All new MacPros are quads!!

[Karbon L. Forms]

*munch*

[BombJack]

This is a quality thread....

Mac vs Pc - always like this argument.

My opinion is that I would only get a mac to run Logic. My mate has it nad says I would be bowled over by it. thing is, I'ld need to spend about double the cash I would need to on a PC to run it. It's a waste of time.

Unless you have the money and want to use logic, I don't think there's any real advantage to the macs. "Bullet proof" macs are a thing of the past. It's utter BS to suggest otherwise. I know this because I use a G5 quad every day of the week at work. at home I have a PC, and their both as equally unreliable as each other, the only thing is, the Mac's shinier...

ps - I like the backlit keys on the laptops though - not worth an extra 3 or 4 hundred quid though...

[keyman_sam]

Bones,
I think we're talking about different target audience here. I'm talking about the professional composers (such as Hans Zimmer) who use Cubase, or Logic or whatever it is that they use.
You are talking about bedroom musicians or "wannabe" pros using software such as Orion, Fruity loops and energy-XT.
And thus the confusion.
I'd imagine that professionals have the money to buy a PC just for a particular piece of software (say, Gigastudio) and can get macs for the rest. They have the money. It really doesnt matter to them. If you're talking about bedroom musicians, then, PCs are cheaper in comparision. Hosts like FLS, Orion, etc., are logical choices.
Really, think about it : Why SHOULD professionals jumpship to Orion, Ext, or FLS, or Reaper when they can very well afford to have Logic Pro 7 in their mac? OTOH, if you look at Logic, it probably has most of the features they need for serious work. The only answer you could give is cost, and i repeat : To most pros, it doesnt matter. The 300 or 400 dollar difference between the software is like cheap change for them.

This is the most seriously f**ked-up argument I can ever recall encountering here. Its so f**ked up I hardly know how to respond. Do you thik Hans Zimmer has ever so much as heard of EnergyXT? Of course he f**king hasn't. Those guys are so far removed from the coal-face they wouldn't know what the f**k was available to them. They waltz into a studio expecting to see the same stuff they've been seeing in studios for the past 10 or 15 years. They have no interest in anything new as long as the stuff they have always used continues to deliver for them. Thinking about it, he probably hires some guy as an operator for his computer and doesn't know much abou tit at all.
Anyway, Whilst I'm sure Hans appreciates you speaking on his behalf, you might wanna think about sticking to your own experience and needs instead of postulating on things of which you clearly no nothing.

Hans zimmer was just an example. You said it yourself, if the program suits their needs, WHY the f**k change to something else? If Apple works, just work using apple. Why change to PC? PCs arent magic tools.


PLus, macs look Lovely!

[BONES]

No they don't. The G5 chassis is a horrible looking thing, iMacs have weird proportions [the base is too small and teh whole design looks unbalanced] and MiniMac looks like an oversized powder-puff. The MacBooks look nice but no better than dozens of PC laptops. In fact I think ASUS makes one that looks almost identical.

Hey. at least it's legal, and really, how could you make buying up the competition illegal?

Legal doesn't mean right.

You on the other hand, routinely give money to a corporation that has flat out stolen major parts of their OS code, leveraged their monopoly to wipe out the competition, introduced supposed standards that work best only with their OS, and bought their way out of court when it all came down on them, every time you instal XP.

The major difference is that I have installed XP plenty of times but only ever paid for it once. That's another advantage of not buying a Mac, I don't need to buy an OS I already have.

You argue that Apple are somehow worse than Microsoft, I think you choose to ignore the facts then.

Never said that, never even implied it. I have no great love for Microsoft, I just don't see Apple as a more ethical alternative. Microsoft's treatment of SoftImage was appalling but at least it didn't affect SoftImage's customers the way Apple does to customers of companies it buys.

[machinesworking]

Hey. at least it's legal, and really, how could you make buying up the competition illegal?

Legal doesn't mean right.

Uh? yes it does... subjectively, you can think it's not "right", but objectively you have to realize we work in a world with a status quo that decides what is considered right or wrong.
More to the point, any company in the USA at least that isn't in it for the bottom line is doomed.

You on the other hand, routinely give money to a corporation that has flat out stolen major parts of their OS code, leveraged their monopoly to wipe out the competition, introduced supposed standards that work best only with their OS, and bought their way out of court when it all came down on them, every time you instal XP.

