>> I'm afraid that in >> the future if you want the software that'll run on >> your Mac, you'll need to turn to Apple more and more. On Thursday, July 17, 2003 4:00 PM, <mercutio> wrote: > You may be right... Apple may even just die. But since I already > prefer > Logic, FCP et al to their respective competitors, its not a problem at > least for the present. Anyway you put it, it is never posititive that an OS vendor also makes software. That goes for M$ too of course. Many companies refrain from competetive developing on that particular platform of that spesific software when they have to "beat" the actual OS developer. Quite understandable. And this is never for the benefit of the end-user. That Apple drops Premiere for Apple is and should be very disturbing for Mac people. M$ dropped IE for Mac the very same day (almost) that Safari was released. Some of you might say that Safari is better or that Final Cut is better than Premiere, but that is obviously beyond the point. Somebody just lost their favourite software and all of you lost the option to choose.

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, mercutio <mercutio@c...> wrote: > > On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 09:57 AM, itsplayed wrote: > > > I'm afraid that in > > the future if you want the software that'll run on > > your Mac, you'll need to turn to Apple more and more. > > > You may be right... Apple may even just die. I think Apple might have a great future ahead of them as an online MP3 provider, for all platforms. The record companies don't seem to have a clue, Apple have the startup funds and the focus, and the iPod as a perfect entry point, and if they do it properly ... it could give them a new revenue stream that wouldn't need them to spend anything on inventory or anything on R&D (other than the computer systems needed to run the indexes, deliver the files and take the money). They could turn into the "downloadable music" equivalent of Amazon (but needing no stock or warehouses!). Hell, if they become #1 in online music, why bother making computers any more? :-) > But since I already prefer Logic, FCP et al to their respective > competitors, its not a problem at least for the present. Yep, but remember that Apple weren't capable of writing logic and FCP themselves ... those apps were written independently, outside Apple's corporate umbrella, and we still need to see how they develop once the new corporate priorities are taken into account. Apple may well consider that logic6x is already "good enough", and that their bought-in emagic brains might only be allowed to continue to work on it if they spend time working on more "popular" Apple projects rather than on a logic7. Maybe Apple might want a killer karaoke programme, or an autoarranger, or a "put together your own hit single from these component parts" program , or a "learn to play guitar along with whatever's in this week's top ten" system. If they end up running a major MP3 business, they might want to explore all sorts of wild and wacky MP3-related software ideas. They'll probably be wanting to look at anything they can sell to their new MP3 userbase. Maybe a new type of easy-to-use entry-level sequencer, with big animated icons, new softinstruments and happy-happy-appley front-ends on everything?

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, "Oblivian | Bacteria AS" wrote: > ... > Anyway you put it, it is never posititive that an OS vendor > also makes software. That goes for M$ too of course. Oh yes, MS are the stock example! MSWord development seemed to be ****ed up for years as it drifted around in the wash of Microsoft's shifting corporate visions. And I thought Visual Basic had had the chance to completely turn the software development market upside down, if its development team had been allowed to go ahead and turn it into the complete killer cross- platform development tool it could have been ... but they only seemed to support MS operating systems (no Mac version), and didn't initially include a compiler (conflict with VC++), and then got bogged down as VB got used as a pawn in MS strategy after strategy. > Many companies refrain from competetive developing on that > particular platform of that spesific software > when they have to "beat" the actual OS developer. Quite > understandable. Yep, if you have the code for an incredible new wordpocessor, it's probably not worth releasing it for Windows, because most Windows people will just continue to buy Microsoft's own MSWord by default. Partly because MSWord is considered the "standard" Windows WP program, partly because it has the MS stamp on it, and partly because the buyer knows that if they buy a competing Windows wordprocessor, there are going to be question marks over the future of that software under Windows (because they are not going to have an easy time competing with MS). So the "safe" option is buying MSWord, despite any deficiencies in the product, and because MS don't have to make the app compete too hard to keep market share, its development progress has been appallingly slow. MS probably don't give a damn, it still sells.

