Any Solid News About The New Macs Release Date ?

[eddierodriguez]

Originally Posted by Football

Huh? The bash seems childish? You really must not have read my post. I don't understand your response to my post at all nor would I care to continue this type of conversation with you based on what you said. Carry on without me folks.

you´re not interested in objective face to face, that´s ok.

i don´t want you or any other guy to like working with other OSes than OSX, but i have to clarify, that you find fault with xp/vista functions that are easily accessable. the differences in OSes are minimal by now, for some they are big enough to hate the others, but please face the facts (and functions).

don´t feel attacked, i´m just objective-speaking

[ProducerBoy]

AppleInsider | Apple plans mystery "product transition" before September's end

AppleInsider | Apple's next-gen MacBook Pro casing design revealed

Apple Hints at a 'Product Transition' and a New Product Soon? - Mac Rumors

Apple Prepping for Notebook Refresh? - Mac Rumors

[sonicdefault]

Originally Posted by ProducerBoy

AppleInsider | Apple plans mystery "product transition" before September's end

AppleInsider | Apple's next-gen MacBook Pro casing design revealed

Apple Hints at a 'Product Transition' and a New Product Soon? - Mac Rumors

Apple Prepping for Notebook Refresh? - Mac Rumors

If this is true... it just goes to show how savvy Apple is. I think that would be a good move for them as a lower margin would probably ultimately pay off with a lager user base. And for us... more for our money??? I'll take that.


-SD

[dkatz42]

Originally Posted by Infa

Yes eventually they will have 16 TB of RAM in their Tower Mac Pros. But NOT with in the next release (do I think) (ha, maybe they will !!!)

Well, given that the biggest DIMM sticks I've seen are 8GB, it would require 2000 sticks costing millions of dollars (and a small power plant and a large HVAC unit) to pull it off. Saying that the machine can *address* 16TB (meaning a wider address bus) doesn't mean that it will be practical any time soon to actually construct such a beast, at least for home use.

Originally Posted by Infa

As far as do we need that ? Well right now no, because it hasn't been available for us. BUT if available, then companies slowly will take advantage of it, THEN it will be AWESOME.... A Native PT system being able to access 16TB of RAM ?? Man, you could have 4 powerful plug ins on ALL 48 channels EACH (=192 powerful plug ins !!) at 24 bit 96k with out one slow down or choke at all !! SWEET !!

I'm not sure if you're being tongue-in-cheek here, but RAM doesn't make your machine go any faster once you stop swapping to disk. It just empties your wallet in a hurry. (That 16TB means that it will take a week and a half to boot while it all gets tested...)

[Infa]

Originally Posted by dkatz42

Well, given that the biggest DIMM sticks I've seen are 8GB, it would require 2000 sticks costing millions of dollars (and a small power plant and a large HVAC unit) to pull it off. Saying that the machine can *address* 16TB (meaning a wider address bus) doesn't mean that it will be practical any time soon to actually construct such a beast, at least for home use.

I'm not sure if you're being tongue-in-cheek here, but RAM doesn't make your machine go any faster once you stop swapping to disk. It just empties your wallet in a hurry. (That 16TB means that it will take a week and a half to boot while it all gets tested...)

Very true... ha ha.. I agree, that would be insane crazy prices and space and WOW.. BUT think about.. Just like a 1 MB hard drive was the bees knees back in the day costing like 5K or more !!... (so my older friend says, I sure don't remember that, but he does know his shizznit) and now 1 Mb hard drive would be FREE... I am sure in due time they will figure out ways to do it, and to do it for cheap. I am sure they will start making TINY 1TB sticks of ram. Also, make them pretty cheap one day. (one day).

As far as me saying it would make my computer faster ? I never implied that. I said we could run a amazing amount of plug ins on a Native DAW system. Isn't RAM what is "accessed" by Native DAW systems plugs ? Ram is very important no matter what it does, and I have several times made the biggest best systems choke with certain plug in demands on fellow engineers systems. Me myself, I stick to DSP systems for that exact reason.

