Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73337 is a reply to message #73312] |
Fri, 29 September 2006 22:38   |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Jamie,
While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really losing
ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm ....I
wonder why??
Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty sealed
their fate???
Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this charade
and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows users,
I stopped using the product.
Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's luster.
Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers are
beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play. Even
Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in waste
in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop evolving,
you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
Namm2007) there toast..
Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with Apogee
with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem: Apogee
does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers. Soundtrack
Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run. I hope
and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via Soundtrack
Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>
>Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who have
>been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>
>Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm sure
>it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73354 is a reply to message #73337] |
Sat, 30 September 2006 09:04 |
animix
Messages: 356
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
Namm2007) there toast..<
Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>
> Hi Jamie,
> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really losing
> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm ....I
> wonder why??
>
> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
sealed
> their fate???
>
> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this charade
> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>
> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
users,
> I stopped using the product.
> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
luster.
> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers are
> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play.
Even
> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in waste
> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop
evolving,
> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon
(Winter
> Namm2007) there toast..
>
> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with Apogee
> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem: Apogee
> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
Soundtrack
> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run. I
hope
> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
Soundtrack
> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>
>
>
>
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
> >
> >Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who have
> >been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
> >
> >Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm sure
>
> >it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
> >
> >Cheers,
> > -Jamie
> > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73375 is a reply to message #73354] |
Sat, 30 September 2006 14:14 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wow!
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>Namm2007) there toast..<
>
>Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>
>> Hi Jamie,
>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really losing
>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm ....I
>> wonder why??
>>
>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>sealed
>> their fate???
>>
>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this charade
>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>
>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>users,
>> I stopped using the product.
>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>luster.
>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers are
>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play.
>Even
>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in waste
>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop
>evolving,
>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon
>(Winter
>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>
>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with Apogee
>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem: Apogee
>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>Soundtrack
>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run. I
>hope
>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>Soundtrack
>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>> >
>> >Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who have
>> >been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>> >
>> >Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm sure
>>
>> >it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> > -Jamie
>> > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73382 is a reply to message #73375] |
Sat, 30 September 2006 16:39 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em for
it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
miffed. Whatever.
Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
point where I can actually recommend it.
The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated. On a
dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and soft
synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here and
there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
improving lately - and good thing, too.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
LaMont wrote:
> Wow!
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>
>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>> Hi Jamie,
>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really losing
>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm ....I
>>> wonder why??
>>>
>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>> sealed
>>> their fate???
>>>
>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this charade
>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>
>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>> users,
>>> I stopped using the product.
>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>> luster.
>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers are
>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play.
>> Even
>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in waste
>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop
>> evolving,
>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon
>> (Winter
>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>
>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with Apogee
>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem: Apogee
>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>> Soundtrack
>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run. I
>> hope
>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>> Soundtrack
>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>
>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who have
>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>
>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm sure
>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73385 is a reply to message #73382] |
Sat, 30 September 2006 17:32 |
|
|
Hey Jamie,
I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm only stating
my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic audio,
they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the But..
They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the Windows
Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not change
it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so will
Digital Performer.
Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown in), I
cant really see them making any market penatration.
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em for
>it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>miffed. Whatever.
>
>Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>point where I can actually recommend it.
>
>The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated. On a
>dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and soft
>synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>
>Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here and
>there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>
>Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>improving lately - and good thing, too.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>LaMont wrote:
>> Wow!
>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>
>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
losing
>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
....I
>>>> wonder why??
>>>>
>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>>> sealed
>>>> their fate???
>>>>
>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this charade
>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>
>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>> users,
>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>>> luster.
>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
are
>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play.
>>> Even
>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
waste
>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop
>>> evolving,
>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon
>>> (Winter
>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>
>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with Apogee
>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem: Apogee
>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>> Soundtrack
>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run.
I
>>> hope
>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>> Soundtrack
>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who have
>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm
sure
>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73390 is a reply to message #73385] |
Sat, 30 September 2006 18:48 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate the
change.
For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
prefer.
I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can tell
you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you but
there is no perfect product. :^)
It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what we
need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
DP is nice, too.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Lamont wrote:
> Hey Jamie,
>
> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm only stating
> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic audio,
> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the But..
>
> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the Windows
> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not change
> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so will
> Digital Performer.
> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown in), I
> cant really see them making any market penatration.
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em for
>
>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>> miffed. Whatever.
>>
>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>
>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated. On a
>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and soft
>
>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>
>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>
>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>
>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here and
>
>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>
>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> LaMont wrote:
>>> Wow!
>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>
>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
> losing
>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
> ...I
>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>
>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>>>> sealed
>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>
>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this charade
>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>> users,
>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>>>> luster.
>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
> are
>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play.
>>>> Even
>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
> waste
>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop
>>>> evolving,
>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon
>>>> (Winter
>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>
>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with Apogee
>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem: Apogee
>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run.
> I
>>>> hope
>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who have
>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm
> sure
>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73391 is a reply to message #73390] |
Sat, 30 September 2006 20:01 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic Audio
to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps that
we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the other,
no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair with
that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple can
develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I think
that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over the
Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to snub
their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks like
a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner, Magix
(Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually appealing.Giveing
their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens me to
know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign) by
the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic Audio.
New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..???? Is
that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason to fork
over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with a
new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting to
look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to become
THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
What happend??
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate the
>change.
>
>For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>
>Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
>useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>prefer.
>
>I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>
>Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can tell
>you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you but
>there is no perfect product. :^)
>
>It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what we
>need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
>ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
>I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>
>DP is nice, too.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>Lamont wrote:
>> Hey Jamie,
>>
>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm only
stating
>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic audio,
>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the But..
>>
>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the
Windows
>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not
change
>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so will
>> Digital Performer.
>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown in),
I
>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em
for
>>
>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>
>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>
>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated. On
a
>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and soft
>>
>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>
>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>
>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>
>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
and
>>
>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>
>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>> Wow!
>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>> losing
>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
>> ...I
>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>>>>> sealed
>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this
charade
>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>>> users,
>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>>>>> luster.
>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>> are
>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play.
>>>>> Even
>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>> waste
>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop
>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
Soon
>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
Apogee
>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
Apogee
>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run.
>> I
>>>>> hope
>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who
have
>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm
>> sure
>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73394 is a reply to message #73391] |
Sat, 30 September 2006 21:21 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well Emapple HAVE been rewriting Logic, it's improved significantly
during the time I've been using it.
Have you been following the updates over the last couple of years? First
they added a ton of good to great FX and instrument plugins and some new
features. Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine
remodeling and bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire?
What, exactly, do you find missing? What part of the current audio track
editing or waveform editing don't you like?
Regarding MSWindows - I understand that's an issue for some folks
(particularly those who didn't switch when Logic went OSX-only), but
really, this is not an issue for everyone. It's kinda late in the game
to still be complaining about that, either switch to OSX (a very good
OS) or give up on Logic and know that just because you gave up doesn't
mean it hasn't improved tremendously and people aren't using and liking
the current version - it's a much better program on OSX today than it
was on MSWindows four years ago, or however long it's been. For that
matter it's a much better program on OSX today than it was on MacOS 9.
I'm no fan of either OS 9 or MSWindows for my own OS snob reasons, but
OSX doesn't suck too badly (high compliment).
At this point I'm OK with seeing the development team continue to
optimize Logic for OSX as they continue to rewrite and update code. If
there's a problem I can complain to a single company to fix it - as I
did when the Apple rep came to town earlier this year. Whether that had
anything to do with it or not, the bugs I complained about got fixed.
I would like to see Emapple continue the process of moving things from
the Environment and into the Arrange window. The manual control in the
Environment is powerful, but some of that could be made easier and put
into the Arrange. It's not a prob for me, I know my way around the
Environment enough to do what I need to do but it would help with the
learning curve for new users to keep up that trend - they've already
done some things toward that end.
I do like that I can arrange multiple mixer windows however I want them,
size the Arrange window to fit, add a transport and I have a really good
view of the project on my 24" widescreen monitor. Views are automatic
and I sometimes use multiple views to arrange windows for different
tasks, but for the most part one view and a big monitor is golden.
They've improved things tremendously by letting users drag plugins
around on the GUI and allowing whole racks of FX to be saved and
recalled. I would say the interface is not "dated" so much as "really,
efficient." I'd hate to see them lose that efficiency in an effort to be
glitzier.
The color scheme is OK with me but I can see where you might like to
have control over that. When the color scheme hacks came out for PARIS I
thought they were interesting but there again, I was OK with the color
scheme for PARIS.
The main questions for me are does it do what I need, within budget, and
does it sound good. Yes to both. In fact it exceeds what I need. At this
point I really appreciate the power on my studio desktop.
Again, there are other systems that also work well. A lot of folks like
Nuendo/Cubase, the new Cubase looks great. The new Digital Performer
also looks great, Etc. If my needs were different I'd still be using
PARIS - it does a lot, just falls short with MIDI and has a few other
limitations, but within those limitations it's a very usable system.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
LaMont wrote:
> Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic Audio
> to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps that
> we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the other,
> no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
>
> Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair with
> that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple can
> develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I think
> that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over the
> Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
> an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to snub
> their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks like
> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner, Magix
> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually appealing.Giveing
> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens me to
> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign) by
> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic Audio.
> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..???? Is
> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason to fork
> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>
> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with a
> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting to
> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to become
> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
> What happend??
>
>
>
>
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate the
>
>> change.
>>
>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>
>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>> prefer.
>>
>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>
>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>
>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can tell
>
>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you but
>
>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>
>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what we
>
>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
>
>> I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>> impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>>
>> DP is nice, too.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Lamont wrote:
>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>
>>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm only
> stating
>>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic audio,
>>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the But..
>>>
>>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the
> Windows
>>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not
> change
>>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so will
>>> Digital Performer.
>>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown in),
> I
>>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>
>>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em
> for
>>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>>
>>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>>
>>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>
>>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated. On
> a
>>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and soft
>>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>
>>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>
>>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>>
>>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
> and
>>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>>
>>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>> Wow!
>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>>> losing
>>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
>>> ...I
>>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>>>>>> sealed
>>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this
> charade
>>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>>>>>> luster.
>>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>>> are
>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play.
>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>> waste
>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop
>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
> Soon
>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
> Apogee
>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
> Apogee
>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run.
>>> I
>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who
> have
>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm
>>> sure
>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73398 is a reply to message #73394] |
Sat, 30 September 2006 22:17 |
LaMon
Messages: 18
Registered: June 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hey Jamie, I preety much know tha you have no problems nor resevations on
logic audio. However, to answer your question
"Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine remodeling and
bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire? What, exactly,
do you find missing? What part of the current audio track editing or waveform
editing don't you like?io in it's currrent state . :"
Jamie have a look at a current running thread on gearslutz.com concerning
Logic Audio 8: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=87812&hi ghlight=Logic+Audio
The overwhemingly want is a sleek plaing field that's not clunky, and more
like Pro Tools and Nuendo. How about some of the slick right-mouse clicking
features found in Nuendo? Not to mention all of it's menu driven editing..Logic
audio is not in this leauge at all. When they should be.
But, as long as Logic & DP Continue down their Midi first/Audio secondary
mind-set, then both will continue to lose market share. Both Apps new complete
re-write from scratch. I thought I never say this but, Apple should scrap
this versio of Logic 7.x and go build off Sountrack Pro with the addition
of Final-Cut Pro, which would yield a Nuendo like app..That would be worth
$900.00 bucks.
Just to clarify. You ask what I don't like about Logic? The answers can be
found in SoundTrack Pro sleek modern, but powerful audio editing. If Apple
decides to join Final cut and Sountrack together, and start phasing out Logic(Vintage)7.x,
then that along would increase market excitement ten-fold.
But,to keep applying bandaids for an antequated ,but powerful midi-audio
sequencer is ludacris at best. At it's core, it's a Midi sequencer first
and a audio recorder second. That combination does not sit well today. Most
of us want a serious, sleek audio engine first, with a good sequencer..That's
all.. Yes, I know that there folks like you, and me, who have dedicated Sequencing
machines, but not everyone..
Note: My Last version of Logic on windows 5.5 was and sill is smokin!! Very
stable runing on an AMD Xp2800 machine with M-audio cards using the EASI
drivers. My windows version out performed my G4-500, and our Studios Dual867
G4(so musch for the Mac hype). On a PC, I can run full (say 20plus vstis)
on a given session with about 50 audio tracks..with verbs. The macs would
choke everytime we tried doing soemthing like that..
Now, with Intel dual cores)Logic can run some serious amount of plugins.Hummm..
Even Quad G5 can't run with Intel Macs.. Mac Hype all the way to PC land..
My point, Pc's have always ran Logic better than nay Mac. I should know,
I run both..
Same with Mac OSX..Nice OS, but very very Bloated. More bloated than WinXP.
To me and others, Windows outperforms OSX on most DAWS..Especialy Pro-Tools..It's
not even a funny.
Now that we are all running PCs (Intels & Amds), we can all have the great
performance that only Steve JObs promised us. ":)
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Well Emapple HAVE been rewriting Logic, it's improved significantly
>during the time I've been using it.
>
>Have you been following the updates over the last couple of years? First
>they added a ton of good to great FX and instrument plugins and some new
>features. Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine
>remodeling and bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire?
>What, exactly, do you find missing? What part of the current audio track
>editing or waveform editing don't you like?
>
>Regarding MSWindows - I understand that's an issue for some folks
>(particularly those who didn't switch when Logic went OSX-only), but
>really, this is not an issue for everyone. It's kinda late in the game
>to still be complaining about that, either switch to OSX (a very good
>OS) or give up on Logic and know that just because you gave up doesn't
>mean it hasn't improved tremendously and people aren't using and liking
>the current version - it's a much better program on OSX today than it
>was on MSWindows four years ago, or however long it's been. For that
>matter it's a much better program on OSX today than it was on MacOS 9.
>I'm no fan of either OS 9 or MSWindows for my own OS snob reasons, but
>OSX doesn't suck too badly (high compliment).
>
>At this point I'm OK with seeing the development team continue to
>optimize Logic for OSX as they continue to rewrite and update code. If
>there's a problem I can complain to a single company to fix it - as I
>did when the Apple rep came to town earlier this year. Whether that had
>anything to do with it or not, the bugs I complained about got fixed.
>
>I would like to see Emapple continue the process of moving things from
>the Environment and into the Arrange window. The manual control in the
>Environment is powerful, but some of that could be made easier and put
>into the Arrange. It's not a prob for me, I know my way around the
>Environment enough to do what I need to do but it would help with the
>learning curve for new users to keep up that trend - they've already
>done some things toward that end.
>
>I do like that I can arrange multiple mixer windows however I want them,
>size the Arrange window to fit, add a transport and I have a really good
>view of the project on my 24" widescreen monitor. Views are automatic
>and I sometimes use multiple views to arrange windows for different
>tasks, but for the most part one view and a big monitor is golden.
>They've improved things tremendously by letting users drag plugins
>around on the GUI and allowing whole racks of FX to be saved and
>recalled. I would say the interface is not "dated" so much as "really,
>efficient." I'd hate to see them lose that efficiency in an effort to be
>glitzier.
>
>The color scheme is OK with me but I can see where you might like to
>have control over that. When the color scheme hacks came out for PARIS I
>thought they were interesting but there again, I was OK with the color
>scheme for PARIS.
>
>The main questions for me are does it do what I need, within budget, and
>does it sound good. Yes to both. In fact it exceeds what I need. At this
>point I really appreciate the power on my studio desktop.
>
>Again, there are other systems that also work well. A lot of folks like
>Nuendo/Cubase, the new Cubase looks great. The new Digital Performer
>also looks great, Etc. If my needs were different I'd still be using
>PARIS - it does a lot, just falls short with MIDI and has a few other
>limitations, but within those limitations it's a very usable system.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>LaMont wrote:
>> Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic
Audio
>> to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps
that
>> we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the other,
>> no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
>>
>> Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair
with
>> that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple
can
>> develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I think
>> that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over the
>> Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
>> an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to snub
>> their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks
like
>> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner,
Magix
>> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually
appealing.Giveing
>> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens me
to
>> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign)
by
>> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic
Audio.
>> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..????
Is
>> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
>> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason to
fork
>> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>>
>> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with
a
>> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting
to
>> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to become
>> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
>> What happend??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate
the
>>
>>> change.
>>>
>>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>>
>>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
>>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>>> prefer.
>>>
>>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>>
>>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>>
>>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can tell
>>
>>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you
but
>>
>>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>>
>>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what
we
>>
>>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
>>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
>>
>>> I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>>> impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>>>
>>> DP is nice, too.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>
>>>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm only
>> stating
>>>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>>>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic
audio,
>>>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the
But..
>>>>
>>>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the
>> Windows
>>>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not
>> change
>>>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so
will
>>>> Digital Performer.
>>>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown in),
>> I
>>>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>>
>>>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em
>> for
>>>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>>>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>>>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>>>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>>
>>>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated. On
>> a
>>>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and
soft
>>>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>>
>>>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>>
>>>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
>> and
>>>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>>>> losing
>>>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
>>>> ...I
>>>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>>>>>>> sealed
>>>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this
>> charade
>>>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>>>>>>> luster.
>>>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>>>> are
>>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not
play.
>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>>> waste
>>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you
stop
>>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
>> Soon
>>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
>> Apogee
>>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
>> Apogee
>>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should
run.
>>>> I
>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who
>> have
>>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but
I'm
>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73399 is a reply to message #73398] |
Sat, 30 September 2006 22:26 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio editing,
look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks like
Apple is heading there without them.
I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the Logic
Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2_restoration
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameriech.net> wrote:
>
>Hey Jamie, I preety much know tha you have no problems nor resevations on
>logic audio. However, to answer your question
>
>"Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine remodeling and
>bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire? What, exactly,
>do you find missing? What part of the current audio track editing or waveform
>editing don't you like?io in it's currrent state . :"
>
>Jamie have a look at a current running thread on gearslutz.com concerning
>Logic Audio 8: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=87812&hi ghlight=Logic+Audio
>
>The overwhemingly want is a sleek plaing field that's not clunky, and more
>like Pro Tools and Nuendo. How about some of the slick right-mouse clicking
>features found in Nuendo? Not to mention all of it's menu driven editing..Logic
>audio is not in this leauge at all. When they should be.
>
>But, as long as Logic & DP Continue down their Midi first/Audio secondary
>mind-set, then both will continue to lose market share. Both Apps new complete
>re-write from scratch. I thought I never say this but, Apple should scrap
>this versio of Logic 7.x and go build off Sountrack Pro with the addition
>of Final-Cut Pro, which would yield a Nuendo like app..That would be worth
>$900.00 bucks.
>Just to clarify. You ask what I don't like about Logic? The answers can
be
>found in SoundTrack Pro sleek modern, but powerful audio editing. If Apple
>decides to join Final cut and Sountrack together, and start phasing out
Logic(Vintage)7.x,
>then that along would increase market excitement ten-fold.
>
>But,to keep applying bandaids for an antequated ,but powerful midi-audio
>sequencer is ludacris at best. At it's core, it's a Midi sequencer first
>and a audio recorder second. That combination does not sit well today. Most
>of us want a serious, sleek audio engine first, with a good sequencer..That's
>all.. Yes, I know that there folks like you, and me, who have dedicated
Sequencing
>machines, but not everyone..
>
>Note: My Last version of Logic on windows 5.5 was and sill is smokin!! Very
>stable runing on an AMD Xp2800 machine with M-audio cards using the EASI
>drivers. My windows version out performed my G4-500, and our Studios Dual867
>G4(so musch for the Mac hype). On a PC, I can run full (say 20plus vstis)
>on a given session with about 50 audio tracks..with verbs. The macs would
>choke everytime we tried doing soemthing like that..
>
>Now, with Intel dual cores)Logic can run some serious amount of plugins.Hummm..
>Even Quad G5 can't run with Intel Macs.. Mac Hype all the way to PC land..
>My point, Pc's have always ran Logic better than nay Mac. I should know,
>I run both..
>
>Same with Mac OSX..Nice OS, but very very Bloated. More bloated than WinXP.
>To me and others, Windows outperforms OSX on most DAWS..Especialy Pro-Tools..It's
>not even a funny.
>Now that we are all running PCs (Intels & Amds), we can all have the great
>performance that only Steve JObs promised us. ":)
>
>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>Well Emapple HAVE been rewriting Logic, it's improved significantly
>>during the time I've been using it.
>>
>>Have you been following the updates over the last couple of years? First
>
>>they added a ton of good to great FX and instrument plugins and some new
>
>>features. Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine
>>remodeling and bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire?
>
>>What, exactly, do you find missing? What part of the current audio track
>
>>editing or waveform editing don't you like?
>>
>>Regarding MSWindows - I understand that's an issue for some folks
>>(particularly those who didn't switch when Logic went OSX-only), but
>>really, this is not an issue for everyone. It's kinda late in the game
>>to still be complaining about that, either switch to OSX (a very good
>>OS) or give up on Logic and know that just because you gave up doesn't
>>mean it hasn't improved tremendously and people aren't using and liking
>
>>the current version - it's a much better program on OSX today than it
>>was on MSWindows four years ago, or however long it's been. For that
>>matter it's a much better program on OSX today than it was on MacOS 9.
>>I'm no fan of either OS 9 or MSWindows for my own OS snob reasons, but
>>OSX doesn't suck too badly (high compliment).
>>
>>At this point I'm OK with seeing the development team continue to
>>optimize Logic for OSX as they continue to rewrite and update code. If
>>there's a problem I can complain to a single company to fix it - as I
>>did when the Apple rep came to town earlier this year. Whether that had
>
>>anything to do with it or not, the bugs I complained about got fixed.
>>
>>I would like to see Emapple continue the process of moving things from
>>the Environment and into the Arrange window. The manual control in the
>>Environment is powerful, but some of that could be made easier and put
>>into the Arrange. It's not a prob for me, I know my way around the
>>Environment enough to do what I need to do but it would help with the
>>learning curve for new users to keep up that trend - they've already
>>done some things toward that end.
>>
>>I do like that I can arrange multiple mixer windows however I want them,
>
>>size the Arrange window to fit, add a transport and I have a really good
>
>>view of the project on my 24" widescreen monitor. Views are automatic
>>and I sometimes use multiple views to arrange windows for different
>>tasks, but for the most part one view and a big monitor is golden.
>>They've improved things tremendously by letting users drag plugins
>>around on the GUI and allowing whole racks of FX to be saved and
>>recalled. I would say the interface is not "dated" so much as "really,
>>efficient." I'd hate to see them lose that efficiency in an effort to be
>
>>glitzier.
>>
>>The color scheme is OK with me but I can see where you might like to
>>have control over that. When the color scheme hacks came out for PARIS
I
>
>>thought they were interesting but there again, I was OK with the color
>>scheme for PARIS.
>>
>>The main questions for me are does it do what I need, within budget, and
>
>>does it sound good. Yes to both. In fact it exceeds what I need. At this
>
>>point I really appreciate the power on my studio desktop.
>>
>>Again, there are other systems that also work well. A lot of folks like
>
>>Nuendo/Cubase, the new Cubase looks great. The new Digital Performer
>>also looks great, Etc. If my needs were different I'd still be using
>>PARIS - it does a lot, just falls short with MIDI and has a few other
>>limitations, but within those limitations it's a very usable system.
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>LaMont wrote:
>>> Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic
>Audio
>>> to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps
>that
>>> we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the
other,
>>> no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
>>>
>>> Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair
>with
>>> that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple
>can
>>> develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I think
>>> that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over
the
>>> Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
>>> an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to snub
>>> their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks
>like
>>> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner,
>Magix
>>> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually
>appealing.Giveing
>>> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens
me
>to
>>> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign)
>by
>>> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic
>Audio.
>>> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..????
>Is
>>> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
>>> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason to
>fork
>>> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with
>a
>>> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting
>to
>>> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to
become
>>> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
>>> What happend??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>
>>>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate
>the
>>>
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>
>>>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
>
>>>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>
>>>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>
>>>> prefer.
>>>>
>>>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>
>>>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>
>>>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>
>>>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>>>
>>>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>>>
>>>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can
tell
>>>
>>>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you
>but
>>>
>>>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>>>
>>>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what
>we
>>>
>>>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
>
>>>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
>>>
>>>> I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>>>> impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>>>>
>>>> DP is nice, too.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm
only
>>> stating
>>>>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>>>>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic
>audio,
>>>>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the
>But..
>>>>>
>>>>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the
>>> Windows
>>>>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not
>>> change
>>>>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so
>will
>>>>> Digital Performer.
