Correction about the "form factor" as I have been corrected in the other post, the ATA UltraDMA speed is 100Mhz, while Apple can have the same with third-party addons.
The second correction pertains to PCI bus speed on PC's and that is that the best one is 66Mhz, not 133Mhz, while both Apple's and Pc's PCI bus can be 64-bit.
My apologies for the "form factor" and Rambus mixup.
Still, I do not see a valid reason for excluding PCI-X motherboards from the comparison chart. If this person were to buy a top-of-the-line Mac, they'd be easily spending $5000. For that kind of money they could easily afford a single processor Itanium with a PCI-X bus which supports 66Mhz and a hefty RME Hammerfall soundcard. Btw, Pc's busses do also support PCI 64-bit slots, again depending on a motherboard (heh, gotta love the freedom of choice)...
Front side bus IS 400Mhz on Pc's, so please do not try to twist the facts (and yes, Rambus is also running on 400Mhz):
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/ma in boards/asus_p4t/4.shtml
Actually, there are now talks of having a 533Mhz one for the oncoming Northwood chip...
On a side-note, UltraDMA100 is not natively supported by Apple, but by the third-party vendor (as I found out after the fact), so I made my coments based on what I saw on Apple's website...
50% Faster at what? Go visit
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=windows2000
do a web search on LADSPA plugins on linux, you'll be pleasantly surprised (they are VST equivalent):-)
Also check ecawave app for a soundeditor (among many others which do what you're looking for).
First off, apologies for cross-posting if any of my fellow Linux users have already posted this info. Just trying to write a summary:-)
Here we go:
Linux OS has the best latency out there (after applying low-latency or pre-empting patches), having MIDI latency in sub-1ms and 2.6ms latency for multichannel DSP streams (up to 52 channels with RME Hammerfall). This DSP latency is not limited by Linux OS, but by the current construction of audio hardware (having the smallest possible buffer of 64bytes -- so you do the math). Mac has just now introduced 32-bit sound and native multichannel options, while both Linux and Windows have had that since ~1998.
Linux OS supports more than 150 soundcards including mainstram (sb, sblive etc.), laptop (ESS Maestro series and other), and high-grade (RME, MOTU etc.). See: www.alsa-project.org (look under soundcards/card matrix). There is also commercial driver called OSS (open sound system)
Linux OS has PLENTY of audio apps. Just check the following site, and you'll find numerous apps for every type of app:
http://www.bright.net/~dlphilp/linuxsound/
Just for reference, here are some apps to take a note of:
Protools equivalent: Ardour, Mixmagic, Multitrack, Rt, Audacity
Soundforge equivalent: Audacity, Ecawave, mxv, snd
Max equivalent: Jmax, PD
Video editing: Broadcast2000 (yes, it can do sorenson and 12-channel sound production and is loaded with audio and video filters)
DVD player: bunch of these, I'll let ya figure these on your own (some of them being OMS and MPlayer)
3D design: Maya (commercial), Softimage (commercial), Blender (free)
Sequencers: Muse, Timidity
VST-like plugins: LADSPA plugins
MP3 player: XMMS
Other: Csound, Cecilia, RTcmix, Glame etc.
etc. (you get the point!:-)
x86 computers ARE superior almost in every respect to Macs, and that whole Photoshop benchmarking does not mean a thing due to fact that Apple has invested into Adobe in order for them to make a couple of filters use altivec engine (128-bit float point calculation engine that needs to be specially coded for, usually in a low-level language), while Adobe completely ignored the corresponding AMD/Intel SSE (streamlined SIMD extensions) engine which does the same thing for the x86 cpu's. That's what causes seeming performance "boost" on Macexpo's "benchmark charade" that Steve Jobs sells so well (by "benchmarking" using only one app in the whole world LOL). All other apps out there run faster on x86 cpu's than on Macs due to fact that simply altivec is not being used, OR it is being used, but Intel/AMD version also utilizes SSE in the same app, thus leveling the competition. Here are some sites that prove that (in respect to CPU speeds):
Other reasons why x86 cpu's architecture is better:
Mac's front-side bus is 100Mhz, x86's is 266Mhz for AMD and 400Mhz for Intel.
