Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Simon Troup]

>OK, OK. You got me ;-) We've had one of the prototypes in house since
>they were availble. This is far from an official statement, but I can
>tell you this. We've been researching it and exploring it, and the
>initial experiments are looking promising. You can expect a more
>official statement from Bill in the future.
>
>--Allen

Allen,

thanks, that's really very much appreciated, and very comforting to
hear. To be honest, I wasn't expecting you to answer, but it's great
that you did!

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

Real-time Finale discussion - http://www.finaleirc.com

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

RE: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Fisher, Allen]

OK, OK. You got me ;-) We've had one of the prototypes in house since
they were availble. This is far from an official statement, but I can
tell you this. We've been researching it and exploring it, and the
initial experiments are looking promising. You can expect a more
official statement from Bill in the future.

--Allen

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Simon Troup
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 11:12 AM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?


>Yep. It's a great way to get a "clean machine" to test out a
>configuration problem...

Allan! You can't just drop in and answer THAT bit of the thread?! :)

How's MacIntelFin coming along?

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

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

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Simon Troup]

>Yep. It's a great way to get a "clean machine" to test out a
>configuration problem...

Allan! You can't just drop in and answer THAT bit of the thread?! :)

How's MacIntelFin coming along?

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

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

RE: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Fisher, Allen]

Yep. It's a great way to get a "clean machine" to test out a
configuration problem...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Simon Troup
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 5:14 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

Has anyone used virtual PC on windows to run a different version of
windows? 

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[David W. Fenton]

On 26 Nov 2005 at 19:11, A-NO-NE Music wrote:

> David W. Fenton / 2005/11/26 / 05:10 PM wrote:
> 
> >Well, if you think about it, it can't really do that. What if an OS X
> > app and a VPC app try to access the same hardware or memory at the
> >same time?
> 
> Not sure if this answers to your question, but multiple apps can
> access to the same hardware today.  I have MH ULN-2+DSP connected to
> my main G5 right now.  If I playback to this hardware from multiple
> apps such as iTunes and DSP-Q, you get quite a wild mix of music :-)

But that's completely different. First off, it's a single OS 
controlling managing the messages from the apps that are sending data 
to the hardware. Secondly, the hardware is independent, like a 
printer -- once you send it data, it can process it on its own terms, 
independently of the CPU/OS. It just processes it serially.

That's fine for relatively slow processes like printing and, believe 
it or not, MIDI output, but would never work for video or disk I/O. 
The only way to manage that would be to have an abstraction layer 
that both OS's communicate with that acts as a buffer or cache for 
commands/data sent to those devices.

I think it's pretty clear that for video and disk I/O that would be 
pretty unacceptable.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[A-NO-NE Music]

David W. Fenton / 2005/11/26 / 05:10 PM wrote:

>Well, if you think about it, it can't really do that. What if an OS X 
>app and a VPC app try to access the same hardware or memory at the 
>same time?


Not sure if this answers to your question, but multiple apps can access
to the same hardware today.  I have MH ULN-2+DSP connected to my main G5
right now.  If I playback to this hardware from multiple apps such as
iTunes and DSP-Q, you get quite a wild mix of music :-)


-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Simon Troup]

>Well, if you think about it, it can't really do that. What if an OS X 
>app and a VPC app try to access the same hardware or memory at the 
>same time? VPC would always have to be a slave of OS X. Now, it could 
>be that Intel underneath OS X could provide enough performance 
>improvement to make VPC much snappier, but I don't think there'd ever 
>be any real possibility of VPC being able to go direct to the 
>hardware, since VPC wouldn't know anything about what OS X is doing.

Has anyone used virtual PC on windows to run a different version of
windows? It's entirely possible. A friend of mine has done it using a
very fast machine with a huge amount of RAM etc. and said the
performance was "Pants". This must be because even in a Win/Win
situation (unintentional pun!) the virtual machine within Virtual PC is
interfacing with a software emulation of a generic graphics card rather
than with the actual graphics card installed in the machine, and I think
the same is true of everything else, VPC probably even pretends to be a
generic BIOS, it's one mammoth abstraction layer even running within the
same architecture.

