Apple has identified an issue with external FireWire hard drives using the Oxford 922 bridge chip-set with firmware version 1.02 that can result in the loss of data stored on the disk drive. Apple is working with Oxford Semiconductor and affected drive manufacturers to resolve this issue which resides in the Oxford 922 chip-set.
In the interim, Apple recommends that you do not use these drives. To stop using the drive, you should unmount or eject the disk drive before doing anything else. Please check this web page for further updates.
Update 11/4/2003: Apple and Oxford Semiconductor have confirmed that firmware version 1.05 resolves the data loss issue experienced by some FW800 users. FireWire disk drive manufacturers have begun posting firmware updates:
Lacie Macpower Century Global Other World Computing Firewire Direct Firewire Depot Wiebetech Ezquest Glyph Only use the updater provided by the maker of your drive and follow the installation instructions carefully. If your drive manufacturer is not listed, contact them for more information.
This message, third party links and related information are provided by Apple for information purposes only, without representation and warranty of any kind. Apple expressly disclaims any liability relating to the use of this message, third party links and related information. Any questions regarding third party support should be directed to the appropriate third party.
The only thing that sounds "stupid" is the suggestion that Mac OS X has a problem with 5.1 surround sound! Since 10.1, the underlying "Core Audio" architecture has had no problem with far more channels than that.
Um.... don't worry too much anyway Gregoyle, I don't really think this product is aimed at people who want "to be taken seriously in the DJ world". Could you imagine, really, getting up in front of over 200 people with that silly looking thing? Don't worry. You can always run Traktor on a Mac, and if you really want to do some cool shit, grab Final Scratch.
Perhaps I should have been a little more specific: the real DJs who wish to spin stuff from a computer will use Final Scratch.
Also, FYI Final Scratch does support lossless formats. In fact the newest version uses NI Traktor as its front end.
A certain amount of kudos is due to Stanton here, because the intel version is Linux, and there is no Windows version. Version 1.1 adds OS X support too.
Finally if you check the web site you'll see that there are two different records available for it - one optimized for scratching and the other for mixing. But I will admit I'm by no means an expert DJ.
I agree with you however, that Final Scratch will not replace genuine pressed records. But for the DJ who also creates music, Final Scratch is an invaluable tool to bring that cool groove you put together to a gig the same evening.
Well you'd think that 6 channels at 24 bit sounds good for under $250, but think about it -- a cheezy old SoundBlaster and a previous-generation multi-thousand dollar Apogee or ProTools rig are all based on 16-bit technology... but merely because this is so does not mean they will sound the same.
You get what you pay for. Be very careful when trying to define sound quality with bits and sampling rates alone. There are a lot more variables than that when it comes to digital audio hardware, many of them purely subjective.
Hey Pudge, that WD enclosure (linked in article) looks pretty sweet. Is the bridge chip Oxford 911? What kind of lights are those inside the case? (LED? Neon?) Can you turn them off if you want?
Yes it would be a one-time hit, but we hard disk intensive audio and video people don't want to be streaming multiple tracks off our hard disks while they are defragging themselves!
Self-defragging might be great on file servers but Macs are (largely) about the multimedia.
Yeah, don't put it in the front seat.
If you get into any sort of accident in your car, no matter the circumstances, it'll be assumed it distracted you.
It'll also be assumed that the airbag pushed the LCD right through your chest.
When installing anything like that into a passenger compartment, airbag deployment is an important consideration. Did you think about it?
The DVI port on the PC version of the Radeon 8500 is DVI-D, while the Mac version is DVI-I including a VGA adapter.
With the PC version you can only drive 1 analog and 1 digital monitor. The Mac version will also let you run 2 CRT monitors using the supplied adapter. Is that worth a few extra $? It is to me -- I have 2 rather nice Sun 21" Trinitron CRT's and no immediate need to upgrade.
I think I will be upgrading to a Radeon 8500 myself, which are available on Ebay or directly from the ATI web site.
The cool thing is that instead of merely resizing your windows, it actually scales them. No matter how many open windows are on your screen, it will scale them all to a small size so that none of them overlap each other, allowing you to pick the one you want to bring to the foreground.
