The Mac mini

[Garritan]

Check out the new Mac mini - just 6.5 inches wide, 2 inches tal, 2.9 lbs and a mini price of $499.


http://images.apple.com/macmini/images/indextop20050111.jpg


It has a 1.25 or 1.42GHz G4 processor, 40 or 80GB hard drive, a slot-loading CD-R/DVD-ROM optical drive, 256MB DDR SDRAM (Supports up to 1 GB) and reportedly whisper-quiet. this may make a nice little GPO box.

http://www.apple.com/macmini/

Gary Garritan

[Joseph Burrell]

Still a rather large price tag for not much computer. You could build a decent mini PC for that price and have a much faster processor and more RAM. Why are Mac's sooooo expensive? Is it the components? I would love to own one just to see what all the fuss is about. Of course, I'm a tinkerer so I like to get my hands into these things. Would look cute in the family room though. I would probably still go the Shuttle PC route since I have to be able to upgrade and repair it myself. I'm glad they've got a more ecomonical offering on the market though. Maybe when I win the lottery, eh?

[jesshmusic]

Compared to the rest of the Macs, this sucker is really inexpensive. As a Mac user, I can testify to that!

I'm not sure it has enough juice to handle a full GPO orchestra. I am planning on someday getting a big G5 tower that can handle a larger orchestra among other things.
The mini would be better than what I got, but since I have an iMac I would have to buy a monitor.... Boo.

Thanks for posting this, Gary!

[shadowbox]

Still a rather large price tag for not much computer. You could build a decent mini PC for that price and have a much faster processor and more RAM. Why are Mac's sooooo expensive? SNIP Maybe when I win the lottery, eh?

Good lord. I would hope if you win the lottery you would get more than $500. You don't need to win a lottery to buy this thing. You need to sell all the spare PC parts you have lying around your house on eBay. (But keep a spare mouse, keyboard and monitor). And then don't go to Starbucks for a couple of weeks.

[Joseph Burrell]

:D

Yeah, if I win the lottery my wife will get 99.99% of the money and I'll be left with just enough to buy 1/2 of the Mac Mini.

[Christopher Duncan]

:D

Yeah, if I win the lottery my wife will get 99.99% of the money and I'll be left with just enough to buy 1/2 of the Mac Mini.
Yeah, and you wouldn't have it any other way, would you? You married guys are soooo spoiled... :)

[chmara]

Just a guess, though, that this may work well with the distributed audio scheme of Logic. I can see a stack of these as "instruments" without the DFD problems.

[moosethree]

I have a mac G3 that has lasted for 17 years.......now that is a record of reliability that no pc can match.....

[Joseph Burrell]

Very true words moosethree. I'm lucky to get 5 out of a PC. Of course, they're all obsolete in 2 years anyway. :p

[beardedone]

Looks nice .... but really too bad that it's a Mac! I'll never buy Apple again after years of grief with them. In comparsion my Carillon AC1 is like being in heaven!

[UNIX_GURU]

the distributed audio scheme of Logic

Logic needs gig (1000) ethernet to do that and the mini only has 10/100.
A stack of xserves and a gig switch would do the trick though :D

Still I want a mini just to have, I could take it to a friends and use it as a portable logic recording rig.

[crr]

I write music for hobby on a powerbook g4 1.3 Ghz, and i was able to handle a small orchestra with the GPO reverber set to full quality on overture without freezing and with just one-two cracks during the listening (in fact i registered the piece for the GPO competition with the GPO studio feature so "directly") and I think I can say that you can use GPO on the new mac with good results, upgrading the RAM and going for the 1.42 Ghz solution but you will be at the "limit".
If you go for using cubase, logic, .. and you use the freeze function I think it works fine.
You gain the operative system and an impressive stability (it's 4 months that I don't restart my powerbook, probably more, raise your hand if you can do the same :) )
ciao

[Edi]

Still a rather large price tag for not much computer. You could build a decent mini PC for that price and have a much faster processor and more RAM. Why are Mac's sooooo expensive? Is it the components? I would love to own one just to see what all the fuss is about. Of course, I'm a tinkerer so I like to get my hands into these things. Would look cute in the family room though. I would probably still go the Shuttle PC route since I have to be able to upgrade and repair it myself. I'm glad they've got a more ecomonical offering on the market though. Maybe when I win the lottery, eh?

I do believe that due to OS efficiencies, you will get about twice as much from a Mac processor.

Third party RAM is competitive.

Of course the tiny market share commanded by Apple(remember the economies of scale),and the enormous competition in PC hardware must also play a role!

(I hesitate to make any statements about this because of the silly rages that have sometimes been evoked...but we are among the sane, right?) :)

Ed

[SPF]

I have a mac G3 that has lasted for 17 years.......now that is a record of reliability that no pc can match.....