Sorry Johannes if this is going round and round a bit, having used VPC,
lots of versions of windows, running a red hat web server and having
used dual boot OS9 and OSx into unix and linux, I'm fascinated, and also
NEVER want to have to do it again - all that experimentation taught me a
thing or two about the simple beauty of MacOS, maybe it's not the
fastest or most tweakable system, but it sure is slick!).

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[David W. Fenton]

On 26 Nov 2005 at 22:42, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

> On 26.11.2005 Simon Troup wrote:
> > I don't really think I need to explain why configuring an OS within
> > an emulator in another OS is unattractive. I've used Virtual PC with
> > Win 98 SE, Win XP and Win 2000 - it's buggy and has a tremendous
> > performance hit, things don't work at anything like native windows
> > speed.
> 
> the whole point of Virtual PC on Intel Macs is that  it will run in
> native mode on the Mac processor, so the performance hit is not
> present.

Well, if you think about it, it can't really do that. What if an OS X 
app and a VPC app try to access the same hardware or memory at the 
same time? VPC would always have to be a slave of OS X. Now, it could 
be that Intel underneath OS X could provide enough performance 
improvement to make VPC much snappier, but I don't think there'd ever 
be any real possibility of VPC being able to go direct to the 
hardware, since VPC wouldn't know anything about what OS X is doing.

Of course, maybe it's possible to have a "traffic cop" layer between 
VPC and OS X, and have VPC say to the traffic cop "can I have access 
to the video interface so I can paint the screen?" and the VPC 
traffic cop layer would say "sure -- you can paint in these areas of 
the screen, and I'll tell your host OS to take a break until you're 
done". I don't know if that kind of thing would be possible or not, 
but it would be the only way to actually get the kind of benefit you 
seem to be thinking will be automatic for VPC.

And, of course, when I say "direct to hardware" I'm being very loose 
with terminology, as no modern OS allows applications direct access 
to hardware in the first place (every modern OS has a hardware 
abstraction layer that the OS and apps communicate with, and the HAL 
runs at a very low level of the OS, communicating with the interfaces 
that talk to the actual hardware, which would be interrupts on Intel 
and who knows what approach on PPC).

In any event, I can't see how there is any way that VPC would be 
anything other than a child process of OS X and, thus, restricted to 
the same hardware and memory restrictions as any other process 
running on OS X. That would mean no direct hardware access at all, 
and the need for the same translation layer under VPC to convert to 
OS X calls that is needed today when VPC is running on OS X on top of 
a PPC.

> This whole discussion has begun to turn around in circles now.

I think it's pretty clear what you've been saying. I just don't think 
it's very likely that VPC will benefit as much from the conversion as 
you suggest it might. In a certain sense, it's no different than the 
virus question -- viruses don't run on the hardware but on the OS, so 
MacIntel doesn't change OS X's level of vulnerability at all. 
Likewise, since VPC is still running on top of OS X, it won't be able 
to communicate directly with hardware, so there won't be any real 
change in its performance, except if OS X itself already gets a boost 
from running on Intel.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[David W. Fenton]

On 26 Nov 2005 at 20:36, Simon Troup wrote:

> >This strikes me as arbitrary. Virtual PC does not take up any 
> >significant processor cycles, unless you are running a Win program,
> >so the only practical objection would be A) the cost or B) the disk
> >space. Cross-grading Fin from Mac to Win is no more costly than any
> >Fin upgrade. They come on the same disc. Virtual PC does have an
> >associated cost (c. $200 last time I checked), most of which is the
> >Win license. I can accept cost as an objection, but not disc space,
> >and not the nebulous objection quoted above.
> 
> I don't really think I need to explain why configuring an OS within an
> emulator in another OS is unattractive. I've used Virtual PC with Win
> 98 SE, Win XP and Win 2000 - it's buggy and has a tremendous
> performance hit, things don't work at anything like native windows
> speed.

But you're missing the major point that Johannes brought up here (in 
the form of a question): would VPC really be an *emulator* any 
longer, since there'd no longer be a non-compatible motherboard 
underneath OS X?

Much of the overhead in VPC is going to be in a layer that the whole 
of VPC sits on top of that translates Windows hardware calls into 
something that OS X, sitting under VPC, can handle. This won't always 
be a matter of just a straight translation -- sometimes there won't 
be any corresponding analogous access method, and instead something 
will have to handled in some other way. The level of complexity could 
be huge.

