Build a Pc or a Mac Studio?
WANG SHIZ
cv
Atomigop
Jeez
<wang...@aol.com> wrote:
> What do you guys think?
> cv
Macs look more professional to clients.
Macs are more expensive.
PC require more maintenance.
Forever,
Kim.
--
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run
like a staff function.
-- Paul Licker
Nick Willow
"Atomigop" <atom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020617030546...@mb-co.aol.com...
> Mac
John L Rice
"WANG SHIZ" <wang...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020617025624...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> What do you guys think?
> cv
Amiga . . . . oh wait . . sorry .that was 10 years ago . . . .
John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com
Peter Larsen
>
> "WANG SHIZ" <wang...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020617025624...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> > What do you guys think?
> > cv
> Amiga . . . . oh wait . . sorry .that was 10 years ago . . . .
This is not strictly correct, there is still life in the .amiga.
newsgroups, mostly about life extension to museum pieces that never were
built to last (crappy IC sockets!), but also some noise about something
called the Amiga One.
> John L Rice
> Dru...@ImJohn.com
--
*************************************************************
* This posting handcrafted by Peter Larsen, MCSE *
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
* I subscribe to http://www.spamcop.net *
*************************************************************
Arny Krueger
> What do you guys think?
When I started setting up my first Mac, the first thing I ran into
was the lack of alternatives for hardware and software. The Mac
itself seems like a pretty nice, well-thought-out machine and
operating system from the standpoint of the end user.
DarrenH
Your question tells us nothing about what your needs are, who your clients
will be, etc.
Get to know what you need first.
"WANG SHIZ" <wang...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020617025624...@mb-bj.aol.com...
DarrenH
You've never worked with Macs and PCs in the same office.
I have. I do. Macs crash as much as PCs, usually for the same reasons.
"Jeez" <ipda...@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:dcgP8.315337$o66.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Roger W. Norman
purchase the platform it will run on. If the app will run on both a Mac and
PC, that's when the platform decision comes into play. Things like running
a Digi001 or MOTU would probably run better on a Mac, although they run on a
PC. But don't base the computer selection on RAP users' platform
suggestion. Obviously they would reply with their own personal choice. And
that's why it's called a personal computer! <g>
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"WANG SHIZ" <wang...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020617025624...@mb-bj.aol.com...
Roger W. Norman
users! <g>
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"DarrenH" <jer...@overtime.ca> wrote in message
news:cSkP8.3210$aW1.67729@news...
Roger W. Norman
impact on emotions, emotions have impact on music.
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"DarrenH" <jer...@overtime.ca> wrote in message
news:dRkP8.3209$aW1.67657@news...
DarrenH
I agree that things like wall colour are important, often overlooked.
What I meant was that we can't answer that question not knowing anything
about this person's needs or what his vision of his studio is.
I just see his question as more of an attempted troll.
Cheers
D
"Roger W. Norman" <Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com> wrote in message
news:aektg5$b46$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Roger W. Norman
section of studio owners, probably one would find that a Mac pervades the
bigger facilities. However, that also puts one into a Me Too situation as
you're stuck with a small number of products. The proliferation of really
high quality applications in the PC world certainly should give one pause.
Samplitude, Sequoia, Nuendo and SAWStudio all have a lot going for them.
Among others there's Cubase SX, Sonar and a plethora of products, all
stepping along quite briskly in achieving new levels of capabilities and
compatibilies. Still, with the crossover products there's less real choice.
Products that work on both platforms generally (and I mean generally)
perform better on Macs, but that's usually because they started life as a
Mac product. So overall, chosing a platform first is like buying a pair of
shoes before trying them on. They may look pretty but hurt like hell,
assuming they fit at all.
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"DarrenH" <jer...@overtime.ca> wrote in message
news:PVmP8.3239$aW1.69055@news...
DarrenH
Mac/PC teasing, but my boss, who's using a G4, crashes much more than I do
(on the order of 4-5 times more).
Now I know enough about Macs and PC's to know that this isn't because he's
on a Mac. It's about system config, user habits and so on. So I always get
a little ruffled when some Mac users don't also see it that way when they
see a PC that crashes.
Cheers
D
"Roger W. Norman" <Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com> wrote in message
news:ael092$j5j$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
s76fitz
OS 9.x for audio programs
and
OS- X ( 10) for "other " ...
Plebe
If
1) Money is not much of an issue
2) You plan on purchasing DSP cards (protools, UAD-1, powercore, etc)
3) You use Logic, ProTools, or DP3 (duh)
4) You have little technical experience with either platform, or you
have technical experience with the Mac but not the PC
Then
Buy a Mac
If
1) Money is an issue
2) You don't necessarily plan on buying DSP cards, and therefore need
a lot of bang for the buck in terms of processing power
3) You use Nuendo, Cubase, Cakewalk, or Vegas
4) You are fairly PC-savvy, and don't mind spending a considerable
amount of time tweaking your system for optimal performance in order
to appease item #1
Then
Buy a PC
Seriously, my P4 2gHz kicks the crap out of my G4 933 mHz when it
comes to native plug-ins, but I don't really care that much because I
use UAD and Powercore for most of my processing on my Mac. I also use
Logic exclusively on my Mac, which seems to be considerably more
stable then when I tried the same setup on my PC. Also, getting my PC
stable required several OS re-installs, a downgrade from XP to w2k,
PCI card shuffling, and work in the BIOS to disable ACPI, etc. My
mac's configuration is not nearly this complex.
plebe
Justin Ulysses Morse
no.
Roger W. Norman
different scenarios, but somewhat complete of an appraisal. Obviously the
Powercore won't cut it on a PC but one can use the UAD-1 with good results.
Stable operation from an OS is too problematic with chipsets and add-on
cards to really lump into one comprehensive environment, which is the bane
of a PC and the saving grace all in one.
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Plebe" <th...@ht.com> wrote in message
news:3d0e1213....@news.mindspring.com...
Justin Ulysses Morse
only two relevant factors in this question:
Use the platform supported by the software you want to use
Use the platform you're most comfortable with.
ulysses
WANG SHIZ
I am way more comfortable with a PC and it also fits needs I have outside of
recording. My only hesitation is all of the free plug-ins people have offered
me for a Mac.
cv
Justin Ulysses Morse
<wang...@aol.com> wrote:
Another monkey wrench for your works: A lot of people still think it's
a good idea to reserve your audio computer just for audio, and have a
separate machine for other functions. A decent internet PC is so cheap
nowadays, it really makes sense to keep 'em separated.
ulysses
Geoff Wood
do, the software that you want to do it with, and the hardware to support
that software.
