RE: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
OK, OK. You got me ;-) We've had one of the prototypes in house since they were availble. This is far from an official statement, but I can tell you this. We've been researching it and exploring it, and the initial experiments are looking promising. You can expect a more official statement from Bill in the future. --Allen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Troup Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 11:12 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January? Yep. It's a great way to get a clean machine to test out a configuration problem... Allan! You can't just drop in and answer THAT bit of the thread?! :) How's MacIntelFin coming along? -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
OK, OK. You got me ;-) We've had one of the prototypes in house since they were availble. This is far from an official statement, but I can tell you this. We've been researching it and exploring it, and the initial experiments are looking promising. You can expect a more official statement from Bill in the future. --Allen Allen, thanks, that's really very much appreciated, and very comforting to hear. To be honest, I wasn't expecting you to answer, but it's great that you did! -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art Real-time Finale discussion - http://www.finaleirc.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
Yep. It's a great way to get a clean machine to test out a configuration problem... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Troup Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 5:14 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January? Has anyone used virtual PC on windows to run a different version of windows? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
Yep. It's a great way to get a clean machine to test out a configuration problem... Allan! You can't just drop in and answer THAT bit of the thread?! :) How's MacIntelFin coming along? -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
On 26.11.2005 Brian Williams wrote: Also, to clarify, the sales rep told me that between a third and 40% of all installed versions of Finale were Mac. I grilled him pretty hard about the upcoming move to Intel and how that could really be a problem for the Mac version, but he repeatedly reassured me that MM has no plans to drop the Mac version. He said it would be suicide to cut off over a third of its installed base. We'll see. If this was the true behind the scenes company philosophy, then I don't understand in the least why it is not publically announced. I simply do not believe it at this moment. If future Macs are indeed dual boot windows machines, then MM is definitely not cutting off a third of its installed base. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
If future Macs are indeed dual boot windows machines, then MM is definitely not cutting off a third of its installed base. You're dwelling way too much on this dual boot idea. The fact that you'll be able to boot into Windows natively on an x86 based Mac is an interesting but mainly irrelevant point to the average Mac user. Given the choice between using Finale Windows in a dual boot Mac/Win environment that would necessitate rebooting into Windows (and even having to have Windows on my machine), or switching to Sibelius Mac, well even I would go to Sibelius! I don't say something like that lightly. I believe that MM will develop for Mac+Intel, but on this occasion, playing their cards close to their chest is serious error. If they're not careful, someone will coin the term the MakeMusic effect, being the exact opposite of the Osbourne effect - users could drop the product as they see no future in it, when a speedy announcement clarifying the fact that they're busy squirrelling away on a port would in fact create a buzz of excitement ... -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art Real-time Finale discussion - http://www.finaleirc.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 26.11.2005 Brian Williams wrote: Also, to clarify, the sales rep told me that between a third and 40% of all installed versions of Finale were Mac. I grilled him pretty hard about the upcoming move to Intel and how that could really be a problem for the Mac version, but he repeatedly reassured me that MM has no plans to drop the Mac version. He said it would be suicide to cut off over a third of its installed base. We'll see. If this was the true behind the scenes company philosophy, then I don't understand in the least why it is not publically announced. I simply do not believe it at this moment. If future Macs are indeed dual boot windows machines, then MM is definitely not cutting off a third of its installed base. Johannes Indeed, even if they don't bring out future Mac versions, those with dual-boot machines will still be able to continue to use Finale. So until all the smoke of the mac-intel rollout clears and we can finally see the actual survivors and those who leave the Mac market, nothing will be clear. Even if a company makes a public statement, there isn't a single company I think I could trust with ANY sort of Yes, we'll continue to do this statement. Too many people have lost their pensions and their retirement healthcare benefits when companies have said Oh, yes, I forgot to tell you -- when I made those promises I had my fingers crossed. Nyah-Nyah! One thing we haven't discussed is what sort of olive-branch micro$oft will offer to those who purchase these new macintel machines -- currently a brand new, non-upgrade purchase of WinXP is quite expensive unless it is bundled with a computer, so I wonder if Micro$oft might make a terrific firt hit's free sort of offer of something on the order of $30-$50 for MacIntel machines. That might certainly make a dual-boot scenario more appealing to Mac users who may wish to see what the Windows world has to offer. I also wonder how quickly some hackers will be releasing versions of Mac OSx which will actually run on non-Mac hardware. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