But if there's no longer a foreign hardware platform, VPC could then 
talk directly to OS X's hardware abstraction layer (I can't think of 
a scenario where it would work to have VPC talk to the hardware 
directly through its own HAL, since that could lead to contention 
between the two OS's), which could possibly improve the performance 
enormously.

Now, it could be that there's not much difference there, since the OS 
X HAL would remain the same, but it's *possible* that it could work 
better.

> It also absolutely requires you to learn and manage another OS,
> another whole font library etc. etc. - when you are your own IT
> department there's a lot to be said for keeping it simple.

The scenario that Robert Patterson described, where VPC is just a 
virtual machine in which your FinWin runs (just as Mac Classic is a 
virtual machine in which an older program can run), would be a 
scenario where the emulator itself takes away all those issues for 
you, providing a layer that gives your Windows application access to 
the OS X resources as though they were native to Windows.

And Finale really has virtually no administrative overhead from the 
standpoint of the OS -- Finale is well-engineered in being extremely 
self-contained so that it doesn't get all tied up in the OS and 
require configuration changes. The only issue would be configuring 
your MIDI, and the hope would be that VPC would automatically detect 
OS X's MIDI support and give you access by default, the same way 
Windows running natively detects and auto-configures MIDI hardware.

And keep in mind that the simply virtual machine model is the way 
Windows emulators already work when running on top of Linux, and, 
indeed, distributions like Lindows (or whatever it's called now) are 
built entirely in this way, with the idea of giving you Windows with 
painless Linux underneath.

> Where does this idea comes from that VPC functions only as a window
> server? (and I use the term in a unix sense) - it doesn't, and it
> doesn't make an argument to pretend that one day it might, as I doubt
> it ever will.

You mean like an x-terminal? I don't think anybody at all is 
suggesting anything of the sort. Robert Patterson's suggestion was 
that each Windows app could get its own virtual machine, instead of, 
I believe, the current scenario where there's a single virtual 
machine, and all the Windows apps run within that. Chances are good 
that VPC running on PPC would be prohibitively resource hungry in 
that scenario, whereas MacIntel might give enough performance 
improvement to make it possible to run them separately. An 
alternative would be to have a single VM running the underyling 
emulator, and then have child VMs that provide the GUI and 
communicate with the underlying VPC VM that provices the low-level 
Windows layer.

There are any number of possibilities here, and the speculation is 
all based on the fact that we don't know which direction things will 
go or how things will shake out. We don't know if MakeMusic will take 
3 years to provide a native MacIntel version of Finale -- their 
history with supporting OS X is not promising in that regard. And if 
that's the case, given the possibilities for how VPC may be able to 
be improved, it opens up all the options that Johannes has speculated 
about.

Of course, you *are* correct that it's all speculation. But you don't 
know that your view of the path history will take is any more likely 
than that forecast

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 26.11.2005 Simon Troup wrote:

I don't really think I need to explain why configuring an OS within an
emulator in another OS is unattractive. I've used Virtual PC with Win 
98

SE, Win XP and Win 2000 - it's buggy and has a tremendous performance
hit, things don't work at anything like native windows speed.



Simon,

the whole point of Virtual PC on Intel Macs is that  it will run in 
native mode on the Mac processor, so the performance hit is not present.


This whole discussion has begun to turn around in circles now.

Johannes

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

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Robert Patterson]

Simon Troup wrote:


I've used Virtual PC with Win 98
SE, Win XP and Win 2000 - it's buggy and has a tremendous performance
hit, things don't work at anything like native windows speed.



Of course that's true now, but it need not be true on MacIntel.



Where does this idea comes from that VPC functions only as a window
server? (and I use the term in a unix sense) - it doesn't, and it
doesn't make an argument to pretend that one day it might, as I doubt it
ever will.



That's exactly where I think it could go. I know it doesn't now. But 
when it can run with no perf. hit, then I think that's exactly where it 
may head. If I used it regularly, that's where I would want it to go.


I should add that, if I were betting, I'd put my money on MM coming out 
with a native MacIntel version. I possess no insider knowledge, but I 
can't see them abandoning OSX now after all the effort they've invested 
in it. Whether the MacIntel-native version is 2007 is another question 
entirely.


