TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Apple i7 laptops, anyone know when?
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

Smaller user base so makes sense there's less cracks, but I'm quite certain they are out there.

Thats true yeah, although I do think that's changing too. I know a few mac users who have got a lot of cracked stuff and sat in on conversations between mac and PC users where the mac users had more cracked stuff available than the PC users. Wierd.

PS

quote:

OMG PCs are ugly and have dust and ugly screens and shit

Yeah, because heaven forbid you have to work on anything other than a perfectly white dust free and brightly screened imac. How could you analogue and sidechain without it?

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Err yea, pretty sure they do. WHo gives a shit anyway? We're not just comparing Dells to Macs, we're looking at the big picture. Simple fact is Rann, we're all happy to look at this objectively and primarily from a cost vs benefit view point. Unlike you, as you're too busy trying to cram Apples logo further up your ass to actually make a half decent argument.

I don't what your deal is - you've tried to specifically lock horns a few times with me and it didn't work then, and it aint going to work this time.

First, read the thread. Need help?

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Dell high end laptops are actually quite good. I've had one for years (XPS M1710)

So now I've established you were the first person in this thread to compare Dell to Apple, not me.

Need more?

quote:

Originally posted by Echosystm * 24" Dell PVA monitor ($450)

See, I'm not the only person making comparisons about Dell, and that doesn't take in to account the fact that ableton forums thread directly conpares several dells.

Finally, just so you know:

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I honestly couldn't give a shit about the Mac vs PC debate

So what the fuck are you really having a go at?

Objectivity? How about this:

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I concur that mactops (especially MBP's) don't offer huge processing power to price ratio

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I think the macbooks are good value if raw processing power isn't your top concern and PC laptops are good value if that's your primary concern with the other factors I mentioned being secondary (screen battery life etc).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN The MBP are over priced (period)

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I actually think mac pro's, while extremely powerful are terrible value for money, especially when you compare them to upper spec PC's or the relation of CPU power to price with an imac.

OH SNAP! Just realised it's because of this:

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Dell high end laptops are actually quite good. I've had one for years (XPS M1710)

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Dell's are especially shit. Unless you're buying the XPS, which are even more overpriced that MPB's unless you call paying for LED lit fans "value", the build quality are poor, they have often poor choice of componentry and dealing with Dell is like fishing for ****s.

I think I can say I look at things objectively regardless of manufacturer and think you come off as a twat for trying to shove Dells logo up your own arse.

Thanks for not reading the thread then having a crack.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV What country ? That sounds like a deal and a half.

whoops, haven't stayed updated on this thread. at a fucking best buy of all places. right here in the states. it was between that one or a core 2 duo with a 1gb dedicated nvidia card for the same price; i decided on the better processor with the shittier card instead of vice-versa. i got it a couple months ago now.

edit:

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV From someone that is above you in every musical endeavour you ever plan to pursue.... shut the fuck up ! I'm honestly so sick and tired dealing with with nobodies that make a pittance on Beatport. This rant is rated 7 beers and plus.

wow, what a douche.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm 21" iMac @ $1,599 3.06GHz dual core Core2Duo CPU 21" IPS monitor 4GB DDR2 memory 500GB hard drive 8x DVD burner 128MB GeForce 9400M video card Custom PC @ $1,580 24" Dell PVA monitor ($450) 2.66Ghz quad core i5 CPU ($255) 8gb Corsair DDR3 memory ($280) 1GB GeForce 9500GT video card ($70) 1TB Western Digital hard drive ($120) 22x Pioneer DVD burner ($40) Gigabyte GA-P55-UD3 P55 motherboard ($140) Antec NSK6580 case/PSU ($150) Logitech Cordless Laser Desktop LX310 keyboard/mouse ($75) The PC is basically twice as good.

man, my laptop is much better than the mac option and very similar to the pc option (except 4gb ddr3 instead of 8, a slightly inferior video card, and half the HDD space) for 600 bucks less than both of those options. shit i should resell this ****** and buy a new one lol

i think we all said our piece, no need to start getting personal fellas, this has actually been a fairly open and flame-free section of discussion until now...

