PC vs IMAC

[dgatwood]

hahaha! software developers knew well in advance of the time steve jobs announced (earlier 2005) apple is switching to macs.

No, they didn't.

so you'd better like what you've got right now, if you're gonna buy a G5, cos at the end of 2006 (1 year from now) you will be left high and dry by apple, just like what happend last time they switched CPU's.

The last time Apple switched CPUs (back when I was still in high school), they continued to support 68k hardware in the OS for more than four years. Moreover, you are completely ignoring the fact that, unlike prior versions of Mac OS (which were mostly assembly language), Mac OS X includes relatively little code that isn't written in C or derivative languages.

This is an entirely different situation from classic Mac OS, in which they were still picking bits of emulated, legacy 68k assembly out of their OS for nearly ten years after the 68k transition, and where supporting both platforms required separately maintaining tons of hand-rolled assembly language code for both CPUs. It is MUCH easier to support a modern, well-architected OS on multiple hardware platforms.

and i guarantee you, every software and hardware vendor is exclusively developing for the intel platform and merely making fat binaries right now, not at some point in the future, but RIGHT NOW. buy any new software from apple recently? guess what, all fat binaries.

Huh? Apple isn't shipping any software as fat binaries yet, to the best of my knowledge. I don't think Apple has promised that universal binaries built today will even -work- when the real hardware ships (without recompiling them). I could be wrong, but I very much doubt it.

I can also tell you that hardware vendors aren't developing for Intel hardware exclusively because the documentation for how to write drivers for Intel-based Macs only became available about a month ago, give or take.

And are you really so stupid so as to believe that software developers are going to just suddenly stop making their software available for PowerPC hardware? At the rate that Apple is selling hardware, if Intel-based Macs shipped -tomorrow- across every single product line, it would still be at least three or four years before the number of Intel-based Macs was equal to the number of existing PPC-based Macs that were still in use. Macs have a tendency to have very long average replacement cycles compared to PCs. You are delusional if you think that software vendors are going to just throw away the majority of their Mac market share overnight.

the second apple announced the intel switch is the second their G5 hardware sales should have dried up, but thanks to hopefully dreaming delusional asses like you, they're still selling the very soon to be obsolete G5 hardware and laughing their asses off.

I'll be laughing my ass off with my Quad G5 while you wait for Intel to release a non-server chip that can be used in a similar configuration. Buh-bye.

 

[TuoKaerf]

and speaking of companies who have no respect for their customer: digidesign - who will abandon their hardware every couple of years and never upgrade drivers or write new drivers for any new OS.

so either wait for an intel imac & go with digital performer
or buy a pc and go with sonar
or cubase runs on either platform, but protools is pretty lame in comparison to the above 3 apps

Are you serious? Can you honestly expect a company to hold on to hardware/software that is obsolete? They write the software to perform at maximum with the current hardware, it'd be worthless to try and run software on an obsolete piece of gear.

 

[altitude909]

I'll be laughing my ass off with my Quad G5 while you wait for Intel to release a non-server chip that can be used in a similar configuration. Buh-bye.

An I'll be laughing about the fact that no software out there supports 4 way systems other than the OS

This is my point about macs: fashion over function

 

[Codmate]

I'll be laughing my ass off with my Quad G5 while you wait for Intel to release a non-server chip that can be used in a similar configuration. Buh-bye.

AMD are releasing a Quad core CPU in 2007 and you can bet your ass that it will wipe the floor with anything Intel have to offer, on any platform.

Let's get it straight, the *only* reason to own a Mac is if you like the O/S.
The rest is cosmetic.
It's all x86 hardware apart from the mainboard and the CPU, and soon it will be totally naitive x86.
Same graphics card, same audio interfaces etc etc.
You just pay twice the price.

Personally I'm happy paying less for more power and being able to pick and choose what O/S to run. Currently I'm tripple-booting an audio specific distro of Linux, WinXP and BeOS.

This argument will go round and round and round - but nobody will ever win as people just like to use different tools, whatever the pro's and cons.

For those of us who have the skills to build and maintain our own PCs, and like the extra power, cost savings and configurability, it's a no brainer though...

 

[altitude909]

Let's get it straight, the *only* reason to own a Mac is if you like the O/S.
The rest is cosmetic.
It's all x86 hardware apart from the mainboard and the CPU, and soon it will be totally naitive x86.
Same graphics card, same audio interfaces etc etc.
You just pay twice the price.

Bingo! Give the man a cookie

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

My processor can beat up your processor!!! Nah nah!!!

 

[dwillis45]

This is my point about macs: fashion over function

I'm not a PC user but I'm thinking about building a room for one. It will have a bumper pool table along with a complete model railroad setup. I'll also have a bar, a lava lamp, and one of those paintings of dogs playing poker. I pretty sure I'll go with wood paneling on the walls and either orange shag carpet or green indoor-outdoor carpeting.

 

[dgatwood]

An I'll be laughing about the fact that no software out there supports 4 way systems other than the OS

This is my point about macs: fashion over function

Uh... that's not true. All software that's multithreaded benefits from 4-way systems. Every audio app I've ever used runs each plug-in in a separate thread, which means those audio apps will -seriously- benefit from the quad core. As in nearly a factor of two over a dual core.

 

[altitude909]

Source? show me one software product that is made for a 2x dual cores (cause its not really a 4 way)

 

[altiris]

I am considering buying the IMAC G5 for audio recording in my home studio. It is advertisd as a good product for audio recording. I will also be buying the Digi 002 rack with Pro Tools. Does anyone have any experience in this areana?

Iv'e never really used a mac. but go with your first insticnt. Its not like its a bad rated product. If you got the cash then go ahead and buy it. dont let anyone convince you to change your mind cause if you do change your mind and dont like it you will just be frustratred with your computer forever.

 

[sonnylarsen]

G5's made baby Jesus cry...use a PC

I have bachelor's degree in religion and history, so trust me when I say that it was totally an ear infection.

In all seriousness though, use the system you are most comfortable with. I actually use both a PC (AMD 64 3000+, 768 RAM, Audiophile 2496) and my iBook (1.2 ghz, 1.25 GB RAM, M-Audio Omnistudio USB, running from a Lacie FW Drive). It is pretty interesting to see how the two work. In some respects the iBook keeps up with the PC very easily, but the PC definitely can handle more softsynths and plug-ins.

In short, I love my iBook and my next purchase will definately be either an iMac or a dual g5.

 

[dgatwood]

Source? show me one software product that is made for a 2x dual cores (cause its not really a 4 way)

2x dual core versus 4p versus quad core only makes a difference if you're optimizing out the backside for things like cache misses on the different CPUs or data fetch latency. So yes, highly tuned DSP algorithms might not be as optimal as they can be on the quad initially. We're talking a few percent here, though. The quad will still spank a dual processor or single dual core for nearly anything(*) with more than two threads doing any significant amount of work.

(*) Yes, one could always construct a degenerate case that would perform worse on quad cores with careful choice of thread affinity, etc. but it would likely be a rather contrived case.