PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I am elated about many things @ Soniccore lately, but still was hoping for a small bit of information that is crucial for my new upgrades.

Tascsam has announced Mac support, XP32 and XP64 bit support, and all flavors of Vista support.

Will SC's upgrade be similar? I am curious because I am reading that developers jumping into the 64bit arena are using XP64 as opposed to Vista.

Not sure why, but would there be differences in performance, or is it more of a compatabilty issue?

I reckon its just that XP has been tried and tested, whereas Vista is still quite buggy and generally bloated. I guess

(My own 2 cents...or pence rather)

why bother ?
just ask yourself one simple question

can a company that didn't release one single original product which was entirely designed and developed in-house, be a trendsetter ?
how competent would you judge those guys 'n gals ?

on the other hand they proved over and over that they can make a sh*tload of money from even the most retarded piece of code, so go figure yourself...

cheers, Tom

wow...you really are a complete and utter Microsoft bigot aren't you

regarding to Apple only in the sense of marketing strategy, regarding MS also of quality.
hm, dunno...




........

husker wrote:wow...you really are a complete and utter Microsoft bigot aren't you

No, I just noticed a strange difference in headcount and budget versus results.
... and the fact that every item in the company's portfolio was aquired from someone else, starting with the infamous Basic Interpreter Bill bought from a school collegue.
a leading IT expert in Germany once commented the $150 million ad campaign (intro of Win2K ?) with the words: ...I know compagnies who'd gladly deliver 2 complete operating systems given that budget...

the only reason for a 'consumer' 64-bit OS can be found in various sales departments
would you really dispose of your car and buy a van... just to get to work because it's capable to carry an addtional 7 tons of load ?

cheers, Tom

Excellent analogy.

Actually a gent from Tascam gave me the heads up about Vista.

I just hope I can load what I need for my gigs, that's it. If the 3GB LAA works really good, that's where I'll stay.

Confusing times for developers I'm sure, it's nice to have options though in case.

to make this a little more balanced:
Apple also had a couple of 'next big things' to come (way before OSX) with a tremendous impact on how software had to be developed.
Major adjustments and time consuming modifications were required...
within less than 2 years it turned out to not live up to expectations and so the project was trashed alltogether.

with a sarcastic mind one might suspect it was a way to clear the developement scene from small and independant enterprises...

the original version of Gigasample was a pretty good performer
I've had it on my first 'musical PC', a Celeron 333 with just 64 MB of Ram, but yes - it could load and play the Gigapiano from a shared disk via a 10 Mbit line
go figure what Tascam made of it...

astroman wrote:

husker wrote:wow...you really are a complete and utter Microsoft bigot aren't you

No, I just noticed a strange difference in headcount and budget versus results.
... and the fact that every item in the company's portfolio was aquired from someone else, starting with the infamous Basic Interpreter Bill bought from a school collegue.
a leading IT expert in Germany once commented the $150 million ad campaign (intro of Win2K ?) with the words: ...I know compagnies who'd gladly deliver 2 complete operating systems given that budget...

the only reason for a 'consumer' 64-bit OS can be found in various sales departments
would you really dispose of your car and buy a van... just to get to work because it's capable to carry an addtional 7 tons of load ?

cheers, Tom

so who did they buy WIndows from? who did they buy Word, Excel from? - products which account for the vast majority of their revenue

Nemesys had a good solid product, that's for sure.

When they starting trying to please the Mac crowd, and added Gigapulse it became a giant overbloated app.

GS4 looks to be bloated also.

I have a friend with tons of cash who wants to start some developements w/ audio. He asked my opinion about software, and I told him that hardware w/ software programmability was something many people like.

Remember the Roland S770 hardware sampler of the early '90's ? I had 2 of them that took their samples from those shoebox sized 1GB HDD's. The 1U unit also had an RGB connector that ran it's own little editor on a small TV type of monitor.

Boy I would love to talk him into developing a hardware sampler w/ it's own reduced instuction set, and 128GB's of RAM.

MS could care less about the needs of audio. Thay are office, server, and more recently gamer orientated.

We should have our own O.S.

When Yamaha bought Steinberg, I thought that if anyone could make a killer sequencer, that the hardware king, and software king could do it. Nope.

Apple buying Logic, while the PC guys got screwed, the Mac guys appeared to be on the right path. NOT.

I have a dream that Scope 6.0 will be new cards for PCI-e and have it's own O.S. and sequencer, recorder, and sampler.

It is just a dream, but damn that would be nice.

I am surprised how stable Scope or any app is, after being pasted to Windows and it's hordes of slaves.

