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..)

There's no reason you need to use the digital mixer if you don't want to, JWL.

Are you worried about sync when you connect the two Macs by lightpipe? The simplest way to do it is just to run a word clock connection between the two MOTU boxes.

I've been using MIDI Over LAN since I have Macs and PCs, but Network MIDI works absolutely fine.

While I don't have a PCI-424 card in my second G5 yet - I'm using the Mac's built-in TOSlink output converted to wired S/PDIF in both directions as a temporary solution - I have one on my main G5. It works really well, and I haven't missed my Panasonic DA7 digital mixer since I sold it a couple of years ago. I was worried about not being able to grab faders to adjust levels, but it's pretty much set-and-forget in the CueMix Console program.

"Macs haven't really dropped all that much when new models came out."

That is true of Apple as a corporation. They rarely offer more than three Power Mac models, and the price tiers don't change much. But the greater savings can be found in the one model that is inevitably bumped off the official line -- particularly if they're in stock at any Apple storefront.

And the next to drop out of the Mac line would be the Dual-core 2GHz. The prospect that this might duck under 1,700 USD is hopeful.

I think Windows-driven mega-stores like Best Buy will happily evacuate their non-Intel Apples if this Mac and Windows thing catches on.

But you're right -- there are no great bargains in the Mac universe. As a rule, I've been better rewarded waiting for PC prices to drop than Mac hardware.

FWI-- the first graphics tests are in-- Windows on IntelMacs....

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/07/pcworldtest/index.php

Seems like slightly above average performance with a couple of games. Not bad, but still not ready for AV production.

@clarkcontrol said:

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

Well, to what costumers - to those you want to begin the test this and that driver, this and that card in this and that slot, etc. This is just a matter of fact, if you have millions of choices the probability that it will not work is infinte. And buying quality hardware is definitely not the solution (besides not being more affordable) - it only makes things worse.
OSX and Apple hardware together makes a lot of sense. It might not be the cheapest in the first place, but .... The dumbest and most expensive expenses I had for computers was a Windows/Linux PC - I prefer to concentrate on media and music. Or just try to run real-time video-fx in the quality CoreVideo allows - well, happy clustering of PCs and programming your own solution. [:)]
I have been there - glad to left it behind [:)]

best

@steff3 said:

Well, to what costumers - to those you want to begin the test this and that driver, this and that card in this and that slot, etc. This is just a matter of fact, if you have millions of choices the probability that it will not work is infinte. And buying quality hardware is definitely not the solution (besides not being more affordable) - it only makes things worse.
OSX and Apple hardware together makes a lot of sense. It might not be the cheapest in the first place, but ....

You see this is logical and you'd think that it was accurate. However, just look at all the problems that Mac users are having on this forum with VI installation. Nothing is as straight forward as it appears.

DG

@clarkcontrol said:

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

If Apple manages to improve their market share they might well be forced to allow this under Monopoly legislation. I can see Dell making a very good case for it.

DG

My mac functions - straight around the corner [:)]

DG, were it not us about the apartheid in the forum and MAC vs Windows? This discussion a few weeks back - so this is obviously a Mac thread, I mean "Windows on Mac, right, I told you there, that PC users will come with their lame arguments and try to tell us what hardware to use. Congrats for filling in a stereotype! [:)]

best

@steff3 said:

My mac functions - straight around the corner [:)]

DG, were it not us about the apartheid in the forum and MAC vs Windows? This discussion a few weeks back - so this is obviously a Mac thread, I mean "Windows on Mac, right, I told you there, that PC users will come with their lame arguments and try to tell us what hardware to use. Congrats for filling in a stereotype! [:)]

best

Oh for goodness sake. I am a user of software. I currently use PCs. I used to use Macs. I may use Macs in the future. I am not brand blind. Grow up [8-)]

DG

PS This is Windows thread, can't you read? [:D]