Mac's PCI bus speed is 33Mhz, x86 is either 66 or 133Mhz (depending on Motherboard).
Mac's IDE drive ATA form factor is 66Mhz, while x86's offers 100Mhz ATA/Raid capability.
Mac's best memory runs at 133Mhz, while x86 allow for Rambus memory.
Intel's chips (P4's) now offer SSE2 which directly corresponds to Altivec engine, except that there are more apps which utilize Intel's technology due to fact it is easier to code.
All of this speaks of faster data transfer on x86's (both Windows and Linux OS) than on Macs. And don't even get me started on Itanium (true 64-bit processor that can sustain continuous 6.5 Gigaflops calculations).
Also, x86 computers offer customizability and an ability to put as many soundcards as one can potentially stuff into them at the same time, thus leaving the freedom of choice to the user, and not cover up, lack of choice in some kind of a "think different" slogan...
Finally, x86 computers are cheaper, much MUCH cheaper!
As much as the OS X.1 is concerned, read the review given on Slashdot (on the 10/16/2001) written by a Mac person. He has described it rather well (read the conclusions), so there's no need for me to comment on that one.
Finally, if you look into the Windows XP, as an Intel/AMD machine alternative, you'll hear nothing but praises, even in the above-mentioned article written by a Mac person! Nvida reports up to 50% boost of their cards in the new OS, by just issuing new drivers, and they have already now (prior to these latest drivers) beaten Mac OS 3:1 in 3d benchmarking (check sharkyextreme.com's benchmarks of GeForce3 and Quake3 just to get some kind of an idea, as much as I remember, it was something like ~120fps on a dual G4 800 vs. ~230+ fps on a 1.5Ghz P4 with Gforce3,before this latest driver issued by Nvidia). Other news sources also report up to 50% performance improvement of Windows XP over Win9x.
Geesh from what hole did you just crawl out? Go visit this site:
http://www.alsa-project.org/~goemon/
There is over 150 soundcards supported there including PROFESSIONAL RME Hammerfall (and others) which does 32-bit sound up to 52 CHANNELS with ADAT lightpipe and 2.6ms latency (2.6 ms being the limit of all of the current soundcards on the market due to fact that their smallest buffer is 64 bytes, and this is not the limitation of Linux, but hey, you as an engineer should know that, right?). Go visit www.rme-audio.com for this particular card and its specs in order to enlighten yourself...
At the same time if you had any knowledge about good vs. so-called-pro-software, then you'd understand that there's Mixmagic, Rt, Multitrack, and others which have the same abilities as protools, except that they have no pricetag.
It seems like ignorance among general populace is like a widespread disease, and what is even worse is the fact that the individuals such as yourself try to "educate" others with your own lack of knowledge...
No offense, but no wonder there are more macs there right now when so-called audio engineers such as yourself spread the false info to the even-more-ignorant consumers.
Crashes? Lol, I've yet to see a Mac that crashes as seldom as Win2k or Linux system. Even OS X bombed with their Gui crashes which are not repairable, unless you remotely log in onto the machine and kill the process. Otherwise you have to force a reboot. So much for crashes and user-friendliness.
32-bit sound has been around for over 2 years and readily available for Windows and Linux, so I do not see a point in your "bomb" statement, I can only see a belated entrance to the market. As much as the MIDI stuff is concerned, the "breaking of the new grounds" as announced by the Apple, is again somewhat belated,since Linux has had sub 1ms MIDI latency for the past 3 years. Maybe they are talking about Apple breaking out of its own cocoon and realizing that there is a whole new world out there.
Just for comparison sakes, in my studio, there are no macs and all my cables are pointed to my Athlon...
Oh btw, you can get cheaper cpu's with better audio performance. For $4000 spent only on the top-of-line Mac, I can get an Itanium (true 64-bit system) and a dream 52-channel RME 32-bit soundcard running on both Linux and Windows.
OS X stable? Whom are you kidding?
Efficient? With a 100% cpu time guzzling GUI, I don't think so. Are you aware of the fact that OS X is up to 30% slower than OS 9?
As much as apps migrating to Windows, they already have done that a long time ago. On the PC you got if not the same, than comparable software and then more.
