No, that is very good. If it simply said OHCI compliant, that would be bad, as 
that would be a way of saying "generic Firewire." Generic usually isn't stable 
enough.

OK. Well, then. Let's hear it for the iMac. Of course, any Mac will run both OS 
X and Windows, but, now we know, that Firewire interfaces will work in Sonar, 
too. I haven't seen a system yet with TI Firewire that didn't.

The only obstacle that I can think of now regarding the iMac is the single 
internal hard drive. You can attach an external drive, either USB or Firewire.

USB isn't a good option, since USB data transfers can't use DMA, and thus will 
drain processor resources, and will transfer more slowly than Firewire.

The iMac has only one Firewire port/channel, though, so it would be necessary 
to chain an interface and a hard drive, in order to use both at once. The 
iMac's Firewire bus supports Firewire 800, which is more than enough for an 
interface and hard drive. However, most interfaces, the ProjectMix included, 
will only run in Firewire 400 mode. Firewire 400 only has enough bandwidth to 
run a single high quality 7200 RPM drive at full tilt. Not sure if, when a 
Firewire device runs at FW400, it slows all other Firewire devices down to 
FW400, also. Might be possible to get around those limitations with an FW800 
hub. In some cases, though, the limitations wouldn't make a difference. For 
example, if you're mixing, then you're only monitoring one stereo stream of 
audio via the ProjectMix, so it doesn't need much bandwidth, leaving the rest 
of it for the drive. However, if you try to track 16 inputs at once, then 16 
inputs come in from the ProjectMix, and then must go out to the drive, plus the 
playback for any tracks already on the drive. That could get rough.

So, for now, it seems that someone can use an iMac with a M-Audio USB interface 
and a Firewire hard drive, in order to get good performance from both PT and 
Sonar. The issue isn't as clear if a Firewire interface is used. It should be 
fairly good, no matter what, but it would be good if we could figure out the 
bandwidth limitations. A 27 inch iMac would be the best deal for most people 
planning to use MPowered or LE.

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
RvR
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Texas Instruments firewire iMac

Hi,
My brother checked the firewire controller in his current model iMac with i7. 
He dit it under Windows and said the following is mentioned for the firewire 
controller:
"Texas Instruments OHCI compatible". 
So TI as well as the OHCI compatible are stated there. Is this good or bad?
Since Brian wrote the OHCI compatible isn't good.
Don't know if Apple has different configurations for different countries, but 
this iMac is bought in The Netherlands Europe. Perhaps if there will be new 
models later this year they will have other hardware again.
Hth,
Ronald


Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Bryan 
Smart
Verzonden: vrijdag 18 juni 2010 18:22
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable

TI Firewire means that the Firewire controller in the computer is made by Texas 
Instruments, or TI for short.

When running in Mac OS X, I don't know of a way to find out the specifics about 
the type of controllers and such that are in your computer. Apple doesn't try 
to show people that information.

The only way that I know of to find out is if he is running Windows inside 
BootCamp. If so, on Windows, he can go in to Device Manager. Under IEEE1394 
Controllers, the Firewire controller will be listed. TI controllers say 
something like Texas Instruments Firewire. If you see something else, like OHCI 
compatible Firewire, VIA Firewire, etc, then we probably won't be able to use 
it. Those controllers never seem to work right with audio interfaces in Windows.

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
RvR
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 11:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable

Hi,
What is "TI Firewire"?
My sighted brother has a current i7 iMac but isn't into music creation and I 
think doesn't use Firewire. Is there some way I can check with him anyway?
Like to help if I can.
Cheers,
Ronald
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Cameron
Verzonden: donderdag 17 juni 2010 5:35
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable

Hi.  Speaking of Imacs, do we know if Apple plans to put TI firewire in any of 
the Imacs when the line is refreshed?

Thanks,

Cameron.





-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Bryan Smart
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 11:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable

Yeh. It is particularly confusing to blind people when I tell them that the
27 inch iMac is probably the best value for high performance. I know that they 
all think "but I don't need a 27 inch monitor." The thing is, though, they will 
need some sort of monitor , if not because a Mac won't run right without one, 
there is the benefit of making it possible for others in your session to see 
what you're doing. 27 inches seems a bit excessive, but, since Apple sells many 
of the exact same panels, rather than many different monitor options, they get 
the panels at a good price. The LED panels in the iMacs are extremely good 
quality. I wouldn't suggest that a blind person buy such a display separately, 
but, when included with an iMac, you're getting a really good deal.

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
RvR
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable

Hi Brian,
Also came to the conclusion that an iMac would be a better choice. I always 
refused to pay for a monitor thats attached to the iMac which I don't even use, 
but it's the best option I think now for all the reasons you have mentioned too.
The new Mac Minis are more expensive than before. The cheapest is now 800 euro 
and the server even more than 1100 euro. That is even more dollars.
Pretty hefty prices.
Regards,
Ronald
 
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Bryan 
Smart
Verzonden: woensdag 16 juni 2010 21:18
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable

Hi.