> --- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, "Oblivian | Bacteria AS" wrote: >> ... >> Anyway you put it, it is never posititive that an OS vendor >> also makes software. That goes for M$ too of course. On Friday, July 18, 2003 3:47 AM, <Eric Baird> wrote: > Oh yes, MS are the stock example! > MSWord development seemed to be ****ed up for years as it drifted > around in the wash of Microsoft's shifting corporate visions. > And I thought Visual Basic had had the chance to completely turn the > software development market upside down, if its development team had > been allowed to go ahead and turn it into the complete killer cross- > platform development tool it could have been ... but they only seemed > to support MS operating systems (no Mac version), and didn't > initially include a compiler (conflict with VC++), and then got > bogged down as VB got used as a pawn in MS strategy after strategy. Sorry, I don't agree with you. Even though an OS vendor develops other software doesn't mean that the software they develop is inferior to the competition. M$ is a prime example of that. I can think of no other software that substitutes MS Office. Yes, there are alternatives, but they aren't "better". Before MS Word it was Word Perfect for DOS... IE vs Netscape? We all know Netscape sucked. It isn't even around anymore since AOL simply dropped further development. Same with Premiere vs Final Cut. Final Cut is commonly regarded the better choice. The problem is that it is developed by Apple, and Apple is an OS vendor. I think Adobe had challenged any other developer, but since it's Apple they just don't bother. What puzzles me and what should disturb you is that if there's any company that has made Apple what it is today, it's Adobe. And when Adobe starts looking elsewhere it is not a good sign I'm afraid. And it's Apple's own fault. What if Steinberg feels the same way after the aquisition of Emagic. Maybe in a year or two we're stuck with Logic on Mac. Terrible... Opera is "thinking loud" about discontinuing development for Mac, M$ has stopped further development for IE on Mac. Windows Media Player 9.0 wont ever be released for Mac, and that is a BIG problem since WMA and WMV is regarded the second largest format after MP3 and MPEG, followed by Real and QT. They wont even release the codec. What Apple doesn't seem to understand is that Mac is a niche computer and Apple isn't M$. M$ is one of the largest and most influential companies in the world. They can pull of things like that and get away with it. Apple can't, they're to small. They just don't seem to get it, I'm afraid... My initial post stands. Apple shouldn't develop Final Cut, Final Cut Pro, Safari, Logic or any other "auxillery" software. Neither should M$, but since they are so much bigger than little Apple, they are more likely to get away with it. Anyway, I find it strange that some of you tend to compare Apple and M$. It is two completely different companies and different rules apply to them. Apple wont ever be prosecuted under anti-Trust laws/violations because they wont ever be in a position to do so. M$ is because they have a world-monopoly. That doesn't mean that M$ is worse than Apple businesswise since M$ has been accused and Apple not. And it certainly doesn't mean that they are better either. Had Apple been as big as M$, I am certain they have had exactly the same "problems".

