Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

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/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

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 go back to rehashing 
the who Read the manual thing again? No. He doomed himself when he put 
soundfonts and sample players in the same group.


But, to quote him "That's bloody stupid for the kind of user that I am." 
Pretty much sums it up there.


Johannes Gebauer wrote:

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


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Johannes Gebauer]

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

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

Fingers are crossed on that last point there

Darcy James Argue wrote:
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 computer to handle it. (Which is, of 
course, what the pros do.)


However, for the average user, this is not necessary, provided they 
have an up-to-date computer like the MacIntel. That's the beauty of OS 
X's multi-threading and Intel's Core Duo -- it's entirely possible to 
have one processor core handle the sample playback, while the other 
handles everything else. Given enough memory, upon the release of 
Fin2007, GPO playback should not be a problem on any of the new 
MacIntels (except perhaps the low-end, single core Mac mini).




___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Karen]

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 routines, but if it's in
/usr filespace and you put your /usr folder on the partition that is
accessible from both OS's, that could allow a clever WinXP virus to
drop an OS X-only payload that could cause problems in OS X.


The XP partition isn't visible to OS X so that is good.  And the user  
startup routines are not in the /usr folder as far as I know.  I  
haven't read much about the boot sequence on the new machinesI  
know it is different in some ways but I've been searching for info  
and there isn't much out there yet.  Also, the partition scheme is  
different on the Intel machinesso I have a lot of questions about  
how this all works now too.  They will probably preview the next  
version of the OS (Leopard) at WWDC...which is later than usual this  
year as they will not be ready by June.  A lot more information will  
be public of course by then.




But the answer to that is to never store your /usr folders (or any
other data associated with OS X startup or operations) on a partition
that is read/write accessible to both OS's.


This is GREAT information.  I was messing around with MySQL for  
awhile...this could be an issue depending on where things are  
installed.  I also temporarily hid my main user folder (/Users/ 
yournamehere) in /usr when I took one of my machines in for repair  
just for privacy's sake.  I'll have to find another place to do this  
next time (hopefully there won't be a next time ;-)) as far as  
working with the new machines.




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 that this would have
to be a third partition, outside either the OS X or WinXP partitions,
for it to work.


Thanks again David.  This makes a lot of sense and also is good to  
know as things progress with the new hardware and software.  I feel  
much better now having more of an understanding of what would have to  
take place for there to be issues.  Now I know who to ask too about  
potential problems!...I'll send along boot process info for the new  
systems if when I find it.


Best,

Karen

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Darcy James Argue]

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 computer to handle it. (Which is, of  
course, what the pros do.)


However, for the average user, this is not necessary, provided they  
have an up-to-date computer like the MacIntel. That's the beauty of  
OS X's multi-threading and Intel's Core Duo -- it's entirely possible  
to have one processor core handle the sample playback, while the  
other handles everything else. Given enough memory, upon the release  
of Fin2007, GPO playback should not be a problem on any of the new  
MacIntels (except perhaps the low-end, single core Mac mini).


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

Unbelievable as always..I'm amazed you can make it through a 
day. But whatever.


David W. Fenton wrote:

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 wav" ended up with with a
ton of results. 



I don't lack the software to do this on Windows -- I've already 
purchased it (very cheaply), and it works quite reliably. I was just 
asking what I'd have to buy it again if I were using a Mac, or if 
there were free alternatives. 

I, too, could Google, but I thought I'd ask a community of Mac users 
before doing so, since it's a very theoretical problem.


  

Well, then lets call the synthesizer on my soundcard
a sample player, one that is hard-wired to the samples in that
soundcard's ROM. 
  

It's not in the same class as a Sample player. It's like saying your
64 VW bug is a race car. 



You seem to be determined to miss the point. I don't dispute that 
they are technically different. But they are completely identical in 
regard to the issue of offloading processing and RAM.


  

If the soundfont was produced from samples, it *is* the same
thing. The technical differences don't matter to me because the
issue for me is offloading the processing to a dedicated card
rather than bogging down the system's CPU and RAM with the same
processing. 
  

  But you are missing the point. A soundfont has a sample, but then
it uses that to synthesize. It's different that what GPO does. 



I DON'T CARE THAT IT'S DIFFERENT.

The point is whether or not the computer's CPU and RAM are used, or 
the processor and memory in an off-board device.


  
Did you READ the article? 



What article?

  
A sample player does not do this. 



I DON'T CARE.

  
Which is what a sample player does. But it is cheaper to 
dedicate a separate computer to doing playback. Cause,

basically, you are trying to load as much stuff in memory
and/or access it from a disk to allow for seamless playback. I
don't see how a card is going to help with that, as it's really
a memory/cpu thing. Unless you are proposing some sort of card
that holds its own storage medium, and processor to allow you
to upload and store all the samples.


Oh, puh-leaze. For years Creative has sold $100 soundcards that
do exactly this. 
  
 
Again, you have it wrong. Creative doesn't do anything like that. They

are not producing a Sample player. If you equate Soundfont=Sample
Player then, yeah, sure. But they are two separate things. 



Not from the standpoint of the problem I'm discussing, which is 
offloading processing/temporary storage to a dedicated device.


  
For me, since I work with this stuff for a living, I dedicated 
a whole computer to do it. I can easily run 30+ instruments on
my Pentium 4 machine, and they sound great.   


Well, I *don't* do it for a living. A $100 hardware device that
could load and play samples would be much better for my needs. 
Which was my whole point all along, that I think it's a mistake
that the industry has moved away from that model. 
  

  And we come to the issue again, . . .



No, this is the only issue I've ever been talking about.

  

. . . since you DON'T know what you are talking about, how can you
say the things you do?



\/\/HATEVER.

  

The industry has moved the way it has because it simply does not make
sense to have a card that would do what you think a $100 Creative card
does. To be a SAMPLE player, you'd need a card that has it's own RAM,
storage for gigabytes of samples, and a CPU to handle it. It is just
simpler, faster, and cheaper to have a dedicated PC for that.



So you say.

The results are that computers are being tasked with too much and the 
only option is to run multiple PCs. That's bloody stupid for the kind 
of user that I am.


You can have the last word. I have nothing more to say to you.

  


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

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 wav" ended up with with a
> ton of results. 

I don't lack the software to do this on Windows -- I've already 
purchased it (very cheaply), and it works quite reliably. I was just 
asking what I'd have to buy it again if I were using a Mac, or if 
there were free alternatives. 

I, too, could Google, but I thought I'd ask a community of Mac users 
before doing so, since it's a very theoretical problem.

> > Well, then lets call the synthesizer on my soundcard
> > a sample player, one that is hard-wired to the samples in that
> > soundcard's ROM. 
> 
> It's not in the same class as a Sample player. It's like saying your
> 64 VW bug is a race car. 

You seem to be determined to miss the point. I don't dispute that 
they are technically different. But they are completely identical in 
regard to the issue of offloading processing and RAM.

