Setting up a Studio with Power iMac

[elevate]

The price for a Dell Dimension 4400 with a 1.6 GHz P4 and all the other features of the iMac came to $1,917.00.

I configured one for $1800 with a 2Ghz P4 and an 80GB drive.

From TechTV: "Today the performance gap is even wider, with Intel's Pentium 4 chip running at 2 GHz, compared with the Apple G4's 876 MHz. But the disparity in chip speed doesn't necessarily translate into better performance...

Wait, did they just say the performance gap is wider, yet that doesn't mean performance is that different? Yea, I've never been a big fan of TechTV. Do they have info on these benchmarks? How the machines were set up? What applications were run? Go here for some benchmarks. The setup info is not there, but it is linked to on a PC tech site. The most objective tests are the two ArsTestBench tests (int and float). These were developed by both Mac and PC (not necessarily Windows) users.

I realize this argument is somewhat futile. For Mac users, and a good sector of commonplace PC users, the new iMac is a nice package. For me, it conjures up feelings of ....meh. I build my computers, and I encourage others to do so because that is where you are going to get something truely deserving of the "Power" monicker and for less money.

BTW, I think Dell gets their LCD screens from the same people that make Apple's LCD's.

 

[shortyc]

a computer at all is better than nothing

whoopie!

 

[MrBlackthorne]

I configured one for $1800 with a 2Ghz P4 and an 80GB drive.

You're probably forgetting to add things like Firewire, video editing media software, DVD Burner, and a 15" flatpanel display. These are all standard (besides DVD burner) on even the cheapest iMac. I configured the system with as identical features as I could find.

As for TechTV, whatever. I don't care for their channel either. The fact of the matter is that the G4 does compete well with the P4 and the Athlon on a lot of tasks, because of its 128 bit vector processing. A floating point/integer calculation benchmark is not going to show that. Vector calculations are used to speed up things like media and audio - which is why the G4 is such a good audio machine. My sister has a 450 MHz G4 Cube that I've used for mixing before. No matter how many tracks and effects I threw at it, I couldn't get it to studder. (I'm sure I could have gotten it to choke if I used, say, the Waves C4 compressor 80 times, but that's not a real-world test.)

BTW, I think Dell gets their LCD screens from the same people that make Apple's LCD's.

I don't know, I've seen the LCD that comes with the Dell. Maybe it's just the Mac bigot in me being biased, but I don't think they look as nice. Just me, I guess.

I realize this argument is somewhat futile. For Mac users, and a good sector of commonplace PC users, the new iMac is a nice package. For me, it conjures up feelings of ....meh. I build my computers, and I encourage others to do so because that is where you are going to get something truely deserving of the "Power" monicker and for less money.

Yeah, I hear you. I've built a couple PC systems, there's really nothing to it. I just use PC's for number crunching and serving. I wouldn't put one in my studio. And as far a Windows goes - forget it. I'm Linux or FreeBSD all the way. You could say I'm pretty biased against Microsoft, especially after BeOS went under, no doubt because of Microsoft's dominance. If BeOS had become a dominant production OS, I probably would have considered a PC in my studio.

I've also built my own Mac. A G3/266. Pretty sweet system, and it runs nice considering I built it in an AT tower using used parts from the clone days. Actually, I built one of those for my friend, too.

Listen, I'm not going to debate that PC's suck. I don't think they suck. It just drives me crazy when PC users attack Mac users for their platform choice, for really no reason. It's tough for someone like me who is truly multi-platform. (I deal with mostly Solaris at work.)

Peace out.

Rick

 

[elevate]

Maybe it's just the Mac bigot in me being biased, but I don't think they look as nice. Just me, I guess.

Maybe . Could it be the gamma? Macs do have a higher gamma setting than Windows, well, or any other OS I've used. Makes colors look more "vibrant."

You could say I'm pretty biased against Microsoft, especially after BeOS went under

*sigh* I was a BeOS user as well. I place equal blame on MS and Apple. Both are the major players on their respective architectures and both took steps to push Be out. Though I think Apple took more proactive measures - they had more to lose. Another thing, Apple was considering using BeOS as the core of OSX, but I think Steve Jobs didn't go that route just to spite Gassee. If Apple had chosen Be as its core for X, X would have been out sooner, have a more responsive GUI, and already have a slew of apps. I was really pushing for BeOS.....oh well.

It just drives me crazy when PC users attack Mac users for their platform choice, for really no reason.

Did I attack anyone? I just pointed out the humor in "Power iMac."

 

[Downside Studio]

Just to do a little mac patriotic talk.

Do understand that most Mac-users HAVE previous PC experience. That's the main reason they are using Mac now.

Do understand that most PC-users HAVEN'T Mac experience. That's the main reason they are using PC now.

In other words...it's useless trying to convince somebody using a Mac, that PC is better. I'm not saying which platform is better. I believe both are good and up to date. You can choose between superfast of a little bit more superfast, turtcolor or nice mac-colors (G4)..etc.