The major difference is that I have installed XP plenty of times but only ever paid for it once. That's another advantage of not buying a Mac, I don't need to buy an OS I already have.

I bought Tiger when it came out because of the Network MIDI, and improved Inter Application MIDI, that was enough to justify the cost IMO.
I wasn't forced into buying it.
What do you do with the desktop machines you don't use anymore, do you sell them with no OS or Linux?
How do you legally keep reinstalling the same copy of XP?
Every laptop you buy with Xp on it has a certain amount of the price that goes towards the copy of XP on it,
and if you only have one copy of XP, then, again, how are you able to use this one copy you have for your laptop and desktop/shuttle?

You argue that Apple are somehow worse than Microsoft, I think you choose to ignore the facts then.

Never said that, never even implied it. I have no great love for Microsoft, I just don't see Apple as a more ethical alternative. Microsoft's treatment of SoftImage was appalling but at least it didn't affect SoftImage's customers the way Apple does to customers of companies it buys.

Right, leveraging their monopoly to destroy Netscape didn't affect anybody at all, nope....
you're proving my point, you choose to only use information that serves your bias, period.
Basically you're lying here, you see Apple as a less ethical alternative, you're behavior in the quad mac thread is proof. Nobody made any outlandish claims about the mac quads being superior before you started calling people idiots.
The major difference between the two corporations in the past, was that Apple really weren't as guilty of breaking the law to get what they wanted,
as Microsoft were.

At this point in time, I probably wouldn't have been as motivated by Microsoft's behavior in the purchase of a PC, they've cleaned up a bit, but in 97 I was. In the mean time Apple has had a few lame moves IMO, but at the end of the day I don't care about them, I'm as firmly planted in mac DAWs as you are in PC, I'm most comfortable working in Digital Performer and Logic, so Windows is not a solitary solution to me.

[jon9091]

No they don't. The G5 chassis is a horrible looking thing,

Hardly. The G5 is the best computer case I've ever seen. And it sure didn't take long for some PC wanker company to copy it for all the wannabe's

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/producti ... tID=135330

Anyway. I think we can all agree that any Mac product is light years ahead of this queer little shoebox
http://global.shuttle.com/Product/Bareb ... allery.asp

[egbert]

On the treatment of customers point:

I worked exclusively in Logic PC for about 7 years starting from 2.0 after working on Atari Notator for a while. I had many pieces - some complete tunes, some sketches that I could come back to and I often remixed and substituted better instruments/processors. Despite being created by versions of Logic from 2.0 to 5.5 Logic could always open and play my tunes and sketches. Backward compatibility is fundamental to looking after the customer and Emagic understood that.

At the time of the Apple buyout I had to endure all the hoorahs and hype from Macophiles about how much better Logic would be once Apple worked its magic. I was highly skeptical because Apple has nothing to do with music - its priorities are completely different.

Imagine my surprise when I learnt that even though VST support was right there and working in the Logic OSX betas it was pulled - use AU or nothing. Then imagine that even if your plugin vendor complies with Apple's demands on behalf of customers and codes and releases an AU version of the VST plugin/synth/sampler you used in your Logic PC tune, upon opening that song Logic Mac says - VST plugin not available - and makes no attempt to use the compatible AU version in its stead.

The result of all this is that a great deal of work I collected in Logic 2.5- 5.5 could never be simpy opened and played or reworked on Logic Mac OSX - although up until Logic Mac 6 this was no problem at all.

It seems clear that Apple deliberately broke backward and cross platform compatibility - one of the key ties between customers and Logic - for reasons which were nothing to do with Logic or music but more to do with pushing their corporate barrow. Any potential "switchers" looking on saw this. Logic Mac VST plug users were also burned by this.

I think it is obvious that while it might be preferable for another company to take over Emagic/Steinberg than that they go broke altogether (wasn't going to happen to Emagic who were doing fine from reports I have heard) it would definitely be better that a sequencer company sell out to a company in the music industry rather than a computer hardware/OS vendor who lacks musical sympathies and has different priorities altogether.

By way of analogy:
This way of working is common to many who write fiction - they have all kinds of sketches, drafts and outlines "in the drawer". These days these sketches etc would not be in notebooks - they would be in folders of Word files typically and backed up on various forms of media if the person has any clue at all.

