View Full Version : Mac's turn
Virus hits the Mac (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/22/first.mac.botnet/index.html).
And this right after the latest "I'm a Mac"/Biohazard (http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/) ad airs, ridiculing the PC for the latest virus bout. He who laughs last....
No doubt iPhones will soon be targeted, and that could be a nightmare for users.
TAFKAT
04-22-2009, 08:43 PM
It was only a matter of iTime...:D
This is OLD OLD news.
About 4 months old. That virus was in a cracked version of iWork and Apple even patched it.
Honestly I think it was Apple who put the virus in the iWork cracked copy.
LEX
It sounded like this was recent since the article talks about the buzz this week from Symantec's notice and is dated 4/22. Was the iWork virus iBotnet?
iThink it may at least be an iEvolution of the iWork virus - supposedly it's been updated with some new features - probably support for Time Machine to be sure it's backed up and safe, as well as the ability to run multiple copies under Spaces. ;-)
TAFKAT
04-22-2009, 10:59 PM
iConcur :icon_yes:
Thonex
04-22-2009, 11:49 PM
I thought this thread was going to be that it's Mac's turn to rule.. people beta testing Kontakt 3.5 are seeing a 400% increase in loading samples... :D
:pop_corn:
T
MattiasNYC
04-22-2009, 11:55 PM
iConcur :icon_yes:
iLOL:icon_lol:
Andrew J
04-23-2009, 03:15 AM
oops....
iFarted...
Now you're sounding like iLex
It sounded like this was recent since the article talks about the buzz this week from Symantec's notice and is dated 4/22. Was the iWork virus iBotnet?
iThink it may at least be an iEvolution of the iWork virus - supposedly it's been updated with some new features - probably support for Time Machine to be sure it's backed up and safe, as well as the ability to run multiple copies under Spaces. ;-)
The program infects only computers whose users downloaded pirated versions of the Mac software iWork.
It is surprising that Symmatic is on this now. It was mentioned in the beginning of the year, and users got patches from Apple.
So it isn't exactly as threatening as Conflicker is for PC.
The Mac botnet is significantly less threatening than computer worms like the much-publicized Conficker.c, said Jose Nazario, a senior security researcher with Arbor Networks. Conficker was thought to have infected up to 10 million computers, compared with thousands for the iBotnet, researchers said.
LEX
iPoop
I thought this thread was going to be that it's Mac's turn to rule.. people beta testing Kontakt 3.5 are seeing a 400% increase in loading samples... :D
I've been wondering about that - does that mean they were seeing 1/4 the performance of PC users with Kontakt previously? (I had heard Kontakt sucked on the Mac, but never heard any numbes).
If so, I guess we shouldn't tell them they could have had that relative power increase for 2-3 years, and for half the price. ;-) If not... well... is Kontakt 3.5 performing better on the Mac side now?
Thonex
04-23-2009, 08:28 PM
I've been wondering about that - does that mean they were seeing 1/4 the performance of PC users with Kontakt previously? (I had heard Kontakt sucked on the Mac, but never heard any numbes).
If so, I guess we shouldn't tell them they could have had that relative power increase for 2-3 years, and for half the price. ;-) If not... well... is Kontakt 3.5 performing better on the Mac side now?
You've been able to get 6 fully loaded instances of Kontakt (64 x 6 instruments) in about 8 gigs of ram on a pc for the last 2-3 years?:eusa_whistle:
Keep in mind there are 48 other patches loaded in the other 3 banks of each one of these 6 instances of K3.5
http://www.soaringmusic.com/G5_Quad+6_K3_5s_384_Insts_sm.jpg
and
http://www.soaringmusic.com/Activity_Monitor_6_K3_5s.jpg
TAFKAT
04-23-2009, 08:43 PM
T,
Kontakt 3.5's increased performance on OSX is simply because it is now 64 Bit , the same can now be had on x64 , so whats all of the hysteria about ?
Fire up Cubendo on OSX, and get anywhere near the performance that lets say Daryl is getting with his Dual Quad , XP x64 , VSL rig, and I'll be impressed.
I love how all of a sudden, because Kontakt is now allowing some decent memory usage on OSX, everyone starts carrying on like the wheel has been reinvented.. LOL
You've been able to get 6 fully loaded instances of Kontakt (64 x 6 instruments) in about 8 gigs of ram on a pc for the last 2-3 years?:eusa_whistle:
Keep in mind there are 48 other patches loaded in the other 3 banks of each one of these 6 instances of K3.5
Never said that, and we are talking 64 bit memory access vs. 32 (on my host PC at least) - just wondering what the direct comparison would be. Looks like K3.5 is running efficiently on OSX now. I wonder if anyone with Vista 64 or XP64 has tried the same thing, or is there a way to run Kontakt outside of Cubendo on the PC side?
