KVR Audio

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:54 am

Of course you f**king can, its just that most people who write that crap target PC because of its greater impact. BTW, it had absolutely no effect on my PC.

egbert · Post by **egbert** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:20 am

r2101 wrote:til then i will be able to use the forums quote function too

You had nested quotes so you needed 2 x [/quote] at the end ie "[/quote][/quote]"

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:48 am

BONES wrote: Surely they'll be sourcing Itanium-based CPU's?

Shirley not. They didn't give a timeframe for the first Intel-based Apple. Why couldn't they be designing a new architecture from the ground up? After all, we are talking about a coalition between Apple and Intel here.

Why does everyone assume that this would mean either OSX running on commodity PC's, or the new Apples being based on an existing chipset?

Jeremy_NSL · Post by **Jeremy_NSL** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:43 am

*treads over old ground*

Its already been announced they are using x86. The dev kits are in circulation. They are using x86.

Green Red Brownell · Post by **Green Red Brownell** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:26 am

And they'll likely be all 64-bit, because by the time the first Intel Macs come out, Intel's desktop CPU's will be almost all 64-bit... even Celeron.

Green Red Brownell · Post by **Green Red Brownell** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:35 am

machinesworking wrote: It couldn't have been pointed out more succinctly how vulnerable XP is with the earlier post of a small script that froze up peeps PC's. You simply cannot do that to OSX.

Be veeerrryy careful with your smugness, pal. All the FireFox dudes were crowing about how they were invulnerable too. Now's what's happening? They're getting backdoored too. The more people who use it, the more the hackers will target it.

I have no interest in debating which OS is better. Absolutely none. But you'd think that people who come off all superior with "my OS is invulnerable" would have a little more sense, eh?? Macs have security holes too. Linux has security holes. It is the nature of connected computing.

So, that karma payback is a B-I-T-C-H... be careful what you say!

He who refuses to wear a condom will eventually get the clap!

machinesworking · Post by **machinesworking** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:36 am

BONES wrote:Of course you f**king can, its just that most people who write that crap target PC because of its greater impact. BTW, it had absolutely no effect on my PC.

I'm actually kind of shocked you're not aware of this? Spyware and other "bot" type things simply cannot be installed via the internet without my permission. That said, if you know what you're doing with a windows system you can prevent these sort of things.
I call bullshit on the whole "most people" garbage, name me ONE virus for OSX?

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:41 am

james0tucson wrote:Shirley not. They didn't give a timeframe for the first Intel-based Apple.

Yes they did - starting in 2006 and all products by 2007.

Why couldn't they be designing a new architecture from the ground up?

Because Jobbie's reason was that they are impressed with Intel's roadmap for future CPU's. There was no mention of any special deal or joint project or new architecture.

Why does everyone assume that this would mean either OSX running on commodity PC's, or the new Apples being based on an existing chipset?

Because that's what was spelled out by Steve Jobs. Did you even read the announcement?

machinesworking · Post by **machinesworking** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:47 am

Green Red Brownell wrote: Macs have security holes too. Linux has security holes. It is the nature of connected computing.

I'm not saying this to be smug, and sure, there has to be some way to f**k with a mac, but truth is windows is WIDE open compared to Linux or OSX, it's not a joke. People say Xp is great, fine I agree it's much better than W98 etc. but when people ignore the security flaws in Windows, well it's like some mac guy trying to say that the powerbooks out now are just as fast as a Centrino M, "see the powerbook is 1.67 VS the Centrino at 1.6 so...."

Leslie · Post by **Leslie** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:54 am

Green Red Brownell wrote:And they'll likely be all 64-bit, because by the time the first Intel Macs come out, Intel's desktop CPU's will be almost all 64-bit... even Celeron.

Exactly... I just can't understand all the panic that this news has created. Intel - love it or hate it - is the number 1 CPU and chipset maker in the world and Apple has a perfect OS to drive it. In my books, that means perfect marriage

At last Mac users will have a chance to experience the TRUE advantage of OSX running on up to date hardware systems... I just hope that Apple will use motherboards with "socketed" CPU's instead of soldering them on to motherboards.
On a sad note, friend of mine (working @ Apple store) mentioned to me recently that after Steve Jobs announcement the "traffic" through the store decreased from approx. 250 customers to 100 a day and now he is worried about his job...

goofrider · Post by **goofrider** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:07 am

anopenscroll wrote:A fence always has two sides.