Gotcha, moosethree! You meant 7 years. The G3s came out in 1998 (http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=tam&page=timeline&subpage=pers). But mine is also still in service.

Come to think of it, so is my 1987 Mac SE that I donated a few years ago to a neighbor kid with keen interest in computing, along wth my 1995 PowerMac 6100/66, which is also still working.

Speakign of these old Apples, anyone know if the latest (or any) OS X actually supports serial printing and external SCSI devices on those old G3s?

Know any hacks or workarounds?

I'd love to turn my capable old beige G3/300 into a network access and print server (and scanning station - my old hp scanner is SCSI), but Apple seems to have abandoned its ability to connect to anything else when they went to OS X.

[kitekrazy]

Oh whoopdee doo! I still have a PIONEX PC with a Crix processor that still runs fine. I have a laptop (with a Pentium 1 and a half as I call it) with Windows 95 that still runs great, sporting a massive 1gb hard drive and 32 mb ram.

[Jerry W.]

Gotcha, moosethree! You meant 7 years. The G3s came out in 1998 (http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=tam&page=timeline&subpage=pers). But mine is also still in service.

Come to think of it, so is my 1987 Mac SE that I donated a few years ago to a neighbor kid with keen interest in computing, along wth my 1995 PowerMac 6100/66, which is also still working.

Speakign of these old Apples, anyone know if the latest (or any) OS X actually supports serial printing and external SCSI devices on those old G3s?

Know any hacks or workarounds?

I'd love to turn my capable old beige G3/300 into a network access and print server (and scanning station - my old hp scanner is SCSI), but Apple seems to have abandoned its ability to connect to anything else when they went to OS X.

OS X supports external SCSI devices if you have a SCSI port on your computer. Back when OS X FIRST came out, you had to get an app called SCSI Helper, but ever since version1.5 or so, OS X has supported Ext. SCSI drives - Not sure about the printing - pretty sure only USB or ethernet or FW printers are supported.

Jerry :)

[shadowbox]

Just a guess, though, that this may work well with the distributed audio scheme of Logic. I can see a stack of these as "instruments" without the DFD problems.

Only problem is that Apple/logic recommends Gigabit ethernet for nodes on the network and the Mac mini has 10/100. It would be cool though.

[bmtl]

Still a rather large price tag for not much computer. You could build a decent mini PC for that price and have a much faster processor and more RAM.

Hi folks,

Joseph, the question is; "why PC builders didn't do that before Mac?" and you know that even PC prossesors are faster (on the paper) than the Mac's, the reality is different. I'm using both of them at work, and I still prefer to spend more money and buy a mac for my home.
I think it's a very good idea and, as usely, a very nice object, but it seems that it could be a little limit to load a full orchestra!
Joseph, I play at the lotery, but I NEVER say it to my wife :D
regards
Laurent

[chriscaouette]

Still a rather large price tag for not much computer. You could build a decent mini PC for that price and have a much faster processor and more RAM. Why are Mac's sooooo expensive? Is it the components? I would love to own one just to see what all the fuss is about. Of course, I'm a tinkerer so I like to get my hands into these things. Would look cute in the family room though. I would probably still go the Shuttle PC route since I have to be able to upgrade and repair it myself. I'm glad they've got a more ecomonical offering on the market though. Maybe when I win the lottery, eh?
I don't know joe. I have seen reviews between PCs and Macs and the reviewer will use a 'similarly spec'd PC' and the price tad is around the same. The price tag doesn't stop me and with IBM doing their G5 chips I am sure things will get better and cheaper.
Chris

[Joseph Burrell]

I'm sure there's more to the written spec than meets the eye, but it seems that a lot of software developers don't take the time to program specifically for the processors architecture properly, thus any benefit from the way that a Mac processor is built, is lost. Which is why with certain programs, you see such a gap. Proprietary software runs just fine, but all these third party apps could do better.

[imagegod]

As long as we're on a non-flaming MAC/PC thread, perhaps I could ask a question that's been eating me for years:

Why doesn't Mr. Jobs unlink his software/hardware? That is, why doesn't he sell the Mac OS to PC users and why can't Apple hardware consumers buy Windows (although, to be honest, I don't think there's be much of a demand for this configuration.)

I know he likes to maintain control and control has a lot of benefits. But so would opening his hardware to 96 percent of all PC users...

Just a thought.

[jesshmusic]

Apple tried letting other companies build clones before Jobs came back and that is the closest Apple ever came to going out of business. You can run Windows on a Mac using a piece of software. It actually runs pretty good. As for letting IBM compatibles run Mac OS X... it won't work on the Intel type processor.

