You know there's a synthesizer made here in Sweden, called the SID-station.

Lemme go find a pic.

Here ya go:



-tek

[This message has been edited by tekminus (edited 01-06-2003).]

Apple would likely never willingly give up hardware. I was referring to the idea that if Apple made an OS for PC that allowed a PC to run Mac software, then no one would buy apple hardware anymore.

Hardware is where they overcharge and take in extra profit.

I sequence, record, and mix on cubase SX and before that cubase vst 5.1 and I believe that 400MHZ is not sufficient for serious recording. You said you want to use the latest cubase. Well, that will be SX or SL. In this case, it will not cut it. But if you used older programs, this might do it. I am not very familiar with MACs and so reality check will always be good.

Yeah , Apple does like to charge a pretty penny for their hardware . But , there are ways around that . I would LOVE to have a SID Station Tek ! I live in Atlanta Ga . Getting the cool wierd stuff is hard to do here . Europe has had alot of neat things come out since I started in electronic music . Back in 1985 I got a Jen SX-1000 , made in Italy . A uniqe sound , different from the usual roland and moog sounds . I am still hoping to get a Sid Station one day .

Are you talking about 400mHz on a PC or on a Mac? Sounds like you're talking about on a PC and we've already established that mac 400mHz > PC 400mHz.



So you're saying I should steal one off a truck?

I got this from Steinberg website:

Mac Version

Processor Power Mac G4 (did not say anything about speed)

RAM 256 MB RAM (512 MB RAM MB recommended)

Operating System Mac OS X Version 10.2

Sound Card Supports ASIO 2 spec for high end multi-channel audio cards
Supports Mac OS X compatible audio devices

you can't compare two different architectures like that.

1. So, ( im not saying this is the case but ) each stage in the apple pipeline might take three times as long as a stage in the Intel pipeline meaning that although one has 7 and one has 20 then they take around the same time to complete.
2. Somebody said that apple is similar to a RISC ( i dont know this to be true ) and intel a CISC so apple would have to execute MORE instructions to do the equivalent of a PC.
3. With more stages in the Intel pipeline then there would be less of a chance for a structural pipleine hazard..

I know that each of those points have their downsides ( for intel ) but Im just saying yours is not a valid argument.

This thread seems to be ( subtley ) an x86 bashing thread. While apple outpeform most other computers when it comes to audio production they are not leaders in performance when it comes to other areas of computation.
Because of this it makes it bloody hard to argue the x86 case on a sound production board.
I cannot think of another industry where the apple/PC debate would be as heated as this one.

Plus intel and athlon are working on new architectures ( itanium and sledgehammer i think ) so who knows what will happen in the future.

The Apple G-4 processor outperforms the Itanium as well . The stages in the G-4 pipeline do not take three times as long , the G-4 is superior in graphics applications , audio applications and multi processor applications . These particular applications are as hard as they come . Since the G-4 zips past the P-4 in these processes , that is a valid argument . The G-4 processor is a much better design in working in real world applications , not in what is on the drawing board . Whatever the Major Pc processor companies have planned , Apple has their own plans as well . None of them mean anything until they are out and running .

The big problem with a Mac is that its price can't justify the performance anymore. It used to do that when Mac ruled among audio apps, but PCs are already up at the same level. You can't deny that anymore, because alot of applications seem to have a PC release first these days (Rebirth of the top of my head for example did this). The reason (no pun intended) for this is PC numbers vs Mac numbers, not audio performance.

I'm far from anti-Mac, but I just don't buy the hype with those prices.

-tek

yeah I know but itanium is just in infancy

I didnt say it did.

maybe in 2d image manipulation, macintosh is the industry choice but not for 3d graphics and computer vision.

yeah I said that

I suppose it would depend on the application,
and if you start talking workstations then its a whole new ballgame, but i dont know much about that anyway.