Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Music Computers (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/)
-   -   IS OSX Less efficient then OS9? (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/3584-osx-less-efficient-then-os9.html)

atticus 1st April 2003 05:38 PM

IS OSX Less efficient then OS9?
 
I've been doing a bit of research into the operational overhead of various operating systems with regards to audio. I have not had a lot of time to compare OS9 with OSX and I was wondering if OSX placed more of a drain on the system then OS9? I know it's a loaded question with tons of potential variables but if anyone could humor me I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

MCal27 1st April 2003 07:19 PM

Dave,
OSX certainly loves a powerful machine.... run it on a Beige G3 and you'll see that its not as nippy as when running 8.6 or 9.
But on (say) a G4 500 or more, OSX runs better than an unconfigured OS9 system... eg: an OS9 system without too much extension trimming etc. And on a high end Mac (733 or above...) it runs better and smoother than OS9 is possible of doing. Its down to the way the code is written. Windows float around with ease. Multiple apps run together with seemingly little slowdown... And things will only get better... Panther (10.3 coming soon to a Mac near you) will run even smoother, and make going back to OS9 even more of a pain ;-)

The future's bright folks fuuck


Al.

atticus 1st April 2003 07:58 PM

Cool. I have a new Mac in my future then! I had to purchase WIN XP Pro yesterday for my office machine. What a sucky feeling to line Gates' pockets.

XHipHop 1st April 2003 08:02 PM

On the mac rumor sites they are predicting Apple will introduce it's new IBM chips at the next Mac World NY (MW is now called "Create").

They are reportedly goign to max out at duel 2.4 ghz chips and be available 8 weeks after the conference (that means august).

Sorry if that is off topic but if you're thinking about getting a powerful Mac, it's something to keep in mind.

And I'd just like to add that due to the quartz extreme graphics system OSX uses, screen redraws are often much smoother than in OS9.

kenn.michael 1st April 2003 08:41 PM

The other thing to keep in mind is that in OS9, any single application had the ability to completely take control of the computer - which means that although you couldn't do anything else on the machine while that program was doing its thing, you got that extra little squeeze more power. In OSX, no program is allowed to "hog" the processor, which gives you the ability to multi-task, but also might rob you of a couple percent of CPU power. I find it's really amazing to be working in Logic, playing a mix, while browsing the web, checking email, burning a CD, and playing a QuickTime movie.

atticus 1st April 2003 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by XHipHop
On the mac rumor sites they are predicting Apple will introduce it's new IBM chips at the next Mac World NY (MW is now called "Create").

They are reportedly goign to max out at duel 2.4 ghz chips and be available 8 weeks after the conference (that means august).

Sorry if that is off topic but if you're thinking about getting a powerful Mac, it's something to keep in mind.

And I'd just like to add that due to the quartz extreme graphics system OSX uses, screen redraws are often much smoother than in OS9.

Thanks for the heads up!kfhkh

vudoo 1st April 2003 09:16 PM

Hi all,

Unfortunately, i'm having the total opposite experience. I own a PT HD2/ 192 I/O rig that is running amazing under OS 9.2.2...The same config under OS X is definitely more sluggish and not as reliable, but i'm still testing it though so maybe it's a bit early to blame it on OS X.
One thing that i can confirm for sure is that most of our Video editing station ( Media 100, Final Cut pro ) runs better ( again faster and more reliavble ) under OS 9. And for our Multimedia/graphics suite.. many scanning, printing features are not even supported under OS X.
So at this point, when it comes time to do a seriuos project, i'm still under 9.2.2 and i fool around with OS X but i don't feel it's there yet.
The configs of all our Video/Audio/Graphics suite are as followed : All Macs are G4/1 Ghz or faster, at least 1024 Mg ram..os 9 and 10 on seperate partition.