That, and Apple is something unique, they make the OS and the box. Since they have an agreement with Microsoft, we Mac users get a superior version of MS Office. For most average PC users, email, MS Office, and internet are all they need. Add in the ability to play music, and the choice between Mac and PC really just comes down to preference.

That and would PC users actually switch to OS X on their system?

Good question, though. :)

[Joseph Burrell]

For me, its more a style thing. I love Apple's style factor. Its kind of like the cadillac of computers in my mind. I'm glad they don't really farm the OS or builds out to just anybody. There's more quality control there than there is on the PC end. It's just, for me, they'll always be this tier above what I really need. That and the fact that nothing I currently own/use will work on a Mac anyway.

[imagegod]

Good points all! Thanks for the feedback! :D :D

[chriscaouette]

Logic needs gig (1000) ethernet to do that and the mini only has 10/100.

Not necessarily. I use a 100 now and it works fine. However, these are so small that you could also hook them up via firewire.
Chris

[EverlastingMan]

As long as we're on a non-flaming MAC/PC thread, perhaps I could ask a question that's been eating me for years:

Why doesn't Mr. Jobs unlink his software/hardware? That is, why doesn't he sell the Mac OS to PC users and why can't Apple hardware consumers buy Windows (although, to be honest, I don't think there's be much of a demand for this configuration.)

I know he likes to maintain control and control has a lot of benefits. But so would opening his hardware to 96 percent of all PC users...

Just a thought.

Without going into too much detail: in the mid-90s when Intel's 486 and Motorola's 68040 were reaching end-of-life, the (in)famous CISC vs. RISC debate began, with Intel favoring a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computers) microprocessor design philosophy, and Motorola favoring RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computers). Apple was already a Motorola customer in those days, and when Motorola announced plans to fabricate the PowerPC RISC processor, Apple and IBM jumped on the bandwagon, forming the AIM (Apple-IBM-Motorola) Alliance. Despite many inherent advantages in the RISC design philosophy, Intel was hesitant to adopt it, because Windows software would not run natively on a RISC CPU. Vast changes in software design would have to take place, and Intel decided that the riscs outweighed the benefits (pardon the pun).

Today the situation is pretty much the same, with Intel pursuing a CISC-based philosophy and defying the critics who predicted the architecture's death years ago. Intel definitely knows how to milk its cows for every last drop.

Motorola dropped out of the AIM Alliance some time ago, leaving Apple and IBM as unlikely partners. The two companies are now on their fifth-generation RISC-based PowerPC chip (hence its name: the G5) which is based on IBM's own POWER5. The AIM Alliance also had its critics, who said that Apple wouldn't be able to pull off the industry-wide software changes that would be needed for PowerPC to be adopted. They were also wrong: in what was truly an amazing feat of software engineering, Apple re-designed its OS to run on PowerPC, while creating a kernel-level emulator to run legacy 680xx applications. The amazing thing was that it worked so well, you couldn't tell when you were running non-native apps.

With processors at a dead-end at the moment in terms of clock speed, the RISC gamble made by Apple and IBM seems pretty smart: RISC CPUs are far less clock-dependant than their Intel (and to some extent AMD) counterparts. (This is why Apple can get away with selling a Mac mini with a 1.25 GHz processor. That 1.25GHz RISC CPU does a lot more for you than a 1.25GHz Pentium would. Unfortunately, a lot of people only look at clock speed when evaluating a CPU's performance. The truth is that there are many other factors to consider.)

All this to say, though: the underlying architectures that Windows and MacOS are made to function on are fundamentally different. At one point Microsoft actually did develop a PowerPC-native version of Windows NT, but there was not very much demand for it at the time, since everyone in the Windows world that wanted a RISC CPU was buying an Alpha from DEC.

It would take a lot of work to get MacOS running on an Intel- or AMD-based CPU, and it would take just as much time to get Windows XP running on a G4 or G5. And what would the point be? I don't know anyone using MacOS X that wants to use an x86 CPU. They love their G5s, and for good reason. And as for running MacOS on Windows? If a Windows user wants or needs a Mac badly enough, I can't imagine the $499 for a Mac mini being too much to ask.

One final thought: Apple's approach has always been about the complete user experience. By using proprietary hardware, Apple is able to ensure that their software will work the way it's supposed to all the time, because the hardware being used is never in doubt -- it's always the same thing. The same can't be said for the Windows world, where a billion possible combinations of hardware can cause headaches that you'll just never run into on a Mac. IRQ conflicts, anyone?

My personal preference is to have two systems, one running each operating system. I have no desire to put MacOS X on my PC (which already has a UNIX variant on its second hard drive anyway) or Windows XP on my Mac. I would rather use the right tool for the right job on the right hardware.