Yes u're on right as Logic drop in MAc.That's why i stay in PC wih my 5.51 V in PC But i don't want to change plateform or software every years. I have no money and time to do this. Maybe Linux will be my big change Nicolas ----- Original Message ----- From: Oblivian | Bacteria AS To: logic-ot@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [L-OT] re: [OT] Premiere for FCP >> I'm afraid that in >> the future if you want the software that'll run on >> your Mac, you'll need to turn to Apple more and more. On Thursday, July 17, 2003 4:00 PM, <mercutio> wrote: > You may be right... Apple may even just die. But since I already > prefer > Logic, FCP et al to their respective competitors, its not a problem at > least for the present. Anyway you put it, it is never posititive that an OS vendor also makes software. That goes for M$ too of course. Many companies refrain from competetive developing on that particular platform of that spesific software when they have to "beat" the actual OS developer. Quite understandable. And this is never for the benefit of the end-user. That Apple drops Premiere for Apple is and should be very disturbing for Mac people. M$ dropped IE for Mac the very same day (almost) that Safari was released. Some of you might say that Safari is better or that Final Cut is better than Premiere, but that is obviously beyond the point. Somebody just lost their favourite software and all of you lost the option to choose. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, "Oblivian | Bacteria AS" wrote: > > Sorry, I don't agree with you. Even though an OS vendor > develops other software doesn't mean that the software > they develop is inferior to the competition. Well, it /often/ does, because they can get away with more. Of course, sometimes the in-house programs are so bad that they never make it to market at all. I don't know if you ever saw the early betas of MSNetwork (which Gates had told the developers was going to eliminate the internet). It was, quite literally, the worst piece of software I've ever, ever seen, but the in-house hype that it was "great" meant that it was demoed to developers as the Next Big Thing. A small focused development team would never have done that. And there was Apple's promised raft of killer multimedia apps, when they releanched their multimedia division years ago (which at the time was what stopped me from developing for the Mac). Ever see any of those apps? :-) Or there was the previous press launch, years before that, where they flew a guy to London to eagerly show a bunch of unimpressed music shop people a buggy demo of a half-working arpeggiator utility. At the time I had a 96-MIDI-channel Notator system at home, so their incredible demo didn't exactly knock me out. How good were Apple's own in-house attempts at writing video editing or music composition apps? Well, if they'd been any good, would they have had to buy in logic and FC from outside? > M$ is a prime > example of that. I can think of no other software > that substitutes MS Office. MS pretty much destroyed the opposition with their tactics. They leveraged Office, the OS, development tools and the apps to get competitive advantage for whichever component was considered to be least competitive at the time, and deliberately engineered incompatibilities between their OS subsystems and competing office apps. As a developer, I had to buy Word in order to construct helpfiles. Word had some nice features, but had (/has?) some outrageous bugs and mistakes which didn't get fixed for years. Some parts of Windows/Office were very impressive, but those tended to be parts that MS had bought in, rather than developing them themselves. I was really impressed by the MS Equation Editor, but that was apparently designed by an independent one-man software company. I do think that Internet Explorer is very good (they bought in the core code instead of developing it themselves, but I like part of what they've since done with it). > Yes, there are alternatives, but they aren't > "better". Before MS Word it was Word Perfect for DOS ... Remember the Atari-based wordprocessors? Calamus on the Atari had outline vector fonts, Word didn't catch up with that until ... Word97? And if you tried writing a book or a technical documentation on Word, its internal structure couldn't cope. MS claimed to have produced their own manuals using Word, but I was at a conference where someone asked how to get Word to produce a certain layout effect used in the manuals, and they had to awkwardly admit that, yes, they'd actually used Something Else (probably Adobe). > IE vs Netscape? We all know Netscape sucked. Yep, Netscape sucked. > It isn't even around anymore since AOL simply dropped further > development. Yeah, well, AOL aren't exactly a good example of a little independent software team with no corporate issues, are they? (/perhaps/ Netscape could have bee saved if development had been given to a hungry motivated team with clear ideas about what they wanted to achieve with it, dunno ... or perhaps MS's obvious plan to give away IE for the major platforms simply made it not worth while putting in the resources needed to bring Netscape up to scratch) I thought that Compuserve used to be rather good, but then they committed to having MS redesign their system, that idea broke down, and then they got made part of AOL Time Warner. Now the corporate strategy regarding Compuserve seems to try to shut it down, after getting existng members to switch to AOL. It's a captive userbase, that's all. But maybe (overall) IE counts a a success story. "Outside talent+ corporate muscle" sometimes does prduce nice things (the Pixar hookup with The Evil Disney Corp seemed to work very well), but only when the corporation doesn't start fiddling around and interfering with the product to make it fit their corporate plans better. Who here thinks that logic is now a better suite for losing Windows support? And for not supporting OSX VST? And for losing the option of supporting UNIX? Are emagic a more open and up-front and friendly company since being taken over by Apple? How far do you trust them to be able to deliver on a development