@Nick Batzdorf said:

I would think it'd be supported for a couple of years, and at that point it'll be time to upgrade anyway. My reservation about the quad is simply that it's $$4500 by the time you're through, and that's too much for a computer.

I recently picked up a 2x2.0 to use as a slave. They're available for 1/3 the price of a quad these days.

Nick-- I think the quads are going to drop over the coming months as well as the RAM, which for me is the most attractive part about the quads. I'd love to set up a 12GB+ standalone VI farm on a second Mac quad. At present, I'm consulting with someone on another forum about how they set up their zero latency non-ethernet network linking/syncing two Macs. I don't have complete details just yet, but a quad could potentially solve my current "quantity" problem since speed is less of an issue at present.

No doubt, the VSL Team and some eager VI users will jump on the early Intel towers. It will be great to read the stress tests on the new models while currently keeping an eye out for falling PPC prices. Who knows? We could read that someone got 60 instances of VI running without a hitch on one Intel. Not likely, but stranger things have happened.

I sometimes really wonder when this search will ever end. Actually I'm coming to the conclusion, as long as hardware development goes on, you'll have to wait endless years to find the my-one-machine-is-handling-all-audio-and-email thing [;)] If a job needs 4 machines, get them, remember - you need them. If it has to be zero latency, some more cash goes to ADAT or Firewire interfaces. Of course I agree, it would be nice to have everything in one little box, preferrably not greater than a matchbox. At pristine quality. But we're simply not there yet.

PolarBear

"My reservation about the quad is simply that it's $4500 by the time you're through...." Wow. It's possible -- even likely -- that by the end of the year, two 2.3's could be purchased for that price, with some added memory.

DP, FWIW, Macrumors rates Power Macs as "Buy it only if you need it. Updates soon."

No question, PolarBear. I've said that many times: the single machine that does all the dancing is unlikely to come for a good long time.

***

One reason I'm having such a hard time getting the least bit excited about being able to run Windows on a Mac is that I can't imagine it ever being something I'd want to do.

Is it just me? I can see that it would be an advantage if you need to run the same actuarial accounting software they're running in all the other stalls at your insurance company. But in our world? Boot up a Windows machine if you want to run Windows.

Plowman, that's like the psychic who says "I can tell you've been hurt."

Well, who hasn't? When in history has that advice from Macrumors never been good? [:)]

Even if we didn't all know they're about to come out with desktop Intel Macs, we all know the next model is always going to be more powerful than the previous one.

But what use will an Intel Mac be to us right now? In a while, sure, but not now.

I thought you could pick up a Quad for $3200 - not true?

Nick what's the final verdict on what people are actually loading ram-wise on Macs? Are people really well over 4 gigs like that guy said early on after the VI release?

I posted it because Dave has said that he was tempted to get a G5 quad "right now."

I know we never lack for reasons to wait. But I do think with core chip replacements from a new manufacturer, a historic cross-platform OS in the works, and an above average time after the last roll-out of PowerMacs, Macrumors advisory is valid. New towers would seem to be due. Products do have cycles, and this one is closer to its end than the beginning.

Over course, the Boston Red Sox were "due" for awhile too.

And while I muse, Windows users won't be prepared for the sticker shock of the mac world. Is it remotely possible that the new Intel Macs may have a lower price than we've come to expect to entice its new user base?

Perhaps they could buy a standard Mac and upgrade to a Level 2....

@Nick Batzdorf said:

One reason I'm having such a hard time getting the least bit excited about being able to run Windows on a Mac is that I can't imagine it ever being something I'd want to do.

Is it just me? I can see that it would be an advantage if you need to run the same actuarial accounting software they're running in all the other stallis at your insurance company. But in our world? Boot up a Windows machine if you want to run Windows.

Nick, there are some clever audio apps for PC that are not available for Mac. One of the things I wanted to do was to be able to encode certain surround formatted audio. There is an app called Diskwelder (http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/), but only the low-level version is being offered on the Mac. There are quite a few other apps which could process certain kinds of audio "offline", but I wouldn't want to to mix Apples with oranges for the sake of running 50 instances of VI, 20 Altiverbs, 7 MIR's-- and then have a fully blown out Giga side chain all in the same box. I exaggerate, but you'd be surprised at the expectations some people I know have for their all-in-one boxes.