> > If the soundfont was produced from samples, it *is* the same
> > thing. The technical differences don't matter to me because the
> > issue for me is offloading the processing to a dedicated card
> > rather than bogging down the system's CPU and RAM with the same
> > processing. 
>
>   But you are missing the point. A soundfont has a sample, but then
> it uses that to synthesize. It's different that what GPO does. 

I DON'T CARE THAT IT'S DIFFERENT.

The point is whether or not the computer's CPU and RAM are used, or 
the processor and memory in an off-board device.

> Did you READ the article? 

What article?

> A sample player does not do this. 

I DON'T CARE.

> > > Which is what a sample player does. But it is cheaper to 
> > > dedicate a separate computer to doing playback. Cause,
> > > basically, you are trying to load as much stuff in memory
> > > and/or access it from a disk to allow for seamless playback. I
> > > don't see how a card is going to help with that, as it's really
> > > a memory/cpu thing. Unless you are proposing some sort of card
> > > that holds its own storage medium, and processor to allow you
> > > to upload and store all the samples.
> >
> > Oh, puh-leaze. For years Creative has sold $100 soundcards that
> > do exactly this. 
>  
> Again, you have it wrong. Creative doesn't do anything like that. They
> are not producing a Sample player. If you equate Soundfont=Sample
> Player then, yeah, sure. But they are two separate things. 

Not from the standpoint of the problem I'm discussing, which is 
offloading processing/temporary storage to a dedicated device.

> > > For me, since I work with this stuff for a living, I dedicated 
> > > a whole computer to do it. I can easily run 30+ instruments on
> > > my Pentium 4 machine, and they sound great.   
> >
> > Well, I *don't* do it for a living. A $100 hardware device that
> > could load and play samples would be much better for my needs. 
> > Which was my whole point all along, that I think it's a mistake
> > that the industry has moved away from that model. 
>
>   And we come to the issue again, . . .

No, this is the only issue I've ever been talking about.

> . . . since you DON'T know what you are talking about, how can you
> say the things you do?

\/\/HATEVER.

> The industry has moved the way it has because it simply does not make
> sense to have a card that would do what you think a $100 Creative card
> does. To be a SAMPLE player, you'd need a card that has it's own RAM,
> storage for gigabytes of samples, and a CPU to handle it. It is just
> simpler, faster, and cheaper to have a dedicated PC for that.

So you say.

The results are that computers are being tasked with too much and the 
only option is to run multiple PCs. That's bloody stupid for the kind 
of user that I am.

You can have the last word. I have nothing more to say to you.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

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 lets call the synthesizer on my soundcard a sample player, 
one that is hard-wired to the samples in that soundcard's ROM.
  
It's not in the same class as a Sample player. It's like saying your 64 
VW bug is a race car.

If the soundfont was produced from samples, it *is* the same thing.

The technical differences don't matter to me because the issue for me 
is offloading the processing to a dedicated card rather than bogging 
down the system's CPU and RAM with the same processing.
  
But you are missing the point. A soundfont has a sample, but then it 
uses that to synthesize. It's different that what GPO does. Did you READ 
the article? A sample player does not do this.

Which is what a sample player does. But it is cheaper to dedicate a
separate computer to doing playback. Cause, basically, you are trying
to load as much stuff in memory and/or access it from a disk to allow
for seamless playback. I don't see how a card is going to help with
that, as it's really a memory/cpu thing. Unless you are proposing some
sort of card that holds its own storage medium, and processor to allow
you to upload and store all the samples.



Oh, puh-leaze. For years Creative has sold $100 soundcards that do 
exactly this.
  
Again, you have it wrong. Creative doesn't do anything like that. They 
are not producing a Sample player. If you equate Soundfont=Sample Player 
then, yeah, sure. But they are two separate things.
  

For me, since I work with this stuff for a living, I dedicated a whole
computer to do it. I can easily run 30+ instruments on my Pentium 4
machine, and they sound great.   



Well, I *don't* do it for a living. A $100 hardware device that could 
load and play samples would be much better for my needs.


Which was my whole point all along, that I think it's a mistake that 
the industry has moved away from that model.
  
And we come to the issue again, since you DON'T know what you are 
talking about, how can you say the things you do?


The industry has moved the way it has because it simply does not make 
sense to have a card that would do what you think a $100 Creative card 
does. To be a SAMPLE player, you'd need a card that has it's own RAM, 
storage for gigabytes of samples, and a CPU to handle it. It is just 
simpler, faster, and cheaper to have a dedicated PC for that.


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Darcy James Argue]

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 mention that most sample libraries are much, much, much larger  
than GPO, requiring constant streaming from the HD.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 06 Apr 2006, at 12:56 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


No, no, no. That is not the kind of hardware-based sound I'm talking
about.

If a soundcard has a DSP at its heart it can take over processing. If
it has built-in RAM, the samples being played by the DSP can be
loaded into that RAM, instead of into the main system RAM. That would
offload both the RAM and the processing to a separate device, and
leave the system RAM and processor available for all the other tasks
it has to accomplish. You'd initialize the soundcard by loading the
samples, then send it the MIDI data.

The only difference between this and the traditional soundcard with
samples stored in ROM is that this kind of soundcard isn't limited to
the samples stored in its ROM. And Creative and Turtle Beach were
selling that kind of sound card nearly 10 years ago.

--
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
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] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

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 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 is true about Quicktime Instruments, but, seriously, way would
> >> you render a Midi using it?
> >
> > The point is that I *wouldn't*, but it's the only option. That's why
> > I have a separate program that allows me to capture the output of
> > any of the MIDI synthesizers on my system (soft or hard).
> >   
> No it's not. There are a number of ways to convert a Midi to a Wave
> NOT using Quicktime.

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.

> > 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 hardware. If it were done in
> > hardware, it would make the system much more efficient. If GPO's
> > instruments could be offloaded to a separate DSP on a soundcard,
> > you'd not have the awful problems that occur with loading up too
> > many of them at a time.
> >   
> Synthesizer is a Synthesizer, not a sample player. Two different
> things. 

Well, then lets call the synthesizer on my soundcard a sample player, 
one that is hard-wired to the samples in that soundcard's ROM.

> > I don't distinguish between soundfonts and samples. 
>  
> Which is the problem. They are two different things.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundfont "akin to sampling". Akin is not
> the SAME as sampling. GPO and others have extensive samples of
> instruments in different ranges, dynamics, etc. Soundfonts do not have
> all this detail.

If the soundfont was produced from samples, it *is* the same thing.

The technical differences don't matter to me because the issue for me 
is offloading the processing to a dedicated card rather than bogging 
down the system's CPU and RAM with the same processing.

> > Well, I've never used any. I don't know the terminology. All I meant
> > was that you're loading your instrument sounds from data stored in
> > files, rather than hard-encoded into a particular soft synth or ROM
> > on a soundcard.
>
> Which is what a sample player does. But it is cheaper to dedicate a
> separate computer to doing playback. Cause, basically, you are trying
> to load as much stuff in memory and/or access it from a disk to allow
> for seamless playback. I don't see how a card is going to help with
> that, as it's really a memory/cpu thing. Unless you are proposing some
> sort of card that holds its own storage medium, and processor to allow
> you to upload and store all the samples.