Then, poof! The windows spring back to be exactly the way you left them, except with your newly selected window on top.
It looks very slick, and I can't wait to use it in Logic, where it's quite common to have a dozen or more windows open at a time!
I had a chance to try a 3.2 GHz P4, an Opteron, a dual G5, a 3.06 GHz dual Xeon, and an Athlon 64, using a suite of productivity and multimedia apps. Here's the verdict:
The P4: Very very fast. Opteron: Super fast. Dual G5: Really really fast. Athlon 64: Totally fast. Dual Xeon: Nice 'n fast.
Telling results! Unfortunately since I have put so much effort into accurate, impartial analysis of the test results, and participating in all the arguments with disbelievers and naysayers, I have not had a chance to get any work done for months. But who wants to use CPUs for productive tasks anyway, when it is so much fun to sit back and watch them "trounce" each other!
Excellent, excellent points about audiophile terminology. Speaking as a semi-pro musician/producer for the past 15 ears, AC does an excellent job defining and justifying the non-computerese terminology.
Reading most of the comments for this article has been very frustrating for me, because everybody wants to laugh at the serious listeners, which to me proves why the/. crowd picks Crative or Archaos hardware over the iPod based on specs (capacity/price/etc) alone. Nobody ever asks how it sounds.
I assume most of the people reading this thread are at least power users - do you ever get frustrated watching a technology noob trying to browse the web? They want to click on pop-ups, leave their mouse pointer positioned over the area they are trying to type in, don't know any keyboard shortcuts, etc -- this is my frustration reading people's comments about perfectly reasonable subjective comments about sound.
Seriously, if you don't know what makes your Red Hot Chili Peppers album better than your Alanis Morisette album other than that you "like it more", you should not be so quick to be cynical in this thread.
My first computer was a VIC-20 which I outgrew almost as quickly as I bought it. But after I ditched the VIC, I already had a 1541 disk drive so I just had to upgrade the computer to a C64. It was my main computer until the mid-'90's!
At first I used to make mammoth BASIC programs to do just about everything, poorly. Then I learned assembly language and wrote a few demos, cracked a few games...
But in the late 80's I started using it as the centre of my MIDI setup, using a MIDI interface in the cartridge port, a bunch of external synths and drum machines, and a program called "Sonus Supersequencer". It was a primitive but capable MIDI sequencing program that I even used on stage - just had to make sure the guitarist could tell some long stories while I waited for the 1541 to load up the next 4 songs!
Do you like the sound of the SID chip? Check out www.ucapps.de for a great DIY project that makes MIDI synthesizers out of SID chips (and blows away the commercial SIDstation found at www.sidstation.com).
Are you on crack? Maybe I've been trolled, but......no version of Windows NT was ever "User Friendly". Just try installing an Ethernet card under NT 4 (or even better NT 3.51) and tell me I'm wrong.
I'd also like to address the myth that prior to OS X the Mac had no multitasking. A lot of Windows users who never used the Mac seem to be under this impression because the Mac was known to not support "pre-emptive multitasking" - instead it employed co-operative multitasking, like in Win 3.x. Co-operative multitasking was not as stable as pre-emptive because a crashing app could bring down the whole OS, but decent, stable apps worked just fine. Some software was also not "multitasking friendly", which meant they were CPU hogs and background apps would not perform well. But it still worked. In fact it has worked since the System 6 "Multi-Finder".
Pre-emptive multitasking was introduced by MS with Windows NT, and it was supposedly rolled into the Windows 95/98/ME family but let's face it: those operating systems, despite the hype behind them, were really never any more stable than good ol' Macintosh System 7. As Windows 98 and ME rolled around, so did Mac OS 8 and 9, which did lots to improve stability. In fact I would honestly say that I would feel more comfortable running mission-critical sofware on OS 9 than Windows ME, despite the latter's protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking. These claims may have been true in theory but I saw so many nasty apps crash entire Windows installations that I can truly say I believe they were just marketing hype. I would rather have well-written obsolete code than crappy, bug-ridden state-of-the-art code any day.
