Good point. But I would bet that there are a number of potential Mac users lost because of Apple's low hardware specs. It's not just NASCAR fans who are worried about their tiny dicks.
A number that is likely very low given that you can't do anything with a MacBook Pro but run OSX at the moment.
Its not like Linus is going to be buying one.
So why would you buy it if you didn't want to run OSX? And its top dog in the Apple notebook lineup at the moment. So you would compare it to a Windows laptop why?
The thing most likely to keep switchers away at the moment is no Virtual PC, poor exchange integration via Entourage and a lack of games.
.17 Ghz doesn't represent any future proofing or bragging rights. A MacBook Pro will be more unique and should appeal even more to folks with size deficiencies.
Anyone that wants more CPU power to "compensate" is likely looking at the 2.4Ghz Athlon 64 X2 4800 anyway.
Good point. But I would bet that there are a number of potential Mac users lost because of Apple's low hardware specs. It's not just NASCAR fans who are worried about their tiny dicks.
Sure, and there are a number of potential users lost because the cases aren't black with flames down the side.
Historically, I won't try and claim that Apple hasn't had relatively lower specs at times (Motorola, we're looking at you here...), and you're right, they have lost customers over that. Legitimately.
I don't think that's what we're talking about here, in any sense. Here, we have a Mac laptop that has a CPU 6.5% below the absolute maximum on the PC side, and enough of a difference in other hardware (not to mention the OS, threading model, apps, etc) that it may or may not make any difference whatsoever.
That's power parity in my book, or at least close enough that it's a wash until a user tests the specific apps they need to have maximum power for, and compares the results.
Seriously, if someone thinks that that tiny amount of theoretical speed somehow makes or breaks their purchasing decision, they need to reassess some things in their decision process. My bet is it's just compensation... and there's nothing you can do for that crowd. They will make a decision on knee-jerk 'data' and then justify it through whatever illogic necessary. Not worth bothering with from a serious business point of view.
Say you get the clock rate up to match - now they'll find something else to whine about. Not worth it. Every system has strengths, and weaknesses. From everything I've seen, *at this moment*, the MacBook Pro is more than just competitive. Of course, Apple's 6 to 8 month refresh cycle will make sure that you'll be able to get a Windows laptop in 4 months that will beat it, because all the other companies are on their own cycles. Meh. Ebb and flow of the market.
Much better to concentrate on the serious and rational professional's needs, and leave the compensators to contemplate their, uh, navels.
Sure, and there are a number of potential users lost because the cases aren't black with flames down the side.
That's true, but their number is pretty low compared to the number of people not wanting to spend $2000 for a laptop with a 1.67 Ghz G4 processor. Now, this processor may or may not be slow, but in some people's minds, it is. Especially compared to beasts that the likes of Dell equip their notebooks with: here you go, your Inspiron with 3.6Ghz P4. You can boil eggs too, and it's free?!
A lot of people think that High Ghz = Speed, therefore a considerable number of them would not buy the PowerBook, as opposed to a very low number of people who want to buy a black case with flames down the size (not necessarily singling out your example of a different PowerBook, but just as comparison to something like perceived speed).
Sure, and there are a number of potential users lost because the cases aren't black with flames down the side.
Historically, I won't try and claim that Apple hasn't had relatively lower specs at times (Motorola, we're looking at you here...), and you're right, they have lost customers over that. Legitimately.
I don't think that's what we're talking about here, in any sense. Here, we have a Mac laptop that has a CPU 6.5% below the absolute maximum on the PC side, and enough of a difference in other hardware (not to mention the OS, threading model, apps, etc) that it may or may not make any difference whatsoever.
That's power parity in my book, or at least close enough that it's a wash until a user tests the specific apps they need to have maximum power for, and compares the results.
Seriously, if someone thinks that that tiny amount of theoretical speed somehow makes or breaks their purchasing decision, they need to reassess some things in their decision process. My bet is it's just compensation... and there's nothing you can do for that crowd. They will make a decision on knee-jerk 'data' and then justify it through whatever illogic necessary. Not worth bothering with from a serious business point of view.
Say you get the clock rate up to match - now they'll find something else to whine about. Not worth it. Every system has strengths, and weaknesses. From everything I've seen, *at this moment*, the MacBook Pro is more than just competitive. Of course, Apple's 6 to 8 month refresh cycle will make sure that you'll be able to get a Windows laptop in 4 months that will beat it, because all the other companies are on their own cycles. Meh. Ebb and flow of the market.
Much better to concentrate on the serious and rational professional's needs, and leave the compensators to contemplate their, uh, navels.
isn't the 1.83 part 8.5% below the 2.00 part? maybe my math is a little rusty, though.
for a performing musician (or even a studio-bound one) who uses software, every little bit of horsepower counts. in fact, for any Pro who uses all of their processing power at any given time, that extra bit really counts. monitoring latency in the audio world is just one area where the more GHz you have the better. knowing that there is more power out there in your chip manufacturer's notebook line, but not being able to use it is a bit frustrating, that's all. in my case, it has nothing to do with my penis, which incidentally doesn't need any compensation.
people using the 'book for general home-tasks should not be overly concerned about this seemingly small discrepancy IMO, but for some Pro's i think it is a legitimate concern. and, as an aside, at the moment there is no proof that apple will offer the highest-clocked part in any of its 15" 'books, even though i feel they will.
just a little nervous about the transition, and itching to replace my aged 800MHz G4,
isn't the 1.83 part 8.5% below the 2.00 part? maybe my math is a little rusty, though.
