When can we stop making 32-bit plugins?

[Synthman2000]

Steinberg only invented linear timeline MIDI sequencing and VST/VSTi.

Actually, I think that linear timeline MIDI sequencing can be credited to MOTU and Performer(1985).

I stand corrected. 1985, an incredible achievement.

But hold on a moment... this is v3.0 in the pic..

http://www.factmag.com/2016/10/01/the-1 ... ern-music/

I wonder what V1.0 was like or if it was step sequencer like Octamed, Bars and Pipes/Pro-24 ?

I would say Jury is out without a screen shot of Performer or Composer with bars and beats going across the screen..All I could find was this worded description.

http://www.oldschooldaw.com/forums/inde ... 526.0.html

Whereas Cubase 1.0:

[stratum]

will there ever be an 16 bit vst?:)

https://www.groovypost.com/howto/enable ... indows-10/

[Examigan]

I use a proper* host that seamlessly wraps plugins coded for both 32 and 64 bits.
So i totally don't care about this.




*That host is REAPER of course.

I use Sonar Platinum which can also load 32-bit plugins. I rarely use them though.

[Mutant]

Yeah, Cubase is not a proper host.

If it requires a third party, buggy software to run older plugins, then it is not a proper plugin host.

[fmr]

Steinberg only invented linear timeline MIDI sequencing and VST/VSTi.

Actually, I think that linear timeline MIDI sequencing can be credited to MOTU and Performer(1985).

I stand corrected. 1985, an incredible achievement.

But hold on a moment... this is v3.0 in the pic..

http://www.factmag.com/2016/10/01/the-1 ... ern-music/

I wonder what V1.0 was like or if it was step sequencer like Octamed, Bars and Pipes/Pro-24 ?

No it was linear since the beginning. Steinberg claims to have been the first to introduce the track overview, but when I started using Performer (version 3, back in 1989) it already had a track overview (and an edit window using music notation, besides the piano roll and the event list). But Cubase on Atari also had it, so, I'm not sure which one was the first.

What is pictured in the link you posted is Digital Performer, which came much later, after Studio Vision (the first sequencer to incorporate digital audio) and Cubase Audio (the second).

THIS is Performer in its humble beginnings

[AnX]

Yeah, Cubase is not a proper host.

If it requires a third party, buggy software to run older plugins, then it is not a proper plugin

True

[SJ_Digriz]

Yeah, Cubase is not a proper host.

If it requires a third party, buggy software to run legacy architecture in an emulator, then it is not a proper plugin host for people that want to remain in the 90s.

Fixed

[ghettosynth]

...

[Mutant]

Fixed

Oh i am fully in 2017.
And in every other year a VST plugin was released !

[A_SN]

Yes I use 32-bit OS and software, cause I'm all Alone and Older and very Ill!! And nobody to talk to or to help me.

I just enjoy being creative with my old computer to alleviate my illness/aloneness for as long as it (or I) remains ...

The case for 32-bit support just took a pretty depressing turn. But really though, pretty much every machine sold in the last 10+ years can support a 64-bit OS, and the oldest such machines are practically given away. I had someone tell me he's still using Windows 2000 to make music, wtf, at some point I'm gonna have to stop paying attention to such people.

Do you really care about the layzers of the world just because they may send you an email or two, they're not customers.

I kinda do, I have a free version of my EQ, he could enjoy that, and I find the shoestring approach kind of relatable. It's not all about money, I don't want to inconvenience people, I just wanna know when some people will have finally moved on. Maybe Apple has the right idea with its forcing everybody to move on ways, while Microsoft is still struggling to keep 20+ year old programs running.

I think the fact is some software will never "catch up" to 64 bit. If there is no 64 bit it is abandonware as the term here goes...in 2017 it shows no further future is seen for the plug in by the developer.

tbh people should volunteer to make updated builds for the devs of such abandonware. As time goes by there's only going to be more and more valuable abandonware, we can run them with antique software, or we can drag them back into the present, which isn't hard if the developer will let you have the source code. Actually it's hard to to keep something new running on older platforms than making something old back up to date. It should be a movement, lots of people out there have the skills it takes to make updated builds, it generally takes hardly any code changes.

