Where's the photo? Is it on a rumor site?

Edit: Okay, I found it. It looks like a picture of a 64-bit processor. To me that doesn't necessarily mean anything different from what we've had for three years. G5s use 64-bit processors.

On the other hand it's just a matter of time, so who knows.

"...what we've had for three years."

I understand. But the optimist in me says since we've had it for three years, they wouldn't be touting "64 bit" unless they were announcing a new user-tangible benefit.

We will see.

I hate to be cynical, but they were touting it three years ago.

Always got to be careful of them three year old touts.
[:P]

Three year old touts are not as safe as fresh ones, I agree.

One thing that occurs to me is that this narrows down the possibilities for which chips are going to be in the new Intel Macs. But one would expect them to be the high-end ones.

64bit is nothing to write home about anymore - everyone has it, almost nobody is using it ...
hopefully we will see a G? with two core 2 duo (woodcrest) processors and an expansion slot usable for any available internal soundcard like PCI-X and an external sATA connector (the latter is what i'm missing on the miniMacs too, although internally available)
christian

I fear that the "old" PCI slots are now "legacy," cm. [:)]

My theory is that computer slot changes are a conspiracy invented by a group of proctologists who wanted to increase their business.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

I fear that the "old" PCI slots are now "legacy," cm. [:)]

My theory is that computer slot changes are a conspiracy invented by a group of proctologists who wanted to increase their business.

I'm going to leave this alone..........


[[:|]]

Assuming the day of 16 gigs of VI etc., loaded into ram, won't polyphony or some other limitation become the issue? So you have to buy another machine ot two?

My point is whether you spend a lot of money on a lot of machines now or a lot of money on a few machines later, aren't we actually moving along in petty small increments of qualitative change?

Is this another outrage? Every resource in a computer is finite, dpcon, but wouldn't it be great to be able to have the entire VSL (and whatever else you're using) loaded up in one machine, ready to go?

We all would love that no doubt. I'm one or two machines from being pretty okay. If new stuff comes out that drops the price of what I might get now that's pretty attractive. Even though I usually wait for the latest greatest thing, I'm wondering which way to go. I think the issue of Mac Intels will probably force most of us to wait since future support will be paramount.

Be very careful with any outrageous statements.

@Another User said:

I fear that the "old" PCI slots are now "legacy"

that's what i fear too, but supplying PCIe audiocards isn't everyones business as it seems.
i've been able so far to find a 424e from MOTU as an upgrade option, a PCIe version of ProTools|HD, and the APOGEE Symphony PCI-E (all three are just prerequisites for expansion units or breakout boxes).
it looks like my favorite vendor RME doesn't have any PCIe cards in the pipeline [:(] any more models you know?
christian

If "64-bit" is the wrong term, sorry. What *ever* they need to do to access the memory a G5 can hold, I hope they do it. And anyone looking to upgrade RAM should pay heed, because buying 1 GB DIMMS is nutty when 2 GB DIMMS might lead to greater capacity in the long run.

VSL is posting 300 stereo voices at 70% CPU on a high end Mac. Is polyphony still an issue for those with Dual 2.5's?

Also, when you overload memory on a Mac, doesn't it swap out to disk? And isn't that related to performance? Wouldn't access to more RAM help that?

At 4 GB VSL claims 45,000 samples loaded. Casual (if errant) math suggests 180,000 samples with 16GB. To put that in context, the Symphonic Cube has under 1 million samples, so conceivably you could have one fifth of the entire library on line for immediate use on one computer.

Well, this walk in Dreamsville has been nice. Back to my 1.8 Dual. Perhaps Jobs' big announcement Monday will be a brand new 64-bit temperature widget in Fahrenheit AND Celsius.

@Plowman said:

Perhaps Jobs' big announcement Monday will be a brand new 64-bit temperature widget in Fahrenheit AND Celsius.

As funny as that statement is, I fear it may not be too far from the truth.