I ran 6 fully loaded single-bank instances of Kontakt on XP32 for quite a while with only 4G and the /3G switch.
Obviously that's only 1/4th the load of your example, so I wonder how many of those 256 or so instruments are used in a given project? i.e. - when an instrument is played, Kontakt does (or used to) load more into ram, so activating 256 instruments would kick it over the edge in memory usage, even though most is still streamed via DFD.
Currently I have 7 fully loaded instances of Play under Bidule on an 8G Vista 64 system, and am only using 3-4G of ram (granted that's only 16 instruments per instance) - I could load more but everything else is on other PCs already, so no real need, or time to max it out at the moment.
If there is a significant improvement on OSX/Snow Leopard with K3.5 *and* Nuendo, I might consider a Mac down the road, but that's not highly likely. The numbers you posted look impressive, but more info is needed to warrant a switch imho.
I love how all of a sudden, because Kontakt is now allowing some decent memory usage on OSX, everyone starts carrying on like the wheel has been reinvented.. LOL
But Apple did reinvent the Wheel:
Right Here, Reinvented (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Gzq-QEt0s)
LEX
Thonex
04-24-2009, 11:03 AM
T,
Kontizzle 3.5's incrizzle pizzle on OSX is sizzle bizzle it is now 64 Bizzle , thizzle sizzle cizzle now bizzle hizzle on x64 , so whizzle all of thizzle hystizzle about ? Fizzle up Cubizzle on OSX, and gizzle anywhizzle nizzle thizzle pizzle thizzle lizzle sizzle Dizzle is gizzle wizzle hizzle Duizzle Quizzle , XP x64 , VSL rizzle and I'll bizzle imprizzle lovizzle how all of a suddizzle bizzle Kontizzle is now allowizzle somizzle dizzle mizzle usizzle on OSX, evizzle stizzle cizzle on lizzle thizzle whizzle hizzle bizzle rizzle LOL
What?
TAFKAT
04-24-2009, 11:04 AM
Try reading it diagonally.. :wink:
paulwr
04-24-2009, 03:05 PM
iyiyi.......
is there a way to run Kontakt outside of Cubendo on the PC side?
Although I haven't tried it, you should be able to run multiple instances of Kontakt and route the MIDI through Bidule, Maple MIDI, or MIDI Yoke.
Softy
04-24-2009, 07:34 PM
Virus hits the Mac (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/22/first.mac.botnet/index.html).
And this right after the latest "I'm a Mac"/Biohazard (http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/) ad airs, ridiculing the PC for the latest virus bout. He who laughs last....
No doubt iPhones will soon be targeted, and that could be a nightmare for users.
Really? And what so far is the ratio of Mac virus/malware infestations to Windows virus/malware infestations (not counting examples where Windows has been run on the Mac)? My guess is that the ratio is more than extremely slanted in the direction of Windows being a suckier platform than OS X. But then, having been primarily NOT a Mac guy for the past 30+ years, I haven't done any exhaustive testing on this.
I really hope the Mac eventually gets sorted with regard to the i7 platform, 64-bits, etc. Because I for one CAN'T WAIT to switch entirely to the Mac here. I will even be willing to forego any Windows-only stuff to do so. Nobody better be standing between me and that direction when the time comes.
Actually Softy the tech/virus guys say it's been more a matter of presence than security. The Mac just hasn't been a big enough target to attract the hackers - not worth their time to simply access someone's home photo album. lol.
My point in posting this was the irony of seeing that article the day after first seeing the Mac ad on the very same topic. Apple and Mac users can be as smug as they want but the reality is, both are still susceptible to the same problems. (My Mac friends have had some rather unsettling problems on their systems and hardware).
If OSX/Snow Leopard shows some significant advantage for us with Nuendo, sample libs, etc, I might consider a switch at some point, in part so some Mac-addicted clients think I'm cool, but it's a costly move with little return at this point - much moreso than staying with a PC based studio.
But after personal experience, I don't place much confidence in the quality of the Mac's hardware just yet, or OSX's general performance being better than Windows - my old G4 is still kicking (kids' computer now), but my wife's dual G5 was junk. And for all of the user-friendly positives, OSX can be downright annoying sometimes. I use both everyday, fwiw.
Softy
04-24-2009, 09:37 PM
Well yes, so do I use both. Actually, now that I am using an old G4 Mac for e-mail and web browsing (it was given to me by a friend), I really use the Mac a lot more than I use Windows. For whatever it's worth, I have had NO computer problems whatsoever on the Macs around here.
A year or two ago, I switched both of my daughters and my wife (who does web design for a living) to Macs from Windows machines. I speak from a LOT of experience as a computer industry veteran when I say that I have been completely won over to the Mac and to OS X. While I'd never say that I like everything about the Mac and about OS X (I particularly find it irritating how they tend to obscure what's going on behind the scenes), I attribute most of my irritation to my shallower depth of experience.