XHipHop 1st April 2003 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vudoo
Hi all,

Unfortunately, i'm having the total opposite experience. I own a PT HD2/ 192 I/O rig that is running amazing under OS 9.2.2...The same config under OS X is definitely more sluggish and not as reliable, but i'm still testing it though so maybe it's a bit early to blame it on OS X.
One thing that i can confirm for sure is that most of our Video editing station ( Media 100, Final Cut pro ) runs better ( again faster and more reliavble ) under OS 9. And for our Multimedia/graphics suite.. many scanning, printing features are not even supported under OS X.
So at this point, when it comes time to do a seriuos project, i'm still under 9.2.2 and i fool around with OS X but i don't feel it's there yet.
The configs of all our Video/Audio/Graphics suite are as followed : All Macs are G4/1 Ghz or faster, at least 1024 Mg ram..os 9 and 10 on seperate partition.

Some people that are complaining about OSX performance are finding that if they log onto OSX as a new user, usually the performance immediately increases...which means there is something wrong with their usual setup. It could ba a USB port looking for a missing device or something of that nature. This is information I've gathered from other message boards so it's definitely worth trying to see if performance increases. Maybe some of the moderators could add more on this as I'm still an OSX beginner.

BevvyB 2nd April 2003 12:02 AM

XXhipHop-

I'd be careful about that wanton speculation.

Anything above dual 2.3 is more than the chip maker can even deliver

We are expecting 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 duals in the next line up.

New motherboards are being made at present, but it's not yet sure if they are for the new g5's or not. g5's will be with us by end of year.

There's a tablet in the works - could be in the next few months

New version of osx (plaid) due end of summer said to increase stability and performance

New g3 (perhaps 1ghz) laptop about to break perhaps..

um..no sign of the new ipods yet, any minute now really, think it'll be 10,20,40 gig versions at the same price bracket as earlier models

BevvyB 2nd April 2003 12:04 AM

The other thing to remember is that even though developers may not have come up with totally efficient graphics for their new osc apps, what is under the bonnet may be working more efficiently.

Jules 2nd April 2003 01:45 AM

40 gig Ipod.... Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
freshflowe

fatty 2nd April 2003 02:59 AM

10.3 coming soon... anyboby got an eta on 10.3?
also, what is a tablet?confoosed

XHipHop 2nd April 2003 03:10 AM

So who wants to test plugin performance and track count on an os 9 program vs. it's osX counterpart?

If someone can do a PT test and see how many reverbs they can in each OS and then if someone can do a Logic test that would be awesome.

Also, someone can arm tracks to record until they can't record on anymore tracks.

Let's get some real world test and see if OSX really is less effecient!

Ckevperry 2nd April 2003 06:37 AM

definitely more sluggish....but DEFINITELY more stable. I've been running PT6 since it came out with no glitches, crashes hangs or anything.

davemc 2nd April 2003 07:21 AM

Speed is a worry, I still have an old G4/400..
To go OSX I will probably need a faster machine for my HD3 system.
So you add a new mac, PT6 and all the plug upgrades.
I end up with only a few new PT additions for all that cost.
So at the moment I will be staying put to see what 6.1 or 6.2 adds in advancements..cellfone

MCal27 2nd April 2003 08:31 AM

Dave,
You dont need a new Mac.... Get a Sonnet 1 Gig or 1.2 Gig Accelerator..... Then you still have the Mac you know, but with 'Kick-ass!!' speed bump...

Al.

atticus 2nd April 2003 02:08 PM

Some people have warned the the aftermarket upgrades aren't always stable. MCal, do you know of any problem children in this area?

robot gigante 2nd April 2003 05:37 PM

I've been wondering the same thing about aftermarket upgrades- be nice to hear some feedback from people who have them.

DannyDay 3rd April 2003 12:33 AM

I've had _very few_ crashes with PT since I've started using it... like 5 since 1994 (that's right, a long time ago back in the early days). This includes Sound Tools and ProMaster20 systems. Ran great in OS 7.x-9.2.2. It runs well in OSX as well. All the problems seem to be OSX related.

We've had some weird OSX problems, very much like a previous poster mentioned. They relate to the "user" file getting corrupted somehow. Man, was that ever a hassle trying to figure that one out!!! Little by little PT began running slower and slower and PT lept saying "disk too slow or fragged ". After a few days the audio drive could not be accessed by PT until finally OSX started having the same problems with the boot drive until the Mac refused to boot at all. Logging in as root (with OSX install Disc) and deleting the corrupted user and adding a new one solved the problem.

