On 26.11.2005 David W. Fenton wrote:
So, I don't really think the example of OS X and Mac Classic really
says anything about what would happen to Windows emulation.
I was not talking about the Windows emulation here, I was talking about
Rosetta. We already know that Rosetta will not be fully
A stupid question? will the classic environnement work with Rosetta
on MacIntel machines?
Le 05-11-26 à 04:03, Johannes Gebauer a écrit :
I was not talking about the Windows emulation here, I was talking
about Rosetta. We already know that Rosetta will not be fully
compatible. Apple
Hi Eric
I can't find the link but I'm sure that I've seen that that has been
officially ruled out.
Eric Dussault
A stupid question? will the classic environnement work with Rosetta
on MacIntel machines?
Le 05-11-26 à 04:03, Johannes Gebauer a écrit :
I was not talking about the Windows
Johannes Gebauer / 2005/11/26 / 06:18 PM wrote:
For what it is worth, ProTools has had a particularly bad record of
incompatibility with any Apple maintenance update for the OS. Going from
10.3.x to 10.3.y is likely to completely break ProTools support. From
that point of view I doubt that
On 26.11.2005 Eric Dussault wrote:
A stupid question? will the classic environnement work with Rosetta
on MacIntel machines?
As far as I know Apple made it very clear that it will _not_ run under
Rosetta. Say good-bye to Classic.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
On 25.11.2005 Robert Patterson wrote:
I think there is entirely another possibility. On an Intel
processior, Virtual PC begins to look like a very interesting
product. Now Win apps can run in VPC at native speeds. I have no idea
where it will actually go, but I can imagine that it might reach
Darcy James Argue wrote:
Well, one good thing about the MacIntels is that it shouldn't be too
hard to set up a dual-boot OS X/WinXP machine. I don't relish running
Finale under Windows -- in fact, I would consider that a *terrible*
non-solution to the challenge of the Intel switch and
Brian Williams wrote:
Knowing that Macs represent a very small share of the entire computer
industry, I would be very curious to know what size share Macs have in
the Finale marketplace.
At the National Flute Association convention last August, A MakeMusic!
representative told me that
It might, but then they also allow Mac Users to make a two step,
painless move to pure Windows computers. Once the first step is taken
(ie a dual boot Mac/Win machine), I foresee the market doing its thing
quickly. MacUsers will end up using more Win Software (simply out of
necessity at
On 25.11.2005 dhbailey wrote:
Given that Apple has been so proprietary in all of its hardware
issues, don't you think that they will build something into the
motherboard to check which OS a user is attempting to boot to, and
will prevent any attempt to boot to Windows?
I wouldn't be
Given that Apple has been so proprietary in all of its hardware issues,
don't you think that they will build something into the motherboard to
check which OS a user is attempting to boot to, and will prevent any
attempt to boot to Windows?
They've publicly announced that you will be able to
They've publicly announced that you will be able to boot Windows but not
noot MacOS on non Apple hardware.
Sorry, should have read but not MacOS on non Apple hardware.
--
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art
Real-time Finale discussion - http://www.finaleirc.com
On 25.11.2005 Simon Troup wrote:
They've publicly announced that you will be able to boot Windows but
not
noot MacOS on non Apple hardware. It's been pretty easy to dual boot
MacOS and either Linux or Unix on Apple for years (systems 8, 9 and X
at
least).
Did they say boot or run? That's
On 25.11.2005 Simon Troup wrote:
They've publicly announced that you will be able to boot Windows but
not
noot MacOS on non Apple hardware. It's been pretty easy to dual boot
MacOS and either Linux or Unix on Apple for years (systems 8, 9 and X
at
least).
Did they say boot or run?
Simon Troup
They've publicly announced that you will be able to boot Windows but
not
noot MacOS on non Apple hardware. It's been pretty easy to dual boot
MacOS and either Linux or Unix on Apple for years (systems 8, 9 and X
at
least).