I have had Macs around since the mid 1980s, when it was the stupid Mac Plus. I never really used them then. It was just because some of my clients had them, and I needed to show that they could be attached to the LAN. But what they have now is great (I also have a 24-inch iMac, a mini and some fairly recent notebooks). Whenever they refresh the Mac Pros and sort out the Nehalem CPU stuff, and release Snow Leopard, I will switch to it entirely. I won't have much to switch to even by then.
Daryl
04-25-2009, 04:06 AM
It all comes down to choice in the end. Having just started to investigate the Mac/PC, OSX/Windows thing again, the situation this year is that Macs are even further behind than they were last year. Coupling that with the huge price increase for a sub-standard machine, means that this is another year where I stick to PC and Windows.
I also think that the Snow Leopard upgrade will be rather more painful than most OSX users expect, but hopefully not as bad as the Intel move was.
D
Softy
04-25-2009, 10:09 AM
I suspect that Snow Leopard will be pretty painful for a lot of Mac users, but not as much so for me. I plan to use it first only on a server, then migrate to it on media app machines as appropriate. Meanwhile, I'll run Leopard on them. I'm looking forward to 64-bit environments. Apple will no doubt force the issue to get fixes. And I will happily leave Nuendo and whatever else behind, if something else seems the way to go.
Daryl
04-25-2009, 10:24 AM
I'm looking forward to 64-bit environments. Apple will no doubt force the issue to get fixes. And I will happily leave Nuendo and whatever else behind, if something else seems the way to go.
I think that you will enjoy finally being able to run in 64bit. It has certainly made my life a lot easier.
Like you, I also use the software that suits me best, but I will always try to use cross-platform stuff, so that I don't lead myself down a blind alley.
D
Like you, I also use the software that suits me best, but I will always try to use cross-platform stuff, so that I don't lead myself down a blind alley.
D
I think that's a wise approach these days.
Snow Leopard is supposed to provide better multi-processor loading and access for developers, as well as an enhanced graphics capability, which of course will take some time to filter into apps - probably a year or two, but maybe Final Cut and Adobe users will see that advantage soon after SL is released.
If SL really pans out in terms of efficiency for audio apps, Mac/OSX will definitely be worth considering at some point for me - esp. given Thonex' report on Kontakt 3.5's capabilities there.
I'm considering an iMac 24" for my wife (professional graphic designer/illustrator). They look great and the self-contained design is a nice space-saver.
On the virus issue, I actually hope there isn't a proliferation of viruses written for the Mac (and Windows 7 puts a nail in a large portion of what's out there now, though I don't know if that's even possible). Imho, viruses could eventually take down a large sector of businesses and cost countries, companies and people like us time, money and income. So far they've only taken pot shots. I fear it could get worse, and having a platform that is immune, even if by simple lack of exposure could save a lot of headaches.
Softy
04-25-2009, 01:06 PM
The "blind alley" thing is not a big issue for those of us who plan never to change platforms (or even upgrade machines) again. I'm sure that I could get by using FCP, Nuendo (or ANY audio apps), etc. on the eight- or 16-core Macs and a 64-bit OS perfectly well enough for the short time I will remain alive and doing things like this. And since I will keep running Nuendo and other Steinberg apps on the Windows machines I have here until they either fail, or I switch to the Mac, I'm not worried about being stuck on either platform.
I don't really even care about what software suits me best. I only care that it's stable and can do a good enough job. I won't spend the time required to figure out whether or not other apps can do something. If I need to drive somewhere, I don't think much about the differences between a 1966 Chevy pickup and an Audi tt.
I must say that I really like the iMac, especially its screen.
The tech/virus guys (I've been one of the tech guys for a long time) have a biasing interest. Mac OS X (and the Darwin Kernel it's based on) have been around longer than any modern MS OS. My opinion is that it is superior from a virus/malware vulnerability point of view. Time will tell I guess, eh? For me, it won't be much of an issue. Most of my computers will never be exposed to the Internet. And I will always maintain drive images to restore them if anything happens.
Softy, since you are a tech guy - what's the vulnerability of other Unix based systems, such as Linux and it's many flavors?
I was using Unix (server based and Sun Sparc stations) before MS Windows came out and it seemed to be well ahead of either Mac or PC then in terms of internal structure. Just wondering if all modern unix kernels are as impervious to intrusion as OSX has seemed to be.