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips Check your facts mate, theres been a cracked copy of every version of ableton for mac since 5 or 6. I've heard that there aren't as many cracks available generally though.

i think you'll find 5 and 6 is the only ones that are succesfully cracked..

with 7 or 8 what happens is it works, but ableton randomly does a check if you're connected to the net and locks down ableton and whatever files you're using at the time of the check...
so yo could run it fine for a month without it randomly checking, but when it does, you're boned

either way, cracked software is badddd mmmmkay

I didn't bring up Dells, I only responded to another post by someone else mentioning a Dell. I'm not going to apologise for that.

I will apologise to Rann though because I may have tossed him and RichieV is the same boat and that isn't really fair, but some of the arguments were still not very solid regardless.

Anyway, fuck it. I couldn't care less what people use, I just can't stand Apple fanbois who will never admit when something is better regardless of the facts.

Yeah, I think RANN's arguments were horrible, but I don't think he has an apple up his arse.


Its far too tight for that

Zing!

Agreed (even though you were the first person in this thread to bring up dell after the OP)

and oh yes, my arse is way too tight for that becuase unlike you two, I've never had anything shoved up it

Just heard from a friend that used to work at a majory B2B chip distributor that Apple have been developing a new multicore chip that has intel scrambling for ideas.

The chip is tailoired to osx and the production models they currently have (not prototypes) are benchmarking at a minimum of four times the sustained speeds of the newest intel protoypes. and they don't need fans.

The only downsides are that they will be expensive, not available until 2011 and require a completely new version of OSX.

So here's the next bit of news:

AMD are working on a retail release of a 48 core(!) chip - which are going to make both intel and apple re-evaluate their proposed chip prices for the next year.

And allegedly the hexacore i7 980x mac pro (3.6ghz) is going to be released in june......and apple are putting two of these in there meaning 12 core mac pro.

But that's if you can't wait for the intel lightpeak cpus

That's interesting news, especially since Apple moved to the Intel chips a while back.
I think it's good because competition is essentially great for the consumer.
Of course it's going to be expensive, it's Apple However, if they overprice it too much then they risk losing the people who aren't too fussed about what OS they use so they will have to be careful with that. 2011 is also a long time away and chances are both Intel and AMD will have new chips by then too. Intel already has prototypes for new ones, though I guess they always do.

To be honest, I think Intel will be the winners because I believe their direction is the best one. Instead of cramming as much processing power and cores in as possible, they are instead trying to focus on efficiency and hyperthreading. A 48-core chip will probably need like a 2000W PSU

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Just heard from a friend that used to work at a majory B2B chip distributor that Apple have been developing a new multicore chip that has intel scrambling for ideas. The chip is tailoired to osx and the production models they currently have (not prototypes) are benchmarking at a minimum of four times the sustained speeds of the newest intel protoypes. and they don't need fans. The only downsides are that they will be expensive, not available until 2011 and require a completely new version of OSX. So here's the next bit of news: AMD are working on a retail release of a 48 core(!) chip - which are going to make both intel and apple re-evaluate their proposed chip prices for the next year. And allegedly the hexacore i7 980x mac pro (3.6ghz) is going to be released in june......and apple are putting two of these in there meaning 12 core mac pro. But that's if you can't wait for the intel lightpeak cpus

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz That's interesting news, especially since Apple moved to the Intel chips a while back. I think it's good because competition is essentially great for the consumer. Of course it's going to be expensive, it's Apple However, if they overprice it too much then they risk losing the people who aren't too fussed about what OS they use so they will have to be careful with that. 2011 is also a long time away and chances are both Intel and AMD will have new chips by then too. Intel already has prototypes for new ones, though I guess they always do. To be honest, I think Intel will be the winners because I believe their direction is the best one. Instead of cramming as much processing power and cores in as possible, they are instead trying to focus on efficiency and hyperthreading. A 48-core chip will probably need like a 2000W PSU

Yeah, I think the comsumer is going to be the one that benefits most here. I feel that things (moores law) somewhat stagnated over the very recent years. I rememebr back in 2001 building a custom audio PC and month on month there were large jumps in CPU speeds becuase of the war between AMD and intel.

I think anyone is going to have a hard time beating intel in long game becuase of how well they are setup and their massive infrastrcuture. Unless someone pioneers some new technology that intel just can't get it's hands on, I reckon intel should win out.

