KVR Audio

christianmusicmaker · Post by **christianmusicmaker** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:49 pm

kenn michael wrote:
Milos wrote:Quote from www.osx86project.org
"WELL I succeeded running Logic Pro 7.0 on X86 intel PC .I used USB dongle which I run well on my Power MAC G5 , And I have Apple 's A 2/6 audio interface and it works well on x86
.
but Logic Pro 7.0 does not run well on X86 intel PC ,it still use Rosseta to run so it really slow."

Maybe we can expect Logic sequencer soon on pc again(running on osx86 operating platform)

Nope, but Logic Pro 7.2 running OSX for Intel on an Intel PC will work perfectly....

Let me get this right...you are saying that if I went down to my local Apple store bought the latest version of OSX and Logic 7.2 that I would be able to run them perfectly well on my intel PC?

Even dual core's?

If this is true it would be pretty amazing.

superddman · Post by **superddman** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:17 pm

christianmusicmaker wrote:
kenn michael wrote:
Milos wrote:Quote from www.osx86project.org
"WELL I succeeded running Logic Pro 7.0 on X86 intel PC .I used USB dongle which I run well on my Power MAC G5 , And I have Apple 's A 2/6 audio interface and it works well on x86
.
but Logic Pro 7.0 does not run well on X86 intel PC ,it still use Rosseta to run so it really slow."

Maybe we can expect Logic sequencer soon on pc again(running on osx86 operating platform)

Nope, but Logic Pro 7.2 running OSX for Intel on an Intel PC will work perfectly....
Let me get this right...you are saying that if I went down to my local Apple store bought the latest version of OSX and Logic 7.2 that I would be able to run them perfectly well on my intel PC? Even dual core's?

If this is true it would be pretty amazing.

what about drivers? there are no drivers for PC hardware for OSX

christianmusicmaker · Post by **christianmusicmaker** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:24 pm

superddman wrote: what about drivers? there are no drivers for PC hardware for OSX

Yes how would this work?

Would an existing PC LCD screen work with OSX? Graphics cards e.t.c?

If it all could work a Logic 5.5 user could save about £3,000 on a top end MAC and just pick up OSX and upgrade to Logic Express for instance for £69!

I think OSX only costs around £100-ish. So for about £200 you could have Logic running on a PC. I would like to know exactly how though.

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:29 pm

no..... you'd have to run the hacked OSX on Intel on your PC box.

http://www.osx86project.org/

people have gotten the Intel version of OSX to run on their PC boxes, and once you do that, you can run natively all the OSX apps that are coded 'Universal' which Logic 7.2 is... not 7.0. RME Fireface 800 should work. MOTU FW boxes... I think any FW box that has drivers updated for OSX Intel should work.. but I haven't tried it so I don't know first hand.

it still is a hack mind you, so everytime there is an OS update, in order to update you'll probably have to find patched versions of it.

christianmusicmaker · Post by **christianmusicmaker** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:40 pm

kenn michael wrote:no..... you'd have to run the hacked OSX on Intel on your PC box.

http://www.osx86project.org/

OK...that explains it. Possible but with a hack. I think Apple said sometime ago that they would not release OSX on the PC platform but would also not stop people trying to achieve the same thing. It looks like the possible encouragement was taken very seriously.

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:49 pm

christianmusicmaker wrote:
kenn michael wrote:no..... you'd have to run the hacked OSX on Intel on your PC box.

http://www.osx86project.org/

OK...that explains it. Possible but with a hack. I think Apple said sometime ago that they would not release OSX on the PC platform but would also not stop people trying to achieve the same thing. It looks like the possible encouragement was taken very seriously.

Actually, it's kinda the reverse... Apple doesn't want people running OSX on PC boxes (and they've implemented some protection to prevent people from doing so - hence the cracking)... They however said that they won't do anything to prevent running Windows on one of their boxes.

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:51 pm

christianmusicmaker wrote: I think Apple said sometime ago that they would not release OSX on the PC platform but would also not stop people trying to achieve the same thing.

No, they said they would not encourage people to run XP on Apple boxes, but they wouldn't stop them either.
I guess, as a hardware based company, it's totally against their interests anybody would do it vice versa (run OSX on PC hardware).

