On 5 Apr 2006 at 14:06, Karen wrote:
This is how it all works...it is quite interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/fknzx
[as an aside, I find it helpful when you're providing a tinyurl
citation to also provide the original URL. There are two reasons for
this:
1. the actual URL tells the reader
On 5 Apr 2006 at 15:55, Karen wrote:
Naw...I understand the concept that was in the linked article that's
why I put virtual in parenthesisbut maybe that was a poor way
of saying it.
By virtual I meant a partition that can be created without having
to reformat the whole drive like we
On 5 Apr 2006 at 20:18, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:32 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
This is not going to last long, though. Microsoft recently announced
that Windows Vista (the next major release of Windows, the release
of which was recently delayed into 2007) will not boot
At 4/6/2006 08:20 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I believe that OS X can read but not write NTFS, and Windows can't do
either with OS X's file system. I believe there are utilities for the
Mac that can make NTFS volumes read/write, so that would be a
requirement to make this work. But my guess is
At 08:32 AM 4/6/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
[...good information...]
The biggest issue for me (aside from the political) is hardware. Will the
Windows on the Mac use its own drivers to support the additional range of
hardware? Add-in cards and other devices that now only have Windows
On 06 Apr 2006, at 8:52 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
The biggest issue for me (aside from the political) is hardware.
Will the
Windows on the Mac use its own drivers to support the additional
range of
hardware?
Before you install WinXP, Boot Camp burns a CD-ROM of the custom
drivers
At 10:38 AM 4/6/06 -0400, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 06 Apr 2006, at 8:52 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Or is
this dual-boot a software support system only?
No.
Excellent. Now we're talkin! Thanks, Darcy!
My current hand-built PC is starting to get a little long in the tooth
(1.4GHz
David W. Fenton / 2006/04/06 / 08:20 AM wrote:
as Partition Magic and other partitioning products have
been able to do nondestructive repartioning of active volumes for
over a decade (that's how long I've been using it, since 1996).
Which isn't possible (at least not reliable thing to do) on
On 6 Apr 2006 at 10:50, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 2006/04/06 / 08:20 AM wrote:
as Partition Magic and other partitioning products have
been able to do nondestructive repartioning of active volumes for
over a decade (that's how long I've been using it, since 1996).
Which
On 06.04.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
My thought is that if I went with a dual-boot Mac, I'd use OS X for
Finale and audio.
Why would you use the Mac for Audio? Win XP has much better Audio
software than the Mac imo. It is currently my biggest problem with the
Mac and one good reason to dream
On 06.04.2006 A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 2006/04/06 / 08:20 AM wrote:
as Partition Magic and other partitioning products have
been able to do nondestructive repartioning of active volumes for
over a decade (that's how long I've been using it, since 1996).
Which isn't possible
David W. Fenton / 2006/04/06 / 11:32 AM wrote:
I wonder if that implies that my memory
of the Mac support was correct?
Nope. I was a long time PQMagic user, too, and I have been a Mac lover
since 1987. Do you remember System Commander? That was another
troublesome app!
--
- Hiro
Hiroaki
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I don't know why people still think the Mac is better for Audio. Imo
it isn't, simply by the lack of decent software. Certainly for
professional classical music mastering the PC has a lot more to offer.
Sequencers are ok, but the choice on Win is just as good if not
Um, there have been a couple of products that will let you repartition
without reformatting. There was one in OS 9 made by Alsoft, and there is
one currently being made by Coriolis systems that has been running on OS
X for about two years now, maybe longer.
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 08:32 AM 4/6/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
[...good information...]
The biggest issue for me (aside from the political) is hardware. Will the
Windows on the Mac use its own drivers to support the additional range of
hardware? Add-in cards and other devices that
On 6 Apr 2006 at 17:39, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 06.04.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
My thought is that if I went with a dual-boot Mac, I'd use OS X for
Finale and audio.
