To any current G3 Powerbook users/musicians:
I have an opportunity to buy an older 1999 Apple Mac G3 Powerbook from a friend of mine for a very good price, but I was curious to know if it's still a good enough computer to use for sequencing electronic music when I
get a Cubase program for it. Its processing speed is 400 Mhz and it has a 6 gigabyte hardrive. I believe he expanded the RAM memory to 320 Mb. Is this computer model too outdated by now to run the latest Cubase software or is it still reliable and powerful enough to run an older version of Cubase? Would you recommend that I just go out and buy the new more powerful I-Book since it runs on the OS-X operating system?
This would obviously be a lot more expensive than the US$500 that my friend is selling me his computer for. If you recommend that I can stick with this older G3 Powerbook just fine, than what reliable version of Cubase
or Logic or Cakewalk would you suggest I buy to run on it? Any help or feedback regarding this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a bunch.

Regards,
Simon P.

First I think that $500 is not a good deal for the computer. If it had all the needed sofware already installed, and functioning, maybe....
Other than that it should work just fine....
If you have never dealt with cubase I would go with cakewalk metro 5. The learning curve is not nearly as steep. Also if you have never dealt with a mac, and midi sequencing, you are in for a rough road.

For $500, I'd consider it.

It all depends what you want to do with it. Are you just sequencing MIDI? Then it would be perfect, and you wouldn't need the latest version of whatever program you're looking at. If you're concentrating more on VST instruments, plug-ins, and digital audio, then things can get sticky, but I think those specs should be able to run anything, just not as many things at once as a newer system.

Yeah. Some people still use G3s for audio. It's not like buying an old 486 from a friend. It's not that old. Don't compare the 400MHz to PCs either. It's a different CPU altogether.

-tek

I use G3 350 B/W tower 640ram MacOS 9.2.2 with Cubase 5.1 or Logic Platinum 4.8.1 without problems. ( I think the same for Logic 5.).
Should be the same for you if you gonna use sequencing with a few audio tracks, fx,s and vst.
Cakewalk has not made to the Mac platform yet.

The only difference with the faster ibook or even faster computers is that you can run more audio tracks, more quality fx,s and more power vst plugins.
OS X also runs much better if you gonna use Cubase SX and Logic 5.3.
But the plugin front on the OS X is still under deveopment.

Which ever way you decide, You still need an extra firewire hard disk for better audio performance.
( Mind you Im still looking to buy one myself.).

rooks,
You say that cakewalk has not made a program for mac..... Just what was metro 5? http://store.yahoo.com/cakewalkdirect/metro6upgrades.html

Oops.. kaboombah..
I stand to be corrected. Thought they only had the Sonar.
I have heard of Digital performer from MOTU, But Somehow I missed out on this one..

Sorry Folks

Im gonna download the 4.5 demo and check How this one ticks

[This message has been edited by rooks (edited 12-30-2002).]

rooks,
might as well skip the 4.5 and go for the metro 6 demo. I'm pretty shure that 5 will be killed soon. Check it out http://sagantech.biz/metro/products.shtml

I would get it ! Macs are not cheap , they are expensive when they are new and they retain more value than any windows machine used . Also Tek is right , you can't compair Mac processors to Pcs . A 400mhz Mac will perform as fast as a 800mhz PC . The basic reason is superior OS and processor instruction set . Not mention the fact that Mac has only one OS as to the Pc's 3 ( all three of which conflict with one another ) . Pc has Bios , DOS , and Windows . The mac OS is it's only operating system . I still have an old Mac 8600/300 which smokes my friends 600mhz PC ( that really pisses him off ) . Bottom line - BUY IT ! Try to talk him down though , it would'nt hurt .

fanboy alert!

Yep , I'm not affraid to admit it . Everybody is a fan of something .

I sequence on a Pentium I, 75MHz, 16MB RAM, running MS-DOS 6.2, Windows 3.1, and the most recent version of NoteWorthy Composer. It works like a charm. Your PowerBook should be fine...

I'm not, I hate everything.

Ive never heard anyone say that in comparing macs with x86.. how much difference does it make? you gotta link or something?

Plus N.T.5+ doesnt have dos right? all 32bit?

open to corrections.. i still use 98.