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:52 pm

Ah well, Kenn's been beating me...

kevink · Post by **kevink** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:01 pm

machinesworking wrote:
kevink wrote: Over on the NI forums, there was a benchmarking thread when Reaktor 4 came out where people were comparing relative load on different PC and Mac configurations, and it was just embarassing how hard a very expensive, high-end G5 Macs were only equivalent to pretty ordinary AMD-based PCs of the period.
That would be true in any sequencer that wasn't logic, but I doubt that the G5's performed badly compared to AMD's when Reactor was loaded into Logic. Also Reactor has really only become stable on mac as of later versions of 4, and 5. I get serious use out of Reactor on a dual gig g4, old ass tech, but Logic makes decent use of both CPU's.

The measurements were made with Reaktor running standalone. There's nothing that Logic, or any other host, can do that will meaningfully reduce the sustained CPU load of a plug - though different hosts can, of course, compute CPU load differently and report different numbers. In the case of the Reaktor benchmark, we took the numbers reported by Reaktor itself, so as to be consistent.

Logic is great software. Macs are great computers. But Reaktor runs significantly slower on a G5 than on a fast Pentium M or Athlon. That's a reproducable and well-documented fact.

stag · Post by **stag** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:02 pm

0SX86 project is cool but it can't be taken as a professional solution.
i find 0sx a little awkward but why not to buy a intel mini-mac a half a year from now and run logic in there, AFAIK i only need to know where to start logic or whatever, oh and closing it.
who whishes to run XP on MacIntels take a look at onmac.net.

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:13 pm

good idea stag. intel mac mini is a good idea for PC guys who want to run Logic. the cool thing is that the mini's proc is socketed, so you can buy the $599 1.5 core solo model, then get your hands on a 2.16 core duo (or whatever is the fastest chip then) and swap your proc. it works just like PCs (finally!)

christianmusicmaker · Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:30 pm

Sascha Franck wrote:
christianmusicmaker wrote: I think Apple said sometime ago that they would not release OSX on the PC platform but would also not stop people trying to achieve the same thing.
No, they said they would not encourage people to run XP on Apple boxes, but they wouldn't stop them either.
I guess, as a hardware based company, it's totally against their interests anybody would do it vice versa (run OSX on PC hardware).

Cheers, I stand corrected.

stag · Post by **stag** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:33 pm

I know my next PC is going to be a Mac mini.
a yonah 2.16ghz is suposed to run faster than x2 4800+, TBH dothan 2ghz is about enough to run most of my projects without worying with CPU headroom.

How silent(or not)is a Mac mini???

keyman_sam · Post by **keyman_sam** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:38 pm

Slightly OT, but whats the fastest CPU out there?

machinesworking · Post by **machinesworking** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:07 pm

kevink wrote:
machinesworking wrote:
kevink wrote: Over on the NI forums, there was a benchmarking thread when Reaktor 4 came out where people were comparing relative load on different PC and Mac configurations, and it was just embarassing how hard a very expensive, high-end G5 Macs were only equivalent to pretty ordinary AMD-based PCs of the period.
That would be true in any sequencer that wasn't logic, but I doubt that the G5's performed badly compared to AMD's when Reactor was loaded into Logic. Also Reactor has really only become stable on mac as of later versions of 4, and 5. I get serious use out of Reactor on a dual gig g4, old ass tech, but Logic makes decent use of both CPU's.
The measurements were made with Reaktor running standalone. There's nothing that Logic, or any other host, can do that will meaningfully reduce the sustained CPU load of a plug - though different hosts can, of course, compute CPU load differently and report different numbers. In the case of the Reaktor benchmark, we took the numbers reported by Reaktor itself, so as to be consistent.

Logic is great software. Macs are great computers. But Reaktor runs significantly slower on a G5 than on a fast Pentium M or Athlon. That's a reproducable and well-documented fact.

Kevink, if you could point me to that thread, that would be great!

Not at all doubting that Reactor alone works better on an AMD or Intel chip, Dual G5's are great machines, but even Logic, with it's excellent dual support doesn't split a process between both CPUs, it simply assigns different tasks to different CPUs. Consequentially a single Reactor Instance in stand alone would really only be using one CPU, so a faster chip is a faster chip etc.

Love Logic but love PC