I do think it's good though that there's going to be some proper competition from both Apple and AMD as AMD kind of dropped off the map a little and apples hookup with intel made it a bit of a monopoly.

this lightpeak shit is interesting though, they're saying USB 3.0 could be bypassed because of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khPx1dEIPnA

Yea, Lightpeak could mean we could get rid of half the cables. I would very much like that.

Appl

I think your both talking hype.

RANN, Nvidia and Intel have both been working to bridge the gap between the GPU and CPU type devices for a couple of years now. Building CPUs with the vast number of cores like a GPU but the power and instruction set of a CPU is nothing new really. GPGPU technology will take advantage of this sort of thing quite soon anyway, there are alredy plugins that do it. Basically what your saying is that AMD is building a graphics card which thinks its a CPU. Cool, but not groundbreaking IMO.

In terms of Apple's apparent new solution, well, its an apple rumour, so we'll take it with a gram of salt. I'd be curious to see it, but if it don't run windows then its not of much use to me tbh. Apple's blasted ahead recently due to two things, the ipod/iphone which has raised their image in the eyes of the mainstream user, and the fact that almost all windows programs now work on mac, and windows can be booted on mac hardware. If they change the away from the intel architecture, it'll make life harder for developers to develop for windows and mac at the same time, and also make it impossible for windows to run on mac, which will curtail their market share by making it harder for windows users to transition smoothly to mac.

As for lightpeak, well, USB 3 is more than fast enough for most needs, and will probably be the standard for the next 5 years at least. Lightpeak's great but will have slow adoption due to a lack of backwards compatability.

Re: Appl

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips I think your both talking hype. RANN, Nvidia and Intel have both been working to bridge the gap between the GPU and CPU type devices for a couple of years now. Building CPUs with the vast number of cores like a GPU but the power and instruction set of a CPU is nothing new really. GPGPU technology will take advantage of this sort of thing quite soon anyway, there are alredy plugins that do it. Basically what your saying is that AMD is building a graphics card which thinks its a CPU. Cool, but not groundbreaking IMO. In terms of Apple's apparent new solution, well, its an apple rumour, so we'll take it with a gram of salt. I'd be curious to see it, but if it don't run windows then its not of much use to me tbh. Apple's blasted ahead recently due to two things, the ipod/iphone which has raised their image in the eyes of the mainstream user, and the fact that almost all windows programs now work on mac, and windows can be booted on mac hardware. If they change the away from the intel architecture, it'll make life harder for developers to develop for windows and mac at the same time, and also make it impossible for windows to run on mac, which will curtail their market share by making it harder for windows users to transition smoothly to mac. As for lightpeak, well, USB 3 is more than fast enough for most needs, and will probably be the standard for the next 5 years at least. Lightpeak's great but will have slow adoption due to a lack of backwards compatability.

Not so sure it is hype in the long run. While I'm certainly not going to run out and buy shares in lightpeak or a4 chips, the fibreoptic solution is going to be the future.

I work with some major audio/voice/com installers that do all the major post production, music and film studio here in hollywood and all of them are dropping copper cable in favor of fibre for their main infrastructure.

Many didn't even bother with HDMI (dumb handshake bullshit, distance limitation, new connector, etc.) and just bypassed it.

The same will happen with computers, as the bottleneck increasingly becomes the bus speeds and data transfer rate between componenets not the compenents themselves.

GPU technology is not going to be the answer (apart from for gaming machines)as processors are being made and will able to take advantage of 64 bit platforms.

AS for USB 3, there's talk of incorporating the the lightpeak connector in to a USB connector meaning during the crossover period of these technologies, as long as the socket has one or the other system you can have either system.

USB 3 is certainly faster enough for most things but with the jump in video formats (to 4k as the digital standard), not to mention the audio that goes along with it (7 channels) the lightpeak standard is the only real option that offers any longevity. People are going to get fed up (and some already are) of having to adopt new standards that only offer minimal increases (usb 1 to USB 2 to FW 400 to FW 800 to USB 3 etc.).

But having said that I agree USB 3 will take hold for the time being as there's already retail USB 3 products and lightpeak is still a prototype.

Re: Re: Appl

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN GPU technology is not going to be the answer (apart from for gaming machines)as processors are being made and will able to take advantage of 64 bit platforms.

Hmm? Not sure what your saying here? Looks to me like GPU and CPU technologies are converging, so we're going to wind up having two chips, but they'll probably be able to do the same things.