>>>>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown
in),
>>> I
>>>>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>>>
>>>>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em
>>> for
>>>>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>
>>>>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>
>>>>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>
>>>>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>>>
>>>>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated.
On
>>> a
>>>>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and
>soft
>>>>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>>>
>>>>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>>>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>>>
>>>>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>>>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
>>> and
>>>>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>>>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>>>>> losing
>>>>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
>>>>> ...I
>>>>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform,
pretty
>>>>>>>> sealed
>>>>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this
>>> charade
>>>>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of
it's
>>>>>>>> luster.
>>>>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not
>play.
>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>>>> waste
>>>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you
>stop
>>>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
>>> Soon
>>>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should
>run.
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those
who
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but
>I'm
>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73402 is a reply to message #73398] |
Sat, 30 September 2006 23:42 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Lamont,
I think we're getting to the essence. Thanks for the discussion.
LaMont wrote:
> Hey Jamie, I preety much know tha you have no problems nor resevations on
> logic audio.
Not quite true. There is always room for improvement and I listed a
couple of things. Over the years I've had some major criticisms.
However, I don't mind sharing that things in Logic-land have gotten
significantly brighter recently, it's not the bleakness you think, I think.
However, to answer your question
>
> "Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine remodeling and
> bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire? What, exactly,
> do you find missing? What part of the current audio track editing or waveform
> editing don't you like?io in it's currrent state . :"
>
> Jamie have a look at a current running thread on gearslutz.com concerning
> Logic Audio 8: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=87812&hi ghlight=Logic+Audio
There are always wishlists for every version of every program. You could
find discussions like this about ProTools, Nuendo, Cubase, etc. There's
more such discussion about Logic at OSXAudio.com. This is OK. From
wishes come good things.
> The overwhemingly want is a sleek plaing field that's not clunky, and more
> like Pro Tools and Nuendo. How about some of the slick right-mouse clicking
> features found in Nuendo? Not to mention all of it's menu driven editing..Logic
> audio is not in this leauge at all. When they should be.
I don't use Nuendo so if you could be specific maybe I can help you find
out if the features you want have been added.
It even looks like some of those cats want Pro-Tools to be more like
Nuendo, which just goes to show that there is no perfect product. Logic
is not alone in having room to improve, and not alone in being pretty
capable as is, for that matter.
In the Arrange window, right clicking in Logic lets you select different
editing tools from a popup iconic menu.
There are some places where a long click is still used and right
clicking should be substituted in a future upgrade, for example, to
assign an audio channel. But that's a minor nit.
Some of those cats are complaining about take management...I manage
multiple takes by having them all on different instances of the same
track. This is automatic if you record in loop mode. So comping is not
difficult, it's similar to Free Form in PARIS. What else am I missing?
> But, as long as Logic & DP Continue down their Midi first/Audio secondary
> mind-set, then both will continue to lose market share. Both Apps new complete
The audio features I need exist in Logic. I'm sure more refinement could
be done that would wow me, but at the same time I don't see huge gaping
holes in the current feature set.
I do similar kinds of editing in Logic now that I used to do in PARIS. I
do similar Free Form style recording without needing an exclusive mode
for it. I do similar crossfade editing, trimming, etc. All very fast.
Some of this functionality is new from updates over the last couple of
years so maybe you haven't had the chance to experience it.
> re-write from scratch. I thought I never say this but, Apple should scrap
> this versio of Logic 7.x and go build off Sountrack Pro with the addition
> of Final-Cut Pro, which would yield a Nuendo like app..That would be worth
> $900.00 bucks.
Or just buy Nuendo if you prefer its feature set. Why not? Choice is
good. :^)
> Just to clarify. You ask what I don't like about Logic? The answers can be
> found in SoundTrack Pro sleek modern, but powerful audio editing. If Apple
> decides to join Final cut and Sountrack together, and start phasing out Logic(Vintage)7.x,
> then that along would increase market excitement ten-fold.
I disagree. I have SoundTrack Pro. For composing and recording music
tracks I prefer Logic. Have you used SoundTrack Pro or the CURRENT
version of Logic?
I'm sure there could be some useful cross-pollenization opportunities,
heck Soundtrack is probably based on Logic, but it would be foolish to
kill off Logic's deep feature set in favor of the features of a program
intended as the audio-for-video sweetening partner for Final Cut Pro.
> But,to keep applying bandaids for an antequated ,but powerful midi-audio
> sequencer is ludacris at best. At it's core, it's a Midi sequencer first
> and a audio recorder second. That combination does not sit well today. Most
> of us want a serious, sleek audio engine first, with a good sequencer..That's
> all.. Yes, I know that there folks like you, and me, who have dedicated Sequencing
> machines, but not everyone..
If you mean a dedicated MIDI sequencing machine, I don't have a
dedicated sequencing machine. A single computer running one program for
audio, MIDI and soft synths is a great setup. In that way Logic
simplifies my life. Heck, even DJ is starting to dream of simplifying.
Mind you I didn't used to praise Logic so much. I call 'em as I see 'em
and Logic has had some significant bugs in the past. But it has also
progressed in major ways. Having been there for the progression I can
appreciate where it is, finally, today. I'm trying really hard to
understand why I should hate it now. :^)
> Note: My Last version of Logic on windows 5.5 was and sill is smokin!! Very
> stable runing on an AMD Xp2800 machine with M-audio cards using the EASI
> drivers. My windows version out performed my G4-500, and our Studios Dual867
> G4(so musch for the Mac hype). On a PC, I can run full (say 20plus vstis)
> on a given session with about 50 audio tracks..with verbs. The macs would
> choke everytime we tried doing soemthing like that..
Macs from the last several years (G5 or Intel) do not choke on large
projects with Logic.
> Now, with Intel dual cores)Logic can run some serious amount of plugins.Hummm..
> Even Quad G5 can't run with Intel Macs.. Mac Hype all the way to PC land..
> My point, Pc's have always ran Logic better than nay Mac. I should know,
> I run both..
As far as Logic is concerned, my several year old dual 2.5GHZ G5 is
plenty fast. My previous G4 wasn't bad but I had to freeze tracks to
keep it in the game (nice feature, that).
> Same with Mac OSX..Nice OS, but very very Bloated. More bloated than WinXP.
> To me and others, Windows outperforms OSX on most DAWS..Especialy Pro-Tools..It's
> not even a funny.
Heh. No problem, you like MSWindows so enjoy. To each their own bloat. ;^)
Logic is pretty optimized for OSX at this point. Too bad we don't live
close or I'd give you a demo and you could tell me all the things this
system can't do, while it's doing them. :^)
> Now that we are all running PCs (Intels & Amds), we can all have the great
> performance that only Steve JObs promised us. ":)
Man, ol' Steve really bit it with the 3GHZ prediction for the G5 when
IBM didn't deliver. And then he took a u-turn with Intel to keep the
hardware speed up, a risky move. But Apple pulled it off. Now that new
Macs are all Intel, we can compare on the basis of software performance
and design.
BTW I was not thrilled with the switch to Intel. But it looks like it
will pay off on the laptop side. On the desktop side I think this G5
system has a few years of life in it yet, at least for music production.
For animation, I might be tempted by an 8 core system next year...
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Well Emapple HAVE been rewriting Logic, it's improved significantly
>> during the time I've been using it.
>>
>> Have you been following the updates over the last couple of years? First
>
>> they added a ton of good to great FX and instrument plugins and some new
>
>> features. Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine
>> remodeling and bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire?
>
>> What, exactly, do you find missing? What part of the current audio track
>
>> editing or waveform editing don't you like?
>>
>> Regarding MSWindows - I understand that's an issue for some folks
>> (particularly those who didn't switch when Logic went OSX-only), but
>> really, this is not an issue for everyone. It's kinda late in the game
>> to still be complaining about that, either switch to OSX (a very good
>> OS) or give up on Logic and know that just because you gave up doesn't
>> mean it hasn't improved tremendously and people aren't using and liking
>
>> the current version - it's a much better program on OSX today than it
>> was on MSWindows four years ago, or however long it's been. For that
>> matter it's a much better program on OSX today than it was on MacOS 9.
>> I'm no fan of either OS 9 or MSWindows for my own OS snob reasons, but
>> OSX doesn't suck too badly (high compliment).
>>
>> At this point I'm OK with seeing the development team continue to
>> optimize Logic for OSX as they continue to rewrite and update code. If
>> there's a problem I can complain to a single company to fix it - as I
>> did when the Apple rep came to town earlier this year. Whether that had
>
>> anything to do with it or not, the bugs I complained about got fixed.
>>
>> I would like to see Emapple continue the process of moving things from
>> the Environment and into the Arrange window. The manual control in the
>> Environment is powerful, but some of that could be made easier and put
>> into the Arrange. It's not a prob for me, I know my way around the
>> Environment enough to do what I need to do but it would help with the
>> learning curve for new users to keep up that trend - they've already
>> done some things toward that end.
>>
>> I do like that I can arrange multiple mixer windows however I want them,
>
>> size the Arrange window to fit, add a transport and I have a really good
>
>> view of the project on my 24" widescreen monitor. Views are automatic
>> and I sometimes use multiple views to arrange windows for different
>> tasks, but for the most part one view and a big monitor is golden.
>> They've improved things tremendously by letting users drag plugins
>> around on the GUI and allowing whole racks of FX to be saved and
>> recalled. I would say the interface is not "dated" so much as "really,
>> efficient." I'd hate to see them lose that efficiency in an effort to be
>
>> glitzier.
>>
>> The color scheme is OK with me but I can see where you might like to
>> have control over that. When the color scheme hacks came out for PARIS I
>
>> thought they were interesting but there again, I was OK with the color
>> scheme for PARIS.
>>
>> The main questions for me are does it do what I need, within budget, and
>
>> does it sound good. Yes to both. In fact it exceeds what I need. At this
>
>> point I really appreciate the power on my studio desktop.
>>
>> Again, there are other systems that also work well. A lot of folks like
>
>> Nuendo/Cubase, the new Cubase looks great. The new Digital Performer
>> also looks great, Etc. If my needs were different I'd still be using
>> PARIS - it does a lot, just falls short with MIDI and has a few other
>> limitations, but within those limitations it's a very usable system.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> LaMont wrote:
>>> Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic
> Audio
>>> to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps
> that
>>> we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the other,
>>> no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
>>>
>>> Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair
> with
>>> that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple
> can
>>> develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I think
>>> that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over the
>>> Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
>>> an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to snub
>>> their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks
> like
>>> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner,
> Magix
>>> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually
> appealing.Giveing
>>> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens me
> to
>>> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign)
> by
>>> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic
> Audio.
>>> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..????
> Is
>>> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
>>> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason to
> fork
>>> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with
> a
>>> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting
> to
>>> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to become
>>> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
>>> What happend??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>
>>>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate
> the
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>
>>>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
>
>>>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>
>>>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>
>>>> prefer.
>>>>
>>>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>
>>>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>
>>>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>
>>>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>>>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>>>
>>>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can tell
>>>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you
> but
>>>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>>>
>>>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what
> we
>>>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
>
>>>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
>>>> I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>>>> impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>>>>
>>>> DP is nice, too.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm only
>>> stating
>>>>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>>>>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic
> audio,
>>>>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the
> But..
>>>>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the
>>> Windows
>>>>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not
>>> change
>>>>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so
> will
>>>>> Digital Performer.
>>>>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown in),
>>> I
>>>>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>>>>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em
>>> for
>>>>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>
>>>>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>
>>>>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>
>>>>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>>>>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated. On
>>> a
>>>>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and
> soft
>>>>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>>>>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>>>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>>>>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>>>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
>>> and
>>>>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>>>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>>>>> losing
>>>>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
>>>>> ...I
>>>>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>>>>>>>> sealed
>>>>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this
>>> charade
>>>>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>>>>>>>> luster.
>>>>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not
> play.
>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>>>> waste
>>>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you
> stop
>>>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
>>> Soon
>>>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should
> run.
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but
> I'm
>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73404 is a reply to message #73399] |
Sat, 30 September 2006 23:45 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market that
will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They have
Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as soon
as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting user.
;-)
Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still). Even PT
isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate to
see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as a whole.
The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone age
5 to 95.
Dedric
On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
<jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio
> editing,
> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks like
> Apple is heading there without them.
>
> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the Logic
> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>
> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2_re
> storation
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73406 is a reply to message #73398] |
Sun, 01 October 2006 01:23 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey LaMont! Your comparing a G4 500 MHz machine up against a 2.8 GHz PC???
That's not a fair comparison, the G4 500 MHz is almost 8 years old, try
1999!!! Why don't you compare it to a PC from 1999!!!, then tell us how
Macs suck and how Steve Jobs is a big lier about performance. That machine
will stand up to a 1GHz pentium III or standard 1 GHz P 4 and beat them.
You can buy G4 500 on ebay for under $100.00 all day long. It's not a fair
comparison.
James
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameriech.net> wrote:
>
>Hey Jamie, I preety much know tha you have no problems nor resevations on
>logic audio. However, to answer your question
>
>"Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine remodeling and
>bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire? What, exactly,
>do you find missing? What part of the current audio track editing or waveform
>editing don't you like?io in it's currrent state . :"
>
>Jamie have a look at a current running thread on gearslutz.com concerning
>Logic Audio 8: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=87812&hi ghlight=Logic+Audio
>
>The overwhemingly want is a sleek plaing field that's not clunky, and more
>like Pro Tools and Nuendo. How about some of the slick right-mouse clicking
>features found in Nuendo? Not to mention all of it's menu driven editing..Logic
>audio is not in this leauge at all. When they should be.
>
>But, as long as Logic & DP Continue down their Midi first/Audio secondary
>mind-set, then both will continue to lose market share. Both Apps new complete
>re-write from scratch. I thought I never say this but, Apple should scrap
>this versio of Logic 7.x and go build off Sountrack Pro with the addition
>of Final-Cut Pro, which would yield a Nuendo like app..That would be worth
>$900.00 bucks.
>Just to clarify. You ask what I don't like about Logic? The answers can
be
>found in SoundTrack Pro sleek modern, but powerful audio editing. If Apple
>decides to join Final cut and Sountrack together, and start phasing out
Logic(Vintage)7.x,
>then that along would increase market excitement ten-fold.
>
>But,to keep applying bandaids for an antequated ,but powerful midi-audio
>sequencer is ludacris at best. At it's core, it's a Midi sequencer first
>and a audio recorder second. That combination does not sit well today. Most
>of us want a serious, sleek audio engine first, with a good sequencer..That's
>all.. Yes, I know that there folks like you, and me, who have dedicated
Sequencing
>machines, but not everyone..
>
>Note: My Last version of Logic on windows 5.5 was and sill is smokin!! Very
>stable runing on an AMD Xp2800 machine with M-audio cards using the EASI
>drivers. My windows version out performed my G4-500, and our Studios Dual867
>G4(so musch for the Mac hype). On a PC, I can run full (say 20plus vstis)
>on a given session with about 50 audio tracks..with verbs. The macs would
>choke everytime we tried doing soemthing like that..
>
>Now, with Intel dual cores)Logic can run some serious amount of plugins.Hummm..
>Even Quad G5 can't run with Intel Macs.. Mac Hype all the way to PC land..
>My point, Pc's have always ran Logic better than nay Mac. I should know,
>I run both..
>
>Same with Mac OSX..Nice OS, but very very Bloated. More bloated than WinXP.
>To me and others, Windows outperforms OSX on most DAWS..Especialy Pro-Tools..It's
>not even a funny.
>Now that we are all running PCs (Intels & Amds), we can all have the great
>performance that only Steve JObs promised us. ":)
>
>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>Well Emapple HAVE been rewriting Logic, it's improved significantly
>>during the time I've been using it.
>>
>>Have you been following the updates over the last couple of years? First
>
>>they added a ton of good to great FX and instrument plugins and some new
>
>>features. Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine
>>remodeling and bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire?
>
>>What, exactly, do you find missing? What part of the current audio track
>
>>editing or waveform editing don't you like?
>>
>>Regarding MSWindows - I understand that's an issue for some folks
>>(particularly those who didn't switch when Logic went OSX-only), but
>>really, this is not an issue for everyone. It's kinda late in the game
>>to still be complaining about that, either switch to OSX (a very good
>>OS) or give up on Logic and know that just because you gave up doesn't
>>mean it hasn't improved tremendously and people aren't using and liking
>
>>the current version - it's a much better program on OSX today than it
>>was on MSWindows four years ago, or however long it's been. For that
>>matter it's a much better program on OSX today than it was on MacOS 9.
>>I'm no fan of either OS 9 or MSWindows for my own OS snob reasons, but
>>OSX doesn't suck too badly (high compliment).
>>
>>At this point I'm OK with seeing the development team continue to
>>optimize Logic for OSX as they continue to rewrite and update code. If
>>there's a problem I can complain to a single company to fix it - as I
>>did when the Apple rep came to town earlier this year. Whether that had
>
>>anything to do with it or not, the bugs I complained about got fixed.
>>
>>I would like to see Emapple continue the process of moving things from
>>the Environment and into the Arrange window. The manual control in the
>>Environment is powerful, but some of that could be made easier and put
>>into the Arrange. It's not a prob for me, I know my way around the
>>Environment enough to do what I need to do but it would help with the
>>learning curve for new users to keep up that trend - they've already
>>done some things toward that end.
>>
>>I do like that I can arrange multiple mixer windows however I want them,
>
>>size the Arrange window to fit, add a transport and I have a really good
>
>>view of the project on my 24" widescreen monitor. Views are automatic
>>and I sometimes use multiple views to arrange windows for different
>>tasks, but for the most part one view and a big monitor is golden.
>>They've improved things tremendously by letting users drag plugins
>>around on the GUI and allowing whole racks of FX to be saved and
>>recalled. I would say the interface is not "dated" so much as "really,
>>efficient." I'd hate to see them lose that efficiency in an effort to be
>
>>glitzier.
>>
>>The color scheme is OK with me but I can see where you might like to
>>have control over that. When the color scheme hacks came out for PARIS
I
>
>>thought they were interesting but there again, I was OK with the color
>>scheme for PARIS.
>>
>>The main questions for me are does it do what I need, within budget, and
>
>>does it sound good. Yes to both. In fact it exceeds what I need. At this
>
>>point I really appreciate the power on my studio desktop.
>>
>>Again, there are other systems that also work well. A lot of folks like
>
>>Nuendo/Cubase, the new Cubase looks great. The new Digital Performer
>>also looks great, Etc. If my needs were different I'd still be using
>>PARIS - it does a lot, just falls short with MIDI and has a few other
>>limitations, but within those limitations it's a very usable system.
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>LaMont wrote:
>>> Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic
>Audio
>>> to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps
>that
>>> we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the
other,
>>> no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
>>>
>>> Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair
>with
>>> that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple
>can
>>> develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I think
>>> that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over
the
>>> Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
>>> an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to snub
>>> their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks
>like
>>> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner,
>Magix
>>> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually
>appealing.Giveing
>>> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens
me
>to
>>> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign)
>by
>>> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic
>Audio.
>>> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..????
>Is
>>> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
>>> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason to
>fork
>>> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with
>a
>>> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting
>to
>>> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to
become
>>> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
>>> What happend??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>
>>>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate
>the
>>>
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>
>>>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
>
>>>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>
>>>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>
>>>> prefer.
>>>>
>>>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>
>>>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>
>>>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>
>>>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>>>
>>>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>>>
>>>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can
tell
>>>
>>>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you
>but
>>>
>>>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>>>
>>>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what
>we
>>>
>>>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
>
>>>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
>>>
>>>> I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>>>> impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>>>>
>>>> DP is nice, too.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm
only
>>> stating
>>>>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>>>>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic
>audio,
>>>>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the
>But..
>>>>>
>>>>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the
>>> Windows
>>>>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not
>>> change
>>>>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so
>will
>>>>> Digital Performer.
>>>>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown
in),
>>> I
>>>>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>>>
>>>>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em
>>> for
>>>>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>
>>>>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>
>>>>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>
>>>>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>>>
>>>>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated.
On
>>> a
>>>>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and
>soft
>>>>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>>>
>>>>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>>>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>>>
>>>>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>>>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
>>> and
>>>>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>>>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>>>>> losing
>>>>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
>>>>> ...I
>>>>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform,
pretty
>>>>>>>> sealed
>>>>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this
>>> charade
>>>>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of
it's
>>>>>>>> luster.
>>>>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not
>play.
>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>>>> waste
>>>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you
>stop
>>>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
>>> Soon
>>>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should
>run.
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those
who
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but
>I'm
>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73410 is a reply to message #73404] |
Sun, 01 October 2006 08:21 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Dedric,
From what I've found out so far.
Samplitude/Sequoia 9 now support 4 CPU finally. Of course Dual CPUs have
been common for 4/5 years and dual cores for 2 years. Better late than
never :)
Cubase4/ Nuendo 3 = 8 Cores/CPUs
Sonar 5/6 = 4 cpus
Ableton Live 6 = 2cpus
PT 7.1 LE = 2 cpus
Vegas 7 = 4 cpus
Wavelab = 2 cpus
audition = ummm i think only one still
Acid "Pro" = still 1 but I think next version to match V7 will be multi/
Pro tools is last thing I would consider if I had a tight school budget . :)
The audio market is very fast with support for current technology and
formats and is very responsive to customers about adding them. The video
market is quite the opposite. Most of the video companies still haven't
figured out that a sound blaster isn't "Pro".
Chris
Dedric Terry wrote:
>Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market that
>will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They have
>Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as soon
>as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting user.
>;-)
>
>Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still). Even PT
>isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate to
>see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as a whole.
>
>The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone age
>5 to 95.
>
>Dedric
>
>On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio
>>editing,
>>look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks like
>>Apple is heading there without them.
>>
>>I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the Logic
>>Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2_re
>>storation
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73414 is a reply to message #73406] |
Sun, 01 October 2006 10:20 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, this is what Mr Jobs was touting at the time. AND, the price for the
G4 was considerably more expensive and say a Xp2.8 PC. How old do you think
the AMD XP 2800 is ??????
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hey LaMont! Your comparing a G4 500 MHz machine up against a 2.8 GHz PC???
> That's not a fair comparison, the G4 500 MHz is almost 8 years old, try
>1999!!! Why don't you compare it to a PC from 1999!!!, then tell us how
>Macs suck and how Steve Jobs is a big lier about performance. That machine
>will stand up to a 1GHz pentium III or standard 1 GHz P 4 and beat them.
>
>
>You can buy G4 500 on ebay for under $100.00 all day long. It's not a fair
>comparison.
>
>James
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameriech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Jamie, I preety much know tha you have no problems nor resevations
on
>>logic audio. However, to answer your question
>>
>>"Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine remodeling and
>>bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire? What, exactly,
>>do you find missing? What part of the current audio track editing or waveform
>>editing don't you like?io in it's currrent state . :"
>>
>>Jamie have a look at a current running thread on gearslutz.com concerning
>>Logic Audio 8: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=87812&hi ghlight=Logic+Audio
>>
>>The overwhemingly want is a sleek plaing field that's not clunky, and more
>>like Pro Tools and Nuendo. How about some of the slick right-mouse clicking
>>features found in Nuendo? Not to mention all of it's menu driven editing..Logic
>>audio is not in this leauge at all. When they should be.
>>
>>But, as long as Logic & DP Continue down their Midi first/Audio secondary
>>mind-set, then both will continue to lose market share. Both Apps new complete
>>re-write from scratch. I thought I never say this but, Apple should scrap
>>this versio of Logic 7.x and go build off Sountrack Pro with the addition
>>of Final-Cut Pro, which would yield a Nuendo like app..That would be worth
>>$900.00 bucks.
>>Just to clarify. You ask what I don't like about Logic? The answers can
>be
>>found in SoundTrack Pro sleek modern, but powerful audio editing. If Apple
>>decides to join Final cut and Sountrack together, and start phasing out
>Logic(Vintage)7.x,
>>then that along would increase market excitement ten-fold.
>>
>>But,to keep applying bandaids for an antequated ,but powerful midi-audio
>>sequencer is ludacris at best. At it's core, it's a Midi sequencer first
>>and a audio recorder second. That combination does not sit well today.
Most
>>of us want a serious, sleek audio engine first, with a good sequencer..That's
>>all.. Yes, I know that there folks like you, and me, who have dedicated
>Sequencing
>>machines, but not everyone..
>>
>>Note: My Last version of Logic on windows 5.5 was and sill is smokin!!
