dp for the Pc

[rsmani]

Are there any chances of DP coming into the PC scene. Would be really great........ R S MANI

[James Steele]

Are there any chances of DP coming into the PC scene. Would be really great........ R S MANI

It would be great for PC users, no doubt as DP is a great program. I don't see it happening though, but you can never say "never." I'd recommend scraping some $$$ and taking the plunge and buying a Mac. Even if you only use it just for music-- in fact that's often best because you avoid problems from running all sorts of other programs, let alone using the internet.

[reekguitar]

well, why not? if OSX is made available to PCs?

[James Steele]

well, why not? if OSX is made available to PCs?

Well, you could if Apple officially released OSX for PCs. However, their announced intention is to prevent OSX from running on PCs and only their Intel-based Macs. So you won't be able to run OSX on PCs... at least not with some illegal hack which would be illegal and unsupported.

[newrigel]

Here we go....
DP on a PC? Since this whole wintel thing has happened your hearing more and more about people wanting to run OS X on their PC hardware (I think I even saw it running on a PC laptop on the net)...
Why? I'll always spend the $$ to get the real goods no matter what!
Think about it, I haven't heard many great guitarist (or performers in general) out there playing cheap instruments so why would someone want to be so cheap as to not put the proper amount of quidd into the heart of their studio! I mean, yes were not all rich but I know I have paid alot more in renting houses etc. than in the raw technologies to create my heart felt music! Plus, I dont think that the myriad hardware out there that most PC's utilize would really take advantage of the OS as Apple can do with their hardware and visa-versa.
OK, I'm done...

[Newsles]

I thought that DP for the PC was definitely on the cards at one point. There was a lot of talk on certain other forums (or is that fora?) about it.

When I was Mac-less I held my breath, thinking "at last, I can go back to my old, familiar platform and not have to shell out megabucks for a shiny new Mac).

Never mind

[Baptiste]

hi everyone,

james Steele wrote:

Well, you could if Apple officially released OSX for PCs. However, their announced intention is to prevent OSX from running on PCs and only their Intel-based Macs. So you won't be able to run OSX on PCs... at least not with some illegal hack which would be illegal and unsupported.

as you said james, it's only an announced intention... I think it would be a real great commercial direction for apple and so a real great big kickass to microsoft and Mr Bill Gates if apple decides to officially release a version of Mac OS X for PC in native mode, because Mac OS X is the best OS in the world. And this version exists (actually called Mac OS X 10.4.3 v.8F1111A, codename Marklar), as you know, it is still developping by many people... (more information at http://www.win2osx.net/forum/). As you perhaps know to, people with bad intentions exist, and copies of a macOSx86 are unfortunately already sold in bangkok for 6 euros...

I've got this Mac OSx86 version, I'm going to try this in native mode and run audiodesk 2 on my PC.
I'll send you here (and on the site above) the results of my tests.

Best regards

[Jidis]

why would someone want to be so cheap as to not put the proper amount of quidd into the heart of their studio!

No offense, and I hate to start one of the stagnant Mac vs. PC wars (especially not in here ), but the quality of the internal hardware was actually one of many issues which ultimately drove me away from that platform. I used them from the IIci into around the third gen. G4 (first couple OSX builds), and the 'real' hardware inside seemed to get progressively less reliable. My CI motherboard croaked about a year out of warranty, after it was filled with a Nubus video card, a PT audiocard, an 040 PDS CPU card and a TDM card. They wanted around 80% of the machine's value for the replacement, which was probably 200% of the street value. Beyond that, I had really good luck with the Beige's, and have probably collected over twenty in the past years. However, one whole side of my family is loaded with "clear bodied" Macs, thanks to some propaganda from a cousin in the graphics field, and I have heard nothing but horror stories. My G4 was a special educator's deal on a discontinued model and I was thrilled to see it come with a 7200rpm IBM Deskstar. It was supposed to only be a 5400 something. Well, it went into "tick-tock mode" with about 15 gigs worth of Nuendo sessions on it, which I was never able to retrieve. Turns out the next gen. of QuickSilvers had a run of defective Deskstars, which were dying on everybody. The discontinued specials of course didn't carry the regular warranty of the current models. Wonder what they did with all those bad drives? Since the clear plastic era, I've watched everything from several modem failures, dead firewire circuits, dead flyback transformers and video boards, to totally dead G4 motherboards, most of this involved integrated parts and broad "shotgun style" replacement policies which were extremely overpriced and usually too close to the current value of the machines. Add to this the fact that they always seemed to be a step behind in one or two areas, and usually encouraged people to purchase expensive upgrades and Mac compatible cards to compensate. The system bus speeds and HD controller speeds for instance, seemed to take forever to get up to date. When I left, they had just started to put actual ATA66 or 100 controllers on the boards, and then only gave you one, on the primary channel, and regular *old* IDE for the secondary. I never did figure that one out. At the time, even the cheapest mass produced lines of home computer PC boards had ATA66/100/133 on both channels, 2X AGP or better, and usually 133MHz bus speeds, frequently with soft adjustable settings for many other speeds and multipliers. There isn't much point in emphasizing the significance of those figures or dual high speed controller channels to audio or video people, but 25-30M/s sustained throughput was enough by itself to get more than enough solid channels of audio happening, without the usual $1000 of UW Adaptec cards and harder to get overpriced drives. Also, extra PCI drive and peripheral controllers (firewire, USB, ATA) could be had for anywhere from $10 to 50 or 100, were always PC compatible, and if the manufacturers cut too many corners or used problematic chipsets or parts, people usually just bought one of the other brands, so it probably wasn't worth the gamble. They also seem to keep previous "legacy" ports and busses around for more than enough time for most people to make the transition, if they've invested anything in a certain type of hardware, and usually just added the new standards alongside the existing ones.