[Football]

Originally Posted by eddierodriguez

you´re not interested in objective face to face, that´s ok.

i don´t want you or any other guy to like working with other OSes than OSX, but i have to clarify, that you find fault with xp/vista functions that are easily accessable. the differences in OSes are minimal by now, for some they are big enough to hate the others, but please face the facts (and functions).

don´t feel attacked, i´m just objective-speaking

I'm not interested in objective face to face? Again, I don't know what the heck you are talking about here in general. I stated I used XP and eventually moved to OSX, that's it. There's no more to the story worth telling. Get it? I am not sure why your are coming up with this other stuff. Let's leave it at that please. I'm sure others here are happy to debate this.

[astronmr20]

I think we will likely see a different product first.... perhaps a mini-laptop/ pocket computer akin to the iphone. Think touch-screen interface.

[dkatz42]

Originally Posted by Infa

Very true... ha ha.. I agree, that would be insane crazy prices and space and WOW.. BUT think about.. Just like a 1 MB hard drive was the bees knees back in the day costing like 5K or more !!... (so my older friend says, I sure don't remember that, but he does know his shizznit) and now 1 Mb hard drive would be FREE... I am sure in due time they will figure out ways to do it, and to do it for cheap. I am sure they will start making TINY 1TB sticks of ram. Also, make them pretty cheap one day. (one day).

My first hard drive was 10MB and it was $1000, but that was 25 years ago. I like to point out that the 2GB of RAM in my laptop would cost $250M in 1974 dollars if I bought it back when I touched my first RAM chips.

Things do get cheaper and smaller and faster (though we're starting to run into problems because individual atoms are too big.) But even if we were able to keep up with the rate we've done in the past, which is questionable, three orders of magnitude is a *lot* of improvement to cover. It will certainly take longer than the useful life of any hardware or software being delivered in the near future, so the utility of a 16TB address space in the next o/s is worth exactly nothing, but it sounds nice. It's a marketing number that comes from the width of the address bus. What it really means is that memory address space ceases to be an issue, which *is* a good thing for people who really need tens of GB (of which there aren't many right now.)

Originally Posted by Infa

As far as me saying it would make my computer faster ? I never implied that. I said we could run a amazing amount of plug ins on a Native DAW system. Isn't RAM what is "accessed" by Native DAW systems plugs ? Ram is very important no matter what it does, and I have several times made the biggest best systems choke with certain plug in demands on fellow engineers systems. Me myself, I stick to DSP systems for that exact reason.

You didn't say it would make it faster, but as processing speed is the bottleneck in track counts and DSP, faster is what you need.

RAM is very important until you have enough, and then it's just expensive Malaysian sand. Audio is not particularly demanding on RAM, except when it's used as a last-ditch resource (like loading samples into RAM because mass storage is too slow to seek, a problem that is going away in the near future.)

There seems to be a belief around here that throwing more RAM at your machine will magically improve its performance, but even with today's machines (and memory prices) you can already put in more RAM than you can use, and many people seem to do so. (I'd like to see just how much RAM in the 10GB machines I see people using actually ever sees anything other than zeroes.)

A truism of computer engineering is that RAM and CPU speeds generally need to grow together, as too much of one accomplishes little without the other. One of today's machines with 16TB of memory, even if it were feasible, couldn't do anything better than a machine with 16GB of memory (and even the 16GB box is of dubious utility.)

[eddierodriguez]

Originally Posted by Football

I'm not interested in objective face to face? Again, I don't know what the heck you are talking about here in general. I stated I used XP and eventually moved to OSX, that's it. There's no more to the story worth telling. Get it? I am not sure why your are coming up with this other stuff. Let's leave it at that please. I'm sure others here are happy to debate this.

keep cool, in general i used "you" for everyone and not you alone.

it was your "i hated it" and wanted to discuss why. most of my studio-colleagues swear on osx and hate xp-standard-config without knowing the features. to justify they praise osx-functions which aren´t osx-only functions anymore.

i would hate every os, program, software generally, if i would not care a fig about it´s functions and the right configuration.

every osx-user would bash me if i´d say osx is the most overrated and totally unusable when i´m not interested in trying it "really" out.

i wrote unclear, sorry for that.