roadmap now? Hell, they probably aren't even allowed to tell us what the roadmap is (assuming that it exists). > Same with Premiere vs Final Cut. Well, I understood that FC is largely composed of bits that Apple acquired by taking over and cannibalising other companies. I'm not saying that that's always a bad thing, but in order for that strategy to work, you have to have those little companies out there in the first place, thinking that they can actually make some money in the market with their nice nice apps and components. Once Apple have the market stitched up, where does the next generation of innovation come from? > Final Cut is commonly regarded the better choice. The problem > is that it is developed by Apple, and Apple is an OS vendor. > What puzzles me and what should disturb you is that if there's > any company that has made Apple what it is today, it's Adobe. Yep, Adobe are persistent innovators (even if their product marketing is sometimes a little odd). Didn't Adobe also develop the TrueType font-handling subsystem system for Microsoft, for Windows? > And when Adobe starts looking elsewhere it is > not a good sign I'm afraid. And it's Apple's own fault. > What if Steinberg feels the same way after the aquisition > of Emagic. Maybe in a year or two we're stuck with Logic > on Mac. Well, Steinberg were kinda bludgeoned into making an early public decision on whether to continue with Apple support or not (even though Apple were now deliberately not supporting Steinberg's OSX VST format for tactical reasons), and under pressure, they said they'd continue with OSX. But that doesn't mean that they are not now going to make Windows their priority. Especially now that they've been bought out by Pinnacle. > Terrible... Opera is "thinking loud" about > discontinuing development for Mac, M$ has stopped further > development for IE on Mac. Windows Media Player 9.0 wont > ever be released for Mac, and that is > a BIG problem since WMA and WMV is regarded the second > largest format after MP3 and MPEG, followed by Real and QT. > They wont even release the codec. Well, Apple do seem to be throwing down the gauntlet in a number of media sectors and effectively saying that they can go it alone. I don't know exactly what happened between Apple and Sony, but Sony's NetMD software doesn't work with the Mac, so you can probably add ATRAC to your list of unsupported formats. Of course, perhaps Apple think that the iPod cupled with their MP3 business will obliterate everything else, and who knows, maybe they migth even be right. But I've seen lots of kids on the tube playing with their minidisc players, and haven't yet seen an iPod outside a retail shop. Maybe iPod uptake is much higher in the US, dunno. > What Apple doesn't seem to understand is that Mac is a niche > computer and Apple isn't M$. M$ is one of the largest and most > influential companies in the world. They can pull of things > like that and get away with it. Apple can't, they're to small. > They just don't seem to get it, I'm afraid... Yep, MS made the good business decision early not to get into building the computers themselves. They let IBM make a loss on their original PC range breaking in the market, and they let Taiwanese manufacturers happily cut each others throats for profit margins, while they just sell these little CD packs. Apple got too greedy and decided that they wanted the whole pie for themselves, and then suffered for years with manufacturing difficulties and inventory issues. MS just let other people worry about building expensive obsolescent hardware and just creamed off a profit on each machine based on what those manufavcturers had installed on their harddrives. iPod is a very different product for Apple, the critical software and hardware technologies behind it are third-party, and Apple just supply the design flair and marketing. And its supposed ot be rather successful. Instead of getting themselves into a tizzy over R&D and manufacturing for the next generation of hard drives for the next- generation iPod, they can just sit back and let the PC HD manufacturers fight amongst themselves to bring down 2.5" HD prices and increased capacity ... and when the time is right, Apple just have to buy some of the new 2.5" HD models, plug em in, and they've got a brand new improved iPod. Some people at Apple must be thinking .. why the hell don't we go further along this path with the computer processors too? Just assemble a damned good PC from the cream of the readily- available computer hardware, have a version of OSX that only runs with an Apple-authorised chip, and if we ever decide to get out of the desktop market, we still have the res tof the business intact. I mean, the way things are currently going, it looks like in a few years, the only critical apps that would need to be rewritten to run on a G6 will basically be Apple's own apps anyway ... > My initial post stands. Apple shouldn't develop Final Cut, > Final Cut Pro, Safari, Logic or any other "auxillery" software. > Neither should M$, but > since they are so much bigger than little Apple, they are more likely to get > away with it. > > Anyway, I find it strange that some of you tend to compare > Apple and M$. It is two completely different companies and > different rules apply to them. > Apple wont ever be prosecuted under anti-Trust laws/violations > because they wont ever be in a position to do so. M$ is because > they have a world-monopoly. That doesn't mean that M$ is worse > than Apple businesswise since M$ has been accused and Apple not. > And it certainly doesn't mean that they are better either. Had > Apple been as big as M$, I am certain they have > had exactly the same "problems". I think that one of the main reasons that some people liked Apple was that they weren't Microsoft. Now that they seem to be aspiring to /be/ Microsoft, some of us are wondering whether we'd actually miss them if they went under. Maybe a more friendly company would take their place. It'd be a shame to lose further logic development, but since there are no public commitments form apple/emagic that there's going to be significant further logic development anyway ...