--
Robert Patterson

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[David W. Fenton]

On 26 Nov 2005 at 9:55, dhbailey wrote:

> Javier Ruiz wrote:
> [snip]>
> > I don´t agree, because you can _now_ buy a cheap small factor PC
> > now, hook it to your existing monitor and there you go. You don´t
> > need more to make a good virus trap. Besides the price factor is
> > becoming less and less important when buying Mac hardware (except in
> > the higest G5 models).
> > 
> 
> It will also be interesting to see if virus-writers now go after Macs,
> since they'll be sharing the same hardware.

Viruses don't run on the hardware -- they run on the applications and 
the OS.

So, OS X on MacIntel will be just as "immune" to viruses as OS X is 
currently, which means immune by obscurity, in that the virus writers 
haven't turned their attention to it  because it's not worth it when 
they can easily target 10X more computers. But there's also the issue 
that OS X's default setup is an LUA configuration (i.e., running with 
user-level permissions, not admin), so any damage that a virus *can* 
do is much less than on your default Windows setup (which is running 
as an administrator). But given that a large number of the exploits 
circulating on Windows are socially engineered to get a human to 
execute them (rather than executing automatically), there's nothing 
in particular that protects Mac users from those, except that nobody 
seems to be writing them (which may be, in part, because they can't 
do as much damage).

But the advent of OS X running on MacIntel won't change this 
situation one iota.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc


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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Simon Troup]

>This strikes me as arbitrary. Virtual PC does not take up any 
>significant processor cycles, unless you are running a Win program, so 
>the only practical objection would be A) the cost or B) the disk space. 
>Cross-grading Fin from Mac to Win is no more costly than any Fin 
>upgrade. They come on the same disc. Virtual PC does have an associated 
>cost (c. $200 last time I checked), most of which is the Win license. I 
>can accept cost as an objection, but not disc space, and not the 
>nebulous objection quoted above.

I don't really think I need to explain why configuring an OS within an
emulator in another OS is unattractive. I've used Virtual PC with Win 98
SE, Win XP and Win 2000 - it's buggy and has a tremendous performance
hit, things don't work at anything like native windows speed.

It also absolutely requires you to learn and manage another OS, another
whole font library etc. etc. - when you are your own IT department
there's a lot to be said for keeping it simple.

Where does this idea comes from that VPC functions only as a window
server? (and I use the term in a unix sense) - it doesn't, and it
doesn't make an argument to pretend that one day it might, as I doubt it
ever will.

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Simon Troup]

>I 
>can accept cost as an objection, but not disc space, and not the 
>nebulous objection quoted above.

Nebulous objection?

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Robert Patterson]

Simon Troup wrote:


I'm not at all anti-windows, I've used it in the past. What I'm
definitely against though is the hassle of running 2 OS or 2 OS and an
emulator.



This strikes me as arbitrary. Virtual PC does not take up any 
significant processor cycles, unless you are running a Win program, so 
the only practical objection would be A) the cost or B) the disk space. 
Cross-grading Fin from Mac to Win is no more costly than any Fin 
upgrade. They come on the same disc. Virtual PC does have an associated 
cost (c. $200 last time I checked), most of which is the Win license. I 
can accept cost as an objection, but not disc space, and not the 
nebulous objection quoted above.


--
Robert Patterson

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 26.11.2005 Simon Troup wrote:

that way though I'd have to buy cross platform upgrade to finale,
windows and VPC. That's not cheap, and it isn't really "no mess and 
no fuss". 





The last two Finale upgrades were cross platform, there is no reason to 
think the next one won't be, unless they will drop mac support, of course.


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

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 26.11.2005 Javier Ruiz wrote:
Besides the price factor is becoming less and less important when 
buying Mac

hardware (except in the higest G5 models).



Well, with the current range of laptops, both iBooks and especially 
Powerbooks the price factor is enormous...


Johannes

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

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 26.11.2005 Simon Troup wrote:

It's an interesting scenario you propose though, and made me wonder if
MacOS could be issued as a 30 day trial that worked on any x86 
machine,
but if you wanted to use it beyond that you'd have to buy Mac 
hardware.