Now just imnage these scenarios - the evil M$ decides to bring out an all new and deliberately incompatible word processor - or - pehaps M$ decided to get out of productivity apps and sold Word to another company and that company decided that the file format was "not invented here" and used fonts that were "not invented here" so they released a new version of Word that was completely incompatible with all previous documents and took steps to make it illegal or impractical for any third party to allow conversion of all existing Word docs to the new format (bit far fetched in practice I know).

Every writer in the world who had used Word would be screwed pretty soon (you would need to run an old computer with an old OS to run the old versions of Word and this would be impractical before very long).

Imagine the storm that would rage. If I might borrow from Cartman - "You killed my novel, you bastards!"

[Lunch Money]

Hey. at least it's legal, and really, how could you make buying up the competition illegal?

Legal doesn't mean right.

Uh? yes it does... subjectively, you can think it's not "right", but objectively you have to realize we work in a world with a status quo that decides what is considered right or wrong.
More to the point, any company in the USA at least that isn't in it for the bottom line is doomed.

Hm. Last time I checked, morality (ie., what's "right" or "wrong") is entirely subjective. Laws are meant to be entirely objective. Most cultures attempt to use law to codify what their particular perspective holds to be "moral" or "amoral," but not exclusively. More importantly, though, it doesn't hold true in reverse. Governments worldwide establish all kinds of "laws" that many people would consider "wrong". A subjectively moral experience of the world may inform a law, but a law does not create morality.

You even realize this and say it yourself, and yet you proceed to attempt to equate an apple to an orange. BONES' assertion that Legal doesn't mean "right" is not only accurate but logically irrefutable. By your own points.

Greg

[jones-y]

Imagine my surprise when I learnt that even though VST support was right there and working in the Logic OSX betas it was pulled - use AU or nothing. Then imagine that even if your plugin vendor complies with Apple's demands on behalf of customers and codes and releases an AU version of the VST plugin/synth/sampler you used in your Logic PC tune, upon opening that song Logic Mac says - VST plugin not available - and makes no attempt to use the compatible AU version in its stead.

The result of all this is that a great deal of work I collected in Logic 2.5- 5.5 could never be simpy opened and played or reworked on Logic Mac OSX - although up until Logic Mac 6 this was no problem at all.

It seems clear that Apple deliberately broke backward and cross platform compatibility - one of the key ties between customers and Logic - for reasons which were nothing to do with Logic or music but more to do with pushing their corporate barrow. Any potential "switchers" looking on saw this. Logic Mac VST plug users were also burned by this.

I agree that was a tough time for us OS9ers right along with PC Logic users. Many don't appreciate that.

That beta OSX VST version of Logic that you mentioned was in fact a full release. But I think it was during a time when there weren't many OSX VSTs yet in the wild. As a matter of fact, IIRC, it was Logic 5.3 and Mac OS 10.1.5 was the minimum requirement. I don't recall whether that version of Logic was compatible with songs made on OS9 or Windows using VSTs (I don't recall Logic ever being cross-platform win-mac compatible, WRT plugins, but I could be wrong), since very few, if any, of my plugs were ported before the release of version 6, which wasn't long after 5.3. But I do know that I was in no way interested, since I'd have no plugs to operate with in the new OS...

My solution (and the one big lesson I took out of this, first of several big Apple/AU/Logic transitions) was to bounce everything to audio. Wavs and Aiffs are portable. Everything else is risky. So I stayed on OS 9 long enough for PSP and a few others to migrate their plugs, but I bounced all my softsynths to audio for those songs that I wanted to carry forward. I figured I could do a mixdown again if needed, as long as I had the original sounds. (What's really funny is that i could probably count on one hand the # of times I've opened those old LSOs since then - I have done a fair bit of 'remixing' from the aiff files though...)

Now all this means that I am much better equipped to survive the transition from PPC to Intel, although again I am in no big rush...

I'll tell you what I don't get. Folks who rush out and sell a perfectly working G5 to get a Intel Mac Pro that doesn't even currently run a bunch of the software they depend on on a daily basis! Then they troop on over to their favorite devs' forums to lambast these poor guys (who have spent the last half decade, mind you, going through one after another of Apple's 'transitions') because they haven't rewritten their software yet...

