BeOS & Pulsar

Zer · Post by **Zer** » Mon Jul 02, 2001 5:45 am

Did somebody of you wrote a driver for this really nice and now officially distributed by Korg system? I guess, there won´t be any development for it by creamware...but I´m tired of non-realtime windows processing (btw. multitasking is only emulated within windows). Any link available?

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Mon Jul 02, 2001 8:39 am

It takes more than a driver to run Pulsar on a different OS, Zer... The GUI would have to be recompiled for the OS, as well. If someone would come out with a Pro-quality sequencer that rivals Cubase or Logic in features, then I think Creamware would take the platform more seriously.

Stubbe · Post by **Stubbe** » Mon Jul 02, 2001 10:10 am

Yep, I too want to use a better OS than Windoze, but the only hope for this as I see it is that Mac OS X will get ported for PC's, and that it will become a popular OS for DAW's, Mac and PC's alike.
And so enabling (or forcing) Creamware to make the transition viable.
Right now, OS X has not even shown it's (music) capabillities, and no major sequencer is ported yet.

BeOS is a very good OS for music, but, lets face it, there is not much pro-software going for it, and there is close to none coming.
Emagic cancelled their BeOS development about a year ago, and nobody else is working on it as far as I know

Cheers
Stubbe

Zer · Post by **Zer** » Tue Jul 03, 2001 5:43 am

Korg has just builst an own sequencer which looks logic like using BeOs on a "allround" workstation (Mixer Audiohardware, Sequencer + FX + VST Support etc.)...and I don´t believe that any firm which is currently developing windows software will develop for other oses since windows is the os used by the masses. However, if this nice little Korg workstation is powerful enough - I`ll keep my pc only for the office stuff.

By the way I thought of some IT-students which eventually could have developed a driver for BeOS, since there´s a lot of smart free stuff out and some guys have already written drivers for other unsupported card (of cause inofficially), too.

[ This Message was edited by: zer on 2001-07-04 06:34 ]

Stubbe · Post by **Stubbe** » Tue Jul 03, 2001 10:04 am

On 2001-07-03 06:43, Zer wrote:

By the way I thought of some IT-students which eventually could have developped a driver for BeOS, since there´s a lott of smart free stuff out and some guys have already written drivers for other unsupported card (of cause inofficially), too.

[ This Message was edited by: Zer on 2001-07-03 06:46 ]

If you _only_ have the drivers made, you will still not be able to get a sound from the boards, I am sorry to say

You will have no GUI, no way to get to the board and tell it to load even the background project for listening to a CD, since _all_ is written for Mac/Windoze...

The driver set only may be enough for simpler cards to function at least minimal, but CW takes a super nerd to port without support from CW

Keep hoping...
Stubbe

BTW, do you have more info on that KORG-thing, it sounds interesting ?

[ This Message was edited by: Stubbe on 2001-07-03 11:06 ]

Jakke · Post by **Jakke** » Wed Jul 04, 2001 12:20 am

ZER.
Are you shure about Korg ?? At AES this spring, Tascam released their SX-1; HD-recorder, sequenser, mixer, etc driven by BeOs.
It contains 8 shark DSP, as well as two Motorolas.

Eaven their new mixer (DM-24) uses Shark DSP's.

Regards, Jakke.

Zer · Post by **Zer** » Wed Jul 04, 2001 5:43 am

@ stubbe ok, not only the driver a working gui is also required, but I thought this wouldn´t be too time consuming, maybe it could even be transferred to......

hmm.. I'm not quite sure about Korg or Tascam...I read about it 2 months ago in a german musicians mag., but if I´ll find the online link, I´ll post it here...

[ This Message was edited by: zer on 2001-07-06 09:51 ]

Jakke · Post by **Jakke** » Wed Jul 04, 2001 11:34 pm

You will find the Tascam SX-1 at:

http://www.tascam.com/products/sx1/sx1.cfm

Regard, Jakke.

