@JWL said:
That's a good idea, except for one problem: I'm not going to around to do the tweaking!
You could find a minion to do the job for you while you're away...
Just kidding [;)] Hehe... Been there, done that [:)]
-
@JWL said:
That's a good idea, except for one problem: I'm not going to around to do the tweaking!
You could find a minion to do the job for you while you're away...
Just kidding [;)] Hehe... Been there, done that [:)]
LOL!
J-- I'd rather screw this up myself! [:D] ... without having to pray that my stuff will still be there when I get back!
Actually, you are a neighbor, practically. Could I entice you to a sit-down chat about the ups and downs of farms for the price of a good meal? No- make that a great meal! There are some amazing restaurants in your area...
-
I think that all PC users (of both MS and Apple OS) are in a bit of a quandary ATM. The new Intel Macs are very fast and appear to run both XP and OSX very well. The snag is that we are so close to Vista (and Leopard, if it actually exists) that any expensive new machine must be able to run either of these upgrades well. The only point in getting a MacPro is to be able to run Leopard eventually. It may never be possible to run Vista on it, so it will be OSX or nothing. This is fine as long as Apple actually releases something that is usable, but from past experience it will be a long and painful journey, and in any case it is quite a few months behind Vista.
Which brings me to Vista. I think that the transition to 64bit is going to be much smoother for Vista than Leopard, particularly as many more apps are likely to be ready sooner for this OS. However, there is still going to be a transitionary period where there are likely to be problems from many sources. I personally don't want to buy any more computers until I can run at least 10GB of samples with CPU power to spare. It may seem a dream, but we aren't actually that far away. The thing is that any machine that is future proof enough for this (if it even exists yet) is going to be so expensive that in the long run it would be better to buy something cheap for now, and get something new later, when all the kinks have been ironed out and the PC components are far less expensive.
Which brings me to your problem. I would say that to run VI, it is RAM that you will run out of before the machine cr*ps out, and therefore a relatively cheap PC, followed by a high spec Mac in a few months may be the way to go for you. Remember, the cheap PC can always be part of the farm; it just means that the farm will be bigger when you get your new Mac.
DG
-
Sensible points, DG. Thanks.
Which brings me to your problem. I would say that to run VI, it is RAM that you will run out of before the machine cr*ps out, and therefore a relatively cheap PC, followed by a high spec Mac in a few months may be the way to go for you. Remember, the cheap PC can always be part of the farm; it just means that the farm will be bigger when you get your new Mac.
DG
Yep. That RAM thing again. And loading 8GB of RAM has diminishing returns, so we're still dealing with how software handles hardware.
Oh, I've got my beefs about both Macs and PCs, no doubt. But it's clear that my work and workflow can't hold out for much longer as all of these new innovations iron themselves out. The question now is just how much one computer-as-farm will add and whether adding two slaves is worth it... hmm.
-
@DG said:
...The only point in getting a MacPro is to be able to run Leopard eventually. It may never be possible to run Vista on it, so it will be OSX or nothing....
Hmm. Why's that, I wonder? Doesn't make sense for Apple to tout running Windows now when the first thing Mac Pro owners will want to know or even assume is that Vista will also run on it... Seems like an odd approach to selling a product.
Apple only came up with the Boot Camp thing because people had already hacked the OS and were doing it anyway. Vista is a whole new ball game, as the hardware components have to be "approved" to run Vista. There is no guarantee that any PC will run Vista unless it uses these components. I think that while it may be possible to run Vista on a MacPro there is no guarantee, and I would certainly not purchase one without a certificate from Apple (the way other PC manufacturers are doing) to say that it is "Vista approved" if I actually intended to run Vista on it.
DG
-
@DG said:
...The only point in getting a MacPro is to be able to run Leopard eventually. It may never be possible to run Vista on it, so it will be OSX or nothing....
Hmm. Why's that, I wonder? Doesn't make sense for Apple to tout running Windows now when the first thing Mac Pro owners will want to know or even assume is that Vista will also run on it... Seems like an odd approach to selling a product.
Apple only came up with the Boot Camp thing because people had already hacked the OS and were doing it anyway. Vista is a whole new ball game, as the hardware components have to be "approved" to run Vista. There is no guarantee that any PC will run Vista unless it uses these components. I think that while it may be possible to run Vista on a MacPro there is no guarantee, and I would certainly not purchase one without a certificate from Apple (the way other PC manufacturers are doing) to say that it is "Vista approved" if I actually intended to run Vista on it.
DG
Well, it's clear that those MS users who decided to buy an Intel Mac for the purpose of running MSOS will be furious if this issue isn't made clear. Apple's marketing has intentionally bled over into the non-Apple market share with its semi-native hybrid platform approach. If Boot Camp is the end-all to MS on a Mac, there's going to be a beeeeeeg problem. I can't believe that Apple is not thinking ahead in this regard.