If someone asked my preference, though, I would have to say that I find Apple's hardware to be of higher quality and reliability that most of what you'll find at the major PC manufacturers.

Because you get what you pay for (unless it's GPO...in which case you get more than you paid for!).

[jesshmusic]

... Now that was a concise answer from someone who actually paints both sides of the fence! ;)

Bravo! I have always wondered why the same clock speeds run different. Maybe they need a different way to measure?

Hmmmm.

[UNIX_GURU]

Not necessarily. I use a 100 now and it works fine. However, these are so small that you could also hook them up via firewire.
Chris

I was replying to this post:


Just a guess, though, that this may work well with the distributed audio scheme of Logic. I can see a stack of these as "instruments" without the DFD problems.

100 BaseT ethernet does not have the bandwidth necessary to handle multiple Logic nodes (a "stack"). :(

[chriscaouette]

100 BaseT ethernet does not have the bandwidth necessary to handle multiple Logic nodes (a "stack"). :(
Ah my apologies. Indeed a 'stack' won't do in a 100.
Chris

[Bob Wolski]

That 1.25GHz RISC CPU does a lot more for you than a 1.25GHz Pentium would. Unfortunately, a lot of people only look at clock speed when evaluating a CPU's performance. The truth is that there are many other factors to consider.

I wonder if you could elaborate on this just a bit. Or maybe post a link or two to follow up. I would like to better understand this.

Excellent post by the way. I thought I was reading a magazine column.

Thanks.

Bob

[EverlastingMan]

I wonder if you could elaborate on this just a bit. Or maybe post a link or two to follow up. I would like to better understand this.

Excellent post by the way. I thought I was reading a magazine column.

Thanks.

Bob

Well I do not consider myself an expert on this by any means, and there are much better technical explanations out there on the advantages of RISC microprocessors (such as the ARM, G4, G5, and POWER5), so I'll give a summary.

By its very nature, a RISC CPU uses a simpler set of instructions for executing system commands than a CISC processor. This simplified instruction set allows RISC processors to often achieve 2 to 4 times the performance of CISC processors using comparable semiconductor technology and the same clock rates. Because registers aren't wasted on more complex (and rarely utilized) instructions, a RISC CPU can process more instructions per clock than most CISC-based designs. Instructions-per-clock is a very important factor in determining the speed of a CPU, but unfortunately the megahertz or gigahertz rating on a CPU does not give you any indication of how many instructions-per-clock a processor can crunch. It just tells you fast the clock actually is.

Basically, RISC designs are more about efficiency than a high clock speed (though they certainly benefit from both). Let us use a simple analogy: let's say that Mr. Cisc accomplishes five complex tasks every ten minutes, but to do that he has to run 20 miles per hour. Meanwhile, Mr. Risc utilizes a slightly different working style -- in the same ten minutes he accomplishes ten simple tasks, and he manages to do it at a leisurely walk without breaking a sweat. And let us suppose that when the men receive their job evalutions, Mr. Risc got just as much work done as Mr. Cisc, because the ten simple tasks were equivalent to the five complex tasks. The point, as I'm sure you have already grasped, is that Mr. Risc doesn't need to run 20 miles per hour to accomplish the same amount of work as Mr. Cisc. And so it is with RISC processors: they don't need to run as fast as their CISC counterparts to accomplish the same amount - or indeed even more - work.

And from a technical sheet: "Because the instruction set of a RISC processor is so simple, it uses up much less chip space; extra functions, such as memory management units or floating point arithmetic units, can also be placed on the same chip. Smaller chips allow a semconductor manufacturer to place more parts on a single silicon wafer, which can lower the per-chip cost dramatically." The fact that these components can be placed on the same wafer allows faster communication between them, since information does not necessarily have to be transmitted over the system bus as it might in a CISC design.

RISC is not a perfect architecture. It does have its own set of limitations, weaknesses, and dependencies (for example, RISC is much more reliant on fast memory than CISC). But the fact is that every major processor design in the world is now RISC-based -- except for Intel's x86. And it is questionable how much longer Intel will be able to push the clock-dependent CISC forward, with the new Prescott-based Pentium 4 running at temperatures that are rather alarming. With the Prescott, Intel has reached the very limits of air-cooling capability. (Ironically, the new Mac mini doesn't even have a fan.)

It is also important to note that exclusively-RISC or exclusively-CISC processors are becoming a thing of the past. Recent CPU designs are beginning to blur the lines as ideas from both philosophies are implemented. An example is AMD's Athlon 64 line, which while based on the x86 architecture is very RISC-like in many ways.