That's definitely not going to happen. However, I wouldn't be surprised 
if some clever programmer would find a way to (illegally) hack OS X to 
run on a standard PC.


Johannes

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

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Simon Troup]

>But what if you *don't* have to reboot? What if (by installing Virtual 
>PC) you could double click an icon just as you do now, and it opened a 
>Finale doc window just as it does now. No muss, no fuss, and no reboot. 
>At what point does your refusal even to consider installing Win on your 
>machine begins to look more like stubborn bigotry than anything pragmatic?

Hi Robert

that way though I'd have to buy cross platform upgrade to finale,
windows and VPC. That's not cheap, and it isn't really "no mess and no fuss". 

I'm not at all anti-windows, I've used it in the past. What I'm
definitely against though is the hassle of running 2 OS or 2 OS and an
emulator.

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Robert Patterson]

dhbailey wrote:


It will also be interesting to see if virus-writers now go after Macs, 
since they'll be sharing the same hardware.




Virus writers (essentially) don't go after hardware. They exploit 
security flaws in software. Most of the time the software they exploit 
is OS software. (The rampant MS Word viruses a few years ago were an 
exception, and I believe Mac MS Word was also vulnerable.)


To the extent that MacIntels have Win installed on them, they will be as 
vulnerable as any Win machine is when running Win (either natively or 
under VPC). When running MacOS they will be vulnerable to MacOS viruses.


FWIW: a current PPC MacOS computer running VPC is vulnerable to Win 
viruses when running Win.


Do not think MacOS computers are immune to viruses. Far from it. The 
reason they don't get very many is that Win computers have such 
overwhelming numbers on the 'net that a MacOS virus has difficulty 
spreading. There's a basic form of epidemiology at work.


--
Robert Patterson

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Robert Patterson]

Simon Troup wrote:


Given the choice between using Finale Windows in a dual boot Mac/Win
environment that would necessitate rebooting into Windows 


This part of your statement is quite reasonable. I do not think it is 
acceptable to reboot to use Finale.


But what if you *don't* have to reboot? What if (by installing Virtual 
PC) you could double click an icon just as you do now, and it opened a 
Finale doc window just as it does now. No muss, no fuss, and no reboot. 
At what point does your refusal even to consider installing Win on your 
machine begins to look more like stubborn bigotry than anything pragmatic?


If WinFin were smart enough to recognize when it was running on VPC 
under MacOS and provide access to MacOS MIDI, Audio, and graphics, I 
think it would be a very acceptable alternative to a native MacOS 
version on MacIntel. How practical this idea is I don't know. I merely 
offer it as a third rail that no one seems to be talking about. 
(Obviously, a native version is the best option for MacOS.)


--
Robert Patterson

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[dhbailey]

Javier Ruiz wrote:
[snip]>

I don´t agree, because you can _now_ buy a cheap small factor PC now, hook
it to your existing monitor and there you go. You don´t need more to make a
good virus trap.
Besides the price factor is becoming less and less important when buying Mac
hardware (except in the higest G5 models).



It will also be interesting to see if virus-writers now go after Macs, 
since they'll be sharing the same hardware.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Javier Ruiz]

I found the article about the PC running Mac OS X:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1886869,00.asp

Lots of fun!

The 26/11/05 11:57, dhbailey escribió/wrote:

> I also wonder how quickly some hackers will be releasing versions of Mac
> OSx which will actually run on non-Mac hardware.



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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Javier Ruiz]

David wrote:
> I also wonder how quickly some hackers will be releasing versions of Mac
> OSx which will actually run on non-Mac hardware.

Hi,

They exist already, but the installation requires some patience and care.
The PC needs a particular Intel motherboard and two hard disks.
(I read it in extremetech.com but I can not find now)

Of course you can boot with Windows or Linux if you want.

IMO if 

the thesis of Johannes is that we Mac-freaks are going to move to Windows
simply because the new MacIntels will boot with it

then 

I don´t agree, because you can _now_ buy a cheap small factor PC now, hook
it to your existing monitor and there you go. You don´t need more to make a
good virus trap.
Besides the price factor is becoming less and less important when buying Mac
hardware (except in the higest G5 models).