This is a problem on all our OSX Macs (we're using about 15 or so). The problem resurfaces about every week or so. OSX isn't ready for prime-time yet. Too bad we have one new MDD Mac that cannot boot into OS9.

L. D.

DannyDay 3rd April 2003 01:56 AM

I've had _very few_ crashes with PT since I've started using it... like 5 since 1994 (that's right, a long time ago back in the early days). This includes Sound Tools and ProMaster20 systems. Ran great in OS 7.x-9.2.2. It runs well in OSX as well. All the problems seem to be OSX related.

We've had some weird OSX problems, very much like a previous poster mentioned. They relate to the "user" file getting corrupted somehow. Man, was that ever a hassle trying to figure that one out!!! Little by little PT began running slower and slower and PT lept saying "disk too slow or fragged ". After a few days the audio drive could not be accessed by PT until finally OSX started having the same problems with the boot drive until the Mac refused to boot at all. Logging in as root (with OSX install Disc) and deleting the corrupted user and adding a new one solved the problem.

This is a problem on all our OSX Macs (we're using about 15 or so). The problem resurfaces about every week or so. OSX isn't ready for prime-time yet. Too bad we have one new MDD Mac that cannot boot into OS9.

L. D.

Patric Doyle 3rd April 2003 02:18 AM

Sonnet upgrades
 
I have a Sawtooth G4-350. I upgraded with Sonnet's 1ghz card and it is seamless. It is FAST and stable. No complaints. I run DP3, 2408II, DM-24. My track count DOUBLED with the upgrade. I used to starty bogging down around 20-24 tracks. now I get away with 24 tracks and lots of stock and PSP plug-ins. cost....$600. Patric

davemc 3rd April 2003 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MCal
Dave,
You dont need a new Mac.... Get a Sonnet 1 Gig or 1.2 Gig Accelerator..... Then you still have the Mac you know, but with 'Kick-ass!!' speed bump...

Al.

Hmmm Might look to see how much they are in OZ.

plowndes 3rd April 2003 05:54 PM

OSX, Motu, Emagic issues!!!
 
Hey guys/gals,

My setup consists of:

G4 Dual 1.25GHz, 1.25 gigs ram OSX
additional ATA-100 8 meg buffer HD
Motu 2408mkIII/PCI-424
Logic 5.5

I have been having problems with this arrangement - for example yesterday I was recording 14 tracks simultaneously and it would work, but eventually (or soon) recording would cease in the middle of the song and an error message would come up saying that I have a disk overload or system resource overload.. (the disk I/O meter does jump up, but does not appear to max out)... seems to be an easy task for an ATA-100 drive, no? I am monitoring about 4 or 5 already recorded tracks, recording 14... at 24bit/44.1k... shouldn't my ATA-100 drive handle that okay? I've toyed with all the Audio Driver settings, trying virtually every permutation..

I called Emagic, they said it could be the Motu hardware or the Motu PCI-424 driver and said to call them... Motu said to call back Emagic... so I talked to a nice guy at Emagic the 2nd time around and he explained about how there are so many different variables that he really cannot help me... so what should I do at this point? I read the posts about logging in as a new user.. I'll certainly try that... (the symptoms described are very similar - it works, then things progressively get worse!) Someone else suggested that I reformat the main drive and install 10.2 from scratch... any other ideas? Or is it just possible that the MOTU driver for OSX isn't mature yet? The 2nd Emagic tech suggested reverting to OS9 (perish the thought). So anyone here have experience with this combination, or at least with the PCI-424 under OSX? Any ideas? Should I throw OSX out the window?

Thanks,
Paul L

kenn.michael 4th April 2003 01:28 AM

There does seem to be an issue with the way OSX deals with writing to disk which cripples the recording track count. Playing back tracks in OSX is comparable to OS9, but recording is definitely a lot less... Although, from what I hear from the developers of Metric Halo (Mobile I/O) - they're "Recording Panel" app that's in betastage can record 32 channels of 24bit 48K audio no problem. So this may be an Emagic problem.