But don't take it from me! Here are some links so that you can educate yourself on this fascinating technology. I should have just posted these first anyway...they probably explain it better than I can!

http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophomore-college/projects-00/risc/risccisc/

http://www.amigau.com/aig/riscisc.html

http://ctas.east.asu.edu/bgannod/CET520/Spring02/Projects/demone.htm

Best Regards,

Jonathan

[Styxx]

Geezz, and I thought McDonalds was actually coming out with a real diet burger that wouldn't turn people into a large mass of flesh as the Big Mac!

I'll take two please! Hey, I wonder if you could install it in the dash board of you car (auto) with a heads up display and a keyboard on your steering wheel? I can just see it now ... a person driving down the interstate with a cell phone stuck to one ear, a keyboard under the other hand, and the windshield glowing like the backend of an F15 fighter jest taking off a full throttle! Cool idea, right. :D Then again if you're the passenger, hey! :)

Pimp my ride man! :D

[EverlastingMan]

Well, you can already buy BMWs with the heads-up display. I'm sure with a little tweaking you could run an output from an iPod or Mac mini to the HUD projector. :D

[Hardy Heern]

Apple is such a sad story....by all accounts they should be in the drivers seat but they made a couple of wrong turnings. After picking up IBM's GUI they ran ahead of the PC side with its pathetic DOS and clumsy commands. Where they cocked up was with greed and the assumption that no one else would come up with the same GUI (which, after all, is only like standardising on the controls layout of a car (auto us).

The greed bit was that they tried to make it a closed system by sticking on their own interfaces and then overcharged for the peripherals which you then had to buy from them! Yes, they were making that old mistake of biting the hand that was feeding them. Also they lost out on the production advantages of worldwide peripheral production which made PCI peripherals extremely cheap. Yes it's a very sad story and there is absolutely no reason, from a performance or cost viewpoint, where it makes sense to buy a Mac.

The only reasons people still buy Macs is because of some graphics/music programme which was only available on the Mac, at the time, and people don't want to relearn, or if they want to make the shallow style statement. Owning a Mac is blind faith, a religion, a sect.....which is fair enough; as long as you can afford it!http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

Things could and should have been sooooo different. It was miraculous how the company was saved but they've got a huge job on to move out of the niche area they're in....their market share is tiny. If they opened up their system, though, it might be a very different ending....

Frank

[KevinKauai]

At the risk of seeming to "channel" Styxx, did you hear the one about the guy who WON the lottery?

He comes home and says to the wife "I won the lottery -- get packing!".

She asks "where are we going?"

To which he answers "I don't care as long as you're out by 5 o'clock!"

[ducking in advance ...]

But seriously, folks, I have a long sordid history with Apple products -- my first Apple II+ with a gigantic 64K of RAM in late 1980, followed by the 'fridge Mac, the SE30 and then a clone (a buddy I worked with was responsible for setting up the "clone" deals, which shortened his carerr with Apple considerably, but now he's a VC so he's better off). My earlier MIDI stuff was run on that clone with OpCode's Studio Vision PRO. Etcetera, etcetera.

Regarding the "mini me" (oops! Mac mini) the 1 gig RAM limit could constrain its viability for GPO. About a year ago, I started with a Windows XP system (2.66 gHz P4) on which I originally ran Cubase SX2 and GPO. A few months ago, I bit the bullet and got a newer system (3.2 gHz) which could handle up to 2 gig. More RAM = more happiness with GPO (and other sample things as well).

imho ... KevinKauai :)

[concerto]

I'm concerned about the low clock speed of the Mac mini in light of this post by Tom Hopkins: http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php?p=213858&highlight=kontakt+clock+speed#post213858

Similarly, I'm wary about the performance of the Centrino processor package used in some of the newer laptops, which have speeds of around 1.5 MhZ Pentium M at the lower end models.

[EverlastingMan]

I'm concerned about the low clock speed of the Mac mini in light of this post by Tom Hopkins: http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php?p=213858&highlight=kontakt+clock+speed#post213858

Similarly, I'm wary about the performance of the Centrino processor package used in some of the newer laptops, which have speeds of around 1.5 MhZ Pentium M at the lower end models.

Based on the link you reference, I get the impression that Kontakt is developed on Windows and then merely ported - but not optimized - for MacOS. If this is the case, then Kontakt is most likely not taking advantage of AltiVec (which gives huge speed boosts on media-related processes) on the G4 or G5. This would be similar to writing software for x86 and then not supporting MMX or MMX2 (SSE2). It can be done, but it isn't smart if speed is important. Unfortunately, with Windows-to-Mac ports, this happens all the time. Also, many applications are still not taking advantage of the 64-bit capabilities of the newer PowerPCs.

EDIT: Just checked, and Kontakt did not originally support AltiVec, though AltiVec support was added in an update.