Hah Cloak , I know you don't hate everything . Jiddu , All Pcs use Bios , DOS , and Windows ( for those who use Windows , there is also Linux for example ) . Since you're running Windows 98 , every point and click is translated to dos commands and executed . Windows is really just a smoke screen for what is really happening for the computer to complete a task . Bios is an operating system in itself , small as it is . You're computer can boot from bios to a " limited " functional ability . The Macintosh has only the GUI operating system , no second and third to conflict . Without the Mac os or an OS cd in the drive , it will not boot at all . Macintosh computers can read PC files , Pcs cannot read Mac files , they have enough trouble reading there own files . There are people who have tinkered and tinkered and tinkered to get there windows machine to function reliably , so it's not impossible , just a complete pain in the ass . Macs are more expensive because they come complete and ready for everything right out of the box . Pcs that you see for $599.99 , remember - you still need a graphics card , sound card , sometimes you need to get an ethernet card , modem card , and that adds to the price . The comparison on Mac processors and PC processors can be found at apple.com and then search for the Megahertz myth . Mac's aren't jumping all over the gigahertz bandwagon because they don't need to yet . A new E-MAC 700mhz ( G-4 ) outperforms any pc running 1.4ghz . The top of the line G-4 dual processor 1.25 ( 2 - 1.25 ghz ) is $5,000 because it is the fastest computer you can buy . Even the cheaper macs L-2 cache operates at full processor speed . Pcs are more common not because they are better ( there not even close ) , Steve Jobs of Mac wanted Mac to be exclusive and didn't license there software to alot of people . Over the past 5 years they now know that it was not a good idea . They are still the only company with over 2 billion dollars in cash , no pc company came close . When the new flat panel Imacs came out , lines formed , waiting lists had to be made . No pc company ever had that . Over 7 million G-3 Imacs were sold .

Nope I don't work for apple either . Ha ! I just had to clear that one up . Although , I wouldn't mind ! So , if anyone from apple reads this - Gimme a job you gypsy dildos ! Yeah , that should work .

800dv, we're all getting very concerned about you. Seek help.

Even though I'll have to remember "gypsy dildos" for the next time MRT1212 pisses me off.

I thought you might like that one .

the following is what happens to your post when you have voice recognition, drink expresso like it was coffee, and just can't shut up.

Take the computer off his hands, spare the landfill, tell him to accept $200 for it because that's it's approximate street, and if it's not, excuse me then lets wait a couple weeks then it will be. Tell him when you're done with it, you'll give it to his kid for nothing (donate)*.

OFF POSTED TOPIC...MAC/PC = APPLE/ORANGE turned to MAC/PC = APPLEORANGE/ORANGE
Cubase runs better in a Mac. Period. Unless they plan on converting the x86 code to machine language, but for the most crucial portions of sequencing's instruction set with a PC, I can't think of any machine assembly runs to bake that cake. It's done on the upper level.
-Tek was right again as he said above, they work differently (Dammit! LOL)
Mac's proccess low level. PC's use high level proccessing. Although "high level" has a nice sounding ring to it, that's about it. Here's what happens:1mac, 1pc. both computers have the same clock, mem, EVERYTHING'S the same ok. By the time the PC now is prepared and knows it's assigned problem which is next, and, yet to be solved, this is about the same time that the mac delivers the solution. Why? The amount of data a mac needs to compile before it proccesses it is way way less than a PC needs to compile to do the same thing. It is more far more timestaking to write low level machine code than it is to slap a few machine subroutines together
to do the same which explains to you why mac software is so much more pricey, on the other hand it also explains why Windows 98SE is king of the blue screen. Mac's don't blue screen, there's no such thing (LOL unless you are running PC card hardware in it)
Hey, Overall, neither is better or worse than the other OK? It depends on the job. A simple cut and paste for a pc used to have it's advantages over a mac. with all the data kept high level, on a pc, it just gets moved, that data used to have to be broken down and built up again on a mac. With the early mac's there was no such thing as a trim (proccessing selected portions of data that is not previously packeted). It was either a haircut or no haircut. These days (G4), macs can proccess just like a PC if need be (but still on a lower level). Right click now too. Not until today have macs become just as productive as PC's. The software however is still not as simple as higher level PC software
BEST TO ALL IN 2003!
MORPH!

*Never ever ever should a computer be chucked in the can (providing it is not terminally ill or missing too much hardware). Give a 4 year old kid an 11MHz 286, and as long as you have something that he can run with it see his eyes light up. Watch, in no time he will be cloning your old Motorola cell phone, and ??? who knows what else NORAD spoofing? LOL As our body's evolve through the generations, so do our minds...we need to feed these kids.

whatever i was gonna edit this but now im not LOL

[This message has been edited by Morphamatik (edited 01-02-2003).]

Thanks for the informative reply 800dv..

I dont really know much bout OS's.. I have a subject on that this coming semester so it will be good. I have done a fair bit on the DLX ( and a li'l on x86 ) but nothing on macs at all so I cant really say anything about them.

I was just curious as to what you do for a living and where you learnt all you had?



I know you know thats not true.

The Mac G-4 dual 1.25ghz is equal to a PC running at 6.0ghz . As far as I know , I have not seen any PCs running at that speed . Of course , I only pay attention to what PCs are doing only when I have to , so , there may be some .