You are correct sir! I misremembered it as 1.87GHz. 8.5% it is.
Quote:
for a performing musician (or even a studio-bound one) who uses software, every little bit of horsepower counts. in fact, for any Pro who uses all of their processing power at any given time, that extra bit really counts. monitoring latency in the audio world is just one area where the more GHz you have the better. knowing that there is more power out there in your chip manufacturer's notebook line, but not being able to use it is a bit frustrating, that's all. in my case, it has nothing to do with my penis, which incidentally doesn't need any compensation.
people using the 'book for general home-tasks should not be overly concerned about this seemingly small discrepancy IMO, but for some Pro's i think it is a legitimate concern. and, as an aside, at the moment there is no proof that apple will offer the highest-clocked part in any of its 15" 'books, even though i feel they will.
just a little nervous about the transition, and itching to replace my aged 800MHz G4,
hive [/B]
Like I said, there are some areas where it is a legitimate concern, and for folks like you, testing is the only way to know for sure what the right decision is. You're not likely to be swayed, however, strictly by that 0.17GHz bump, are you? You're going to take into consideration the OS, the apps you are using the memory bus, the hard drive speed... all sorts of things that matter in the long run. The folks we're talking about are those that see that 2.0 > 1.83, and that makes up their mind right there. They don't know the technologies, they just see A > B and assume that A is globally better. There's little you can do to cater to those folks, other than get into an ever-losing battle. Instead, I think that the winning solution is to just ignore the numbers as much as possible in the marketing, and discuss solutions. People for whom the numbers legitimately matter will seek them out as *part* of their decision making process, while those who are easily swayed by marketing and such (the A > B crowd) will be drawn in by the new bright and shiny approach. *shrug*
but you wouldn't switch operating systems over a very small difference in CPU speed. You might switch if there was a very large difference in CPU speed. You might switch if there was a very large difference in the OS. Apple's decision was the safe one.
I can't say that I fully understand the case of the performing musician, so I may be off-base here. It used to be that we classified interactions with the computer to three kinds:
Batch - ask the computer to run something and it takes several minutes or hours
Slow interactive - the user is in front of the computer and every interaction takes 2-30 seconds to complete.
Interactive - response times below 2 seconds - like GUIs
Now for the sake of argument, let's assume that the 5.8% performance difference is in total system performance, rather than just CPU speed.
Take the batch case. For example, processing a large number of digital images with similar filters in Photoshop. Think curves/levels, USM and automatic color correction for an entire shoot. So this takes 16:15 minutes instead of 15:00. Does it matter? Yes. Is this critical. I would say not.
Now consider the interactive case. That's your "responsive" GUI. We'd like things to be faster and the application to be snappy. However, human interface tests and even your own experience will tell you that if you want the user to have the perception that one system is really more snappy than the other, a 5.8% increase in speed won't do it. It's not noticeable. When you're at sub-second response times, you'll need to nearly double the speed to get this. So a 1.4 Ghz G4 Mac Mini is definitely more snappy than a 500 MHz TiBook. You might even be able to tell the Mac Mini from a 900 MHz machine even though the difference is only 50%, but a 1.87 GHz vs a 2 GHz? No way.
We're left with the slow interactive. Think surfing the net, or working Photoshop on a very slow machine or using very sophisticated filters. Here you might feel the difference. I think that with a modern machines these cases are related to network, disk or maybe memory. Rarely CPU. I still don't think that's a killer, but it might be for some.
What kind are the apps used by performing artists?
The best way to describe what it's like being a musician, dealing with latency, to folks who aren't: is to imagine driving a car, where every control has a delay on it - and you have a "choice" (though a "Devil's Bargain" is a more accurate way to describe it): ruff control with a second delay, or fine control with a 5 second delay ... so, eg #1 one second delay, but you can only steer in 15 degree increments - or e.g. #2, 5 degree increments, but you have to wait 5 seconds for the wheel commands to kick in.
In either case, it's extremely frustrating, since you can't drive safely at anywhere near the speed you're used to.
But there's a catch ...
... in music, it's much worse.
People's ears are, by nature, extremely sensitive to timing, and even more sensitive to note order ... having a sound come as little as 15ms ahead or behind another can sometimes completely change the character of the sound (Haas effect stuff - though there the academic number is 35ms, but with experiment, I've sometimes found it to be much less).
Musicians aren't aware of the theory , but after years of getting used to their instrument, they learn by feel how to play with these extremely precise timing arrangements: and if the sound they want requires they play with an accumulated 10ms or 15ms delay; they're stuck with a nasty choice: either go with a sound that isn't as good, but closer in timing, or a better sound, who's timing is pretty messed up.
In either case, the music suffers.