Johannes
Did they say boot or run? That's a major
On Nov 24, 2005, at 13:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or worse, it might decide to keep 2006 as the working version for the Mac platform, since most Mac users won't automatically be buying new computers in January, when the intel chips are used, while bringing out newer versions for Windows.
At 1:42 PM +0100 11/25/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 25.11.2005 Simon Troup wrote:
So stay on Mac if you like it, everyone else will, I don't think this
catastrophic vision of yours will ever happen.
Well, a not very unlikely scenario is this: Finale will take a long
time to be ported to
Perhaps this is a naive question, but if there is something called
Virtual PC (I have had no occasion to need it, so have no
experience), is it so unlikely that something will be created that
will allow apps written using CodeWarrior language to run on the new
machines?
Chuck
Chuck
On 25.11.2005 Chuck Israels wrote:
Perhaps this is a naive question, but if there is something called
Virtual PC (I have had no occasion to need it, so have no
experience), is it so unlikely that something will be created that
will allow apps written using CodeWarrior language to run on the
Simon Troup / 2005/11/25 / 01:00 PM wrote:
Hi Chuck. I don't think anyone is likely to spend time writing something
with such a short term shelf life. The decision on which applications
Apple would support through software emulation/translation has already
been taken and resulted in the adoption
Chuck Israels wrote:
Perhaps this is a naive question, but if there is something called
Virtual PC (I have had no occasion to need it, so have no
experience),
I think Virtual PC will thrive on MacIntels. Why wouldn't it? It allows
Mac users to run Win apps (as it does today), but
The only source for such a solution might be Apple itself, if it is
serious about bringing the world to XCode. So far I have not heard of an
easy migration path, though. Personally, I'm looking for leadership from
MM on this. The direction they take, and how successful they are will
determine
On Nov 25, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Bernard Savoie wrote:
On Nov 24, 2005, at 13:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or worse, it might decide to keep 2006 as the working version for the
Mac platform, since most Mac users won't automatically be buying new
computers in January, when the intel chips are
On 24 Nov 2005 at 22:27, Robert Patterson wrote:
As bad as the compiler issue (which is far bigger than any non
C-programmer probably realizes) is the issue of integer endian-ness.
It's a highly technical problem, but one that will throw a wrench into
any complicated program like Finale no
On 25 Nov 2005 at 13:42, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
(BTW, I sort of doubt that the kind of Audio software I am talking
about will run happily on a MacIntel machine with dual boot or Virtual
PC. In fact I have my doubts as far as Finale is concerned, too. As
far as I can tell Apple has to do very
No amount of engineering can overcome little assumptions about binary
data built into code. They will plague us precisely because they have
hidden for so long.
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 24 Nov 2005 at 22:27, Robert Patterson wrote:
As bad as the compiler issue (which is far bigger than any
On 25 Nov 2005 at 12:58, Simon Troup wrote:
Boot it under Virtual PC perhaps?
Were it to happen that wouldn't be the first MS app that apple decided
to ignore. Safari superseded Internet Explorer Mac very quickly,
development of IE Mac ceased only months after Safari's release.
Microsoft
Obviously Virtual PC still has a market on Windows machines running
linux and other versions of Windows, so it's not like they're
literally killing it.
Didn't Microsoft buy VirtualPC? Or was that one of the other
emulators that they bought?
That's right, MS bought VPC.
--
Simon Troup
On 25 Nov 2005 at 15:16, Robert Patterson wrote:
No amount of engineering can overcome little assumptions about binary
data built into code. They will plague us precisely because they have
hidden for so long.
But surely the Finale codebase has very few of those, since it's
designed to be
Surely MakeMusic is not maintaining two separate codebases, one big-
endian and one little-endian.
Am I the only one who finds this reference to Gulliver's Travels
amusing? Remember the Lilliputians almost having a civil war over
big-end and little-end (of an egg, not of computer code?) Now
On 25 Nov 2005 at 16:44, Christopher Smith wrote:
[quoting me:]
Surely MakeMusic is not maintaining two separate codebases, one
big- endian and one little-endian.