It just seems that software dealing with DAWs and virtual instruments are all too easily ovewhelming computers-- there's something odd with needing to set up a network so early in one's production process; what amounts to doing "comparatively little" on one machine and what amounts to doing "enough" on one machine has always been my quandary.

Some aspects of music software feels ahead of computer hardware in that it can do more than one computer will allow. Yet, some aspects of hardware, namely RAM, appear to be a little ahead of the software-- DAWs have RAM limits that are roughly 25% of most latter-day PPC Macs. Quads are another story. HD bus speeds are way ahead of HD transfer rates-- and *if* PCI is on its last leg (?) where PCIe is concerned, what in the heck are we computer musicians to do?

In the words of Homer Simpson--- "Mmmmmm. Wiiiiidgeeeeeets."

"there's something odd with needing to set up a network so early in one's production process...."

I've thought about this particularly in light of MIR. Networked computers were once a rich man's option to optimize his studio. We're now seeing products that work from the assumption -- not the luxury -- that more than one computer will be at work.

At the same time, I've been gigging with just one computer, Logic / EXS and VI. Over the last year, I've come to prefer the tedium of overdubbing and offline bouncing to the tedium of monitor juggling, switch grabbing, reach, spin in chair, hit KVM, fader, button, channel.... Ever feel like you're a composer turning into an octopus?

I'm going this-a-way and technology's going that-a-way. Hence my dogged fascination with RAM limits. But who am I kidding? A network of computers for quality virtual orchestrations will be the norm for some time to come.

Apple simply advertises "64-bits" because recent Core Duo processors are 32-bit chips.

The forthcoming implementation of the Core 2 Duo will start where we ended with the G5: 64-bits. Apple's benefit? Again they can acclaim an introduction of 64-bit processors ... with no single benefit for any musician.
Just because the company's own software doesn't support the full range of hardware features (OS X) ... not to mention "Logic Pro" (laughing into the black hole) ... [6]

Maybe it's my bad mood, but all of this seems a bit ironical to me ... [*-)]

But ... hmm ... let's laugh again ...
[:D]

If "64-bit" is the wrong term, sorry. What *ever* they need to do to access the memory a G5 can hold, I hope they do it.

@Another User said:

"64-bit" is the right term, Plowman, and you are certainly not alone in your maniacal quest. The point is that the 64-bit processor has been running essentially a 32-bit OS for the past three years, and that's why the machine doesn't have 64-bit memory access.

It's obviously not trivial to re-write everything for that, of course.

(Actually OS X is 64-bit, but only for command line programs. It's only every program we use that's 32-bit.)

Since each program can access 3GB of RAM (4GB minus reality), to me it sounds like it might be easier to create sampler-hosting programs that run outside the DAW, and route them in seamlessly. The user shouldn't even have to know that he/she's using two programs.

That's how the Vienna Instruments player works on Mac. The only issues with the implementation have to do with the floating window not being integrated into the host. But as I wrote in the review in VI mag, I was able to run 3GB of Vienna Instruments + 2GB of other stuff (Kontakt and EXS) inside Logic on one machine with 8GB installed. (I still need to see whether that goes down if I try it with 6GB.)

To me 5GB on one machine is pretty amazing. Why it wouldn't go higher than that I don't know, but that approach to RAM access works. I was told by one of the Logic programmers that making Logic 64-bit would take two years of programming. This seems like it would be simpler.

Thanks, Nick. Perhaps "Full 64-bit OS" might work.

"I was told by one of the Logic programmers that making Logic 64-bit would take two years of programming. This seems like it would be simpler."

You're right. It's definitely the shorter path from A to B.

I've never understood why Apple didn't release an EXS stand-alone. It could be copy-protected using the same kind of XS Key. One would think an Apple stand-alone AU accessed by Apple's Logic using Apple's OS on an Apple computer could be... um... somewhat seamless.

And I say "didn't" in the past tense because, in view of VI, the point is increasingly moot. Witness the sustained, unlooped silence at the EXS forum.

I still wonder if Keymap might offer its own multi-channel player for EXS instruments.