Quote:
Originally posted by synp
I can't say that I fully understand the case of the performing musician, so I may be off-base here. It used to be that we classified interactions with the computer to three kinds:Batch - ask the computer to run something and it takes several minutes or hours Slow interactive - the user is in front of the computer and every interaction takes 2-30 seconds to complete. Interactive - response times below 2 seconds - like GUIs
Now for the sake of argument, let's assume that the 5.8% performance difference is in total system performance, rather than just CPU speed.
Take the batch case. For example, processing a large number of digital images with similar filters in Photoshop. Think curves/levels, USM and automatic color correction for an entire shoot. So this takes 16:15 minutes instead of 15:00. Does it matter? Yes. Is this critical. I would say not.
Now consider the interactive case. That's your "responsive" GUI. We'd like things to be faster and the application to be snappy. However, human interface tests and even your own experience will tell you that if you want the user to have the perception that one system is really more snappy than the other, a 5.8% increase in speed won't do it. It's not noticeable. When you're at sub-second response times, you'll need to nearly double the speed to get this. So a 1.4 Ghz G4 Mac Mini is definitely more snappy than a 500 MHz TiBook. You might even be able to tell the Mac Mini from a 900 MHz machine even though the difference is only 50%, but a 1.87 GHz vs a 2 GHz? No way.
We're left with the slow interactive. Think surfing the net, or working Photoshop on a very slow machine or using very sophisticated filters. Here you might feel the difference. I think that with a modern machines these cases are related to network, disk or maybe memory. Rarely CPU. I still don't think that's a killer, but it might be for some.
What kind are the apps used by performing artists?
That's true, but their number is pretty low compared to the number of people not wanting to spend $2000 for a laptop with a 1.67 Ghz G4 processor. Now, this processor may or may not be slow, but in some people's minds, it is. Especially compared to beasts that the likes of Dell equip their notebooks with: here you go, your Inspiron with 3.6Ghz P4. You can boil eggs too, and it's free?!....
I thought that the Yonah books - indeed, even the Pentium M books - were better perfomers than those huge P4 gaming laptops?
They're certainly cheaper, lighter and have much better battery life. You're right to say that few will want to spend $2000 on a G4 notebook, but I'd say that equally few will want to spend $3500 or more on a Sager or Alienware.
OK, now I understand better. My only experience is with a piano, and that didn't have any electronics.
This is definitely within the "interactive" category. My question remains: For the same sound, can the musician tell the difference between a 15 ms delay and a 16.2 ms delay? 15 ms sounds like a long long time for a computer that does 1,800,000,000 cycles a second. Would you feel a difference if the delay is 1.62 instead of 1.5 ms?
I just have a hard time imagining that I could feel a 5.8% difference is timings that are measured in miliseconds. But again, I've never played music on a computer (other than running iTunes) so I really don't know what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally posted by OverToasty
The best way to describe what it's like being a musician, dealing with latency, to folks who aren't: is to imagine driving a car, where every control has a delay on it - and you have a "choice" (though a "Devil's Bargain" is a more accurate way to describe it): ruff control with a second delay, or fine control with a 5 second delay ... so, eg #1 one second delay, but you can only steer in 15 degree increments - or e.g. #2, 5 degree increments, but you have to wait 5 seconds for the wheel commands to kick in.
In either case, it's extremely frustrating, since you can't drive safely at anywhere near the speed you're used to.
But there's a catch ...
... in music, it's much worse.
People's ears are, by nature, extremely sensitive to timing, and even more sensitive to note order ... having a sound come as little as 15ms ahead or behind another can sometimes completely change the character of the sound (Haas effect stuff - though there the academic number is 35ms, but with experiment, I've sometimes found it to be much less).
Musicians aren't aware of the theory , but after years of getting used to their instrument, they learn by feel how to play with these extremely precise timing arrangements: and if the sound they want requires they play with an accumulated 10ms or 15ms delay; they're stuck with a nasty choice: either go with a sound that isn't as good, but closer in timing, or a better sound, who's timing is pretty messed up.
The best way to describe what it's like being a musician, dealing with latency, to folks who aren't: is to imagine driving a car, where every control has a delay on it - and you have a "choice" (though a "Devil's Bargain" is a more accurate way to describe it): ruff control with a second delay, or fine control with a 5 second delay ... so, eg #1 one second delay, but you can only steer in 15 degree increments - or e.g. #2, 5 degree increments, but you have to wait 5 seconds for the wheel commands to kick in.
In either case, it's extremely frustrating, since you can't drive safely at anywhere near the speed you're used to.
But there's a catch ...
... in music, it's much worse.
People's ears are, by nature, extremely sensitive to timing, and even more sensitive to note order ... having a sound come as little as 15ms ahead or behind another can sometimes completely change the character of the sound (Haas effect stuff - though there the academic number is 35ms, but with experiment, I've sometimes found it to be much less).
Musicians aren't aware of the theory , but after years of getting used to their instrument, they learn by feel how to play with these extremely precise timing arrangements: and if the sound they want requires they play with an accumulated 10ms or 15ms delay; they're stuck with a nasty choice: either go with a sound that isn't as good, but closer in timing, or a better sound, who's timing is pretty messed up.
