GB is actually more processor intensive than many pro apps. g5s can do like 99 tracks in logic. But in garageband...they all die at about 20.
That seems odd, since GB is supposedly built out of Logic's core app. What this suggests is not neccessarily that Apple needs faster machines to run Garage Band (though faster is always nice) but rather that they need to hustle up a Garage Band 1.01 that addresses an obvious software shortcoming. I run Logic on a Dual 1 GHz G4 and have yet to really max it out. (Average song for me is 15-20 tracks of 24-bit AIFF audio with multiple plug-ins on each, and 4 or 5 effects busses.) It seems like a more limited feature-set in GB would mean LESS processor power, not more.
That seems odd, since GB is supposedly built out of Logic's core app. What this suggests is not neccessarily that Apple needs faster machines to run Garage Band (though faster is always nice) but rather that they need to hustle up a Garage Band 1.01 that addresses an obvious software shortcoming. I run Logic on a Dual 1 GHz G4 and have yet to really max it out. (Average song for me is 15-20 tracks of 24-bit AIFF audio with multiple plug-ins on each, and 4 or 5 effects busses.) It seems like a more limited feature-set in GB would mean LESS processor power, not more.
CV
Strange enough...what I hear from logic users is that they get maxed out quicker in GB or it is the same. Maybe because a lot of the virtual instruments use effects. I don't know, but it is a computer killer. I am hoping for an iphoto like speed boost in 1.1
I haven't read anything on these forums that addresses this...that is, isn't Apple in contract with IBM to buy CPUs regardless of whether they 'like' a particular CPU?
This is what confuses me about there being no G5 rev.B. If under contract, it would seem that the only explanation would be that IBM has not been able to produce the CPUs in sufficient quantities.
If this is in fact how it works, then perhaps the G5 update was intended from the beginning to be a 9 or 12 month update.
Maybe someone who knows how these partnerships work can comment here.
Why is it so horrible? At least it'll make your purchase last twice as long before it is out-dated by a newer release.
I disagree. MacOS X has set us back in terms of speed about 3 - 4 years. Only after the Hardware has evolved that far is it as fast and efficient to use as was 9.
Bi-yearly (or yearly) updates are fine if the product is justified. Going from Dual 2Ghz to Dual 3.GHz but waiting a year is acceptable as its a massive leap in power.
True, but if there are no intermediate updates then there need to be price cuts instead. Paying 9 month old prices for 9 month old configurations rarely looks attractive.
I disagree. MacOS X has set us back in terms of speed about 3 - 4 years. Only after the Hardware has evolved that far is it as fast and efficient to use as was 9.
The stability in X outweighs the performance difference between 9 and X, which is not much if any difference at all.
I think you have to wonder whether Apple's policy of extreme secrecy regarding their update schedules is doing them more favours than not. I think, from the consumers' standpoint, we get very nervous about buying something that has been out for more than 4 or 5 months because we've been trained to think that an update is imminent and we don't want to be "stung" by Apple if they release a significantly better product at the same price or cheaper shortly thereafter. If, on the other hand, we had some idea about when products were likely to be updated, then I think people would be more willing to accept that updates are innevitable in the computer world and might decide on that or another product (ie more willing to make a purchase). We as consumers like to be informed and we're more willing to make a purchasing decision when we feel were informed than when we're not in my opinion.
I disagree. MacOS X has set us back in terms of speed about 3 - 4 years. Only after the Hardware has evolved that far is it as fast and efficient to use as was 9.
I have to disagree with you. I have updated several G3's with various versions of OS X for myself and others I know and to a person, we agree that installing OS X was the best move in all of these cases.
Specifically all of us felt that are older machines ran faster using OS X.
Also, to a person, we felt that we didn't need to upgrade the machine because we felt that installing OS X had given new life to our older hardware. These other people are regular consumers, not pros.