Agreed on the rest though. For the short term it is hype but in the long term, I'm sure in 10 years, fibre will be the standard for everything pretty much.

Re: Re: Appl

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN GPU technology is not going to be the answer (apart from for gaming machines)as processors are being made and will able to take advantage of 64 bit platforms.

Explain this bit about "64 bit platforms". I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Regardless, GPU and CPU functions will be increasingly converged. The reason behind this is because typical GPUs are far better than CPUs at floating point arithmetic, so there are significant performance gains from offloading that processing to a GPU. For example, I'd say an average quad core CPU probably pulls around 60 gigaflops (60 billion floating point operations per second), whereas a high end video card probably does around 300. This is obviously huge to us musicians, since all audio stuff is floating point these days. Having the CPU and GPU integrated also obviously alleviates pressure on "bus speeds", since there isn't really a "bus" in the traditional sense. I'm not saying this is going to be the long term solution, but it is the immediate solution and not just for gaming.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Just heard from a friend that used to work at a majory B2B chip distributor that Apple have been developing a new multicore chip that has intel scrambling for ideas.

Apple don't have the resources to go up against AMD, let alone Intel. I call BS.

Re: Re: Re: Appl

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm Explain this bit about "64 bit platforms". I don't understand what you are trying to say. Regardless, GPU and CPU functions will be increasingly converged. The reason behind this is because typical GPUs are far better than CPUs at floating point arithmetic, so there are significant performance gains from offloading that processing to a GPU. For example, I'd say an average quad core CPU probably pulls around 60 gigaflops (60 billion floating point operations per second), whereas a high end video card probably does around 300. This is obviously huge to us musicians, since all audio stuff is floating point these days. Having the CPU and GPU integrated also obviously alleviates pressure on "bus speeds", since there isn't really a "bus" in the traditional sense.

If you call converging dropping the discrete GPU's then I agree. Look at the way macbooks and lesser expensive laptops have now evolved. They used shared graphics (as opposed to dedicated GPU's) and don't be fooled in to thinking they're integrating a GPU - they're just offloading it in to the CPU. It's a fucking copout.

This is where gamers don't seem to get the idea about audio. Video hardware is built with drivers that allow proper utilization for dedicated hardware, but audio is reliant on the CPU and system as a whole (obviously apart from dedicated DSP) and therefore far more prone to overall system bottle necking.

until they start acting the same way with audio, the video GPU way of doings things is sadly non relevant to us. The only advantage right now is that some processor power is freed up by having a separate GPU to handle video.

Not really a huge advantage unless you can tell me something I"m missing?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Appl

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN until they start acting the same way with audio, the video GPU way of doings things is sadly non relevant to us.

The whole point of "converging" the technologies is to allow GPUs to take on general FLOPS and not be limited to video-specific operations. This is the way things ARE going. Isn't that what we are arguing? I'm so confused.

Yea I'm lost as well. GPUs in the gaming world are taking in more of the work load not less, so I don't get why you're saying that dedicated GPUs are disappearing?

Now I understand that the audio and video areas aren't the same thing, but surely the advances in video will benefit audio as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Appl

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN If you call converging dropping the discrete GPU's then I agree. Look at the way macbooks and lesser expensive laptops have now evolved. They used shared graphics (as opposed to dedicated GPU's) and don't be fooled in to thinking they're integrating a GPU - they're just offloading it in to the CPU. It's a fucking copout. This is where gamers don't seem to get the idea about audio. Video hardware is built with drivers that allow proper utilization for dedicated hardware, but audio is reliant on the CPU and system as a whole (obviously apart from dedicated DSP) and therefore far more prone to overall system bottle necking. until they start acting the same way with audio, the video GPU way of doings things is sadly non relevant to us. The only advantage right now is that some processor power is freed up by having a separate GPU to handle video. Not really a huge advantage unless you can tell me something I"m missing?

I'm so confused about what your trying to say...

converging isn't just replacing the discrete graphics chip with a graphics chip integrated into the chipset or CPU (Intel core i5 style) its where a CPU and a GPU begin to do each others work, so there IS no GPU, discrete, integrated or otherwise.

I don't know what your talking about video drivers for... of course audio is reliant on the CPU, the whole idea is that it will gradually be taken up by the GPU as well. Thats what the convergence is all about.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.