Oh, puh-leaze. For years Creative has sold $100 soundcards that do 
exactly this.

> For me, since I work with this stuff for a living, I dedicated a whole
> computer to do it. I can easily run 30+ instruments on my Pentium 4
> machine, and they sound great.   

Well, I *don't* do it for a living. A $100 hardware device that could 
load and play samples would be much better for my needs.

Which was my whole point all along, that I think it's a mistake that 
the industry has moved away from that model.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

Totally agree. When GPO (or rather, Native Instruments) releases a 
Universal version, I'm getting an Intel Mac. It would be interesting to 
see if anyone who has GPO, Windows, Mac OS X, and is brave enough to try 
it, see how many GPO or JABB instruments they can load.


Darcy James Argue wrote:
The Core Duo processors found in the new Macs are more than adequate 
to play back large numbers of GPO samples simultaneously.


The only problem with GPO is that the demands of the software were 
ahead of the hardware most people own. But if you're talking about a 
new Intel Core Duo at 1.8-2 GHz, that's a massive improvement over a 
similarly clocked G4 or G5. A 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro with 2 GB of RAM 
would run GPO like a champ in either Windows or (once a Universal 
version is released) Mac OS X.


Whether you like it or not, hardware-based sounds are a complete 
anachronism. One of the many reasons they are vastly inferior to 
software-based samples is that you're stuck with the hardware samples 
and can never upgrade them, whereas upgrading your software samples is 
as easy as buying a new library. And there are simply no 
hardware-based soundcards that offer anything like the quality and 
flexibility you get with GPO or Garritan JABB.


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

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 cards that are better, and can be had 
for really cheap. And if you got an M-Audio card, you can RUN Protools.


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Karen]

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. Just to look at the pretty Aqua  
Interface once every week?


Speed??  The IntelMacs are faster running some apps (namely Photoshop  
CS2) on the Windows XP platform than a "built specifically for  
Windows" machines.  And these benchmarks were done with the  
hacks..not with Boot Camp.  So I'm looking forward to seeing some  
more benchmark tests now.


-K

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

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 MIDI-to-WAV
conversion it's useless, since it uses the horrid QT instruments.
  
  

This is true about Quicktime Instruments, but, seriously, way would
you render a Midi using it?



The point is that I *wouldn't*, but it's the only option. That's why 
I have a separate program that allows me to capture the output of any 
of the MIDI synthesizers on my system (soft or hard).
  
No it's not. There are a number of ways to convert a Midi to a Wave NOT 
using Quicktime.


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 hardware. If it were done in hardware, 
it would make the system much more efficient. If GPO's instruments 
could be offloaded to a separate DSP on a soundcard, you'd not have 
the awful problems that occur with loading up too many of them at a 
time.
  

Synthesizer is a Synthesizer, not a sample player. Two different things.

I don't distinguish between soundfonts and samples.
  

Which is the problem. They are two different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundfont
"akin to sampling". Akin is not the SAME as sampling. GPO and others 
have extensive samples of instruments in different ranges, dynamics, 
etc. Soundfonts do not have all this detail.




Well, I've never used any. I don't know the terminology. All I meant 
was that you're loading your instrument sounds from data stored in 
files, rather than hard-encoded into a particular soft synth or ROM 
on a soundcard.
Which is what a sample player does. But it is cheaper to dedicate a 
separate computer to doing playback. Cause, basically, you are trying to 
load as much stuff in memory and/or access it from a disk to allow for 
seamless playback. I don't see how a card is going to help with that, as 
it's really a memory/cpu thing. Unless you are proposing some sort of 
card that holds its own storage medium, and processor to allow you to 
upload and store all the samples.


For me, since I work with this stuff for a living, I dedicated a whole 
computer to do it. I can easily run 30+ instruments on my Pentium 4 
machine, and they sound great.   


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

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 that the forthcoming desktop Intel 
>Macs will have ATA hard drive (or that $40 staples drive you mentioned) 
>then you can easily add another drive to your Mac. But, I'd expect 
>Apple's new desktops will have Serial ATA drives, like the current 
>Powermacs dueso.an ATA drive won't work right out of the 
>box.

I haven't looked at the Mac boxes, so I really don't know what they look
like or what fits in them, hence my questions. The Maxtor drives are SATA
now, and I have my various drives in ATA caddies, USB caddies, 1394 caddies
and an X-drive ... making up just shy of a terabyte of project storage in
hard drives that I presently exchange among three machines. As long as the
Windows-formatted drives would work in some way or another, even with two
or three steps to do it, that's good.

Please remember I'm truly Mac-ignorant, and these answers may seem obvious
to you, but not me. I used an Apple II at a Vermont Computer Club meeting
sometime about 1980, had some brought to my shop (Apple wouldn't sell
internals), and I have a few times browsed with my mother-in-law's machine.
Basically I was TRS-80 from 1977 through 1992, and PC from 1992.

>And sound cards. M-Audio's stuff has always worked on Macs. Not sure 
>about Creatives stuff, but M-Audio's stuff is better in my opinion. 
>Plus, you can run a version of protools on M-Audio's hardware (since 
>they are the same company).

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.

What really interests me is the integration of the two OSes, even if
through these tentative steps, and the ability to share files, etc.,
convert one to another as needed, and at last be able to talk with Mac
clients over the phone. It doesn't happen often, but I have one Mac client
who's as ignorant of PC as I am of Mac, and we're always struggling over
installed font issues (my default Finale template is very modified) and
what keystrokes and menu items do what. It's some fancy scoring (next
question in following post).

Dennis




-- 

Please participate in my latest project:
http://maltedmedia.com/waam/



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Apr 2006 at 12:49, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> Whether you like it or not, hardware-based sounds are a complete 
> anachronism. One of the many reasons they are vastly inferior to 
> software-based samples is that you're stuck with the hardware samples 
> and can never upgrade them, whereas upgrading your software samples 
> is as easy as buying a new library. And there are simply no hardware-
> based soundcards that offer anything like the quality and flexibility 
> you get with GPO or Garritan JABB.

No, no, no. That is not the kind of hardware-based sound I'm talking 
about. 

If a soundcard has a DSP at its heart it can take over processing. If 
it has built-in RAM, the samples being played by the DSP can be 
loaded into that RAM, instead of into the main system RAM. That would 
offload both the RAM and the processing to a separate device, and 
leave the system RAM and processor available for all the other tasks 
it has to accomplish. You'd initialize the soundcard by loading the 
samples, then send it the MIDI data.

The only difference between this and the traditional soundcard with 
samples stored in ROM is that this kind of soundcard isn't limited to 
the samples stored in its ROM. And Creative and Turtle Beach were 
selling that kind of sound card nearly 10 years ago.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Darcy James Argue]

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 hardware. If it were done in hardware,
it would make the system much more efficient. If GPO's instruments
could be offloaded to a separate DSP on a soundcard, you'd not have
the awful problems that occur with loading up too many of them at a
time.