As much as the Windows stability is concerned, have you heard of Windows 2000 (the OS that runs half of the WWW servers in the world), or even better the new XP (whose current benchmarks show it to be up to 50% faster than the Win9x)?
Big files transfer smoothly? Not on a Mac with a 33Mhz PCI bus, 100Mhz front-side bus and 66Mhz ATA form factor (just for your info, PC hardware has up to 133Mhz PCI buses, up to 400Mhz front-side bus and 100Mhz ATA/RAID capability, while SCSI stuff is comparable).
Mac does "fine," but that's pretty much it.
Try this for your reader's digest:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/macosx-10.1/ ma cosx-10.1-12.html#conclusion
Don't make me laugh out loud. The only reason studios still buy Macs is because the stores where they buy all the expensive equipment that way make more money and because general population's stupidity assumes that if something is free it can't be as good as overpriced crap such as Protools. If you did some research in this field before flapping with your yapper, you'd realize that Linux beats Macs in every respect when it comes to multimedia, and that times are rapidly changing with many audio companies introducing Linux support. Not only that, but in many cases Linux doesn't even need commercial solutions, since it has already comparatively good free software!
Protools vs. Ardour, Mixmagic, Rt
ASIO drivers vs. ALSA drivers
Soundforge vs. Snd, Ecawave, mxv etc.
VST plugins vs. LADSPA plugins
Sequencers vs. Muse sequencer, timidity etc.
Max/Msp vs. Jmax, PD
etc.
The only difference is that with Linux you get better latencies, better performance and no out-of-pocket expenses. Now be smart and make a rational choice. As much as your Protools buddies are concerned, they do not obviously care about Linux, but they surely do not care about their wallets either, dishing out much more than they ought to...
On the other hand, there is plenty commercial software out there which has been readily available for Linux before it came for the Macs i.e. Maya, with which Apple people swear by, came out on Linux before it came out on Macs, Linux has also Softimage, and Blender.
And to leave you with some sense of enlightenment, pop quiz for ya:
What equipment was used for the latest animated cartoon blockbuster Shrek? Hint: it ain't them apples...
Slashdot Mirror
Correction about the "form factor" as I have been corrected in the other post, the ATA UltraDMA speed is 100Mhz, while Apple can have the same with third-party addons. The second correction pertains to PCI bus speed on PC's and that is that the best one is 66Mhz, not 133Mhz, while both Apple's and Pc's PCI bus can be 64-bit.
My apologies for the "form factor" and Rambus mixup.
a in boards/asus_p4t/4.shtml
Still, I do not see a valid reason for excluding PCI-X motherboards from the comparison chart. If this person were to buy a top-of-the-line Mac, they'd be easily spending $5000. For that kind of money they could easily afford a single processor Itanium with a PCI-X bus which supports 66Mhz and a hefty RME Hammerfall soundcard. Btw, Pc's busses do also support PCI 64-bit slots, again depending on a motherboard (heh, gotta love the freedom of choice)...
Front side bus IS 400Mhz on Pc's, so please do not try to twist the facts (and yes, Rambus is also running on 400Mhz):
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/m
Actually, there are now talks of having a 533Mhz one for the oncoming Northwood chip...
On a side-note, UltraDMA100 is not natively supported by Apple, but by the third-party vendor (as I found out after the fact), so I made my coments based on what I saw on Apple's website...
50% Faster at what? Go visit
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=windows2000
do a web search on LADSPA plugins on linux, you'll be pleasantly surprised (they are VST equivalent) :-)
Also check ecawave app for a soundeditor (among many others which do what you're looking for).
First off, apologies for cross-posting if any of my fellow Linux users have already posted this info. Just trying to write a summary :-)
:-)
:-)
Here we go:
Linux OS has the best latency out there (after applying low-latency or pre-empting patches), having MIDI latency in sub-1ms and 2.6ms latency for multichannel DSP streams (up to 52 channels with RME Hammerfall). This DSP latency is not limited by Linux OS, but by the current construction of audio hardware (having the smallest possible buffer of 64bytes -- so you do the math). Mac has just now introduced 32-bit sound and native multichannel options, while both Linux and Windows have had that since ~1998.