And if the current machines are not Vista approved, then those with Intel-Macs expecting to run Vista without any clear word otherwise are going to tear Apple a new *core* for potentially switching gears with all new hardware.
That's not only like putting the cart before the horse, but also like putting the wheels inside the cart for another day.
-
@JWL said:
8 Mac Minis as VI farms! The idea is cool, but you will see quickly that the opinions vary and even dare fly in the face of success reports of the owner of the octet of M&Ms.
I have been following that thread, and your take on the varied opinions is exactly why I'm nervious as well. As we all know, most of us are real world beta testers for a lot of this stuff and not everything out there functions as well as advertised. Trying to get a bead on what's the best investment direction is tricky.
Here's the thing. If you want to be on the cutting edge, you have to take risks, becaue you're doing something that has not been done before. But if you want a system that's 100% stable and risk-free, which is perfectly understandable in a working situation, then you should wait a few months.
My policy is to never make big changes to a studio when I'm on a project. I follow this policy when I work for other composers. I would never suggest to a composer working on a project to start messing around with his gear. But if you're in between two projects and have a few weeks in front of you that allows for some testing, then the risk is smaller.
Now, in terms of money, as I said in other topics, the good thing with the Mac Mini setup is that you can invest at your own pace. You can start with one or two MMs, just to see how things are going. The investment is limited, and if it doesn't work, you're not screwed.
Whatever you do, make sure your old system is still available as a back-up. Nothing worst than to realize your new gear doesn't work as well as you thought, while you're in the middle of a project, and you have no back-up to fall back on.
The other solution is to have a second workstation, on which you do all the "new gear" testing. That's more expensive, but it allows you to buy and test new stuff while your main workstation is always operational. Once you're sure that the gear works for you, you can just install it on your main workstation.
Just a couple of ideas to help you out in your choice...
Jerome
Thanks for the reply Jerome. That's my policy as well. I have about a 3 week break right now between TV and feature projects, the frist break in almost a year, so I'm making my move right now before everything starts up again (along with a short vacation)
I'm keeping all my current giga set ups and putting VI onto seperate new drives so I have both installed until I can make sure I have everything set up the way I like to work. I also upgraded to the new GVI for each machine because a huge portion of my working lib is not VSL. All in all, I try to keep all mt options open as I redesign my rig until I know for sure how I will change my set up.
I might just try out the VI on my macbook pro and the PC's before I buy any new machines.
Are you still happy with the Mac farm? No unforseen difficulties?
Also, are you using MOL? I demoed it and tried it going from my G5 to the Macbook and found the latency to be HUGE. It was unusable. By comparision, using the native network had no noticable latency. Seems a lot of people are going the MOL route, so I figure it must be working, and I've something up with mine. The native works great, but it's limited in ports and no PC.
-
... I would certainly not purchase one without a certificate from Apple (the way other PC manufacturers are doing) to say that it is "Vista approved" if I actually intended to run Vista on it.
I can totally understand that. But I wouldn't bet Apple will do it. True, they want new comers to feel safe by knowing their newly acquired Mac will also run Windows. But ultimately, they want these people to use Mac OS X. They want everybody to see Windows as a back-up. Not as your main system.
I'm not saying it will not happen - but if it doesn't while everybody tells you Vista works fine on an Intel Mac, will you still refuse to buy a Mac?
Jerome
-
Jerome, you seem to be missing the whole point. For audio users, the only Vista worth having is 64bit. Any other flavour is a waste of time, as XP is such a stable operating system.
Regarding Leopard, until it is available and can be purchased, it doesn't exist as far as consumers are concerned. The only reason that I can say Vista exists is because I've used it, or else I would be making the same comment about that.
DG
-
@DG said:
... I would certainly not purchase one without a certificate from Apple (the way other PC manufacturers are doing) to say that it is "Vista approved" if I actually intended to run Vista on it.
I can totally understand that. But I wouldn't bet Apple will do it. True, they want new comers to feel safe by knowing their newly acquired Mac will also run Windows. But ultimately, they want these people to use Mac OS X. They want everybody to see Windows as a back-up. Not as your main system.
I'm not saying it will not happen - but if it doesn't while everybody tells you Vista works fine on an Intel Mac, will you still refuse to buy a Mac?
Jerome
It is unlikely that I will be buying a Mac in the near future. Unless Vista doesn't deliver, and when Leopard eventually comes it proves to do all the things Vista should, then there would be no reason for me to buy anything from Apple, when, as you correctly point out, I can get the exact same hardware form another manufacturer.
DG
-
Listen, I have no problem with you prefering Windows XP over Mac Os. That's your choice. Everyone should use the tools that work the best for them...
My only (humble) goal was to give some precisions on some of your statements about Apple and/or their products which were, in my mind, inaccurate.
Jerome