That might certainly make a dual-boot scenario more appealing to Mac users who may wish to see what the Windows world has to offer. I would have thought that most mac users have experience of using windows anyway (workplace, school etc). If Mac users wanted to use windows they would already have done it, after all, they have to pay a premium to use MacOS as it is - mac hardware is generally more expensive, it's a choice that isn't taken lightly, particularly in the UK where the price differential is much more marked. It's an interesting scenario you propose though, and made me wonder if MacOS could be issued as a 30 day trial that worked on any x86 machine, but if you wanted to use it beyond that you'd have to buy Mac hardware. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
David wrote: I also wonder how quickly some hackers will be releasing versions of Mac OSx which will actually run on non-Mac hardware. Hi, They exist already, but the installation requires some patience and care. The PC needs a particular Intel motherboard and two hard disks. (I read it in extremetech.com but I can not find now) Of course you can boot with Windows or Linux if you want. IMO if the thesis of Johannes is that we Mac-freaks are going to move to Windows simply because the new MacIntels will boot with it then I don´t agree, because you can _now_ buy a cheap small factor PC now, hook it to your existing monitor and there you go. You don´t need more to make a good virus trap. Besides the price factor is becoming less and less important when buying Mac hardware (except in the higest G5 models). Javier Ruiz ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
I found the article about the PC running Mac OS X: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1886869,00.asp Lots of fun! The 26/11/05 11:57, dhbailey escribió/wrote: I also wonder how quickly some hackers will be releasing versions of Mac OSx which will actually run on non-Mac hardware. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
Javier Ruiz wrote: [snip] I don´t agree, because you can _now_ buy a cheap small factor PC now, hook it to your existing monitor and there you go. You don´t need more to make a good virus trap. Besides the price factor is becoming less and less important when buying Mac hardware (except in the higest G5 models). It will also be interesting to see if virus-writers now go after Macs, since they'll be sharing the same hardware. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
Simon Troup wrote: Given the choice between using Finale Windows in a dual boot Mac/Win environment that would necessitate rebooting into Windows This part of your statement is quite reasonable. I do not think it is acceptable to reboot to use Finale. But what if you *don't* have to reboot? What if (by installing Virtual PC) you could double click an icon just as you do now, and it opened a Finale doc window just as it does now. No muss, no fuss, and no reboot. At what point does your refusal even to consider installing Win on your machine begins to look more like stubborn bigotry than anything pragmatic? If WinFin were smart enough to recognize when it was running on VPC under MacOS and provide access to MacOS MIDI, Audio, and graphics, I think it would be a very acceptable alternative to a native MacOS version on MacIntel. How practical this idea is I don't know. I merely offer it as a third rail that no one seems to be talking about. (Obviously, a native version is the best option for MacOS.) -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
dhbailey wrote: It will also be interesting to see if virus-writers now go after Macs, since they'll be sharing the same hardware. Virus writers (essentially) don't go after hardware. They exploit security flaws in software. Most of the time the software they exploit is OS software. (The rampant MS Word viruses a few years ago were an exception, and I believe Mac MS Word was also vulnerable.) To the extent that MacIntels have Win installed on them, they will be as vulnerable as any Win machine is when running Win (either natively or under VPC). When running MacOS they will be vulnerable to MacOS viruses. FWIW: a current PPC MacOS computer running VPC is vulnerable to Win viruses when running Win. Do not think MacOS computers are immune to viruses. Far from it. The reason they don't get very many is that Win computers have such overwhelming numbers on the 'net that a MacOS virus has difficulty spreading. There's a basic form of epidemiology at work. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
But what if you *don't* have to reboot? What if (by installing Virtual PC) you could double click an icon just as you do now, and it opened a Finale doc window just as it does now. No muss, no fuss, and no reboot. At what point does your refusal even to consider installing Win on your machine begins to look more like stubborn bigotry than anything pragmatic? Hi Robert that way though I'd have to buy cross platform upgrade to finale, windows and VPC. That's not cheap, and it isn't really no mess and no fuss. I'm not at all anti-windows, I've used it in the past. What I'm definitely against though is the hassle of running 2 OS or 2 OS and an emulator. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
On 26.11.2005 Simon Troup wrote: It's an interesting scenario you propose though, and made me wonder if MacOS could be issued as a 30 day trial that worked on any x86 machine, but if you wanted to use it beyond that you'd have to buy Mac hardware. That's definitely not going to happen. However, I wouldn't be surprised if some clever programmer would find a way to (illegally) hack OS X to run on a standard PC. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
On 26.11.2005 Javier Ruiz wrote: Besides the price factor is becoming less and less important when buying Mac hardware (except in the higest G5 models). Well, with the current range of laptops, both iBooks and especially Powerbooks the price factor is enormous... Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
