|
MACS for production (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| baseforce |
| quote: | Originally posted by AZCA
u are so wrong, read it careful, that's the address space, not the amount of physical memory.
Besides, cpu does not control the physical memory and has nothing to do with it, all memory transactions are handled by North Bridge Chipset on the motherboard. |
I donīt have to convince you Iīm right, but Iīm a soft- hard- ware developer with Masterdegree exam... Have been studing how OS:es work and how page-mechanism works in the IA-32 family... Have also built an own OS (for learning purposes during studies) that handled more than 4 gb of ram on a regular p4 machine... In this question I know EXACTLY what Iīm talking about...
Finally: Extended Physical Addressing is a mechanism in the IA-32 processor to adress 64 GB of physical memory. Itīs true that the northbridge handles the memory, but donīt think that there is only 32 wires beetween cpu and bridge. Besides what about sequential throughput on a 32 bits parallell bus??? If the motherboard support P4, the bridge will also support Extended Physical Addressing, I wonīt explain exactly how itīs ashived because I donīt know..
The adressspace is more or less unlimited (depends on how you build your os and which compiler you use) 64 GB in windows
but the hour is late here in sweden, have to go to sleep (04:30)...
no hard feelings :) I hope you learned something... |
|
|
| AZCA |
| quote: | Originally posted by baseforce
I donīt have to convince you Iīm right, but Iīm a soft- hard- ware developer with Masterdegree exam... Have been studing how OS:es work and how page-mechanism works in the IA-32 family... Have also built an own OS (for learning purposes during studies) that handled more than 4 gb of ram on a regular p4 machine... In this question I know EXACTLY what Iīm talking about...
Finally: Extended Physical Addressing is a mechanism in the IA-32 processor to adress 64 GB of physical memory. Itīs true that the northbridge handles the memory, but donīt think that there is only 32 wires beetween cpu and bridge. Besides what about sequential throughput on a 32 bits parallell bus??? If the motherboard support P4, the bridge will also support Extended Physical Addressing, I wonīt explain exactly how itīs ashived because I donīt know..
The adressspace is more or less unlimited (depends on how you build your os and which compiler you use) 64 GB in windows
but the hour is late here in sweden, have to go to sleep (04:30)...
no hard feelings :) I hope you learned something... |
now u are talking about what is built-in or supported by a p4.
I don't really care about it BECAUSE it is not implemented in REAL, practical computers that USE p4, there are 0 boards that officially support it, and there are 0 computers that actually do it. and Windows uses 32-bit addressing.
Now I suppose you are not proposing a TRANCE PRODUCER, to write his OWN OS (like some mod for Linux kernel) to use more than 4 GB of ram and also get some 2 GB DDR stick (each costs around 1000$).
Also, a practical question: u need 4 GB of memory to make music? WHAT?????
We do the craziest 3D graphics 3D-MAX Studio can handle and never go beyond 3 GB requirement! |
|
|
| ktw |
Now boys stop arguing! All us music producers want to know is:
'Which is better for music production?'...
... not who has the most qualifications or is the most technically minded about PC's or MAC's. All we want to know is which is better for music production!
Don't get me wrong, you guys can argue all you want about each platform! But to be fair, I know as much as I need to about PC's (i don't know much about MAC's at all- I'll be honest!), but all I (and I feel all the serious producers need to know), is how PC's perform against MAC's in relation to 'MUSIC PRODUCTION'
(No offence mean't by this post! All you guys seem sound!)
Thank you!
Regards
KTW |
|
|
| danieldavid |
Well then, arguing aside..
My opinon is that macs are better for production. |
|
|
| baseforce |
| quote: | Originally posted by danieldavid
Well then, arguing aside..
My opinon is that macs are better for production. |
Sorry for the sidetrack... Iīm with you, they are bether for music production. The Macs are developed for those cind of purposes...
sorroy for the language, I'm drunk right now :), (Friday 01:00, swedish time).... se ya! |
|
|
| djglacial |
I don't know all that much about Macs b/c frankly I don't care. Maybe for the big time producers with tonnes of cash Macs are absolutely perfect, but for me, I have not even the slightest reason to get one.
There is so much freeware software for the PC its nuts. I use around ten freeware progs when producing and used to use entirely freeware.
3GB of RAM? Is sound processing really that intensive? I run 45 polys and 35-50 active VST plugins on a 500Mhz 320MB Celeron and just hit %110-%120 CPU in Fruity. Any PC with 100 more mhz could easily do what im doing at 85% or less.
My next upgrade will probly be to a P3 b/c I don't have alot money to burn. Also for that reason, I want to do all I can on the same computer, gaming included. DO NOT get me started on MAC vs PC gaming and software dynamics. Unix based task managing user-friendliness is a joke. Maybe the new Mac OSs are better than before, but cummon... v10? How many versions do you need? MS has free upgrades on their sites and can do it automatically.
Im sure Mac back-compatibility has few to no issues at all, but it's a pet peev of mine.
Either way... when everything starts going to the new MS big brother/spyware OS garbage, I'm switching to Linux, Unix or not.
I'm not claiming to be an expert here, but I've my own personal computer since I was 3 y/o runnin an Atari XL and switched to Amiga, Win3.11 Win 95, 98, Me and used Macs at school since 7 y/o. I would deal with a PC/Amiga (may she rest in peace) over a Mac any day of the year. |
|
|
| danieldavid |
| Yeah, i'm not taking any advice from someone who runs a Celeron, hahhaa.:crazy: |
|
|
| djglacial |
In other words you did not notice the contrast between my comment for not needing a high end system to do the work that you want and your argument over which high end system is the best.
For begginning producers there is little reason to go for the best. And for begginning producers, chances are they are going to need their comps for more that one thing. Therefor my argument is quite valid, and your reasoning for the comment above is arbitrary and irrational. |
|
|
| danieldavid |
| My comment was a joke, hence the :crazy: face... Lighten up, for real. |
|
|
| djglacial |
Sorry, your inflection and body language was not apparent. ;)
I know too many computer dorks who would actually mean that. |
|
|
| khemfusion |
someone with a celeron and who has installed Windows ME :nervous:
man don't listen to that guy :o
Some of the stuff you said is not very good, but your main point is spot on, you don't need to spend tons of money to get started in creating music. Just get a cardboard box and bang out the beat on that, I'm serious. At work after putting out stock I would create beats on empty cardboard boxes before I disposed of them, eventually I bought some hand drums (bongo), but I started simple.
people used to make music on old old old computers, it may not be as fast or exciting, but it can be done |
|
|
| seantyas |
| all i will say is this... with a pc, u must use windows... that is what hold it back... not the hardware. |
|
|
|
|