True, but if there are no intermediate updates then there need to be price cuts instead. Paying 9 month old prices for 9 month old configurations rarely looks attractive.
I agree 100% I would be happy to buy a system right now but it's crazy to pay full price for a system that is 9 months old. I know every one hates the auto analogies but as it draws close to put out a new years model they slash prices to clear out old stock.
I disagree. MacOS X has set us back in terms of speed about 3 - 4 years. Only after the Hardware has evolved that far is it as fast and efficient to use as was 9.
The reality of software is that increased sophistication comes at a price. That price is typically measured in memory and processor costs for the end user. Personally, I would much rather pay the piper for a stable, scalable sytem, than the fast mess that was OS 9. Really, for me, having to restart my computer often costs me 15 min or more.
OS X can still be considered incomplete, it doesnt have accelerated 2d graphics for example ( QE is not ). That in and of itself weighs heavily on the performance of the machine. But current graphics hardware is only on the verge of being able to handle that. Next year maybe.
I would agree with what you are saying about informed consumerism.
Maybe Apple could keep new and novel products secret, but be more open about timeframes for updates of existing products. That would be a reasonable compromise IMHO.
There are obviously alot of people here responding whom have never had to wait on a computer to complete a project. This is frustrating for batched jobs but there are even case where interactive program performance is limited by the CPU.
It is silly to comment on a users desire for a faster machine if you don't know what he is doing with it. We live in a world where programs run in microseconds or days depending on the complexity of the problem.
I do have ot wonder why people think that faster processors are not worthwhile. If it wasn't for the continual increase in processor performance OS/X would not exist in its current form. Further why do alternative performance architectures, such as SMP, SMT and NUMA exist -- it is to serve the needs not meet by single processors.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by cowerd
Bullsh*t. Since when does having something new and shiny on your desktop make you work faster. Might work for kids, but adults should know better.
I saw this article in Infoworld outlining Apple's plans for the year. Fred Anderson said they are moving towards a 2x per year upgrade cycle (old news) But occasionaly will have 3-4 quarter update cycles.
this news is about 2 months old, just so you know.
It looks to me like most people didn't read my whole post. I'm not saying we can't use more computing power -- I firmly believe that some software demands will always be able to exceed the available computing power (games, if nothing else). What I was saying was that the rapid product refreshes that ya'll are clamouring for are actually inhibiting progress. There is a lot of effort required to actually ship a product out the door. The more often you ship a product, the greater the percentage of your total available manpower that is squandered on shipping the latest iteration. By doing this lesss often more time can be invested in the revisions, and the individual steps will be considerably larger. The net result should be half as many variations, but each variation that does arrive on the slower schedule should be quite a bit more advanced that the machine that shipped at the same time on the faster schedule. So leave 'em alone and let 'em get the next great thing ready to ship.
The PC market hasn't advanced too significantly since the G5 shipped. If Apple gets a 2.5GHz machine out the door soon then their rate of advance will be greater even though they've had fewer revisions. If they get a 3 GHz machine out by September (as SJ promised) then they'll be well in advance of the PC world's rate of progress.
As for GarageBand, I suspect there is a lot more mileage available in optimizing the software. Rev 1 of any given piece of software usually emphasizes features over performance.
The question these days is what can be added to the systems other than processor performance. Many things need inprovemant. Faster busses are here and faster memory is needed and more efficient ways to use it (programmers and system designer problem). Hard drives also need to be upgraded in speed/storage density. More GPU processing, SMT, memory latency, ...
What I was saying was that the rapid product refreshes that ya'll are clamouring for are actually inhibiting progress. There is a lot of effort required to actually ship a product out the door. The more often you ship a product, the greater the percentage of your total available manpower that is squandered on shipping the latest iteration.
True, but with Apple it is different: give them too much time and they'll pull a Copland on you - going to great lenght to ensure the mounting screws of the mainboard are just the right shade of silver to match the keyboard rubber feet...
