Logic 7 released

[jones-y]

IMO the finder is defenitely one lousy file handling tool. For instance, you can't easily sort objects by type (OMG, it's 2004...), at least I haven't found a proper method yet to do that quickly.

Ummmm....

Takes me two mouse clicks over here.

Open the directory in question.

Click 1: Click the List view Icon.
Click 2: Click the Kind Column Header (or is it Type - I'm at work on a Wintel box ATM)

[jones-y]

Well two mitigating factors for you:

They last longer, since RISC chip development is slower than CISC (due mainly to market forces, though, no technical explanation).

Hmmm... no competition = who cares how slow we are! The technical term is "milking it". Intel and AMD have been in a war for years pushing the envelope. Competition speeds up development.

No competition? I'm sorry, but Apple, Moto and IBM are in the personal computer business. That puts them in direct competition with Microsoft, Intel, AMD, etc...

Do you know how Intel ramped clock speed so quickly all these years? By making the core less powerful. Capable of less computations per clock, requiring more clock cycles to move data through, and so on.... Why? to create a marketing frenzy based around clock speed, with all other factors being secondary. The brute force approach. Ever wonder how AMD chips with significantly lower clocks could compare to pentiums?

But now this model is breaking down as Intel is having a tough time maintaining that pace of development. So what do they do? Shift the marketing away from pure clock speed focus. Can anybody say Pentium M?

That's why CISC clocks ramped so quickly. Market forces. For RISC architecture, which is inherently more sensible for CPU applications (for a number of technical reasons), the clock scaling didn't happen as fast. For one, the architecture is naturally faster than CISC, all other things being equal. That led to less pressure to ramp speeds. For two, Moto and IBM chose not to weaken the RISC core to scale clock speeds. For three, in the Apple dominated RISC PC market, the focus was squarely on Apple owning and developing the whole integrated product, which created a totally different atmosphere for its relationships with Moto and IBM. Different business model, different result.

The resale value is way above PCs. My 933 is still going for $900-1000 on ebay. Try that with a PC.

Again, fairly obvious when you can buy a Mac for how much we want to sell it for or you can get... ummm... a Mac for how much we'll sell it to you for. This follows the golden rule - those who have the gold make the rules.

Devon

Yes, very fairly obvious, but I don't think its quite as simple.

For one, along with initial sale price, resale value is a direct result of perceived value. That means having a reputation for reliability, stability, high resale value, low maintenance cost, etc. tend to increase the second-hand market value. See: Honda Accord, Sony Vaio.

For two, you neglect the fact that Apple, once upon a time, had clone manufacturers. It almost killed Apple.

For three, you neglect the (real or imagined) advantages of OS superiority.

Case in point: I can do whatever I need on OS X or XP, but I prefer OS X. The reasons are numerous, but for many people this is a big factor.

[whyterabbyt]

mjones4th quoth


For two, you neglect the fact that Apple, once upon a time, had clone manufacturers. It almost killed Apple.


Ummm, no, total nonsense. Bad management decisions did.

[marc]

For the most part, Logic's implementation is leaps and bounds better than FXTeleport or System Link, except that it does not work with 3rd party plugins (and yes, I recognize that that is a big "except").

That doesnt sound leaps and bounds better at all, to be honest. So what significant advaatages does it have, apart from an effectively free cost-per-unit?

It basically just comes down to the fact that you don't have to do anything to get it working. You can have Logic Node as a start-up process on your nodes. Turn them on and go.

Also, Logic can make accurate CPU demand calculations for all of its plugins since they are built-in and made by Emagic. This can't be done with 3rd party plugins of any format, but it is a nice thing, and makes for the highest possible efficiency with lowest possibility of overloads. It's great that Emagic can do that, but again, only within limitations of your plugin selection. If they can make this all work with AUs, this CPU usage prediction will still work for the built-in plugs, but just not AUs.

Logic's implementation is much nicer than this, but then on the downside simply
does not allow for this option.

If restricted=nicer then thats true. Otherwise its not.

Uhhh, can you read? Restricted=disadvantage, that's all I've said the whole time.

However, at least AU is designed to make space for separation of DSP and GUI to separate processes and address spaces work, so there's definitely a potential for that that there is not in VST's design, for example.

Thats an architecture issue, not an implementation issue,

Right, which is exactly what I was saying...

and its quite feasible to separate the GUI process from the DSP process in a VST.

No, it's absolutely not. There are other hacks to make things work, but it is definitely definitely not a separation of DSP and GUI in separate processes, this is absolutely not technically feasible with VST's architecture.