I realize there are many who have had absolutely no problem with post-G3 machines, but the failure rate that I have personally witnessed here has been absurd, and would give no indication that they are using top of the line internal parts, or that their service, pricing, or replacement policies have changed all that much. I think there's a lot of "you get what you pay for" myth surrounding the platform debates. Mass production and a larger customer base often times means that parts are purchased for significantly less and can be sold accordingly. It would also seem that large companies who not only intend to produce a massive quantity of a board or circuit, but will also need to compete with an infinite number of alternative similar products, at or below their own prices, will likely spend the necessary time and effort to see that their own design holds up and is acceptably cooperative with other hardware and software. For family and friend's computers that I've pieced together over the years, if I haven't had a name brand board or card sitting around, which I've offloaded or upgraded from, I've often used notorious generic boards with less than optimum chipset performance,etc. With the exception of a maybe a PCI NIC and a soundcard of unknown history, *none* of this stuff has failed since it's been in service. It usually reaches the point of obsolescence and is replaced and/or given away. With the costs of much of that stuff, I've also admittedly grown quite careless in it's handling and installation. I rarely wear a ground strap or even bother to discharge myself while dealing with the parts, not to mention the wonderful treatment that it probably receives from the less computer savvy once it leaves here. My PCI/AGP cards are all jumbled together in cardboard boxes with nary a trace of static-proof baggies.

For modern Apples I've looked at, I will admit, they do spend some time on the case. The nicest case of my Beige machines was probably the Quadra950 and that was more for it's card/drive/SIMM capacity. The design was more or less a giant rectangle. I'd probably be crucified by most Mac users for this, but I've found surprising similarities between recent Macs and a few Dells that I've messed with or been given. They seem to have sort of stolen the case design, marketing ideas, and component priorities, yet probably at a lower average cost. They usually have a few proprietary parts and non-user accessible BIOS parameters, which prevent common upgrades and replacements, and the fancy cases are often incompatible from one line to the next, let alone with other standard ATX parts. I also haven't seen many recognizable brand names on the inside, but have heard that there are equivalent brand name motherboards for some, but the Dell boards are locked to their custom proprietary non-removable flash BIOS. The power supplies are also usually barely sufficient, with a high failure rate, and despite the fact that they use the same supply signals and connectors as standard ATX supplies, they've switched the pinouts around to prevent outside replacements, and maybe encourage users to buy new machines (no comment there). I'm pretty sure Dell has caught some flack for that and stopped doing it now, but I'm not so sure about Apple.

I hope this future processor thing helps to strengthen Apple's relationship and compatibility with the majority of the non-Mac world and opens up some options for host machine and part purchases, but I was convinced when the PPC's came out that we would soon be able to run either system's apps directly from our Macs, and it turned out we were lucky to even open some of their files.

Finally back on topic , a Windows ported DP sounds like a Wes Craven flick. Jeez man, the audio/MIDI interface drivers for the hardware don't even work right over here yet.