They need constant market pressure to even release products, not just developing and then overengineering them.
One likely example: the Al-15" looks as if it was developed for a 15.4"-screen, not a 15.2". Since PowerBooks are selling great, someone decided to milk the product and reengineered the lid to hold a (presumably cheaper) 15.2" panel. Unfortunatly he did a bang job leading to the white spot problem. If Apple absolutely had had to deliver the 15" in summer, they might have went with the 25.4" panel - avoiding the spots.
Comments
Originally posted by jade
GB is actually more processor intensive than many pro apps. g5s can do like 99 tracks in logic. But in garageband...they all die at about 20.
That seems odd, since GB is supposedly built out of Logic's core app. What this suggests is not neccessarily that Apple needs faster machines to run Garage Band (though faster is always nice) but rather that they need to hustle up a Garage Band 1.01 that addresses an obvious software shortcoming. I run Logic on a Dual 1 GHz G4 and have yet to really max it out. (Average song for me is 15-20 tracks of 24-bit AIFF audio with multiple plug-ins on each, and 4 or 5 effects busses.) It seems like a more limited feature-set in GB would mean LESS processor power, not more.
CV
3 to 4 quarter cycles would be tragic however.
Of course in the Moto days, it was hard to update when you only got a 100 MHZ bup every 6-9 months.
Originally posted by chris v
That seems odd, since GB is supposedly built out of Logic's core app. What this suggests is not neccessarily that Apple needs faster machines to run Garage Band (though faster is always nice) but rather that they need to hustle up a Garage Band 1.01 that addresses an obvious software shortcoming. I run Logic on a Dual 1 GHz G4 and have yet to really max it out. (Average song for me is 15-20 tracks of 24-bit AIFF audio with multiple plug-ins on each, and 4 or 5 effects busses.) It seems like a more limited feature-set in GB would mean LESS processor power, not more.
CV
Strange enough...what I hear from logic users is that they get maxed out quicker in GB or it is the same. Maybe because a lot of the virtual instruments use effects. I don't know, but it is a computer killer. I am hoping for an iphoto like speed boost in 1.1
This is what confuses me about there being no G5 rev.B. If under contract, it would seem that the only explanation would be that IBM has not been able to produce the CPUs in sufficient quantities.
If this is in fact how it works, then perhaps the G5 update was intended from the beginning to be a 9 or 12 month update.
Maybe someone who knows how these partnerships work can comment here.
Originally posted by Programmer
Why is it so horrible? At least it'll make your purchase last twice as long before it is out-dated by a newer release.
I disagree. MacOS X has set us back in terms of speed about 3 - 4 years. Only after the Hardware has evolved that far is it as fast and efficient to use as was 9.
Originally posted by dobby
Bi-yearly (or yearly) updates are fine if the product is justified. Going from Dual 2Ghz to Dual 3.GHz but waiting a year is acceptable as its a massive leap in power.
True, but if there are no intermediate updates then there need to be price cuts instead. Paying 9 month old prices for 9 month old configurations rarely looks attractive.
Originally posted by Smircle
I disagree. MacOS X has set us back in terms of speed about 3 - 4 years. Only after the Hardware has evolved that far is it as fast and efficient to use as was 9.
The stability in X outweighs the performance difference between 9 and X, which is not much if any difference at all.
Originally posted by Smircle
I disagree. MacOS X has set us back in terms of speed about 3 - 4 years. Only after the Hardware has evolved that far is it as fast and efficient to use as was 9.
I have to disagree with you. I have updated several G3's with various versions of OS X for myself and others I know and to a person, we agree that installing OS X was the best move in all of these cases.
Specifically all of us felt that are older machines ran faster using OS X.
Also, to a person, we felt that we didn't need to upgrade the machine because we felt that installing OS X had given new life to our older hardware. These other people are regular consumers, not pros.
Originally posted by 3.1416
True, but if there are no intermediate updates then there need to be price cuts instead. Paying 9 month old prices for 9 month old configurations rarely looks attractive.