I you want to be 'artistic' and don't care about 'closed' systems you may
steer towards Mac. If you demand open systems and wider choice you may go
PC. Mac and PCs will both crash,. With PCs you have more freedom to
exacerbate this, or hopefully minimise or fix it.
geoff
"WANG SHIZ" <wang...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020617025624...@mb-bj.aol.com...
Geoff Wood
"Roger W. Norman" <Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com> wrote in message
news:aektg5$b46$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Hey, wait a minute. I did ask that, and it's a valid question. Color has
> impact on emotions, emotions have impact on music.
That's why innocuous beige is always a safe bet. Imagine having a kller
system on a G4 that was the wrong shade for a particular client ! Or do they
come with interchangable cromatic-clipons ?
geoff
Bryson
WANG SHIZ wrote:
> My only hesitation is all of the free plug-ins people have offered
> me for a Mac.
>
But which type of computer is easier for you to steal from someone? You gotta
think of that too.
Roger Häggström
> What do you guys think?
PC.
But get a good silent computer and a stable OS, like NT, XP or Windows2000.
Well, anything but Win98...
Cheers,
-Roger
Geoff Wood
"Christian Smalt" <sm...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:1fdy6hs.1oyc5p27c0ojsN%
> Hey, that's odd. A friend of mine, who is way more comfortable with a
> Mac, just bought a PC for this very reason: because all of the "free"
> plug-ins people have offered him. Now he's got a system that he doesn't
> know how to run, and I can't help him, because I'm a Mac user.
>
> So the most important question is: do you know people who can help you
> run the software? Which platform are they on? Pick that one.
They could RTFM.
That's the trouble with macoids - they never get to learn much about
computers, being forcibly 'sheilded' from all that stuff....
;-)
geoff
Justin Ulysses Morse
<ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:
> That's the trouble with macoids - they never get to learn much about
> computers, being forcibly 'sheilded' from all that stuff....
That's a common misconception. It's not true though. Windows users
usually have no idea how to rearrange or fix a Mac system, but Mac
users do. I have no idea how to screw around inside Windows, but OS9
is no problem. And I'm just a hobbyist. I've got a highly paid
computer-geek friend who's Microsoft certified in all kinds of things,
but when it comes to rearranging the innards of either machine, I'm
able to give him advice while he's looking things up. Of course he
usually doesn't take my advice, because he thinks us Mac users don't
know anything about computers...
ulysses
David Morley
Morse unter uly...@rollmusic.com am 21.06.2002 13:15 Uhr:
>> That's the trouble with macoids - they never get to learn much about
>> computers, being forcibly 'sheilded' from all that stuff....
>
> That's a common misconception. It's not true though. Windows users
> usually have no idea how to rearrange or fix a Mac system, but Mac
> users do. I have no idea how to screw around inside Windows, but OS9
> is no problem. And I'm just a hobbyist. I've got a highly paid
> computer-geek friend who's Microsoft certified in all kinds of things,
> but when it comes to rearranging the innards of either machine, I'm
> able to give him advice while he's looking things up. Of course he
> usually doesn't take my advice, because he thinks us Mac users don't
> know anything about computers...
>
> ulysses
Of course we don´t need to as often......
Seriously, I don´t WANT to know what goes on.
I Buy, I install Software that I buy, I make Music and go on the internet.
Am I weird or what!!!
Scott Dorsey
Justin Ulysses Morse <uly...@rollmusic.com> wrote:
>In article <ZCwQ8.1068$Io5.1...@news02.tsnz.net>, Geoff Wood
><ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:
>
>> That's the trouble with macoids - they never get to learn much about
>> computers, being forcibly 'sheilded' from all that stuff....
>
>That's a common misconception. It's not true though. Windows users
>usually have no idea how to rearrange or fix a Mac system, but Mac
>users do.
I'd say it was true of BOTH the MacOS and Windows systems. Both of them
go very far out of their way to hide how things actually work, so that
when something breaks, you don't have much real choice other than just to
reinstall things. You can't look inside applications at all and as far
as lifting the hood of the OS goes, nothing is even documented.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Geoff Wood
"Justin Ulysses Morse" <uly...@rollmusic.com> wrote in message
news:210620020615405141%
> > That's the trouble with macoids - they never get to learn much about
> > computers, being forcibly 'sheilded' from all that stuff....
>
> That's a common misconception. It's not true though.
I guess all the Mac users I know are just not technical types then.. They
also claim that nothing ever goes wrong, they just click on the little
pictures and everything does what they expect all the time ...
geoff
Gi the ant
> I have. I do. Macs crash as much as PCs, usually for the same reasons.
But PCs still require more maintenance (not last, need to reformat when
something is messed up).
--
Remove MAI for email
Gi the ant
> You are going about the concept the wrong way. You decide what you want to
> do, the software that you want to do it with, and the hardware to support
> that software.
Right.
>
> I you want to be 'artistic' and don't care about 'closed' systems you may
> steer towards Mac. If you demand open systems and wider choice you may go
> PC.
Wrong
> Mac and PCs will both crash.
Right
> With PCs you have more freedom to exacerbate this, or hopefully minimise
> or fix it.
Wrong (it's exactly the contrary on this)
Gi the ant
Mac OS is far easier to configure and troubleshoot.
This is a FACT.
The worst thing you might have to do on it is reinstall the system over
the existing one (no formatting, no uninstalling), and it takes 5
minutes to be done.
But normally you solve with much less, ie reinstalling just the
application (that doesn't put .DLLs everywhere, just some preferences
and maybe some extensions in the extension folder), or simply throwing
the preferences and restarting.
I agree on everything else: PC have more software (well...almost), cost
less, are more powerful on some things (Apple is concentrating too much
on video apps), the 2 crash about the same (well...almost again).
But please don't tell me that a PC is easier to troubleshoot, because
that's really bull...ehm...unusual.
Peace, love and music.
Gi.
Tonebarge
"Never" is an absolute and, in this discussion, untrue. There seems to be a
lot of OSAF in this thread. Wouldn't it be better to acquire data and then
make a somewhat informed statement? I can do some pretty intense stuff in
the Mac realm and there are several programs available that allow access to
program code and modifications of that code. Whether or not one learns about
computers, per se, should depend on motivation and not fate. Working on cars
can be fun if it is a hobby (Mac) but can be a serious PITA if your car
breaks down on a county road during a rainstorm (PC). There are those for
whom learning about PCs is interesting and there are those for whom getting
work done on a computer is far more interesting. At one time I was in the
former group and now I place myself in the latter group.
