On 28 Jul 2011 at 17:25, David H. Bailey wrote: > On 7/28/2011 4:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > On 28 Jul 2011 at 9:44, Jari Williamsson wrote: > > > >> On 2011-07-27 21:34, Wade KOTTER wrote: > >>> Note the minimum systems requirements for Sibelius 7: > >> > >> Since Sib is on a 2-year release schedule, they had the choice to > >> go 64-bit with this release or wait 2 years. > > > > Er, what? There's nothing in there that says 64-bit required, so far > > as I can see. Certainly Mac OS X Lion (which is 64-bit-only) > > requires it, but I can't see anything in there at all that says > > 64-bit-only for any other platform. > > As a matter of fact, they claim that Sibelius will install as both a > 32-bit version and a 64-bit version on 64-bit machines (I hope that's > a user option -- I can't see having both versions) and it will work > just fine (to a point) on 32-bit machines. What will be lacking is > the ability to take full advantage of their new audio engine and new > sounds.
Do you have any idea what the details are of "the ability to take full advantage of their new audio engine and new sounds"? Is it that they are providing the new stuff only in 64-bit version, or that you have lower limits on how many sounds you can use at once? > But at least for 64-bit machines, Sib7 is a true 64-bit program. This is not necessarily the great advantage that the hype might cause people to think. The main benefit is not performance, but enhanced memory availability, and that may or may not be relevant (depends on a number of factors). That is, there's no automatic improvement that comes just from 64-bit-ness. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