I personally have had such bad experiences with PC and PC-software I would never return to it. I'd tried anything to any cost to get it to work and i just couldn't. I was using up more time inside my computer than working on it. That may be due to me, but if I buy a mixing-console and the faders don't work I return it. I'm not going to screw the whole thing apart to fix it. If it has a software bug I'm going to stalk the manufacturer for an update. If not I return the damn thing.

Converting to the Mac platform solved all my problems. it to has some major downsides but so does everything in life.

 

[elevate]

Do understand that most Mac-users HAVE previous PC experience. That's the main reason they are using Mac now.

Do understand that most PC-users HAVEN'T Mac experience. That's the main reason they are using PC now.

That must explain why Apple's market share is decreasing. I don't suppose you have any actual data to back up these claims, do you?

Just so you understand, I'm not trying to convince anybody to use anything. I'm trying to reduce the amount of disinformation- and it's not always Mac users, I had to correct somebody last week overstating the abilities of AMD's processors.

If you want to use a Mac, great. The OS is good (still waiting for apps though) and the hardware is good - it's just overpriced (IMO) and not all that fast, but certainly fast enough for lots of people. I have used Macs. My first DAW experience was on a Mac. My first experience with computer graphics was on a Mac. If Apple had gone the route that Next took, I may be using a Mac today, but they didn't and I'm not....and more importantly, who cares.

 

[SalJustSal]

Downside,

I may be an exception. I was raised as a mac user throughout my youngin' days. I switched to pc later. The one thing that annoyed me about the mac os was that you couldn't easily find minimized windows so I had to search all over what I wanted (windows has the task bar). Also there was a lack of hardware flexibility. I was told that mac crashed less than pc's but I've never found that to be the case. They just seem to crash *differently*.

Some of those problems are being remedied. Such as with OSX, they have what's called a dock (which is the same thing as a task bar but cooler). They are also becoming more flexible with hardware, especially with the advent of firewire. However, they are definitely lacking on the processor front, especially with the new Athalons.

Damnit I told myself to not get on dicussion....

-Sal

 

[SalJustSal]

....and more importantly, who cares.

totally agree here.

-Sal

 

[Downside Studio]

It wasn't my purpose to be pro-mac. I meant that the reason people are using Mac or Pc is that they have personal good reasons to use them. Like myself as I mentioned before. It could have been just as easily the other way around. Then I would have made the same reply only with Mac and PC switched in the sentences.

It's like my dad who drove VW all his live..he's convinced Ford doesn't make good cars. That's OK, he wouldn't feel happy in a Ford. Not because its a bad car, but because it isn't a VW.

I have bad experiences with PC's. Mac solved my problems. That I reward with loyalty to the brand, untill its screws me like the PC did. If more people did, prices would drop.


Just to get the flaming back up....I really don't understand why the PC keep coming in non-cool boxes (my point of view)
I just love the look of the G4's in the studio. Or the TFT's. I don't like the look of the former Imac and even the new-one.

 

[elevate]

It wasn't my purpose to be pro-mac. I meant that the reason people are using Mac or Pc is that they have personal good reasons to use them.

I completely agree, but the whole point of the debate (for me at least) is that people will make better decisions when they have better information in hand. Say a consumer goes and visits Intel's site. They will see a bunch of blather about how the P4 makes the internet go faster and does this and that and how aliens are totally impressed. Is this good info for a consumer to use in making a purchase? Say another consumer goes to Apple's site and sees, again, a bunch of blather about how an 800Mhz G4 is twice as fast as a 2Ghz P4 at something. Is this good info for a consumer to use in making a purchase? That is my point. Disinformation is a disservice to the consumer, yet every manufacturer is guilty of it....they call it marketing.

As to the cases, I couldn't care less what my case looks like. My box is under my desk and largely out of sight. Some of the Dell cases look ok, but IMO the best looking cases are those brushed aluminum puppies, but am I gonna spend $200 on a freakin case? Hell no.

 

[Downside Studio]

As to the cases, I couldn't care less what my case looks like. My box is under my desk and largely out of sight.

Thats funny. Most PC's are staying under desks while most macs are standing on desks.

I really like the fact that people say at first when entering the room...'hey you've got a G4' , but then again, I said I love the sight of those machines, and the main reason for having them on the desk is that exact reaction.

 

[Downside Studio]

BTW for those who are planning on buying the new Imac for music..I would think twice.

I think the G4 is defenitly a better choice. One of the major setback of the Imac is still expandability. I know it's fairly complete, but I believe one very important thing isn't possible...the ability to wrok with dual screens. Best invention ever made.

