Switching to XP64 for other software, obviously, right?
-
Sorry that was an involuntary anti windows slip, I'm seeing a professional about it and working through the issues if you can be tolerat with me....
[:P] [:D]
PS windows sucks! he he he I'll never forget what you did to me Gates, All those YEARS!!!!!!! NEVER!!!!!! [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [:D]
-
Just a quick comment on the original topic...
The thing I appreciate most about what they've done with PLAY is the networking and centralized control. The 64-bit thing is a given, and really only a matter of time. I also take very seriously Christian's cautious stance on the subject. There's a lot more to be considered than just getting the samples into RAM.
Anyway, if VSL could implement some centralized control system for networked VIs, that would be nice. Mind you, my recent experiments with FXT have revealed that to be a *brilliant* system, so it's not a huge problem. But the main thing is that I somehow can't see the multiple-machine sample "farm" going anywhere, anytime soon. Or even getting much smaller, for that matter. I mean, the network aspect of PLAY still implies a multi-machine setup (even though it's 64-bit), and the AI (DVZ) system *requires* multiple machines. My current setup actually doesn't host *any* VIs on my sequencer/DAW and I **LOVE** it! It's like being back in the 80s, with a room full of samplers, ready and waiting! Sweet. Not only that, but my FXT instances are all hosted on slave 1, so the "band" is persistent across projects, sequencers, and so on -- Logic, Live, Finale, Sibeius... I just load up whatever sequencer I want to use, and the orchestra's ready and waiting! (About 8 months and 2 machines later, I finally figured out a simple and convenient way to use these beasts. Nice!)
J.
-
The whole PLAY concept is intriguing enough to inspire serious consideration for this user who has quite a few NI-linked software bundles with EW.
64-bit support (requires Windows Vista 64-bit or Mac OS X Leopard 64-bit version). 64-bit support allows you to load many more instruments and voices, limited only by your system RAM (32-bit support is included also).
Windows users may be in slightly better position than Mac users right now in that the shroud of the 64-bit mystery is slowly being lifted in Windows than it is on the Mac. This is the first concrete statement about any 64-bit app to come for the Mac platform. While 32-bit support is "included", it remains to be seen whether Mac users will be able use PLAY in 64-bit with DAWs and other plugins concurrently which are firmly rooted in 32-bit.
The wording of the press release also implies that a 64-bit version of Leopard is a different software bundle from a 32-bit counterpart. This is spec because info about Leopard has been fairly cryptic-- with more promise than anything else. It will get here eventually, but "how soon" also remains to be seen.
It would otherwise appear as a cruel teaser to Mac users who read the GIGA GVI press release from more than a year ago where it was stated clearly that a Mac version was "already in development" with no word of such a version appearing since on the Mac platform to date.
Add to this the word from many other important virtual instrument developers, including the VSL team, whose word on the topic ranges from extremely cautious to doubtful at this time.
But even Vista has my attention in a big way as developers such as East West are taking a more pro-active approach to getting 64-bit instruments into the hands of users who need them sooner than later. Some will go kicking while others will go screaming-- let's see if the screams in 2007 are cheers or other words to be bleeped.
-
This page of articles and links dates back two years, but the information is still relevant.
http://www.cakewalk.com/x64/
"When I'm 64 (bit)" is a very well-written article in plain speak for those who are wondering but were afraid to ask. No doubt, for some members here this info will appear to be rather old news.
What I appreciate about these articles is that they go further than to say 64-bit will mean "more", but it talks about just how much more that will likely be.
The possibilities are endless. It's the probabilities that are holding us back.
Happy reading.