I have seen far more work stoppages on PCs than on Macs. When 3.xx was
current I was certified on PC and wouldn't have pissed on a Mac if it was on
fire. When Mac changed the interface and PCs went to 95 is when I switched
sides. My studio has a network of 4 Macs and 1 PC. So, from a data point of
view, I can say that 3 of the Macs have never crashed. The one that did
freeze did so because I taxed its abilities far beyond its limitations by
running 7 apps at the same time and only having 32 meg of RAM and even then
it ran for 6 hours before balking. The PowerPC (7100/80) has performed
flawlessly for over 6 years, having burned over 3,000 CDs and mastered more
than 1,000 albums. My iBook and DV/SE have never crashed nor had any
problems. I have only ever seen 1 PC that never crashed and it was a
transitional hybrid (ISA,VESA and PCI, 486 DX/4). These are facts. To say
that both platforms crash isn't entirely true. Both +can+ crash or freeze
but that doesn't indicate a fault in their design but, rather, a lack of
understanding on the part of the user. I would note that there is far more
knowledge of computers needed by a PC user than by a Mac user IME.
The one point with which I agree in this thread is that if you are going to
set up a system for studio use it will be less fraught with problems if you
select the software first and then the hardware which it needs to perform
best. Then I would recommend dedicating it to that task and get a second
computer for net, games, etc.
Cheers,
TB
Geoff Wood
"Gi the ant" <gith...@MAIlibero.it> wrote in message
news:1fe5l6w.58la5f1hgx9hyN%gith...@MAIlibero.it...
> DarrenH <jer...@overtime.ca> wrote:
>
> > I have. I do. Macs crash as much as PCs, usually for the same reasons.
>
> But PCs still require more maintenance (not last, need to reformat when
> something is messed up).
Re-format is a cop-out. Most systems that are 'broken' for some reason a
eminently fixable without such drastic action. However, occasionally some
systems can get so rooted that they can benefit from a clean start.
geoff
Geoff Wood
"Gi the ant" <gith...@MAIlibero.it> wrote in message
> Lord, I'm reading lots of bull...sorry...ehm...unusual opinions on this.
> Mac OS is far easier to configure and troubleshoot.
> This is a FACT.
> The worst thing you might have to do on it is reinstall the system over
> the existing one (no formatting, no uninstalling), and it takes 5
> minutes to be done.
> But normally you solve with much less, ie reinstalling just the
> application (that doesn't put .DLLs everywhere, just some preferences
> and maybe some extensions in the extension folder), or simply throwing
> the preferences and restarting.
You are very confused about PCs.
geoff
Justin Ulysses Morse
<ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:
The problem is having any idea where the problem lies. Sometimes it's
easier to wipe the hard drive than to try and figure out which of the
hundreds of little, poorly-named files are AOL orphans (for example)
and which are dooing something useful. One nice thing about the Mac OS
is I know exactly where to look for dingleberries and I can usually
tell by looking at them what they do. Even my Microsoft certified
friends can't so easily find troublemakers in a Windows system.
There's something to be said for longer file names and custom corporate
icons on files.
ulysses
Dave Morrison
"Gi the ant" <gith...@MAIlibero.it> wrote in message
news:1fe5l6w.58la5f1hgx9hyN%gith...@MAIlibero.it...
>
> > I have. I do. Macs crash as much as PCs, usually for the same reasons.
>
> But PCs still require more maintenance (not last, need to reformat when
> something is messed up).
I've been using PC's since '85, but it only took me 1 1/2 days to render my
newly purchased Powerbook G4 unbootable....and I still don't know what I did
to it!! My Mac buddies couldn't figure it out and AppleCare had to walk me
through a "disk fix" to get its little head out of its titanium ass. I had
to laugh when I started seeing the Apple "Switch" commercials. They
DEFINITELY wouldn't want me on that commercial.
dave
Eric Desrochers
> I you want to be 'artistic' and don't care about 'closed' systems you may
> steer towards Mac. If you demand open systems and wider choice you may go
> PC.
>
> geoff
>
What exactly is closed on a Mac?
It uses and embrasses industry standards like Open GL, Java, open source
Darwin-Unix, TCP/IP, of the shelf components, mainstream physical
interfaces, etc.
Contrast this with the *PROPRIETARY* "standards" from Redmond, like the
Windows media files, "special" HTML produced by Front page, the modified
Java, the proprietary codec they had the nerve to call mpeg 4 two years
ago, their plateform specific 3D acceleration standard, etc...
I have a Sony display, a Yamaha CD-R drive, a Samsung cable-modem, a
Korg sound card, a Umax scanner, an Adaptec SCSI card, a Gravis Gamepad,
an Apple printer, generic memory, a Quantum HD. I added a Maxtor HD, a
Stealth serial port adaptor, a second ATi graphic card. There is still
a free HD bay, a 3 1/2 drive bay available and two memory slot empty. I
can swap the microprocessor too. All this on my PowerMac G3.
Not too bad for a closed and incompatible computer, no? Wintel users
are the one who are captive, not Mac users.
My 0,02
--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
" I finally got Windows XP running on my Dustbuster.
IT SUCKS, but it sucks better."
Gi the ant
> You are very confused about PCs.
?
Charlie
happen, I can restore in 12-15 min . I have a friend who just bought a
dual gigahertz G4 with all the trimmings (1 GIG Ram, two hard drives,
large flat screen cinema display) and guess what........It crashed
constantly on the first day. He told me he did not get the "blue
screen of death" as on the PC, but a "black screen of death"..
I think after a few days and a lot of help he finally did get the
thing working but..........
All computers crash........It keeps the companies in business.....
Roger W. Norman
what goes on. There are the Windows 9X, NT, Win2K and XP Reference Manuals
that documents everything you'd need to know. These two together give you
about all you could ever want to know about the software environment. You
may spend $400, but the info is out there. I know. I have them.
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:aevd4b$b8n$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Geoff Wood
imply are routine.
It is also usual for most problems to have well-documneted remedies. Though
there are exceptions, and there can be complications , especially when you
have hundred of possibilities of motherboard, CPU and other components to
cope with.