On 26.11.2005 Simon Troup wrote: that way though I'd have to buy cross platform upgrade to finale, windows and VPC. That's not cheap, and it isn't really no mess and no fuss. The last two Finale upgrades were cross platform, there is no reason to think the next one won't be, unless they will drop mac support, of course. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
Simon Troup wrote: I'm not at all anti-windows, I've used it in the past. What I'm definitely against though is the hassle of running 2 OS or 2 OS and an emulator. This strikes me as arbitrary. Virtual PC does not take up any significant processor cycles, unless you are running a Win program, so the only practical objection would be A) the cost or B) the disk space. Cross-grading Fin from Mac to Win is no more costly than any Fin upgrade. They come on the same disc. Virtual PC does have an associated cost (c. $200 last time I checked), most of which is the Win license. I can accept cost as an objection, but not disc space, and not the nebulous objection quoted above. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
I can accept cost as an objection, but not disc space, and not the nebulous objection quoted above. Nebulous objection? -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
This strikes me as arbitrary. Virtual PC does not take up any significant processor cycles, unless you are running a Win program, so the only practical objection would be A) the cost or B) the disk space. Cross-grading Fin from Mac to Win is no more costly than any Fin upgrade. They come on the same disc. Virtual PC does have an associated cost (c. $200 last time I checked), most of which is the Win license. I can accept cost as an objection, but not disc space, and not the nebulous objection quoted above. I don't really think I need to explain why configuring an OS within an emulator in another OS is unattractive. I've used Virtual PC with Win 98 SE, Win XP and Win 2000 - it's buggy and has a tremendous performance hit, things don't work at anything like native windows speed. It also absolutely requires you to learn and manage another OS, another whole font library etc. etc. - when you are your own IT department there's a lot to be said for keeping it simple. Where does this idea comes from that VPC functions only as a window server? (and I use the term in a unix sense) - it doesn't, and it doesn't make an argument to pretend that one day it might, as I doubt it ever will. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
On 26 Nov 2005 at 9:55, dhbailey wrote: Javier Ruiz wrote: [snip] I don´t agree, because you can _now_ buy a cheap small factor PC now, hook it to your existing monitor and there you go. You don´t need more to make a good virus trap. Besides the price factor is becoming less and less important when buying Mac hardware (except in the higest G5 models). It will also be interesting to see if virus-writers now go after Macs, since they'll be sharing the same hardware. Viruses don't run on the hardware -- they run on the applications and the OS. So, OS X on MacIntel will be just as immune to viruses as OS X is currently, which means immune by obscurity, in that the virus writers haven't turned their attention to it because it's not worth it when they can easily target 10X more computers. But there's also the issue that OS X's default setup is an LUA configuration (i.e., running with user-level permissions, not admin), so any damage that a virus *can* do is much less than on your default Windows setup (which is running as an administrator). But given that a large number of the exploits circulating on Windows are socially engineered to get a human to execute them (rather than executing automatically), there's nothing in particular that protects Mac users from those, except that nobody seems to be writing them (which may be, in part, because they can't do as much damage). But the advent of OS X running on MacIntel won't change this situation one iota. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
Simon Troup wrote: I've used Virtual PC with Win 98 SE, Win XP and Win 2000 - it's buggy and has a tremendous performance hit, things don't work at anything like native windows speed. Of course that's true now, but it need not be true on MacIntel. Where does this idea comes from that VPC functions only as a window server? (and I use the term in a unix sense) - it doesn't, and it doesn't make an argument to pretend that one day it might, as I doubt it ever will. That's exactly where I think it could go. I know it doesn't now. But when it can run with no perf. hit, then I think that's exactly where it may head. If I used it regularly, that's where I would want it to go. I should add that, if I were betting, I'd put my money on MM coming out with a native MacIntel version. I possess no insider knowledge, but I can't see them abandoning OSX now after all the effort they've invested in it. Whether the MacIntel-native version is 2007 is another question entirely. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
On 26.11.2005 Simon Troup wrote: I don't really think I need to explain why configuring an OS within an emulator in another OS is unattractive. I've used Virtual PC with Win 98 SE, Win XP and Win 2000 - it's buggy and has a tremendous performance hit, things don't work at anything like native windows speed. Simon, the whole point of Virtual PC on Intel Macs is that it will run in native mode on the Mac processor, so the performance hit is not present. This whole discussion has begun to turn around in circles now. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