[jones-y]

mjones4th quoth


For two, you neglect the fact that Apple, once upon a time, had clone manufacturers. It almost killed Apple.


Ummm, no, total nonsense. Bad management decisions did.

Yes. One of which was to allow clones.

[egbert]

mjones4th quoth


For two, you neglect the fact that Apple, once upon a time, had clone manufacturers. It almost killed Apple.


Ummm, no, total nonsense. Bad management decisions did.

You got that right. After all their mistakes they finally decided to admit other manufacturers but they actually believed that the licencees would expand the customer base and not compete directly and steal Apple's lunch. Can you believe that?

So when the inevitable happened and Apple sales declined, they bought out the biggest licencee and shafted the rest - accusing them of "disloyalty" - presumably for running efficient businesses.

And the senior staff at Emagic (Gerhard included) were among those who bought fast new machines from the licencees. LOL. They've obviously kissed and made up now

Eg

[whyterabbyt]

mjones4th quoth
No competition? I'm sorry, but Apple, Moto and IBM are in the personal computer business.

Partially right, wrong and wrong, in that order.

That puts them in direct competition with Microsoft, Intel, AMD, etc...

Wrong, wrong and wrong, in that order.

Do you know how Intel ramped clock speed so quickly all these years?

Lots of ways. Like scaling to smaller fab techniques, for example.

By making the core less powerful.

Ummm, nope.

Capable of less computations per clock, requiring more clock cycles to move data through, and so on....

I think you may be misunderstanding the idea of longer pipelines (which helps improve throughput)

They certainly do do more processing, though dont they? Whether its misleading to characterise it in terms of clock speed, current pentiums go faster than old ones.

Or are you claiming we could have had 3Ghz and faster processors four years ago?

Why?

Straw man. You've make unsubstantiated assertions, and they dont support a further hypothesis adequately.

to create a marketing frenzy based around clock speed, with all other factors being secondary.

No they didnt design them to do that, they sold them using it. Big difference.

The brute force approach.

No a marketing approach.

Ever wonder how AMD chips with significantly lower clocks could compare to pentiums?

Better engineering?

But now this model is breaking down as Intel is having a tough time maintaining that pace of development.

Its not a 'model' it was a design strategy. They've rethought it.

So what do they do? Shift the marketing away from pure clock speed focus.

Big surprise. Everyone does it.

Can anybody say Pentium M?

Yup. Low voltages too.

That's why CISC clocks ramped so quickly.

No its not.

Market forces.

Massive investment in a massive potential market.


For RISC architecture, which is inherently more sensible for CPU applications (for a number of technical reasons), the clock scaling didn't happen as fast.

Those technical reasons you're thinking of are very out of date. Hybridised designs are considered to be better. eg the AMD approach, basically CISC-on-RISC.


For one, the architecture is naturally faster than CISC, all other things being equal.

Nonsense. If it takes N single-cycle RISC instructions to carry out a task and 1 N-cycle CISC instruction, there is no 'natural advantage'.

That led to less pressure to ramp speeds.

No, architectural constraints of RISC had their part to play as well.

For two, Moto and IBM chose not to weaken the RISC core to scale clock speeds.

They had to add in the AltiVec to even think abut contemplating.

For three, in the Apple dominated RISC PC market,

You mean the 'Apple-dominated Mac market'? I think AMD probably dominates if you wanna talk about RISC implementations in PCs.

the focus was squarely on Apple owning and developing the whole integrated product, which created a totally different atmosphere for its relationships with Moto and IBM.

Yeah; they had to bed up to them because they cant fab chips, and they're screwed if their supplier cant deliver.

Different business model, different result.

That has nothing to do with architectural choices, just inter-company politics.

For one, along with initial sale price, resale value is a direct result of perceived value. That means having a reputation for reliability, stability, high resale value, low maintenance cost, etc. tend to increase the second-hand market value. See: Honda Accord, Sony Vaio.

Also called 'punters will pay over the odds for a badge'.

And anyways, your 'switch' market is pretty small, and Apple seem to drive it predominantly by means of platform-tied applications (Shake, FCP, Logic). So, no, Apple dont have to compete with PC's the way AMD have to compete with Intel, and Devon was quite right on that one.

[whyterabbyt]

whyterabbyt It basically just comes down to the fact that you don't have to do anything to get it working. You can have Logic Node as a start-up process on your nodes. Turn them on and go.

Thats not 'leaps and bounds' in my book, Im afraid.

Also, Logic can make accurate CPU demand calculations for all of its plugins since they are built-in and made by Emagic.

You think so? Im surprised, I would have thought that would be hard to predict in real-life utilisation.