[Infa]

Originally Posted by dkatz42

My first hard drive was 10MB and it was $1000, but that was 25 years ago. I like to point out that the 2GB of RAM in my laptop would cost $250M in 1974 dollars if I bought it back when I touched my first RAM chips.

Things do get cheaper and smaller and faster (though we're starting to run into problems because individual atoms are too big.) But even if we were able to keep up with the rate we've done in the past, which is questionable, three orders of magnitude is a *lot* of improvement to cover. It will certainly take longer than the useful life of any hardware or software being delivered in the near future, so the utility of a 16TB address space in the next o/s is worth exactly nothing, but it sounds nice. It's a marketing number that comes from the width of the address bus. What it really means is that memory address space ceases to be an issue, which *is* a good thing for people who really need tens of GB (of which there aren't many right now.)

You didn't say it would make it faster, but as processing speed is the bottleneck in track counts and DSP, faster is what you need.

RAM is very important until you have enough, and then it's just expensive Malaysian sand. Audio is not particularly demanding on RAM, except when it's used as a last-ditch resource (like loading samples into RAM because mass storage is too slow to seek, a problem that is going away in the near future.)

There seems to be a belief around here that throwing more RAM at your machine will magically improve its performance, but even with today's machines (and memory prices) you can already put in more RAM than you can use, and many people seem to do so. (I'd like to see just how much RAM in the 10GB machines I see people using actually ever sees anything other than zeroes.)

A truism of computer engineering is that RAM and CPU speeds generally need to grow together, as too much of one accomplishes little without the other. One of today's machines with 16TB of memory, even if it were feasible, couldn't do anything better than a machine with 16GB of memory (and even the 16GB box is of dubious utility.)

Yea, I see. And agree. Makes sense too.

[JMWS]

All this talk about RAM and processors, what about the hard drives for MacBook Pro?

Maybe it would be time to throw those hard drives away in history books and move on with Solid State Drives... at least that´s what I feel, because the weakest part in my laptops have always been the hard drives.

[Blake Minaker]

I thought I should try to clarify some truths and mis-truths in this thread:

1) RAM: The ram limit on a true 64-bit operating system is 16 exabytes, or 16.8 million terabytes. Hardware even close to reaching this magnitude, or even 16TB, let alone is a decade or more plus away from being available for small budget use and fitting in a MacPro-esque.

2) Snow Leopard. Snow Leopard should be an Intel only version of OS X that will use the same, streamlined version of the OS as Leopard designed to only with with Intel Macs, hopefully increasing efficiency.

3) MacBooks etc..: The Mac Book Pro already runs at 2.6ghz, so 3.0 isn't exactly ground breaking when the technology already exists. Instead, the next refresh of the MBP will likely include a quad-core chip. Intel has been working on a mobile quad for some time now, and announced this week that they expect it to be available before the end of the year.

4) Solid State Drives: Solid State Drives read incredibly fast. However, they write slower than conventional drives. Not necessarily ideal for a DAW where writing is a huge concern. They haven't reached the point yet where they are worthwhile of replacing a standard disk in intense projects regarding either price or capability

So mobile wise, you should look for Apple to be releasing a MacBook with Snow Leopard powered by a quadcore, which will likely cause me to get rid of the white MacBook that I have now that works just fine with Logic ;) As far as a Mac Pro goes, you won't be seeing 16TB any time soon, not that you would need it anyway.

[mattrixx]

Originally Posted by Infa

Matt, I know this. If you read my post more carefully, I am talking about 16 Terrabytes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not Gigabytes...

I must admit, I thought it was a typo.... Mmm, 16 TB..