-
that is debatable for one reason: mac osx has been out and running solidly for more than 5 years, with it being 64bit in the unix underpinnings for a long time. The stability of the Mac versus Windows Vista means that vista while available is not really viable. By the time Leopard is out windows will still not be as stable in my opinion. I was in a shop the other day with a mac and PC display. Some of the PC's had windows. I went up to one, and moved the mouse. it crashed. Vista looks like a real dog to me mind you I'm a big mac advocate.... Although you can run 64bit stuff on vista would you want to? Leopard is only months away and the thing is,when leopard is out we know that the first month or two may be rocky, but at best, this may well be a major release with few bugs, I expect it to be ready to roll straight away, or within a couple of months of release which I doubt the same can be said for Vista... which will probably be a year before it's basically stable, and they can't catch up with the Mac platform in terms of stability for some time yet... Well, in my humble opinion... [:)]
@JWL said:
The whole PLAY concept is intriguing enough to inspire serious consideration for this user who has quite a few NI-linked software bundles with EW.
64-bit support (requires Windows Vista 64-bit or Mac OS X Leopard 64-bit version). 64-bit support allows you to load many more instruments and voices, limited only by your system RAM (32-bit support is included also).
Windows users may be in slightly better position than Mac users right now in that the shroud of the 64-bit mystery is slowly being lifted in Windows than it is on the Mac. This is the first concrete statement about any 64-bit app to come for the Mac platform. While 32-bit support is "included", it remains to be seen whether Mac users will be able use PLAY in 64-bit with DAWs and other plugins concurrently which are firmly rooted in 32-bit.
The wording of the press release also implies that a 64-bit version of Leopard is a different software bundle from a 32-bit counterpart. This is spec because info about Leopard has been fairly cryptic-- with more promise than anything else. It will get here eventually, but "how soon" also remains to be seen.
It would otherwise appear as a cruel teaser to Mac users who read the GIGA GVI press release from more than a year ago where it was stated clearly that a Mac version was "already in development" with no word of such a version appearing since on the Mac platform to date.
Add to this the word from many other important virtual instrument developers, including the VSL team, whose word on the topic ranges from extremely cautious to doubtful at this time.
But even Vista has my attention in a big way as developers such as East West are taking a more pro-active approach to getting 64-bit instruments into the hands of users who need them sooner than later. Some will go kicking while others will go screaming-- let's see if the screams in 2007 are cheers or other words to be bleeped.
-
@mpower88 said:
that is debatable for one reason: mac osx has been out and running solidly for more than 5 years, with it being 64bit in the unix underpinnings for a long time. The stability of the Mac versus Windows Vista means that vista while available is not really viable. By the time Leopard is out windows will still not be as stable in my opinion. I was in a shop the other day with a mac and PC display. Some of the PC's had windows. I went up to one, and moved the mouse. it crashed. Vista looks like a real dog to me mind you I'm a big mac advocate.... Although you can run 64bit stuff on vista would you want to? Leopard is only months away and the thing is,when leopard is out we know that the first month or two may be rocky, but at best, this may well be a major release with few bugs, I expect it to be ready to roll straight away, or within a couple of months of release which I doubt the same can be said for Vista... which will probably be a year before it's basically stable, and they can't catch up with the Mac platform in terms of stability for some time yet... Well, in my humble opinion... [[:)]]
It's all new, and in the case of Leopard it's not even out yet. Would I want to run 64-bit apps on Vista? Sure I would-- the same way I'd want to run them on the Mac using Leopard. Vista is so new that it should at least be allowed it's "couple of months" to sort itself out a bit more. Support for Windows is still quite strong, and I can't imagine that any glitches won't get ironed out in a big way sooner rather than later. OSX wasn't entirely stable when it first appeared, and it took years for some apps to port over successfully. Tiger was hard-earned and hard-won.
I don't disagree at all, and while we ponder the probabilities I only want to hesitate to pass judgement too soon. The first priority for both OS's will be to run stably with the most popular apps. Music and DAWs will come later... and that includes our most coveted plugins.
But short of Leopard, Apple appears to be quite close to releasing another Tiger update before Leopard appears... (a new build of Tiger was released to developers just days ago). The truth is that many of us are going to be using XP and Tiger for a while before risking a total hard drive morph so early in the process. It's part of the reason why late model PPCs are so slow to depreciate-- people are wise to hang onto what works now! [[:)]]