Zer · Post by **Zer** » Wed Jul 18, 2001 9:12 am

thanks

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Thu Jul 26, 2001 8:27 pm

Actually the more I think about BeOS & Pulsar, the more I find they're the match made in heaven.

a) It's fast. Clean. Solid. Stable. Lightweight. All the perfect elements for a dedicated, stream-lined DAW only OS.

b) At some point, it might be better to sell dedicated boxes which boot up directly into your Pulsar or SCOPE. No Windows OS, no mac OS, just one task only and optimized for that. Only the bare essentials of the already-streamlined BeOS would be required, after all, it's even used in embedded situations now.

c) The publicity would be awesome-- one of the first big audio companies to support a popular alternate OS, and it would appeal to both Mac & Windows users.

d) the Pulsar GUI seems to drive Mac & Windows users nuts since its "different." It doesn't act like just another program. Since (nearly) nobody runs BeOS, comparisons with one's native OS will vanish.

e) there is a point where more computing power doesn't really do too much for an Audio Environment running mostly on DSPs. Imagine for a moment turning on a rock-solid stable Creamware box running BeOS (or *ix) that did nothing else but boot into the DSP environment, otherwise just sitting in your studio rack looking like any other piece of equipment.

Man sorry I was slipping off into "LA LA Land" there.

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Thu Jul 26, 2001 11:55 pm

I do not agree on that totally.
a. Tahts a hard one to dispute. I'll have to agree with you on that one.
b.The whole point with the Pulsar card for me is that it IS integrated.Thats why i bought it.
c.I don't believe that the publicity would be awesome. There are several solutions that use BeOS already. Radar 24, the Fostex system discussed above. None of them have had enormous publicity. At least not for the fact that they run on BeOS.
d.I don't dislike the GUI because it is different but because it is bad. It is slow, confusing and so on. It wouyld still be that on BeOS. Ok, maybe it would'nt be slow but still confusing and generally unuserfriendly.
e. Yes and the contrary is true as well. The reason I use Pulsar is because it is NOT another box in my studio. The whole thing is the integration i get with everything in the same box.

My 2 cents. (what does that mean anyway?)

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Fri Jul 27, 2001 5:21 am

On 2001-07-27 00:55, jupiter8 wrote:
c.I don't believe that the publicity would be awesome. There are several solutions that use BeOS already. Radar 24, the Fostex system discussed above. None of them have had enormous publicity. At least not for the fact that they run on BeOS.

well, for one the fostex thing is not quite as important as a dsp music production environment. pulsar would get mad publicity, and their 'progressive' outlook would be enhanced as well.

On 2001-07-27 00:55, jupiter8 wrote:
d.I don't dislike the GUI because it is different but because it is bad. It is slow, confusing and so on. It wouyld still be that on BeOS. Ok, maybe it would'nt be slow but still confusing and generally unuserfriendly.

OK, maybe the GUI is slow, but confusing and userunfriendly? I knew how to do most everything intuitively on first use. The interface is so simple and user friendly! The only thing that took me awhile is the device-preset list-preset relationship and saving, as it is not well documented.

Thalamus · Post by **Thalamus** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 2:45 pm

Hi folks,

Funny, I dont really see why software companies just dont port their stuff to Beos.

Hell, there's a free version of the OS (and the 500 MB limit can be tweaked!).

So, why dont they want the perfect solution. A awesome realtime OS, runnning thier software with pride. They could be free of much troubles, and in the end, the users get SO much more. And for free, that is (or at least, for very little money).

I mean, ok, many use Windows for their main task: Internet, Word processing etc., but I guess many folks with studios would prefer to have a totally clean, top performing Beos box, just for audio use.

I cant figure why they dont (I mean, NUENDO were in fucking beta, man)

Air_PoLLo · Post by **Air_PoLLo** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:19 pm

Stubbe said the MacOS X wasn't sutable for music.....

fact: OS X comes with core code written specially for audio+midi stability and timing... read more about it.
we'll be soon seing logic, VST ported to this new and improved OS:

MacOS X is the future OS for music producers.... read and weep, Stubbe.

MacOS 9.1 is fucking rock-solld! forget BeOS, I stopped thinking about it when I bought my first mac!

I just recieved news that MIDIMAN has released MacOS X drivers for their USB Midi interface series!