Very
>>stable runing on an AMD Xp2800 machine with M-audio cards using the EASI
>>drivers. My windows version out performed my G4-500, and our Studios Dual867
>>G4(so musch for the Mac hype). On a PC, I can run full (say 20plus vstis)
>>on a given session with about 50 audio tracks..with verbs. The macs would
>>choke everytime we tried doing soemthing like that..
>>
>>Now, with Intel dual cores)Logic can run some serious amount of plugins.Hummm..
>>Even Quad G5 can't run with Intel Macs.. Mac Hype all the way to PC land..
>>My point, Pc's have always ran Logic better than nay Mac. I should know,
>>I run both..
>>
>>Same with Mac OSX..Nice OS, but very very Bloated. More bloated than WinXP.
>>To me and others, Windows outperforms OSX on most DAWS..Especialy Pro-Tools..It's
>>not even a funny.
>>Now that we are all running PCs (Intels & Amds), we can all have the great
>>performance that only Steve JObs promised us. ":)
>>
>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Well Emapple HAVE been rewriting Logic, it's improved significantly
>>>during the time I've been using it.
>>>
>>>Have you been following the updates over the last couple of years? First
>>
>>>they added a ton of good to great FX and instrument plugins and some new
>>
>>>features. Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine
>>>remodeling and bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire?
>>
>>>What, exactly, do you find missing? What part of the current audio track
>>
>>>editing or waveform editing don't you like?
>>>
>>>Regarding MSWindows - I understand that's an issue for some folks
>>>(particularly those who didn't switch when Logic went OSX-only), but
>>>really, this is not an issue for everyone. It's kinda late in the game
>
>>>to still be complaining about that, either switch to OSX (a very good
>>>OS) or give up on Logic and know that just because you gave up doesn't
>
>>>mean it hasn't improved tremendously and people aren't using and liking
>>
>>>the current version - it's a much better program on OSX today than it
>>>was on MSWindows four years ago, or however long it's been. For that
>>>matter it's a much better program on OSX today than it was on MacOS 9.
>
>>>I'm no fan of either OS 9 or MSWindows for my own OS snob reasons, but
>
>>>OSX doesn't suck too badly (high compliment).
>>>
>>>At this point I'm OK with seeing the development team continue to
>>>optimize Logic for OSX as they continue to rewrite and update code. If
>
>>>there's a problem I can complain to a single company to fix it - as I
>>>did when the Apple rep came to town earlier this year. Whether that had
>>
>>>anything to do with it or not, the bugs I complained about got fixed.
>>>
>>>I would like to see Emapple continue the process of moving things from
>
>>>the Environment and into the Arrange window. The manual control in the
>
>>>Environment is powerful, but some of that could be made easier and put
>
>>>into the Arrange. It's not a prob for me, I know my way around the
>>>Environment enough to do what I need to do but it would help with the
>>>learning curve for new users to keep up that trend - they've already
>>>done some things toward that end.
>>>
>>>I do like that I can arrange multiple mixer windows however I want them,
>>
>>>size the Arrange window to fit, add a transport and I have a really good
>>
>>>view of the project on my 24" widescreen monitor. Views are automatic
>>>and I sometimes use multiple views to arrange windows for different
>>>tasks, but for the most part one view and a big monitor is golden.
>>>They've improved things tremendously by letting users drag plugins
>>>around on the GUI and allowing whole racks of FX to be saved and
>>>recalled. I would say the interface is not "dated" so much as "really,
>
>>>efficient." I'd hate to see them lose that efficiency in an effort to
be
>>
>>>glitzier.
>>>
>>>The color scheme is OK with me but I can see where you might like to
>>>have control over that. When the color scheme hacks came out for PARIS
>I
>>
>>>thought they were interesting but there again, I was OK with the color
>
>>>scheme for PARIS.
>>>
>>>The main questions for me are does it do what I need, within budget, and
>>
>>>does it sound good. Yes to both. In fact it exceeds what I need. At this
>>
>>>point I really appreciate the power on my studio desktop.
>>>
>>>Again, there are other systems that also work well. A lot of folks like
>>
>>>Nuendo/Cubase, the new Cubase looks great. The new Digital Performer
>>>also looks great, Etc. If my needs were different I'd still be using
>>>PARIS - it does a lot, just falls short with MIDI and has a few other
>>>limitations, but within those limitations it's a very usable system.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>LaMont wrote:
>>>> Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic
>>Audio
>>>> to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps
>>that
>>>> we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the
>other,
>>>> no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair
>>with
>>>> that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple
>>can
>>>> develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I
think
>>>> that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over
>the
>>>> Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
>>>> an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to
snub
>>>> their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks
>>like
>>>> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner,
>>Magix
>>>> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually
>>appealing.Giveing
>>>> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens
>me
>>to
>>>> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign)
>>by
>>>> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic
>>Audio.
>>>> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..????
>>Is
>>>> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
>>>> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason
to
>>fork
>>>> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with
>>a
>>>> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting
>>to
>>>> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to
>become
>>>> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
>>>> What happend??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>>
>>>>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate
>>the
>>>>
>>>>> change.
>>>>>
>>>>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>>
>>>>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX
are
>>
>>>>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>>
>>>>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>>
>>>>> prefer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>>
>>>>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>>
>>>>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>>
>>>>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>>>>
>>>>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can
>tell
>>>>
>>>>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you
>>but
>>>>
>>>>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what
>>we
>>>>
>>>>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free
to
>>
>>>>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these
days.
>>>>
>>>>> I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>>>>> impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>>>>>
>>>>> DP is nice, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm
>only
>>>> stating
>>>>>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>>>>>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic
>>audio,
>>>>>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the
>>But..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting
the
>>>> Windows
>>>>>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does
not
>>>> change
>>>>>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and
so
>>will
>>>>>> Digital Performer.
>>>>>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown
>in),
>>>> I
>>>>>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>>>>
>>>>>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged
'em
>>>> for
>>>>>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>>
>>>>>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>>
>>>>>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>>
>>>>>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>>>>
>>>>>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated.
>On
>>>> a
>>>>>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and
>>soft
>>>>>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>>>>
>>>>>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>>>>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>>>>
>>>>>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>>>>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
>>>> and
>>>>>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>>>>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon
(Winter
>>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>>>>>> losing
>>>>>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer.
Hummm
>>>>>> ...I
>>>>>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform,
>pretty
>>>>>>>>> sealed
>>>>>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop
this
>>>> charade
>>>>>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us
Windows
>>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of
>it's
>>>>>>>>> luster.
>>>>>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not
>>play.
>>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>>>>> waste
>>>>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you
>>stop
>>>>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
>>>> Soon
>>>>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
>>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
>>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should
>>run.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those
>who
>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but
>>I'm
>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73415 is a reply to message #73404] |
Sun, 01 October 2006 10:26 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Dedric,
I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi they continue
down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will die off
if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the game now.
Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting most
of their cardsinto IPODS.
I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or more so
Sony Vegas Pro.
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market that
>will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They have
>Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as soon
>as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting user.
>;-)
>
>Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still). Even
PT
>isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate
to
>see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as a whole.
>
>The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone
age
>5 to 95.
>
>Dedric
>
>On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio
>> editing,
>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks like
>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>
>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the
Logic
>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2_re
>> storation
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73416 is a reply to message #73406] |
Sun, 01 October 2006 10:32 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
James back in 1999, most of us here were running AMD Thunderbirds 800,900,1000,
1200 mghz speed processors that cost not more than 600 bucks to build. We
were not running PIII intels. Too old and too slow..
Yet, Apple was telling us all how a G4-500 was the fastest personal computer
on the planet. I should have one hat I got back in 1999..
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hey LaMont! Your comparing a G4 500 MHz machine up against a 2.8 GHz PC???
> That's not a fair comparison, the G4 500 MHz is almost 8 years old, try
>1999!!! Why don't you compare it to a PC from 1999!!!, then tell us how
>Macs suck and how Steve Jobs is a big lier about performance. That machine
>will stand up to a 1GHz pentium III or standard 1 GHz P 4 and beat them.
>
>
>You can buy G4 500 on ebay for under $100.00 all day long. It's not a fair
>comparison.
>
>James
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameriech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Jamie, I preety much know tha you have no problems nor resevations
on
>>logic audio. However, to answer your question
>>
>>"Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine remodeling and
>>bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire? What, exactly,
>>do you find missing? What part of the current audio track editing or waveform
>>editing don't you like?io in it's currrent state . :"
>>
>>Jamie have a look at a current running thread on gearslutz.com concerning
>>Logic Audio 8: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=87812&hi ghlight=Logic+Audio
>>
>>The overwhemingly want is a sleek plaing field that's not clunky, and more
>>like Pro Tools and Nuendo. How about some of the slick right-mouse clicking
>>features found in Nuendo? Not to mention all of it's menu driven editing..Logic
>>audio is not in this leauge at all. When they should be.
>>
>>But, as long as Logic & DP Continue down their Midi first/Audio secondary
>>mind-set, then both will continue to lose market share. Both Apps new complete
>>re-write from scratch. I thought I never say this but, Apple should scrap
>>this versio of Logic 7.x and go build off Sountrack Pro with the addition
>>of Final-Cut Pro, which would yield a Nuendo like app..That would be worth
>>$900.00 bucks.
>>Just to clarify. You ask what I don't like about Logic? The answers can
>be
>>found in SoundTrack Pro sleek modern, but powerful audio editing. If Apple
>>decides to join Final cut and Sountrack together, and start phasing out
>Logic(Vintage)7.x,
>>then that along would increase market excitement ten-fold.
>>
>>But,to keep applying bandaids for an antequated ,but powerful midi-audio
>>sequencer is ludacris at best. At it's core, it's a Midi sequencer first
>>and a audio recorder second. That combination does not sit well today.
Most
>>of us want a serious, sleek audio engine first, with a good sequencer..That's
>>all.. Yes, I know that there folks like you, and me, who have dedicated
>Sequencing
>>machines, but not everyone..
>>
>>Note: My Last version of Logic on windows 5.5 was and sill is smokin!!
Very
>>stable runing on an AMD Xp2800 machine with M-audio cards using the EASI
>>drivers. My windows version out performed my G4-500, and our Studios Dual867
>>G4(so musch for the Mac hype). On a PC, I can run full (say 20plus vstis)
>>on a given session with about 50 audio tracks..with verbs. The macs would
>>choke everytime we tried doing soemthing like that..
>>
>>Now, with Intel dual cores)Logic can run some serious amount of plugins.Hummm..
>>Even Quad G5 can't run with Intel Macs.. Mac Hype all the way to PC land..
>>My point, Pc's have always ran Logic better than nay Mac. I should know,
>>I run both..
>>
>>Same with Mac OSX..Nice OS, but very very Bloated. More bloated than WinXP.
>>To me and others, Windows outperforms OSX on most DAWS..Especialy Pro-Tools..It's
>>not even a funny.
>>Now that we are all running PCs (Intels & Amds), we can all have the great
>>performance that only Steve JObs promised us. ":)
>>
>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Well Emapple HAVE been rewriting Logic, it's improved significantly
>>>during the time I've been using it.
>>>
>>>Have you been following the updates over the last couple of years? First
>>
>>>they added a ton of good to great FX and instrument plugins and some new
>>
>>>features. Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine
>>>remodeling and bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire?
>>
>>>What, exactly, do you find missing? What part of the current audio track
>>
>>>editing or waveform editing don't you like?
>>>
>>>Regarding MSWindows - I understand that's an issue for some folks
>>>(particularly those who didn't switch when Logic went OSX-only), but
>>>really, this is not an issue for everyone. It's kinda late in the game
>
>>>to still be complaining about that, either switch to OSX (a very good
>>>OS) or give up on Logic and know that just because you gave up doesn't
>
>>>mean it hasn't improved tremendously and people aren't using and liking
>>
>>>the current version - it's a much better program on OSX today than it
>>>was on MSWindows four years ago, or however long it's been. For that
>>>matter it's a much better program on OSX today than it was on MacOS 9.
>
>>>I'm no fan of either OS 9 or MSWindows for my own OS snob reasons, but
>
>>>OSX doesn't suck too badly (high compliment).
>>>
>>>At this point I'm OK with seeing the development team continue to
>>>optimize Logic for OSX as they continue to rewrite and update code. If
>
>>>there's a problem I can complain to a single company to fix it - as I
>>>did when the Apple rep came to town earlier this year. Whether that had
>>
>>>anything to do with it or not, the bugs I complained about got fixed.
>>>
>>>I would like to see Emapple continue the process of moving things from
>
>>>the Environment and into the Arrange window. The manual control in the
>
>>>Environment is powerful, but some of that could be made easier and put
>
>>>into the Arrange. It's not a prob for me, I know my way around the
>>>Environment enough to do what I need to do but it would help with the
>>>learning curve for new users to keep up that trend - they've already
>>>done some things toward that end.
>>>
>>>I do like that I can arrange multiple mixer windows however I want them,
>>
>>>size the Arrange window to fit, add a transport and I have a really good
>>
>>>view of the project on my 24" widescreen monitor. Views are automatic
>>>and I sometimes use multiple views to arrange windows for different
>>>tasks, but for the most part one view and a big monitor is golden.
>>>They've improved things tremendously by letting users drag plugins
>>>around on the GUI and allowing whole racks of FX to be saved and
>>>recalled. I would say the interface is not "dated" so much as "really,
>
>>>efficient." I'd hate to see them lose that efficiency in an effort to
be
>>
>>>glitzier.
>>>
>>>The color scheme is OK with me but I can see where you might like to
>>>have control over that. When the color scheme hacks came out for PARIS
>I
>>
>>>thought they were interesting but there again, I was OK with the color
>
>>>scheme for PARIS.
>>>
>>>The main questions for me are does it do what I need, within budget, and
>>
>>>does it sound good. Yes to both. In fact it exceeds what I need. At this
>>
>>>point I really appreciate the power on my studio desktop.
>>>
>>>Again, there are other systems that also work well. A lot of folks like
>>
>>>Nuendo/Cubase, the new Cubase looks great. The new Digital Performer
>>>also looks great, Etc. If my needs were different I'd still be using
>>>PARIS - it does a lot, just falls short with MIDI and has a few other
>>>limitations, but within those limitations it's a very usable system.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>LaMont wrote:
>>>> Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic
>>Audio
>>>> to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps
>>that
>>>> we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the
>other,
>>>> no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair
>>with
>>>> that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple
>>can
>>>> develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I
think
>>>> that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over
>the
>>>> Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
>>>> an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to
snub
>>>> their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks
>>like
>>>> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner,
>>Magix
>>>> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually
>>appealing.Giveing
>>>> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens
>me
>>to
>>>> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign)
>>by
>>>> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic
>>Audio.
>>>> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..????
>>Is
>>>> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
>>>> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason
to
>>fork
>>>> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with
>>a
>>>> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting
>>to
>>>> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to
>become
>>>> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
>>>> What happend??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>>
>>>>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate
>>the
>>>>
>>>>> change.
>>>>>
>>>>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>>
>>>>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX
are
>>
>>>>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>>
>>>>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>>
>>>>> prefer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>>
>>>>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>>
>>>>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>>
>>>>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>>>>
>>>>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can
>tell
>>>>
>>>>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you
>>but
>>>>
>>>>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what
>>we
>>>>
>>>>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free
to
>>
>>>>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these
days.
>>>>
>>>>> I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>>>>> impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>>>>>
>>>>> DP is nice, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm
>only
>>>> stating
>>>>>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>>>>>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic
>>audio,
>>>>>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the
>>But..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting
the
>>>> Windows
>>>>>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does
not
>>>> change
>>>>>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and
so
>>will
>>>>>> Digital Performer.
>>>>>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown
>in),
>>>> I
>>>>>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>>>>
>>>>>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged
'em
>>>> for
>>>>>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>>
>>>>>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>>
>>>>>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>>
>>>>>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>>>>
>>>>>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated.
>On
>>>> a
>>>>>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and
>>soft
>>>>>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>>>>
>>>>>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>>>>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>>>>
>>>>>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>>>>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
>>>> and
>>>>>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>>>>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon
(Winter
>>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>>>>>> losing
>>>>>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer.
Hummm
>>>>>> ...I
>>>>>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform,
>pretty
>>>>>>>>> sealed
>>>>>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop
this
>>>> charade
>>>>>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us
Windows
>>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of
>it's
>>>>>>>>> luster.
>>>>>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not
>>play.
>>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>>>>> waste
>>>>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you
>>stop
>>>>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
>>>> Soon
>>>>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
>>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
>>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should
>>run.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those
>who
>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but
>>I'm
>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73425 is a reply to message #73415] |
Sun, 01 October 2006 16:39 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it. I don't
think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will, and has
improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC version
again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions of
us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price, if it were
$499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using it.
There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00 better
than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest version
of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really know.
Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different strokes
for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people that really
like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't think it's
dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time. By the
way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas and Acid.
Hey, it's always good to have choices.
James
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Hey Dedric,
>I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi they continue
>down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will die off
>if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>
>Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the game now.
>Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting most
>of their cardsinto IPODS.
>
>I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or more so
>Sony Vegas Pro.
>
>
>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market that
>>will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They have
>>Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as soon
>>as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>>moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting user.
>>;-)
>>
>>Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still). Even
>PT
>>isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate
>to
>>see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as a whole.
>>
>>The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>>what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone
>age
>>5 to 95.
>>
>>Dedric
>>
>>On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio
>>> editing,
>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks like
>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>
>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the
>Logic
>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>>
>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2_re
>>> storation
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73441 is a reply to message #73410] |
Sun, 01 October 2006 20:02 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Chris,
I don't have Sequoia 9 yet, but the word on the forum has been that only the
hybrid engine uses more than one core/cpu - e.g. the "classic" engine is
still single core. I haven't been clear on whether 9.x will add extended
multi-cpu support in either mode not. Have you guys been testing it
already?
Dedric
On 10/1/06 9:21 AM, in article 451fdb36@linux, "Chris Ludwig"
<chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
> Hi Dedric,
> From what I've found out so far.
>
> Samplitude/Sequoia 9 now support 4 CPU finally. Of course Dual CPUs have
> been common for 4/5 years and dual cores for 2 years. Better late than
> never :)
>
> Cubase4/ Nuendo 3 = 8 Cores/CPUs
> Sonar 5/6 = 4 cpus
> Ableton Live 6 = 2cpus
> PT 7.1 LE = 2 cpus
> Vegas 7 = 4 cpus
> Wavelab = 2 cpus
> audition = ummm i think only one still
> Acid "Pro" = still 1 but I think next version to match V7 will be multi/
>
> Pro tools is last thing I would consider if I had a tight school budget . :)
>
> The audio market is very fast with support for current technology and
> formats and is very responsive to customers about adding them. The video
> market is quite the opposite. Most of the video companies still haven't
> figured out that a sound blaster isn't "Pro".
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
>
>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market that
>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They have
>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as soon
>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting user.
>> ;-)
>>
>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still). Even PT
>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate to
>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as a whole.
>>
>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone age
>> 5 to 95.
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio
>>> editing,
>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks like
>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>
>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the Logic
>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>>
>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2_
>>> re
>>> storation
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73442 is a reply to message #73425] |
Sun, 01 October 2006 20:03 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do you like Symphony -
thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect complement to Logic,
but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's ability to deliver the
driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
Dedric
On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
<excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it. I don't
> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will, and has
> improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC version
> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions of
> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price, if it were
> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using it.
>
>
> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00 better
> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest version
> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really know.
> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different strokes
> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people that really
> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't think it's
> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time. By the
> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas and Acid.
>
> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>
> James
>
> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Dedric,
>> I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi they
>> continue
>> down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will die off
>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>
>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the game now.
>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting most
>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>
>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or more so
>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market that
>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They have
>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as soon
>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting user.
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still). Even
>> PT
>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate
>> to
>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as a whole.
>>>
>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone
>> age
>>> 5 to 95.
>>>
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio
>>>> editing,
>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks like
>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>
>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the
>> Logic
>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>> _re
>>>> storation
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73450 is a reply to message #73425] |
Sun, 01 October 2006 20:18 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
James my concerns are not for MAxc user, I could care less about aMac user,
I do care about Windows users. However, Even if Logic Audio were $499.00
that sill could not convince a user like DJ to buy a Mac. Get the Point..
And, yes Nuendo is $500.00 but better than Logic 7.x with all it's virual
instruments. Nuendo, is an all-around better Audio/mixng/Editing/Vst host
DAW period. This is not just my opinion, but to most DAW users.
Logic is losing the popularity constest. Just because hey have their faithfull
user (erroding), does not mean that they are gaining market-share.
Logic is dated, stale, stale to look at, and no engineer would want to cut(track
a band) a session using it. he arrange page is aaudioediting nightmare..
Mark my words, Logic will be a throw-in app for Music Macs.
My hope is for a mature Sountrack Pro/With Final cut Pro DAW from Apple.
That product can compete with the Pro Tools, Nuendo's/SX, Samplitudes, Sequoia,
and now even Sonar.
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it. I don't
>think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will, and has
>improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC version
>again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions of
>us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price, if it
were
>$499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using it.
>
>
>There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00 better
>than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest version
>of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really know.
> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different strokes
>for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people that
really
>like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't think
it's
>dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time. By the
>way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas and Acid.
>
>Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>
>James
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Dedric,
>>I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi they continue
>>down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will die off
>>if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>
>>Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the game
now.
>>Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting most
>>of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>
>>I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or more
so
>>Sony Vegas Pro.
>>
>>
>>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market that
>>>will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They
have
>>>Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as
soon
>>>as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>>>moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting
user.
>>>;-)
>>>
>>>Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still). Even
>>PT
>>>isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate
>>to
>>>see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as a
whole.
>>>
>>>The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>>>what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone
>>age
>>>5 to 95.
>>>
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio
>>>> editing,
>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks
like
>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>
>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the
>>Logic
>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2_re
>>>> storation
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73459 is a reply to message #73442] |
Mon, 02 October 2006 00:03 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not running Logic at
this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the development of logic.
I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of the bugs have
been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a while, especially when
they started to make changes to the interface. Some people liked it the
way it was, hummmmm!
I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks like a killer
combination, but time will tell. From what I gather, the drivers are working
well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all turns out to be true.
I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW software. Logic is still
a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party hardware options,
such as DSP cards. It took apple time to get the right people in place for
the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic will
now improve.
My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs when your reference
is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old Mac. That's ridiculous!
There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I think the current
state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would reveal a different
conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still prevalent in many
studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I doubt Logic will
ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held by PT, and Steinberg
second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW is a vary subjective
matter. To each his own.
There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm glad we have choices,
other wise we'd all sound the same.
Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
James
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do you like Symphony
-
>thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect complement to Logic,
>but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's ability to deliver the
>driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>
>Dedric
>
>On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
><excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it. I don't
>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will, and
has
>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC version
>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions
of
>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price, if it
were
>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using it.
>>
>>
>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00 better
>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest version
>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really know.
>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different strokes
>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people that
really
>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't think
it's
>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time. By the
>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas and
Acid.
>>
>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>
>> James
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Dedric,
>>> I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi they
>>> continue
>>> down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will die
off
>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>>
>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the game
now.
>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting
most
>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>
>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or more
so
>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market
that
>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They
have
>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as
soon
>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting
user.
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still).
Even
>>> PT
>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate
>>> to
>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as
a whole.
>>>>
>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone
>>> age
>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of
audio
>>>>> editing,
>>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks
like
>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading
the
>>> Logic
>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>> _re
>>>>> storation
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73469 is a reply to message #73459] |
Mon, 02 October 2006 09:32 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
Oh great, now I'm going to have nightmares! ;^)
It will be interesting to see what refinements end up in future versions
of Logic. I'm personally glad it's already come so far, and is now not
only feature-rich but much more reliable. The hardware and OS it runs on
is plenty fast and reasonably elegant.
I'm glad we have choices, too. For anyone who wants Nuendo, Pro Tools or
is limited to running on MSWindows, clearly you should not buy Logic.
Apple will be OK without your money.
Of course it _would_ be great if Logic were multi-platform but the
reality is that ain't gonna happen.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
James McCloskey wrote:
> Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not running Logic at
> this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the development of logic.
> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of the bugs have
> been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a while, especially when
> they started to make changes to the interface. Some people liked it the
> way it was, hummmmm!
>
> I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks like a killer
> combination, but time will tell. From what I gather, the drivers are working
> well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all turns out to be true.
> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW software. Logic is still
> a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party hardware options,
> such as DSP cards. It took apple time to get the right people in place for
> the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic will
> now improve.