Am I the only one who finds this reference to Gulliver's Travels
amusing? Remember the Lilliputians almost having a civil war
We are talking about a codebase that started Mac-only in 1988. I'm not
really so worried about the cross-platform portions. But what about the
Mac-specific portions? Certainly a decided minority, but never tested
for endian-dependence.
It's all very well to talk about design intentions, but
The reference to Swift is well-known (even intentional) yet completely
serious. If you don't worry about it in cross-platform development you die.
Believe it or not, geeks both A) have a sense of humor and B) read
books. :-)
Christopher Smith wrote:
Surely MakeMusic is not maintaining
Christopher Smith / 2005/11/25 / 04:44 PM wrote:
Am I the only one who finds this reference to Gulliver's Travels
amusing? Remember the Lilliputians almost having a civil war over
big-end and little-end (of an egg, not of computer code?) Now there may
be domestic strife over codebases...
On 25.11.2005 David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't see why. If you're emulating the API you've got to do all of
it.
I don't think that is the problem. Sure, sound will get in and out, but
whether the timing critical aspect of it stays intact 100% reliably is
yet another matter. With High-End digital
On 26 Nov 2005 at 0:18, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Similarly, 99% of all OS 9 audio software will not work in the classic
environment.
Well, that seems to me to be an OS limitation.
I will note that when Coda produced its first Win32 version of
Finale, they had not yet solved the 16-bit
Michael Cook wrote:
I note that on the MakeMusic public forums, there are approximately
three times as many messages on the Windows forum as on the Mac forum:
this could give some indication of the percentages of Mac and Windows
users.
I had thought the ratio might be something like that
A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Michael Cook / 2005/11/23 / 04:54 PM wrote:
I note that on the MakeMusic public forums, there are approximately
three times as many messages on the Windows forum as on the Mac forum:
this could give some indication of the percentages of Mac and Windows
users.
Or, it
On 24.11.2005 John Howell wrote:
This matches very closely the relative download percentages of
Patterson Plug-Ins by platform.
Sounds like an answer. Would any company willingly discard 25% of
its customer base? They'd have to be awfully foolish, or awfully
short on development funds.
Well, one good thing about the MacIntels is that it shouldn't be too
hard to set up a dual-boot OS X/WinXP machine. I don't relish running
Finale under Windows -- in fact, I would consider that a *terrible*
non-solution to the challenge of the Intel switch and fervently hope
MM doesn't
dhbailey / 2005/11/24 / 06:47 AM wrote:
Interesting -- I find it easy to talk windows users through problems
because I have the same OS they do and can look at the same screens they do.
It depends on the trouble. When troubleshooting Finale, MIDI problem
can be BIOS level, driver level, or IRQ
Johannes Gebauer / 2005/11/24 / 01:06 PM wrote:
To be honest, I don't really blame them. It's partly Apple's fault for
having two such huge changes (three if you count the move to the PPC
chips) in a relatively short time. Personally I think Apple should have
gone dual-processor when they
On 24.11.2005 A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Why is that?
It's not like Finale needs to know if the host is dual or single
processor. The only app needs to know if dual proc would be something
like heavy DSP which process needs to be divided from main host app
process. Finale isn't that kind of app.
I
On 24.11.2005 Darcy James Argue wrote:
Well, one good thing about the MacIntels is that it shouldn't be too
hard to set up a dual-boot OS X/WinXP machine. I don't relish running
Finale under Windows -- in fact, I would consider that a *terrible*
non-solution to the challenge of the Intel
Knowing that Macs represent a very small share of the entire computer
industry, I would be very curious to know what size share Macs have in
the Finale marketplace.
At the National Flute Association convention last August, A MakeMusic!
representative told me that approximately 40% of the
This is actually my biggest fear with Apple's move to Intel. If indeed
it becomes easy to set up a dual boot machine with future Intel Macs, my
fear is that this will eventually lead many companies to just say they
can boot Windows anyway, why should we develop for Mac?.