In either case, the music suffers.
I know that latency was a big issue to Apple, how are they doing at trying to lower it. How does the latest version of Logic Pro stack up on the Mac Book Pro?? I would think that it is much better than the old Powerbook.
I thought that the Yonah books - indeed, even the Pentium M books - were better perfomers than those huge P4 gaming laptops?
They're certainly cheaper, lighter and have much better battery life. You're right to say that few will want to spend $2000 on a G4 notebook, but I'd say that equally few will want to spend $3500 or more on a Sager or Alienware.
For some things the Pentium M (and now Core Duo) does better than the Pentium 4. Unfortunately for high bandwidth streaming applications (especially floating point) the Pentium 4 is faster... and generally so is the G5. In some cases so is the G4! This is why the new Intel Macs don't outperform the previous ones across the board.
Apple has done a lot of work in the kernel and CoreAudio systems to make MacOS X have as low latency audio as possible, but this is one of those things where you can just throw more and more at it until it can't keep up. So yes, the extra 0.17 GHz would make some amount of difference. My point above wasn't that audio performers don't need the extra performance, it was that Apple's chosen design points don't specifically target them as a market. If Apple were to build an audio performer specific laptop (or desktop) then the trade-offs would be different. That isn't a large enough market segment for Apple to be worth targeting it specifically.
Musicians aren't aware of the theory , but after years of getting used to their instrument, they learn by feel how to play with these extremely precise timing arrangements: and if the sound they want requires they play with an accumulated 10ms or 15ms delay; they're stuck with a nasty choice: either go with a sound that isn't as good, but closer in timing, or a better sound, who's timing is pretty messed up.
In either case, the music suffers.
Given that OSX is non-real time system there is no way to insure a 10-15ms response time. Stock Linux (2.4.9) for example had an estimated 14-50ms worst case response time (depending on who you ask). RT Linuxes (like MonaVista) do much better and can achieve sub-ms worst case times if I recall correctly.
I haven't seen numbers for OSX and consistent 10-15ms response time seems unrealistic.
A "pro" user (who's looking to say upgrade from a 800mhz single core G4) complaining about a 1.86Ghz Core Duo being too slow is simply bizzare. You're finally getting closer to desktop parity but 5.8% is so much a difference it makes you nervous about the intel transistion?
How on earth are you guys using G4 powerbooks at all? If you're suffering from horrific latency then you should all have gone over to quad core G5s and just written off laptops until the intel move.
That you can be a "pro" user on a 800Mhz G4 indicates to me its more of a desire than an absolute requirement for that last .17Ghz.
You guys aren't the only market that the MacBook Pro needs to meet until the other MacBooks appear.
Given that OSX is non-real time system there is no way to insure a 10-15ms response time. Stock Linux (2.4.9) for example had an estimated 14-50ms worst case response time (depending on who you ask). RT Linuxes (like MonaVista) do much better and can achieve sub-ms worst case times if I recall correctly.
I haven't seen numbers for OSX and consistent 10-15ms response time seems unrealistic.
A "pro" user (who's looking to say upgrade from a 800mhz single core G4) complaining about a 1.83Ghz Core Duo being too slow is simply bizzare. You're finally getting closer to desktop parity but 8.5% is so much a difference it makes you nervous about the intel transistion?
How on earth are you guys using G4 powerbooks at all? If you're suffering from horrific latency then you should all have gone over to quad core G5s and just written off laptops until the intel move.
That you can be a "pro" user on a 800Mhz G4 indicates to me its more of a desire than an absolute requirement for that last .17Ghz.
You guys aren't the only market that the MacBook Pro needs to meet until the other MacBooks appear.
Vinea
a desktop, in my case, just isn't practical. mobility is the key.
my 800MHz G4 doesn't offer horrific latency (with my soundcard i can get down to about 12ms total if i am not using extensive effects, and if there are none on the input track) because, at present, i am not using any real-time effects. it just isn't realistic with my machine. and so i often have to resort to complicated external monitoring setups to work around it.
that extra .17GHz is most certainly a desire rather than a "necessity", and it wouldn't be a deal-breaker if it didn't exist, but since they're undercutting the power on this model, i feel like i should wait for the next revision where i won't feel as though i'm getting swindled, however moderately, in terms of power. that "missing" power would be appreciated, whether it's half of a millisecond less or a few plug-ins more. more power will always be welcome. and as i stated earlier, it's just a tad frustrating knowing that the fastest chip available is not available from my fav. computer company. i guess i was expecting the latest and greatest for the first transition machines, you know.. to make a big splash apple would give us intel's best to show off, but there are some good arguments here as to why they wouldn't necessarily want to go that route, at least not yet. although the iMac has them.. \ maybe that's why they don't call them powerbooks anymore? just kidding.
what makes me most nervous about the intel transition (aside from plugs and software making it over or not) is that apple are not using the fastest processors available, and whether that is a careful, singular choice or a trend. maybe i'm just mountainizing a mole-hill, but what would a windows-using musician considering a switch to apple think if he saw that he couldn't get the equivalent juice from a macbook as he could with a winbook. it just seems silly from my perspective... "oh look, macs have intel chips now! hey wait.. they're still slower??" lol.
oh apple...such drama!
sorry if my post is somewhat incomprehensible... it's late here.
