I am using VI on a MAC, as a plugin in Logic and Cubase. I have 5gigs of ram and have access to 4.4 gigs of memory for VI. The MAC is working well for me. However, it is not the slave but the main machine.

J

@Jay Weigel said:

I am using VI on a MAC, as a plugin in Logic and Cubase. I have 5gigs of ram and have access to 4.4 gigs of memory for VI. The MAC is working well for me. However, it is not the slave but the main machine.

J

Thanks guys. Jay, these are impressive Ram totals. Right now the best my 2 gig ram PCs can give me is about 1.6 gig of ram loading. You are getting 2.5 that!!!!!!

But I do need to know if the the mac is the way to go as a slave.


Rob

I see no reason why the using a au or vst host to load the plug-in would cause a change in ram usage. I get the same ram usage in cubase and logic. One is vst one is au. So, you could get a au or vst host for the mac or even use cubase le or something else.

jay

@Jay Weigel said:

I see no reason why the using a au or vst host to load the plug-in would cause a change in ram usage. I get the same ram usage in cubase and logic. One is vst one is au. So, you could get a au or vst host for the mac or even use cubase le or something else.

jay

Hi Jay, right now my main DAW is PC running SX (very pleased and familiar here.)

My 4 PC slaves are running Vstack - lightpiped into the main Daw's MOTU 2408 mk 3 sound card. Again this works well for me.

I just want to replace my oldest of PC slaves to something that will give me more than the 2 gig ram.

Knowing that - would a MAC slave work - or is there something else?

Rob

@Another User said:

I have 5gigs of ram and have access to 4.4 gigs of memory for VI.

Very politely: I don't think so, Jay. You can't possibly get more than about 3 and change if you look at Activity Monitor. Maybe you're looking at virtual memory and not RAM?

I repeat this at least once a day, but no program can access more than 4GB minus system libraries and frameworks.

No need apologize Nick. I was just quoting what the Vienna Instrument memory tells me (I believe in the perform window). I was beta testing 1.06 and it told me I have 4.45gigs available. I will load patches and count the memory usage and see where it ends up. Sorry if I posted any confusion.

jay

@Nick Batzdorf said:

I repeat this at least once a day, but no program can access more than 4GB minus system libraries and frameworks.

exactly, thanks for repeating it over and over again Nick [:)]

I ´d say it doesn´t make sense to have more than 6 GB of RAM in a Mac as long as we´re running Tiger OS 10.4 (or Leopard) cause it is still a 32 bit OS.
(2 ^ 32 = 4 294 967 296 bytes = > 4GB which can be addressed by one application minus approx. 1 GB for libraries and frameworks as Nick mentioned).

However I find it difficult to tell which system, Mac or PC works better or more efficient. With the "Mathias Henningson´s 3 GB trick" the possibilities to address RAM are almost the same on PC as on Mac. It is more and more a matter of habit (or taste [6] ) I´d say.

Rob.. with the 3GB switch, it would definately be more cost efficient to go with a PC slave. But if cost isent an issue, then why not - G5's look cool [:D]

@Christian Marcussen said:

Rob.. with the 3GB switch, it would definately be more cost efficient to go with a PC slave. But if cost isent an issue, then why not - G5's look cool [[:D]]

Thanks Christian - unfortunatel costs is always an issue. [[:D]]


I think I need to give some serious consideration then in 'converting' my existing PC with 2 - 1 gig sticks of ram into 3 gb total. Can I ask who is sucessfully doing this with 1-2 year old machines?


Rob

@Christian Marcussen said:

Rob.. with the 3GB switch, it would definately be more cost efficient to go with a PC slave. But if cost isent an issue, then why not - G5's look cool [[:D]]

Thanks Christian - unfortunatel costs is always an issue. [[:D]]


I think I need to give some serious consideration then in 'converting' my existing PC with 2 - 1 gig sticks of ram into 3 gb total. Can I ask who is sucessfully doing this with 1-2 year old machines?


Rob

Well if cost is an issue its PC for sure...

I plan converting my slaves once the rest of the Cube arrives. I'll start out with trying it on one or two PC's. So if you can wait i'll tell you how it went. If not you have to buy some ram [:)]

The way I see it I can get 2-3 times samples loaded for the same price as buying a new slave (if I convert all of my slaves into 3.5-4GB machines). So that is definately more cost efficient.

@Rob Elliott said:

I think I need to give some serious consideration then in 'converting' my existing PC with 2 - 1 gig sticks of ram into 3 gb total. Can I ask who is sucessfully doing this with 1-2 year old machines?


Rob

Rob, this is exactly what I've done, as my machines are just over a year old. The snag is that now I have eight 512Mb sticks that I don't need. However, I have started to sell those, so the actual cost for each PC to be upgraded has been around £80. So in total I have spent £320 and can now (or as soon as I get the rest of the cube) load around 14-15GB of samples, which equates to around twenty-six GS3 machines. Cool huh... [H]

DG

@Another User said:

But if cost isent an issue, then why not - G5's look cool

My slave doesn't look cool. The shelf my computers were on for a good ten years collapsed a few months ago, sending them all hurtling to what looked like certain death. Amazingly, none of them broke, but that G5 is now pretty banged up. [:)]

You're wrong about it definitely being cheaper to buy a slave PC and that the G5 is a waste of money, by the way. It's not completely clearcut.