[machinesworking]

On the treatment of customers point:

I worked exclusively in Logic PC for about 7 years starting from 2.0 after working on Atari Notator for a while. I had many pieces - some complete tunes, some sketches that I could come back to and I often remixed and substituted better instruments/processors. Despite being created by versions of Logic from 2.0 to 5.5 Logic could always open and play my tunes and sketches. Backward compatibility is fundamental to looking after the customer and Emagic understood that.

At the time of the Apple buyout I had to endure all the hoorahs and hype from Macophiles about how much better Logic would be once Apple worked its magic. I was highly skeptical because Apple has nothing to do with music - its priorities are completely different.

I agree with that. I didn't think Apple would be as concerned about the things that mattered to me in Logic, like the Environment, and the possibility of extending it, or that it not be dumbed down, that was the big fear!

Imagine my surprise when I learnt that even though VST support was right there and working in the Logic OSX betas it was pulled - use AU or nothing.

The key thing here from my stand point was that on the mac Logic, VST had issues, and apparently Emagic /Logic crew were quite happy to do away with VST support, there is indication that the pulling of VST was more their decision than any Apple corporate move... remember, Steinberg and Emagic had some bad blood...
I would love to see a third, truly open standard introduced, VST and AU are too attached to companies that don't have my DAWs or plug in developers best interest in mind I think.

Then imagine that even if your plugin vendor complies with Apple's demands on behalf of customers and codes and releases an AU version of the VST plugin/synth/sampler you used in your Logic PC tune, upon opening that song Logic Mac says - VST plugin not available - and makes no attempt to use the compatible AU version in its stead.

The result of all this is that a great deal of work I collected in Logic 2.5- 5.5 could never be simpy opened and played or reworked on Logic Mac OSX - although up until Logic Mac 6 this was no problem at all.

Hey even worse, it didn't work that well with old mac OS 9 VST to AU OSX.. total change in plug in format, with no reasonable way to port. there were some work arounds that people came up with on the mac side though, and it's possible that you could have ported to OS9, then ported to OSX Audio Unit.... though I think these only worked for the built in plug ins...

It seems clear that Apple deliberately broke backward and cross platform compatibility - one of the key ties between customers and Logic - for reasons which were nothing to do with Logic or music but more to do with pushing their corporate barrow. Any potential "switchers" looking on saw this. Logic Mac VST plug users were also burned by this.

I think you're reading too much into it. It was more like Audio Units weren't that stable code wise at first.... a little rushed into introduction I think...

I think it is obvious that while it might be preferable for another company to take over Emagic/Steinberg than that they go broke altogether (wasn't going to happen to Emagic who were doing fine from reports I have heard) it would definitely be better that a sequencer company sell out to a company in the music industry rather than a computer hardware/OS vendor who lacks musical sympathies and has different priorities altogether.

I have no idea why Steinberg and Emagic would sell then if things were doing so well? and I agree about Apple, personally my least favorite thing about them is this business of competing with their developers by releasing audio, and video software.... it seems silly to me. though I think they definitely are interested in making Logic the top player, that's obvious.
Always enjoy hearing your viewpoint egbert, and oddly enough, Bones is entertaining to me....

[machinesworking]

Hm. Last time I checked, morality (ie., what's "right" or "wrong") is entirely subjective. Laws are meant to be entirely objective. Most cultures attempt to use law to codify what their particular perspective holds to be "moral" or "amoral," but not exclusively. More importantly, though, it doesn't hold true in reverse. Governments worldwide establish all kinds of "laws" that many people would consider "wrong". A subjectively moral experience of the world may inform a law, but a law does not create morality.

You even realize this and say it yourself, and yet you proceed to attempt to equate an apple to an orange. BONES' assertion that Legal doesn't mean "right" is not only accurate but logically irrefutable. By your own points.

Greg

I see your point, but I simply don't share the conclusion. Laws are never entirely objective. Moral, the term, is derived from religion, I wouldn't use it as an explanation for right and wrong.

I see nothing right about most religions. to me, a society as a whole creates the ideas of right and wrong, or the ethics of that society. Two hundred years ago I could marry a ten year old, today that's not considered right, but back them it was pretty normal.
The laws allow me to pay a man three times less than I make to do the same job, it's not what I consider right, but it's right and ethical in a capitalism to use people to your advantage when you can. It's called business.
It's the difference between saying "Legal doesn't mean right." and saying "It might be legal, but it's not right in my opinion." One states that your view is backed by the nature of man etc. and the other states your opinion.