The Core Duo processors found in the new Macs are more than adequate  
to play back large numbers of GPO samples simultaneously.


The only problem with GPO is that the demands of the software were  
ahead of the hardware most people own. But if you're talking about a  
new Intel Core Duo at 1.8-2 GHz, that's a massive improvement over a  
similarly clocked G4 or G5. A 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro with 2 GB of RAM  
would run GPO like a champ in either Windows or (once a Universal  
version is released) Mac OS X.


Whether you like it or not, hardware-based sounds are a complete  
anachronism. One of the many reasons they are vastly inferior to  
software-based samples is that you're stuck with the hardware samples  
and can never upgrade them, whereas upgrading your software samples  
is as easy as buying a new library. And there are simply no hardware- 
based soundcards that offer anything like the quality and flexibility  
you get with GPO or Garritan JABB.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

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 owning a fancy IntelMac for
> Dual Booting. Just to look at the pretty Aqua Interface once every
> week?

Well, the fact is, if I were to dual boot, I'd probably spend most of 
my time when not doing my Access programming booted in OS X, using it 
for web browsing, email, and so forth. My programming work is the 
only thing that is tied ineluctably to Windows.

I've been doing a lot of data processing in Access the last 3 days, 
but I'm doing all of it remotely, with Windows Terminal Server 
logons, so I could do that just as easily running OS X as running 
Windows.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Johannes Gebauer]

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 
choice on Win is just as good if not better.

Logic, Digital Performer, Protools would be the reason. The latest version of 
Digital Performer really sets a high standard.


ProTools runs on the PC, too. None of these three are in any way suited 
to editing classical music recordings. Anyone who has seen 
SonicSolutions or Sequoia, and does a lot of classical music will agree. 
Besides, there are no real options for DVD-A mastering, and DDP file 
sets have only just become possible. Mac for Audio? Well, if all you do 
is sequencing, then yes, there are good options. If you want to do 
mastering on a serious pro level, forget it, you are wasting precious 
studio time.




This might change when SonicStudio brings out their new mastering soft, but 
this would still leave the Mac with one option, while there are at least three 
on the PC (Sequoia, Pyramix, Sadie).

So then it comes down to Finale. Would you really ever switch to OSX for Finale?

Yes. Cleaner user interface. No need to have a subscription to a virus 
"protection" company (or Mafia company). Using both Finale on Mac and PC, I 
still think the Mac version generally looks and runs better. The PC version is faster, 
but once MakeMusic ships an Intel version, things will be interesting.


What, you are saying you will use Word on the PC, and restart and boot 
into OS X to work in Finale, just to avoid viruses? That's what I 
understood David was thinking of. (You might just as well unplug your 
internet connection, that is quicker, and safer.) And I really can't see 
the point of it. The Finale user interface is hardly different on Mac 
from Windows, if anything Windows beats it for it's keyboard commands, 
for Jari's plugins, for keyboard customizability.



I really can't see the big advantage of having a dual boot machine for anyone 
who is happily running Windows today. I love the Mac and OS X, but in the last 
two years I have been very close to going over to Windows several times. For me 
the dual boot is a god sent, but perhaps not in the way that Apple intended it. 
For me it may very well end up being the smoothest way to slowly start 
converting to Windows. And I sort of fear that I won't be the only one.

Why would you convert to Windows from Mac? Close to switching due to what? 
Cause you can't get iTunes to batch convert things? (which, if you did a little 
playing around or reading, you can do). Or because you have stuck yourself with 
Quicktimes sound and haven't looked for that freeware program that will allow 
you to use Garageband instruments instead of Quicktime? Or that you want to 
indulge yourself in Creative Labs sound cards?


Well, I think you didn't really read my post. For the lack of serious 
Audio mastering software. There simply is no 4-point, source-destination 
editing on the Mac. Considering it all started on a Mac (Sonic Solutions 
was actually the first) this is a pretty major problem if you are 
serious about Audio, and work in classical music.


There are other reasons, too: One of the few reasonably good CD 
mastering applications is Waveburner Pro. However, when Apple bought 
Emagic, they made Waveburner Pro a part of Logic. Now, I as a long time 
Waveburner Pro owner (OS 9 version) have to  get the full Logic if I 
want to continue using it. A pretty hefty upgrade considering I have 
absolutely no use for Logic. I feel fooled by Apple (and Emagic, who 
told me over two years that an OS X version of Waveburner was under 
development, but didn't mention I would have to get Logic to get it).


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] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

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, since it uses the horrid QT instruments.
> >   
> This is true about Quicktime Instruments, but, seriously, way would
> you render a Midi using it?

The point is that I *wouldn't*, but it's the only option. That's why 
I have a separate program that allows me to capture the output of any 
of the MIDI synthesizers on my system (soft or hard).

> iTunes does allow you to CHANGE settings. Not sure what you mean by "I
> won't use it for anything else because I don't like the choices that
> have been made for me." iTunes doesn't encode your files with DRM.
> That is totally FUD. 

I've tried changing settings and they don't allow me the same 
flexibility as the other tools that I've been using.

> > They may be, but I consider that a stupid
> > trend. Systems are moving towards handing off all the graphics
> > processing to dedicated devices, so I don't quite understand why 
> > the trend in audio is going in the other direction. There was a time
> > when there was a move to share video and system memory, but that
> > obviously didn't work out very well for the new graphics-heavy 
> > OS's, so that's ending. It just makes sense to have a separate
> > device for this and I just think it's bloody stupid for the
> > industry to try to move towards all-software synthesis.
> > Soundfonts are great, but they can just as easily be loaded into
> > the synthesizer card's RAM as into the PC's. 
>
>   Soundfonts pale in comparison to all the great
> sample players out there. . . .

>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 hardware. If it were done in hardware, 
it would make the system much more efficient. If GPO's instruments 
could be offloaded to a separate DSP on a soundcard, you'd not have 
the awful problems that occur with loading up too many of them at a 
time.

> . . . And there are cards available that will take
> some of the audio processing away from the computer, though its more
> for plug ins. As horsepower increases, why do you need a card to
> handle the task. You could probably easily run a full 30 piece band
> using an intel version of GPO or something, and it would sound more
> convincing than using soundfonts.

I don't distinguish between soundfonts and samples.

> Seriously though, soundfonts are a thing of the 90s.

Well, I've never used any. I don't know the terminology. All I meant 
was that you're loading your instrument sounds from data stored in 
files, rather than hard-encoded into a particular soft synth or ROM 
on a soundcard.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

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 is true about Quicktime Instruments, but, seriously, way would you 
render a Midi using it?


iTunes does allow you to CHANGE settings. Not sure what you mean by "I 
won't use it for anything else because I don't like the choices that 
have been made for me." iTunes doesn't encode your files with DRM. That 
is totally FUD.
They may be, but I consider that a stupid trend. Systems are moving 
towards handing off all the graphics processing to dedicated devices, 
so I don't quite understand why the trend in audio is going in the 
other direction. There was a time when there was a move to share 
video and system memory, but that obviously didn't work out very well 
for the new graphics-heavy OS's, so that's ending.