I think it will mainly
XCode and Codewarrior are completely different environments, and
Codewarrior long predates XCode. Moving to XCode from Codewarrior is no
small matter, and there was never any reason to do it. Codewarrior had
always been a stalwart and reliable tool. It was always the most
professional tool
Johannes Gebauer wrote
they
can boot Windows anyway, why should we develop for Mac?.
I think there is entirely another possibility. On an Intel processior,
Virtual PC begins to look like a very interesting product. Now Win apps
can run in VPC at native speeds. I have no idea where it will
Ignorance is bliss, I guess. In fact, it is a major fork: in many ways
the biggest yet. Codewarrior was always the professional's tool. It
facilitated the move from 68K to PPC and the move from Classic to OSX.
What will take its place for the move to Intel? XCode? Don't make me
laugh. I have
Robert Patterson / 2005/11/24 / 11:27 PM wrote:
There are many things to berate MM for, but staying with Codewarrior is
not one. Apple is totally to blame here for a choosing a direction that
they publicly and vehemently denied right up until practically the day
before they announced it. In
On 23.11.2005 Darcy James Argue wrote:
I _really_ hope MM handles this transition better than the last one.
From: Johannes Gebauer, Wed 11/23/2005 1:33 AM
_If_ they handle it at all. I don't think I have heard a commitment yet.
On 23.11.2005 Fiskum, Steve wrote:
The only commitment I have heard comes from Bill Wolff on the Finale
Forums dated 6/8/2005. He does not say much but at least it is
something.
You call that a commitment? I have read this one, but I really wouldn't
call it a commmitment. Fact is that I
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
[snip]
Personally I don't think Finale has much of a future if they decide to
go single-platform.
Johannes
Without intending to get into any sort of platform-wars or CPU-wars, I
wonder if that's true.
Knowing that Macs represent a very small share of the entire
I doubt that MM/Finale will become a one platform product. There are
too many Windows users for them to drop that, and too many Mac people
in areas of activity that use Finale for MM to be viable if they
don't serve both markets equally. These people may or may not
respond to an
Michael Cook / 2005/11/23 / 04:54 PM wrote:
I note that on the MakeMusic public forums, there are approximately
three times as many messages on the Windows forum as on the Mac forum:
this could give some indication of the percentages of Mac and Windows
users.
Or, it might be because Win users
Michael Cook wrote:
I note that on the MakeMusic public forums, there are approximately
three times as many messages on the Windows forum as on the Mac forum:
this could give some indication of the percentages of Mac and Windows
users.
This matches very closely the relative download
On 23 Nov 2005 at 17:03, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Seriously, most of Mac problem calls I receive I can resolve over the
phone, while PC issues requires visiting. This is a general computer
consulting stuff, by the way. This isn't to say Mac is better or
anything, but to show different user
On 23 Nov 2005 at 22:54, Michael Cook wrote:
I note that on the MakeMusic public forums, there are approximately
three times as many messages on the Windows forum as on the Mac forum:
this could give some indication of the percentages of Mac and Windows
users.
But not all users are created
At 5:37 PM -0600 11/23/05, Robert Patterson wrote:
Michael Cook wrote:
I note that on the MakeMusic public forums, there are approximately
three times as many messages on the Windows forum as on the Mac
forum: this could give some indication of the percentages of Mac
and Windows users.
This
http://thinksecret.com/news/0511intelibook.html
I _really_ hope MM handles this transition better than the last one.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On 11/22/05, Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://thinksecret.com/news/0511intelibook.html
I've heard that it'll be the Mini, that it'll be the PowerBook, and
that it'll be the iMac as well (each from a different source). Some
have speculated that Steve-O is leaking everything--
http://thinksecret.com/news/0511intelibook.html
I _really_ hope MM handles this transition better than the last one.
- Darcy
Have we heard if they are? Last I heard was all the stuff about the
transition from MW Codewarrior being a very long process and that they
were looking into it or
On 23.11.2005 Darcy James Argue wrote:
I _really_ hope MM handles this transition better than the last one.
_If_ they handle it at all. I don't think I have heard a commitment yet.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
63 matches
Mail list logo
