KVR Audio

cptgone · Post by **cptgone** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:04 pm

Beardedone wrote:If true, I would sure welcome a true competitor for MSWindows on the PC platform. It is a monopoly and needs a shake up. As much as I hate using a MAC I love the idea of a head to head between Apple and MS on the OS front.

i agree, but i don't get the impression Apple and Wintel are really fighting each other anymore...

MS has been supporting Apple and Apple mainly targets niche markets...

it's not like in the 80s, when there was some fierce competition from Atari, Commodore and others.

too bad BeOS didn't make it...
i suppose Linux will become an alternative for music soon.

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:08 pm

Competition is the spice of... uh... business. *nodnod* Yes, that's it.

Meffy

DHR53 · Post by **DHR53** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:13 pm

Considering I do my work on a Mac, and have for 20 years, it's a no-brainer for me! I've been using Macs since the first Mac IIs and designing and producing complete magazines with them while people were playing text adventures on the PC... The software that was available for the Mac then, that utilized postscript (wyswg) made PC software (word processors and spreadsheets) seem primitive... THAT was the time of Mac innovation, and pretty much a revolution... But as competition has a way of doing, Microsoft has slowly figured out what they needed to do... so you have Windows... and frankly it's easier to follow than lead! Apple has had to create their own universe from scratch, where everyone else just decides what to copy... Have they kept up that innovation? Probably more so in the area of product design than software/system... Really, when you consider OSX had to be done from scratch albeit with Unix/Graphic development... It was a bigger task than say Windows XP which has been developed and refined for a lot longer... Microsoft has the resources to compete with or really crush any competitor... The fact thhatt Apple competes at all is pretty amazing!

VicDiesel · Post by **VicDiesel** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:25 pm

DHR53 wrote:Really, when you consider OSX had to be done from scratch albeit with Unix/Graphic development...

Not really. That's why they bought NeXT.

V.

DHR53 · Post by **DHR53** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:13 pm

...That was the Unix/Graphic development I referred to (Xwindows)... But they still had to deal with making the OS work with existing Macs at the time... which slowed down development as opposed to working with Unix capable boxes right from the start... there were a number of graphic user interfaces for Unix even before Next, but nothing that would allow Mac users to seemlessly switch, or painlessly that is! ...I'm sure Apple is pinching themselves daily for the I-Pod (and I-Tunes)...

BitFlipper · Post by **BitFlipper** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:30 pm

I don't see OS X as any huge innovation. Remember that they tried and tried to write their own pre-emptively multitasked OS from scratch, and kept failing. It wasn't because they were super innovative at the time when it was decided to base OS X on Unix, just that all their prior internal efforts failed. Windows 95 was pre-emtively multitasking back in 1995 already, ages before OS X was ever released. Not saying Win95 is/was better at all, but I'm just saying, Apple often gets way more credit than they deserve.

BitFlipper

mauseoleum · Post by **mauseoleum** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:37 pm

freebsd scores/scored high on netcraft surveys and statistics ... plus gnome looks good.

Wopelka · Post by **Wopelka** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:50 pm

mac or pc?

both options are valid.

personally i couldn't make without FL Studio and Sonar, so my choice is obvious (plus the large population of freewares out there)...

n9 · Post by n9 » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:22 pm

Sorry, Win95 was not preemptively multitasked, despite what people have said. That was brought in with the NT4/Win2k kernel. Neither Windows not MacOS had protected memory or true multitasking and now they both do.

Sleek Month · Post by **Sleek Month** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:29 pm

If true, I would sure welcome a true competitor for MSWindows on the PC platform. It is a monopoly and needs a shake up. As much as I hate using a MAC I love the idea of a head to head between Apple and MS on the OS front.

No! No more fooking formats!

In my ideal world, Mac would die a quick, firey death, and all competition would be focused on a single platform, or multiple platforms, each of which was completely compatible with the other.

I really don't think Mac fuels any competition anymore. I think that the competition is between different windows-based devs anyway.

...so, the net result of Mac ceasing would be NO MORE INCOMPATIBILITIES BASED ON MAC-ONLY FORMATS!

Imagine it, a world where you never had anyone ask if a program was cross-compatible, where no-one brought their song project to you and said "Well, it's all aiff and sound-designer2 files...you can work with those, right?

...a world where all software would work on all systems! Rhino in Logic!

...a world where you never got a data disk that your computer couldn't read.( "Crap. I can't even see a file structure on this thing...oh. I see. It's some sort of proprietary OSX scsi CD thing. Great.")