It just makes sense to have a separate device for this and I just 
think it's bloody stupid for the industry to try to move towards all-
software synthesis. Soundfonts are great, but they can just as easily 
be loaded into the synthesizer card's RAM as into the PC's.
  
Soundfonts pale in comparison to all the great sample players out there. 
And there are cards available that will take some of the audio 
processing away from the computer, though its more for plug ins. As 
horsepower increases, why do you need a card to handle the task. You 
could probably easily run a full 30 piece band using an intel version of 
GPO or something, and it would sound more convincing than using soundfonts.


Seriously though, soundfonts are a thing of the 90s.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Scot Hanna-Weir]

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 free utilities built in Perl, and open source, (as that's how Perl
works), completely available to you. Granted, nothing that runs in a Unix
terminal is as pretty as it could be...but for old DOS lovers like myself,
it's kind of nostalgic.

---
Scot Hanna-Weir
Music Engraver
A-R Editions, Inc.
Middleton, WI

www.areditions.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On 4/6/06 10:32 AM, "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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 isn't possible (at least not reliable thing to do) on Mac file
>> system.  I don't want to sound negative but non-Mac file systems are
>> much more loose, and Mac users, at least I, have been envy about that.
>> On the other hand, Mac file system made multiple boot from any volume
>> possible.
> 
> I was just sure that Partition Magic had a Mac version. I also know
> for a fact that the professional version used to support Linux, but
> since they've been bought by Symantec (ARGH!!!), they seem to have
> made it a Windows-only product. Since it seems that they've
> eliminated the Linux support, I wonder if that implies that my memory
> of the Mac support was correct?
> 
> Then again, Linux support only requires the ability to read/write the
> volume, not the capability to run on Linux (since it reboots its own
> OS, rather than rebooting in the installed OS). From Googling, I
> can't see any evidence that Partition Magic can work with Mac
> volumes.
> 
> That's too bad -- it's such a great thing to be able to do. I'm
> constantly resizing partitions on existing drives for myself and for
> clients. It's something I've come to consider as standard practice.
> 
> Of course, once Windows is on a dual-boot MacIntel, I wonder if
> Partition Magic can then work from WinXP? While Googling I definitely
> saw instructions for using Partition Magic in Windows to resize
> partitions for installing Darwin on Intel hardware (this predates the
> MacIntel). But that was also allocating a partition to install OS X
> on, rather than dynamically resizing after the OS X installation.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

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. But my guess is that this would have
>to be a third partition, outside either the OS X or WinXP partitions,
>for it to work.

I believe there are programs that will mount a unix/linux disk in 
windows, but I haven't used them.


There is a program that will write NTFS from DOS so it could be done 
from OS X.  I am not familiar at all with OS X.


You can READ NTFS volumes just fine. But writing is an issue, even in 
Linux from what I understand.


http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20050521110452194&lsrc=osxh

Though FAT works both ways...

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

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 biggest problem with the
> Mac and one good reason to dream of a new intel Mac, so I can boot
> Windows and run Samplitude or Sequoia (once I can afford it).

Well, I thought the Finale experience was better on OS X.

> But this raises a question for me:
> > 
> > Are there as many free tools for this as there are for Windows? I'd
> > hate to give up Exact Audio Copy (for burning CDs), or LAMEBatch
> > (for batch conversion of WAV to MP3), or MIDI2Wav for recording WAV
> > files from MIDI files, or Audacity (general wave-based audio
> > editing). 
> 
> Audacity I believe is available for OS X. If you just need simple
> copying of Audio CDs, with quite a bit extra, iTunes will happily do
> the job, but it isn't for pro-use. iTunes will also convert from Wav
> to MP3, not sure it does batch conversion. iTunes can also convert
> Midi to Wav, but I am not sure the quality will please you - it uses
> the built in Quicktime synthesizer, which is, well, not great.

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.

> Are
> > there free counterparts, or applets included with OS X that allow
> > you to do this? I don't really like iTunes, to be honest, and
> > wouldn't want to use it for the first two tasks.
> 
> Well, then you might have to search a little. Not sure what else there
> is, but perhaps iTunes on the Mac is better than on the PC? 

I don't know. It would have to be substantially better, completely 
different, in fact, for me to consider replacing all the special-use 
tools that I have for those tasks.

> > And
> does the Mac have hardware-based synthesizer cards, or is it 
> > basically a choice of outboard synthesizers or software
> > synthesis? 
> 
> To my knowledge the latter. But aren't hardware synths becoming a
> thing of the past anyway?

They may be, but I consider that a stupid trend. Systems are moving 
towards handing off all the graphics processing to dedicated devices, 
so I don't quite understand why the trend in audio is going in the 
other direction. There was a time when there was a move to share 
video and system memory, but that obviously didn't work out very well 
for the new graphics-heavy OS's, so that's ending.

It just makes sense to have a separate device for this and I just 
think it's bloody stupid for the industry to try to move towards all-
software synthesis. Soundfonts are great, but they can just as easily 
be loaded into the synthesizer card's RAM as into the PC's.

> > I'm not at all thrilled about the performance-hungry profile of VPO
> > --
> 
> What is VPO?

Brain fart -- I reached into my memory for "GPO" and retrieved "VPO" 
instead.

> > I like to do other things while letting slow processes run in the
> > background, but if the system is already heavily taxed, the result
> > would be flawed output files. Basically I don't want to have to walk
> > away from the computer while these things are running.
> 
> 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
> better.

OK. I didn't really know that was the case.

> This might change when SonicStudio brings out their new mastering
> soft, but this would still leave the Mac with one option, while there
> are at least three on the PC (Sequoia, Pyramix, Sadie).
> 
> So then it comes down to Finale. Would you really ever switch to OSX
> for Finale?

Well, I don't know.

> I really can't see the big advantage of having a dual boot machine for
> anyone who is happily running Windows today. I love the Mac and OS X,
> but in the last two years I have been very close to going over to
> Windows several times. For me the dual boot is a god sent, but perhaps
> not in the way that Apple intended it. For me it may very well end up
> being the smoothest way to slowly start converting to Windows. And I
> sort of fear that I won't be the only one.

Well, I'm not completely happy with Windows.

Secondly, I've coveted the Mac's better UI for as long as I've been a 
computer user.

Third, I would like to become Mac-proficient so that I could offer 
broader service in my consulting business. 

Fourth, I do substantial graphics work with my web clients and the 
Mac would be better for that in terms of graphics editing.

If my finances had not gone bad in the last 3 years, I likely would 
have acquired a Mac as a 

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

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 now only have Windows
drivers? I'm one of those looking speculatively at this unit because I'd
like to have some Mac knowledge, be able to use Mac files that I receive,
and still be able to do what I do now, all in one box. A complete
dual-capable system, hardware and software, would be great. Like can I
still buy those $40 200GB hard drive specials at Staples and put them in?
Does it have slots that will accommodate my high-end sound cards? Or is
this dual-boot a software support system only?