>
> My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs when your reference
> is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old Mac. That's ridiculous!
> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I think the current
> state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would reveal a different
> conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still prevalent in many
> studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I doubt Logic will
> ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held by PT, and Steinberg
> second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW is a vary subjective
> matter. To each his own.
>
> There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm glad we have choices,
> other wise we'd all sound the same.
>
> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>
> James
>
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do you like Symphony
> -
>> thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect complement to Logic,
>> but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's ability to deliver the
>> driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it. I don't
>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will, and
> has
>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC version
>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions
> of
>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price, if it
> were
>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using it.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00 better
>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest version
>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really know.
>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different strokes
>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people that
> really
>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't think
> it's
>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time. By the
>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas and
> Acid.
>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>> Hey Dedric,
>>>> I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi they
>>>> continue
>>>> down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will die
> off
>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>>>
>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the game
> now.
>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting
> most
>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>
>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or more
> so
>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market
> that
>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They
> have
>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as
> soon
>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting
> user.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still).
> Even
>>>> PT
>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate
>>>> to
>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as
> a whole.
>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone
>>>> age
>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of
> audio
>>>>>> editing,
>>>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks
> like
>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading
> the
>>>> Logic
>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>> _re
>>>>>> storation
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73472 is a reply to message #73459] |
Mon, 02 October 2006 13:51 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"It took apple time to get the right people in place for
the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic will
now improve. "
And Roland & Former Sonic Foundry Developers. Hence, SounTrack(Opcode vison
sleekness), apple loops(Acid), guitar sim(Roland Cosm_.. Now, that's a winning
combination. I'm loving Apple's diversity in getting the "best" people from
different Audio manufactuers, then developing a Killer Post/DAW .. :) Now,
they have Apogee, Final Cut Pro, they have the Machines Dual Cores Macs.
Nothing should prevent them (Apple) from becoming thee pre-eminent DAW player,
thus over taking Digidesign..
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not running Logic at
>this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the development of logic.
> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of the bugs have
>been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a while, especially
when
>they started to make changes to the interface. Some people liked it the
>way it was, hummmmm!
>
>I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks like a killer
>combination, but time will tell. From what I gather, the drivers are working
>well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all turns out to be true.
> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW software. Logic is
still
>a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party hardware options,
>such as DSP cards. It took apple time to get the right people in place
for
>the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic will
>now improve.
>
>My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs when your reference
>is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old Mac. That's ridiculous!
> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I think the current
>state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would reveal a different
>conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still prevalent in many
>studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I doubt Logic will
>ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held by PT, and Steinberg
>second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW is a vary subjective
>matter. To each his own.
>
>There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm glad we have choices,
>other wise we'd all sound the same.
>
>Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>
>James
>
>
>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do you like Symphony
>-
>>thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect complement to Logic,
>>but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's ability to deliver the
>>driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>
>>Dedric
>>
>>On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>><excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it. I
don't
>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will, and
>has
>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC version
>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions
>of
>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price, if
it
>were
>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using it.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00 better
>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest
version
>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really know.
>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different strokes
>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people that
>really
>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't think
>it's
>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time. By
the
>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas and
>Acid.
>>>
>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey Dedric,
>>>> I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi they
>>>> continue
>>>> down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will die
>off
>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>>>
>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the game
>now.
>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting
>most
>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>
>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or more
>so
>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market
>that
>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They
>have
>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro
as
>soon
>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting
>user.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still).
>Even
>>>> PT
>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually
hate
>>>> to
>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as
>a whole.
>>>>>
>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone
>>>> age
>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of
>audio
>>>>>> editing,
>>>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks
>like
>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading
>the
>>>> Logic
>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>> _re
>>>>>> storation
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73473 is a reply to message #73469] |
Mon, 02 October 2006 14:05 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Jamie,
I dont know about the "Ain't going to happen. Let's take a look.
They dump the IMB-Motorola Processor(Thank God) for some real power(Intel's)..
That one event opened up "Pandora's Box) into Microsoft all over again :)
Thus, it was inevitable that running windows on a Mac would soon follow and
it happened (fast) I might add..BootCamp and other hacked versions..
Being that there are more windows users in the world, how many Ipods would
you say were Windows version of IPods versus Mac Ipods?? Itunes is the prefered
media player on both Macs and Window PCs.
I really do think it's only a matter of time before we a cross-platform of
Logic.
Question: James M or Jamie.. The big rumor is that Apple will release a vrsion
of OS-x for any PC?? Is this true. If it is, wonderful.. Also, that DEll
and Hp are signed on to become OEM vendors.Offering a user to either have
Windows or OS-x as their prefered OS.???
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
> > Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>
>Oh great, now I'm going to have nightmares! ;^)
>
>It will be interesting to see what refinements end up in future versions
>of Logic. I'm personally glad it's already come so far, and is now not
>only feature-rich but much more reliable. The hardware and OS it runs on
>is plenty fast and reasonably elegant.
>
>I'm glad we have choices, too. For anyone who wants Nuendo, Pro Tools or
>is limited to running on MSWindows, clearly you should not buy Logic.
>Apple will be OK without your money.
>
>Of course it _would_ be great if Logic were multi-platform but the
>reality is that ain't gonna happen.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>James McCloskey wrote:
>> Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not running Logic
at
>> this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the development of logic.
>> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of the bugs have
>> been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a while, especially
when
>> they started to make changes to the interface. Some people liked it the
>> way it was, hummmmm!
>>
>> I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks like a killer
>> combination, but time will tell. From what I gather, the drivers are
working
>> well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all turns out to be
true.
>> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW software. Logic is
still
>> a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party hardware options,
>> such as DSP cards. It took apple time to get the right people in place
for
>> the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic
will
>> now improve.
>>
>> My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs when your reference
>> is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old Mac. That's ridiculous!
>> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I think the
current
>> state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would reveal a different
>> conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still prevalent in
many
>> studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I doubt Logic
will
>> ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held by PT, and Steinberg
>> second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW is a vary subjective
>> matter. To each his own.
>>
>> There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm glad we have
choices,
>> other wise we'd all sound the same.
>>
>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>> Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do you like Symphony
>> -
>>> thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect complement to Logic,
>>> but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's ability to deliver
the
>>> driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>>
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>>> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it. I
don't
>>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will, and
>> has
>>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC version
>>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions
>> of
>>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price, if
it
>> were
>>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using
it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00 better
>>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest
version
>>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really
know.
>>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different strokes
>>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people that
>> really
>>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't think
>> it's
>>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time. By
the
>>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas and
>> Acid.
>>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Dedric,
>>>>> I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi they
>>>>> continue
>>>>> down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will die
>> off
>>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the game
>> now.
>>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting
>> most
>>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or more
>> so
>>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market
>> that
>>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They
>> have
>>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro
as
>> soon
>>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting
>> user.
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>>>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still).
>> Even
>>>>> PT
>>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually
hate
>>>>> to
>>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as
>> a whole.
>>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology...
making
>>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone
>>>>> age
>>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of
>> audio
>>>>>>> editing,
>>>>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks
>> like
>>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading
>> the
>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>>> _re
>>>>>>> storation
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73478 is a reply to message #73472] |
Mon, 02 October 2006 18:31 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, I know Mark Altekruse, he is now Sr. Marketing manager for Apple Audio,
he was national sales manager for Korg USA, and has worked in the industry
for years. So I think they have a lot of good industry guys working over
their now.
Will they take PT, I doubt it, but anything is possible. Will it compete
on a professional level? I think it already does, and it will only get better.
James
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>"It took apple time to get the right people in place for
>the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic will
>now improve. "
>
>And Roland & Former Sonic Foundry Developers. Hence, SounTrack(Opcode vison
>sleekness), apple loops(Acid), guitar sim(Roland Cosm_.. Now, that's a winning
>combination. I'm loving Apple's diversity in getting the "best" people from
>different Audio manufactuers, then developing a Killer Post/DAW .. :) Now,
>they have Apogee, Final Cut Pro, they have the Machines Dual Cores Macs.
>Nothing should prevent them (Apple) from becoming thee pre-eminent DAW player,
>thus over taking Digidesign..
>
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not running Logic
at
>>this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the development of logic.
>> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of the bugs have
>>been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a while, especially
>when
>>they started to make changes to the interface. Some people liked it the
>>way it was, hummmmm!
>>
>>I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks like a killer
>>combination, but time will tell. From what I gather, the drivers are working
>>well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all turns out to be
true.
>> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW software. Logic is
>still
>>a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party hardware options,
>>such as DSP cards. It took apple time to get the right people in place
>for
>>the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic will
>>now improve.
>>
>>My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs when your reference
>>is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old Mac. That's ridiculous!
>> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I think the current
>>state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would reveal a different
>>conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still prevalent in many
>>studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I doubt Logic
will
>>ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held by PT, and Steinberg
>>second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW is a vary subjective
>>matter. To each his own.
>>
>>There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm glad we have choices,
>>other wise we'd all sound the same.
>>
>>Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>
>>James
>>
>>
>>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do you like Symphony
>>-
>>>thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect complement to Logic,
>>>but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's ability to deliver
the
>>>driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>>
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>>><excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it. I
>don't
>>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will, and
>>has
>>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC version
>>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions
>>of
>>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price, if
>it
>>were
>>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using
it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00 better
>>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest
>version
>>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really
know.
>>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different strokes
>>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people that
>>really
>>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't think
>>it's
>>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time. By
>the
>>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas and
>>Acid.
>>>>
>>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Dedric,
>>>>> I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi they
>>>>> continue
>>>>> down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will die
>>off
>>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the game
>>now.
>>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting
>>most
>>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or more
>>so
>>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market
>>that
>>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They
>>have
>>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro
>as
>>soon
>>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting
>>user.
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>>>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still).
>
>>Even
>>>>> PT
>>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually
>hate
>>>>> to
>>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as
>>a whole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology...
making
>>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone
>>>>> age
>>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of
>>audio
>>>>>>> editing,
>>>>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks
>>like
>>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading
>>the
>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>>> _re
>>>>>>> storation
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73480 is a reply to message #73473] |
Mon, 02 October 2006 20:01 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think it's a rumor. I do think, IF the day comes that Microsoft drops MS
Office for the Mac it will happen but not right away. My bet is Apple has
a version of OSX and some kind of open Office project that will run on a
PC in their labs that Microsoft is well a where of. It's a cold war approach.
It keeps everybody playing nice. (Where is Claris/Apple works?)
Apple didn't jump to Intel on a whim, or over night, it was a five year process.
It was calculated, it was planned. It was a contingency plan, Apple got
screwed around by Motorola for years. I sold StarMax systems back in the
day, and I spoke to the top brass about OEMing the left over MOBOs. They
told me that they were going to get even with Apple, they were mad as hell
at Apple. They took a 90 million dollar charge when Apple dropped the cloning
thing. For years, Motorola got around to Apples needs when Motorola got
around to Apples needs.
IBM started to treat Apple the same way in recent years. I think IBM found
out about Apple's work with Intel. IBM opened their Fishkill Plant with
big fanfare. There were a lot of press releases about the IBM/Apple G5,
and how IBM built a new state of the art plant for this processor. Steve
Jobs announced that with in a year they would be a 3GHZ with the G5, and
stated that IBM said so. It never happened. Apple had looked at IBM's road
map, the G5 spec-ed out good. The problems that were supposed to be fixed
in the second generation did not happen. Heat and power consumption were
big issues, that's why G5's never made it in to a lap top. IBM could not
deliver a faster, cooler, less power hungry processor. Apple had to do something,
or get left in the dust. I think the relationship also broke down. after
all the IBM fanfare, they started to say publicly that Apple was only a small
part of their business and was not important to them.
From what Steve Jobs said, Apple looked at Intel's road map as far as processor
performance and it was clear to him that it was the best choice. He sees
things that you and I don't get to see. Apples top hardware designer retired
at that time, so having Intel help Apple with MOBO design was a win, win
situation. Apple knows Intel is going to rock in to the future. I'm sure
Apple is also working with AMD, but I think they signed an exclusive with
Intel. When that's up, I think you'll see Apple AMD machines also. You
may also see Apple IBM machines in the future, but I think it depends on
IBM, and price/proformance.
As long as MS plays nice with Apple I don't think you will see OSX on PC
hardware, but again anything is possible. Apple makes too much money on
hardware and they would lose hardware sales if they did this. Not a smart
business plan for Apple. There would be too much cost to support all of
the PC hardware out there. If they sold an OS version with out support they
might be able to make some money, but it would still hurt hardware sales.
If they ever get their hard ware closer to the end user cost of PC hardware,
it might be more possible. I don't think that will happen any time soon,
besides they will never get anywhere near the cost to build your own PC.
Besides, you can already hack the OSX and run it on a PC. I think it
would just hurt Apple.
What I'd like to see, is lower hardware prices from Apple, and the ability
to run any Windows PC software on Mac OSX. That would be a lot better solution.
Mac users really don't want the Windows viruses on our Macs! Apple is a
hardware and software company, I think they would like you to buy both from
them.
Although, if the gloves ever come off, and the average guy finds out the
truth that Mac OSX is less expensive and easier to deal with and does the
same things, Microsoft will have some serious competition on the computing
home front.
Mac OSX on a PC would be a bad thing for Microsoft, and MS would definitely
try to stop it. Apple is doing fine, and I think that nobody really wants
to poison the well they all drink from.
That's my take on it.
Any thing is possible, only time will tell.
James
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Hey Jamie,
>
>I dont know about the "Ain't going to happen. Let's take a look.
>They dump the IMB-Motorola Processor(Thank God) for some real power(Intel's)..
>That one event opened up "Pandora's Box) into Microsoft all over again :)
>
>Thus, it was inevitable that running windows on a Mac would soon follow
and
>it happened (fast) I might add..BootCamp and other hacked versions..
>
>Being that there are more windows users in the world, how many Ipods would
>you say were Windows version of IPods versus Mac Ipods?? Itunes is the prefered
>media player on both Macs and Window PCs.
>I really do think it's only a matter of time before we a cross-platform
of
>Logic.
>
>Question: James M or Jamie.. The big rumor is that Apple will release a
vrsion
>of OS-x for any PC?? Is this true. If it is, wonderful.. Also, that DEll
>and Hp are signed on to become OEM vendors.Offering a user to either have
>Windows or OS-x as their prefered OS.???
>
>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>
>>Oh great, now I'm going to have nightmares! ;^)
>>
>>It will be interesting to see what refinements end up in future versions
>
>>of Logic. I'm personally glad it's already come so far, and is now not
>>only feature-rich but much more reliable. The hardware and OS it runs on
>
>>is plenty fast and reasonably elegant.
>>
>>I'm glad we have choices, too. For anyone who wants Nuendo, Pro Tools or
>
>>is limited to running on MSWindows, clearly you should not buy Logic.
>>Apple will be OK without your money.
>>
>>Of course it _would_ be great if Logic were multi-platform but the
>>reality is that ain't gonna happen.
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>James McCloskey wrote:
>>> Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not running Logic
>at
>>> this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the development of logic.
>>> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of the bugs
have
>>> been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a while, especially
>when
>>> they started to make changes to the interface. Some people liked it
the
>>> way it was, hummmmm!
>>>
>>> I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks like a killer
>>> combination, but time will tell. From what I gather, the drivers are
>working
>>> well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all turns out to be
>true.
>>> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW software. Logic
is
>still
>>> a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party hardware options,
>>> such as DSP cards. It took apple time to get the right people in place
>for
>>> the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic
>will
>>> now improve.
>>>
>>> My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs when your reference
>>> is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old Mac. That's
ridiculous!
>>> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I think the
>current
>>> state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would reveal a different
>>> conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still prevalent in
>many
>>> studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I doubt Logic
>will
>>> ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held by PT, and
Steinberg
>>> second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW is a vary subjective
>>> matter. To each his own.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm glad we have
>choices,
>>> other wise we'd all sound the same.
>>>
>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do you like Symphony
>>> -
>>>> thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect complement to
Logic,
>>>> but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's ability to deliver
>the
>>>> driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>>>> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it.
I
>don't
>>>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will,
and
>>> has
>>>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC version
>>>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions
>>> of
>>>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price, if
>it
>>> were
>>>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using
>it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00 better
>>>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest
>version
>>>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really
>know.
>>>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different strokes
>>>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people
that
>>> really
>>>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't think
>>> it's
>>>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time. By
>the
>>>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas
and
>>> Acid.
>>>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Dedric,
>>>>>> I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi they
>>>>>> continue
>>>>>> down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will die
>>> off
>>>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the
game
>>> now.
>>>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting
>>> most
>>>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or
more
>>> so
>>>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market
>>> that
>>>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio.
They
>>> have
>>>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro
>as
>>> soon
>>>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the
"pro"
>>>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting
>>> user.
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>>>>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still).
>
>>> Even
>>>>>> PT
>>>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually
>hate
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry
as
>>> a whole.
>>>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology...
>making
>>>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to
anyone
>>>>>> age
>>>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level
of
>>> audio
>>>>>>>> editing,
>>>>>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks
>>> like
>>>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading
>>> the
>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this
true?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>>>> _re
>>>>>>>> storation
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73487 is a reply to message #73441] |
Tue, 03 October 2006 07:38 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
HI Dedric,
Just got it the other day and haven't much time to test it . Guess I
wasn't using the Hybrid. Coders sure do get lazy with this stuff. :)
Chris
Dedric Terry wrote:
>Hi Chris,
>
>I don't have Sequoia 9 yet, but the word on the forum has been that only the
>hybrid engine uses more than one core/cpu - e.g. the "classic" engine is
>still single core. I haven't been clear on whether 9.x will add extended
>multi-cpu support in either mode not. Have you guys been testing it
>already?
>
>Dedric
>
>On 10/1/06 9:21 AM, in article 451fdb36@linux, "Chris Ludwig"
><chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi Dedric,
>>From what I've found out so far.
>>
>>Samplitude/Sequoia 9 now support 4 CPU finally. Of course Dual CPUs have
>>been common for 4/5 years and dual cores for 2 years. Better late than
>>never :)
>>
>>Cubase4/ Nuendo 3 = 8 Cores/CPUs
>>Sonar 5/6 = 4 cpus
>>Ableton Live 6 = 2cpus
>>PT 7.1 LE = 2 cpus
>>Vegas 7 = 4 cpus
>>Wavelab = 2 cpus
>>audition = ummm i think only one still
>>Acid "Pro" = still 1 but I think next version to match V7 will be multi/
>>
>>Pro tools is last thing I would consider if I had a tight school budget . :)
>>
>>The audio market is very fast with support for current technology and
>>formats and is very responsive to customers about adding them. The video
>>market is quite the opposite. Most of the video companies still haven't
>>figured out that a sound blaster isn't "Pro".
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market that
>>>will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They have
>>>Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as soon
>>>as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>>>moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting user.
>>>;-)
>>>
>>>Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still). Even PT
>>>isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate to
>>>see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as a whole.
>>>
>>>The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>>>what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone age
>>>5 to 95.
>>>
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio
>>>>editing,
>>>>look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks like
>>>>Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>
>>>>I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the Logic
>>>>Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2_
>>>>re
>>>>storation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73492 is a reply to message #73480] |
Tue, 03 October 2006 09:19 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks James. Good Post... "They took a 90 million dollar charge when Apple
dropped the cloning thing. For years, Motorola got around to Apples needs
when Motorola got around to Apples needs."
WOW!! Amazing..
Question: Before Windows OS got msutherd with viruses (1999-current), what
was Mac user's excues then for not using Windows?
Thanks..
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I think it's a rumor. I do think, IF the day comes that Microsoft drops
MS
>Office for the Mac it will happen but not right away. My bet is Apple has
>a version of OSX and some kind of open Office project that will run on a
>PC in their labs that Microsoft is well a where of. It's a cold war approach.
> It keeps everybody playing nice. (Where is Claris/Apple works?)
>
>Apple didn't jump to Intel on a whim, or over night, it was a five year
process.
> It was calculated, it was planned. It was a contingency plan, Apple got
>screwed around by Motorola for years. I sold StarMax systems back in the
>day, and I spoke to the top brass about OEMing the left over MOBOs. They
>told me that they were going to get even with Apple, they were mad as hell
>at Apple. They took a 90 million dollar charge when Apple dropped the cloning
>thing. For years, Motorola got around to Apples needs when Motorola got
>around to Apples needs.
>
> IBM started to treat Apple the same way in recent years. I think IBM found
>out about Apple's work with Intel. IBM opened their Fishkill Plant with
>big fanfare. There were a lot of press releases about the IBM/Apple G5,
>and how IBM built a new state of the art plant for this processor. Steve
>Jobs announced that with in a year they would be a 3GHZ with the G5, and
>stated that IBM said so. It never happened. Apple had looked at IBM's
road
>map, the G5 spec-ed out good. The problems that were supposed to be fixed
>in the second generation did not happen. Heat and power consumption were
>big issues, that's why G5's never made it in to a lap top. IBM could not
>deliver a faster, cooler, less power hungry processor. Apple had to do
something,
>or get left in the dust. I think the relationship also broke down. after
>all the IBM fanfare, they started to say publicly that Apple was only a
small
>part of their business and was not important to them.
>
>From what Steve Jobs said, Apple looked at Intel's road map as far as processor
>performance and it was clear to him that it was the best choice. He sees
>things that you and I don't get to see. Apples top hardware designer retired
>at that time, so having Intel help Apple with MOBO design was a win, win
>situation. Apple knows Intel is going to rock in to the future. I'm sure
>Apple is also working with AMD, but I think they signed an exclusive with
>Intel. When that's up, I think you'll see Apple AMD machines also. You
>may also see Apple IBM machines in the future, but I think it depends on
>IBM, and price/proformance.
>
>As long as MS plays nice with Apple I don't think you will see OSX on PC
>hardware, but again anything is possible. Apple makes too much money on
>hardware and they would lose hardware sales if they did this. Not a smart
>business plan for Apple. There would be too much cost to support all of
>the PC hardware out there. If they sold an OS version with out support
they
>might be able to make some money, but it would still hurt hardware sales.
> If they ever get their hard ware closer to the end user cost of PC hardware,
>it might be more possible. I don't think that will happen any time soon,
>besides they will never get anywhere near the cost to build your own PC.
> Besides, you can already hack the OSX and run it on a PC. I think it
>would just hurt Apple.
>
>What I'd like to see, is lower hardware prices from Apple, and the ability
>to run any Windows PC software on Mac OSX. That would be a lot better solution.
> Mac users really don't want the Windows viruses on our Macs! Apple is
a
>hardware and software company, I think they would like you to buy both from
>them.
>
>Although, if the gloves ever come off, and the average guy finds out the
>truth that Mac OSX is less expensive and easier to deal with and does the
>same things, Microsoft will have some serious competition on the computing
>home front.
>
>Mac OSX on a PC would be a bad thing for Microsoft, and MS would definitely
>try to stop it. Apple is doing fine, and I think that nobody really wants
>to poison the well they all drink from.
>
>That's my take on it.
>
>Any thing is possible, only time will tell.
>
>James
>
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Jamie,
>>
>>I dont know about the "Ain't going to happen. Let's take a look.
>>They dump the IMB-Motorola Processor(Thank God) for some real power(Intel's)..
>>That one event opened up "Pandora's Box) into Microsoft all over again
:)
>>
>>Thus, it was inevitable that running windows on a Mac would soon follow
>and
>>it happened (fast) I might add..BootCamp and other hacked versions..
>>
>>Being that there are more windows users in the world, how many Ipods would
>>you say were Windows version of IPods versus Mac Ipods?? Itunes is the
prefered
>>media player on both Macs and Window PCs.
>>I really do think it's only a matter of time before we a cross-platform
>of
>>Logic.
>>
>>Question: James M or Jamie.. The big rumor is that Apple will release a
>vrsion
>>of OS-x for any PC?? Is this true. If it is, wonderful.. Also, that DEll
>>and Hp are signed on to become OEM vendors.Offering a user to either have
>>Windows or OS-x as their prefered OS.???
>>
>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>
>>>Oh great, now I'm going to have nightmares! ;^)
>>>
>>>It will be interesting to see what refinements end up in future versions
>>
>>>of Logic. I'm personally glad it's already come so far, and is now not
>
>>>only feature-rich but much more reliable. The hardware and OS it runs
on
>>
>>>is plenty fast and reasonably elegant.
>>>
>>>I'm glad we have choices, too. For anyone who wants Nuendo, Pro Tools
or
>>
>>>is limited to running on MSWindows, clearly you should not buy Logic.