Remember: Microsoft marketed Windows 95 as "32 bit" as well, when in fact it barely was even that. (It was 32 bit as much as Panther is 64 bit).
Win 95 was impressive when it came out because Microsoft had finally begun to realize 90% of the usability of the Mac. It still wasn't good enough, as Mac users swore by their consolidated menu bars, consistent desktop icon placement, spacial finder, true plug-n-play, no stupid 'parent/child window' concept, Apple menu, drag-n-drop installations and de-installations, etc.
Mac OS would not have died to Win 95 on x86 because of any product superiority. It would have died for the same reason OS/2 died: it was a superior product that just didn't have the Microsoft hype engine behind it.
Finally, OS X is great but it's widely believed that what "saved Apple" is the iMac, not OS X. The original Bondi Blue iMac was a solid, well-performing computer with a bold look for a little money. It paved the way for legacy-interface-free computers, as Apple did away with SCSI, ADB and serial ports in favour of IDE and USB. It was truly innovative, and that's what sustains Apple in the long-term: some people (including me) want to buy products they can be excited about. They are proud to be part of a movement towards real innovation, solid products, and separation from a computer market that has just gone all wrong. We like to watch while our Microsoft-dependent friends all get clobbered by nasty virii and cheap, cruddy unstable hardware.
You are right that the poll itself doesn't really prove anything, but it is still interesting to go to the article and read the testimonials. The stuff that people wrote seems like interesting, genuine tales from people who like and people who dislike MS products. The general consensus is that Linux is great for servers, and Macs are ideal for the desktop but too expensive.
You don't budget for 130,000 machines without budgeting for IS staff, including grunts.
Still I see your point, but I would build the network with only a few test machines to start, then check and see how well it's scaling with 100, then scale it up to 1000, etc....
I'm sure once you were left to take delivery on 100,000 machines or so you might be able to use that buying power to have Apple load them with a custom image. They would probably get it right -- it's really not rocket science. And if Apple wouldn't (as if), Terrasoft would.
You only need a couple of dozen guaranteed sales a year to for Dell to provide the boxes with a sysprep image of your design, rather than standard OEM Windows.
So basically each school could be issued with completely customised laptops that are fully configured straight out of the box.
I'm not sure if Apple do this?
If I was managing this project I would create my own image and distribute it myself, thank you. There is very little value in having the vendor do that for you, because images of this nature tend to get tweaked over time.
But would Apple do it? C'mon, we're talking 130,000 laptops here. I think for that kind of sales, Michigan could get Steve Jobs to jump out of a cake wearing a thong and sing "Happy Birthday Mr. President" at the next 5 PTA meetings. Failing that, I think making a customized OS X HD image would be pretty easy.
When you're talking about 130,000 laptops, I think the price with either vendor becomes somewhat negotiable. In reality we don't know who is cheaper here -- it comes down to actual production cost and how hungry the computer maker is for the business. Apple's pretty aggressive with laptops lately.
and you can change to another vendor in the future and still keep your network/OS environment the same. With Apple, you either buy Apple for the immediate future or you have to buy new applications and retrain staff/IS personnel.
We are talking about an education system which likely already has a pretty significant Mac penetration. So I don't think IS personnel are going to have too much trouble with this, but if Michigan seriously plans to deploy 130,000 laptops I think they will be budgeting on an independent IS department just to manage this wireless laptop LAN.
Meanwhile so far in this discussion an awful lot of pro-Mac ideas have come up: better build quality (iBook vs Latitude -- no comparison), fewer virii/worms, overall more secure OS, fewer available games and bandwidth-hogging P2P titles, and overall succumbing to the lesser of the three evils (M$, Dell, Apple)
This is merely my 2 cents of course. And I maintain that the top post in this thread really isn't saying anything.
Think Secret has been answering some Panther FAQ's based on what they've seen in developer seeds. Here is one of their answers:
Is the "all-new" Finder now multithreaded? Is it written in Cocoa?
The new Finder is still Carbon, but it's worth noting that it's a Mach-O binary. Mach-O binaries are native to the Darwin core, and while all Cocoa applications are Mach-O, only some Carbon applications are. With regard to programming and structure, there's little new in Panther's Finder, and in terms of multithreading, it's no more multithreaded than Jaguar's.