Dennis
  
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 that the forthcoming desktop Intel 
Macs will have ATA hard drive (or that $40 staples drive you mentioned) 
then you can easily add another drive to your Mac. But, I'd expect 
Apple's new desktops will have Serial ATA drives, like the current 
Powermacs dueso.an ATA drive won't work right out of the 
box.


And sound cards. M-Audio's stuff has always worked on Macs. Not sure 
about Creatives stuff, but M-Audio's stuff is better in my opinion. 
Plus, you can run a version of protools on M-Audio's hardware (since 
they are the same company).

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

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.


http://www.coriolis-systems.com/iPartition.php

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 (at least not reliable thing to do) on Mac file
system.  I don't want to sound negative but non-Mac file systems are
much more loose, and Mac users, at least I, have been envy about that. 
On the other hand, Mac file system made multiple boot from any volume

possible.

  


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

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 better.
Logic, Digital Performer, Protools would be the reason. The latest 
version of Digital Performer really sets a high standard.



This might change when SonicStudio brings out their new mastering 
soft, but this would still leave the Mac with one option, while there 
are at least three on the PC (Sequoia, Pyramix, Sadie).


So then it comes down to Finale. Would you really ever switch to OSX 
for Finale?
Yes. Cleaner user interface. No need to have a subscription to a virus 
"protection" company (or Mafia company). Using both Finale on Mac and 
PC, I still think the Mac version generally looks and runs better. The 
PC version is faster, but once MakeMusic ships an Intel version, things 
will be interesting.
I really can't see the big advantage of having a dual boot machine for 
anyone who is happily running Windows today. I love the Mac and OS X, 
but in the last two years I have been very close to going over to 
Windows several times. For me the dual boot is a god sent, but perhaps 
not in the way that Apple intended it. For me it may very well end up 
being the smoothest way to slowly start converting to Windows. And I 
sort of fear that I won't be the only one.
Why would you convert to Windows from Mac? Close to switching due to 
what? Cause you can't get iTunes to batch convert things? (which, if you 
did a little playing around or reading, you can do). Or because you have 
stuck yourself with Quicktimes sound and haven't looked for that 
freeware program that will allow you to use Garageband instruments 
instead of Quicktime? Or that you want to indulge yourself in Creative 
Labs sound cards?

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[A-NO-NE Music]

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 Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Johannes Gebauer]

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 (at least not reliable thing to do) on Mac file
system.  I don't want to sound negative but non-Mac file systems are
much more loose, and Mac users, at least I, have been envy about that. 
On the other hand, Mac file system made multiple boot from any volume

possible.



Hiro,

so what does this new Apple Software actually do? It does precisely what 
you say can't be done. And so do at least three other software packages. 
Go to versiontracker and search for partition.


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] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Johannes Gebauer]

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 of a new intel Mac, so I can boot
Windows and run Samplitude or Sequoia (once I can afford it).

But this raises a question for me:


Are there as many free tools for this as there are for Windows? I'd 
hate to give up Exact Audio Copy (for burning CDs), or LAMEBatch (for 
batch conversion of WAV to MP3), or MIDI2Wav for recording WAV files 
from MIDI files, or Audacity (general wave-based audio editing). 


Audacity I believe is available for OS X. If you just need simple
copying of Audio CDs, with quite a bit extra, iTunes will happily do the
job, but it isn't for pro-use. iTunes will also convert from Wav to MP3,
not sure it does batch conversion. iTunes can also convert Midi to Wav,
but I am not sure the quality will please you - it uses the built in
Quicktime synthesizer, which is, well, not great.

Are
there free counterparts, or applets included with OS X that allow you 
to do this? I don't really like iTunes, to be honest, and wouldn't 
want to use it for the first two tasks.


Well, then you might have to search a little. Not sure what else there
is, but perhaps iTunes on the Mac is better than on the PC?


And does the Mac have hardware-based synthesizer cards, or is it 
basically a choice of outboard synthesizers or software synthesis? 


To my knowledge the latter. But aren't hardware synths becoming a thing
of the past anyway?


I'm not at all thrilled about the performance-hungry profile of VPO --


What is VPO?

I like to do other things while letting slow processes run in the 
background, but if the system is already heavily taxed, the result 
would be flawed output files. Basically I don't want to have to walk 
away from the computer while these things are running.




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 better.


This might change when SonicStudio brings out their new mastering soft, 
but this would still leave the Mac with one option, while there are at 
least three on the PC (Sequoia, Pyramix, Sadie).


So then it comes down to Finale. Would you really ever switch to OSX for 
Finale?


I really can't see the big advantage of having a dual boot machine for 
anyone who is happily running Windows today. I love the Mac and OS X, 
but in the last two years I have been very close to going over to 
Windows several times. For me the dual boot is a god sent, but perhaps 
not in the way that Apple intended it. For me it may very well end up 
being the smoothest way to slowly start converting to Windows. And I 
sort of fear that I won't be the only one.


Johannes

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] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

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 isn't possible (at least not reliable thing to do) on Mac file
> system.  I don't want to sound negative but non-Mac file systems are
> much more loose, and Mac users, at least I, have been envy about that.
> On the other hand, Mac file system made multiple boot from any volume
> possible.

I was just sure that Partition Magic had a Mac version. I also know 
for a fact that the professional version used to support Linux, but 
since they've been bought by Symantec (ARGH!!!), they seem to have 
made it a Windows-only product. Since it seems that they've 
eliminated the Linux support, I wonder if that implies that my memory 
of the Mac support was correct?

Then again, Linux support only requires the ability to read/write the 
volume, not the capability to run on Linux (since it reboots its own 
OS, rather than rebooting in the installed OS). From Googling, I 
can't see any evidence that Partition Magic can work with Mac 
volumes.

That's too bad -- it's such a great thing to be able to do. I'm 
constantly resizing partitions on existing drives for myself and for 
clients. It's something I've come to consider as standard practice.

Of course, once Windows is on a dual-boot MacIntel, I wonder if 
Partition Magic can then work from WinXP? While Googling I definitely 
saw instructions for using Partition Magic in Windows to resize 
partitions for installing Darwin on Intel hardware (this predates the 
MacIntel). But that was also allocating a partition to install OS X 
on, rather than dynamically resizing after the OS X installation.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Apr 2006 at 10:47, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:

> 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 Athlon), so I'm looking around for an all-bases-covered option
> at last. In my lifetime! :)

My thought is that if I went with a dual-boot Mac, I'd use OS X for 
Finale and audio. But this raises a question for me:

Are there as many free tools for this as there are for Windows? I'd 
hate to give up Exact Audio Copy (for burning CDs), or LAMEBatch (for 
batch conversion of WAV to MP3), or MIDI2Wav for recording WAV files 
from MIDI files, or Audacity (general wave-based audio editing). Are 
there free counterparts, or applets included with OS X that allow you 
to do this? I don't really like iTunes, to be honest, and wouldn't 
want to use it for the first two tasks.