"Gi the ant" <gith...@MAIlibero.it> wrote in message
news:v2d.n25wirs36mbadd9uwwN%gith...@MAIlibero.it...
> Geoff Wood <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:
>
> > You are very confused about PCs.
>
> ?
It it exceptional for people to take the drastic steps that you seem to
imply are routine.
It is also usual for most problems to have well-documneted remedies. Though
there are exceptions, and there can be complications.
Given the hundred of possibilities of motherboard, CPU and other components
to cope with, I am surprised just how well the do work..
geoff
Roger W. Norman
situation are simply that the system wasn't tweeked correctly in the first
place. And in some cases it's apps that you'd think should work one way
that really don't like working that way. Take Samplitude, for instance. On
a properly working system you can actually set buffers too high resulting in
stuttering playback and dropped frames on recording. In this case it's more
important to go lower than higher. In some other apps it may be necessary
to go to higher buffers in order to get stuttering, etc., eliminated. So
where someone might well consider the stuttering problem an OS install
problem (as it would seem), it's really a problem of a misconfigured
application. Unfortunately most application manuals these days don't
explain what the parameters are and just what works best due to what
reasoning.
One would think that on a word processing package this is fine, but when it
comes down to professionals using applications designed for professionals
that the appropriate information would be included. After all, as is the
case IN ALL professional applications, whether they are software or
applications of hardware, professionals have a learning curve and need to
know WHAT to learn and what to ignore. Our time is money, and in an even
bigger sense, it could well be far more money than just the initial time
spent trying to rectify a problem due to word of mouth. If you have a
client in your studio and they can't record, they don't really give a flying
fuck why they CAN'T record, what strikes them is that they simply CAN'T
RECORD in the first place.
So all these conflagerations about PC vs Mac are simply moot. Regardless of
which platform you have, you're going to need to know the intricacies of
that platform and all the apps that run on it intimately. If you don't you
jeapordize your client relationships.
And that's why we all need workarounds. Like if I can't record on my PC for
some reason, I still have an 8 track 1/2" analog and an 8 track digital tape
and a couple of digital 2 track tape systems. So SOMETHING IS GOING TO BE
RECORDED in my studio no matter what, unless the power goes off. And if I
have to, I'll record the session in shorthand! <g> Of course, that's at
about 2 angry bits per second.
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Geoff Wood" <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:Hh6R8.1426$Io5.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
Lorin David Schultz
>
> Lord, I'm reading lots of bull...sorry...ehm...unusual opinions on
> this. Mac OS is far easier to configure and troubleshoot.
> This is a FACT.
Tell that to the Engineers and IT guys at our plant who are struggling
to find the mysterious bug that keeps causing our G4 to lock up so
solidly that the cursor doesn't even move, and mutes the outputs of Pro
Tools when you move a fader the wrong way (I'll let you know if we ever
definitively identify which way is "wrong").
Macs may keep files organized differently than Windows, but it isn't any
easier to solve mysteries on a Mac than with Windows. THAT's a "fact"
in my world. What's your experience with Windows machines that allows
you to make such sweeping pronouncements?
I'm not here to slam Macs, but I just don't buy the hype. It seems to
me that both platforms are vulnerable to problems. The argument that
one should choose a Mac because it's more stable and easier to use
sounds a lot like Chinese mic marketing to me.
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the audio booth
making even bad news sound good
Gi the ant
> Tell that to the Engineers and IT guys at our plant who are struggling
> to find the mysterious bug that keeps causing our G4 to lock up so
> solidly that the cursor doesn't even move, and mutes the outputs of Pro
> Tools when you move a fader the wrong way (I'll let you know if we ever
> definitively identify which way is "wrong").
I had a Powermac 9600 that used to make the same thing. At one moment I
just dropped it, assuming the fact that it had a hardware problem. Now
it works perfectly in the office for silly things like printing CD
covers and browsing internet. But though that experience, I've worked on
many PC's and many Mac's and my opinion stays the same.
> What's your experience with Windows machines that allows
> you to make such sweeping pronouncements?
Horrible. Unbelievably terrible.
But what I can't stand is that everytime I make something wrong, or want
to uninstall a software, I know for sure that traces of it will stay in
the system until the day I reformat. This is not the case with a mac,
being that every installation puts just a preference file and
(sometimes) a couple of extensions (which I can decide not to load at
startup if I don't want to remove them but don't need 'em).
> It seems to
> me that both platforms are vulnerable to problems.
I agree.
> The argument that
> one should choose a Mac because it's more stable and easier to use
> sounds a lot like Chinese mic marketing to me.
Use a mac for a year or two and we'll go over this again.
DarrenH
who don't even know (or care) how much space they have on their hard drive,
or even where their files are actually located.
"Geoff Wood" <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:ZCwQ8.1068$Io5.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
Scott Dorsey
> Tell that to the Engineers and IT guys at our plant who are struggling
> to find the mysterious bug that keeps causing our G4 to lock up so
> solidly that the cursor doesn't even move, and mutes the outputs of Pro
> Tools when you move a fader the wrong way (I'll let you know if we ever
> definitively identify which way is "wrong").
What OS version, and what additional drivers are you using? The lockup
problem might be hard to locate but the muting problem should be fairly
easy.
You don't get real performance metering tools on the Mac, or kernal monitoring
stuff, but you do get things like conflict catcher which can go a long way
toward tracking down misbehaving code. Of course, if they had real process
management....
Roger W. Norman
machines. MS has one called regclean.exe, although you take the default of
what it found and pray it's not wrong (never has been for me). There are
others that list all the parts with suggestions on what goes with what and
allows you to select/deselect for removal. It's very useful to keep one of
these tools around.
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Gi the ant" <gith...@MAIlibero.it> wrote in message
news:1fe90ts.1xkqkjg1rtrqaeN%gith...@MAIlibero.it...
Roger W. Norman
inhouse, so it's not unusual for engineers working with computers to be more
than knowledgable about their systems. To me it's a moot point that one
might be better than the other from some esoteric viewpoint. I could care
less wether I use Stanley or Rigid or Craftsmen tools as long as the job
gets done. In the case between a PC and a Mac I just find more available
software on a PC that doesn't rope you into proprietary hardware in order to
get it to run. If I have to do a little maintenance every once in a while,
then it's no different than doing so on my multitrack analog recorder or
even microphone cables. It's still a situation of finding software that
allows you to work the way you want and running it on a platform that's the
best you can buy. About the only caveat to that is that there are many
lowballed components that satisfy the FCC and CE specifications, but aren't
even close to the quality necessary to be pushed into hard service. Still,
it follows that you need to buy the best you can, including the components
that make the beast up.