[EverlastingMan]

I'm concerned about the low clock speed of the Mac mini in light of this post by Tom Hopkins: http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php?p=213858&highlight=kontakt+clock+speed#post213858

Similarly, I'm wary about the performance of the Centrino processor package used in some of the newer laptops, which have speeds of around 1.5 MhZ Pentium M at the lower end models.

I should qualify, however, that I am not recommending the Mac mini as a GPO/audio workstation. The RAM limitations and the 5400 RPM hard drive make this system less than ideal for audio work, which I think everyone here would agree is among the most demanding uses for modern workstations.

[jesshmusic]

Yeah, I am pretty sure Apple is making these to get a new niche going. They are going for an inexpensive computer that won't look bad in the living room. Not bad to check your email and surf the net. Us musicians should definately stick with the G5 and whatever is next. I will not make the mistake of not getting a tower when I upgrade. It will be a while for me, though! ;)

[crr]

I think we have to remember that the mac mini are designed to be a low entry mac, so we can't expect to have a powerful machine that can handle everything only because it's a mac.
It's deisgned to be portable and to be a multimedia computer, it's not designed to run "big" applications. I think we can consider it has a "celeron pc" compared to the G5 machines.
The same concept is valid for centrino laptops: they are designed to consume low power and so they can be light and portable but you can't ask for a big computation capability.
I posted my experience with my powerbook and GPO and because the mac mini mounts a similar setup you can guess what you can do with the mac mini and GPO, if you need more, buy a G5 or go for a PC.

[moosethree]

where the mac mini fits is in a multicomputer set up with midi over lan and fx teleport type solutions....sharing resources over several computers instead just onec pc. I has enough uummpphhh to be a sound module while another pc does the track processing.....

[CHudson]

I have a mac G3 that has lasted for 17 years.......now that is a record of reliability that no pc can match.....

hehe
it's all about what software you want to run, not the platform.

Kind of like saying I still have a 386 and it works great.
Maybe so, but the 386 is no more able to run the latest PC OS than the G3 is capable of running the latest Mac OS.
If you have old components, you are stuck with old software.

No problem with that if it meets your needs. Hard to say because one still uses an old slow machine that is a better platform though. If I wamted to use my DAW for 17 years with no changes , I could. I would certainly be limited though, same as you would be compared to a dual G5. ( or any other semi /new PC for that matter.)

Your post did amuse me though :)

[Hardy Heern]

hehe
it's all about what software you want to run, not the platform.

Kind of like saying I still have a 386 and it works great.
Maybe so, but the 386 is no more able to run the latest PC OS than the G3 is capable of running the latest Mac OS.
If you have old components, you are stuck with old software.

No problem with that if it meets your needs. Hard to say because one still uses an old slow machine that is a better platform though. If I wamted to use my DAW for 17 years with no changes , I could. I would certainly be limited though, same as you would be compared to a dual G5. ( or any other semi /new PC for that matter.)

Your post did amuse me though :)

Good point, Chris...Colin....Cuthbert...Cowley?

[BlueMax]

The question to ask is, "How well will a Mac G4 1.25GHz perform with GPO?"

The box says a G4 733 is recommended (compared to the PC's 1.8GHz!) so I would imagine 1.25 or even 1.4GHz G4 would perform quite well!

The only pity is the 1GB maximum RAM so you'd have to be somewhat choosy with your instruments - but not TOO picky! 1GB is still enough for the whole orchestra, minus the pianos and organs. :)


Since I need a whole new computer anyways (I'm currently typing on a P2-333MHz... it hurts!) I can decide between Mac or PC. Interesting times.....

[crr]

a 733 MHz G4 is not at all enough.
A lot of Mac users post their comments about that. As i said with a 1.42 Ghz g4 you can do quite a lot of things but you can't use the full potentialities of GPO if you don't start to freeze track and so on.
If you want a mac machine that can handle very well GPO go for a G5.

[jesshmusic]

Definately, the Mac Mini is not for us. Apple is almost certainly targeting the I want a "nice, inexpensive computer that will look good in the living room" group. I can say from experience that musicians should, with everything, save and buy the best equipment for what they do. If they prefer Mac, the way to go is the big G5 tower. That way GPO, audio, recording, etc. all run smooth and it is easier to stay current. My next computer (a year or two from now) will almost certainly be a G5 (or whatever is available then). Not just for GPO, I also dabble in computer animation and I need a horse!

[Styxx]

That's one mine mac, a larger order of memory, and extra hard drive. Ya wanna fire wire that sir? :D

[BlueMax]

Sounds like the ZERO-form-factor new iMac is a better choice then.
The compy is built into the LCD panel itself, making it even smaller than the MiniMac because there's no box at all!

