Hated DP4 till i did this....

[amplidood]

As a matter of fact I was getting pissed off at OS X in general. That is until a friend of mine with some insider hookups informed me that Apple is no longer testing X on G4's. In fact, they haven't been since 10.3.5. So guess what....I did an install of 10.3.4 and WOW. My dual-gig G4 is now an entirely new beast. I mean, I had just done a complete 10.3.8 reinstall last week and could not get rid of the wackiness and crashes. It seems Apple's not concerned with us poor G4 lackies anymore. Fine. Until I can afford a G5, 10.3.4 it will be for me.

The difference in usability and responsiveness in DP4.52 with this version of X is quite unbelievable.

[sdfalk]

As a matter of fact I was getting pissed off at OS X in general. That is until a friend of mine with some insider hookups informed me that Apple is no longer testing X on G4's

So they's release mac minis, G4 powerbooks and Ibooks, and not test on G4's?
Sorry but that seems like bullsh•• of the highest order.

[dubaifox]

hmmmmmmm

Interesting.

I have a Dual 1.25 and went from DP 4.12 to 4.52 and at the same time updated my OS from 10.3.4 to 10.3.7 and now I can't even run any DP session without it "Unexpectedly Quitting every 5 minutes. Even a session with 1 MIDI track.

How do you revert to an older OS?

I might try this.

[Socolov]

Man , this is bullsh*t .... Not you amplidood, I meant Apple.

If this is true , it looks like MOTU isn`t the
problem , but Apple is.
Looks like Apple only cares about the users
who buy the newest products .
Well they could go to h*ll

[amplidood]

it may be sd, it may be... all i know is after trying twice to get 10.3.8 to rock my machine, it just made mincemeat of it. 10.3.4 actually makes it feel like a hot machine again. My firewire drive that was misbehaving is happy again. DP4 with AutoTune isn't making me cry every 15 minutes. Dp4 is actually repsonsive again. If they are still testing these updates on G4's they must be trying to get away with it just working just enough.

Believe me, I rolled my eyes at my friend who said go back to 3.4. But getting pissed at my machine for a week and now loving it again? That made a believer out of me.

[Circuitt]

I must agree we got some weird •••• going on, and i don't like it, i want something to just work damn it!
i hate having to jump through all these damn hoops to get simple things done, i want to make music and stop screwing with settings.....
oh yeah and get a g5 so my uad cards start acting up?
it's a never ending battle, pro-tools?
or yall think they are having just as many problems.
i like dp cause i use a lot of outboard synth samplers, so the MIDI is coo, but dunno everything is acting like •••• right now!
i was working on something tonight and then had to switch modes to figure out some bullsh••, and lost whatever idea i had at the moment...
sniff sniff

[chrisblytheuk]

interesting discussion;
i have a G5 on 10.3.8 and DP4.12 and I can't get things to work as tjey should. Frequent crashes, problems with playback of sound. wonder if its the same thing?

[sdemott]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I use 10.3.8 with Dp 4.52 and I have NO problems whatsoever. You must have a f*%^ed up system to begin with. 10.38 is MUCH faster than any previous version of Panther because it is better optimized for ALL processors.

I was using a 1.25GHz PowerBook and as of yesterday I upgraded to a 1.67 GHz, and yes the 1.67 is faster, but I was able to do a lot with the old PowerBook. It wasn't that I hit the ceiling - I just got a great upgrade through my day gig.

OS X requires a lot more maintenance than OS 9...and what most people on this board chalk up to DP or the OS is really just a poor grasp of what is required to keep their systems running clean.

I've posted several times with a lot of info about keeping a system running clean - but what it comes down to is this: if you don't know UNIX buy a couple good utilities: Panther Cache Cleaner & either Tech Tool Pro or Disk Warrior and use them regularly. Turn off everything that isn't needed to do music (alll networking, all auto update features of all apps, all power saving features), use disk utility to repair permission weekly and use a utility to run the UNIX maintenance scripts regularly.

Don't mean to sound harsh, but please don't make any outrageous claims you can't back up with 1st hand information...I am a registered Apple Solutions Provider & and my day gig is IT in a 95% Mac environment. And yes, I know people at Apple and can back up my claims.