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 08:01 AM, Eric Baird wrote: > Who here thinks that logic is now a better suite for losing Windows > support? And for not supporting OSX VST? And for losing the option of > supporting UNIX? first one - I think it has to be better. Many things that are kludgy about Logic probably had to do with keeping a generalized design that could quickly compile to both platforms. Look at MOTU - which remained Mac only and how they came from being dead in the water to having much better Quicktime integration. I think because they didn't have to worry about Windows at all. Now Logic can move with the same efficiency. second one - not supporting VST is as much a political decision as anything. They had to make AU as attractive as possible. They had trouble with Steinberg in the past - and I think it reasonable to believe that Steinberg had cooperated less than totally open standard. Having an important facility under the control of a third party was not healthy for either Apple or Emagic. That said, a good number of plugs are carbon now and can be used with the wrapper, and others are coming along with their AU versions as well. So I think in the end the point is moot. One thing that hasn't changed is that a lot of plug developers will make Windows VST versions only... but it was always that way. third - don't even understand this thing about UNIX... what are you referring to?

> Maybe a new type of easy-to-use entry-level > sequencer, with big > animated icons, new softinstruments and > happy-happy-appley front-ends > on everything? > > Eric, I agree with all that you say....by the way can I have your permission to use the title "happy-happy-appley front ends" on my current instrumental? -Steve > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

Thanks a lot for the info, all! OK, I'd be a hipocrite to say that a giant manual and deep program scare me off -- I bought Logic didn't I? See, it's plain that Logic is complex, but this is to be expected from a program so robust and capable. Complex problems (like the vagueries of music) just don't have easy answers. Is that the principle behind Finale's many doc pages and user screens? Or does it just seem like the program was designed poorly, introducing complications where they could have been avoided? Put another way, is the program thorough to a fault or is it an 800 pound gorilla that everyone has agreed to work with? Bladdy --- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, Santi Galán <sgalang@m...> wrote: > With all my respects: > > I don't say "Finale may have changed", I said Finale HAS changed, and > talking now about a very old version like the 3.x is like comparing Logic 5 > with Creator or Notator... > I make part of my living teaching people to do scoring on computers with > Finale, and I find that for the most part, even persons with no background > in computers are able to use this program and make a pretty good amount of > different kinds of scores, just with some classes. > Anyway, I again reccomend everybody that is willing to start with a notation > program, find someone to explain him both of the professional choices > (Sibelius and Finale), and then decide... > > Regards > > Santi Galán > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Nicholls" <paulnicholls@s...> > To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 3:12 AM > Subject: Re: [L-OT] notation software comparison > > > Finale may have changed but I in the past it was a horror story. > Sibelius is fast and very direct and has pretty good MIDI. I find I get > the job done fast and I don't have to crack the manual all the time as > Finale users are noted to do. There are also a lot of new music > features if you are interested in them. I would not go for FInale > unless you really know what you are getting into. > > Regards > > Paul Nicholls

At 13:09 Uhr +0000 18.07.2003, bladderskate wrote: >Is that the principle behind Finale's many doc pages and user screens? > Or does it just seem like the program was designed poorly, >introducing complications where they could have been avoided? Put >another way, is the program thorough to a fault or is it an 800 pound >gorilla that everyone has agreed to work with? Mine was solid as a rock, did all I needed to do and a lot more, and I think the manual was very well organized with a nice index. I used the PDF manual as I could just jump between the links and it was so convenient. Don't know about Sibelius. Cheers Hans

Hi, Is there any PC based software that would allow me to see and edit the code of an audio file? Thank you. Jeannot Welter.