>>>Apple will be OK without your money.
>>>
>>>Of course it _would_ be great if Logic were multi-platform but the
>>>reality is that ain't gonna happen.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>James McCloskey wrote:
>>>> Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not running Logic
>>at
>>>> this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the development of
logic.
>>>> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of the bugs
>have
>>>> been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a while, especially
>>when
>>>> they started to make changes to the interface. Some people liked it
>the
>>>> way it was, hummmmm!
>>>>
>>>> I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks like a killer
>>>> combination, but time will tell. From what I gather, the drivers are
>>working
>>>> well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all turns out to
be
>>true.
>>>> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW software. Logic
>is
>>still
>>>> a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party hardware options,
>>>> such as DSP cards. It took apple time to get the right people in place
>>for
>>>> the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic
>>will
>>>> now improve.
>>>>
>>>> My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs when your reference
>>>> is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old Mac. That's
>ridiculous!
>>>> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I think the
>>current
>>>> state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would reveal a different
>>>> conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still prevalent in
>>many
>>>> studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I doubt Logic
>>will
>>>> ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held by PT, and
>Steinberg
>>>> second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW is a vary
subjective
>>>> matter. To each his own.
>>>>
>>>> There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm glad we have
>>choices,
>>>> other wise we'd all sound the same.
>>>>
>>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do you like Symphony
>>>> -
>>>>> thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect complement to
>Logic,
>>>>> but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's ability to deliver
>>the
>>>>> driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>>>>> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it.
>I
>>don't
>>>>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will,
>and
>>>> has
>>>>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC
version
>>>>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions
>>>> of
>>>>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price,
if
>>it
>>>> were
>>>>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using
>>it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00
better
>>>>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest
>>version
>>>>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really
>>know.
>>>>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different strokes
>>>>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people
>that
>>>> really
>>>>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't
think
>>>> it's
>>>>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time.
By
>>the
>>>>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas
>and
>>>> Acid.
>>>>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Dedric,
>>>>>>> I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi
they
>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>> down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will
die
>>>> off
>>>>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the
>game
>>>> now.
>>>>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting
>>>> most
>>>>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or
>more
>>>> so
>>>>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio.
>They
>>>> have
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro
>>as
>>>> soon
>>>>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the
>"pro"
>>>>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting
>>>> user.
>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>>>>>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still).
>>
>>>> Even
>>>>>>> PT
>>>>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually
>>hate
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry
>as
>>>> a whole.
>>>>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology...
>>making
>>>>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to
>anyone
>>>>>>> age
>>>>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>>>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level
>of
>>>> audio
>>>>>>>>> editing,
>>>>>>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks
>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading
>>>> the
>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this
>true?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>>>>> _re
>>>>>>>>> storation
>>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73497 is a reply to message #73492] |
Tue, 03 October 2006 10:12 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Thanks James. Good Post... "They took a 90 million dollar charge when Apple
>dropped the cloning thing. For years, Motorola got around to Apples needs
>when Motorola got around to Apples needs."
>WOW!! Amazing..
>
>Question: Before Windows OS got msutherd with viruses (1999-current), what
>was Mac user's excues then for not using Windows?
>Thanks..
>
It sucked! I did use Windoz back then, it was a PITA, and still is. Mac
O/S was a better, easier to use OS! Windows 3.x couldn't stand up to Mac
O/S. Then Windows 95 came out. The press said that it was more Mac like,
which was true. Microsoft continued to copy Mac OS features. MS even stole
the term Plug and Play from Apple. Then they said it was as good as a Mac,
that was the first lie. Then they started to say that Windows 95 was better
than a Mac, that was an even bigger lie. Unfortunately the average guy believed
the lies.
People talked about how Macs would crash and Windows didn't. That was another
lie, Windows 95 did crash. Macs crashed because you need to manually allocate
memory to each program, people would for get to do this and then blame the
Mac. That is like not putting gas in your car, and then say that the car
was defective when it stopped running. That was the draw back of Mac OS
back then, and Win 95 had that one advantage because of the dynamically allocated
memory.
Mac OS was sleeker, more elegant, easier to use back in the 90s and still
is to day. That's why Microsoft keeps trying to copy Apple.
May be it's all just a right brain, left brain thing. Or may be it's that
Microsoft creates software that is inferior, has bugs, has lots of problems,
and it keeps you IT guys working, and that's why you love MS and hate Apple.
James
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I think it's a rumor. I do think, IF the day comes that Microsoft drops
>MS
>>Office for the Mac it will happen but not right away. My bet is Apple
has
>>a version of OSX and some kind of open Office project that will run on
a
>>PC in their labs that Microsoft is well a where of. It's a cold war approach.
>> It keeps everybody playing nice. (Where is Claris/Apple works?)
>>
>>Apple didn't jump to Intel on a whim, or over night, it was a five year
>process.
>> It was calculated, it was planned. It was a contingency plan, Apple got
>>screwed around by Motorola for years. I sold StarMax systems back in the
>>day, and I spoke to the top brass about OEMing the left over MOBOs. They
>>told me that they were going to get even with Apple, they were mad as hell
>>at Apple. They took a 90 million dollar charge when Apple dropped the
cloning
>>thing. For years, Motorola got around to Apples needs when Motorola got
>>around to Apples needs.
>>
>> IBM started to treat Apple the same way in recent years. I think IBM
found
>>out about Apple's work with Intel. IBM opened their Fishkill Plant with
>>big fanfare. There were a lot of press releases about the IBM/Apple G5,
>>and how IBM built a new state of the art plant for this processor. Steve
>>Jobs announced that with in a year they would be a 3GHZ with the G5, and
>>stated that IBM said so. It never happened. Apple had looked at IBM's
>road
>>map, the G5 spec-ed out good. The problems that were supposed to be fixed
>>in the second generation did not happen. Heat and power consumption were
>>big issues, that's why G5's never made it in to a lap top. IBM could not
>>deliver a faster, cooler, less power hungry processor. Apple had to do
>something,
>>or get left in the dust. I think the relationship also broke down. after
>>all the IBM fanfare, they started to say publicly that Apple was only a
>small
>>part of their business and was not important to them.
>>
>>From what Steve Jobs said, Apple looked at Intel's road map as far as processor
>>performance and it was clear to him that it was the best choice. He sees
>>things that you and I don't get to see. Apples top hardware designer retired
>>at that time, so having Intel help Apple with MOBO design was a win, win
>>situation. Apple knows Intel is going to rock in to the future. I'm sure
>>Apple is also working with AMD, but I think they signed an exclusive with
>>Intel. When that's up, I think you'll see Apple AMD machines also. You
>>may also see Apple IBM machines in the future, but I think it depends on
>>IBM, and price/proformance.
>>
>>As long as MS plays nice with Apple I don't think you will see OSX on PC
>>hardware, but again anything is possible. Apple makes too much money on
>>hardware and they would lose hardware sales if they did this. Not a smart
>>business plan for Apple. There would be too much cost to support all of
>>the PC hardware out there. If they sold an OS version with out support
>they
>>might be able to make some money, but it would still hurt hardware sales.
>> If they ever get their hard ware closer to the end user cost of PC hardware,
>>it might be more possible. I don't think that will happen any time soon,
>>besides they will never get anywhere near the cost to build your own PC.
>> Besides, you can already hack the OSX and run it on a PC. I think it
>>would just hurt Apple.
>>
>>What I'd like to see, is lower hardware prices from Apple, and the ability
>>to run any Windows PC software on Mac OSX. That would be a lot better
solution.
>> Mac users really don't want the Windows viruses on our Macs! Apple is
>a
>>hardware and software company, I think they would like you to buy both
from
>>them.
>>
>>Although, if the gloves ever come off, and the average guy finds out the
>>truth that Mac OSX is less expensive and easier to deal with and does the
>>same things, Microsoft will have some serious competition on the computing
>>home front.
>>
>>Mac OSX on a PC would be a bad thing for Microsoft, and MS would definitely
>>try to stop it. Apple is doing fine, and I think that nobody really wants
>>to poison the well they all drink from.
>>
>>That's my take on it.
>>
>>Any thing is possible, only time will tell.
>>
>>James
>>
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey Jamie,
>>>
>>>I dont know about the "Ain't going to happen. Let's take a look.
>>>They dump the IMB-Motorola Processor(Thank God) for some real power(Intel's)..
>>>That one event opened up "Pandora's Box) into Microsoft all over again
>:)
>>>
>>>Thus, it was inevitable that running windows on a Mac would soon follow
>>and
>>>it happened (fast) I might add..BootCamp and other hacked versions..
>>>
>>>Being that there are more windows users in the world, how many Ipods would
>>>you say were Windows version of IPods versus Mac Ipods?? Itunes is the
>prefered
>>>media player on both Macs and Window PCs.
>>>I really do think it's only a matter of time before we a cross-platform
>>of
>>>Logic.
>>>
>>>Question: James M or Jamie.. The big rumor is that Apple will release
a
>>vrsion
>>>of OS-x for any PC?? Is this true. If it is, wonderful.. Also, that DEll
>>>and Hp are signed on to become OEM vendors.Offering a user to either have
>>>Windows or OS-x as their prefered OS.???
>>>
>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>
>>>>Oh great, now I'm going to have nightmares! ;^)
>>>>
>>>>It will be interesting to see what refinements end up in future versions
>>>
>>>>of Logic. I'm personally glad it's already come so far, and is now not
>>
>>>>only feature-rich but much more reliable. The hardware and OS it runs
>on
>>>
>>>>is plenty fast and reasonably elegant.
>>>>
>>>>I'm glad we have choices, too. For anyone who wants Nuendo, Pro Tools
>or
>>>
>>>>is limited to running on MSWindows, clearly you should not buy Logic.
>
>>>>Apple will be OK without your money.
>>>>
>>>>Of course it _would_ be great if Logic were multi-platform but the
>>>>reality is that ain't gonna happen.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>James McCloskey wrote:
>>>>> Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not running Logic
>>>at
>>>>> this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the development of
>logic.
>>>>> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of the bugs
>>have
>>>>> been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a while, especially
>>>when
>>>>> they started to make changes to the interface. Some people liked it
>>the
>>>>> way it was, hummmmm!
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks like a killer
>>>>> combination, but time will tell. From what I gather, the drivers are
>>>working
>>>>> well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all turns out to
>be
>>>true.
>>>>> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW software. Logic
>>is
>>>still
>>>>> a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party hardware options,
>>>>> such as DSP cards. It took apple time to get the right people in place
>>>for
>>>>> the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic
>>>will
>>>>> now improve.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs when your
reference
>>>>> is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old Mac. That's
>>ridiculous!
>>>>> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I think the
>>>current
>>>>> state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would reveal a
different
>>>>> conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still prevalent
in
>>>many
>>>>> studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I doubt Logic
>>>will
>>>>> ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held by PT, and
>>Steinberg
>>>>> second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW is a vary
>subjective
>>>>> matter. To each his own.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm glad we have
>>>choices,
>>>>> other wise we'd all sound the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do you like Symphony
>>>>> -
>>>>>> thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect complement to
>>Logic,
>>>>>> but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's ability to deliver
>>>the
>>>>>> driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>>>>>> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it.
>
>>I
>>>don't
>>>>>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will,
>>and
>>>>> has
>>>>>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC
>version
>>>>>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price,
>if
>>>it
>>>>> were
>>>>>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using
>>>it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00
>better
>>>>>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest
>>>version
>>>>>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really
>>>know.
>>>>>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different
strokes
>>>>>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people
>>that
>>>>> really
>>>>>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't
>think
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time.
>By
>>>the
>>>>>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas
>>and
>>>>> Acid.
>>>>>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey Dedric,
>>>>>>>> I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi
>they
>>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>>> down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will
>die
>>>>> off
>>>>>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the
>>game
>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting
>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or
>>more
>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio.
>
>>They
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio
pro
>>>as
>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the
>>"pro"
>>>>>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting
>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>>>>>>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still).
>>>
>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>> PT
>>>>>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually
>>>hate
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry
>>as
>>>>> a whole.
>>>>>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology...
>>>making
>>>>>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to
>>anyone
>>>>>>>> age
>>>>>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>>>>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level
>>of
>>>>> audio
>>>>>>>>>> editing,
>>>>>>>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it
looks
>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this
>>true?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>>>>>> _re
>>>>>>>>>> storation
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73505 is a reply to message #73497] |
Tue, 03 October 2006 12:48 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Now now James: )I've been a Mac user since 1988. I had a Mac IIci(Nice duds
in thoses days). While it was nice(expensive) it was problematic.
Then my next mac was the powerfull 9500 in 1995. Nice machine, however, a
friend came over with his Compaq (blah blah)win Win95. I was blown away by
the speed alone. Yes, it would crash if you really pushed hard, but undr
normal conditions, it flew.
It made me take a fresh look at this Apple thing.. Btw, my was with the Compaq,
had a Mac Quadra 8400(pimped out)..
From there, I went to a pimped out G3..Soon after G4..The into Paris, with
BrianT's help, I've been a PC windows user ever since.
Disagree: GM headquarters(where I worked) had the Mac IIci's as their standard
desktop from 1989-till 1995. We are talking North Americans operations. Over
50,000 users..
Well, do I even need to go into the problems we experienced with the Macs??Let's
not even get into apple's customer service or lack there of..
That GM fisaco is what did Apple in as far as Big business standard desktop..
They droppped the ball big time.
Lie after lie afert lie..
At our formal studio, whre we have 4 Mac, (1-G5 Dual 2.7,1-Dual 877, 2 older
G4-500).. They run our various Pro _Tools setups. Do they crash?? Yes.. Even
with Pro Tools.
I'm not overly impressed with Mc Os-x. It's slow, and needed the juice that
Mr Jobs always said was their with the Motorola CPUS.. ANd, people really
believed that hype without even testing simular apps on a PC. That my friend,
is Blind studpidity..Now, you (mac) guys are grasping for your last bit of
Hype with stating that Mac OS-X is superior to Windows OS. That's your torch
song now..
What happend to the old torch song that the G5 was faster than an Opteron
& Xeon ?? I can't hear you........
Save that mac OS-x hype for somebody who has never owed or used a mac.. I
have used them and still use them, and I can tell you un-equivilicaly, that
it's still about hype and illusion with Apple. They have a real opertunity
to to reatore their name with PC user's if , they just come clean once in
awhile. If they keep up the lies, they will continue to be a niche player..
And, once VArs and resellers get the new Dual core Intels, aong with AMD
announcing big price cuts on their Opterons, CHECK MATE... We'll build a
bigger, faster,PC for a lot less..
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Thanks James. Good Post... "They took a 90 million dollar charge when Apple
>>dropped the cloning thing. For years, Motorola got around to Apples needs
>>when Motorola got around to Apples needs."
>>WOW!! Amazing..
>>
>>Question: Before Windows OS got msutherd with viruses (1999-current), what
>>was Mac user's excues then for not using Windows?
>>Thanks..
>>
>
>It sucked! I did use Windoz back then, it was a PITA, and still is. Mac
>O/S was a better, easier to use OS! Windows 3.x couldn't stand up to Mac
>O/S. Then Windows 95 came out. The press said that it was more Mac like,
>which was true. Microsoft continued to copy Mac OS features. MS even
stole
>the term Plug and Play from Apple. Then they said it was as good as a Mac,
>that was the first lie. Then they started to say that Windows 95 was better
>than a Mac, that was an even bigger lie. Unfortunately the average guy
believed
>the lies.
>
>People talked about how Macs would crash and Windows didn't. That was another
>lie, Windows 95 did crash. Macs crashed because you need to manually allocate
>memory to each program, people would for get to do this and then blame the
>Mac. That is like not putting gas in your car, and then say that the car
>was defective when it stopped running. That was the draw back of Mac OS
>back then, and Win 95 had that one advantage because of the dynamically
allocated
>memory.
>
>Mac OS was sleeker, more elegant, easier to use back in the 90s and still
>is to day. That's why Microsoft keeps trying to copy Apple.
>
>May be it's all just a right brain, left brain thing. Or may be it's that
>Microsoft creates software that is inferior, has bugs, has lots of problems,
>and it keeps you IT guys working, and that's why you love MS and hate Apple.
>
>James
>
>
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I think it's a rumor. I do think, IF the day comes that Microsoft drops
>>MS
>>>Office for the Mac it will happen but not right away. My bet is Apple
>has
>>>a version of OSX and some kind of open Office project that will run on
>a
>>>PC in their labs that Microsoft is well a where of. It's a cold war approach.
>>> It keeps everybody playing nice. (Where is Claris/Apple works?)
>>>
>>>Apple didn't jump to Intel on a whim, or over night, it was a five year
>>process.
>>> It was calculated, it was planned. It was a contingency plan, Apple
got
>>>screwed around by Motorola for years. I sold StarMax systems back in
the
>>>day, and I spoke to the top brass about OEMing the left over MOBOs. They
>>>told me that they were going to get even with Apple, they were mad as
hell
>>>at Apple. They took a 90 million dollar charge when Apple dropped the
>cloning
>>>thing. For years, Motorola got around to Apples needs when Motorola got
>>>around to Apples needs.
>>>
>>> IBM started to treat Apple the same way in recent years. I think IBM
>found
>>>out about Apple's work with Intel. IBM opened their Fishkill Plant with
>>>big fanfare. There were a lot of press releases about the IBM/Apple G5,
>>>and how IBM built a new state of the art plant for this processor. Steve
>>>Jobs announced that with in a year they would be a 3GHZ with the G5, and
>>>stated that IBM said so. It never happened. Apple had looked at IBM's
>>road
>>>map, the G5 spec-ed out good. The problems that were supposed to be fixed
>>>in the second generation did not happen. Heat and power consumption were
>>>big issues, that's why G5's never made it in to a lap top. IBM could
not
>>>deliver a faster, cooler, less power hungry processor. Apple had to do
>>something,
>>>or get left in the dust. I think the relationship also broke down. after
>>>all the IBM fanfare, they started to say publicly that Apple was only
a
>>small
>>>part of their business and was not important to them.
>>>
>>>From what Steve Jobs said, Apple looked at Intel's road map as far as
processor
>>>performance and it was clear to him that it was the best choice. He sees
>>>things that you and I don't get to see. Apples top hardware designer
retired
>>>at that time, so having Intel help Apple with MOBO design was a win, win
>>>situation. Apple knows Intel is going to rock in to the future. I'm
sure
>>>Apple is also working with AMD, but I think they signed an exclusive with
>>>Intel. When that's up, I think you'll see Apple AMD machines also. You
>>>may also see Apple IBM machines in the future, but I think it depends
on
>>>IBM, and price/proformance.
>>>
>>>As long as MS plays nice with Apple I don't think you will see OSX on
PC
>>>hardware, but again anything is possible. Apple makes too much money
on
>>>hardware and they would lose hardware sales if they did this. Not a smart
>>>business plan for Apple. There would be too much cost to support all
of
>>>the PC hardware out there. If they sold an OS version with out support
>>they
>>>might be able to make some money, but it would still hurt hardware sales.
>>> If they ever get their hard ware closer to the end user cost of PC hardware,
>>>it might be more possible. I don't think that will happen any time soon,
>>>besides they will never get anywhere near the cost to build your own PC.
>>> Besides, you can already hack the OSX and run it on a PC. I think
it
>>>would just hurt Apple.
>>>
>>>What I'd like to see, is lower hardware prices from Apple, and the ability
>>>to run any Windows PC software on Mac OSX. That would be a lot better
>solution.
>>> Mac users really don't want the Windows viruses on our Macs! Apple is
>>a
>>>hardware and software company, I think they would like you to buy both
>from
>>>them.
>>>
>>>Although, if the gloves ever come off, and the average guy finds out the
>>>truth that Mac OSX is less expensive and easier to deal with and does
the
>>>same things, Microsoft will have some serious competition on the computing
>>>home front.
>>>
>>>Mac OSX on a PC would be a bad thing for Microsoft, and MS would definitely
>>>try to stop it. Apple is doing fine, and I think that nobody really wants
>>>to poison the well they all drink from.
>>>
>>>That's my take on it.
>>>
>>>Any thing is possible, only time will tell.
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hey Jamie,
>>>>
>>>>I dont know about the "Ain't going to happen. Let's take a look.
>>>>They dump the IMB-Motorola Processor(Thank God) for some real power(Intel's)..
>>>>That one event opened up "Pandora's Box) into Microsoft all over again
>>:)
>>>>
>>>>Thus, it was inevitable that running windows on a Mac would soon follow
>>>and
>>>>it happened (fast) I might add..BootCamp and other hacked versions..
>>>>
>>>>Being that there are more windows users in the world, how many Ipods
would
>>>>you say were Windows version of IPods versus Mac Ipods?? Itunes is the
>>prefered
>>>>media player on both Macs and Window PCs.
>>>>I really do think it's only a matter of time before we a cross-platform
>>>of
>>>>Logic.
>>>>
>>>>Question: James M or Jamie.. The big rumor is that Apple will release
>a
>>>vrsion
>>>>of OS-x for any PC?? Is this true. If it is, wonderful.. Also, that DEll
>>>>and Hp are signed on to become OEM vendors.Offering a user to either
have
>>>>Windows or OS-x as their prefered OS.???
>>>>
>>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh great, now I'm going to have nightmares! ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>>It will be interesting to see what refinements end up in future versions
>>>>
>>>>>of Logic. I'm personally glad it's already come so far, and is now not
>>>
>>>>>only feature-rich but much more reliable. The hardware and OS it runs
>>on
>>>>
>>>>>is plenty fast and reasonably elegant.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm glad we have choices, too. For anyone who wants Nuendo, Pro Tools
>>or
>>>>
>>>>>is limited to running on MSWindows, clearly you should not buy Logic.
>>
>>>>>Apple will be OK without your money.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it _would_ be great if Logic were multi-platform but the
>>>>>reality is that ain't gonna happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>James McCloskey wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not running Logic
>>>>at
>>>>>> this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the development of
>>logic.
>>>>>> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of the bugs
>>>have
>>>>>> been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a while, especially
>>>>when
>>>>>> they started to make changes to the interface. Some people liked
it
>>>the
>>>>>> way it was, hummmmm!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks like a
killer
>>>>>> combination, but time will tell. From what I gather, the drivers
are
>>>>working
>>>>>> well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all turns out to
>>be
>>>>true.
>>>>>> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW software. Logic
>>>is
>>>>still
>>>>>> a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party hardware
options,
>>>>>> such as DSP cards. It took apple time to get the right people in
place
>>>>for
>>>>>> the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic
>>>>will
>>>>>> now improve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs when your
>reference
>>>>>> is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old Mac. That's
>>>ridiculous!
>>>>>> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I think
the
>>>>current
>>>>>> state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would reveal a
>different
>>>>>> conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still prevalent
>in
>>>>many
>>>>>> studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I doubt Logic
>>>>will
>>>>>> ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held by PT, and
>>>Steinberg
>>>>>> second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW is a vary
>>subjective
>>>>>> matter. To each his own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm glad we have
>>>>choices,
>>>>>> other wise we'd all sound the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do you like Symphony
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect complement
to
>>>Logic,
>>>>>>> but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's ability to deliver
>>>>the
>>>>>>> driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>>>>>>> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it.
>>
>>>I
>>>>don't
>>>>>>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will,
>>>and
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC
>>version
>>>>>>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price,
>>if
>>>>it
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using
>>>>it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00
>>better
>>>>>>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest
>>>>version
>>>>>>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really
>>>>know.
>>>>>>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different
>strokes
>>>>>>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people
>>>that
>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't
>>think
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time.
>
>>By
>>>>the
>>>>>>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas
>>>and
>>>>>> Acid.
>>>>>>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey Dedric,
>>>>>>>>> I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi
>>they
>>>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>>>> down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will
>>die
>>>>>> off
>>>>>>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the
>>>game
>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting
>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app
or
>>>more
>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio.
>>
>>>They
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio
>pro
>>>>as
>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the
>>>"pro"
>>>>>>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting
>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>>>>>>>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still).
>>>>
>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>> PT
>>>>>>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually
>>>>hate
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry
>>>as
>>>>>> a whole.
>>>>>>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology...
>>>>making
>>>>>>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible
to
>>>anyone
>>>>>>>>> age
>>>>>>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>>>>>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level
>>>of
>>>>>> audio
>>>>>>>>>>> editing,
>>>>>>>>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it
>looks
>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this
>>>true?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>>>>>>> _re
>>>>>>>>>>> storation
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73509 is a reply to message #73497] |
Tue, 03 October 2006 14:17 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lamont said:
>> Question: Before Windows OS got msutherd with viruses
>> (1999-current), what was Mac user's excues then for not using
>> Windows? Thanks..