This can't be done with 3rd party plugins of any format, but it is a nice thing, and makes for the highest possible efficiency with lowest possibility of overloads.

Perhaps, but that sounds like your implying dynamic load balancing, which I wouldnt really want to think about when you're talking about real-time audio streams

Logic's implementation is much nicer than this, but then on the downside simply
does not allow for this option.

If restricted=nicer then thats true. Otherwise its not.

Uhhh, can you read?

Uhhhh, yes. You're saying its 'nicer' even although its restricted. Im saying its not 'nicer' at all because it is restricted.

Uhhhh, can you follow that?

Restricted=disadvantage, that's all I've said the whole time.

But still present something with that (major IMO) limitation as 'leaps and bounds better' than, say FXTeleport, which has very many of the features you're vaunting, and without this restriction.

No, it's absolutely not. There are other hacks to make things work, but it is definitely definitely not a separation of DSP and GUI in separate processes, this is absolutely not technically feasible with VST's architecture.

What prevents it?

[whyterabbyt]

mjones4th quoth

Yes. One of which was to allow clones.


If you cant compete with what is basically your own product, then thats not an issue of 'allowing clones' thats a problem of not being as good at the job as other people.

But I'd like to see actual figures for the number of clones sold in comparison to genuine Apple's please.

[egbert]

Whyterabbit is on the money here.

I can't believe people are still trotting out 10 years out of date stuff about RISC and CISC. As Whytie implies, AMD uses the technology developed by NexGen - which it acquired in the takeover a decade ago. It breaks down CISC instuctions into Micro-Ops which it then runs through its RISC style core.

Intel has its own methods but its recent processors don't work anything like the 80286 - they are merely backwardly compatible. They use many of the strategies developed by RISC teams like the one at Digital for the Alpha.

That's why Digital sued Intel and forced them to buy Digital out. The result was that Compaq ended up with the Alpha (divesting itself of the competitor's product was necessary to avoid anti-trust action AFAIU) before itself being swallowed by HP.

The Alpha was arguably the leading architecture and all its goodies have now been appropriated by the rest of the industry - Intel, AMD and probably IBM too.

Eg

[jones-y]

I would like to see some clone sales figures too.

Here's my rationale:

Apple was, is and will continue to be primarily a hardware vendor who bundles or sells accompanying software. By allowing clones, they instantly became primarily a software vendor. Another vendor can build the hardware using cheaper components and cheaper manufacturing processes. Which means they can undercut Apple's hardware prices.

Why wouldn't this work? Why couldn't they continue to thrive in a situation like that? Its quite simple actually. Apple did not have the necessary products, market, or pricing structure to successfully become a software company. Maybe if they had apps like OS X, iLife, DVD Studio, Final Cut, Shake, Logic, etc., they could have managed it. But not with just an OS and AppleWorks to sell.

Therefore, for Apple, clones = death.

[meister eder]

How about moving your mine-is-bigger discussion about processors and computer biz marketing strategies to an own thread in the hardware forum?

[jones-y]

Whyterabbit is on the money here.

I can't believe people are still trotting out 10 years out of date stuff about RISC and CISC. As Whytie implies, AMD uses the technology developed by NexGen - which it acquired in the takeover a decade ago. It breaks down CISC instuctions into Micro-Ops which it then runs through its RISC style core.

Intel has its own methods but its recent processors don't work anything like the 80286 - they are merely backwardly compatible. They use many of the strategies developed by RISC teams like the one at Digital for the Alpha.

That's why Digital sued Intel and forced them to buy Digital out. The result was that Compaq ended up with the Alpha (divesting itself of the competitor's product was necessary to avoid anti-trust action AFAIU) before itself being swallowed by HP.

The Alpha was arguably the leading architecture and all its goodies have now been appropriated by the rest of the industry - Intel, AMD and probably IBM too.

Eg

Which reaffirms my stance that RISC is better for CPU applications. Also, the cost (in terms of performance) of breaking down CISC instructions into a RISC-like instruction set is still very real, and still leads to a significant disadvantage for the X86 compatibles.

Not to mention that RISC architectures greatly simplify coding....

I may not be the most knowledgible person when it comes to the history of the microprocessor, but I do own a bachelor's degree in this stuff, so I can say that I'm not just regurgitating what some other twerp in some other forum said.

Oh and my name is not people

[meister eder]

How about moving your mine-is-bigger discussion about processors and computer biz marketing strategies to an own thread in the hardware forum?

[jones-y]

How about moving your mine-is-bigger discussion about processors and computer biz marketing strategies to an own thread in the hardware forum?

Oops sorry!