Slashdot Mirror
This page states:
Apple has identified an issue with external FireWire hard drives using the Oxford 922 bridge chip-set with firmware version 1.02 that can result in the loss of data stored on the disk drive. Apple is working with Oxford Semiconductor and affected drive manufacturers to resolve this issue which resides in the Oxford 922 chip-set.
In the interim, Apple recommends that you do not use these drives. To stop using the drive, you should unmount or eject the disk drive before doing anything else. Please check this web page for further updates.
Update 11/4/2003:
Apple and Oxford Semiconductor have confirmed that firmware version 1.05 resolves the data loss issue experienced by some FW800 users. FireWire disk drive manufacturers have begun posting firmware updates:
Lacie
Macpower
Century Global
Other World Computing
Firewire Direct
Firewire Depot
Wiebetech
Ezquest
Glyph
Only use the updater provided by the maker of your drive and follow the installation instructions carefully. If your drive manufacturer is not listed, contact them for more information.
This message, third party links and related information are provided by Apple for information purposes only, without representation and warranty of any kind. Apple expressly disclaims any liability relating to the use of this message, third party links and related information. Any questions regarding third party support should be directed to the appropriate third party.
Hmm... Ewoks don't sound that bad, especially if there could be a scene where Agent Smith takes on Jar Jar Binks!
ditto. i just used apogee to illustrate a point. there are 16-bit converters that will sound far better than 6 channels of 24-bit audio for $249.
Just wondering: why would you never consider running this on a Mac? Is it because of something the Mac doesn't do well, or are you just a Mac hater?
The only thing that sounds "stupid" is the suggestion that Mac OS X has a problem with 5.1 surround sound! Since 10.1, the underlying "Core Audio" architecture has had no problem with far more channels than that.
Um.... don't worry too much anyway Gregoyle, I don't really think this product is aimed at people who want "to be taken seriously in the DJ world". Could you imagine, really, getting up in front of over 200 people with that silly looking thing? Don't worry. You can always run Traktor on a Mac, and if you really want to do some cool shit, grab Final Scratch.
Perhaps I should have been a little more specific: the real DJs who wish to spin stuff from a computer will use Final Scratch.
Also, FYI Final Scratch does support lossless formats. In fact the newest version uses NI Traktor as its front end.
A certain amount of kudos is due to Stanton here, because the intel version is Linux, and there is no Windows version. Version 1.1 adds OS X support too.
Finally if you check the web site you'll see that there are two different records available for it - one optimized for scratching and the other for mixing. But I will admit I'm by no means an expert DJ.
I agree with you however, that Final Scratch will not replace genuine pressed records. But for the DJ who also creates music, Final Scratch is an invaluable tool to bring that cool groove you put together to a gig the same evening.
Nope. The real DJs will use Final Scratch.
(If you don't know about it, seriously check it out -- it works very, very well)
Well you'd think that 6 channels at 24 bit sounds good for under $250, but think about it -- a cheezy old SoundBlaster and a previous-generation multi-thousand dollar Apogee or ProTools rig are all based on 16-bit technology... but merely because this is so does not mean they will sound the same.
You get what you pay for. Be very careful when trying to define sound quality with bits and sampling rates alone. There are a lot more variables than that when it comes to digital audio hardware, many of them purely subjective.
Hey Pudge, that WD enclosure (linked in article) looks pretty sweet. Is the bridge chip Oxford 911? What kind of lights are those inside the case? (LED? Neon?) Can you turn them off if you want?
Yes it would be a one-time hit, but we hard disk intensive audio and video people don't want to be streaming multiple tracks off our hard disks while they are defragging themselves!
Self-defragging might be great on file servers but Macs are (largely) about the multimedia.
Good ol' pine works very nicely under the Mac OS X command line. But I find mail.app pretty adequate, if a little sluggish.
It'll also be assumed that the airbag pushed the LCD right through your chest.
When installing anything like that into a passenger compartment, airbag deployment is an important consideration. Did you think about it?
The DVI port on the PC version of the Radeon 8500 is DVI-D, while the Mac version is DVI-I including a VGA adapter.