Comments
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Good point. But I would bet that there are a number of potential Mac users lost because of Apple's low hardware specs. It's not just NASCAR fans who are worried about their tiny dicks.
A number that is likely very low given that you can't do anything with a MacBook Pro but run OSX at the moment.
Its not like Linus is going to be buying one.
So why would you buy it if you didn't want to run OSX? And its top dog in the Apple notebook lineup at the moment. So you would compare it to a Windows laptop why?
The thing most likely to keep switchers away at the moment is no Virtual PC, poor exchange integration via Entourage and a lack of games.
.17 Ghz doesn't represent any future proofing or bragging rights. A MacBook Pro will be more unique and should appeal even more to folks with size deficiencies.
Anyone that wants more CPU power to "compensate" is likely looking at the 2.4Ghz Athlon 64 X2 4800 anyway.
Vinea
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Good point. But I would bet that there are a number of potential Mac users lost because of Apple's low hardware specs. It's not just NASCAR fans who are worried about their tiny dicks.
Sure, and there are a number of potential users lost because the cases aren't black with flames down the side.
Historically, I won't try and claim that Apple hasn't had relatively lower specs at times (Motorola, we're looking at you here...), and you're right, they have lost customers over that. Legitimately.
I don't think that's what we're talking about here, in any sense. Here, we have a Mac laptop that has a CPU 6.5% below the absolute maximum on the PC side, and enough of a difference in other hardware (not to mention the OS, threading model, apps, etc) that it may or may not make any difference whatsoever.
That's power parity in my book, or at least close enough that it's a wash until a user tests the specific apps they need to have maximum power for, and compares the results.
Seriously, if someone thinks that that tiny amount of theoretical speed somehow makes or breaks their purchasing decision, they need to reassess some things in their decision process. My bet is it's just compensation... and there's nothing you can do for that crowd. They will make a decision on knee-jerk 'data' and then justify it through whatever illogic necessary. Not worth bothering with from a serious business point of view.
Say you get the clock rate up to match - now they'll find something else to whine about. Not worth it. Every system has strengths, and weaknesses. From everything I've seen, *at this moment*, the MacBook Pro is more than just competitive. Of course, Apple's 6 to 8 month refresh cycle will make sure that you'll be able to get a Windows laptop in 4 months that will beat it, because all the other companies are on their own cycles. Meh. Ebb and flow of the market.
Much better to concentrate on the serious and rational professional's needs, and leave the compensators to contemplate their, uh, navels.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Sure, and there are a number of potential users lost because the cases aren't black with flames down the side.
That's true, but their number is pretty low compared to the number of people not wanting to spend $2000 for a laptop with a 1.67 Ghz G4 processor. Now, this processor may or may not be slow, but in some people's minds, it is. Especially compared to beasts that the likes of Dell equip their notebooks with: here you go, your Inspiron with 3.6Ghz P4. You can boil eggs too, and it's free?!
A lot of people think that High Ghz = Speed, therefore a considerable number of them would not buy the PowerBook, as opposed to a very low number of people who want to buy a black case with flames down the size (not necessarily singling out your example of a different PowerBook, but just as comparison to something like perceived speed).
Originally posted by Kickaha
Sure, and there are a number of potential users lost because the cases aren't black with flames down the side.
Historically, I won't try and claim that Apple hasn't had relatively lower specs at times (Motorola, we're looking at you here...), and you're right, they have lost customers over that. Legitimately.
I don't think that's what we're talking about here, in any sense. Here, we have a Mac laptop that has a CPU 6.5% below the absolute maximum on the PC side, and enough of a difference in other hardware (not to mention the OS, threading model, apps, etc) that it may or may not make any difference whatsoever.
That's power parity in my book, or at least close enough that it's a wash until a user tests the specific apps they need to have maximum power for, and compares the results.
Seriously, if someone thinks that that tiny amount of theoretical speed somehow makes or breaks their purchasing decision, they need to reassess some things in their decision process. My bet is it's just compensation... and there's nothing you can do for that crowd. They will make a decision on knee-jerk 'data' and then justify it through whatever illogic necessary. Not worth bothering with from a serious business point of view.
Say you get the clock rate up to match - now they'll find something else to whine about. Not worth it. Every system has strengths, and weaknesses. From everything I've seen, *at this moment*, the MacBook Pro is more than just competitive. Of course, Apple's 6 to 8 month refresh cycle will make sure that you'll be able to get a Windows laptop in 4 months that will beat it, because all the other companies are on their own cycles. Meh. Ebb and flow of the market.