Imagine software and hardware devs bringing products to market without the (economically and developmentally) wasteful necessity of developing two seperate versions of every product.

Imagine a world where independant and/or freeware programs ran on every system...("Hey, you gotta try this VSTI. What? You can't? No Mac version? Great.")

...so, to sum up, the problem isn't Mac, the problem is multiple incompatible platforms.

...and Mac lost the race, so they should f**k off and leave the rest of us in a better, more peaceful world.

-S.

BitFlipper · Post by **BitFlipper** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:37 pm

n9 wrote:Sorry, Win95 was not preemptively multitasked, despite what people have said. That was brought in with the NT4/Win2k kernel. Neither Windows not MacOS had protected memory or true multitasking and now they both do.

With all due respect, you are wrong. Is this one of those "facts" that are floating around in the Mac community?

Do you know what pre-emptive multitasking is? There are only two types of multitasking - pre-emptive and co-operative. There is no gray area. On Win95, 16-bit apps are co-operative multitasked, and 32-bit apps are pre-emptively multitasked. I assume this is where the Mac community got the "windows 95 is not pre-emptively multitasked" "fact" from. There's a difference in the way you develop co-operatively multitasked apps and pre-emptively multitasked apps. I know, I've done both.

I've been developing Windows programs for over 10 years now, and I used APIs on Windows 95 related to pre-emptive multitasking soon after Windows 95 was released. Are you saying I was imaging that?

I suggest you read up on this topic a little bit before making statements like the above. Here's some links. I'm sure there's many more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95
http://computing-dictionary.thefreedict ... ndows%2095
http://www.rodsbooks.com/buy-os2/buy-win95.html
http://www.codeguru.com/Cpp/I-N/interne ... .php/c3413
http://kb.indiana.edu/data/agar.html

I did not say anything about memory management, but now that you bring that up - Win95 did have protected memory as well (again, only for 32-bit apps, not 16-bit apps), although it was not nearly as robust as NT4's protected memory at the time.

So I posted 5 links, can you give me any links to prove your point?

Edit: I am by no means saying Windows 95 was great, in fact I think it was quite bad. But we cannot rewrite history, and I'm just pointing out that Win95 most certainly did have pre-emptive multitasking.

BitFlipper

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:01 pm

DHR53 quoth ...That was the Unix/Graphic development I referred to (Xwindows)...

Not quite. The entire underlying core is the MACH Kernel, with a version of BSD over the top. Neither came from Apple, they both already existed.

For the GUI, they borrowed heavily from the NeXT systems, which used display-Postscript, and I really can't remember if that used X-Windows underneath, but OSX does not... and they switched to display-PDF because Postscript had IP or license encumbrances if I remember rightly.
In fact its only recently that OSX started shipping with X.

But they still had to deal with making the OS work with existing Macs at the time...

Yeah, but one thing Apple did have was a lot of experience with was emulating other Mac systems, ie the 68xxx to PowerPC crossover, and the Rhapsody project.

which slowed down development as opposed to working with Unix capable boxes right from the start...

I'd kinda disagree. Apple weren't UNIX-inclined at all until Jobs got pulled in again. As soon as Jobs was back, the ex-NeXT guys were shipped in and all previous plans were shelved. And they actually moved pretty fast after that....

To be honest the ones who have pulled off miracles (in that clumsy, crude, I-cant-believe-its-still-got-a-lizards-brain-in-the-middle sorta way) is Microsoft. Most of their stuff is encrusted shitloads deep with legacy crud, but it still functions. Okay they had to get in the VAX guys to write a VMS variant for them so they had a kernel, but considering whats on top of that its admirable (in a twisted sorta way) that the thing works at all...

Robert Randolph · Post by **Robert Randolph** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:09 pm

I have little to say but...

Bigg John · Post by **Bigg John** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:54 am

wow, we are starting to geek out here hardcore. we should all take our horrid little boxes, put the in a big pile and torch them. then we can go back to analog tape and razor blades, but only if the tape is memorex....

neverwhere2012 · Post by **neverwhere2012** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:18 am

Bigg John wrote:wow, we are starting to geek out here hardcore. we should all take our horrid little boxes, put the in a big pile and torch them. then we can go back to analog tape and razor blades, but only if the tape is memorex....

yea, cause everyone has like $50,000 to buy the 2 or 3 2" 24 track machines that it would take to replace their computer.... let alone all the hardware synths to replace those VSTi's

Mac vs. PC