With the PC version you can only drive 1 analog and 1 digital monitor. The Mac version will also let you run 2 CRT monitors using the supplied adapter. Is that worth a few extra $? It is to me -- I have 2 rather nice Sun 21" Trinitron CRT's and no immediate need to upgrade.
I think I will be upgrading to a Radeon 8500 myself, which are available on Ebay or directly from the ATI web site.
The cool thing is that instead of merely resizing your windows, it actually scales them. No matter how many open windows are on your screen, it will scale them all to a small size so that none of them overlap each other, allowing you to pick the one you want to bring to the foreground.
Then, poof! The windows spring back to be exactly the way you left them, except with your newly selected window on top.
It looks very slick, and I can't wait to use it in Logic, where it's quite common to have a dozen or more windows open at a time!
I had a chance to try a 3.2 GHz P4, an Opteron, a dual G5, a 3.06 GHz dual Xeon, and an Athlon 64, using a suite of productivity and multimedia apps. Here's the verdict:
The P4: Very very fast.
Opteron: Super fast.
Dual G5: Really really fast.
Athlon 64: Totally fast.
Dual Xeon: Nice 'n fast.
Telling results! Unfortunately since I have put so much effort into accurate, impartial analysis of the test results, and participating in all the arguments with disbelievers and naysayers, I have not had a chance to get any work done for months. But who wants to use CPUs for productive tasks anyway, when it is so much fun to sit back and watch them "trounce" each other!
Excellent, excellent points about audiophile terminology. Speaking as a semi-pro musician/producer for the past 15 ears, AC does an excellent job defining and justifying the non-computerese terminology.
/. crowd picks Crative or Archaos hardware over the iPod based on specs (capacity/price/etc) alone. Nobody ever asks how it sounds.
:)
Reading most of the comments for this article has been very frustrating for me, because everybody wants to laugh at the serious listeners, which to me proves why the
I assume most of the people reading this thread are at least power users - do you ever get frustrated watching a technology noob trying to browse the web? They want to click on pop-ups, leave their mouse pointer positioned over the area they are trying to type in, don't know any keyboard shortcuts, etc -- this is my frustration reading people's comments about perfectly reasonable subjective comments about sound.
Seriously, if you don't know what makes your Red Hot Chili Peppers album better than your Alanis Morisette album other than that you "like it more", you should not be so quick to be cynical in this thread.
Aw crap, while you're at it, mod me up too
My first computer was a VIC-20 which I outgrew almost as quickly as I bought it. But after I ditched the VIC, I already had a 1541 disk drive so I just had to upgrade the computer to a C64. It was my main computer until the mid-'90's!
At first I used to make mammoth BASIC programs to do just about everything, poorly. Then I learned assembly language and wrote a few demos, cracked a few games...
But in the late 80's I started using it as the centre of my MIDI setup, using a MIDI interface in the cartridge port, a bunch of external synths and drum machines, and a program called "Sonus Supersequencer". It was a primitive but capable MIDI sequencing program that I even used on stage - just had to make sure the guitarist could tell some long stories while I waited for the 1541 to load up the next 4 songs!
Do you like the sound of the SID chip? Check out www.ucapps.de for a great DIY project that makes MIDI synthesizers out of SID chips (and blows away the commercial SIDstation found at www.sidstation.com).
Are you on crack? Maybe I've been trolled, but... ...no version of Windows NT was ever "User Friendly". Just try installing an Ethernet card under NT 4 (or even better NT 3.51) and tell me I'm wrong.
I'd also like to address the myth that prior to OS X the Mac had no multitasking. A lot of Windows users who never used the Mac seem to be under this impression because the Mac was known to not support "pre-emptive multitasking" - instead it employed co-operative multitasking, like in Win 3.x. Co-operative multitasking was not as stable as pre-emptive because a crashing app could bring down the whole OS, but decent, stable apps worked just fine. Some software was also not "multitasking friendly", which meant they were CPU hogs and background apps would not perform well. But it still worked. In fact it has worked since the System 6 "Multi-Finder".