I use a proper* host that seamlessly wraps plugins coded for both 32 and 64 bits.
So i totally don't care about this.

Good point, I kind of got off on the premise that you can't have both at the same time, which of course you can. Really weakens the case for 32-bit builds.

Some major DAWs already dropped 32 bit support, so I expect that in no more than 2 or 3 years it will be also dropped by the majority of plugin developer (just give time for a pair of major releases of DAWS, so support for older versions is dropped).

Sounds like I should follow that, give it a few years and then drop it like everybody else. When I start having a lot more than just 2 plugins for sale I'm definitely dropping 32-bit support like a hot potato.

Also, give some months of advice to users when you'll decide to drop 32 bit support (or whatever), so they can plan and manage any related upgrade (in case they need it). This is something I really appreciate.

Good point about notifying in advance, although a simpler way (I can't reach all users, they haven't all signed up for the newsletter, some have changed email addresses) would be keeping the old build available on the site.

Honestly this discussion is depressing, thinking about all these people stuck using antiquated software and hardware. Just move on folks, it's not that hard, just takes a bit of effort. And people with old machines remember, your old desktop machine may be cheap but the electricity it consumes isn't.

[Synthman2000]

Yeah, Cubase is not a proper host.

If it requires a third party, buggy software to run older plugins, then it is not a proper plugin host.

Let's just keep it factual. Cubase does not run 32 bit plug ins since v9. I am not here for DAW wars. To suggest Cubase is not a proper DAW is nonsensensical.

With regards to linear, I suppose that is debateable, my interpretation was first to have bars and beats in a horizontal time line.

[Mutant]

To suggest Cubase is not a proper DAW is nonsensensical.

I said host, not DAW.
A proper DAW can totally suck at hosting 3rd party VST plugins, a proper host can totally suck as a DAW - 2 different things.

1st host hosts 100% of VST plugins.
2nd host hosts about 99% of new plugins and 50% of few year old plugins and 0% of old plugins.

Which of the two is a proper host ?

BTW Try running this plugin in your Cubase without any wrapper:
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2017/ ... arminator/

[Synthman2000]

Ok host. They are both proper.

[ghettosynth]

Do you really care about the layzers of the world just because they may send you an email or two, they're not customers.

I kinda do, I have a free version of my EQ, he could enjoy that, and I find the shoestring approach kind of relatable. It's not all about money, I don't want to inconvenience people, I just wanna know when some people will have finally moved on. Maybe Apple has the right idea with its forcing everybody to move on ways, while Microsoft is still struggling to keep 20+ year old programs running.

I see, well, then that puts a slightly different spin on it.

Some major DAWs already dropped 32 bit support, so I expect that in no more than 2 or 3 years it will be also dropped by the majority of plugin developer (just give time for a pair of major releases of DAWS, so support for older versions is dropped).

Sounds like I should follow that, give it a few years and then drop it like everybody else. When I start having a lot more than just 2 plugins for sale I'm definitely dropping 32-bit support like a hot potato.

Right, but, keep in mind that the layzers are not on that trajectory so if you care about when a small segment has moved on it's not going to be in 2 to 3 years. I suspect that 5 to 7 is more like it.

[Teksonik]

 
Yes I use 32-bit OS and software, cause I'm all Alone and Older and very Ill!! And nobody to talk to or to help me.

Then whether a plugin is 32 or 64 bit is the least of your worries. Please seek help...(I'm being serious). You should not have to suffer in solitude.

Now please stop the '64-bit terror!' and have a little consideration for people who see things differently!!

Please stop the 32 Bit terror and "have a little consideration for people who see things differently!!". See how it works both ways ?

I have true sympathy for those who are stuck with legacy technology but just like those who cling to WinXP eventually the world will pass you by. It's the nature of progress.

Obviously I don't really care if a developer maintains 32 bit versions but the point I've been trying to hammer home is once you go 64 bit there is no need for 32 bit and any time spent developing and maintaining 32 bit versions is simply wasted. I'd rather that time be spent on adding new features and functions to the 64 bit version. But that's just my opinion which is the purpose of Polls.... to elicit opinions and information.