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, mercutio wrote: > On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 08:01 AM, Eric Baird wrote: > > > Who here thinks that logic is now a better suite for > > losing Windows support? And for not supporting OSX VST? > > And for losing the option of supporting UNIX? > > first one - I think it has to be better. Many things that > are kludgy about Logic probably had to do with keeping a > generalized design that could quickly compile to both > platforms. In theory, I agree ... I don't know what logic was actually written with but it /seemed/ to have the sort of design things that you'd end up with if you used MS VC++ (colourscheme, badly integrated menus and help system). MS VC++ was cross-platform but had some really horrid design weaknesses. Thing is ... after we've paid the price, in terms of losing the cross- platform stuff, are emagic actually then going to go ahead and redesign this great user-interface that we are waiting for, or are they going to decide that the payoff isn't worth it at this late stage, and keep the program pretty much as it already is? I mean, with their proprietary softsynth format, one of the advantages was that it allowed all sorts of really advanced stuff that would only have been possible with emagic having control over the interface ... since logic seeemd to be designed to be kinda extensible, we might have had the ability to edit additional noteon parameters, which could have been assiged to parameters in their softsynths, or used as part of a modulation matrix (so that you could set a filter setting or playing style for an individual note of a chord) ... but it never happened. In fact, we never even got support for basic stuff like program changes or mono mode! So the new potential is nice, as long as its really going to be realised. But I suspect that some of logic's kludges are less to do with cross-platform support than with other things. Logic 5.5.1's control surface MIDI subsystem stuff really doesn't seem to be stable under WinXP, but under OSX, with a rewritten MIDI- optimised operating system partly redesigned by emagic, and a new architecture, and the new focus on a single operating system ... it still doesn't seem to be stable! :-) Of coursed, perhaps emagic are still struggling with cross-platform code in order to be able to support both OSX and OS9, and perhaps we won't see the real advantages until they go OSX-only. Which they don't seem to have any public timetable for. Hmm. > second one - not supporting VST is as much a political decision as > anything. Quite [re: UNIX?] Sorry, my bad wording, I probably should have have said the "potential" of UNIX support rather than the "option". AFAIK, emagic never said that they would be supporting UNIX, but it seemed to be a distinct possibility at one point. All the musicy people I know are sick of paying money to microsoft and annoyed at having to buy complete new computers from Apple to get an alternative OS, so the subject of UNIX keeps popping up in conversation ... they just just want a simple cheap, cut-down operating system that can run their precious DAW software on a dedicated logic-box. They don't want to spend a lot of money on the OS, and they don't want to waste processing power or harddrive space on maintaining animated icons or redrawing pretty curved-edge window borders, or taiwanese language support, or 3D graphics or gamer support ... they aren't computer enthusiasts, they just want the OS to boot up their computer, launch logic, and then keep the hell out of the way. If they want to do email and internet stuff, they'll do all that on a separate general purpose machine and keep their DAW box lean and mean tuned up and dedicated to running their DAW. I liked the idea of a logic-optimised version of UNIX with all the unneccessary stuff stripped out or pre-disabled, bundled with "logix", and I think a lot of musicians would have been very happy to have a music PC that simply boots up into a pre-tweeked dedicated emagic environment. But now it'll never happen <sigh>.

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, itsplayed wrote: > >... > > ....by the way > can I have your permission to use the title > "happy-happy-appley front ends" on my current > instrumental? > -Steve <laughs> go ahead! Maybe emagic could do educational music teaching software for toddler groups with simple bright-colour animations that bounce around on an iMac screen in time to the music as the teacher directs them "OK, children, sing along .. I'm a Happy, Clappy Apple ... " [dammit, I can really see this working, now I'm scaring myself]

--- Eric Baird <eric_baird@...> wrote: > --- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, itsplayed wrote: > > >... > > > ....by the way > > can I have your permission to use the title > > "happy-happy-appley front ends" on my current > > instrumental? > > -Steve > > > <laughs> go ahead! > > Maybe emagic could do educational music teaching > software for toddler > groups with simple bright-colour animations that > bounce around on an > iMac screen in time to the music as the teacher > directs them > > "OK, children, sing along .. I'm a Happy, Clappy > Apple ... " > > [dammit, I can really see this working, now I'm > scaring myself] > > Sure, Why not? It's an untapped resourse. I say Reel them in while there young. -Steve > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