I've used a lot of different platforms. Atari, Commodore, HP's UNIX,
MSDOS, Apple II, Mac, Amiga, AtariST, MSWindows, NeXT, Linux, BeOS, OSX.
I still have a Wi95/98/Linux/BeOS box lying around, several Amigas and
Psion.
I did some Mac audio/multi-media coverage for MacWEEK/MacUSER during
pre-OSX days and for a time I ran MacOS on an Amiga using an emulator
package and a Mac EPROM.
I've also worked with a variety of companies developing software and
hardware for some of those different platforms.
I'm writing this on Thunderbird, an open source email program, running
on OSX.
I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Mac user. I seek to use and help foster good
tools and I value having choices in that pursuit. I can only speak for
myself, but let me shake out the cobwebs, Lamont, and see if I can
answer your question to some extent and add a little to what James
already said.
So, off the top of my head:
Before OSX, MacOS sucked. No preemptive multitasking. No dynamic memory
allocation. Stuck with compatibility to the stone age of personal
computers (early 80s). But at least the stone age for Apple was more
advanced than the stone age for Microsoft. Apple had already jettisoned
the Apple II, been inspired by Xerox and moved on with the Lisa,
stumbled with that and then moved on to the MacIntosh. That willingness
to move past older designs gave them a technology lead, although the
early Mac was quickly eclipsed in some ways by the Commodore Amiga.
Hardware wise, Macs were overpriced IMO.
Microsoft sucked worse, for the most part, because they couldn't let go
of their entanglement with really old IBM decisions, more like Apple II
than Mac. They struggled to transition to a graphic user interface,
struggled to add decent color support, struggled with multimedia and all
while desperately trying to stay compatible all the way back to MSDOS.
The cost was a culture of bloat, inelegance, copycat design and rushed
bugginess that became the hallmark of Microsoft products.
However, Microsoft managed to beat Apple to preemptive multitasking and
dynamic memory allocation. Apple stagnated with failed development of
OS9 replacement technology, had to transition to the PowerPC processor
family, and all that gave Microsoft an opening to kludge their way past
MacOS, albeit in a very wobbly way, with Wi95 - just add more bailing
wire and ignore the blue screen of death.
Oh BTW, along the way Microsoft pushed out their partner IBM who ended
up with OS2, which began to dry on the vine. IBM is another big story
but I'll condense it into saying that they screwed things up by
standardizing on crappy hardware designs from the start; failing to see
the market potential for personal computers; choosing Microsoft as an OS
partner; and acting like a clueless monolithic typewriter company (not
unlike Commodore except bigger and thus with a carelessly larger market
impact). IBM also got into monopoly trouble which was another part of
Microsoft's huge opportunity to suck on a bigger time level than before.
BTW, what did Microsoft know about operating systems? Very little but
Microsoft bought some technology, nailed down the legalese, presented it
as their own tech, got the deal with the naive IBM, and that's a
an insight into Microsoft's business practices from then on.
The truest innovation from Microsoft, other than anti-competitive
behavior, was relentless marketing. They offered arguably the best
choice in unreliable, kludgy systems, for a time. And Microsoft did a
great job convincing people to buy into the notion that this is just the
way it is, and gee, we need those wobbly peecee things in our businesses
and homes. Microsoft was able to make people think that computers were
unreliable and kludgy and that's just normal.
It's not normal. It's a sign of software bloat caused by rapid
development of features on poor foundations without allowing time for
proper design and debugging.
Not content to compete on merits, Microsoft also sucked with flat out
illegal business practices, some of which they were finally tried and
convicted of, but they were saved from any real consequences for their
criminal activities by a change in government.
Fairly disgusted with both Apple and Microsoft on several levels,
including inability to innovate and inability to transcend OS problems
from the past, plus unethical business practices that were not
particularly great for consumers, I worked on a NeXT computer for a
while and always kept an Amiga workhorse or two around. Later I also put
BeOS on my old Wi98 box, wow, much better!
After spinning their wheels for years, Apple finally decided to buy
their way out of their predicament. Choosing between BeOS and NeXTSTEP,
they chose to buy out NeXT and gain a more modern operating system
foundation and hook back up with co-founder Steve, who had started NeXT
after being more or less kicked out of Apple.
I do disagree with the Apple decision to pull the rug out from under Mac
clone makers. I don't know everything behind it, or whether Apple's
future was really on the line, but I favor competition in general.
Anyway, when Apple built on NeXTSTEP to create a new MacOS, MacOSX, I
became interested. Logic was the first sequencer to support OSX.
OSX threw out most of the OS9 baggage. It started from a higher place
and built from there. Today it's quite solid. I do question a few
things, such as the imposing of extensions in file names, OS9 was better
on that point. But OSX is better on every other point, way, way better.
And OSX is arguably more elegant than the current incarnation of
MSWindows. Mac hardware prices have also come down significantly and now
it's all Intel FWIW.
As an aside, I think Apple went with file name extensions because of a
desire to be more compatible with MSWindows in (stupid, ancient) file
naming conventions. Meta data be damned.
BTW it really, really sucked what happened to BeOS. Both Apple and
Microsoft had a hand in that, but especially Microsoft who forbade
computer makers to offer BeOS as an option (yes, that's illegal).
Microsoft ended up paying a paltry few million in a lawsuit but it was
after BeOS had already been driven out of business, technology assets
sold to Palm.
Sordid business, this. Eventually open source will replace it all, probably.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
James McCloskey wrote:
> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> Thanks James. Good Post... "They took a 90 million dollar charge
>> when Apple dropped the cloning thing. For years, Motorola got
>> around to Apples needs when Motorola got around to Apples needs."
>> WOW!! Amazing..
>>
>> Question: Before Windows OS got msutherd with viruses
>> (1999-current), what was Mac user's excues then for not using
>> Windows? Thanks..
>>
>
> It sucked! I did use Windoz back then, it was a PITA, and still is.
> Mac O/S was a better, easier to use OS! Windows 3.x couldn't stand
> up to Mac O/S. Then Windows 95 came out. The press said that it
> was more Mac like, which was true. Microsoft continued to copy Mac
> OS features. MS even stole the term Plug and Play from Apple. Then
> they said it was as good as a Mac, that was the first lie. Then
> they started to say that Windows 95 was better than a Mac, that was
> an even bigger lie. Unfortunately the average guy believed the lies.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> People talked about how Macs would crash and Windows didn't. That
> was another lie, Windows 95 did crash. Macs crashed because you need
> to manually allocate memory to each program, people would for get to
> do this and then blame the Mac. That is like not putting gas in
> your car, and then say that the car was defective when it stopped
> running. That was the draw back of Mac OS back then, and Win 95 had
> that one advantage because of the dynamically allocated memory.
>
> Mac OS was sleeker, more elegant, easier to use back in the 90s and
> still is to day. That's why Microsoft keeps trying to copy Apple.
>
> May be it's all just a right brain, left brain thing. Or may be it's
> that Microsoft creates software that is inferior, has bugs, has lots
> of problems, and it keeps you IT guys working, and that's why you
> love MS and hate Apple.
>
> James
>
>
>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think it's a rumor. I do think, IF the day comes that
>>> Microsoft drops
>> MS
>>> Office for the Mac it will happen but not right away. My bet is
>>> Apple
> has
>>> a version of OSX and some kind of open Office project that will
>>> run on
> a
>>> PC in their labs that Microsoft is well a where of. It's a cold
>>> war approach. It keeps everybody playing nice. (Where is
>>> Claris/Apple works?)
>>>
>>> Apple didn't jump to Intel on a whim, or over night, it was a
>>> five year
>> process.
>>> It was calculated, it was planned. It was a contingency plan,
>>> Apple got screwed around by Motorola for years. I sold StarMax
>>> systems back in the day, and I spoke to the top brass about
>>> OEMing the left over MOBOs. They told me that they were going to
>>> get even with Apple, they were mad as hell at Apple. They took
>>> a 90 million dollar charge when Apple dropped the
> cloning
>>> thing. For years, Motorola got around to Apples needs when
>>> Motorola got around to Apples needs.
>>>
>>> IBM started to treat Apple the same way in recent years. I think
>>> IBM
> found
>>> out about Apple's work with Intel. IBM opened their Fishkill
>>> Plant with big fanfare. There were a lot of press releases about
>>> the IBM/Apple G5, and how IBM built a new state of the art plant
>>> for this processor. Steve Jobs announced that with in a year
>>> they would be a 3GHZ with the G5, and stated that IBM said so. It
>>> never happened. Apple had looked at IBM's
>> road
>>> map, the G5 spec-ed out good. The problems that were supposed to
>>> be fixed in the second generation did not happen. Heat and
>>> power consumption were big issues, that's why G5's never made it
>>> in to a lap top. IBM could not deliver a faster, cooler, less
>>> power hungry processor. Apple had to do
>> something,
>>> or get left in the dust. I think the relationship also broke
>>> down. after all the IBM fanfare, they started to say publicly
>>> that Apple was only a
>> small
>>> part of their business and was not important to them.
>>>
>>> From what Steve Jobs said, Apple looked at Intel's road map as
>>> far as processor performance and it was clear to him that it was
>>> the best choice. He sees things that you and I don't get to
>>> see. Apples top hardware designer retired at that time, so having
>>> Intel help Apple with MOBO design was a win, win situation.
>>> Apple knows Intel is going to rock in to the future. I'm sure
>>> Apple is also working with AMD, but I think they signed an
>>> exclusive with Intel. When that's up, I think you'll see Apple
>>> AMD machines also. You may also see Apple IBM machines in the
>>> future, but I think it depends on IBM, and price/proformance.
>>>
>>> As long as MS plays nice with Apple I don't think you will see
>>> OSX on PC hardware, but again anything is possible. Apple makes
>>> too much money on hardware and they would lose hardware sales if
>>> they did this. Not a smart business plan for Apple. There
>>> would be too much cost to support all of the PC hardware out
>>> there. If they sold an OS version with out support
>> they
>>> might be able to make some money, but it would still hurt
>>> hardware sales. If they ever get their hard ware closer to the
>>> end user cost of PC hardware, it might be more possible. I don't
>>> think that will happen any time soon, besides they will never
>>> get anywhere near the cost to build your own PC. Besides, you can
>>> already hack the OSX and run it on a PC. I think it would just
>>> hurt Apple.
>>>
>>> What I'd like to see, is lower hardware prices from Apple, and
>>> the ability to run any Windows PC software on Mac OSX. That
>>> would be a lot better
> solution.
>>> Mac users really don't want the Windows viruses on our Macs!
>>> Apple is
>> a
>>> hardware and software company, I think they would like you to buy
>>> both
> from
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Although, if the gloves ever come off, and the average guy finds
>>> out the truth that Mac OSX is less expensive and easier to deal
>>> with and does the same things, Microsoft will have some serious
>>> competition on the computing home front.
>>>
>>> Mac OSX on a PC would be a bad thing for Microsoft, and MS would
>>> definitely try to stop it. Apple is doing fine, and I think
>>> that nobody really wants to poison the well they all drink from.
>>>
>>> That's my take on it.
>>>
>>> Any thing is possible, only time will tell.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>
>>>> I dont know about the "Ain't going to happen. Let's take a
>>>> look. They dump the IMB-Motorola Processor(Thank God) for some
>>>> real power(Intel's).. That one event opened up "Pandora's Box)
>>>> into Microsoft all over again
>> :)
>>>> Thus, it was inevitable that running windows on a Mac would
>>>> soon follow
>>> and
>>>> it happened (fast) I might add..BootCamp and other hacked
>>>> versions..
>>>>
>>>> Being that there are more windows users in the world, how many
>>>> Ipods would you say were Windows version of IPods versus Mac
>>>> Ipods?? Itunes is the
>> prefered
>>>> media player on both Macs and Window PCs. I really do think
>>>> it's only a matter of time before we a cross-platform
>>> of
>>>> Logic.
>>>>
>>>> Question: James M or Jamie.. The big rumor is that Apple will
>>>> release
> a
>>> vrsion
>>>> of OS-x for any PC?? Is this true. If it is, wonderful.. Also,
>>>> that DEll and Hp are signed on to become OEM vendors.Offering
>>>> a user to either have Windows or OS-x as their prefered OS.???
>>>>
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>> Oh great, now I'm going to have nightmares! ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be interesting to see what refinements end up in
>>>>> future versions of Logic. I'm personally glad it's already
>>>>> come so far, and is now not only feature-rich but much more
>>>>> reliable. The hardware and OS it runs
>> on
>>>>> is plenty fast and reasonably elegant.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm glad we have choices, too. For anyone who wants Nuendo,
>>>>> Pro Tools
>> or
>>>>> is limited to running on MSWindows, clearly you should not
>>>>> buy Logic. Apple will be OK without your money.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it _would_ be great if Logic were multi-platform
>>>>> but the reality is that ain't gonna happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, -Jamie http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not
>>>>>> running Logic
>>>> at
>>>>>> this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the
>>>>>> development of
>> logic.
>>>>>> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of
>>>>>> the bugs
>>> have
>>>>>> been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a
>>>>>> while, especially
>>>> when
>>>>>> they started to make changes to the interface. Some people
>>>>>> liked it
>>> the
>>>>>> way it was, hummmmm!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks
>>>>>> like a killer combination, but time will tell. From what
>>>>>> I gather, the drivers are
>>>> working
>>>>>> well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all
>>>>>> turns out to
>> be
>>>> true.
>>>>>> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW
>>>>>> software. Logic
>>> is
>>>> still
>>>>>> a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party
>>>>>> hardware options, such as DSP cards. It took apple time to
>>>>>> get the right people in place
>>>> for
>>>>>> the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I
>>>>>> think Logic
>>>> will
>>>>>> now improve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs
>>>>>> when your
> reference
>>>>>> is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old
>>>>>> Mac. That's
>>> ridiculous!
>>>>>> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I
>>>>>> think the
>>>> current
>>>>>> state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would
>>>>>> reveal a
> different
>>>>>> conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still
>>>>>> prevalent
> in
>>>> many
>>>>>> studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I
>>>>>> doubt Logic
>>>> will
>>>>>> ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held
>>>>>> by PT, and
>>> Steinberg
>>>>>> second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW
>>>>>> is a vary
>> subjective
>>>>>> matter. To each his own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm
>>>>>> glad we have
>>>> choices,
>>>>>> other wise we'd all sound the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do
>>>>>>> you like Symphony
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect
>>>>>>> complement to
>>> Logic,
>>>>>>> but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's
>>>>>>> ability to deliver
>>>> the
>>>>>>> driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James
>>>>>>> McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars
>>>>>>>> behind it.
>>> I
>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon.
>>>>>>>> Logic will,
>>> and
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if
>>>>>>>> they had a PC
>> version
>>>>>>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and
>>>>>>>> their are millions
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the
>>>>>>>> $999.00 price,
>> if
>>>> it
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people
>>>>>>>> would be using
>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo
>>>>>>>> $1,500.00
>> better
>>>>>>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should
>>>>>>>> try the latest
>>>> version
>>>>>>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you
>>>>>>>> would really
>>>> know.
>>>>>>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective,
>>>>>>>> different
> strokes
>>>>>>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are
>>>>>>>> examples of people
>>> that
>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic,
>>>>>>>> so I don't
>> think
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better
>>>>>>>> with time.
>
>> By
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together,
>>>>>>>> like Vegas
>>> and
>>>>>> Acid.
>>>>>>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey Dedric, I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic
>>>>>>>>> Audio should die off fi
>> they
>>>>>>>>> continue down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first
>>>>>>>>> approach. They will
>> die
>>>>>> off
>>>>>>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of
>>>>>>>>> the industry..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are
>>>>>>>>> dominating the
>>> game
>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that
>>>>>>>>> Apple is putting
>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish)
>>>>>>>>> type app or
>>> more
>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at
>>>>>>>>>> the video market
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a
>>>>>>>>>> dime on audio.
>>> They
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an
>>>>>>>>>> actual audio
> pro
>>>> as
>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program
>>>>>>>>>> carrying the
>>> "pro"
>>>>>>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills
>>>>>>>>>> on any unsuspecting
>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX,
>>>>>>>>>> Sonar, and Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of
>>>>>>>>>> dual core support, still).
>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>> PT
>>>>>>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I
>>>>>>>>>> would actually
>>>> hate
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for
>>>>>>>>>> the industry
>>> as
>>>>>> a whole.
>>>>>>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but
>>>>>>>>>> technology...
>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button
>>>>>>>>>> accessible to
>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>> age
>>>>>>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux,
>>>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better
>>>>>>>>>>> example of the level
>>> of
>>>>>> audio
>>>>>>>>>>> editing, look and feel that Logic shouold be
>>>>>>>>>>> heading towards. Well, it
> looks
>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the
>>>>>>>>>>> German(emagic)team is not leading
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple
>>>>>>>>>>> developers? Is this
>>> true?
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>>>>>>> _re storation
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73514 is a reply to message #73509] |
Tue, 03 October 2006 18:30 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for the response James. Very Informative..I tto was around during those
earliy days of personal computing.
Although, I really liked OS9. :)
I think Aplle should not have stoped the Cloning. Man, people were finally
getting pysced about gettign a Mac..Then boommm..
Oh well..
Man, like I posted , I use both, and one XP is a speed demon even with a
modest to a cheap componet system. That alone, speaks volume.
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Lamont said:
>>> Question: Before Windows OS got msutherd with viruses
>>> (1999-current), what was Mac user's excues then for not using
>>> Windows? Thanks..
>
>I've used a lot of different platforms. Atari, Commodore, HP's UNIX,
>MSDOS, Apple II, Mac, Amiga, AtariST, MSWindows, NeXT, Linux, BeOS, OSX.
>I still have a Wi95/98/Linux/BeOS box lying around, several Amigas and
>Psion.
>
>I did some Mac audio/multi-media coverage for MacWEEK/MacUSER during
>pre-OSX days and for a time I ran MacOS on an Amiga using an emulator
>package and a Mac EPROM.
>
>I've also worked with a variety of companies developing software and
>hardware for some of those different platforms.
>
>I'm writing this on Thunderbird, an open source email program, running
>on OSX.
>
>I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Mac user. I seek to use and help foster good
>tools and I value having choices in that pursuit. I can only speak for
>myself, but let me shake out the cobwebs, Lamont, and see if I can
>answer your question to some extent and add a little to what James
>already said.
>
>So, off the top of my head:
>
>Before OSX, MacOS sucked. No preemptive multitasking. No dynamic memory
>allocation. Stuck with compatibility to the stone age of personal
>computers (early 80s). But at least the stone age for Apple was more
>advanced than the stone age for Microsoft. Apple had already jettisoned
>the Apple II, been inspired by Xerox and moved on with the Lisa,
>stumbled with that and then moved on to the MacIntosh. That willingness
>to move past older designs gave them a technology lead, although the
>early Mac was quickly eclipsed in some ways by the Commodore Amiga.
>Hardware wise, Macs were overpriced IMO.
>
>Microsoft sucked worse, for the most part, because they couldn't let go
>of their entanglement with really old IBM decisions, more like Apple II
>than Mac. They struggled to transition to a graphic user interface,
>struggled to add decent color support, struggled with multimedia and all
>while desperately trying to stay compatible all the way back to MSDOS.
>The cost was a culture of bloat, inelegance, copycat design and rushed
>bugginess that became the hallmark of Microsoft products.
>
>However, Microsoft managed to beat Apple to preemptive multitasking and
>dynamic memory allocation. Apple stagnated with failed development of
>OS9 replacement technology, had to transition to the PowerPC processor
>family, and all that gave Microsoft an opening to kludge their way past
>MacOS, albeit in a very wobbly way, with Wi95 - just add more bailing
>wire and ignore the blue screen of death.
>
>Oh BTW, along the way Microsoft pushed out their partner IBM who ended
>up with OS2, which began to dry on the vine. IBM is another big story
>but I'll condense it into saying that they screwed things up by
>standardizing on crappy hardware designs from the start; failing to see
>the market potential for personal computers; choosing Microsoft as an OS
>partner; and acting like a clueless monolithic typewriter company (not
>unlike Commodore except bigger and thus with a carelessly larger market
>impact). IBM also got into monopoly trouble which was another part of
>Microsoft's huge opportunity to suck on a bigger time level than before.
>
>BTW, what did Microsoft know about operating systems? Very little but
>Microsoft bought some technology, nailed down the legalese, presented it
>as their own tech, got the deal with the naive IBM, and that's a
>an insight into Microsoft's business practices from then on.
>
>The truest innovation from Microsoft, other than anti-competitive
>behavior, was relentless marketing. They offered arguably the best
>choice in unreliable, kludgy systems, for a time. And Microsoft did a
>great job convincing people to buy into the notion that this is just the
>way it is, and gee, we need those wobbly peecee things in our businesses
>and homes. Microsoft was able to make people think that computers were
>unreliable and kludgy and that's just normal.
>
>It's not normal. It's a sign of software bloat caused by rapid
>development of features on poor foundations without allowing time for
>proper design and debugging.
>
>Not content to compete on merits, Microsoft also sucked with flat out
>illegal business practices, some of which they were finally tried and
>convicted of, but they were saved from any real consequences for their
>criminal activities by a change in government.
>
>Fairly disgusted with both Apple and Microsoft on several levels,
>including inability to innovate and inability to transcend OS problems
>from the past, plus unethical business practices that were not
>particularly great for consumers, I worked on a NeXT computer for a
>while and always kept an Amiga workhorse or two around. Later I also put
>BeOS on my old Wi98 box, wow, much better!
>
>After spinning their wheels for years, Apple finally decided to buy
>their way out of their predicament. Choosing between BeOS and NeXTSTEP,
>they chose to buy out NeXT and gain a more modern operating system
>foundation and hook back up with co-founder Steve, who had started NeXT
>after being more or less kicked out of Apple.
>
>I do disagree with the Apple decision to pull the rug out from under Mac
>clone makers. I don't know everything behind it, or whether Apple's
>future was really on the line, but I favor competition in general.
>
>Anyway, when Apple built on NeXTSTEP to create a new MacOS, MacOSX, I
>became interested. Logic was the first sequencer to support OSX.
>
>OSX threw out most of the OS9 baggage. It started from a higher place
>and built from there. Today it's quite solid. I do question a few
>things, such as the imposing of extensions in file names, OS9 was better
>on that point. But OSX is better on every other point, way, way better.
>And OSX is arguably more elegant than the current incarnation of
>MSWindows. Mac hardware prices have also come down significantly and now
>it's all Intel FWIW.
>
>As an aside, I think Apple went with file name extensions because of a
>desire to be more compatible with MSWindows in (stupid, ancient) file
>naming conventions. Meta data be damned.
>
>BTW it really, really sucked what happened to BeOS. Both Apple and
>Microsoft had a hand in that, but especially Microsoft who forbade
>computer makers to offer BeOS as an option (yes, that's illegal).
>Microsoft ended up paying a paltry few million in a lawsuit but it was
>after BeOS had already been driven out of business, technology assets
>sold to Palm.
>
>Sordid business, this. Eventually open source will replace it all, probably.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>
>James McCloskey wrote:
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>> Thanks James. Good Post... "They took a 90 million dollar charge
>>> when Apple dropped the cloning thing. For years, Motorola got
>>> around to Apples needs when Motorola got around to Apples needs."
>>> WOW!! Amazing..
>>>
>>> Question: Before Windows OS got msutherd with viruses
>>> (1999-current), what was Mac user's excues then for not using
>>> Windows? Thanks..
>>>
>>
>> It sucked! I did use Windoz back then, it was a PITA, and still is.
>> Mac O/S was a better, easier to use OS! Windows 3.x couldn't stand
>> up to Mac O/S. Then Windows 95 came out. The press said that it
>> was more Mac like, which was true. Microsoft continued to copy Mac
>> OS features. MS even stole the term Plug and Play from Apple. Then
>> they said it was as good as a Mac, that was the first lie. Then
>> they started to say that Windows 95 was better than a Mac, that was
>> an even bigger lie. Unfortunately the average guy believed the lies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> People talked about how Macs would crash and Windows didn't. That
>> was another lie, Windows 95 did crash. Macs crashed because you need
>> to manually allocate memory to each program, people would for get to
>> do this and then blame the Mac. That is like not putting gas in
>> your car, and then say that the car was defective when it stopped
>> running. That was the draw back of Mac OS back then, and Win 95 had
>> that one advantage because of the dynamically allocated memory.