Why would you use the Mac for Audio? Win XP has much better Audio
software than the Mac imo. It is currently my
Phil Daley wrote:
At 4/6/2006 08:20 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I believe that OS X can read but not write NTFS, and Windows can't do
either with OS X's file system. I believe there are utilities for the
Mac that can make NTFS volumes read/write, so that would be a
requirement to make this work.
Another nice thing to note about Mac OS X however, is that it is a unix
based OS, which means that a LOT of Unix utilities will run through the
terminal, especially for file management/conversion functions. Perl comes
installed standard to the Darwin Kernel on OS X and so you also have all of
the
David W. Fenton wrote:
I am very anti-iTunes for anything other than as a media player
(which I use it for). I won't use it for anything else because I
don't like the choices that have been made for me. For MIDI-to-WAV
conversion it's useless, since it uses the horrid QT instruments.
This
On 6 Apr 2006 at 9:28, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I am very anti-iTunes for anything other than as a media player
(which I use it for). I won't use it for anything else because I
don't like the choices that have been made for me. For MIDI-to-WAV
conversion it's useless,
On 06.04.2006 Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I don't know why people still think the Mac is better for Audio. Imo it isn't,
simply by the lack of decent software. Certainly for professional classical
music mastering the PC has a lot more to offer. Sequencers are ok, but the
On 6 Apr 2006 at 18:39, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I fully understand your other reasons, being a better consultant,
prefering OS X to Windows (as I do, too). But for the average user,
who knows Windows well, and who can do all he needs and wants on the
Win side, I really cannot see any benefit
On 06 Apr 2006, at 12:38 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
From my point of view, a soundfont and a sample are the same thing --
you're taking a synthesizer and loading a selection of sounds into
it, rather than being stuck with the ones it came with. This can be
done either in software or in
At 09:12 AM 4/6/06 -0700, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Well, since the three current Intel Macs hardly have room for another
hard drive (Mac Mini uses a laptop drive, MacBook is a laptop, and the
iMac has an internal drive already), it doesn't make sense to even think
about an internal drive. Assuming
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Apr 2006 at 9:28, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I am very anti-iTunes for anything other than as a media player
(which I use it for). I won't use it for anything else because I
don't like the choices that have been made for me. For
I fully understand your other reasons, being a better consultant,
prefering OS X to Windows (as I do, too). But for the average user,
who knows Windows well, and who can do all he needs and wants on
the Win side, I really cannot see any benefit owning a fancy
IntelMac for Dual Booting.
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Egosys Waveterminal 2496 PCI cards. I don't use Protools because of its
hardware-centrism, and all my audio (Sonar, AudioMulch, Audition, etc.) is
Windows-only.
Waveterminal does not seem to be a current product from Egosys, and was
released in 1999. M-Audio makes
On 6 Apr 2006 at 10:03, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Apr 2006 at 9:28, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I am very anti-iTunes for anything other than as a media player
(which I use it for). I won't use it for anything else because I
don't
Except for GPO, your DSP rig would need, at minimum, a gig of RAM.
And its own embedded processor. Your proposed product starts to get
very expensive, very quickly. Not even the latest graphics cards on
the market have 1 GB of RAM available, and they can cost upwards of
$600.
Not to
David W. Fenton wrote:
I cannot find any such method. In any event, the best synthesizer on
my system is my soundcard, and iTunes can't capture its output, so I
can't use iTunes for this purpose.
Lets see, a quick Google search of midi to wav ended up with with a
ton of results.
Well, then
On 6 Apr 2006 at 10:57, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I cannot find any such method. In any event, the best synthesizer on
my system is my soundcard, and iTunes can't capture its output, so I
can't use iTunes for this purpose.
Lets see, a quick Google search of midi to
Eric is right -- if you want to offload the processing of modern
sample libraries (with all of the bells and whistles like authentic
slurring, sampled performance techniques, etc), the memory and
processing demands of this task are such that you're better off
getting an entirely separate
Hi David,
This is REALLY great info. Thank you!