I agree 100% I would be happy to buy a system right now but it's crazy to pay full price for a system that is 9 months old. I know every one hates the auto analogies but as it draws close to put out a new years model they slash prices to clear out old stock.
Originally posted by Smircle
I disagree. MacOS X has set us back in terms of speed about 3 - 4 years. Only after the Hardware has evolved that far is it as fast and efficient to use as was 9.
The reality of software is that increased sophistication comes at a price. That price is typically measured in memory and processor costs for the end user. Personally, I would much rather pay the piper for a stable, scalable sytem, than the fast mess that was OS 9. Really, for me, having to restart my computer often costs me 15 min or more.
OS X can still be considered incomplete, it doesnt have accelerated 2d graphics for example ( QE is not ). That in and of itself weighs heavily on the performance of the machine. But current graphics hardware is only on the verge of being able to handle that. Next year maybe.
I would agree with what you are saying about informed consumerism.
Maybe Apple could keep new and novel products secret, but be more open about timeframes for updates of existing products. That would be a reasonable compromise IMHO.
It is silly to comment on a users desire for a faster machine if you don't know what he is doing with it. We live in a world where programs run in microseconds or days depending on the complexity of the problem.
I do have ot wonder why people think that faster processors are not worthwhile. If it wasn't for the continual increase in processor performance OS/X would not exist in its current form. Further why do alternative performance architectures, such as SMP, SMT and NUMA exist -- it is to serve the needs not meet by single processors.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by cowerd
Bullsh*t. Since when does having something new and shiny on your desktop make you work faster. Might work for kids, but adults should know better.
Originally posted by wizard69
I do have to wonder why people think that faster processors are not worthwhile.
I agree entirely but its not just the CPU that needs to increase in speed.
Replace your current HD with a proper ramdisk and you will be amazed at the speed of your machine. Same goes for 10Gb to the desktop.
If I could have the kit I just mentioned then I wouldn't need an OPI server as we could have multiple High Res pics used on the fly.
Its the overall throughput of the system that really counts.
Some people don't need the performance as they only e-mail etc.
Dobby.
Originally posted by jade
I saw this article in Infoworld outlining Apple's plans for the year. Fred Anderson said they are moving towards a 2x per year upgrade cycle (old news) But occasionaly will have 3-4 quarter update cycles.
this news is about 2 months old, just so you know.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
this news is about 2 months old, just so you know.
I realize: thought it was fitting since we are in April with no updated products.
The PC market hasn't advanced too significantly since the G5 shipped. If Apple gets a 2.5GHz machine out the door soon then their rate of advance will be greater even though they've had fewer revisions. If they get a 3 GHz machine out by September (as SJ promised) then they'll be well in advance of the PC world's rate of progress.
As for GarageBand, I suspect there is a lot more mileage available in optimizing the software. Rev 1 of any given piece of software usually emphasizes features over performance.
Other areas...? Plenty I'm sure.
Originally posted by Programmer
What I was saying was that the rapid product refreshes that ya'll are clamouring for are actually inhibiting progress. There is a lot of effort required to actually ship a product out the door. The more often you ship a product, the greater the percentage of your total available manpower that is squandered on shipping the latest iteration.
True, but with Apple it is different: give them too much time and they'll pull a Copland on you - going to great lenght to ensure the mounting screws of the mainboard are just the right shade of silver to match the keyboard rubber feet...
They need constant market pressure to even release products, not just developing and then overengineering them.
One likely example: the Al-15" looks as if it was developed for a 15.4"-screen, not a 15.2". Since PowerBooks are selling great, someone decided to milk the product and reengineered the lid to hold a (presumably cheaper) 15.2" panel. Unfortunatly he did a bang job leading to the white spot problem. If Apple absolutely had had to deliver the 15" in summer, they might have went with the 25.4" panel - avoiding the spots.