On 26 Nov 2005 at 22:42, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 26.11.2005 Simon Troup wrote: I don't really think I need to explain why configuring an OS within an emulator in another OS is unattractive. I've used Virtual PC with Win 98 SE, Win XP and Win 2000 - it's buggy and has a tremendous performance hit, things don't work at anything like native windows speed. the whole point of Virtual PC on Intel Macs is that it will run in native mode on the Mac processor, so the performance hit is not present. Well, if you think about it, it can't really do that. What if an OS X app and a VPC app try to access the same hardware or memory at the same time? VPC would always have to be a slave of OS X. Now, it could be that Intel underneath OS X could provide enough performance improvement to make VPC much snappier, but I don't think there'd ever be any real possibility of VPC being able to go direct to the hardware, since VPC wouldn't know anything about what OS X is doing. Of course, maybe it's possible to have a traffic cop layer between VPC and OS X, and have VPC say to the traffic cop can I have access to the video interface so I can paint the screen? and the VPC traffic cop layer would say sure -- you can paint in these areas of the screen, and I'll tell your host OS to take a break until you're done. I don't know if that kind of thing would be possible or not, but it would be the only way to actually get the kind of benefit you seem to be thinking will be automatic for VPC. And, of course, when I say direct to hardware I'm being very loose with terminology, as no modern OS allows applications direct access to hardware in the first place (every modern OS has a hardware abstraction layer that the OS and apps communicate with, and the HAL runs at a very low level of the OS, communicating with the interfaces that talk to the actual hardware, which would be interrupts on Intel and who knows what approach on PPC). In any event, I can't see how there is any way that VPC would be anything other than a child process of OS X and, thus, restricted to the same hardware and memory restrictions as any other process running on OS X. That would mean no direct hardware access at all, and the need for the same translation layer under VPC to convert to OS X calls that is needed today when VPC is running on OS X on top of a PPC. This whole discussion has begun to turn around in circles now. I think it's pretty clear what you've been saying. I just don't think it's very likely that VPC will benefit as much from the conversion as you suggest it might. In a certain sense, it's no different than the virus question -- viruses don't run on the hardware but on the OS, so MacIntel doesn't change OS X's level of vulnerability at all. Likewise, since VPC is still running on top of OS X, it won't be able to communicate directly with hardware, so there won't be any real change in its performance, except if OS X itself already gets a boost from running on Intel. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
Well, if you think about it, it can't really do that. What if an OS X app and a VPC app try to access the same hardware or memory at the same time? VPC would always have to be a slave of OS X. Now, it could be that Intel underneath OS X could provide enough performance improvement to make VPC much snappier, but I don't think there'd ever be any real possibility of VPC being able to go direct to the hardware, since VPC wouldn't know anything about what OS X is doing. Has anyone used virtual PC on windows to run a different version of windows? It's entirely possible. A friend of mine has done it using a very fast machine with a huge amount of RAM etc. and said the performance was Pants. This must be because even in a Win/Win situation (unintentional pun!) the virtual machine within Virtual PC is interfacing with a software emulation of a generic graphics card rather than with the actual graphics card installed in the machine, and I think the same is true of everything else, VPC probably even pretends to be a generic BIOS, it's one mammoth abstraction layer even running within the same architecture. Sorry Johannes if this is going round and round a bit, having used VPC, lots of versions of windows, running a red hat web server and having used dual boot OS9 and OSx into unix and linux, I'm fascinated, and also NEVER want to have to do it again - all that experimentation taught me a thing or two about the simple beauty of MacOS, maybe it's not the fastest or most tweakable system, but it sure is slick!). -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
David W. Fenton / 2005/11/26 / 05:10 PM wrote: Well, if you think about it, it can't really do that. What if an OS X app and a VPC app try to access the same hardware or memory at the same time? Not sure if this answers to your question, but multiple apps can access to the same hardware today. I have MH ULN-2+DSP connected to my main G5 right now. If I playback to this hardware from multiple apps such as iTunes and DSP-Q, you get quite a wild mix of music :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?
On 26 Nov 2005 at 19:11, A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2005/11/26 / 05:10 PM wrote: Well, if you think about it, it can't really do that. What if an OS X app and a VPC app try to access the same hardware or memory at the same time? Not sure if this answers to your question, but multiple apps can access to the same hardware today. I have MH ULN-2+DSP connected to my main G5 right now. If I playback to this hardware from multiple apps such as iTunes and DSP-Q, you get quite a wild mix of music :-) But that's completely different. First off, it's a single OS controlling managing the messages from the apps that are sending data to the hardware. Secondly, the hardware is independent, like a printer -- once you send it data, it can process it on its own terms, independently of the CPU/OS. It just processes it serially. That's fine for relatively slow processes like printing and, believe it or not, MIDI output, but would never work for video or disk I/O. The only way to manage that would be to have an abstraction layer that both OS's communicate with that acts as a buffer or cache for commands/data sent to those devices. I think it's pretty clear that for video and disk I/O that would be pretty unacceptable. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