Javier Ruiz





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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Simon Troup]

>That might certainly make a dual-boot scenario more appealing to Mac 
>users who may wish to see what the Windows world has to offer.

I would have thought that most mac users have experience of using
windows anyway (workplace, school etc). If Mac users wanted to use
windows they would already have done it, after all, they have to pay a
premium to use MacOS as it is - mac hardware is generally more
expensive, it's a choice that isn't taken lightly, particularly in the
UK where the price differential is much more marked.

It's an interesting scenario you propose though, and made me wonder if
MacOS could be issued as a 30 day trial that worked on any x86 machine,
but if you wanted to use it beyond that you'd have to buy Mac hardware.

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[dhbailey]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:


On 26.11.2005 Brian Williams wrote:

Also, to clarify, the sales rep told me that between a third and 40% 
of all
installed versions of Finale were Mac. I grilled him pretty hard about 
the

upcoming move to Intel and how that could really be a problem for the Mac
version, but he repeatedly reassured me that MM has no plans to drop 
the Mac

version. He said it would be "suicide" to cut off over a third of its
installed base. We'll see.


If this was the true behind the scenes company philosophy, then I don't 
understand in the least why it is not publically announced. I simply do 
not believe it at this moment.


If future Macs are indeed dual boot windows machines, then MM is 
definitely not cutting off a third of its installed base.


Johannes



Indeed, even if they don't bring out future Mac versions, those with 
dual-boot machines will still be able to continue to use Finale.  So 
until all the smoke of the mac-intel rollout clears and we can finally 
see the actual survivors and those who leave the Mac market, nothing 
will be clear.  Even if a company makes a public statement, there isn't 
a single company I think I could trust with ANY sort of "Yes, we'll 
continue to do this" statement.  Too many people have lost their 
pensions and their retirement healthcare benefits when companies have 
said "Oh, yes, I forgot to tell you -- when I made those promises I had 
my fingers crossed.  Nyah-Nyah!"


One thing we haven't discussed is what sort of olive-branch micro$oft 
will offer to those who purchase these new macintel machines -- 
currently a brand new, non-upgrade purchase of WinXP is quite expensive 
unless it is bundled with a computer, so I wonder if Micro$oft might 
make a terrific "firt hit's free" sort of offer of something on the 
order of $30-$50 for MacIntel machines.


That might certainly make a dual-boot scenario more appealing to Mac 
users who may wish to see what the Windows world has to offer.


I also wonder how quickly some hackers will be releasing versions of Mac 
OSx which will actually run on non-Mac hardware.



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Simon Troup]

>If future Macs are indeed dual boot windows machines, then MM is 
>definitely not cutting off a third of its installed base.

You're dwelling way too much on this dual boot idea. The fact that
you'll be able to boot into Windows natively on an x86 based Mac is an
interesting but mainly irrelevant point to the average Mac user.

Given the choice between using Finale Windows in a dual boot Mac/Win
environment that would necessitate rebooting into Windows (and even
having to have Windows on my machine), or switching to Sibelius Mac,
well even I would go to Sibelius! I don't say something like that lightly.

I believe that MM will develop for Mac+Intel, but on this occasion,
playing their cards close to their chest is serious error. If they're
not careful, someone will coin the term the "MakeMusic effect", being
the exact opposite of the Osbourne effect - users could drop the product
as they see no future in it, when a speedy announcement clarifying the
fact that they're busy squirrelling away on a port would in fact create
a buzz of excitement ...

-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

Real-time Finale discussion - http://www.finaleirc.com

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: MacIntel iBooks in January?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 26.11.2005 Brian Williams wrote:
Also, to clarify, the sales rep told me that between a third and 40% 
of all
installed versions of Finale were Mac. I grilled him pretty hard 
about the
upcoming move to Intel and how that could really be a problem for the 
Mac
version, but he repeatedly reassured me that MM has no plans to drop 
the Mac

version. He said it would be "suicide" to cut off over a third of its
installed base. We'll see.


If this was the true behind the scenes company philosophy, then I don't 
understand in the least why it is not publically announced. I simply do 
not believe it at this moment.


If future Macs are indeed dual boot windows machines, then MM is 
definitely not cutting off a third of its installed base.


Johannes

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

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