Sorry for the long-a$$, potentially controversial rambling, but I guess it is an off-topic "gripe" forum. Audio people are audio people, and should be as open minded and experienced with both platforms as they are with the rest of their gear. Open standards, free enterprise and plentiful purchase options are ultimately a good thing for all of us.

-Take Care

George

[newrigel]

I've used em all!
I have to admit... My G5 needed a processor and logic board swap out right in my living room by a mac tech sent from Apple and I was really bent @ that but in the end I was VERY pleased with the performance and the luxury of owning a tool that I can take my material to new heights. No matter what I wouldn't use a PC for my host (I do use em for Kontakt if I run out of DSP) but the reliability and just wierd anomolies that plague windows I just seem to loose the drive to make music with them.

[mhschmieder]

I'm confused why OS X would have to run on a regular PC for this to happen?

My understanding from Apple's announcement last week is that the new Mac's might be capable of dual-boot.

So the bigger question would be whether the new Mac-tel strategy opens the door for MOTU to make DP and MX4 dual platform programs.

Of course I don't know how they're implemented, in terms of assembly-level code vs. Cocoa vs. whatever else.

The point is simply that one would have to know a lot of internals of DP to know what it would take to either make it work on Mac-tels or on PC's.

[billf]

So the bigger question would be whether the new Mac-tel strategy opens the door for MOTU to make DP and MX4 dual platform programs.

It sounds like you might be confusing underlying hardware with the operating system. OSX and Windows are two very different environments. The work to port a unix app to Windows is not trivial, regardless of who provides the chips for the CPU.

[mhschmieder]

Actually, my point was that I thought the earlier poster was confusing the two .

I know nothing of the internals of any of these apps, so cannot guess what any portn job takes, regardless of whether it is an OS change, a framework change, or a chipset change.

That's why I brought up the issue of what level most of these apps (and particularly DP) are implemented at. Many apps are simultaneously implemented on multiple levels, depending on the task at hand. Part of the app might be assembly code, part of it might be a Unix layer, and another part might be dependent on the windowing framework.

Depending on which level of programming the brunt of the app is written in, goes a long way to determining how disruptive to continuity or cross-development a change in the hardware (i.e. chipset), the O.S., or the windowing framework, proves itself to be.

The drivers increasingly are part of the O.S. when it comes to the Mac; whereas I believe they are still primarily vendor-provided on the PC.

[Jidis]

http://www.win2osx.net/forum/

Baptiste,

I forgot to thank you for that pointer. My interest in OSX dropped off shortly after I realized it would likely require continual Mac upgrades, which I had already decided not to make, plus the version bundled with mine was while it was still in it's infancy (not very solid or compatible yet). I may investigate the PC one to see what all the fuss is about.

Unfortunately, someone pulled the plug on that site, for whatever reason, about a day after I read your post. I may be a jinx.

BTW- Your English is great. Don't worry about it.

-George

--------> I forgot--- Is there a replacement for that Win/OSX forum, or is it all dead now? My searches couldn't turn up anything.

[sdfalk]

http://www.win2osx.net/forum/

Baptiste,

I forgot to thank you for that pointer. My interest in OSX dropped off shortly after I realized it would likely require continual Mac upgrades, which I had already decided not to make, .

Why do you figure that?

[Jidis]

Why do you figure that?

Hi sdfalk,

It already sort of had. Nine ran great on that machine, but those OSX builds were way too heavy for it (this was long ago). MS and Apple's current OS versions are never really being progressively optimized for last year's boards or chips, but Apple might be a bit worse in that regard. I was very disappointed to see the usual eye candy and bloat of XP, but there was continued support for 2K,98, and even beyond, from all the manufacturers, so I could upgrade my hardware and keep running 98SE, or upgrade my OS and still run all my apps or hardware. Plus, none of the upgrades ever required replacing my whole DAW. It was usually a MB/CPU combo and maybe memory, or could even be just a faster CPU. I hated having to prepare and sell off my rig at a loss, to try to keep up with the pack. Most PC DAW people don't care for 98SE, but I had always preferred it, and it treated me really well. It's small footprint, responsiveness, and stability was the same reason I really liked MacOS 7.6, but many didn't share that experience with it. To this day, I'll put it (actually 98Lite) on my online machines if I can, and may be using it on my secondary production rig at the studio. I didn't really get pushed into 2K/XP until Nuendo2 came out years later, and AFAIK, just about all the plugs still run in 98. That's pretty good lifespan for computer crap.

-Take Care

George