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"DarrenH" <jer...@overtime.ca> wrote in message
news:NJFR8.4630$aW1.119487@news...
Steven Roth
accounting.
Kurt Albershardt
>
>Lord, I'm reading lots of bull...sorry...ehm...unusual opinions on
>this. Mac OS is far easier to configure and troubleshoot.
>This is a FACT.
MacOS has been lacking true preemptive multitsking and a few other
necessities for some time now. The success of ProTools has enabled pro
audio users to put very little stress on the OS in comparison with PC
users who overwhelmingly use native apps. With OS X and its *nix-based
kernel all sorts of possibilities are opening up, but there is still
much work to be done on both apps and drivers. The end result I think
will be top-notch, but then so might Linux or some other open-source OS
by that time.
For now, for me, native processing is more than adequate and the Win32
environment is the most advanced and stable for the task. In another
year or two if my desired apps are running better on OS X then that's
what I'll use. I do like the freedom of hardware choice I currently
enjoy but some see that as an obstacle.
Roger W. Norman
do.
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Steven Roth" <sr...@space.dialnet.com> wrote in message
news:sroth-8240CF....@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Geoff Wood
"Gi the ant" <gith...@MAIlibero.it> wrote in message
make something wrong, or want
> to uninstall a software, I know for sure that traces of it will stay in
> the system until the day I reformat.
This is the sort of comment that I was referring to when I said that you
are very confused about PCs.
geoff
Mike
are not available on the PC side. And many of the others are
originally developed for macs. The other thing is that macs are much
easier to trouble shoot when there is a problem. There isn't any
registry crap and no underlying DOS hokum. It is usually as easy as
deleting a corrupted preferences file. Enabling and disabling features
is much easiser using the extensions manager and you can save
different feature sets for different functions.
Mike http://www.mmpeproductions.com
"DarrenH" <jer...@overtime.ca> wrote in message news:<cSkP8.3210$aW1.67729@news>...
> Bullshit.
>
> You've never worked with Macs and PCs in the same office.
>
> I have. I do. Macs crash as much as PCs, usually for the same reasons.
>
>
>
>
> "Jeez" <ipda...@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message
> news:dcgP8.315337$o66.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > In article <20020617025624...@mb-bj.aol.com>, "WANG SHIZ"
> > <wang...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What do you guys think?
> > > cv
> >
> > Macs look more professional to clients.
> > Macs are more expensive.
> > PC require more maintenance.
> >
> >
> > Forever,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kim.
> >
> > --
> > Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run
> > like a staff function.
> > -- Paul Licker
Lorin David Schultz
>
> What OS version,
9 point something. 9.2 I think? I dunno, I'm not there right now.
> and what additional drivers are you using?
"Additional drivers?" For what? There's nothing on this machine but
Pro Tools 5.1LE.
> The lockup problem might be hard to locate but the muting problem
> should be fairly easy.
It hasn't been. IT can't fix it, the dealer can't fix it and Digidesign
can't fix it. Clean format and reinstall, 001 PCI card replaced,
problem persists. The workaround has been that if it breaks when you do
that, don't do that.
Lorin David Schultz
quoted it when replying to it. It completely contradicts my position on
the subject. I'd rather not have someone come across that in Google and
think I'm a flake who contradicts himself from one day to the next.
Lorin
Kurt Albershardt
> Pro Audio is the one place where several of the top software titles
> are not available on the PC side. And many of the others are
> originally developed for macs.
And other top software titles are not available on the Mac or were
originally developed for the PC. BFD.
Kurt Albershardt
Kurt Albershardt
> Kurt, please be careful when attributing quotes. I didn't write that, I
> quoted it when replying to it. It completely contradicts my position on
> the subject. I'd rather not have someone come across that in Google and
> think I'm a flake who contradicts himself from one day to the next.
Sorry--didn't intend to mis-quote, and am usually quite careful about
snipping and quoting properly. I've cancelled the message and re-posted
my reply linked to the proper sender.
Lorin David Schultz
>
> [...] The other thing is that macs are much
> easier to trouble shoot when there is a problem.
In my experience that's more myth than reality.
> Enabling and disabling features is much easiser using the extensions
> manager and you can save different feature sets for different
> functions.
Much easier than just clicking on or off with the built in config
utility? Easier than defining multiple hardware profiles?
There's no difference there. I do the same things in Win 98 with no
problem. I'm not putting down Mac, I'm just correcting what I perceive
to be an incorrect comparison.
Justin Ulysses Morse
<Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com> wrote:
> There are programs that will eliminate dangling .dlls and such for Windows
> machines. MS has one called regclean.exe, although you take the default of
> what it found and pray it's not wrong (never has been for me). There are
> others that list all the parts with suggestions on what goes with what and
> allows you to select/deselect for removal. It's very useful to keep one of
> these tools around.
You still have to trust the software, which is what made the mess in
the first place. I might trust an MS piece to remove the AOL orphans,
but it's not going to help you get rid of stupid MSN software it thinks
you need even if you don't. The problem is that software doesn't know
what you're doing. The only cure is to know yourself what goes with
who. That's just difficult when there are six hundred of them and they
all have names like SQXLE.DLL.
ulysses
Bob Olhsson
wrote:
>MacOS has been lacking true preemptive multitsking and a few other
>necessities for some time now.
FWIW preemptive multitsking is a liability for real-time applications
such as audio.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing and Mastering
615.352.7635 FAX 615.356.2483 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they thought possible!
Jeremy Stephens
Les Cargill
>
> Gi the ant wrote:
> > Lord, I'm reading lots of bull...sorry...ehm...unusual opinions on this.
> > Mac OS is far easier to configure and troubleshoot.
> > This is a FACT.
>
> MacOS has been lacking true preemptive multitsking
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Most folks I know who use real RTOS systems like VxWorks configure 'em
as cooperative(nonpreemptive) multitasking. Depends, of course, but
without going into detail, there are reasons for it.
> and a few other
> necessities for some time now. The success of ProTools has enabled pro
> audio users to put very little stress on the OS in comparison with PC
> users who overwhelmingly use native apps. With OS X and its *nix-based
> kernel all sorts of possibilities are opening up, but there is still
> much work to be done on both apps and drivers. The end result I think
> will be top-notch, but then so might Linux or some other open-source OS
> by that time.