And grass on one side is always greener than then other, and it's usually not your side.

goofrider · Post by **goofrider** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:20 am

mauseoleum wrote:
Then there are the Mac zealots here who never fail to to live up to my expectations by being completely unable to come up with a single, concrete and rational reason to choose a considerably more expensive Mac over a PC.
mind you, there's at least 2 categories of PC's - a standard desktop / gamers desktop and a workstation class, which, according to ongoing investigations on http://digitalmedianet.com/ are more expensive platform compared to a G5 (speaking of dualop. workstations). Their speed champ is supposed to be a dual-xeon dell.

Xeon has very little market penetration. The larger cache in Xeon (compared to a regular P4) mostly just compensate for the P4's deep pipeline. If u most need SMP, use 2 dual-core Opeteron, which should be 30% cheaper and deliever better performace.

Apple **might** possibly use Xeon for the high-end models, but it's nothing to be excited about. It's generally believed that the Opeteron is a better CPU for workstation/servers.

goofrider · Post by **goofrider** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:29 am

Borogove wrote:
BONES wrote:I just thought of something - OSX is 64-bit but a P4 is only 32-bit so how is all this gonna work? Surely they'll be sourcing Itanium-based CPU's? So why bother benchmarking with a P4? Unless the're happy to admit that the whole 64-bit thing was a marketing sham? Curiouser and curiouser.
Apparently part of keeping OSX portable is having it able to build on a 32-bit architecture - IOW, PPC-OSX is a 64-bit OS, x86-OSX is a 32-bit OS. I'm sure they can roll out x86-64-OSX as soon as they're ready to roll out the corresponding machines.

Backing down from "64 bits better" is no harder than backing down from "PPC better". Probably easier because some smaller fraction of people know that OSX is 64-bit.

PPC/OSX has only been 64-bit since Tiger, and only the G5 is a 64-bit CPU. Most OSX users won't be missing much. All Intel CPUs will support x86-64 by 2006 so OSX/x86-64 should be possible any time as well. Except that mixing 32-bit and 64-bit code on x86 would not be as easy as it is on the PPC.

stag · Post by **stag** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:37 am

Someone explain me , please.
When was Jobs lying about Mac performance: Now or Before???
What a joke.
the AMD alleged superiority, well perhaps it´s true. But you should go to a store near you and try a laptop equiped with Centrino Sonoma 2.0Ghz or more, i´m sure your FX55 bites the dust at first round and stay put for a long while.
One of those plays the five towers benchmark at buffers as low as 64 samples (2ms). like strolling in the park: 39% on stop, 65% om playback.
This the only kind of test i´m interested on: Audio apps handling, how they score using photoshop i couldn´t care less.

Also the move of Apple to Intel, coul be the beggining of the end of another myth: OS superiority.
How that a G5 with any feline OS known to men at the same buffer size sports almost the double latency than a crapy pute with a crapy OS??? perhaps because the feline OS is a bucket load of eye candy bloatware.

goofrider · Post by **goofrider** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:42 am

Borogove wrote:
slasi wrote:1) Altivec optimized stuff will a lot harder to port. Which is most audio stuff. My guess is emulation of altivec instructions won't be fast enough.
Looks like they don't even try to emulate Altivec in Rosetta - I'm guessing Rosetta presents to the OS as an CPU which does not support Altivec, so well-behaved apps that check for Altivec support and fall back to straight FPU sequences should be OK. (I think emulating PPC FPU on x87 FPU would be faster than emulating PPC Altivec on any combination of x87/SSE).

x86 arichetetures has always have horrible FPUs. So no, emulating the PPC FPU is gonna be pretty bad.

I think it's a complexity issue. Altivec has 4 vector exec units and 32 registers, SSE2 has 1 unit and 8 regs. Emulating Altivec using SSE2 is gonna be REALLY REALLY painful. You might as well spend your time writing some smart JIT optimization on the ALU/FPU emulation where all PPC code benefit from it.

Apple ditches IBM power PC chip and will use Intel.