On 28 Jul 2011 at 17:50, David H. Bailey wrote: > On 7/28/2011 5:37 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > 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? > > It means lower limits on how many sounds can be used at once, as well > as the quality of the samples one can access because better sounding > samples are usually larger in size and therefore need access to more > memory to be used.
My question would be how bad an issue is this? Is it that a full orchestra isn't going to work but a piano quintet will be fine? And how does it compare to the previous situation with their player? > >> 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. > > It's the memory availability which is important when one wants to work > scoring for video, when one wants to see the video while also seeing > the music one is working on and hearing the playback synched to the > video. This is not something a whole lot of people need, seems to me. I don't want to underrate how useful it is for people who DO need it, but my point is that most users of notation software don't really have that much need for the benefits that 64-bit versions offer (they may not even have sufficient RAM, anyway). > I realize that there's no automatic improvement necessarily in > 64-bit-ness, but one would hope that a program would be optimized to > make more efficient use of the greater memory space available. But the question is not whether it will do that, but whether or not your garden-variety user of the program is going to benefit from that enhanced memory availability. Many people's PCs don't have more than 4GBs of RAM, so they aren't going to benefit that much in the first place... -- 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