>
Frankly, I'd question whether a Linux based DAW will ever be good
enough for mission critical work. We'll see.
This doesn't mean Linux is bad, just that commercial apps have
so much head start and building a DAW is pretty hefty as an
open source project.
The barrier to entry for switching DAW systems is learning
the user interface, so it's probaby a static market now.
> For now, for me, native processing is more than adequate and the Win32
> environment is the most advanced and stable for the task. In another
> year or two if my desired apps are running better on OS X then that's
> what I'll use. I do like the freedom of hardware choice I currently
> enjoy but some see that as an obstacle.
--
Les Cargill
Kurt Albershardt
>
>>MacOS has been lacking true preemptive multitsking and a few other
>>necessities for some time now.
>
> FWIW preemptive multitsking is a liability for real-time applications
> such as audio.
It certainly can be if threads/processes are not managed properly, but
properly scheduled/prioritized task handling in the OS is a given for
most any modern OS. Apple did pick a MachOS kernel this time around...
Lorin David Schultz
>
> Sorry--didn't intend to mis-quote, and am usually quite careful about
> snipping and quoting properly. I've cancelled the message and
> re-posted my reply linked to the proper sender.
Yay! Thanks Kurt!
Sorry if I came across snippy... I just recoil at the thought of anyone
associating me with Mac zealots! <g>
Steven Roth
In article <af7l13$60i$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
"Roger W. Norman" <Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com> wrote:
Roger W. Norman
one I have can handle the job. I've yet to see ANY accounting drivers screw
up my audio, thank you.
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Steven Roth" <sr...@space.dialnet.com> wrote in message
news:sroth-639859....@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Justin Ulysses Morse
<Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com> wrote:
> I have a little better business acumen than to buy another computer when the
> one I have can handle the job. I've yet to see ANY accounting drivers screw
> up my audio, thank you.
A computer that can handle your accounting is pretty much free at this
point, so if it's convenient to do it in a room other than your control
room there's nothing wrong with having a 2nd box.
ulysses
Arny Krueger
> I have a little better business acumen than to buy another
> computer when the one I have can handle the job. I've yet to see
> ANY accounting drivers screw up my audio, thank you.
Point well taken.
If there's anything that doesn't mix on the same computer, it's audio
and games.
Eric Desrochers
Unless you're on a Mac.
--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
" I finally got Windows XP running on my Dustbuster.
IT SUCKS, but it sucks better."
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>>
>>> I have a little better business acumen than to buy another
>>> computer when the one I have can handle the job. I've yet to
>>> see ANY accounting drivers screw up my audio, thank you.
>> Point well taken.
>> If there's anything that doesn't mix on the same computer, it's
>> audio and games.
> Unless you're on a Mac.
Given that relatively few games are available for the Mac, how is
this relevant?
21st century oxymoron: "Macintosh game enthusiast".
BTW I have a Mac (actually 2 of them), so I know a little of what I
speak.
Roger W. Norman
care of that with a lightning bolt about a month ago, so now...). The point
is having a second box and doing accounting on it is fine, but buying a
second box to do accounting is a different animal. Besides, it's just as
possible to have a program that manages the studio with sessions notes,
bookings, invoicing, etc., that's tightly integrated with how you work and
when you work. Why run to a different computer?
Now when it comes down to putting Macromedia on my audio computer in order
to see a couple of "neat" things on the 'net, that's different. I'm adamant
about what's on my audio computer, but email, net work and accounting aren't
going to be installing drivers that are going to be fucking with my audio
work. So I don't mind doing my Excel and Word stuff on the same computer I
just recorded the newest America's album on! <g>
Of course, now that I've said that....
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Justin Ulysses Morse" <uly...@rollmusic.com> wrote in message
news:260620021753152699%uly...@rollmusic.com...
Roger W. Norman
models. I just haven't paid attention to them since. It wouldn't scare me
owning another one, but neither do I find it necessary. Now if I wanted to
take a couple of steps back and run Pro Tools.... (definitely ducking now)!
<g>
--
Roger W. Norman
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:8VCS8.3214$ZN5.13...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Eric Desrochers
We're not discussing the relevance, but the feasibility.
My General purpose Mac is my Audio Mac is my Video Mac is my Internet
Mac is my Server Mac is my Game Mac is... you name it. This is made
possible, on Classic MacOS, by a mechanism called "Extensions sets".
Everything works because well, it is just supposed to behave like this.
And this is with good'ol MacOS 8.6 from 1998. MacOS-X is so much more
stable and powerfull it's not even funny.
Regards,
Christian Smalt
Gi wrote:
> everytime I make something wrong, or want
> to uninstall a software, I know for sure that traces of it will stay in
> the system until the day I reformat. This is not the case with a mac,
> being that every installation puts just a preference file and
> (sometimes) a couple of extensions (which I can decide not to load at
> startup if I don't want to remove them but don't need 'em).
That's how it used to be, but with the newer applications, you often get
a boatload of cryptic files installed in your Mac system folder as well.
Not only are the names meaningless - they don't show any info in
Extension Manager either. Now I tag everything with labels so I can see
what's newly installed, and I use the "info" column in List view to
identify everything right after installing something new.
Chris
Paolo Tramannoni
> You can't look inside applications at all and as far
> as lifting the hood of the OS goes, nothing is even documented.
Well, there is the Inside Macintosh series of books/CDs from Apple. It
should give a software engineer all the needed information.
Best regards,
Paolo
--
Paolo Tramannoni
Porto Recanati, Italy
Scott Dorsey
Paolo Tramannoni <pt...@tiscalinet.it> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> You can't look inside applications at all and as far
>> as lifting the hood of the OS goes, nothing is even documented.
>
>Well, there is the Inside Macintosh series of books/CDs from Apple. It
>should give a software engineer all the needed information.
Documenting interfaces is NOT documenting internals. There is a lot of
useful stuff in there, but compare it, say, with the Magic Garden book,
for instance.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Dewdman42
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ag5mmd$j3$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
<uly...@rollmusic.com> wrote:
>The problem is having any idea where the problem lies. Sometimes it's
>easier to wipe the hard drive than to try and figure out which of the
>hundreds of little, poorly-named files are AOL orphans (for example)
>and which are dooing something useful. One nice thing about the Mac OS
>is I know exactly where to look for dingleberries and I can usually
>tell by looking at them what they do. Even my Microsoft certified
>friends can't so easily find troublemakers in a Windows system.