And does the Mac have hardware-based synthesizer cards, or is it 
basically a choice of outboard synthesizers or software synthesis? 
I'm not at all thrilled about the performance-hungry profile of VPO --
I like to do other things while letting slow processes run in the 
background, but if the system is already heavily taxed, the result 
would be flawed output files. Basically I don't want to have to walk 
away from the computer while these things are running.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[A-NO-NE Music]

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 Mac file
system.  I don't want to sound negative but non-Mac file systems are
much more loose, and Mac users, at least I, have been envy about that. 
On the other hand, Mac file system made multiple boot from any volume
possible.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

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 Athlon), so I'm looking around for an all-bases-covered option at
last. In my lifetime! :)

Dennis





___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Darcy James Argue]

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 you will need (mostly stuff like graphics drivers, Bluetooth,  
and volume/brightness key support, sound drivers -- stuff that  
requires a slightly different configuration for the XP side). Of  
course, you can install any additional drivers you need (for  
printers, mice, etc) once you have Windows up and running.



Add-in cards and other devices that now only have Windows
drivers?


It's not really possible to say yet, since none of the current  
MacIntel models are desktop machines with empty PCI slots.



Like can I
still buy those $40 200GB hard drive specials at Staples and put  
them in?


Of course. You can do that with non-Intel Macs as well, obviously --  
Apple has been using standard ATA hard drives for over 10 years.



Does it have slots that will accommodate my high-end sound cards?


If they are PCI-based, at the moment, no. But of course eventually  
there will be a MacIntel Power Mac with a bunch of free PCI slots.



Or is
this dual-boot a software support system only?


No.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

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
drivers? I'm one of those looking speculatively at this unit because I'd
like to have some Mac knowledge, be able to use Mac files that I receive,
and still be able to do what I do now, all in one box. A complete
dual-capable system, hardware and software, would be great. Like can I
still buy those $40 200GB hard drive specials at Staples and put them in?
Does it have slots that will accommodate my high-end sound cards? Or is
this dual-boot a software support system only?

Dennis



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Phil Daley]

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 that this would have
>to be a third partition, outside either the OS X or WinXP partitions,
>for it to work.

I believe there are programs that will mount a unix/linux disk in windows, 
but I haven't used them.


There is a program that will write NTFS from DOS so it could be done from 
OS X.  I am not familiar at all with OS X.


Phil Daley  < AutoDesk >
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

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 under EFI (or
> > whatever the Apple equivalent to the BIOS is). Of course, I wouldn't
> > have thought that WinXP would be able to, either, so maybe it will
> > work after all.
> 
> But presumably if one is considering switching from Windows to Mac,
> one doesn't care as much that the Mac will run *tomorrow's* Windows
> apps, so long as it runs the ones that one already owns.

Well, as long as you're happy to stay with the old generation of 
Windows apps.

Vista (and then the second Longhorn iteration, the server counterpart 
to Vista, which I hope will implement the file system innovations 
that had to be dropped from Vista to get it released within the 
current decade) is a whole new version of Windows. The graphics 
engine is completely re-written (mostly to copy things from OS X's 
Quartz, seems to me), and the UI is changed extensively.

This latter is the important part. The Windows UI has remained quite 
constant since the release of Win95. Vista is a huge change. 
Microsoft is extensively rewriting its Office programs to take 
advantage of the new UI innovations (I'm not sure how I feel about 
them -- they look pretty in the screenshots, but I don't know if they 
will really have that much more utility for experienced users), and 
this will, I think, constitute a huge leap forward in interface 
design. This is one of those rare moments, I think, when the 
"innovation" trumpeted by Microsoft actually has some substance to 
it, and where the upgrade to get the new UI will be worthwhile.

I know that Vista will have a standard Windows Classic UI (just like 
WinXP), but I don't know what kind of support there will be for the 
ribbon UI and the new menu structures under Windows Classic, or for 
Office 12 (and other Vista-oriented applications) running under 
WinXP. I do know that Win2K will basically be out of the loop for 
these new apps (they won't be supported, so far as I can tell, which 
is a shame, as the relationship between WinXP and Win2K is much like 
that between Win98 and Win95 -- mostly cosmetic differences and only 
a few underlying technologies that differ and that could easily be 
installed in the older OS to make it have the same features as the 
newer version).

An inability to run Vista will be no real problem for Mac users who 
want a sometime Windows box to run Windows programs. But for Windows 
users who would buy a Mac to dual boot, but would still maintain 
their strong commitment to Windows (I'm one of those users -- a 
MacIntel Mini looks *very* attractive to me right now), this becomes 
a long-term problem, as Vista is due out in about a year from now.

My needs are often driven by those of my clients (I have to be able 
to program for the systems they have in place), and after 2007, it's 
unlikely that any of them will any longer be buying WinXP systems. 
I'll need to adapt to that. So, in 2008, the ability to dual boot 
Mac/Vista would then become essential. 

I don't know the level of difficulty of the 32-bit EFI problem (i.e., 
perhaps it's relatively trivial for Apple to solve with the add-on 
BIOS support), or if, perhaps, the availability of 64-bit MacIntels 
would eliminate the problem entirely.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

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 did in the past. I guess non-
> destructive covers that though.

The word "virtual" implies that it's not a normal partition, when in 
fact, it's a perfectly normal partition. Nondestructive 
repartitioning of Windows/DOS drives has been available for over a 
decade, so there's nothing at all surprising about such a feature, 
and no call at all for the use of the term "virtual."

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

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 what the actual source is, which 
can help determine whether or not to follow the link.

2. if tinyurl goes out of business someday, you'd still have a record 
of the real URL, which might still be valid. This is especially 
important for any discussions that are archived.]

> Apparently, a "virtual" partition is created and that is where XP 
> lives. . . .

I'm not sure what's "virtual" about the partition -- the article 
certainly doesn't say that. Perhaps you're interpreting the 
nondestructive repartioning as an indication of this? That wouldn't 
be correct, 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).

> . . . My only question is if this "firmware update" that allows 
> Window to run on the Intel Macs poses potential virus/worm etc. 
> issues that up until now we have been immune from. (yes..yes...I 
> know.  It is partially that there aren't as many people trying to 
> write nasty little pieces of code for the Mac.)  But Open Firmware 
> was more secure than the Microsoft BIOS.  So I am really curious as 
> to how exactly the firmware update changes EFI in it's current state.

So far as I can tell, I can't see how this BIOS support would have 
any effect on your OS X partition. Perhaps a WinXP virus that 
corrupts the BIOS could cause problems with WinXP, but I don't see 
how that could affect OS X, since OS X doesn't use that BIOS support 
in the first place.

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 routines, but if it's in 
/usr filespace and you put your /usr folder on the partition that is 
accessible from both OS's, that could allow a clever WinXP virus to 
drop an OS X-only payload that could cause problems in OS X.