Just trying to refocus the discussion back to the facts...no harm intended

[fokof]

I have a dual 2ghz G5 with x.3.8 wich runs perfectly with 4.52.
I also have a powerbook , 1.5ghz ( G4) wich I use daily , in a live situation to run Altiverb/DP and SFooX simultaniously.
Never had a crash with the G4. Over a year now. My system must be f&$%? up.....

[sdfalk]

Hey no harm intended either, but uh.. it still sounds like
bullsh••.
I also have an old G4 kicking around and performance of every app, up to and including the finder is wayyy better.

[Timeline]

Hello sdemott

That;s an impressive gig.

I have a question for you. How many devices should one expect from a UAD-1 with 50 tracks of 96K audio a few virtual synths and abou 50 various MOTU plugs?

Also run SCSI 15k spin 320 drives on the PCI buss.

I'm getting clipping with anything more than 2 or 3 1176s.
Meter at 50%

Could the scsi reduce my throughput that far alone?

[glmusic]

I have a SCSI card as well and it seems I read or heard that it should be in the farthest slot away from the video card as that is a seperate PCI bus or something on that order. The other 3 (in a digital audio machine anyway) share a bus. Locating the SCSI card in that farthest slot could make the difference in throughput if you haven't already done so.

[kwiz]

Originally posted by sdemott:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I use 10.3.8 with Dp 4.52 and I have NO problems whatsoever. You must have a f*%^ed up system to begin with. 10.38 is MUCH faster than any previous version of Panther because it is better optimized for ALL processors.

I was using a 1.25GHz PowerBook and as of yesterday I upgraded to a 1.67 GHz, and yes the 1.67 is faster, but I was able to do a lot with the old PowerBook. It wasn't that I hit the ceiling - I just got a great upgrade through my day gig.

OS X requires a lot more maintenance than OS 9...and what most people on this board chalk up to DP or the OS is really just a poor grasp of what is required to keep their systems running clean.

I've posted several times with a lot of info about keeping a system running clean - but what it comes down to is this: if you don't know UNIX buy a couple good utilities: Panther Cache Cleaner & either Tech Tool Pro or Disk Warrior and use them regularly. Turn off everything that isn't needed to do music (alll networking, all auto update features of all apps, all power saving features), use disk utility to repair permission weekly and use a utility to run the UNIX maintenance scripts regularly.

Don't mean to sound harsh, but please don't make any outrageous claims you can't back up with 1st hand information...I am a registered Apple Solutions Provider & and my day gig is IT in a 95% Mac environment. And yes, I know people at Apple and can back up my claims.

Just trying to refocus the discussion back to the facts...no harm intended

Sounds like good advise and I'm not doubting it. I have 4 macs networked for file transfer purpose's as well as power saving features enabled. I do use Disk Warrior, and Tech tools on a regular, and I use Macaroni for Unix and repair my permissions weekly. My question is, if I disable the power saving function, and take my main work cpu off the network will I have better performance? Right now things are running smooth with these features enabled.

[sdemott]

Originally posted by sdfalk:
Hey no harm intended either, but uh.. it still sounds like
bullsh••.
I also have an old G4 kicking around and performance of every app, up to and including the finder is wayyy better.

odd, since every test we've done here indicates the single processor G5s are slower than most of the recent G4s. There are technical reasons (the G5 has a much better memory bus, but is geared for dual processor loads). In fact IBM didn't want to use the current "G5" as the "G5", they had planned on making a dual core G4 the G5 chip, but Apple insisted on the current chip. A big mistake in my opinion, but good for marketing I suppose.

You can even check out www.barefeats.com & www.macintouch.com for their test results, which support this with similar hard data to what we see in our organization.

[sdfalk]

I'm sure that might be true, but we where tallking about someones "inside information" about Apples lack of support
for G4 computers where we not?
I am a little sleepy in the mornings, maybe I'm misunderstanding
your statement?
As for a Dual G4 being faster then a single G5, that may be true.
However if I spent all my time looking at specs/speedtests on the internet, I'd never get anything done.
I run a lean system, get lots of tracks, Virtual instruments, at
high sample rates and low buffer settings.
Pretty happy overall.