>There's something to be said for longer file names and custom corporate
>icons on files.
The key thing is, don't install useless software like AOL if it's a
computer you rely on for a specific purpose - if it's your studio
computer, it should have the software you need for your studio.
There's no need for any other crap which will create the bloat you
refer to.
Also, while the things you people are saying about PCs have been
mostly true since win95 came about, fact is that Win2k and XP are both
incredibly stable. I've had win2k installed on my system for a year
now and it's showing no signs of needing a reinstall, or even any kind
of maintenance - and I install all kinds of crap on it, games,
software demos, etc... This kind of stability from Microsoft is
nothing short of incredible.
The only advantage that Macs offer over the PCs of today is the RISC
architecture in their CPUs, and the fact of the matter is that the
speed-per-mhz superiority doesn't make up for the high prices, the
lack of easy and cheap upgrade paths (my PC has been constantly up to
snuff in terms of the latest technology for the last 8 years, because
I can upgrade one part at a time), and the crayon interface.
There was definitely a time when the Mac was the unchallenged winner
in the digital audio wars, but those days are gone - with Macs using
the PCI bus the hardware is all compatible with both, and if anything
the PC has bigger and better choices in terms of software options for
those who want to veer away from Pro Tools. Apple's purchase of Emagic
and their plans to snuff out Logic is, in my opinion, a sign of
desperation to maintain their empire in this, one of the few arenas
where they're still generally considered (erroneously) the best.
------------------------------------------------
"It is a tribute to the American people that our
leaders perceived that they had to lie to us. It
is not a tribute to us that we were so easily
misled."
-Daniel Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers
------------------------------------------------
Geoff Wood
"Rev. J. Thaddius Toad" <jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote in message
> The only advantage that Macs offer over the PCs of today is the RISC
> architecture in their CPUs, and the fact of the matter is that the
> speed-per-mhz superiority doesn't make up for the high prices, the
> lack of easy and cheap upgrade paths (my PC has been constantly up to
> snuff in terms of the latest technology for the last 8 years, because
> I can upgrade one part at a time), and the crayon interface.
I can't understand this RISC advantage at all. Given similar clock speed,
what difference can it make to perform a complex instruction withing the
micro-code internal to the CPU, compared to having to whizz around outside ?
I call that a potential disadvantage, except on the most basic instructions,
which require less clock cycles on a CISC anyway....
geoff
Paolo Tramannoni
> > Documenting interfaces is NOT documenting internals. There is a lot of
> > useful stuff in there, but compare it, say, with the Magic Garden book,
> > for instance.
>
> Does it really matter? Aren't we all about producing music here?
I love to produce music in a well-kept garden...
Les Cargill
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
<ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:
>I can't understand this RISC advantage at all. Given similar clock speed,
>what difference can it make to perform a complex instruction withing the
>micro-code internal to the CPU, compared to having to whizz around outside ?
>I call that a potential disadvantage, except on the most basic instructions,
>which require less clock cycles on a CISC anyway....
Don't ask me how or why it works, but RISC is clearly and greatly
superior. I'm not technical enough to tell you why, but the benchmarks
and real world performance both bear this out - a G4 Mac is the equal
of a PC with a serious clock speed advantage - I don't recall the
exact numbers for comparison, but it's very significant.
Luk Van de Heyning
<jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote:
>Apple's purchase of Emagic
>and their plans to snuff out Logic is, in my opinion, a sign of
>desperation to maintain their empire in this, one of the few arenas
>where they're still generally considered (erroneously) the best.
I could not have said it better !
Thanks for expressing my thoughts ;-)
Geoff Wood
"Rev. J. Thaddius Toad" <jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote in message >
> superior. I'm not technical enough to tell you why, but the benchmarks
> and real world performance both bear this out - a G4 Mac is the equal
> of a PC with a serious clock speed advantage - I don't recall the
> exact numbers for comparison, but it's very significant.
That is what I keep hearing, but never actually seeing in real life.
geoff
Gi the ant
>
> That is what I keep hearing, but never actually seeing in real life.
Oh my...
Take a Pentium 933 Mhz and a G4/933 and compare whatever you want to.
I can believe that the fastest PC (2Ghz or so) goes better on some
things than the fastest mac (1 Ghz), but don't tell me that they do the
same things at the same clock speed. It's just not true.
--
La fortuna abbraccia gli audaci
e non é pura coincidenza
githeant /at/ libero /dot/ it
Lou Gimenez
wanted a program that they would be sure would takes advantage of core audio
and midi in OSX.
--Lou Gimenez
The Music Lab
2" 24track w all the Goodies
www.musiclabnyc.com
Scott Dorsey
>what difference can it make to perform a complex instruction withing the
>micro-code internal to the CPU, compared to having to whizz around outside ?
RISC systems eliminate decode time. Because everything executes in one
cycle, you are never wasting any cycles performing high level instructions
of which only part of the function is useful. On the other hand, you also
are at the mercy of the compiler to optimize instructions.
There are also a lot of features that are considered RISCy which are not
necessarily the result of the smaller instruction set, like register stacks.
These can be a big win as well.
There is a really, really wonderful article in Communications of the ACM
from around 1987, in which a bunch of guys from the T.J. Watson center talk
about RISC and what the various advantages and disadvantages are. Worth a
trip to the library.
Right now, a lot of CISC systems are eliminating microcode and a lot of RISC
systems are getting bloated instruction sets with all kinds of crap in them
and it is hard to tell where the real dividing line is any more.
David Morton
Dorsey) wrote:
> Right now, a lot of CISC systems are eliminating microcode and a lot of
> RISC
> systems are getting bloated instruction sets with all kinds of crap in
> them
> and it is hard to tell where the real dividing line is any more.
I think it runs just to the left of the water cooler in the marketing
dept.
--
David Morton
dmo...@well.com
"The genius is the one who plays most like himself."
- Thelonious Sphere Monk.
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
wrote:
>>> Apple's purchase of Emagic
>>> and their plans to snuff out Logic is, in my opinion, a sign of
>>> desperation to maintain their empire in this, one of the few arenas
>>> where they're still generally considered (erroneously) the best.
>>
>>
>> I could not have said it better !
>>
>> Thanks for expressing my thoughts ;-)
>>
>
>Why dont you guys get a grip, apple has no plan to snuff out logic. They
>wanted a program that they would be sure would takes advantage of core audio
>and midi in OSX.