Now, if there were a partition that was visible to both OS X and
WinXP, a WinXP virus could damage data there or plant a nasty that
could run on OS X in addition to its WinXP payload. I don't know
where OS X stores its user-level startup
On 06.04.2006 Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Unbelievable as always..I'm amazed you can make it through a day. But
whatever.
Eric, I actually think this was uncalled for. I can sort of see David's
point.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
And I can't. If I had fog lights, a million watt search light, and
infrared technology, I still couldn't.
He has no experience in the area, as he admitted, yet will argue a
position that is based on his lack of understanding. He did not even
bother to research anything. Again. Do we need to
On 6 Apr 2006 at 14:15, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
He has no experience in the area, as he admitted
I have experience in the field. I just don't do it for a living.
--
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/
I suspected this was coming
http://tinyurl.com/pwcbs
-Karen
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
For people who didn't click Karen's link -- Apple has introduced a
public beta of Boot Camp, an officially-sanctioned and supported dual-
boot solution. It was already possible to install Windows XP on a
MacIntel machine using third-party hacks, but now Apple has decided
to offer their own
On 5 Apr 2006 at 10:59, Karen wrote:
I suspected this was coming
http://tinyurl.com/pwcbs
This is not going to last long, though. Microsoft recently announced
that Windows Vista (the next major release of Windows, the release of
which was recently delayed into 2007) will not boot under
Actually, EFI isn't Apple, its Intel
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/
And Apple updated EFI with BIOS support.so...it will run.
And Vista will run.
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Apr 2006 at 10:59, Karen wrote:
I suspected this was coming
http://tinyurl.com/pwcbs
On 05.04.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
For people who didn't click Karen's link -- Apple has introduced a public beta
of Boot Camp, an officially-sanctioned and supported dual-boot solution. It was
already possible to install Windows XP on a MacIntel machine using third-party
hacks, but now
The report I read said that Vista would boot under EFI, but it would
require a 64-bit processor (the current MacIntels are 32-bit).
At any rate, Apple is building Boot Camp support directly into OS X
10.5, so clearly they are pretty confident they will be able to get
Vista to boot on their
, 2006 3:09 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 05.04.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
For people who didn't click Karen's link -- Apple has introduced a public
beta of Boot Camp, an officially-sanctioned and supported dual-boot
solution. It was already
The answer is yes.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY
On 05 Apr 2006, at 3:19 PM, Richard Willis wrote:
I think it will be interesting to see if WinXP can be registered on
the new
CPU for those that will be trying to transfer their old WinXP to
Gebauer
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:09 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac
On 05.04.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
For people who didn't click Karen's link -- Apple has introduced a
public
beta of Boot Camp, an officially-sanctioned
I think you have that wrong.
The coolest thing about the assistant is that it *does a
non-destructive repartitioning of your boot drive*. In other words, you
don't need unpartitioned space to install Boot Camp, just free space
within your Mac's existing boot partition. Choose your partition
Naw...I understand the concept that was in the linked article that's
why I put virtual in parenthesisbut maybe that was a poor way
of saying it.
By virtual I meant a partition that can be created without having
to reformat the whole drive like we did in the past. I guess non-
On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:32 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
This is not going to last long, though. Microsoft recently announced
that Windows Vista (the next major release of Windows, the release of
which was recently delayed into 2007) will not boot under EFI (or
whatever the Apple equivalent to the
Here's the answer:
Along with Boot Camp, Apple has posted firmware updates to all
their Intel Macs today. These firmware updates provide EFI with
BIOS support, allowing all Intel Macs to boot operating systems
such as Windows XP and Linux. This should also allow the Intel Macs
to boot
So, from what I understand from reading and asking around this is the
scoop thus far on security issues.
EFI is very well locked down on the Intel machines so the firmware
update shouldn't be a problem.
Viruses and spyware can still infect the windows partition on these
machines.
50 matches
Mail list logo