But the answer to that is to never store your /usr folders (or any 
other data associated with OS X startup or operations) on a partition 
that is read/write accessible to both OS's.

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 that this would have 
to be a third partition, outside either the OS X or WinXP partitions, 
for it to work.

Thoughts?

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Karen]

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.  However, should this happen, using the Boot Camp utility  
one can get rid of the windows partition without destroying other  
data just as when the partition is created on installation.


Apparently, Windows XP is very fast on the new Mac Intel  
machinesin many cases even faster than when running on a PC built  
to run Windows.  And these benchmarks were done before Boot Camp was  
introduced (with the hacks Darcy mentioned) so it will be interesting  
to see the Boot Camp benchmarks.


http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1617

-K



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 upcoming operating systems, such as Windows Vista.  
The Boot Camp CD which was posted simply provides needed Mac- 
specific drivers for full support of Windows XP on the Intel Macs.




- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 05 Apr 2006, at 2:32 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


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 EFI (or
whatever the Apple equivalent to the BIOS is). Of course, I wouldn't
have thought that WinXP would be able to, either, so maybe it will
work after all.

--
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
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


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Darcy James Argue]

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 upcoming operating systems, such as Windows Vista. The Boot  
Camp CD which was posted simply provides needed Mac-specific  
drivers for full support of Windows XP on the Intel Macs.




- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 05 Apr 2006, at 2:32 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


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 EFI (or
whatever the Apple equivalent to the BIOS is). Of course, I wouldn't
have thought that WinXP would be able to, either, so maybe it will
work after all.

--
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
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] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Mark D Lew]

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 BIOS is). Of course, I wouldn't
have thought that WinXP would be able to, either, so maybe it will
work after all.


But presumably if one is considering switching from Windows to Mac, one 
doesn't care as much that the Mac will run *tomorrow's* Windows apps, 
so long as it runs the ones that one already owns.


mdl

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Karen]

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- 
destructive covers that though.


Thanks for the linksa few people have made mention (or quoted  
sources) of the possibility of virus issues but nothing in detail  
yet.  I just don't want to go updating the firmware on my machine so  
it will run windows until I know what that will open my machine up to  
with viruses, spyware etc.


I guess we will hear more in the next few days.

-K


On Apr 5, 2006, at 2:16 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:


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 size within Boot Camp Assistant and go."


Which, to me, means it takes free space from your HD, and allocates  
that for a new parition. It's not a "virtual" partition like, say,  
Virtual PC did (does, or whatever), which, if I remember correctly,  
was a huge file that would exist on your Mac HD.


I suggest reading:
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php
and
http://www.macrumors.com/
and
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/



Karen wrote:

This is how it all works...it is quite interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/fknzx

Apparently, a "virtual" partition is created and that is where XP  
lives.  My only question is if this "firmware update" that allows  
Window to run on the Intel Macs poses potential virus/worm etc.  
issues that up until now we have been immune from. (yes..yes...I  
know.  It is partially that there aren't as many people trying to  
write nasty little pieces of code for the Mac.)  But Open Firmware  
was more secure than the Microsoft BIOS.  So I am really curious  
as to how exactly the firmware update changes EFI in it's current  
state.


___
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] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

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 size 
within Boot Camp Assistant and go."


Which, to me, means it takes free space from your HD, and allocates that 
for a new parition. It's not a "virtual" partition like, say, Virtual PC 
did (does, or whatever), which, if I remember correctly, was a huge file 
that would exist on your Mac HD.


I suggest reading:
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php
and
http://www.macrumors.com/
and
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/



Karen wrote:

This is how it all works...it is quite interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/fknzx

Apparently, a "virtual" partition is created and that is where XP 
lives.  My only question is if this "firmware update" that allows 
Window to run on the Intel Macs poses potential virus/worm etc. issues 
that up until now we have been immune from. (yes..yes...I know.  It is 
partially that there aren't as many people trying to write nasty 
little pieces of code for the Mac.)  But Open Firmware was more secure 
than the Microsoft BIOS.  So I am really curious as to how exactly the 
firmware update changes EFI in it's current state.


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Karen]

This is how it all works...it is quite interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/fknzx

Apparently, a "virtual" partition is created and that is where XP  
lives.  My only question is if this "firmware update" that allows  
Window to run on the Intel Macs poses potential virus/worm etc.  
issues that up until now we have been immune from. (yes..yes...I  
know.  It is partially that there aren't as many people trying to  
write nasty little pieces of code for the Mac.)  But Open Firmware  
was more secure than the Microsoft BIOS.  So I am really curious as  
to how exactly the firmware update changes EFI in it's current state.


-K


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 the
IntelMAC.

Richard

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On  
Behalf Of

Johannes 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 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 solution.

Let's hope that this will still keep the Mac and it's OS alive. On  
the other
hand I believe this is great news! I am pretty sure many people  
(including
myself) will use this as an excuse to upgrade their computers to  
the new

intel Macs. I am waiting to hear how special Win software (in my case
especially Audio software) will perform on those Macs, and how well it
interacts with the hardware, and with USB and Firewire devices like  
my Motu.


Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date:  
4/5/2006



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date:  
4/5/2006



___
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] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Darcy James Argue]

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 the
IntelMAC.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Richard Willis]

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 the
IntelMAC.

Richard

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Johannes 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 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 solution.

Let's hope that this will still keep the Mac and it's OS alive. On the other
hand I believe this is great news! I am pretty sure many people (including
myself) will use this as an excuse to upgrade their computers to the new
intel Macs. I am waiting to hear how special Win software (in my case
especially Audio software) will perform on those Macs, and how well it
interacts with the hardware, and with USB and Firewire devices like my Motu.

Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 4/5/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 4/5/2006
 

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Darcy James Argue]

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 hardware.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 05 Apr 2006, at 2:32 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


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 EFI (or
whatever the Apple equivalent to the BIOS is). Of course, I wouldn't
have thought that WinXP would be able to, either, so maybe it will
work after all.

--
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
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] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Johannes Gebauer]

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 Apple has decided to offer their own solution.


Let's hope that this will still keep the Mac and it's OS alive. On the 
other hand I believe this is great news! I am pretty sure many people 
(including myself) will use this as an excuse to upgrade their computers 
to the new intel Macs. I am waiting to hear how special Win software (in 
my case especially Audio software) will perform on those Macs, and how 
well it interacts with the hardware, and with USB and Firewire devices 
like my Motu.


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] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Eric Dannewitz]

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



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 BIOS is). Of course, I wouldn't 
have thought that WinXP would be able to, either, so maybe it will 
work after all.


  


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[David W. Fenton]

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 EFI (or 
whatever the Apple equivalent to the BIOS is). Of course, I wouldn't 
have thought that WinXP would be able to, either, so maybe it will 
work after all.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Windows XP will now run on a Mac

[Darcy James Argue]

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 solution.


More info is here:



- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 05 Apr 2006, at 1:59 PM, Karen wrote:


I suspected this was coming

http://tinyurl.com/pwcbs

-Karen


___
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