[ This Message was edited by: Air_PoLLo on 2001-07-28 17:32 ]

ohmelas · Post by **ohmelas** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 4:36 am

Hey Guys,

Give Creamware a break. Their doing something even more intelligent than porting their product to BeOS. BeOS contains a UNIX kernal as its source code similar to that of LINUX, Solaris and even Mac OS X. Although there are many advantages to the UNIX kernal for the majority of computer users they are using the Windows 9x platform. For a computer developer this presents a delima for processing rich technologies such as digital audio. Windows has made great strides in developing Direct-X and other Multimedia technologies and working with Intel to embed some of that in MMX instruction sets on Intel chips, however, the fatal flaw of the 9X OS is its memory management. Windows 9x uses memory technology that is backwards compatible with DOS and even the best written programs can really utilize all the memory that can be available to the Windows OS. For instance Windows 9x still uses Real Mode and Virtual Modes for DOS programs, which have 640k conventional memory, 384k of upper memory and 64k of high memory with the remaining memory residing in Extended Memory. What this means to the average user is a severly handicapped limit on performance even with some of the creative technologies that WIN 98 introduced with 32-bit Drivers. The obvious choice for a performance system is an OS with out this kind of limitation and for the majority of PC users its really really easy to jump into something that's familiar looking like Windows NT/Windows2000. The kernal on WinNT/2k uses a form of memory management, that exceeds Win9x performance specs and uses an object oriented approach to memory management. What this means to the basic user, if you got it WinNT/2k will use it! Additionally WinNT/2k uses a full 32-bit data address space which in only partially used in 98 and hardly used at all in 95.

The bottom line is that Creamware just released beta drivers and software for Windows 2000. We are all lucky enough to have it. Let's take advantage of it and get off our 98 nightmare and into a system where 512MB of RAM really means 512MB of RAM. $199 at most places and if you check ...

http://www.pricewatch.com

you'll be able to probably find a better price. Good luck to all and let's create a user forum for Win2k okay? Remember too, that in October XP is coming out and its using most of the 2k code with some of the PnP technologies on 98 systems. What will Creamware do then?

Stubbe · Post by **Stubbe** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 4:59 am

On 2001-07-28 17:19, Air_PoLLo wrote:
Stubbe said the MacOS X wasn't sutable for music.....

Whoa there, hold your horses, mate

If you care to read my message again, I think you'll see that I just stated that OS X still have to verify the promises made, meaning that as far as I know, neither Steinberg, Emagic or Cakewalk and almost all other suppliers has made anything public yet that is written for OS X from the ground.

There is too much hype and advertisment b*******t flying around these days for me to just go out and buy whatever platform or equipment looks like the thing. The usage of UNIX in OS X (or BeOS for that matter) is not a guarantee of success.

I for one would very much like to see OS X be a success, since Microsoft is in dire need of good competition, but since I already have a PC I also hope for a OS X version for this platform sometime in the future.

That's all

Cheers
Stubbe

Zer · Post by **Zer** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 8:23 am

to those windows supporters here: I can only disagree... every new windows will eat up more of you system resources. Why? Because there are deals with the hardware manufactorers. 2nd: DirectX? May I laugh here? In Beos the soundcards wich are supported are directly supported...no other extension is nessecary. And by the way, who really wants to gamble directx games with a scope/pulsar system...go and get yourself a playstation or the xbox then.

[ This Message was edited by: zer on 2001-07-31 07:01 ]

Zer · Post by **Zer** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 6:11 am

and one other thing if you compare Linux and BeOS: BeOS has a very fine implemented API and JFS. Things you´re in need to compile for use with linux....

[ This Message was edited by: zer on 2001-08-01 01:42 ]

Jakke · Post by **Jakke** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 8:50 am

I just love my Atari ....

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:37 am

Perhaps the OSX port will bring a Linux or other *Ix version!

http://gige.xdv.org/pages/DeMuDi
Check out this link for a distribution of Debian Linux being developed specifically for media -- sound familiar? Hopefully they don't change their mind halfway through and do Internet Appliances instead

[ This Message was edited by: subhuman on 2001-08-01 08:37 ]