Pro Tools 6.0: Some Mac User's Disenfranchised!!!

[snapple]

Pro Tools 6.0 systems are not supported with the older Blue & White G3s or the PCI Graphics G4s, only the AGP graphics models

This is from the compatibility page. Looks like Digidesign has excluded a very large group of Pro Tools LE users! Basically if your mac is about 2 years or older you are out of the LOOP! Sorry you should get a new computer!

This is why so many G3 & G4 user's have had problems, they are using PCI macs...not AGP!

I don't understand why your Mac must have an AGP! HELLO! My wife uses Photoshop 7.0 on OS X and it works fine on PCI macs and this is the TOP OF THE LINE Graphics program!!!

Pro Tools is for MUSIC, duh, AUDIO! Why do we need such a graphics configuration to run Pro Tools 6.0!!!

Perhaps Digi should have outsourced the graphics programming to someone who could overcome this set back!

I think DIGIDESIGN just forced a lot of people to upgrade to a NEW mac in order to run PRO TOOLS 6.0!!!

Along with all this Pro Tools 6.0 was the BELL OF THE BALL at this years Mac EXPO. HMMM...DO I SMELL A CONSPIRACY? [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[WorldOfWiz]

it does make you think humm... since the cards Digi use are PCI not AGP.

Wiz

[thin ice]

Maybe the digi card drains the PCI bus resources. A lot of people had problems trying to run 2 screens with an extra card. And now with le supporting 32 tracks I guess the demands are even greater. I would be more inclined to complain about Apple making a weak PCI bus!

[Muzza]

The support page only says they wont support PCI macs. This doesn't mean you can't try to use it on one.
If you have one of these computers, you're better of with OS9 and PT5. I'me sure there are heaps of people who are doing great work with these.
Remember that Protools and its like are 'pro' applications and the cost of staying in that areana is upgrading.

PCI is just not fast enough to cope with the throughput of graphics cards, especially with access to memory on a permanent basis. That's why AGP was developed. It's its own bus with exclusive independant access to the memory. This means it can run independantly (kinda) without troubling the CPU too much (kinda). I could direct you to a post on another forum for a detailed explanation (from an ATI insider no less).
Remember digi isn't forcing people to upgrade. But eventually everyone does. How many people are using OS7 or 8? didn't everyone upgrade?

[Dopamine]

You should have known the limitations of your computer when you purchased. When I bought my G4/400 (over 3 1/2 years ago!!) I made sure I didn't go for the low end yikes model. You get what you pay for. Plus you can even find AGP G4's for under $500 on ebay!!

I don't want Digi to slow down advancements so people can run what is a cutting edge program on ancient (read G3) macs.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you switch to 6.0!!

Just my opinion.

[soundboy69]

I agree Dopamine.
If you have a PCI based G3/G4, run PT 5/ OS 9. Trust me, a lot of great work has been done in PT 5.

This is the cost of advancement in the computer age...
[img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[ProfessionalTool]

Oh Boo Hoo, you can't have 6.0. Let me tell you from experience that the only reason most people "upgraded" it is so they can stay in OSX all the time. For me it's purely cosmetic, you can still get all the functionality out of 5. Version 6.0 Doesnt' sound any better, and there's no humongous advancement in features/usability.

And as for not being compatible...
This is like complaining that an aftermarket exaust made for a new Camry won't fit your 1987 model. Not to say there's anything wrong with your machine specifically, but it has it's age limitations and you'll have to deal with them accordingly. Nobody should expect Digi to make their products backwards compatible with machines that are several generations old. The software that was made for those computers is still great.

[Chris Coleman]

Originally posted by ProfessionalTool:
Version 6.0 Doesnt' sound any better, and there's no humongous advancement in features/usability.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, you don't consider 32 non-beta tracks, key commands focus, voiceable/virtual tracks, additional included plugins, better file management, OS X/dual processor compatability, time exp/comp trim tool, and many other features to be usable? Whew, you're tough to please...

[MartinC]

As a pci G4 350 owner, no, I don't consider the PT6 features to be worth upgrading. A non beta 32 track is the same as a beta 32 track that's working. Additional plugs? I've got about a hundred working plugs. Time compression and file management improvements are nice, but not worth a new cpu, the plug upgrades, the i-loc, and a new operating system(btw, I already bought osx, but not the latest version required to run pt6)
When I do decide to spend some money, I'm going to be looking to improve sound quality and features for the least amount of dough. If I were to do that today, I'd be looking hard at logic/DP and/or a new interface/convertor/pre.

[Chris Coleman]

Originally posted by MartinC:
As a pci G4 350 owner, no, I don't consider the PT6 features to be worth upgrading

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I can get on board with this statement... It's about the worth to the end user.

However, what I was challenging was the general statement that ProfessionalTool made about no great advances in functionality, etc in PT6. I disagreed - and that's because I'm coming from working with a TDM system for 10 hours a day and finally seeing some great previously-TDM-only features show up in LE. If he had said - "there's some great new features in PT6, but they're not worth it to me" I would agree witht that.

In the end, though, I was in the midst of a computer upgrade before PT6 hit (from a G3 466 to G4 QS Dual GHz) only because I wanted better overall performance after getting the most out of my curent machine - so it just happens to be good timing for me, I don't consider it a cost incurred by the PT6 upgrade path. With that said, I still won't be going to PT6 full time for another few months at least.