Much better to concentrate on the serious and rational professional's needs, and leave the compensators to contemplate their, uh, navels.
isn't the 1.83 part 8.5% below the 2.00 part? maybe my math is a little rusty, though.
for a performing musician (or even a studio-bound one) who uses software, every little bit of horsepower counts. in fact, for any Pro who uses all of their processing power at any given time, that extra bit really counts. monitoring latency in the audio world is just one area where the more GHz you have the better. knowing that there is more power out there in your chip manufacturer's notebook line, but not being able to use it is a bit frustrating, that's all. in my case, it has nothing to do with my penis, which incidentally doesn't need any compensation.
people using the 'book for general home-tasks should not be overly concerned about this seemingly small discrepancy IMO, but for some Pro's i think it is a legitimate concern. and, as an aside, at the moment there is no proof that apple will offer the highest-clocked part in any of its 15" 'books, even though i feel they will.
just a little nervous about the transition, and itching to replace my aged 800MHz G4,
hive
Originally posted by hivemind
isn't the 1.83 part 8.5% below the 2.00 part? maybe my math is a little rusty, though.
You are correct sir! I misremembered it as 1.87GHz. 8.5% it is.
for a performing musician (or even a studio-bound one) who uses software, every little bit of horsepower counts. in fact, for any Pro who uses all of their processing power at any given time, that extra bit really counts. monitoring latency in the audio world is just one area where the more GHz you have the better. knowing that there is more power out there in your chip manufacturer's notebook line, but not being able to use it is a bit frustrating, that's all. in my case, it has nothing to do with my penis, which incidentally doesn't need any compensation.
people using the 'book for general home-tasks should not be overly concerned about this seemingly small discrepancy IMO, but for some Pro's i think it is a legitimate concern. and, as an aside, at the moment there is no proof that apple will offer the highest-clocked part in any of its 15" 'books, even though i feel they will.
just a little nervous about the transition, and itching to replace my aged 800MHz G4,
hive [/B]
Like I said, there are some areas where it is a legitimate concern, and for folks like you, testing is the only way to know for sure what the right decision is. You're not likely to be swayed, however, strictly by that 0.17GHz bump, are you? You're going to take into consideration the OS, the apps you are using the memory bus, the hard drive speed... all sorts of things that matter in the long run. The folks we're talking about are those that see that 2.0 > 1.83, and that makes up their mind right there. They don't know the technologies, they just see A > B and assume that A is globally better. There's little you can do to cater to those folks, other than get into an ever-losing battle. Instead, I think that the winning solution is to just ignore the numbers as much as possible in the marketing, and discuss solutions. People for whom the numbers legitimately matter will seek them out as *part* of their decision making process, while those who are easily swayed by marketing and such (the A > B crowd) will be drawn in by the new bright and shiny approach. *shrug*
- Batch - ask the computer to run something and it takes several minutes or hours
- Slow interactive - the user is in front of the computer and every interaction takes 2-30 seconds to complete.
- Interactive - response times below 2 seconds - like GUIs
Now for the sake of argument, let's assume that the 5.8% performance difference is in total system performance, rather than just CPU speed.Take the batch case. For example, processing a large number of digital images with similar filters in Photoshop. Think curves/levels, USM and automatic color correction for an entire shoot. So this takes 16:15 minutes instead of 15:00. Does it matter? Yes. Is this critical. I would say not.
Now consider the interactive case. That's your "responsive" GUI. We'd like things to be faster and the application to be snappy. However, human interface tests and even your own experience will tell you that if you want the user to have the perception that one system is really more snappy than the other, a 5.8% increase in speed won't do it. It's not noticeable. When you're at sub-second response times, you'll need to nearly double the speed to get this. So a 1.4 Ghz G4 Mac Mini is definitely more snappy than a 500 MHz TiBook. You might even be able to tell the Mac Mini from a 900 MHz machine even though the difference is only 50%, but a 1.87 GHz vs a 2 GHz? No way.
We're left with the slow interactive. Think surfing the net, or working Photoshop on a very slow machine or using very sophisticated filters. Here you might feel the difference. I think that with a modern machines these cases are related to network, disk or maybe memory. Rarely CPU. I still don't think that's a killer, but it might be for some.
What kind are the apps used by performing artists?
In either case, it's extremely frustrating, since you can't drive safely at anywhere near the speed you're used to.
But there's a catch ...
... in music, it's much worse.
People's ears are, by nature, extremely sensitive to timing, and even more sensitive to note order ... having a sound come as little as 15ms ahead or behind another can sometimes completely change the character of the sound (Haas effect stuff - though there the academic number is 35ms, but with experiment, I've sometimes found it to be much less).
Musicians aren't aware of the theory , but after years of getting used to their instrument, they learn by feel how to play with these extremely precise timing arrangements: and if the sound they want requires they play with an accumulated 10ms or 15ms delay; they're stuck with a nasty choice: either go with a sound that isn't as good, but closer in timing, or a better sound, who's timing is pretty messed up.
In either case, the music suffers.
Originally posted by synp
I can't say that I fully understand the case of the performing musician, so I may be off-base here. It used to be that we classified interactions with the computer to three kinds:Batch - ask the computer to run something and it takes several minutes or hours
Slow interactive - the user is in front of the computer and every interaction takes 2-30 seconds to complete.
Interactive - response times below 2 seconds - like GUIs
Now for the sake of argument, let's assume that the 5.8% performance difference is in total system performance, rather than just CPU speed.
