"Apple does Windows too"

forge · Post by **forge** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:26 pm

hivemind wrote:
forge wrote:
snowtires wrote:now what they need to do is, when they get the quad core mactels, figure out a way to boot up both osx and xp at the same time, each using one dual processor a piece. you could run everything you wanted in osx and have the xp running gigasampler or fruity loops! oh man, i haven't used fruity loops in years.
I'm really interested about this - what exactly does "universal binary" mean? it kind of suggests that you can run either or - are we moving towards a setup where you can just run any components of either OS all at the same time - not even bother loading the OSX or Windows shell and just load live plus the plug-ins you want weather they are mac or PC - so if the PC version of live runs better then run it and eventually there will only be "universal binary" and no mac or PC version

does anyone know how likely that is?
an application that is a "universal binary" means that it can run on both PPC and intel-based MacIntosh hardware running OSX 10.3.9 or higher. at this point in the space-time continuum, it bears no relevance towards Windows OS, AFAIK.

)hm)

but will it stay that way? Surely if the individual components can run on the hardware, then at some point the OS will become irrelevant

for example Sweetjesus utility for loading live as the shell and not running explorer - so XP is still loading all it's components and drivers but not explorer - He was talking about developing it further to give more choice over which services etc run on startup - so surely if we are getting to the point where we can have this much control and choice about what gets loaded and the hardware can run either then the logical conclusion is OS independent apps and plug-ins?

That's what I'm asking - how feasible is that? Surely some hackers out there somewhere can come up with a hollowed out core of OSX that loads just the services and drivers so you can have a truly audio optimised system that doesnt even bother with the full OS, just the bare bones of it that address the hardware etc

I asked Robert Henke what he thought about the feasibility or usefullness of running Live in this way and his one comment was along the lines of reinventing the wheel - all the R&D and hard work and time etc gone into windows and OSX and their drivers etc etc cant be beaten on a small scale so what's the point?

SO really what I'm talking about is a cut down version or just components that just handles the hardware and interface the apps and plug ins with it

so no "virtual PC" or emulators of any kind, no rebooting, just running mac and PC versions side by side.

Is this possible?

12micsn1 · Post by **12micsn1** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:51 pm

RopeyPunter wrote:can any of the tech-heads speculate on how existing windows virus/backdoors/trojans/malware/etc/etc/etc might or might not work when running on a mactel machine.....

this seems like a great idea, but what about the dumbasses who've got dodgey viruses and dont know it, what happens if they install their virus infected .exe onto their mactel windows OS ? ...I suppose it just fucks the install of windows and doesnt permeate throughout the other OS's....unless they write malware for doing just that ? which would make the windows install a convieniant orifice for these shitheads to pass through....or maybe not, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Ok, your a dumbass also. Not everyone is going to be downloading from the internet or sharing files. Most of the hip to this crowd will stay on MAC OSX to search the web with little worry of ever catching a virus. MAC people live in great comfort knowing they are not at risk of any issue.

eyeknow · Post by **eyeknow** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:18 am

wow, this has turned into a very negative thread.

I'll hold off installing it and checking it until there is more positive feedback for being a guinea pig

Guess it's as stupid as tuning a guitar through a computer.......

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:59 am

Boot Camp works great. It's a much smoother install process than the onmac.net solution I did a few weeks ago.

Yes, audio apps work brilliantly, in fact when I did the onmac.net solution, I posted the Live benchmark results. Running Live in XP was faster than OSX by 2%. I did the test on a Core Duo mini running at 1.66Ghz. It outperformed at 3.0Ghz P4 in both XP and in OSX.

Boot Camp is very slick though.

MrYellow · Post by **MrYellow** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:10 am

MS IIS web-server was for a long time very poor.

Microsoft.com was one of the biggest sites around and was running
Windows NT servers. They were running a cluster of sorts using something
like 26 web-server, 24 database servers, 3 content servers and 3 search
servers.

However to get performance stats to show off how good NT was they were
running a skimmed down custom version of NT which was console only and
included none of the normal windows stuff.

So yes you can get performance by not running a shell on top of your OS,
however is it really worth it? There are easier ways to get a performance
boost.

As for setting up a hardware profile for running different services when
using music software compared to when on the net or networking. You can
do this from Control Pannel -> Admin Tools -> Services. You can setup
different hardware profiles and choose which services you don't want
running. So for a gig setup you can turn off all networking support for
example, along with plenty of other things. You can then also setup a user
profile to customise what apps will run at startup.

A fully developed LiveOS would be kinda cool in a novelty kinda way......
Could be useful for embedded/single board computer type solutions....
but multitasking and running other software, like Forte and MIDIOx in my
case, can't be done when you aren't running a multitasking shell like
Windows or OSX.

edit: btw you guys have seen VMWare right? Might have hardware access
issues if not running 2 soundcards tho.