Daryl
04-25-2009, 02:58 PM
The "blind alley" thing is not a big issue for those of us who plan never to change platforms (or even upgrade machines) again. I'm sure that I could get by using FCP, Nuendo (or ANY audio apps), etc. on the eight- or 16-core Macs and a 64-bit OS perfectly well enough for the short time I will remain alive and doing things like this. And since I will keep running Nuendo and other Steinberg apps on the Windows machines I have here until they either fail, or I switch to the Mac, I'm not worried about being stuck on either platform.
Well that's where we differ. I need to upgrade my machine on a regular basis. For me there is no guarantee that a Mac or even OSX will ever be superior to a PC running Windows. In 5 years I may have the opposite opinion. :eusa_think:
D
Softy
04-25-2009, 11:32 PM
Softy, since you are a tech guy - what's the vulnerability of other Unix based systems, such as Linux and it's many flavors?
I was using Unix (server based and Sun Sparc stations) before MS Windows came out and it seemed to be well ahead of either Mac or PC then in terms of internal structure. Just wondering if all modern unix kernels are as impervious to intrusion as OSX has seemed to be.
I haven't been a big user of any Unix system since the olden days myself. But my guess is that it's pretty robust with regard to such issues. But the learning curve might be more than it's worth when it comes to figuring out how to configure it in terms of closing ports, installing firewalls, etc. At least it may be for me anyway. The Mac will probably afford me any opportunity to delve into Unix that I might desire. Time will tell. I never thought that the Mac OS prior to OS X was anything better than say, Windows 98. But now I'd have to switch my position, thinking as I do that the modern stuff is pretty good. The fact that Nuendo runs better on Windows is just unfortunate from my perspective, that's all.
Softy
04-25-2009, 11:40 PM
Well that's where we differ. I need to upgrade my machine on a regular basis. For me there is no guarantee that a Mac or even OSX will ever be superior to a PC running Windows. In 5 years I may have the opposite opinion. :eusa_think:
D
I'm just looking at it sort of the way I look at video. I've been using the same video editor for about 15 years. Video hasn't changed appreciably until recently. I am now upgrading systems to deal with things like HD and upresing 16x9 SD to HD. Once I do that, I will never change it again.
Likewise, for audio, once the 64-bit things get worked out, and I can have as many tracks as I need, as many instruments as I need, as low a latency as I want, etc., then I won't ever want to upgrade that stuff again either. It won't matter at all whether or not Windows can perform better than OS X. What will matter is whether or not Nuendo (or some other app) can perform well enough for my purposes on a Mac. I'd say we're getting pretty close already. I could live with the performance of my quad core Windows system as it is right now. I'm sure I'll be even happier when I get to move to a real 64-bit, 16MByte RAM system on a Mac.
The fact that Nuendo runs better on Windows is just unfortunate from my perspective, that's all.
It is unfortunate, and I fear that is a Nuendo issue. Haven't heard how C5 is doing on OSX though - hopefully all will improve. I prefer the deciding factors be confined to preference, rather than significant performance gains or losses - better for us in the long run.
Daryl
04-26-2009, 06:03 AM
It is unfortunate, and I fear that is a Nuendo issue.
I wonder whether it could be as simple as it being a cross platform issue. I can think of apps that are buggier on Windows than OSX, but I can't think of any that perform better on OSX, unless they are coded by Apple. :D
D
I think it is actually a lot to do to do with Core Audio and Steinbergs audio engine design....
From what I understand - logic employs a kind of split/dual engine - a high buffered playback engine, and a low latency input/record engine....
Steinberg employs an engine that make the whole shebang run at the same size buffer - no difference if the track is playback only or if the track is in inputmon/rec mode....
Maybe the Logic way conceals Core Audio's low latency fumblings - and steinies way shows it up....
Any logic users care to see if they really can run at 32 samps with quite a few tracks in record at once??? With my uninformed musings - it would stand to reason that a 50track session in Cubendo at 32 samps should be comparable to logic having a session running at 32 with all 50 track in rec, not just set at 32 but playing back only....maybe I am way off the mark - but from my meagre dealings with ilLogic ™ that is what seemed to be going on....
Andrew J
04-26-2009, 08:23 AM
Mac 24" for my wife (professional graphic designer/illustrator). They look great and the self-contained design is a nice space-saver.
My wife is a graphic designer/artist too. I upgraded her to a 24" recently - it definitely looks like a designer's computer!
Softy
04-26-2009, 11:20 AM
Thanks for your thoughts on this Daryl and everyone.
Any logic users care to see if they really can run at 32 samps with quite a few tracks in record at once???
32 samples is probably not enough latency for efficient multiprocessor support. Kontakt always gives me that message whenever I am running at less than 256 samples.
D - I've wondered if that's a bug in Kontakt. I never get that message from Kontakt 3 running as a plugin on my quad core at any low latency (usually 128 or less), but always do on one of my slave PCs (dual core) running in standalone. Maybe it's only relevant for the standalone version.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.11 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.