Plus, I have a slight weakness for LOTR games, and there is are a few that are for PC only... [:P]

Laugh if you wanna, but it IS a testament to the immediate purpose of running Windows on a Mac- which is not likely to be ready for prime time A/V interactivity for a good while.

And with the money put towards new machines, we should think ahead a couple of years to what updates VSL may have in store. Just keeping up with this library is enough to keep one in eternal hock!!

No matter what you do, someone has got us by the "apricots".

Oh, I know there are excellent programs for PC only, JWL, starting with Giga! (Although I am looking forward to GVI.) I have three of those things (two working right now). But I can't help it - the idea of running Windows on a perfectly good Mac just makes me yawn.

Of course, this is all mouthing off without any real information to go on. Maybe the desktop Intel Macs will turn out to be better Windows machines than custom-assembled PCs. Who knows.

Plowman, if the Intel Macs were to come out tomorrow, what would you run on it?

...

Yes, that's exactly my point. [6]

By the way, Macrumors said the exact same thing, word for word, 18 months ago. The G5s essentially hadn't changed for two years, and it was obviously the end of the product cycle. Macworld was coming up in January, and of course there would be new machines.

Six months later they came out with the identical machines again.

DPC, you outrageous man: the quad is $3300, and it comes with no memory or storage. By the time you add 8GB of RAM and a big hard drive, then add in sales tax, you're looking at about $4500.

"Six months later they came out with the identical machines again."

October 2005 Power Mac G5 Quad
April 2005 Dual 2.7
June 2004 Dual 2.5
November 2003 Dual 2.0

These are identical?

I never said I'd buy an Intel tomorrow. I said they'd affect the prices of the machines I'd more likely buy.

But if an Intel Mac with Boot Camp could effectively run Giga PC -- today -- you wouldn't yawn. But I too wait more earnestly for GVI. I'm concerned now that Tascam will start hearing, "Why do we need a Mac-specific Giga when it's all cross-platform anyway?"

And let me pause to consider the irony of these gymnastics when we have computers that can hold 16 GB, but we can only use 3. whatever at a time.

Yes, the dual 2.5 and dual 2.7 are the same machine. The only way you'd notice the difference would be to count the extra two bands of EQ you can insert on the 2.7.

And while the 2.5 is a little faster than the 2.0 and has liquid cooling for the hotter processors, it too is the same thing they'd been hawking for a couple of years. Apple agreed with me and made the switch to Intel. (Because I told them to, of course. [:)])

What I'm saying is that you will rarely time a computer or stock market purchase perfectly; you certainly want to walk into it with your eyes open, but when you have a windfall it is pure luck. Macrumors had the same recommendation they have now on their site in October 2004. I ended up waiting six months to move to a G5 - not based on what they said, just on what seemed like common sense - and Apple came out with the same machine again.

The quad clearly is a legitimate upgrade, but it didn't come out until almost a year and a half later. It wasn't available at the time of my absolutely riveting story.

The subtext is that you buy the best machine available if you need it. Whatever computer you buy is a 2-year investment, because computer years are 20 years and a 40-year-old man is at the tail end of his professional athletic career. What we demand of our computers is professional athletics.

And I agree that if an Intel Mac runs Giga or other PC software really well, then it will be a desirable PC. I said that earlier.

@Another User said:

At present, I'm consulting with someone on another forum about how they set up their zero latency non-ethernet network linking/syncing two Macs. I don't have complete details just yet, but a quad could potentially solve my current "quantity" problem since speed is less of an issue at present.

JWL plz elaborate a bit, or provide a link. I'm very curious. [:)]
I'm just about to setup a secondary Mac using Tigers built in midi over Ethernet, and I'm fearing the worst latence-wise.

Be aware that at this point in time, you can boot in EITHER Mac OSX or Windows XP.

There's NO possibility of running Giga and Logic or anything else in tandem at this time. I imagine the next step will be a "parallel" boot - it's still a dream now......