Take the batch case. For example, processing a large number of digital images with similar filters in Photoshop. Think curves/levels, USM and automatic color correction for an entire shoot. So this takes 16:15 minutes instead of 15:00. Does it matter? Yes. Is this critical. I would say not.
Now consider the interactive case. That's your "responsive" GUI. We'd like things to be faster and the application to be snappy. However, human interface tests and even your own experience will tell you that if you want the user to have the perception that one system is really more snappy than the other, a 5.8% increase in speed won't do it. It's not noticeable. When you're at sub-second response times, you'll need to nearly double the speed to get this. So a 1.4 Ghz G4 Mac Mini is definitely more snappy than a 500 MHz TiBook. You might even be able to tell the Mac Mini from a 900 MHz machine even though the difference is only 50%, but a 1.87 GHz vs a 2 GHz? No way.
We're left with the slow interactive. Think surfing the net, or working Photoshop on a very slow machine or using very sophisticated filters. Here you might feel the difference. I think that with a modern machines these cases are related to network, disk or maybe memory. Rarely CPU. I still don't think that's a killer, but it might be for some.
What kind are the apps used by performing artists?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
That's true, but their number is pretty low compared to the number of people not wanting to spend $2000 for a laptop with a 1.67 Ghz G4 processor. Now, this processor may or may not be slow, but in some people's minds, it is. Especially compared to beasts that the likes of Dell equip their notebooks with: here you go, your Inspiron with 3.6Ghz P4. You can boil eggs too, and it's free?!....
I thought that the Yonah books - indeed, even the Pentium M books - were better perfomers than those huge P4 gaming laptops?
They're certainly cheaper, lighter and have much better battery life. You're right to say that few will want to spend $2000 on a G4 notebook, but I'd say that equally few will want to spend $3500 or more on a Sager or Alienware.
This is definitely within the "interactive" category. My question remains: For the same sound, can the musician tell the difference between a 15 ms delay and a 16.2 ms delay? 15 ms sounds like a long long time for a computer that does 1,800,000,000 cycles a second. Would you feel a difference if the delay is 1.62 instead of 1.5 ms?
I just have a hard time imagining that I could feel a 5.8% difference is timings that are measured in miliseconds. But again, I've never played music on a computer (other than running iTunes) so I really don't know what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by OverToasty
The best way to describe what it's like being a musician, dealing with latency, to folks who aren't: is to imagine driving a car, where every control has a delay on it - and you have a "choice" (though a "Devil's Bargain" is a more accurate way to describe it): ruff control with a second delay, or fine control with a 5 second delay ... so, eg #1 one second delay, but you can only steer in 15 degree increments - or e.g. #2, 5 degree increments, but you have to wait 5 seconds for the wheel commands to kick in.
In either case, it's extremely frustrating, since you can't drive safely at anywhere near the speed you're used to.
But there's a catch ...
... in music, it's much worse.
People's ears are, by nature, extremely sensitive to timing, and even more sensitive to note order ... having a sound come as little as 15ms ahead or behind another can sometimes completely change the character of the sound (Haas effect stuff - though there the academic number is 35ms, but with experiment, I've sometimes found it to be much less).
Musicians aren't aware of the theory , but after years of getting used to their instrument, they learn by feel how to play with these extremely precise timing arrangements: and if the sound they want requires they play with an accumulated 10ms or 15ms delay; they're stuck with a nasty choice: either go with a sound that isn't as good, but closer in timing, or a better sound, who's timing is pretty messed up.
In either case, the music suffers.
Originally posted by OverToasty
The best way to describe what it's like being a musician, dealing with latency, to folks who aren't: is to imagine driving a car, where every control has a delay on it - and you have a "choice" (though a "Devil's Bargain" is a more accurate way to describe it): ruff control with a second delay, or fine control with a 5 second delay ... so, eg #1 one second delay, but you can only steer in 15 degree increments - or e.g. #2, 5 degree increments, but you have to wait 5 seconds for the wheel commands to kick in.
In either case, it's extremely frustrating, since you can't drive safely at anywhere near the speed you're used to.
But there's a catch ...
... in music, it's much worse.
People's ears are, by nature, extremely sensitive to timing, and even more sensitive to note order ... having a sound come as little as 15ms ahead or behind another can sometimes completely change the character of the sound (Haas effect stuff - though there the academic number is 35ms, but with experiment, I've sometimes found it to be much less).
Musicians aren't aware of the theory , but after years of getting used to their instrument, they learn by feel how to play with these extremely precise timing arrangements: and if the sound they want requires they play with an accumulated 10ms or 15ms delay; they're stuck with a nasty choice: either go with a sound that isn't as good, but closer in timing, or a better sound, who's timing is pretty messed up.
In either case, the music suffers.
I know that latency was a big issue to Apple, how are they doing at trying to lower it. How does the latest version of Logic Pro stack up on the Mac Book Pro?? I would think that it is much better than the old Powerbook.
Originally posted by jouster
I thought that the Yonah books - indeed, even the Pentium M books - were better perfomers than those huge P4 gaming laptops?