Better yet - it's a G5 processor so it'll run GPO nicely. ;)

[jesshmusic]

The iMac will run GPO better, but it is still best to go with the tower. It is guaranteed to nail GPO!

[Thad]

a 733 MHz G4 is not at all enough.

No kidding. I bought a maxed-out (1.42 GHz, 1 GB RAM) Mac mini because I wanted to be able to run GPO (which I just received the other day) with Finale. Given that this is well above the "recommended" system specs in terms of processor speed (733 MHz G4), I thought I'd be fine. After all, the Mac mini has very similar specs to the top-of-the-line PowerBooks. In fact, the only differences between the mini and the top-of-the-line PowerBooks are a 0.8 GHz advantage in CPU speed, and the possibility of adding more than 1 GB of RAM to the PowerBooks.

However, given how poorly GPO performs on my current (admittedly below spec) setup (Beige G3 w/1 GHz G4 upgrade, 768 MB RAM), I'm not wildly optimistic about getting great GPO results from the Mac mini. I will report back, of course, with my hands-on results, but my impression from reading these forums is that I'd have to be nuts to try to get solid GPO playback from within Finale on even a maxed-out mini. Instead, it seems I should use Finale's soft synth when composing/arranging, and then use GPO to record to file when the chart is complete. And even then, it seems like I will have to compromise significantly on sound quality if I want to use full orchestra.

My impression is also that this is largely Native Instruments' fault, for doing such a poor job on their Mac port of the Kontakt Player.

Regardless, though -- due respect to Mr. Garritan, but I think the consensus is that the "recommended Mac system requirements" on the box are extremely misleading.


As i said with a 1.42 Ghz g4 you can do quite a lot of things but you can't use the full potentialities of GPO if you don't start to freeze track and so on

Of course, freezing tracks isn't possible in Finale.

[jesshmusic]

You can't freeze tracks, but you can record each individual section (strings, brass, etc) and put them together in Audacity, which is a free DAW software.

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/


There will likely be a few syncing issues, but once you get the hang of it, those are easy to deal with. Actually, on the mini I bet you can record a full orchestra in two parts, just try to keep the more agressive instruments seperate. It just takes experimentation to get a good routine.

Good luck with the mini, I look forward to hearing how well it does!

[Thad]

There will likely be a few syncing issues, but once you get the hang of it, those are easy to deal with.

I hope so. The prospect of messing around with sync issues and joining audio tracks is incredibly intimidating to me.


Actually, on the mini I bet you can record a full orchestra in two parts, just try to keep the more agressive instruments seperate.

Okay -- any suggestions of the best way to divvy things up?


Good luck with the mini, I look forward to hearing how well it does!

I'll keep y'all posted.

[jesshmusic]

It depends on the score on how to divide the parts.

Bad combinations on my iMac 17" 1GHZ:

1 Pizz strings with anything....
2 Large Brass and percussion....
3 Strings and percussion....

Here is how I have to divide it up: strings...brass...percussion...woodwinds. Sometimes I can get away with puttin the perc and winds together.

If I turn down the polyphony, I can record an entire chamber orchestra piece consisting of the following instrumentation:

Flute I & II
Oboe I & II
Bassoon I & II
Horn in F I & II
Timpani
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Violincello
Contrabass

I turn down the polyphony on the wind instruments to 1, the timpani to 4, the violins to 8 each, the violas to 6 each, and the cellos and basses to 4 each. When composing I set the sample rate to 22000, which is a lower sound quality so I know it will play back ok.

I recorded my Sinfonietta (http://www.fupduckonline.com/Sinfonietta.mp3) this way. Considering the mini Mac will be an improvement on the iMac I have I think you will be pleasantly surprised until you bust out a huge orchestra piece.

If the Mini does well, I wonder how the iMac G5 does? Does anyone have this system?

[DZComposer]

No Mac will EVER out-style a Falcon Northwest Case. 100% Pure art. Too bad they don't sell just the cases....

http://www.classicalhorn.com/falconflag.jpg

15 hours of hand airbrushing! That sure beats orange mass-produced plastic!

[lavoll]

buy a shuttle pc instead :P hehe. i did. much cheaper, much better for audio (2gig ram, 3,2 pentium HT, 80gig 7200 hard disk + 120 gig 7200 hard disk internally) superquiet and very inexpensive.

[Garritan]

Mac Mini to PC Conversion

Kevin Rose, of TechTV fame, has written about converting a Mac Mini into a PC. http://www.kevinrose.com/index.php/weblog/comments/191/

He writes: " I’ve seen a ton of articles around the web lately comparing the Mac mini to the near full size desktop PC. What they fail to compare is the amount of computing power per square inch you get with the mini. So, I decided to take it upon myself to create the fastest PC possible with the size constraints of the mini’s small form factor." Kevin takes you through the process with lots of links and photos.