I anticipate that many people will have this thought, wanting to use the Mini, 
since it seems like the most inexpensive Mac. It isn't a good idea, in most 
cases. Mostly, the cases where it is a good idea involve you already owning 
one. I wouldn't buy one new for the purpose of running Pro Tools.

The Mini can be an inexpensive computer. You can get one for about $700.
Just add your own keyboard, monitor, and, optionally, speakers, and you're 
ready to go with an inexpensive Mac. That's particularly a great deal if you 
already have an extra monitor, keyboard, and set of speakers. However, as has 
been pointed out, this is only the base model. It has limitations, such as only 
2GB of memory, and a single laptop-type hard drive running at 5400 RPM.

As has also been pointed out, you can upgrade the Mini. Apple has a second 
model, intended for use as a small server, that includes 2 7200 RPM hard 
drives. That would help a lot for our purposes. However, that model starts at 
$1,000. You'll need to buy your own copy of OS X, s adds about $30. In order to 
provide the second hard drive in this model, the optical drive has been 
removed. So, you'll need to purchase an external optical drive $50 to $100, 
depending on what you get. This Mini comes with 4GB of memory, which will be 
fine for tracking/mixing. If you plan to sequence a lot with softsynths, 
though, you'll want 8GB, which adds another $400 to the price.
You still need a monitor, keyboard, and speakers. So, a Mini, with dual 7200 
RPM drives, your own copy of OS X, external optical drive, a basic LCD monitor, 
full Apple keyboard (you won't want to use a PC keyboard with Pro Tools), and 
basic multimedia speakers will cost about $1,300. If you upgraded the memory to 
8GB, that increases the price to about $1,700. What happened to that $700 
computer? Upgrades.

So, if you'd need to spend $1,700, to pimp your Mini, what else could you get 
for that price?

For $1,700, you can get a 21 inch iMac. It still will use a Core Duo processor, 
but will run at 3Ghz, compared to 2.6Ghz in the Mini. It has 8GB of memory. It 
only has a single internal drive, but it is a full desktop hd running at 7200 
RPM, and is 1TB, twice the size of the Mini's largest laptop drives. The 
monitor is built-in to every iMac, and you're getting an extremely high quality 
21 inch LED display, not a cheesy $100 craptastic LCD from the local computer 
store. An Apple keyboard comes standard with the iMac, as does the built-in 
optical drive that you'd be purchasing separately for your Mini. If you want a 
semi-portable solution, an iMac is fairly good for that: computer guts and 
screen are built in to a single frame, so that cuts down on the components and 
cables to transport.

If you want more from the Mini, you're out of luck. That $1,700 package is as 
far as you can upgrade your Mini. The iMac still has room, though. You can 
upgrade the 3Ghz processor to 3.3Ghz for another $200. You can upgrade the 1TB 
hard drive to 2TB for $250.

So, the $700 Mini is a good deal, but only if you're planning to use the basic 
Mini as-is. The upgrades cost too much. If you plan to need an extremely 
high-end Mini, you'll get a better deal getting a lower end iMac.
Since the basic Mini is not enough for any serious Pro Tools work, I'd suggest 
that people get iMacs, instead, and don't waste time upgrading the Mini.

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
RvR
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable

Is the Mini Server usable as normal Mini? What are besides the missing dvd 
drive the other differences between the server and normal one? 
The two 500gb 7200rpm sound good. Need to get an external usb or firewire 
dvd-drive though.


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Frank 
Carmickle
Verzonden: woensdag 16 juni 2010 17:14
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: Re: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable


On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Scott Chesworth wrote:

> Hi Ronald,
> 
> I've mixed 32 track sessions with a minimum of one plugin per track on 
> a Mac mini with worse specs than those, so yeah, it should serve you 
> well enough unless your needs are intensive.  You'll want to work with 
> an HDD faster than 5400rpm though for multitracking, so either go for 
> a smaller capacity internal disk that runs at 7200rpm if Apple offer 
> such a package, or pick up an external drive to use during sessions.

The mini server has two 7200 rpm disks and no dvd drive.  I was disappointed 
that they didn't go to the i5 like the did in the MBP.  I think having two 500 
gb 7200 rpm disks would work out well for audio productions.

> It's also worth keeping in mind that lately, there have been a lot of 
> reports of Mac minis not running well without a physical monitor 
> connected at all times, so if you're aiming for the mini as a 
> screenless ultra portable system that could be a snag in the plan.
> 
Yeah.  That was quite a hassle for me.  I ended up getting a free monitor from 
a friend because it had a busted back light.

Take care
--FC

> Hth
> Scott
> 
> On 6/16/10, RvR <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hello again,
>> There is a new Mac Mini released, but doesn't seem to be much more 
>> powerful than last batch. The fastest model has an Intel Core 2 Duo 
>> at 2.66ghz, 4 or
>> 8 gb of ram and a harddisk of max 500gb at 5400rpm. Firewire 800 is 
>> present though. Do you think such machine is capable of running PT
properly?
>> Thanks!
>> Ronald
>> 




Reply via email to