 

[MrBlackthorne]

*sigh* I was a BeOS user as well. I place equal blame on MS and Apple. Both are the major players on their respective architectures and both took steps to push Be out. Though I think Apple took more proactive measures - they had more to lose. Another thing, Apple was considering using BeOS as the core of OSX, but I think Steve Jobs didn't go that route just to spite Gassee. If Apple had chosen Be as its core for X, X would have been out sooner, have a more responsive GUI, and already have a slew of apps. I was really pushing for BeOS.....oh well.
[/B]

I used BeOS on my old PowerPC for a while. I can't say that I liked it better than the MacOS, but I did like it way better than Windows. And its media capabilities were outstanding - way better than both MacOS and Windows. I, too, was hoping that Apple would choose Be for MacOS X. But, of course Steve had to choose NextStep over Be. That's OK by me, since OS X is UNIX-based and that's my bread n' butter.

I can understand why Apple wouldn't dig Be developing for their systems, but it was Steve killing cloning that really stopped Be on PowerPC. The one thing I don't understand is why Be didn't make another "Be Box" after IBM opensourced the PowerPC architecture. I probably would have bought one. I guess by then it was too late, though.

Unfortunately, if Be had gotten more commitment from some of the audio production companies, I think they could have survived. It's too bad that it didn't work out for them. It would have been a great (consumer oriented) alternative to Windows, especially for the studio.

Did I attack anyone? I just pointed out the humor in "Power iMac."

Don't poke me, I get easily agitated...

Later.

Rick

 

[elevate]

Thats funny. Most PC's are staying under desks while most macs are standing on desks.

Well, I've got a three foot tall server case. Even if I had room on my desk, it would look kinda silly.

BTW for those who are planning on buying the new Imac for music..I would think twice.

Changing your tune I see.

That's OK by me, since OS X is UNIX-based and that's my bread n' butter.

BeOS was fully POSIX compliant. I realize that's not a true UNIX, but it was pretty close.

The one thing I don't understand is why Be didn't make another "Be Box" after IBM opensourced the PowerPC architecture. I probably would have bought one. I guess by then it was too late, though.

Yea, that was well into Be's downward spiral. I'm pretty sure they had Be running on Gx in-house, but they didn't want to release it for fear of an Apple lawsuit (I think Steve Jobs has a special lawsuit phone sitting on his desk). What's funny is that Steve got to basically pick whatever amount he thought Next was worth and write himself a check for it. Wonder what the fair market value would have been, probably not the $430million Apple paid.

if Be had gotten more commitment from some of the audio production companies, I think they could have survived.

I know a Steinberg rep in California and he told me that they had BeOS versions of Cubase and Nuendo ready to go, they just didn't want to be the first big player to jump in the water. He also said that the developers found BeOS to be the best OS to develop for. Apparently, they develop the core in UNIX and then adapt it to other operating systems. By that, you'd think that it should be a breeze for them to get apps ready for OSX, but that obviously hasn't been the case. Perhaps the multimedia api or display api is a hassle.

 

[MrBlackthorne]

BeOS was fully POSIX compliant. I realize that's not a true UNIX, but it was pretty close.

Yeah, I got pretty familiar with it. I suppose it would have been as good a choice for the new MacOS, if not better. But the current OS X is just what I was hoping for, it just took them a while to get it out. Not that it matters, because I think people would have needed the time to adjust to the idea of a completely new OS, anyway. Like when Windows 95 was rushed out, every one of my PC friends HATED it. In comparison, every Mac user I know who has made the switch to OS X has said it's the best move they've made. Apple took the time to polish the OS before the "mainstreamed" it.

Yea, that was well into Be's downward spiral. I'm pretty sure they had Be running on Gx in-house, but they didn't want to release it for fear of an Apple lawsuit (I think Steve Jobs has a special lawsuit phone sitting on his desk).

The thing that I always wonder is how they got away with writing a version of Linux for the G3 & G4. I used to have a LinuxPPC server running on a 333 iMac. It worked really well, too. Extremely stable and fast. I guess it's just because Linux is free, and there's really not one company to "blame" for it. Besides, jumping on the Linux bandwagon is always good PR.

What's funny is that Steve got to basically pick whatever amount he thought Next was worth and write himself a check for it. Wonder what the fair market value would have been, probably not the $430million Apple paid.

Yeah, it was pretty ludicrous. Although I'd say its the best $430 million they ever spent. Steve saved Apple, and it's not because he inspired really cool products, although that did help. Steve is the ultimate spin artist. I bet he could sell sand to Egypt if he wanted to. That's what Apple was missing: Marketing. Putting on a spectical. Making people WANT what you have. Microsoft's been doing it for years - making a buzz about a product to make people think they need it. Microsoft's marketing has kept them on top of business. There's a million better Microsoft alternatives out there for businesses, but they're just not marketed well.

And... By this time next year, there won't be an audio company out there not supporting MacOS X. The built-in audio capabilities of X are very strong. (Finally! Took 'em a while.) Besides, from what I've heard, OS X is very easy to develop for from a multimedia standpoint, though I haven't personally had any coding experience from that perspective. The OS X project builder is VERY sweet, though. From what I've been reading, it's being heralded as the ultimate Java development platform, which is pretty sweet, because Java is one language I really dig.

Peace,

Rick