-Ben

forge · Post by **forge** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:53 am

MrYellow wrote:MS IIS web-server was for a long time very poor.

Microsoft.com was one of the biggest sites around and was running
Windows NT servers. They were running a cluster of sorts using something
like 26 web-server, 24 database servers, 3 content servers and 3 search
servers.

However to get performance stats to show off how good NT was they were
running a skimmed down custom version of NT which was console only and
included none of the normal windows stuff.

So yes you can get performance by not running a shell on top of your OS,
however is it really worth it? There are easier ways to get a performance
boost.

As for setting up a hardware profile for running different services when
using music software compared to when on the net or networking. You can
do this from Control Pannel -> Admin Tools -> Services. You can setup
different hardware profiles and choose which services you don't want
running. So for a gig setup you can turn off all networking support for
example, along with plenty of other things. You can then also setup a user
profile to customise what apps will run at startup.

A fully developed LiveOS would be kinda cool in a novelty kinda way......
Could be useful for embedded/single board computer type solutions....
but multitasking and running other software, like Forte and MIDIOx in my
case, can't be done when you aren't running a multitasking shell like
Windows or OSX.

edit: btw you guys have seen VMWare right? Might have hardware access
issues if not running 2 soundcards tho.

-Ben

thanks, you're kind of getting nearer my question - but I realise you can do that in windows, but my question was more about using that kind of principle to just run different components and apps/plug-ins of either mac or PC

I was really saying that IN THEORY if the hardware takes it couldnt someone develop a way of doing it - so kind of like this Bootcamp app but instead of adding another thing to install and doing it on top of your OS, stripping everything back so the OS is really just a glorified driver/service host

It may not be worth it if the reports on this kind of thing are good, but that's what I'm asking really - the thought of running mac and PC apps on the one machine at the one time without any kind of emulator or performance hit is a very cool one indeed.

eyeknow · Post by **eyeknow** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:05 am

kenn michael wrote:Boot Camp works great. It's a much smoother install process than the onmac.net solution I did a few weeks ago.

Yes, audio apps work brilliantly, in fact when I did the onmac.net solution, I posted the Live benchmark results. Running Live in XP was faster than OSX by 2%. I did the test on a Core Duo mini running at 1.66Ghz. It outperformed at 3.0Ghz P4 in both XP and in OSX.

Boot Camp is very slick though.

thank you! Thank you for getting us back on track and for the informative post.

I am now confident in trying the app

forge · Post by **forge** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:09 am

they just cant help sticking the boot in whenever they can!

Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

MrYellow · Post by **MrYellow** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:14 am

but my question was more about using that kind of principle to just run
different components and apps/plug-ins of either mac or PC

You can run VSTs on linux using a special wrapper......
Maybe you can run PC and Mac....... or could do with some hackin....

Mac and PC files are different, Mac files have a header with MIME type
information in it, which needs to be stripped off before they'll work on
PC.... um.... I'm assuming the Linux VST wrapper thing uses PC VSTs....
maybe both.... Worth a look.... but very complex to setup correctly with a
lot of reading involved.... I have seen a VST host for Linux that uses this
wrapper and allows u to save patches and stuff like that... Seemed cool but
not as good as Forte.

-Ben

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:43 am

good point about wrappers MrYellow....

hopefully in the near future, some developer will come up with a wrapper to run PC VSTs as VSTs/AUs in OSX without porting!!!

Digi V · Post by **Digi V** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:34 pm

someone has posted pics of a pre-released vista running on a new imac.

microsoft looks to finally be releasing a somewhat appealing OS.

too bad they are about 5 years too late lol.

oh how far they are behind....

the funny thing is you know alllll these people are going to be like "Oh cool man, look how nice that looks, thats so "new".

gotta love it.

http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=14448

network.funky · Post by **network.funky** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:55 pm

i NEED a Mac Mini for general office/surfing use as the Mrs hates XP and loved the G5 I bought home for demo.

Sadly her Sony MP3 player software only works on a PC so, disappointingly, thought I'd have to buy yet another PC instead.

Boot camp is very good news.

Can anyone who's gone dual boot see if Sony's Sonic Stage will work?

Digi V · Post by **Digi V** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:59 pm

why does she HAVE to use the sony mp3 player software?

if she's glowing because she used a g5

then maybe an ipod would do the same.

HD1 · Post by **HD1** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:52 pm

from my experience with the sony software, and mp3 capable minidisc, I would torch sony HQ in a second. Their software sucks ass and doesnt create a universal file, it creates a file specificaly designed to only work with the 'fingerprint' of your pc. So say you spend WEEKS encoding your cd collection into sonicstage (sony's bullshit software) , and you need to re-install your OS- Well....your weeks of monotonous encoding will have been for naught but a seering migraine on a hot, humid summer's day.

"Apple does Windows too"

Vista Already running on Apple mactel