Since the new MacOS X is based on Unix
( I guess same goes for Linux ),

How does the Unix OS work ????

I'm totally suprised that this topic has not gone bad....real bad. So while we're having a civalised chat about this, here is some food for thought

Tuesday 10th December 2002
Apple could sell OS X as alternative to Windows
[MacUser] 13:21
Marklar, Apple's project to build a version of Mac OS X for Intel processors, may be of more strategic importance to the company than had previously been thought. Far from being a backup project in case the PowerPC chip falls far behind Intel, it may actually be a product that Apple will ship to current Windows users.

US sources close to the project indicated that the company was actively considering selling Marklar as a retail product, effectively allowing users to replace Windows with OS X. Apple is contemplating the move because it sees an opportunity to win market share from Windows when Microsoft introduces Palladium, a version of its operating system that implements digital rights management. Palladium could prevent users from copying any copyright material, such as music or video, without the explicit permission of the rights owner.

Marklar would have no such limitations built in, allowing Apple to appeal to Windows users frustrated by the restrictions on how they use their computers. Apple has taken the stance that users should be free to use their computers how they wish, and that it is up to copyright holders to encourage people to use them responsibly.

A second scenario in which Apple would release Marklar concerns its relationship with Microsoft. Although relations between the two companies are good, it is understood that if it worsens significantly, Marklar would be released in an effort to hit Microsoft's core operating system business. One source suggested that Marklar's release could be triggered by Microsoft cancelling the Mac version of Office.

However, launching Marklar would present some significant dangers to Apple's business. Users would be free to buy generic PC hardware instead of Macs, potentially hitting Apple's highly profitable hardware business. The company would be taking a gamble on many users continuing to prefer its stylish hardware over that of PCs.

Marklar itself is understood to be at an advanced stage of development, with builds matching those of the PowerPC OS X. Apple's bundled applications, including iTunes and iChat, have versions that run on the product.

However, Marklar requires that OS X-native Carbon and Cocoa applications are recompiled to work on Intel processors, and there is no support for pre-OS X Classic applications.

So, now it seems the plot thickens!

I have a friend who uses Unix and as far as PCs , he swears by it . The MAC OSX is based on Unix but has been improved to the standards that Mac users expect . Of course there is always a little copying going on . Apple got the idea for the GUI from Zerox , and improved it . Bill Gates copied the Mac OS to make windows . I do think it's a great idea that Apple could be in the making for an OS for PCs , for the longest time Apple has been tooooo stingy with there OS . Although , most people fall into the megahertz lie , they think that since the PowerPC chips are rated lower in megahertz that the Macs are slower , which is quite the opposite . The Mac G-4 processor is half the size of the Intel P-4 and the 867 mhz Mac uses only 7 pipeline stages to complete an instruction . The P-4 uses 20 to operate at 1.8ghz . So , even though the Mac is only 867mhz , it's over 50% faster in completing instructions . I do think that Apple and Pentium users could all benefit from Apple making an OS for them . It will be interesting to see how it turns out .

If OSX on PC hardware could run the latest version of Logic, I'd totally buy it.

I have more than a sneaky suspicion that Apple Macs will be phased out completely within the next 10 years.

I will do my best to phase in the C64 again. The old brown one! None of that creamy white crap.

The SID will once again rule the earth.

-tek

I used to say the same thing. Now I'm undecided. They could really go either way, but releasing a version of Mac's OS for PCs that allows people to use mac only software on PC hardware could be a step in the right direction - or alternately could kill off their hardware development.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with Apple having the most high tech, most expensive hardware, I'm just opposed to there being no alternative to it.

Hey Hey Apple Macintosh Oranges & Whoppers side of fries. Whomever they are, where they have been, are now, and the place they are going to.
Foundational proccessing is here to stay

Whether the company flip flops outside in and goes Bk#7 big middle finger OR perhaps they may construct the first Tri-Lithium Crystal processor*. Either way, this technology will always be in use until someone finds a completely different system that is far more advanced, practically free, instantly mastered and forces the other into obselescence - - - did I spell that right?


Tri-Lithium under the current laws of chemistry & physics is like, totally not happening OK. Impossible (per say)

Then again, hitting the California Fantasy5 jackpot, then buying a Super Lotto ticket and winning the Super Lotto as well all in the same day is also impossible. You know what though? somebody didit. yep. You know what those odds are? impossible odds.
23Trillion :1
The winner was quoted saying "Well I guess I'm a bit lucky aren't I?" how stupid can a person be?
Yeah I GUESS duh you are. Just duh A BIT lucky.