>>
>> Mac OS was sleeker, more elegant, easier to use back in the 90s and
>> still is to day. That's why Microsoft keeps trying to copy Apple.
>>
>> May be it's all just a right brain, left brain thing. Or may be it's
>> that Microsoft creates software that is inferior, has bugs, has lots
>> of problems, and it keeps you IT guys working, and that's why you
>> love MS and hate Apple.
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think it's a rumor. I do think, IF the day comes that
>>>> Microsoft drops
>>> MS
>>>> Office for the Mac it will happen but not right away. My bet is
>>>> Apple
>> has
>>>> a version of OSX and some kind of open Office project that will
>>>> run on
>> a
>>>> PC in their labs that Microsoft is well a where of. It's a cold
>>>> war approach. It keeps everybody playing nice. (Where is
>>>> Claris/Apple works?)
>>>>
>>>> Apple didn't jump to Intel on a whim, or over night, it was a
>>>> five year
>>> process.
>>>> It was calculated, it was planned. It was a contingency plan,
>>>> Apple got screwed around by Motorola for years. I sold StarMax
>>>> systems back in the day, and I spoke to the top brass about
>>>> OEMing the left over MOBOs. They told me that they were going to
>>>> get even with Apple, they were mad as hell at Apple. They took
>>>> a 90 million dollar charge when Apple dropped the
>> cloning
>>>> thing. For years, Motorola got around to Apples needs when
>>>> Motorola got around to Apples needs.
>>>>
>>>> IBM started to treat Apple the same way in recent years. I think
>>>> IBM
>> found
>>>> out about Apple's work with Intel. IBM opened their Fishkill
>>>> Plant with big fanfare. There were a lot of press releases about
>>>> the IBM/Apple G5, and how IBM built a new state of the art plant
>>>> for this processor. Steve Jobs announced that with in a year
>>>> they would be a 3GHZ with the G5, and stated that IBM said so. It
>>>> never happened. Apple had looked at IBM's
>>> road
>>>> map, the G5 spec-ed out good. The problems that were supposed to
>>>> be fixed in the second generation did not happen. Heat and
>>>> power consumption were big issues, that's why G5's never made it
>>>> in to a lap top. IBM could not deliver a faster, cooler, less
>>>> power hungry processor. Apple had to do
>>> something,
>>>> or get left in the dust. I think the relationship also broke
>>>> down. after all the IBM fanfare, they started to say publicly
>>>> that Apple was only a
>>> small
>>>> part of their business and was not important to them.
>>>>
>>>> From what Steve Jobs said, Apple looked at Intel's road map as
>>>> far as processor performance and it was clear to him that it was
>>>> the best choice. He sees things that you and I don't get to
>>>> see. Apples top hardware designer retired at that time, so having
>>>> Intel help Apple with MOBO design was a win, win situation.
>>>> Apple knows Intel is going to rock in to the future. I'm sure
>>>> Apple is also working with AMD, but I think they signed an
>>>> exclusive with Intel. When that's up, I think you'll see Apple
>>>> AMD machines also. You may also see Apple IBM machines in the
>>>> future, but I think it depends on IBM, and price/proformance.
>>>>
>>>> As long as MS plays nice with Apple I don't think you will see
>>>> OSX on PC hardware, but again anything is possible. Apple makes
>>>> too much money on hardware and they would lose hardware sales if
>>>> they did this. Not a smart business plan for Apple. There
>>>> would be too much cost to support all of the PC hardware out
>>>> there. If they sold an OS version with out support
>>> they
>>>> might be able to make some money, but it would still hurt
>>>> hardware sales. If they ever get their hard ware closer to the
>>>> end user cost of PC hardware, it might be more possible. I don't
>>>> think that will happen any time soon, besides they will never
>>>> get anywhere near the cost to build your own PC. Besides, you can
>>>> already hack the OSX and run it on a PC. I think it would just
>>>> hurt Apple.
>>>>
>>>> What I'd like to see, is lower hardware prices from Apple, and
>>>> the ability to run any Windows PC software on Mac OSX. That
>>>> would be a lot better
>> solution.
>>>> Mac users really don't want the Windows viruses on our Macs!
>>>> Apple is
>>> a
>>>> hardware and software company, I think they would like you to buy
>>>> both
>> from
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Although, if the gloves ever come off, and the average guy finds
>>>> out the truth that Mac OSX is less expensive and easier to deal
>>>> with and does the same things, Microsoft will have some serious
>>>> competition on the computing home front.
>>>>
>>>> Mac OSX on a PC would be a bad thing for Microsoft, and MS would
>>>> definitely try to stop it. Apple is doing fine, and I think
>>>> that nobody really wants to poison the well they all drink from.
>>>>
>>>> That's my take on it.
>>>>
>>>> Any thing is possible, only time will tell.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont know about the "Ain't going to happen. Let's take a
>>>>> look. They dump the IMB-Motorola Processor(Thank God) for some
>>>>> real power(Intel's).. That one event opened up "Pandora's Box)
>>>>> into Microsoft all over again
>>> :)
>>>>> Thus, it was inevitable that running windows on a Mac would
>>>>> soon follow
>>>> and
>>>>> it happened (fast) I might add..BootCamp and other hacked
>>>>> versions..
>>>>>
>>>>> Being that there are more windows users in the world, how many
>>>>> Ipods would you say were Windows version of IPods versus Mac
>>>>> Ipods?? Itunes is the
>>> prefered
>>>>> media player on both Macs and Window PCs. I really do think
>>>>> it's only a matter of time before we a cross-platform
>>>> of
>>>>> Logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Question: James M or Jamie.. The big rumor is that Apple will
>>>>> release
>> a
>>>> vrsion
>>>>> of OS-x for any PC?? Is this true. If it is, wonderful.. Also,
>>>>> that DEll and Hp are signed on to become OEM vendors.Offering
>>>>> a user to either have Windows or OS-x as their prefered OS.???
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>>> Oh great, now I'm going to have nightmares! ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It will be interesting to see what refinements end up in
>>>>>> future versions of Logic. I'm personally glad it's already
>>>>>> come so far, and is now not only feature-rich but much more
>>>>>> reliable. The hardware and OS it runs
>>> on
>>>>>> is plenty fast and reasonably elegant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm glad we have choices, too. For anyone who wants Nuendo,
>>>>>> Pro Tools
>>> or
>>>>>> is limited to running on MSWindows, clearly you should not
>>>>>> buy Logic. Apple will be OK without your money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it _would_ be great if Logic were multi-platform
>>>>>> but the reality is that ain't gonna happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers, -Jamie http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not
>>>>>>> running Logic
>>>>> at
>>>>>>> this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the
>>>>>>> development of
>>> logic.
>>>>>>> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of
>>>>>>> the bugs
>>>> have
>>>>>>> been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a
>>>>>>> while, especially
>>>>> when
>>>>>>> they started to make changes to the interface. Some people
>>>>>>> liked it
>>>> the
>>>>>>> way it was, hummmmm!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks
>>>>>>> like a killer combination, but time will tell. From what
>>>>>>> I gather, the drivers are
>>>>> working
>>>>>>> well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all
>>>>>>> turns out to
>>> be
>>>>> true.
>>>>>>> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW
>>>>>>> software. Logic
>>>> is
>>>>> still
>>>>>>> a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party
>>>>>>> hardware options, such as DSP cards. It took apple time to
>>>>>>> get the right people in place
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I
>>>>>>> think Logic
>>>>> will
>>>>>>> now improve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs
>>>>>>> when your
>> reference
>>>>>>> is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old
>>>>>>> Mac. That's
>>>> ridiculous!
>>>>>>> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I
>>>>>>> think the
>>>>> current
>>>>>>> state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would
>>>>>>> reveal a
>> different
>>>>>>> conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still
>>>>>>> prevalent
>> in
>>>>> many
>>>>>>> studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I
>>>>>>> doubt Logic
>>>>> will
>>>>>>> ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held
>>>>>>> by PT, and
>>>> Steinberg
>>>>>>> second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW
>>>>>>> is a vary
>>> subjective
>>>>>>> matter. To each his own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm
>>>>>>> glad we have
>>>>> choices,
>>>>>>> other wise we'd all sound the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do
>>>>>>>> you like Symphony
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect
>>>>>>>> complement to
>>>> Logic,
>>>>>>>> but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's
>>>>>>>> ability to deliver
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James
>>>>>>>> McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars
>>>>>>>>> behind it.
>>>> I
>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon.
>>>>>>>>> Logic will,
>>>> and
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if
>>>>>>>>> they had a PC
>>> version
>>>>>>>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and
>>>>>>>>> their are millions
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the
>>>>>>>>> $999.00 price,
>>> if
>>>>> it
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people
>>>>>>>>> would be using
>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo
>>>>>>>>> $1,500.00
>>> better
>>>>>>>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should
>>>>>>>>> try the latest
>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you
>>>>>>>>> would really
>>>>> know.
>>>>>>>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective,
>>>>>>>>> different
>> strokes
>>>>>>>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are
>>>>>>>>> examples of people
>>>> that
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic,
>>>>>>>>> so I don't
>>> think
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better
>>>>>>>>> with time.
>>
>>> By
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together,
>>>>>>>>> like Vegas
>>>> and
>>>>>>> Acid.
>>>>>>>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hey Dedric, I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic
>>>>>>>>>> Audio should die off fi
>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> continue down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first
>>>>>>>>>> approach. They will
>>> die
>>>>>>> off
>>>>>>>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of
>>>>>>>>>> the industry..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are
>>>>>>>>>> dominating the
>>>> game
>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that
>>>>>>>>>> Apple is putting
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish)
>>>>>>>>>> type app or
>>>> more
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at
>>>>>>>>>>> the video market
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a
>>>>>>>>>>> dime on audio.
>>>> They
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an
>>>>>>>>>>> actual audio
>> pro
>>>>> as
>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program
>>>>>>>>>>> carrying the
>>>> "pro"
>>>>>>>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills
>>>>>>>>>>> on any unsuspecting
>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX,
>>>>>>>>>>> Sonar, and Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> dual core support, still).
>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>>> PT
>>>>>>>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I
>>>>>>>>>>> would actually
>>>>> hate
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for
>>>>>>>>>>> the industry
>>>> as
>>>>>>> a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but
>>>>>>>>>>> technology...
>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button
>>>>>>>>>>> accessible to
>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>> age
>>>>>>>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux,
>>>>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better
>>>>>>>>>>>> example of the level
>>>> of
>>>>>>> audio
>>>>>>>>>>>> editing, look and feel that Logic shouold be
>>>>>>>>>>>> heading towards. Well, it
>> looks
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> German(emagic)team is not leading
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple
>>>>>>>>>>>> developers? Is this
>>>> true?
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>>>>>>>> _re storation
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73521 is a reply to message #73514] |
Tue, 03 October 2006 20:05 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Lamont,
Thanks. I'm a big fan of having choices, so I'm glad you still enjoy
your system and find it speedy and useful for the way that _you_ work
right now. I'm sure it won't matter to you in the least if there are
things about your system that I might not like. What difference would
that make to you? No difference at all.
I'm also glad I have the option to use a system that feels more elegant
and efficient overall, to me, for the way that _I_ work right now. If
it's not your cup of tea, that's OK, it wouldn't change how it works for me.
Obviously we both have our own reasons for selecting our various tools.
Some of mine are below.
Our reasons are valid even if they differ, because we each decide for
ourselves what matters when selecting tools, based on how we want to
live and work.
What's important in the end is the quality of the music we produce.
BTW I'm encouraged that open source has become very viable for needed
office tasks (I dig Open Office, Thunderbird, etc.) and has potential
for maturing on the media production side.
So, to each their own, within the narrowed range of choices still
available. But keep an eye on that narrowed range and be careful what
you wish for. It's a better marketplace if there still remains at least
some semblance of competition and choice.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
LaMont wrote:
> Thanks for the response James. Very Informative..I tto was around during those
> earliy days of personal computing.
> Although, I really liked OS9. :)
> I think Aplle should not have stoped the Cloning. Man, people were finally
> getting pysced about gettign a Mac..Then boommm..
> Oh well..
>
> Man, like I posted , I use both, and one XP is a speed demon even with a
> modest to a cheap componet system. That alone, speaks volume.
>
>
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Lamont said:
>>>> Question: Before Windows OS got msutherd with viruses
>>>> (1999-current), what was Mac user's excues then for not using
>>>> Windows? Thanks..
>> I've used a lot of different platforms. Atari, Commodore, HP's UNIX,
>> MSDOS, Apple II, Mac, Amiga, AtariST, MSWindows, NeXT, Linux, BeOS, OSX.
>> I still have a Wi95/98/Linux/BeOS box lying around, several Amigas and
>> Psion.
>>
>> I did some Mac audio/multi-media coverage for MacWEEK/MacUSER during
>> pre-OSX days and for a time I ran MacOS on an Amiga using an emulator
>> package and a Mac EPROM.
>>
>> I've also worked with a variety of companies developing software and
>> hardware for some of those different platforms.
>>
>> I'm writing this on Thunderbird, an open source email program, running
>> on OSX.
>>
>> I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Mac user. I seek to use and help foster good
>> tools and I value having choices in that pursuit. I can only speak for
>> myself, but let me shake out the cobwebs, Lamont, and see if I can
>> answer your question to some extent and add a little to what James
>> already said.
>>
>> So, off the top of my head:
>>
>> Before OSX, MacOS sucked. No preemptive multitasking. No dynamic memory
>> allocation. Stuck with compatibility to the stone age of personal
>> computers (early 80s). But at least the stone age for Apple was more
>> advanced than the stone age for Microsoft. Apple had already jettisoned
>> the Apple II, been inspired by Xerox and moved on with the Lisa,
>> stumbled with that and then moved on to the MacIntosh. That willingness
>> to move past older designs gave them a technology lead, although the
>> early Mac was quickly eclipsed in some ways by the Commodore Amiga.
>> Hardware wise, Macs were overpriced IMO.
>>
>> Microsoft sucked worse, for the most part, because they couldn't let go
>> of their entanglement with really old IBM decisions, more like Apple II
>> than Mac. They struggled to transition to a graphic user interface,
>> struggled to add decent color support, struggled with multimedia and all
>> while desperately trying to stay compatible all the way back to MSDOS.
>> The cost was a culture of bloat, inelegance, copycat design and rushed
>> bugginess that became the hallmark of Microsoft products.
>>
>> However, Microsoft managed to beat Apple to preemptive multitasking and
>> dynamic memory allocation. Apple stagnated with failed development of
>> OS9 replacement technology, had to transition to the PowerPC processor
>> family, and all that gave Microsoft an opening to kludge their way past
>> MacOS, albeit in a very wobbly way, with Wi95 - just add more bailing
>> wire and ignore the blue screen of death.
>>
>> Oh BTW, along the way Microsoft pushed out their partner IBM who ended
>> up with OS2, which began to dry on the vine. IBM is another big story
>> but I'll condense it into saying that they screwed things up by
>> standardizing on crappy hardware designs from the start; failing to see
>> the market potential for personal computers; choosing Microsoft as an OS
>> partner; and acting like a clueless monolithic typewriter company (not
>> unlike Commodore except bigger and thus with a carelessly larger market
>> impact). IBM also got into monopoly trouble which was another part of
>> Microsoft's huge opportunity to suck on a bigger time level than before.
>>
>> BTW, what did Microsoft know about operating systems? Very little but
>> Microsoft bought some technology, nailed down the legalese, presented it
>> as their own tech, got the deal with the naive IBM, and that's a
>> an insight into Microsoft's business practices from then on.
>>
>> The truest innovation from Microsoft, other than anti-competitive
>> behavior, was relentless marketing. They offered arguably the best
>> choice in unreliable, kludgy systems, for a time. And Microsoft did a
>> great job convincing people to buy into the notion that this is just the
>> way it is, and gee, we need those wobbly peecee things in our businesses
>> and homes. Microsoft was able to make people think that computers were
>> unreliable and kludgy and that's just normal.
>>
>> It's not normal. It's a sign of software bloat caused by rapid
>> development of features on poor foundations without allowing time for
>> proper design and debugging.
>>
>> Not content to compete on merits, Microsoft also sucked with flat out
>> illegal business practices, some of which they were finally tried and
>> convicted of, but they were saved from any real consequences for their
>> criminal activities by a change in government.
>>
>> Fairly disgusted with both Apple and Microsoft on several levels,
>> including inability to innovate and inability to transcend OS problems
>>from the past, plus unethical business practices that were not
>> particularly great for consumers, I worked on a NeXT computer for a
>> while and always kept an Amiga workhorse or two around. Later I also put
>> BeOS on my old Wi98 box, wow, much better!
>>
>> After spinning their wheels for years, Apple finally decided to buy
>> their way out of their predicament. Choosing between BeOS and NeXTSTEP,
>> they chose to buy out NeXT and gain a more modern operating system
>> foundation and hook back up with co-founder Steve, who had started NeXT
>> after being more or less kicked out of Apple.
>>
>> I do disagree with the Apple decision to pull the rug out from under Mac
>> clone makers. I don't know everything behind it, or whether Apple's
>> future was really on the line, but I favor competition in general.
>>
>> Anyway, when Apple built on NeXTSTEP to create a new MacOS, MacOSX, I
>> became interested. Logic was the first sequencer to support OSX.
>>
>> OSX threw out most of the OS9 baggage. It started from a higher place
>> and built from there. Today it's quite solid. I do question a few
>> things, such as the imposing of extensions in file names, OS9 was better
>> on that point. But OSX is better on every other point, way, way better.
>> And OSX is arguably more elegant than the current incarnation of
>> MSWindows. Mac hardware prices have also come down significantly and now
>> it's all Intel FWIW.
>>
>> As an aside, I think Apple went with file name extensions because of a
>> desire to be more compatible with MSWindows in (stupid, ancient) file
>> naming conventions. Meta data be damned.
>>
>> BTW it really, really sucked what happened to BeOS. Both Apple and
>> Microsoft had a hand in that, but especially Microsoft who forbade
>> computer makers to offer BeOS as an option (yes, that's illegal).
>> Microsoft ended up paying a paltry few million in a lawsuit but it was
>> after BeOS had already been driven out of business, technology assets
>> sold to Palm.
>>
>> Sordid business, this. Eventually open source will replace it all, probably.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>> Thanks James. Good Post... "They took a 90 million dollar charge
>>>> when Apple dropped the cloning thing. For years, Motorola got
>>>> around to Apples needs when Motorola got around to Apples needs."
>>>> WOW!! Amazing..
>>>>
>>>> Question: Before Windows OS got msutherd with viruses
>>>> (1999-current), what was Mac user's excues then for not using
>>>> Windows? Thanks..
>>>>
>>> It sucked! I did use Windoz back then, it was a PITA, and still is.
>>> Mac O/S was a better, easier to use OS! Windows 3.x couldn't stand
>>> up to Mac O/S. Then Windows 95 came out. The press said that it
>>> was more Mac like, which was true. Microsoft continued to copy Mac
>>> OS features. MS even stole the term Plug and Play from Apple. Then
>>> they said it was as good as a Mac, that was the first lie. Then
>>> they started to say that Windows 95 was better than a Mac, that was
>>> an even bigger lie. Unfortunately the average guy believed the lies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> People talked about how Macs would crash and Windows didn't. That
>>> was another lie, Windows 95 did crash. Macs crashed because you need
>>> to manually allocate memory to each program, people would for get to
>>> do this and then blame the Mac. That is like not putting gas in
>>> your car, and then say that the car was defective when it stopped
>>> running. That was the draw back of Mac OS back then, and Win 95 had
>>> that one advantage because of the dynamically allocated memory.
>>>
>>> Mac OS was sleeker, more elegant, easier to use back in the 90s and
>>> still is to day. That's why Microsoft keeps trying to copy Apple.
>>>
>>> May be it's all just a right brain, left brain thing. Or may be it's
>>> that Microsoft creates software that is inferior, has bugs, has lots
>>> of problems, and it keeps you IT guys working, and that's why you
>>> love MS and hate Apple.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I think it's a rumor. I do think, IF the day comes that
>>>>> Microsoft drops
>>>> MS
>>>>> Office for the Mac it will happen but not right away. My bet is
>>>>> Apple
>>> has
>>>>> a version of OSX and some kind of open Office project that will
>>>>> run on
>>> a
>>>>> PC in their labs that Microsoft is well a where of. It's a cold
>>>>> war approach. It keeps everybody playing nice. (Where is
>>>>> Claris/Apple works?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple didn't jump to Intel on a whim, or over night, it was a
>>>>> five year
>>>> process.
>>>>> It was calculated, it was planned. It was a contingency plan,
>>>>> Apple got screwed around by Motorola for years. I sold StarMax
>>>>> systems back in the day, and I spoke to the top brass about
>>>>> OEMing the left over MOBOs. They told me that they were going to
>>>>> get even with Apple, they were mad as hell at Apple. They took
>>>>> a 90 million dollar charge when Apple dropped the
>>> cloning
>>>>> thing. For years, Motorola got around to Apples needs when
>>>>> Motorola got around to Apples needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> IBM started to treat Apple the same way in recent years. I think
>>>>> IBM
>>> found
>>>>> out about Apple's work with Intel. IBM opened their Fishkill
>>>>> Plant with big fanfare. There were a lot of press releases about
>>>>> the IBM/Apple G5, and how IBM built a new state of the art plant
>>>>> for this processor. Steve Jobs announced that with in a year
>>>>> they would be a 3GHZ with the G5, and stated that IBM said so. It
>>>>> never happened. Apple had looked at IBM's
>>>> road
>>>>> map, the G5 spec-ed out good. The problems that were supposed to
>>>>> be fixed in the second generation did not happen. Heat and
>>>>> power consumption were big issues, that's why G5's never made it
>>>>> in to a lap top. IBM could not deliver a faster, cooler, less
>>>>> power hungry processor. Apple had to do
>>>> something,
>>>>> or get left in the dust. I think the relationship also broke
>>>>> down. after all the IBM fanfare, they started to say publicly
>>>>> that Apple was only a
>>>> small
>>>>> part of their business and was not important to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> From what Steve Jobs said, Apple looked at Intel's road map as
>>>>> far as processor performance and it was clear to him that it was
>>>>> the best choice. He sees things that you and I don't get to
>>>>> see. Apples top hardware designer retired at that time, so having
>>>>> Intel help Apple with MOBO design was a win, win situation.
>>>>> Apple knows Intel is going to rock in to the future. I'm sure
>>>>> Apple is also working with AMD, but I think they signed an
>>>>> exclusive with Intel. When that's up, I think you'll see Apple
>>>>> AMD machines also. You may also see Apple IBM machines in the
>>>>> future, but I think it depends on IBM, and price/proformance.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as MS plays nice with Apple I don't think you will see
>>>>> OSX on PC hardware, but again anything is possible. Apple makes
>>>>> too much money on hardware and they would lose hardware sales if
>>>>> they did this. Not a smart business plan for Apple. There
>>>>> would be too much cost to support all of the PC hardware out
>>>>> there. If they sold an OS version with out support
>>>> they
>>>>> might be able to make some money, but it would still hurt
>>>>> hardware sales. If they ever get their hard ware closer to the
>>>>> end user cost of PC hardware, it might be more possible. I don't
>>>>> think that will happen any time soon, besides they will never
>>>>> get anywhere near the cost to build your own PC. Besides, you can
>>>>> already hack the OSX and run it on a PC. I think it would just
>>>>> hurt Apple.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I'd like to see, is lower hardware prices from Apple, and
>>>>> the ability to run any Windows PC software on Mac OSX. That
>>>>> would be a lot better
>>> solution.
>>>>> Mac users really don't want the Windows viruses on our Macs!
>>>>> Apple is
>>>> a
>>>>> hardware and software company, I think they would like you to buy
>>>>> both
>>> from
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although, if the gloves ever come off, and the average guy finds
>>>>> out the truth that Mac OSX is less expensive and easier to deal
>>>>> with and does the same things, Microsoft will have some serious
>>>>> competition on the computing home front.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mac OSX on a PC would be a bad thing for Microsoft, and MS would
>>>>> definitely try to stop it. Apple is doing fine, and I think
>>>>> that nobody really wants to poison the well they all drink from.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's my take on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thing is possible, only time will tell.