I despise these corporations as much as Tom, but he definately has stronger passions than I do.

scope4live wrote:...I despise these corporations as much as Tom, but he definately has stronger passions than I do.

actually I can't complain about making a living from the mess, it even makes me kind of indispensable

and in fact all those decision makers in IT projects will always vote for the more complicated or bloated version of whatever... for just the same reason

I completely agree with Stardust about Apple's policy in recent years - they fall back on **ix and include Open Source ideas to reduce costs, slow things down, mess them up... cash it in

cheers, Tom

sometimes the truth has to be told
it probably won't change a thing, but hopefully prevents that it's forgotten in an increasingly monopoly world

husker wrote:...so who did they buy WIndows from? who did they buy Word, Excel from? - products which account for the vast majority of their revenue

a few quotes fro Wikipedia... about Windows

...Microsoft Windows is the name of several families of software operating systems by Microsoft. Microsoft first introduced an operating environment named Windows in November 1985 as an add-on to MS-DOS in response to the growing interest in graphical user interfaces (GUIs).[1] ...

about Word

...Many concepts and ideas of Word were brought from Bravo, the original GUI word processor developed at Xerox PARC. Bravo's creator Charles Simonyi left PARC to work for Microsoft in 1981. Simonyi hired Richard Brodie, who had worked with him on Bravo, away from PARC that summer.[2][3] On February 1, 1983, development on what was originally named Multi-Tool Word began.
Having renamed it Microsoft Word, Microsoft released the program October 25, 1983, for the IBM PC. ...

about the source of spreadsheets

Visicalc...Conceived by Dan Bricklin, refined by Bob Frankston, developed by their company Software Arts[1], and distributed by Personal Software in 1979 (later named VisiCorp) for the Apple II computer, it propelled the Apple from being a hobbyist's toy to being a much-desired, useful financial tool for business[1]. This likely motivated IBM to enter the PC market which they had been ignoring until then...

...Though the electronic spreadsheet was a revolutionary idea, Bricklin was advised that he would be unlikely to be granted a patent, so he failed to profit significantly from his invention. At the time, patents were not available for software in the United States, so it was thought that the product could only be copyrighted, and as copyright deals with form rather than idea, competitors could quickly copy the concept and just present the result in a different layout without infringing the copyright.

Charles Babcock of InformationWeek argues that in perspective, “VisiCalc was flawed and clunky, and couldn't do many things users wanted it to do.”[4] Soon, more powerful clones of VisiCalc were released, including SuperCalc (1980), Microsoft's MultiPlan (1982), Lotus 1-2-3 (1983), and the spreadsheet module in AppleWorks (1984). With Microsoft Excel (introduced for the Macintosh in 1985 and for Windows 2.0 in 1987), a new generation of spreadsheets was born. Due to the lack of a patent, none of the developers of the VisiCalc clones had to pay any royalties to VisiCorp.

Powerpoint

The original Microsoft Office PowerPoint was developed by Bob Gaskins and software developer Dennis Austin as Presenter for Forethought, Inc. [1].

Forethought released PowerPoint 1.0 in April 1987 for the Apple Macintosh. It ran in black and white, generating text-and-graphics pages for overhead transparencies. A new full color version of PowerPoint shipped a year later after the first color Macintosh came to market.

Microsoft Corporation purchased Forethought and its PowerPoint software product for $14 million on July 31, 1987.[2] In 1990 the first Windows versions were produced for Windows 3.0...

you see the company uses all variants of aquiring 'knowledge'
hire the inventor, buy the completed product, just copy the idea - of course this is in no way unique to M$ - I'm the last to vote against market rules

the only thing I can't stand is that they call it progress and that they claim technical competence. Both is NOT true

cheers, Tom

edit: ah well, too late, new posts already

you given up on Macs yourself when selling your soul to the double mirror monster

sorry, Tom

man, that machine works...!
I wouldn't have to save a song for weeks...

It IS noisy, and that's a shame, I give that in immediately.
But only that one

If you love a girl, you don't have to be in love with her dad, is it?
Read Apple where's dad

But you guys prefer talking about company politics instead of the machines themselves.
Can you tell me what has been the reason for Apple to change to PCI-e?
On first sight it doesn't look like a step to keep your customers inside.
Why didn't Apple combine both type of slots, likesome pc mobos do?
If it's only for the Grammy of the fastest computer then it can't be a wise decision.

hubird wrote:Can you tell me what has been the reason for Apple to change to PCI-e?
On first sight it doesn't look like a step to keep your customers inside.
Why didn't Apple combine both type of slots, likesome pc mobos do?
If it's only for the Grammy of the fastest computer then it can't be a wise decision.

it's so that you will have to buy new stuff from apple or an apple partner...it's to eliminate the competition...

Yeah,.....IBM.

Intel used it's leverage, I'm sure of it.

@ Gary, it's a weak arguement, as what they win at the one side they will loose at the other.
No, there must be more

no there isn't....