Burt 4th April 2003 09:02 PM

sluggish re-draws
 
My system (OS 10.2.4 - Pro Tools 6.0.1) has been extremely stable but my screen redraws and audio selection is much slower and more jerky than under OS 9.2.2 + PTs 5.1.3.

Under 9.2, a 10minute section of recorded audio would show as a waveform almost instantaneously... under 10.2.4 it takes half a second or so to draw the waveform. When selecting an audio section by dragging the selector cursor across a waveform region it was smooth as hell under 9.2 - now its slightly jerky. Minor irritants maybe but a little disappointing.

Playback and recording so far seem unaffected but no major testing done yet on my system.

Burt

Jens 4th April 2003 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DannyDay
...Little by little PT began running slower and slower and PT lept saying "disk too slow or fragged ". After a few days the audio drive could not be accessed by PT until finally OSX started having the same problems with the boot drive until the Mac refused to boot at all. Logging in as root (with OSX install Disc) and deleting the corrupted user and adding a new one solved the problem.
L. D.


I´m not an X-pert (sorry) but this app might help, it claims to "Repair file and folder permissions", and a lot more.

http://www2.dicom.se/cocktail/index.html

/Jens

DannyDay 5th April 2003 05:36 AM

Thanks Jens. I give it whirl. My beef is that I shouldn't have to do any repairs at all, by third party or first (me).

Thanks for the link.

D.

jbirk 5th April 2003 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DannyDay
Logging in as root (with OSX install Disc) and deleting the corrupted user and adding a new one solved the problem.
L. D.

can't you just log in as 'root' and take care of that (without the CD)? i'd like to hear more, if possible, about what is getting corrupted... thanks

plowndes 6th April 2003 10:05 PM

OSX LOGIC 2408mkIII update
 
Okay, so no luck with getting the IDE drive to be happy recording 14 tracks under OSX (dual 1.25Ghz, ATA-100) into Logic 5.5 through the 2408 mkIII.... so I installed the Motu setup into my G4/466/1.25gig ram, using OS9...... (under recommendation from the Emagic tech)... works FINE, no recording track count problems... Of course now my AU plugins are gone, and I have to say that the stock Emagic AU plugins are fantastic, so I am disappointed... for now..

So the ATTO U4LS ultra 320 SCSI interface, Seagate 15k 36gig ultra 320 drive, and LVD 320 cable came in the mail, so I figured what heck - throw them into the new Mac, and see if it works under OSX... after swapping PCI cards (the ATTO and the PCI-424 weren't happy being adjacent) I got it working.. and ran the test... 16 tracks simultaneously while monitoring 8 (44.1k, 24 bit) and, as expected, the hard drive didnt even flinch. I even copied a 1 gig folder from the main drive to the SCSI drive while recording the 16 tracks - no problem. So yes this is an expensive solution to my recording track count dilemma under OSX (hopefully this will be resolved with future Motu PCI OSX drivers, or maybe in Logic 6) , but it works, and I get all the benefits of OSX. Talk about overkill, though.

-Paul

rnt_u_listnng 10th April 2003 12:23 AM

OSX vs. OS9.2.2 for PT Plugs
 
I upgrade a g4/400 to a Powerlogix DP 1.3GHz card and have had absolutely no problems with it. It works great with PT5 and PT6. The increase in the number of RTAS plugs is impressive.

With regard to a comparison of OS9.2.2 versus OSX, I moved a session that I had maxed out under OS9 to OSX. When I dedicated one entire CPU (99%) to PT under OSX, I got essentially the same performance as I did with the maximum CPU setting under OS9. So the plug performance is about the same, if anything slightly less in OSX but very, very slight.

The significant benefit under OSX was the display performance improvement when operating at this CPU level. Because OSX offfloads the screen management to the second CPU, you never get the sluggishness you would get under OS9.

Overall, I spend 90% of my time in OSX now and find it to be fairly stable. Waves needs to fix a bug in their plugs that causes audible distortion during playback periodically cellfone . Very few synth plugs available at this time as well. For recording and mixing, PT6 is working fine for me.kfhkh

John