They're certainly cheaper, lighter and have much better battery life. You're right to say that few will want to spend $2000 on a G4 notebook, but I'd say that equally few will want to spend $3500 or more on a Sager or Alienware.
For some things the Pentium M (and now Core Duo) does better than the Pentium 4. Unfortunately for high bandwidth streaming applications (especially floating point) the Pentium 4 is faster... and generally so is the G5. In some cases so is the G4! This is why the new Intel Macs don't outperform the previous ones across the board.
Apple has done a lot of work in the kernel and CoreAudio systems to make MacOS X have as low latency audio as possible, but this is one of those things where you can just throw more and more at it until it can't keep up. So yes, the extra 0.17 GHz would make some amount of difference. My point above wasn't that audio performers don't need the extra performance, it was that Apple's chosen design points don't specifically target them as a market. If Apple were to build an audio performer specific laptop (or desktop) then the trade-offs would be different. That isn't a large enough market segment for Apple to be worth targeting it specifically.
Originally posted by OverToasty
Musicians aren't aware of the theory , but after years of getting used to their instrument, they learn by feel how to play with these extremely precise timing arrangements: and if the sound they want requires they play with an accumulated 10ms or 15ms delay; they're stuck with a nasty choice: either go with a sound that isn't as good, but closer in timing, or a better sound, who's timing is pretty messed up.
In either case, the music suffers.
Given that OSX is non-real time system there is no way to insure a 10-15ms response time. Stock Linux (2.4.9) for example had an estimated 14-50ms worst case response time (depending on who you ask). RT Linuxes (like MonaVista) do much better and can achieve sub-ms worst case times if I recall correctly.
I haven't seen numbers for OSX and consistent 10-15ms response time seems unrealistic.
A "pro" user (who's looking to say upgrade from a 800mhz single core G4) complaining about a 1.86Ghz Core Duo being too slow is simply bizzare. You're finally getting closer to desktop parity but 5.8% is so much a difference it makes you nervous about the intel transistion?
How on earth are you guys using G4 powerbooks at all? If you're suffering from horrific latency then you should all have gone over to quad core G5s and just written off laptops until the intel move.
That you can be a "pro" user on a 800Mhz G4 indicates to me its more of a desire than an absolute requirement for that last .17Ghz.
You guys aren't the only market that the MacBook Pro needs to meet until the other MacBooks appear.
Vinea
my guess, i am very naive user of computer though not a "Pro"
All in all it is great machine, if any one think ACER is better please got and get one for yourself!
There are people (some mac user as well) who complain abt APPLE no matter what they do...
Why all of you go and see other laptops and their innovation?
Originally posted by vinea
Given that OSX is non-real time system there is no way to insure a 10-15ms response time. Stock Linux (2.4.9) for example had an estimated 14-50ms worst case response time (depending on who you ask). RT Linuxes (like MonaVista) do much better and can achieve sub-ms worst case times if I recall correctly.
I haven't seen numbers for OSX and consistent 10-15ms response time seems unrealistic.
A "pro" user (who's looking to say upgrade from a 800mhz single core G4) complaining about a 1.83Ghz Core Duo being too slow is simply bizzare. You're finally getting closer to desktop parity but 8.5% is so much a difference it makes you nervous about the intel transistion?
How on earth are you guys using G4 powerbooks at all? If you're suffering from horrific latency then you should all have gone over to quad core G5s and just written off laptops until the intel move.
That you can be a "pro" user on a 800Mhz G4 indicates to me its more of a desire than an absolute requirement for that last .17Ghz.
You guys aren't the only market that the MacBook Pro needs to meet until the other MacBooks appear.
Vinea
a desktop, in my case, just isn't practical. mobility is the key.
my 800MHz G4 doesn't offer horrific latency (with my soundcard i can get down to about 12ms total if i am not using extensive effects, and if there are none on the input track) because, at present, i am not using any real-time effects. it just isn't realistic with my machine. and so i often have to resort to complicated external monitoring setups to work around it.
that extra .17GHz is most certainly a desire rather than a "necessity", and it wouldn't be a deal-breaker if it didn't exist, but since they're undercutting the power on this model, i feel like i should wait for the next revision where i won't feel as though i'm getting swindled, however moderately, in terms of power. that "missing" power would be appreciated, whether it's half of a millisecond less or a few plug-ins more. more power will always be welcome. and as i stated earlier, it's just a tad frustrating knowing that the fastest chip available is not available from my fav. computer company. i guess i was expecting the latest and greatest for the first transition machines, you know.. to make a big splash apple would give us intel's best to show off, but there are some good arguments here as to why they wouldn't necessarily want to go that route, at least not yet. although the iMac has them..
what makes me most nervous about the intel transition (aside from plugs and software making it over or not) is that apple are not using the fastest processors available, and whether that is a careful, singular choice or a trend. maybe i'm just mountainizing a mole-hill, but what would a windows-using musician considering a switch to apple think if he saw that he couldn't get the equivalent juice from a macbook as he could with a winbook. it just seems silly from my perspective... "oh look, macs have intel chips now! hey wait.. they're still slower??" lol.
oh apple...such drama!
sorry if my post is somewhat incomprehensible... it's late here.
hive