Pre-emptive multitasking was introduced by MS with Windows NT, and it was supposedly rolled into the Windows 95/98/ME family but let's face it: those operating systems, despite the hype behind them, were really never any more stable than good ol' Macintosh System 7. As Windows 98 and ME rolled around, so did Mac OS 8 and 9, which did lots to improve stability. In fact I would honestly say that I would feel more comfortable running mission-critical sofware on OS 9 than Windows ME, despite the latter's protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking. These claims may have been true in theory but I saw so many nasty apps crash entire Windows installations that I can truly say I believe they were just marketing hype. I would rather have well-written obsolete code than crappy, bug-ridden state-of-the-art code any day.
Remember: Microsoft marketed Windows 95 as "32 bit" as well, when in fact it barely was even that. (It was 32 bit as much as Panther is 64 bit).
Win 95 was impressive when it came out because Microsoft had finally begun to realize 90% of the usability of the Mac. It still wasn't good enough, as Mac users swore by their consolidated menu bars, consistent desktop icon placement, spacial finder, true plug-n-play, no stupid 'parent/child window' concept, Apple menu, drag-n-drop installations and de-installations, etc.
Mac OS would not have died to Win 95 on x86 because of any product superiority. It would have died for the same reason OS/2 died: it was a superior product that just didn't have the Microsoft hype engine behind it.
Finally, OS X is great but it's widely believed that what "saved Apple" is the iMac, not OS X. The original Bondi Blue iMac was a solid, well-performing computer with a bold look for a little money. It paved the way for legacy-interface-free computers, as Apple did away with SCSI, ADB and serial ports in favour of IDE and USB. It was truly innovative, and that's what sustains Apple in the long-term: some people (including me) want to buy products they can be excited about. They are proud to be part of a movement towards real innovation, solid products, and separation from a computer market that has just gone all wrong. We like to watch while our Microsoft-dependent friends all get clobbered by nasty virii and cheap, cruddy unstable hardware.
You are right that the poll itself doesn't really prove anything, but it is still interesting to go to the article and read the testimonials. The stuff that people wrote seems like interesting, genuine tales from people who like and people who dislike MS products. The general consensus is that Linux is great for servers, and Macs are ideal for the desktop but too expensive.
You don't budget for 130,000 machines without budgeting for IS staff, including grunts.
Still I see your point, but I would build the network with only a few test machines to start, then check and see how well it's scaling with 100, then scale it up to 1000, etc....
I'm sure once you were left to take delivery on 100,000 machines or so you might be able to use that buying power to have Apple load them with a custom image. They would probably get it right -- it's really not rocket science. And if Apple wouldn't (as if), Terrasoft would.
If I was managing this project I would create my own image and distribute it myself, thank you. There is very little value in having the vendor do that for you, because images of this nature tend to get tweaked over time.
But would Apple do it? C'mon, we're talking 130,000 laptops here. I think for that kind of sales, Michigan could get Steve Jobs to jump out of a cake wearing a thong and sing "Happy Birthday Mr. President" at the next 5 PTA meetings. Failing that, I think making a customized OS X HD image would be pretty easy.
When you're talking about 130,000 laptops, I think the price with either vendor becomes somewhat negotiable. In reality we don't know who is cheaper here -- it comes down to actual production cost and how hungry the computer maker is for the business. Apple's pretty aggressive with laptops lately.
We are talking about an education system which likely already has a pretty significant Mac penetration. So I don't think IS personnel are going to have too much trouble with this, but if Michigan seriously plans to deploy 130,000 laptops I think they will be budgeting on an independent IS department just to manage this wireless laptop LAN.
Meanwhile so far in this discussion an awful lot of pro-Mac ideas have come up: better build quality (iBook vs Latitude -- no comparison), fewer virii/worms, overall more secure OS, fewer available games and bandwidth-hogging P2P titles, and overall succumbing to the lesser of the three evils (M$, Dell, Apple)
This is merely my 2 cents of course. And I maintain that the top post in this thread really isn't saying anything.
Does anybody know the build # of the GM release?
Maybe I'm not getting what you're trying to say: What is this "edge" Dell has? OK, XP is stable, but what would be the advantage to going with Dell?