Yes Tek ! Long live the C-64 ! ! ! Sid sounds are awesome . Now they make a synthcartridge for the Atari 2600 , I use it on mine . Great sounds , limited ( 128K ) but useful . I agree Cloak , the alternatives should not be done away with . If Apple does do away with the Macintosh , it would be totally voluntary , they make too much money . But , you never can tell if they just might set their sights on running their OS on PCs and nothing else .

You know there's a synthesizer made here in Sweden, called the SID-station.

Lemme go find a pic.

Here ya go:



-tek

[This message has been edited by tekminus (edited 01-06-2003).]

Apple would likely never willingly give up hardware. I was referring to the idea that if Apple made an OS for PC that allowed a PC to run Mac software, then no one would buy apple hardware anymore.

Hardware is where they overcharge and take in extra profit.

I sequence, record, and mix on cubase SX and before that cubase vst 5.1 and I believe that 400MHZ is not sufficient for serious recording. You said you want to use the latest cubase. Well, that will be SX or SL. In this case, it will not cut it. But if you used older programs, this might do it. I am not very familiar with MACs and so reality check will always be good.

Yeah , Apple does like to charge a pretty penny for their hardware . But , there are ways around that . I would LOVE to have a SID Station Tek ! I live in Atlanta Ga . Getting the cool wierd stuff is hard to do here . Europe has had alot of neat things come out since I started in electronic music . Back in 1985 I got a Jen SX-1000 , made in Italy . A uniqe sound , different from the usual roland and moog sounds . I am still hoping to get a Sid Station one day .

Are you talking about 400mHz on a PC or on a Mac? Sounds like you're talking about on a PC and we've already established that mac 400mHz > PC 400mHz.



So you're saying I should steal one off a truck?

I got this from Steinberg website:

Mac Version

Processor Power Mac G4 (did not say anything about speed)

RAM 256 MB RAM (512 MB RAM MB recommended)

Operating System Mac OS X Version 10.2

Sound Card Supports ASIO 2 spec for high end multi-channel audio cards
Supports Mac OS X compatible audio devices

you can't compare two different architectures like that.

1. So, ( im not saying this is the case but ) each stage in the apple pipeline might take three times as long as a stage in the Intel pipeline meaning that although one has 7 and one has 20 then they take around the same time to complete.
2. Somebody said that apple is similar to a RISC ( i dont know this to be true ) and intel a CISC so apple would have to execute MORE instructions to do the equivalent of a PC.
3. With more stages in the Intel pipeline then there would be less of a chance for a structural pipleine hazard..

I know that each of those points have their downsides ( for intel ) but Im just saying yours is not a valid argument.

This thread seems to be ( subtley ) an x86 bashing thread. While apple outpeform most other computers when it comes to audio production they are not leaders in performance when it comes to other areas of computation.
Because of this it makes it bloody hard to argue the x86 case on a sound production board.
I cannot think of another industry where the apple/PC debate would be as heated as this one.

Plus intel and athlon are working on new architectures ( itanium and sledgehammer i think ) so who knows what will happen in the future.

The Apple G-4 processor outperforms the Itanium as well . The stages in the G-4 pipeline do not take three times as long , the G-4 is superior in graphics applications , audio applications and multi processor applications . These particular applications are as hard as they come . Since the G-4 zips past the P-4 in these processes , that is a valid argument . The G-4 processor is a much better design in working in real world applications , not in what is on the drawing board . Whatever the Major Pc processor companies have planned , Apple has their own plans as well . None of them mean anything until they are out and running .

The big problem with a Mac is that its price can't justify the performance anymore. It used to do that when Mac ruled among audio apps, but PCs are already up at the same level. You can't deny that anymore, because alot of applications seem to have a PC release first these days (Rebirth of the top of my head for example did this). The reason (no pun intended) for this is PC numbers vs Mac numbers, not audio performance.

I'm far from anti-Mac, but I just don't buy the hype with those prices.

-tek

yeah I know but itanium is just in infancy

I didnt say it did.

maybe in 2d image manipulation, macintosh is the industry choice but not for 3d graphics and computer vision.

yeah I said that

I suppose it would depend on the application,
and if you start talking workstations then its a whole new ballgame, but i dont know much about that anyway.

I agree , the prices are way out of hand . When I first started , I bought PCs too . The two times I bought a new Mac , my family helped me . The rest of my macs are used . Price does play a role , it's hard to make the choice when you see PC's for $599.99 and the base G-4 ( E-MAC ) is $999.99 . I don't agree about the 3D graphics Jiddu . As for big networks , well , apple has to finish getting over being an exclusive thing . That has been their biggest problem , and they are learning that . Their was even a time where one of the Mac clones came out to be better than an Apple brand , so they made them all stop . That was a bad move . As far as Pcs , I think Sony does way better than IBM , microsoft or IBM is not going to stop them , they would loose too much . Apple did not see that side of it . But , no one is perfect .