My mistake - I was referring to Logic for PC. Unless what I've been
reading everywhere has just been unfounded rumour? That would be happy
news if so... ?
Timo Haanpää
> and real world performance both bear this out - a G4 Mac is the equal
> of a PC with a serious clock speed advantage - I don't recall the
> exact numbers for comparison, but it's very significant.
We upgraded from a 500 MHz Pentium II to a Dual 500 Mhz G4. If I
remember correctly, the P2 could run about 8 Renaissance Compressors,
whereas the G4 can run about 40 of them.
Timo
SomeGuyOnTheInternet
>> Rev. J. Thaddius Toad <jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote:
>> Don't ask me how or why it works, but RISC is clearly and greatly
>> superior. I'm not technical enough to tell you why, but the benchmarks
>> and real world performance both bear this out - a G4 Mac is the equal
>> of a PC with a serious clock speed advantage - I don't recall the
>> exact numbers for comparison, but it's very significant.
And you know this because you read it on the Apple web site, right? :-)
*******************************************************************
** The only good velocity-switch is an inaudible velocity-switch **
*******************************************************************
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
(SomeGuyOnTheInternet) wrote:
> >> In article <sedeiuc8lobs7olg9...@4ax.com>,
> >> Rev. J. Thaddius Toad <jpask...@Mhotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Don't ask me how or why it works, but RISC is clearly and greatly
> >> superior. I'm not technical enough to tell you why, but the benchmarks
> >> and real world performance both bear this out - a G4 Mac is the equal
> >> of a PC with a serious clock speed advantage - I don't recall the
> >> exact numbers for comparison, but it's very significant.
>
>And you know this because you read it on the Apple web site, right? :-)
No, actually, not at all. I've been a computer geek most of my life,
and I've hated the Wintel juggernaught for the last ten years of it.
When I heard that Motorola, Apple and IBM were developing a RISC
processor back in the early 90s, I was ecstatic - I read up all about
RISC vs. CISC and even the M$-loving PC establishment press were
gushing about this new chip and the inherent superiority of RISC.
My personal pie in the sky was that IBM would come out with OS/2 for
the PowerPC chip and offer some legitimate competition to the Windoze
empire, which at the time was at the height of its arrogance and in
the depths of its worst period in terms unreliable, buggy code. I knew
at the time that I didn't dig Mac (cause I was working in DTP at the
time and I knew that, better interface aside, its OS was equally
abysmal at the time), but I really want an alternative to Unca Bill.
Anyways, as I said, I'm not technical enough to give the exact techie
jargon as to why RISC is better (and it's been a long time since I
read about it), but if you ask anyone who is, they will tell you the
same.
Jim Johnson
> and I've hated the Wintel juggernaught for the last ten years of it.
> When I heard that Motorola, Apple and IBM were developing a RISC
> processor back in the early 90s, I was ecstatic - I read up all about
> RISC vs. CISC and even the M$-loving PC establishment press were
> gushing about this new chip and the inherent superiority of RISC.
That was 10 years ago. RISC has since been debunked. (Or more accurately,
"pure" RISC has proven to be impractical, and CISC chips have since adopted
many of the design advantages of RISC.)
> Windoze
Name-calling, no gold star for you!
--
Jim Johnson
Metaphoric Software
-------------------
Makers of Techno Toys
Software for Electronic Music
http://www.technotoys.com
in...@technotoys.com
Rev. J. Thaddius Toad
wrote:
>> No, actually, not at all. I've been a computer geek most of my life,
>> and I've hated the Wintel juggernaught for the last ten years of it.
>> When I heard that Motorola, Apple and IBM were developing a RISC
>> processor back in the early 90s, I was ecstatic - I read up all about
>> RISC vs. CISC and even the M$-loving PC establishment press were
>> gushing about this new chip and the inherent superiority of RISC.
>
>That was 10 years ago. RISC has since been debunked. (Or more accurately,
>"pure" RISC has proven to be impractical, and CISC chips have since adopted
>many of the design advantages of RISC.)
>
>> Windoze
>
>Name-calling, no gold star for you!
Well, I suppose I was name calling there... but I am a PC user, and I
also give props to the fact that, with the release of win2k, MS has
finally gotten an OS right. I hear XP is just as good or better, but I
haven't tried it yet.
I'm not a fan of Mac in the slightest - I'm just stating what I
understand to be the facts of the matter. Can you direct me to an
article or some papers or something which does this debunking you
refer to?
And what about the tests of G4 vs. equal speed Intel chips running the
same task in the same OS, in which the G4 comes out way ahead of
Intel? Has that been debunked?
As I understand it, the only problem with RISC is that there's not
enough software that takes advantage of it.
But I'm certainly not going to argue about it without proof - if I'm
wrong about it, if newer CISC chips are just as good and Apple's G4
campaign is just a big lie, I'm keen to know... ?
Scott Dorsey
Jim Johnson <ja...@technotoys.com> wrote:
>> No, actually, not at all. I've been a computer geek most of my life,
>> and I've hated the Wintel juggernaught for the last ten years of it.
>> When I heard that Motorola, Apple and IBM were developing a RISC
>> processor back in the early 90s, I was ecstatic - I read up all about
>> RISC vs. CISC and even the M$-loving PC establishment press were
>> gushing about this new chip and the inherent superiority of RISC.
>
>That was 10 years ago. RISC has since been debunked. (Or more accurately,
>"pure" RISC has proven to be impractical, and CISC chips have since adopted
>many of the design advantages of RISC.)
The bulletin for the ACM SIG on computer architecture had an article in
the late eighties from a guy who built a single instruction computer, using
subtract and skip if borrow as the only instruction. No decode time required.
Lots and lots of instructions required to implement an add. One accumulator,
so lots of memory accesses. Blindingly fast cycle time using video RAM, very
slow operation. Lots of fun. I think the world needs more wierd computer
architectures.
Mungo Pay
> I can't understand this RISC advantage at all. Given >similar clock speed,
what difference can it make to >perform a complex instruction withing the
> micro-code internal to the CPU, compared to having to >whizz around
instructions,
> which require less clock cycles on a CISC anyway....
>
> geoff
To be honest though, we have a Risc PC downstairs made by Acorn, the CPU
speed and amount of ram in it are minimal even compared to low end PCs. Yet
it runs faster than most computers i have used. It doesn't help at all with
audio recording because there isn't much hardware that will support acorns,
but i thought i'd just give my thumbs up to the RISC technology.