[VladimirDimitrievich]

Bones,
I think we're talking about different target audience here. I'm talking about the professional composers (such as Hans Zimmer) who use Cubase, or Logic or whatever it is that they use.
You are talking about bedroom musicians or "wannabe" pros using software such as Orion, Fruity loops and energy-XT.
And thus the confusion.

I was able to walk into my local Saturn store, walk along the isles, with all the Hiphop and Rock and Trance stuff, find the NOVAkILL CD, and buy it. In at least some peoples eyes, that would make BONES a pro, wouldn't it?

[BombJack]

From my stance as a long time mac observer, I think it's undoubted why PC support for Logic was binned. It ensured that MAc would keep a large percentage of it's customers, regardless of the competition. The fact is, Logic can only run on a mac based OS now. This is fact. It means that unless the logic users have a complete change of heart, and want to go through the pain of learning a new sequencer, they will ALWAYS buy a mac when they want a computer upgrade. It's almost guaranteed.

What's even funnier (to me anyway) is the fact that in the past Apple have been selling sub standard equipment at exorbitant prices (ie G4 Powerbooks) even though comparably far more efficient technology in PCs was selling at a significantly lower price. The only way that these sales can be guranteed is if people are tied into the hardware through the software.

If you want a laptop just to play back MP3s and to surf the web, you wouldn't buy a mac, unless you wanted a shiny cool looking machine and were prepared to pay over the odds for the shinyness. If it was purely the functionality of the machine you were interested in, Mac wouldn't have a look in - you don't get value for money from them (imho).

On the other hand, if you NEED to buy a mac because it's the only format which runs OSX, you would buy one, because you have to.

Incidently, I fancy installling OSX on my new self build PC to give logic a whirl. Is this possible? The fact that the new Mac Pros use an almost identical chip to the new Core2Duos might suggest this. Is it possible?

[egbert]

(I don't recall Logic ever being cross-platform win-mac compatible, WRT plugins, but I could be wrong)

Oh yeah - that was something great about Logic when it straddled the platforms. If you ran a studio with Logic Mac your customers could bring in all their preproduced stuff from logic PC on disk and open it up on your studio Mac machine.

@machinesworking
The forced switch to AU was scorched earth stuff - most plugin vendors took simply ages to port everything (eg PSP) and ask Angus and co from Fxpansion about how stable the whole Core Audio/AU thing has been since then. I have no doubt that is has been or will be sorted eventually but it has been a long time in some sort of half arsed state.

As far as the sale I think Gerhard and the other owners of Emagic got 30 million good reasons to switch and the key personnel then got golden handcuffs to stay on the team at Apple for some period of years. They were not going broke and neither were Steinberg. I think the principals in both firms took the once in a lifetime chance to cash out and got some extra capital behind them.

For most IT startups in the States selling up and walking away is more or less the idea from the outset - make something successful and hope some rich company buys you out and makes you a "billionaire".

I guess if the top guys at the german firms were able to walk away from some of the mundane business concerns and just concentrate on the product under the new regime (being owned) from their point of view it is not a bad deal and the cash - maybe that's something you can snuggle up to at night - depends on your values

The impression I get from people who have met him is that Gerhard is a very bright guy who likes the challenge. He walked away from a Medical career to code sequencers and rose to the top of that game very quickly. I can't imagine that he wants to retire and manage his portfolio or raise tulips.

I don't know whether a public float was an option - then they would have had other people (eg Stock Broking Firms) breathing down their necks and pressures that private companies do not have.

[bernhardtjeff]

Do you thik Hans Zimmer has ever so much as heard of EnergyXT? Of course he f**king hasn't. Those guys are so far removed from the coal-face they wouldn't know what the f**k was available to them. They waltz into a studio expecting to see the same stuff they've been seeing in studios for the past 10 or 15 years. They have no interest in anything new as long as the stuff they have always used continues to deliver for them. Thinking about it, he probably hires some guy as an operator for his computer and doesn't know much abou tit at all.

Anyway, Whilst I'm sure Hans appreciates you speaking on his behalf, you might wanna think about sticking to your own experience and needs instead of postulating on things of which you clearly no nothing.

i'm sure hans zimmer appreciates you speaking on his behalf.