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I dont know about the "Ain't going to happen. Let's take a
>>>>>> look. They dump the IMB-Motorola Processor(Thank God) for some
>>>>>> real power(Intel's).. That one event opened up "Pandora's Box)
>>>>>> into Microsoft all over again
>>>> :)
>>>>>> Thus, it was inevitable that running windows on a Mac would
>>>>>> soon follow
>>>>> and
>>>>>> it happened (fast) I might add..BootCamp and other hacked
>>>>>> versions..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being that there are more windows users in the world, how many
>>>>>> Ipods would you say were Windows version of IPods versus Mac
>>>>>> Ipods?? Itunes is the
>>>> prefered
>>>>>> media player on both Macs and Window PCs. I really do think
>>>>>> it's only a matter of time before we a cross-platform
>>>>> of
>>>>>> Logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question: James M or Jamie.. The big rumor is that Apple will
>>>>>> release
>>> a
>>>>> vrsion
>>>>>> of OS-x for any PC?? Is this true. If it is, wonderful.. Also,
>>>>>> that DEll and Hp are signed on to become OEM vendors.Offering
>>>>>> a user to either have Windows or OS-x as their prefered OS.???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>>>> Oh great, now I'm going to have nightmares! ;^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It will be interesting to see what refinements end up in
>>>>>>> future versions of Logic. I'm personally glad it's already
>>>>>>> come so far, and is now not only feature-rich but much more
>>>>>>> reliable. The hardware and OS it runs
>>>> on
>>>>>>> is plenty fast and reasonably elegant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm glad we have choices, too. For anyone who wants Nuendo,
>>>>>>> Pro Tools
>>>> or
>>>>>>> is limited to running on MSWindows, clearly you should not
>>>>>>> buy Logic. Apple will be OK without your money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course it _would_ be great if Logic were multi-platform
>>>>>>> but the reality is that ain't gonna happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers, -Jamie http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not
>>>>>>>> running Logic
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the
>>>>>>>> development of
>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of
>>>>>>>> the bugs
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a
>>>>>>>> while, especially
>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> they started to make changes to the interface. Some people
>>>>>>>> liked it
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> way it was, hummmmm!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks
>>>>>>>> like a killer combination, but time will tell. From what
>>>>>>>> I gather, the drivers are
>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>> well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all
>>>>>>>> turns out to
>>>> be
>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW
>>>>>>>> software. Logic
>>>>> is
>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party
>>>>>>>> hardware options, such as DSP cards. It took apple time to
>>>>>>>> get the right people in place
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I
>>>>>>>> think Logic
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> now improve.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs
>>>>>>>> when your
>>> reference
>>>>>>>> is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old
>>>>>>>> Mac. That's
>>>>> ridiculous!
>>>>>>>> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I
>>>>>>>> think the
>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>> state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would
>>>>>>>> reveal a
>>> different
>>>>>>>> conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still
>>>>>>>> prevalent
>>> in
>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>> studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I
>>>>>>>> doubt Logic
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held
>>>>>>>> by PT, and
>>>>> Steinberg
>>>>>>>> second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW
>>>>>>>> is a vary
>>>> subjective
>>>>>>>> matter. To each his own.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm
>>>>>>>> glad we have
>>>>>> choices,
>>>>>>>> other wise we'd all sound the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do
>>>>>>>>> you like Symphony
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect
>>>>>>>>> complement to
>>>>> Logic,
>>>>>>>>> but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's
>>>>>>>>> ability to deliver
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James
>>>>>>>>> McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars
>>>>>>>>>> behind it.
>>>>> I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon.
>>>>>>>>>> Logic will,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if
>>>>>>>>>> they had a PC
>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and
>>>>>>>>>> their are millions
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the
>>>>>>>>>> $999.00 price,
>>>> if
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people
>>>>>>>>>> would be using
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo
>>>>>>>>>> $1,500.00
>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should
>>>>>>>>>> try the latest
>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you
>>>>>>>>>> would really
>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>>>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective,
>>>>>>>>>> different
>>> strokes
>>>>>>>>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are
>>>>>>>>>> examples of people
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic,
>>>>>>>>>> so I don't
>>>> think
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better
>>>>>>>>>> with time.
>>>> By
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together,
>>>>>>>>>> like Vegas
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Acid.
>>>>>>>>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Dedric, I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic
>>>>>>>>>>> Audio should die off fi
>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> continue down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first
>>>>>>>>>>> approach. They will
>>>> die
>>>>>>>> off
>>>>>>>>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of
>>>>>>>>>>> the industry..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are
>>>>>>>>>>> dominating the
>>>>> game
>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that
>>>>>>>>>>> Apple is putting
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish)
>>>>>>>>>>> type app or
>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at
>>>>>>>>>>>> the video market
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a
>>>>>>>>>>>> dime on audio.
>>>>> They
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual audio
>>> pro
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program
>>>>>>>>>>>> carrying the
>>>>> "pro"
>>>>>>>>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills
>>>>>>>>>>>> on any unsuspecting
>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sonar, and Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>> dual core support, still).
>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>>>> PT
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I
>>>>>>>>>>>> would actually
>>>>>> hate
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the industry
>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> technology...
>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessible to
>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>>> age
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux,
>>>>>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of the level
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> audio
>>>>>>>>>>>>> editing, look and feel that Logic shouold be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heading towards. Well, it
>>> looks
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> German(emagic)team is not leading
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple
>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers? Is this
>>>>> true?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _re storation
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Logic Pro update, now supports quad processors [message #73533 is a reply to message #73521] |
Wed, 04 October 2006 06:11 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Agreed.. Choice is good..Like I stated earlier is this post, I really want
Apple to rule!! We in the DAW recording game, need Apple to rule and give
Digi a nudge or two.
Take care..
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Lamont,
>
>Thanks. I'm a big fan of having choices, so I'm glad you still enjoy
>your system and find it speedy and useful for the way that _you_ work
>right now. I'm sure it won't matter to you in the least if there are
>things about your system that I might not like. What difference would
>that make to you? No difference at all.
>
>I'm also glad I have the option to use a system that feels more elegant
>and efficient overall, to me, for the way that _I_ work right now. If
>it's not your cup of tea, that's OK, it wouldn't change how it works for
me.
>
>Obviously we both have our own reasons for selecting our various tools.
>Some of mine are below.
>
>Our reasons are valid even if they differ, because we each decide for
>ourselves what matters when selecting tools, based on how we want to
>live and work.
>
>What's important in the end is the quality of the music we produce.
>
>BTW I'm encouraged that open source has become very viable for needed
>office tasks (I dig Open Office, Thunderbird, etc.) and has potential
>for maturing on the media production side.
>
>So, to each their own, within the narrowed range of choices still
>available. But keep an eye on that narrowed range and be careful what
>you wish for. It's a better marketplace if there still remains at least
>some semblance of competition and choice.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>LaMont wrote:
>> Thanks for the response James. Very Informative..I tto was around during
those
>> earliy days of personal computing.
>> Although, I really liked OS9. :)
>> I think Aplle should not have stoped the Cloning. Man, people were finally
>> getting pysced about gettign a Mac..Then boommm..
>> Oh well..
>>
>> Man, like I posted , I use both, and one XP is a speed demon even with
a
>> modest to a cheap componet system. That alone, speaks volume.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> Lamont said:
>>>>> Question: Before Windows OS got msutherd with viruses
>>>>> (1999-current), what was Mac user's excues then for not using
>>>>> Windows? Thanks..
>>> I've used a lot of different platforms. Atari, Commodore, HP's UNIX,
>>> MSDOS, Apple II, Mac, Amiga, AtariST, MSWindows, NeXT, Linux, BeOS, OSX.
>>> I still have a Wi95/98/Linux/BeOS box lying around, several Amigas and
>>> Psion.
>>>
>>> I did some Mac audio/multi-media coverage for MacWEEK/MacUSER during
>>> pre-OSX days and for a time I ran MacOS on an Amiga using an emulator
>>> package and a Mac EPROM.
>>>
>>> I've also worked with a variety of companies developing software and
>>> hardware for some of those different platforms.
>>>
>>> I'm writing this on Thunderbird, an open source email program, running
>>> on OSX.
>>>
>>> I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Mac user. I seek to use and help foster good
>>> tools and I value having choices in that pursuit. I can only speak for
>>> myself, but let me shake out the cobwebs, Lamont, and see if I can
>>> answer your question to some extent and add a little to what James
>>> already said.
>>>
>>> So, off the top of my head:
>>>
>>> Before OSX, MacOS sucked. No preemptive multitasking. No dynamic memory
>>> allocation. Stuck with compatibility to the stone age of personal
>>> computers (early 80s). But at least the stone age for Apple was more
>>> advanced than the stone age for Microsoft. Apple had already jettisoned
>>> the Apple II, been inspired by Xerox and moved on with the Lisa,
>>> stumbled with that and then moved on to the MacIntosh. That willingness
>>> to move past older designs gave them a technology lead, although the
>>> early Mac was quickly eclipsed in some ways by the Commodore Amiga.
>>> Hardware wise, Macs were overpriced IMO.
>>>
>>> Microsoft sucked worse, for the most part, because they couldn't let
go
>>> of their entanglement with really old IBM decisions, more like Apple
II
>>> than Mac. They struggled to transition to a graphic user interface,
>>> struggled to add decent color support, struggled with multimedia and
all
>>> while desperately trying to stay compatible all the way back to MSDOS.
>>> The cost was a culture of bloat, inelegance, copycat design and rushed
>>> bugginess that became the hallmark of Microsoft products.
>>>
>>> However, Microsoft managed to beat Apple to preemptive multitasking and
>>> dynamic memory allocation. Apple stagnated with failed development of
>>> OS9 replacement technology, had to transition to the PowerPC processor
>>> family, and all that gave Microsoft an opening to kludge their way past
>>> MacOS, albeit in a very wobbly way, with Wi95 - just add more bailing
>>> wire and ignore the blue screen of death.
>>>
>>> Oh BTW, along the way Microsoft pushed out their partner IBM who ended
>>> up with OS2, which began to dry on the vine. IBM is another big story
>>> but I'll condense it into saying that they screwed things up by
>>> standardizing on crappy hardware designs from the start; failing to see
>>> the market potential for personal computers; choosing Microsoft as an
OS
>>> partner; and acting like a clueless monolithic typewriter company (not
>>> unlike Commodore except bigger and thus with a carelessly larger market
>>> impact). IBM also got into monopoly trouble which was another part of
>>> Microsoft's huge opportunity to suck on a bigger time level than before.
>>>
>>> BTW, what did Microsoft know about operating systems? Very little but
>>> Microsoft bought some technology, nailed down the legalese, presented
it
>>> as their own tech, got the deal with the naive IBM, and that's a
>>> an insight into Microsoft's business practices from then on.
>>>
>>> The truest innovation from Microsoft, other than anti-competitive
>>> behavior, was relentless marketing. They offered arguably the best
>>> choice in unreliable, kludgy systems, for a time. And Microsoft did a
>>> great job convincing people to buy into the notion that this is just
the
>>> way it is, and gee, we need those wobbly peecee things in our businesses
>>> and homes. Microsoft was able to make people think that computers were
>>> unreliable and kludgy and that's just normal.
>>>
>>> It's not normal. It's a sign of software bloat caused by rapid
>>> development of features on poor foundations without allowing time for
>>> proper design and debugging.
>>>
>>> Not content to compete on merits, Microsoft also sucked with flat out
>>> illegal business practices, some of which they were finally tried and
>>> convicted of, but they were saved from any real consequences for their
>>> criminal activities by a change in government.
>>>
>>> Fairly disgusted with both Apple and Microsoft on several levels,
>>> including inability to innovate and inability to transcend OS problems
>>>from the past, plus unethical business practices that were not
>>> particularly great for consumers, I worked on a NeXT computer for a
>>> while and always kept an Amiga workhorse or two around. Later I also
put
>>> BeOS on my old Wi98 box, wow, much better!
>>>
>>> After spinning their wheels for years, Apple finally decided to buy
>>> their way out of their predicament. Choosing between BeOS and NeXTSTEP,
>>> they chose to buy out NeXT and gain a more modern operating system
>>> foundation and hook back up with co-founder Steve, who had started NeXT
>>> after being more or less kicked out of Apple.
>>>
>>> I do disagree with the Apple decision to pull the rug out from under
Mac
>>> clone makers. I don't know everything behind it, or whether Apple's
>>> future was really on the line, but I favor competition in general.
>>>
>>> Anyway, when Apple built on NeXTSTEP to create a new MacOS, MacOSX, I
>>> became interested. Logic was the first sequencer to support OSX.
>>>
>>> OSX threw out most of the OS9 baggage. It started from a higher place
>>> and built from there. Today it's quite solid. I do question a few
>>> things, such as the imposing of extensions in file names, OS9 was better
>>> on that point. But OSX is better on every other point, way, way better.
>>> And OSX is arguably more elegant than the current incarnation of
>>> MSWindows. Mac hardware prices have also come down significantly and
now
>>> it's all Intel FWIW.
>>>
>>> As an aside, I think Apple went with file name extensions because of
a
>>> desire to be more compatible with MSWindows in (stupid, ancient) file
>>> naming conventions. Meta data be damned.
>>>
>>> BTW it really, really sucked what happened to BeOS. Both Apple and
>>> Microsoft had a hand in that, but especially Microsoft who forbade
>>> computer makers to offer BeOS as an option (yes, that's illegal).
>>> Microsoft ended up paying a paltry few million in a lawsuit but it was
>>> after BeOS had already been driven out of business, technology assets
>>> sold to Palm.
>>>
>>> Sordid business, this. Eventually open source will replace it all, probably.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks James. Good Post... "They took a 90 million dollar charge
>>>>> when Apple dropped the cloning thing. For years, Motorola got
>>>>> around to Apples needs when Motorola got around to Apples needs."
>>>>> WOW!! Amazing..
>>>>>
>>>>> Question: Before Windows OS got msutherd with viruses
>>>>> (1999-current), what was Mac user's excues then for not using
>>>>> Windows? Thanks..
>>>>>
>>>> It sucked! I did use Windoz back then, it was a PITA, and still is.
>>>> Mac O/S was a better, easier to use OS! Windows 3.x couldn't stand
>>>> up to Mac O/S. Then Windows 95 came out. The press said that it
>>>> was more Mac like, which was true. Microsoft continued to copy Mac
>>>> OS features. MS even stole the term Plug and Play from Apple. Then
>>>> they said it was as good as a Mac, that was the first lie. Then
>>>> they started to say that Windows 95 was better than a Mac, that was
>>>> an even bigger lie. Unfortunately the average guy believed the lies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People talked about how Macs would crash and Windows didn't. That
>>>> was another lie, Windows 95 did crash. Macs crashed because you need
>>>> to manually allocate memory to each program, people would for get to
>>>> do this and then blame the Mac. That is like not putting gas in
>>>> your car, and then say that the car was defective when it stopped
>>>> running. That was the draw back of Mac OS back then, and Win 95 had
>>>> that one advantage because of the dynamically allocated memory.
>>>>
>>>> Mac OS was sleeker, more elegant, easier to use back in the 90s and
>>>> still is to day. That's why Microsoft keeps trying to copy Apple.
>>>>
>>>> May be it's all just a right brain, left brain thing. Or may be it's
>>>> that Microsoft creates software that is inferior, has bugs, has lots
>>>> of problems, and it keeps you IT guys working, and that's why you
>>>> love MS and hate Apple.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I think it's a rumor. I do think, IF the day comes that
>>>>>> Microsoft drops
>>>>> MS
>>>>>> Office for the Mac it will happen but not right away. My bet is
>>>>>> Apple
>>>> has
>>>>>> a version of OSX and some kind of open Office project that will
>>>>>> run on
>>>> a
>>>>>> PC in their labs that Microsoft is well a where of. It's a cold
>>>>>> war approach. It keeps everybody playing nice. (Where is
>>>>>> Claris/Apple works?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple didn't jump to Intel on a whim, or over night, it was a
>>>>>> five year
>>>>> process.
>>>>>> It was calculated, it was planned. It was a contingency plan,
>>>>>> Apple got screwed around by Motorola for years. I sold StarMax
>>>>>> systems back in the day, and I spoke to the top brass about
>>>>>> OEMing the left over MOBOs. They told me that they were going to
>>>>>> get even with Apple, they were mad as hell at Apple. They took
>>>>>> a 90 million dollar charge when Apple dropped the
>>>> cloning
>>>>>> thing. For years, Motorola got around to Apples needs when
>>>>>> Motorola got around to Apples needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IBM started to treat Apple the same way in recent years. I think
>>>>>> IBM
>>>> found
>>>>>> out about Apple's work with Intel. IBM opened their Fishkill
>>>>>> Plant with big fanfare. There were a lot of press releases about
>>>>>> the IBM/Apple G5, and how IBM built a new state of the art plant
>>>>>> for this processor. Steve Jobs announced that with in a year
>>>>>> they would be a 3GHZ with the G5, and stated that IBM said so. It
>>>>>> never happened. Apple had looked at IBM's
>>>>> road
>>>>>> map, the G5 spec-ed out good. The problems that were supposed to
>>>>>> be fixed in the second generation did not happen. Heat and
>>>>>> power consumption were big issues, that's why G5's never made it
>>>>>> in to a lap top. IBM could not deliver a faster, cooler, less
>>>>>> power hungry processor. Apple had to do
>>>>> something,
>>>>>> or get left in the dust. I think the relationship also broke
>>>>>> down. after all the IBM fanfare, they started to say publicly
>>>>>> that Apple was only a
>>>>> small
>>>>>> part of their business and was not important to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From what Steve Jobs said, Apple looked at Intel's road map as
>>>>>> far as processor performance and it was clear to him that it was
>>>>>> the best choice. He sees things that you and I don't get to
>>>>>> see. Apples top hardware designer retired at that time, so having
>>>>>> Intel help Apple with MOBO design was a win, win situation.
>>>>>> Apple knows Intel is going to rock in to the future. I'm sure
>>>>>> Apple is also working with AMD, but I think they signed an
>>>>>> exclusive with Intel. When that's up, I think you'll see Apple
>>>>>> AMD machines also. You may also see Apple IBM machines in the
>>>>>> future, but I think it depends on IBM, and price/proformance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as MS plays nice with Apple I don't think you will see
>>>>>> OSX on PC hardware, but again anything is possible. Apple makes
>>>>>> too much money on hardware and they would lose hardware sales if
>>>>>> they did this. Not a smart business plan for Apple. There
>>>>>> would be too much cost to support all of the PC hardware out
>>>>>> there. If they sold an OS version with out support
>>>>> they
>>>>>> might be able to make some money, but it would still hurt
>>>>>> hardware sales. If they ever get their hard ware closer to the
>>>>>> end user cost of PC hardware, it might be more possible. I don't
>>>>>> think that will happen any time soon, besides they will never
>>>>>> get anywhere near the cost to build your own PC. Besides, you can
>>>>>> already hack the OSX and run it on a PC. I think it would just
>>>>>> hurt Apple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I'd like to see, is lower hardware prices from Apple, and
>>>>>> the ability to run any Windows PC software on Mac OSX. That
>>>>>> would be a lot better
>>>> solution.
>>>>>> Mac users really don't want the Windows viruses on our Macs!
>>>>>> Apple is
>>>>> a
>>>>>> hardware and software company, I think they would like you to buy
>>>>>> both
>>>> from
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although, if the gloves ever come off, and the average guy finds
>>>>>> out the truth that Mac OSX is less expensive and easier to deal
>>>>>> with and does the same things, Microsoft will have some serious
>>>>>> competition on the computing home front.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mac OSX on a PC would be a bad thing for Microsoft, and MS would
>>>>>> definitely try to stop it. Apple is doing fine, and I think
>>>>>> that nobody really wants to poison the well they all drink from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's my take on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any thing is possible, only time will tell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I dont know about the "Ain't going to happen. Let's take a
>>>>>>> look. They dump the IMB-Motorola Processor(Thank God) for some
>>>>>>> real power(Intel's).. That one event opened up "Pandora's Box)
>>>>>>> into Microsoft all over again
>>>>> :)
>>>>>>> Thus, it was inevitable that running windows on a Mac would
>>>>>>> soon follow
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> it happened (fast) I might add..BootCamp and other hacked
>>>>>>> versions..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Being that there are more windows users in the world, how many
>>>>>>> Ipods would you say were Windows version of IPods versus Mac
>>>>>>> Ipods?? Itunes is the
>>>>> prefered
>>>>>>> media player on both Macs and Window PCs. I really do think
>>>>>>> it's only a matter of time before we a cross-platform
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> Logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Question: James M or Jamie.. The big rumor is that Apple will
>>>>>>> release
>>>> a
>>>>>> vrsion
>>>>>>> of OS-x for any PC?? Is this true. If it is, wonderful.. Also,
>>>>>>> that DEll and Hp are signed on to become OEM vendors.Offering
>>>>>>> a user to either have Windows or OS-x as their prefered OS.???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>>>>> Oh great, now I'm going to have nightmares! ;^)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It will be interesting to see what refinements end up in
>>>>>>>> future versions of Logic. I'm personally glad it's already
>>>>>>>> come so far, and is now not only feature-rich but much more
>>>>>>>> reliable. The hardware and OS it runs
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> is plenty fast and reasonably elegant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm glad we have choices, too. For anyone who wants Nuendo,
>>>>>>>> Pro Tools
>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> is limited to running on MSWindows, clearly you should not
>>>>>>>> buy Logic. Apple will be OK without your money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course it _would_ be great if Logic were multi-platform
>>>>>>>> but the reality is that ain't gonna happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers, -Jamie http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not
>>>>>>>>> running Logic
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the
>>>>>>>>> development of
>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>>> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of
>>>>>>>>> the bugs
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a
>>>>>>>>> while, especially
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> they started to make changes to the interface. Some people
>>>>>>>>> liked it
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> way it was, hummmmm!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks
>>>>>>>>> like a killer combination, but time will tell. From what
>>>>>>>>> I gather, the drivers are
>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>> well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all
>>>>>>>>> turns out to
>>>>> be
>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW
>>>>>>>>> software. Logic
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>> a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party
>>>>>>>>> hardware options, such as DSP cards. It took apple time to
>>>>>>>>> get the right people in place
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I
>>>>>>>>> think Logic
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> now improve.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs
>>>>>>>>> when your
>>>> reference
>>>>>>>>> is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old
>>>>>>>>> Mac. That's
>>>>>> ridiculous!
>>>>>>>>> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I
>>>>>>>>> think the
>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>> state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would
>>>>>>>>> reveal a
>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still
>>>>>>>>> prevalent
>>>> in
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>> studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I
>>>>>>>>> doubt Logic
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held
>>>>>>>>> by PT, and
>>>>>> Steinberg
>>>>>>>>> second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW
>>>>>>>>> is a vary
>>>>> subjective
>>>>>>>>> matter. To each his own.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm
>>>>>>>>> glad we have
>>>>>>> choices,
>>>>>>>>> other wise we'd all sound the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do
>>>>>>>>>> you like Symphony
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect
>>>>>>>>>> complement to
>>>>>> Logic,
>>>>>>>>>> but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's
>>>>>>>>>> ability to deliver
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James
>>>>>>>>>> McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars
>>>>>>>>>>> behind it.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon.
>>>>>>>>>>> Logic will,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if
>>>>>>>>>>> they had a PC
>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and
>>>>>>>>>>> their are millions
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the
>>>>>>>>>>> $999.00 price,
>>>>> if
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people
>>>>>>>>>>> would be using
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo
>>>>>>>>>>> $1,500.00
>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should
>>>>>>>>>>> try the latest
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you
>>>>>>>>>>> would really
>>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>>>>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective,
>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>> strokes
>>>>>>>>>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are
>>>>>>>>>>> examples of people
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic,
>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't
>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better
>>>>>>>>>>> with time.
>>>>> By
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together,
>>>>>>>>>>> like Vegas
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> Acid.
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Dedric, I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic
>>>>>>>>>>>> Audio should die off fi
>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> continue down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first
>>>>>>>>>>>> approach. They will
>>>>> die
>>>>>>>>> off
>>>>>>>>>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the industry..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are
>>>>>>>>>>>> dominating the
>>>>>> game
>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple is putting
>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish)
>>>>>>>>>>>> type app or
>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the video market
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dime on audio.
>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual audio
>>>> pro
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program
>>>>>>>>>>>>> carrying the
>>>>>> "pro"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on any unsuspecting
>>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sonar, and Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dual core support, still).
>>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>>>>> PT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would actually
>>>>>>> hate
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the industry
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology...
>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessible to
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>> age
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of the level
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> audio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editing, look and feel that Logic shouold be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heading towards. Well, it
>>>> looks
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> German(emagic)team is not leading
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers? Is this
>>>>>> true?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _re storation
>>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Dec 04 17:14:55 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06600 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
