They dont have to work on 3 now. Only 2. thats the point of Universal Binary. It will work on all the macs. intel or PPC.kenn michael wrote: Also remember that all these developers have different priorities when it comes to their own internal schedules and upcoming updates. Ableton has to now code for 3 platforms - Windows, OSX PPC, and OSX Intel.
http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 9&start=10Good bye Altivec. You should praise us for not waisting resources into a technology which we tested and did not get a significant boost and which would have had the huge problem of maintaining two code bases.
And here comes vista, in 32 and 64 bit environments.........coders better not be drinking decaf!!!!!!!!!!inis wrote:They dont have to work on 3 now. Only 2. thats the point of Universal Binary. It will work on all the macs. intel or PPC.kenn michael wrote: Also remember that all these developers have different priorities when it comes to their own internal schedules and upcoming updates. Ableton has to now code for 3 platforms - Windows, OSX PPC, and OSX Intel.
This is great news, really. This kind of performance makes Live unusable on the new macs, forcing Ableton to deliver a Universal binary as soon as possible. Many of Live's new potential users will have intel macs. Ableton can't sell their product to people who can't use it. Bad news would be if Live did work on Rosetta (say like 75% CPU). Then I could see us stuck for many months with lousy Live/Mac optimization (again).mg75 wrote:tested the demo today.
iMac 20" intel 512mb ram
launched fine.
while playing the demo there were audio dropouts.
system performance was at 160% or more.
You're right about that... But the optimizations are different. Altivec vs. SSE. But since Live was never Altivec or SSE optimized, it might make their job of porting easier.inis wrote:They dont have to work on 3 now. Only 2. thats the point of Universal Binary. It will work on all the macs. intel or PPC.kenn michael wrote: Also remember that all these developers have different priorities when it comes to their own internal schedules and upcoming updates. Ableton has to now code for 3 platforms - Windows, OSX PPC, and OSX Intel.
Angstrom wrote:Or even one!
Live never included Altivec, so there is nothing too awful to remove/replace. I am betting on a NAMM announcement. Robert has stated on here in the past that the codebases are very similar for XP and OSX. In his wordshttp://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 9&start=10Good bye Altivec. You should praise us for not waisting resources into a technology which we tested and did not get a significant boost and which would have had the huge problem of maintaining two code bases.
as far as a UB version of Live goes I imagine it will be a lot easier/quicker transition than for (for example) Final Cut - which makes extensive use of Altivec.
So it shouldn't be too hard!
I am damn curious to see those macintel UB performance figures.
buzzcock wrote:This is great news, really. This kind of performance makes Live unusable on the new macs, forcing Ableton to deliver a Universal binary as soon as possible. Many of Live's new potential users will have intel macs. Ableton can't sell their product to people who can't use it. Bad news would be if Live did work on Rosetta (say like 75% CPU). Then I could see us stuck for many months with lousy Live/Mac optimization (again).mg75 wrote:tested the demo today.
iMac 20" intel 512mb ram
launched fine.
while playing the demo there were audio dropouts.
system performance was at 160% or more.
mg, just out of curiosity, did you test this machine in the Manhattan/Soho Apple store? Cuz I called them 2 days ago and they said they wouldn't have any IntelMacs until Feb.
Also, were there any "Energy Saver" type system preferences like the G5 iMacs?
anti-banausic wrote:Yeah, this is strange, as I am pretty sure that I didn't see any of the new intel macs at the apple store in NYC when I was there on Friday.....
And the release said that the stores wouldn't have them for awhile, but you could order from the apple website.
Strange.
Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Two diametrically opposed philosophies of software development. The moving target is actually quite a nice target. In fact if you've done any OSX development (I'm starting at the moment) you'll see that the whole thing is a very nice environment to work in. Oh, and the dev tools are FREE! That's right, no pirated versions of visual basuck or visual C++.... XCode is free. That more then justifies the price of a Mac in my mind. F$#k paying hundreds of dollars for legit dev tools, I'll take Apple's free ones any day.dten wrote:In defense of the "moving target" that is OS X, forcing developers to re-tweak their apps with every significant release, the benefit here is it forces everything to stay up-to-date and well integrated and tuned. Compare it to Windows, which puts so much emphasis on supporting legacy code that it hasn't seen a major overhaul several years, putting it way behind OS X in terms of stability, performance, and expandability.
It's nice to have options... Apple and Microsoft have different, complementary approaches... pick your poison.