[bmonroney]

Mac Mini to PC Conversion

Kevin Rose, of TechTV fame, has written about converting a Mac Mini into a PC. http://www.kevinrose.com/index.php/weblog/comments/191/

This guy doesn't manage to get the optical drive into the Mini's case, doesn't post any price comparison or benchmarks...an amusing but not very practical stunt.

As for the previous post, yes, a Shuttle XPC is a great machine for GPO, I have one...but it's certainly NOT cheaper than a mac mini. Even after you bump the mini's RAM up to 1GB. They're really very different animals...and you could fit about 4 or 5 minis into the same volume occupied by the Shuttle (yes, they really are that small).

Brian

[Garritan]

So your Mac MINI is not powerful to run as many instruments as you would like to in GPO? Leo Bobnar has writen about how to overclock your Mac Mini. (http://www.lbodnar.dsl.pipex.com/macmini/)
This is not for the faint of heart and you'll have to now how to open it (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/01/19/036200.shtml?tid=174). This guide shows you how to overclock a 1.25 Mac Mini to a 1.42Ghz.

[Garritan]

Just ordered one. Apple says it will take up to four weeks delivery. I'll let you know how it works with GPO.

Gary Garritan

[Thad]

Hey Gary,

Well, THAT is good news -- nice to have the developer testing on the same computer you have!

Did you get the 1.42 GHz model? Did you buy the extra RAM from Apple, or will you install it yourself?

GPO + Finale2005a is so far working very well on my system -- of course, I've only tried it with two instruments loaded (solo Strad and Steinway piano). I'll let you know how things go when it comes time to add additional instruments.

[kitekrazy]

As long as we're on a non-flaming MAC/PC thread, perhaps I could ask a question that's been eating me for years:

Why doesn't Mr. Jobs unlink his software/hardware? That is, why doesn't he sell the Mac OS to PC users and why can't Apple hardware consumers buy Windows (although, to be honest, I don't think there's be much of a demand for this configuration.)

I know he likes to maintain control and control has a lot of benefits. But so would opening his hardware to 96 percent of all PC users...

Just a thought.

There's pros and cons to that. You can have stability with a closed system.
On the downside there aren't too many Mac apps at Best Buy or Curcuit City.

[Thad]

On the downside there aren't too many Mac apps at Best Buy or Curcuit City.

Hence the Apple Stores.

[TomcatII]

About that business of RISC versus CISC...since you are supposed to "double" the frequency rating of a Centrino to get the equivalent of a Pentium 4, (ie, a 1.6 gig Centrino is supposed to be as fast at processing as a 3.2 gig P4) does that mean that the Centrino is RISC based architecture or is it something else and, if so, what?

I've been wondering about that for a long time but haven't run into anyone before who might actually know what's what.

BTW, finally got my extra external HD and now have GPO fully installed and authorized and working as advertised!!! However, for a while I wasn't sure it was going to work because when I tried to install it the first time, after the first CD loaded and it asked for the second one, I put it in and clicked on OK and the whole machine froze up!!! I said a few choice words such as "OH NO! I hate it when this sort of thing happens!" Then I girded my loins and started all over again with the first CD and the second time everything went the way it was supposed to and all four CDs installed with no sweat.

I loaded in Cubasis 4 VST just to have a look and now I will quickly UNinstall it! One quick look and I found it has NO piano roll editing so that's the end of that one; quick, get it off my machine, LOL. It was just out of idle curiosity to have a look anyway, since I have and use Sonar 4 PE.

Thanks,
Tom

[TomcatII]

OOOooooPPppppppsssss...I just found the piano roll editing in Cubasis. They don't call it that; they just call it "editing" and don't have anything in the help file under piano roll so I thought it wasn't there until I actually loaded something in and then went looking around. Still probably won't keep on it my computer for very long since Sonar 4 is a LOT more powerful.

Tom

[fastlane]

kitekrazy said "On the downside there aren't too many Mac apps at Best Buy or Curcuit City."

Best Buy online sells both the 1.25 and the 1.42 Mac Mini and several Mac software titles. Many of their stores will also be carrying the Mac Mini. :)

[TomcatII]

On the other hand, my local Fry's Electronics carries a lot of Macs' both desktop and laptop along with that great big TV sized monitor. They are also pretty high priced.

Tom

[Garritan]

Mac Mini accessories are now starting to appear. http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
http://www.plasticsmith.com/

[Joseph Burrell]

mini Skirt? :D

[fastlane]

The first Mac Mini web site. Check out the MacNova.

http://www.byodkm.net/

[Garritan]

The first Mac Mini web site. Check out the MacNova.

http://www.byodkm.net/

Great site fastlane!