Regards - Colin

Having said the above, I just found this link to some beta software that offers...

@Another User said:

....the first virtualization solution specifically designed to work with Intel-powered Apple computers! Parallels Workstation 2.1 Beta for Mac OS X is NOT simply a "dual-boot" solution; rather, it empowers users the ability to use Windows, Linux and any other operating system at the same time as Mac OS X, enabling users to enjoy the comfort of their Mac OS X desktop while still being able to use critical applications from other OSes.

Here:http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/">http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/

Regards - Colin

"Yes, the dual 2.5 and dual 2.7 are the same machine. The only way you'd notice the difference would be to count the extra two bands of EQ you can insert on the 2.7."

Is the difference really that small? Mathematically, does that mean the difference between a 2.0 and a 2.7 is, what? Ten more bands of EQ? If that's true, you'd be right -- functionally these computers could not be distinguished.

But the prices *do* change, and the market values a .2 difference perhaps more than the specs would validate.

My story is not much different than yours. I waited a long time before buying a 1.8 DP, and I was disappointed in the inchworm improvements in the Apple line.

But Nick -- our disinterest in Intel and Vista compatibility aside -- don't you think the pre-Intel G5 line is due for a price drop greater than the curve? If this whole Windows on Mac thing works, I'm just seeing a whole load of non-Windows Mac's -- top line stuff today, and amazingly powerful -- being more affordable to A/V niche markets. Really, the Mac world is peanuts compared to Windows marketshare. We forget how small we are. So if Intel Macs can orphan the lowly non-Intel DP 2.7, I may know of a few good homes to take it in.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

DPC, you outrageous man: the quad is $3300, and it comes with no memory or storage. By the time you add 8GB of RAM and a big hard drive, then add in sales tax, you're looking at about $4500.

Well that's an outrageous statement to which I can only reply that if you could access all that ram you would have more than 2pc's worth of function. But is that the case Mr. Magazine?

Running Windows on a mac is about the dumbest thing anyone could ever do with already overpriced hardware (IMHO, of course).

What would be of REAL benefit is running OSX on a Windows machine. Of course, this actually makes sense only to the consumer and not Apple, so of course we'll never see THAT day.

Clark

Plowman: I'm not sure whether or not we'll see a big price drop. Most likely the quads will go down, because they're *very* expensive. But historically, Macs haven't really dropped all that much when new models came out.

dpcon the outrageous: I don't yet know how much RAM you can access with Vienna Instruments (because it might be using memory outside the host?) - I'm going to find out as soon as I put another hard drive in my machine - but remember, OS X uses as much RAM as you have available for caching. 5 or 6GB is definitely worth putting in for that reason; whether 8GB is past the point of dimishing returns I don't know.

OS X can use 4GB for each program minus a little less than 1GB for frameworks and system libraries (shared between all the progams); .5GB for the OS outside the progam; and some RAM for caching. So if you have 4-1/2GB, you have nothing left for caching when your DAW is maxed out.

@Another User said:

At present, I'm consulting with someone on another forum about how they set up their zero latency non-ethernet network linking/syncing two Macs. I don't have complete details just yet, but a quad could potentially solve my current "quantity" problem since speed is less of an issue at present.

JWL plz elaborate a bit, or provide a link. I'm very curious. [:)]
I'm just about to setup a secondary Mac using Tigers built in midi over Ethernet, and I'm fearing the worst latence-wise.

Still working it. It sounds as if it will involve routing multi-outs from the slave farm computer into a digital mixer, then out of that digital mixer via ADAT connectors into the 2408. I have a Yamaha digital mixer with an ADAT card, so I'm starting with the most cost effect approach. But ideally, it would be nice route the audio card directly into a second digital interface. Then the two interfaces would have to be connected via ADAT or TDIF on the 2408. It may also be possible to use the 424's ADAT SYNC INPUT connections to get the two PCI cards talking to each other without the second interface. Fortunately, I still have my 324 card and my G4, so this will allow for some experimentation before spending any more money.

I'll post my finds once it's all set up, but in the meantime--- back to IntelMacs and Windows (or not..)