Linux OS supports more than 150 soundcards including mainstram (sb, sblive etc.), laptop (ESS Maestro series and other), and high-grade (RME, MOTU etc.). See: www.alsa-project.org (look under soundcards/card matrix). There is also commercial driver called OSS (open sound system)
Linux OS has PLENTY of audio apps. Just check the following site, and you'll find numerous apps for every type of app:
http://www.bright.net/~dlphilp/linuxsound/
Just for reference, here are some apps to take a note of:
Protools equivalent: Ardour, Mixmagic, Multitrack, Rt, Audacity
Soundforge equivalent: Audacity, Ecawave, mxv, snd
Max equivalent: Jmax, PD
Video editing: Broadcast2000 (yes, it can do sorenson and 12-channel sound production and is loaded with audio and video filters)
DVD player: bunch of these, I'll let ya figure these on your own (some of them being OMS and MPlayer)
3D design: Maya (commercial), Softimage (commercial), Blender (free)
Sequencers: Muse, Timidity
VST-like plugins: LADSPA plugins
MP3 player: XMMS
Other: Csound, Cecilia, RTcmix, Glame etc.
etc. (you get the point!
x86 computers ARE superior almost in every respect to Macs, and that whole Photoshop benchmarking does not mean a thing due to fact that Apple has invested into Adobe in order for them to make a couple of filters use altivec engine (128-bit float point calculation engine that needs to be specially coded for, usually in a low-level language), while Adobe completely ignored the corresponding AMD/Intel SSE (streamlined SIMD extensions) engine which does the same thing for the x86 cpu's. That's what causes seeming performance "boost" on Macexpo's "benchmark charade" that Steve Jobs sells so well (by "benchmarking" using only one app in the whole world LOL). All other apps out there run faster on x86 cpu's than on Macs due to fact that simply altivec is not being used, OR it is being used, but Intel/AMD version also utilizes SSE in the same app, thus leveling the competition. Here are some sites that prove that (in respect to CPU speeds):
http://www.cpuscorecard.com/all_cpus.htm
http://no6.com/apple/
Other reasons why x86 cpu's architecture is better:
Mac's front-side bus is 100Mhz, x86's is 266Mhz for AMD and 400Mhz for Intel.
Mac's PCI bus speed is 33Mhz, x86 is either 66 or 133Mhz (depending on Motherboard).
Mac's IDE drive ATA form factor is 66Mhz, while x86's offers 100Mhz ATA/Raid capability.
Mac's best memory runs at 133Mhz, while x86 allow for Rambus memory.
Intel's chips (P4's) now offer SSE2 which directly corresponds to Altivec engine, except that there are more apps which utilize Intel's technology due to fact it is easier to code.
All of this speaks of faster data transfer on x86's (both Windows and Linux OS) than on Macs. And don't even get me started on Itanium (true 64-bit processor that can sustain continuous 6.5 Gigaflops calculations).
Also, x86 computers offer customizability and an ability to put as many soundcards as one can potentially stuff into them at the same time, thus leaving the freedom of choice to the user, and not cover up, lack of choice in some kind of a "think different" slogan...
Finally, x86 computers are cheaper, much MUCH cheaper!
As much as the OS X.1 is concerned, read the review given on Slashdot (on the 10/16/2001) written by a Mac person. He has described it rather well (read the conclusions), so there's no need for me to comment on that one.
Finally, if you look into the Windows XP, as an Intel/AMD machine alternative, you'll hear nothing but praises, even in the above-mentioned article written by a Mac person! Nvida reports up to 50% boost of their cards in the new OS, by just issuing new drivers, and they have already now (prior to these latest drivers) beaten Mac OS 3:1 in 3d benchmarking (check sharkyextreme.com's benchmarks of GeForce3 and Quake3 just to get some kind of an idea, as much as I remember, it was something like ~120fps on a dual G4 800 vs. ~230+ fps on a 1.5Ghz P4 with Gforce3,before this latest driver issued by Nvidia). Other news sources also report up to 50% performance improvement of Windows XP over Win9x.
nuff said
Geesh from what hole did you just crawl out? Go visit this site:
http://www.alsa-project.org/~goemon/
There is over 150 soundcards supported there including PROFESSIONAL RME Hammerfall (and others) which does 32-bit sound up to 52 CHANNELS with ADAT lightpipe and 2.6ms latency (2.6 ms being the limit of all of the current soundcards on the market due to fact that their smallest buffer is 64 bytes, and this is not the limitation of Linux, but hey, you as an engineer should know that, right?). Go visit www.rme-audio.com for this particular card and its specs in order to enlighten yourself...
