's too ****ing big.
snipped
ulysses

Looks like a giant cheesegrater as well.

In article writes:

Why compromise on CPU capabilities/capacity unless you are
constrained to portable-type space and power?

People always seem to be constrained in space. Power means cooling,
and cooling means mechanical noise or still-expensive solid state
cooling (and power to run that).

One of the things that really fast CPUs can do is eliminate the need
to hand off DSP tasks to dedicated chips, so if you can make a fast
enough and cool enough CPU, you can come up with a one-chip (nearly)
system that doesn't require a machine room.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

I wouldn't buy a G5 in its current form, either.

It's too ****ing big. I'm very excited about computers getting smaller
and more efficient. The G5 is too big to mount in a rack, it uses too
much power, and takes up too much space.

WHY don't the computer chip makers offer us options designed for the
real world?

Intel P3's were drawing something like 15 Watts in the 600 Mhz days.
When they went to 0.13µ process, the speeds went up to the point where
they were drawing ~23-28W. With the P4 it's anywhere from 45 to 85 Watts!

How about a 1-2 gHz chip on .09µ process that draws 15 Watts? I think
the future for audio will be laptop processors in desktop packages.
Link to a pile o'CPU resources in the machine room if you need them.

They're clocking it much faster than the 600Mhz boxes. That's where the
power consumption and associated heat dissipation go.

"Pile 'o CPU resources in the living room" shore is far away in terms of
anything reasonable in terms of latency, unless you want to use something
synchronous, which means "expensive and clock sentsitive".

This being said, there's no good reason people cannot continue packaging
dedicated harddisk recorders like Portastudios, which should be small,
light and quiet enought for most purposes.

--
Les Cargill

Justin Ulysses Morse informed:
Actually Kurt, this stuff is already out there. I don't have a name or
URL for you, but I recently saw several websites for companies making
"micro-ATX" motherboards with onboard processors like you're
describing

I think Shuttle were the ones that got this started.
http://www.shuttle.com
I've even heard some rumours about people having great success using
their stuff as a DAW. No first hand info though.

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
Actually Kurt, this stuff is already out there. I don't have a name or
URL for you, but I recently saw several websites for companies making
"micro-ATX" motherboards with onboard processors like you're
describing: Optimized for lower power consumption. So you're
basically getting the modern refinements in an 800MHz chip. These
motherboards have the footprint of a 5.25" drive bay, and have pretty
much everything you want on board. And they sell for like $90 with the
processor.

You're probably thinking of the Mini-ITX boards from Via. Right now
they have fairly slow processors on them but rumors are that Intel will
release one soon, probably with Centrino guts. A couple of Taiwanese
makers have already announced similar boards, though I've yet to see one
advertised for sale.



I'd kind of like to have a little W2K machine mounted in a
drive bay in my Mac, just for the one app I use that demands it. I
don't know if they're quite able to do that yet, but they will be soon.

http://www.hushtechnologies.com/ makes some truly beautiful (and silent)
boxes.

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Kurt Albershardt" wrote ...

Intel P3's were drawing something like 15 Watts in
the 600 Mhz days. When they went to 0.13µ process,
the speeds went up to the point where they were drawing
~23-28W.


The number of transistors increased along with the clock speeds.
Translates directly into more functions implemented in hardware
(many of them related to manipulating media data).

The dies for .18µ and .13µ (non-S version) P3s had nearly identical
transistor counts. I've even resorted to underclocking one of the later
chips (133 mHz FSB down to 100) to get lower heat and noise for one project.

Les Cargill wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:


How about a 1-2 gHz chip on .09µ process that draws 15 Watts? I think
the future for audio will be laptop processors in desktop packages.
Link to a pile o'CPU resources in the machine room if you need them.


"Pile 'o CPU resources in the living room" shore is far away in terms of
anything reasonable in terms of latency, unless you want to use something
synchronous, which means "expensive and clock sentsitive".

Don't tell that to Bob Lentini -- he's already linking multiple copies
of SAWStudio over TCP/IP for realtime mixing.

And Steinberg did it using one channel of an ADAT lightpipe
(synchronous, but hardly high performance.)

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:55:56 -0800, Justin Ulysses Morse wrote
(in message ):

It's too ****ing big. I'm very excited about computers getting smaller
and more efficient. The G5 is too big to mount in a rack, it uses too
much power, and takes up too much space.
--------------------------------snip----------------------------------


A lot of the reasons for the G5's size have to do with keeping the machine
cool. It's not the size of the components inside that dictate how bit the
outside cabinet is.

And there are now 19" rack-mount cases for the G5. They're not cheap (about
$800) and are very deep (about 24", which is deeper than many rack cabinets),
but they do work. Check the Digi User conference for more on this.

--MFW

Pooh Bear wrote:

Checked out the Mini-ITX format for PCs ? The clever ones don't even need
fans !

Very small too. Also see Windows Media Center Edition.


Yes, those look very interesting. I wouldn't mind having one mounted
in a drive bay in my Macintosh for those rare occasions when I need to
run a Windoze app.

ulysses

Per Karlsson wrote:

I think Shuttle were the ones that got this started.
http://www.shuttle.com
I've even heard some rumours about people having great success using
their stuff as a DAW. No first hand info though.


Think smaller. The Shuttle stuff looks like a great bargain with lots
of useful features and a nice compact package, but this is "mini-ATX."
The "Micro-ATX" (or Mini-ITX, perhaps) are way smaller than these even.
But this is a good start.


ulysses