At the same time if you had any knowledge about good vs. so-called-pro-software, then you'd understand that there's Mixmagic, Rt, Multitrack, and others which have the same abilities as protools, except that they have no pricetag.
It seems like ignorance among general populace is like a widespread disease, and what is even worse is the fact that the individuals such as yourself try to "educate" others with your own lack of knowledge...
No offense, but no wonder there are more macs there right now when so-called audio engineers such as yourself spread the false info to the even-more-ignorant consumers.
Crashes? Lol, I've yet to see a Mac that crashes as seldom as Win2k or Linux system. Even OS X bombed with their Gui crashes which are not repairable, unless you remotely log in onto the machine and kill the process. Otherwise you have to force a reboot. So much for crashes and user-friendliness.
32-bit sound has been around for over 2 years and readily available for Windows and Linux, so I do not see a point in your "bomb" statement, I can only see a belated entrance to the market. As much as the MIDI stuff is concerned, the "breaking of the new grounds" as announced by the Apple, is again somewhat belated,since Linux has had sub 1ms MIDI latency for the past 3 years. Maybe they are talking about Apple breaking out of its own cocoon and realizing that there is a whole new world out there.
Just for comparison sakes, in my studio, there are no macs and all my cables are pointed to my Athlon...
Oh btw, you can get cheaper cpu's with better audio performance. For $4000 spent only on the top-of-line Mac, I can get an Itanium (true 64-bit system) and a dream 52-channel RME 32-bit soundcard running on both Linux and Windows.
OS X stable? Whom are you kidding?
/ ma cosx-10.1-12.html#conclusion
Efficient? With a 100% cpu time guzzling GUI, I don't think so. Are you aware of the fact that OS X is up to 30% slower than OS 9?
As much as apps migrating to Windows, they already have done that a long time ago. On the PC you got if not the same, than comparable software and then more.
As much as the Windows stability is concerned, have you heard of Windows 2000 (the OS that runs half of the WWW servers in the world), or even better the new XP (whose current benchmarks show it to be up to 50% faster than the Win9x)?
Big files transfer smoothly? Not on a Mac with a 33Mhz PCI bus, 100Mhz front-side bus and 66Mhz ATA form factor (just for your info, PC hardware has up to 133Mhz PCI buses, up to 400Mhz front-side bus and 100Mhz ATA/RAID capability, while SCSI stuff is comparable).
Mac does "fine," but that's pretty much it.
Try this for your reader's digest:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/macosx-10.1
Don't make me laugh out loud. The only reason studios still buy Macs is because the stores where they buy all the expensive equipment that way make more money and because general population's stupidity assumes that if something is free it can't be as good as overpriced crap such as Protools. If you did some research in this field before flapping with your yapper, you'd realize that Linux beats Macs in every respect when it comes to multimedia, and that times are rapidly changing with many audio companies introducing Linux support. Not only that, but in many cases Linux doesn't even need commercial solutions, since it has already comparatively good free software!
Protools vs. Ardour, Mixmagic, Rt
ASIO drivers vs. ALSA drivers
Soundforge vs. Snd, Ecawave, mxv etc.
VST plugins vs. LADSPA plugins
Sequencers vs. Muse sequencer, timidity etc.
Max/Msp vs. Jmax, PD
etc.
The only difference is that with Linux you get better latencies, better performance and no out-of-pocket expenses. Now be smart and make a rational choice. As much as your Protools buddies are concerned, they do not obviously care about Linux, but they surely do not care about their wallets either, dishing out much more than they ought to...
On the other hand, there is plenty commercial software out there which has been readily available for Linux before it came for the Macs i.e. Maya, with which Apple people swear by, came out on Linux before it came out on Macs, Linux has also Softimage, and Blender.
And to leave you with some sense of enlightenment, pop quiz for ya:
What equipment was used for the latest animated cartoon blockbuster Shrek? Hint: it ain't them apples...