Hi! I just bought a new computer! Logic can´t find the old settings for the midi environment. There arent any out or input for midi! Anyone who knows where theses settings are in the program? I use windows2000 and have a MT4 midiinterface that is connected to a Roland JV1010. The Roland JV1010 doesn´t receive any midi signal at all! I downloaded USB drivers for the MT4 from emagics site. J

Test

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, itsplayed wrote: > ... > Sure, Why not? It's an untapped resourse. I say > Reel them in while there young. I still think they missed a trick by not hooking up with Disney to supply the kiddie market with iMacs with big black plastic sticky-out mouse ears, that boot up with a big cartoon face. They could have had two models to start with, a "Mickey Mac" and a "Minnie Mac", that mac enthusiasts could buy for their kids (or for themselves as a kitch design statement). Or they could have tied up with Warner Bros instead, so when you power down, you get that boing sound and big "That's all, Folks" thing on the screen. "Deede deede de de de de dededede" "Deedle ee de de Deeeee (-ee-ee)!" The educational division could have their own bright yellow "smiley" version of the Apple logo. [Erk] : "The 'Happy Apple" logo is a trademark of Apple Kids"

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 08:01 AM, Eric Baird wrote: > > > Who here thinks that logic is now a better suite for > > > losing Windows support? And for not supporting OSX VST? > > > And for losing the option of supporting UNIX? In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, mercutio wrote: > > first one - I think it has to be better. Many things that > > are kludgy about Logic probably had to do with keeping a > > generalized design that could quickly compile to both > > platforms. What good will excellent code in Logic do if no one releases software for it? When the OS vendor is also making the software it is isolating itself (Logic) from the market. At best you are stuck with plugins from Apple. Apple competes with NI, Steinberg, Waves, MOTU, etc. The plugins Emagic has released earlier is great, but not versetile or, in my view, good enough compared to what "more dedicated" plugins/ss companies make.

On Saturday, July 19, 2003, at 09:37 AM, Eric Baird wrote: > Thing is ... after we've paid the price, in terms of losing the cross- > platform stuff, are emagic actually then going to go ahead and > redesign this great user-interface that we are waiting for, or are > they going to decide that the payoff isn't worth it at this late > stage, and keep the program pretty much as it already is? a good question - I am hopeful that there is some of the old Atari spirit left at Emagic and that they will really spiff up the performance, interface etc now that there is an opportunity. (i.e. they only have to worry about 1 OS). Quicktime integration has needed improvement for a long time. That's a big one for me. I just hope they do it. > In fact, we never even got support for basic stuff like program > changes or mono mode! > optimised operating system partly redesigned by emagic, and a new > architecture, and the new focus on a single operating system ... it > still doesn't seem to be stable! :-) Hard to say - I only use X for my live rig. It grumbles now and then but never crashes. I work the program much harder under 9.2.2 - with the usual grumbles and it still tries to "save my song" too often for my liking > Of coursed, perhaps emagic are still struggling with cross-platform > code in order to be able to support both OSX and OS9, and perhaps we > won't see the real advantages until they go OSX-only. Which they > don't seem to have any public timetable for. Hmm. It is inevitable that they will have a final rev for 9 at some point - but I think they need to wait longer. For myself, I still use 9 for everyday work but imagine that I will try going X now that some of my favs from NI have gone AU. My "office" machine and live rig both run under X and I have to say that it is much much more fun in general than 9, so I am looking forward to getting it all under X as soon as possible. > I liked the idea of a logic-optimised version of UNIX with all the > unneccessary stuff stripped out or pre-disabled, bundled > with "logix", and I think a lot of musicians would have been very > happy to have a music PC that simply boots up into a pre-tweeked > dedicated emagic environment. > But now it'll never happen <sigh>. Well, to do the things that we all do in a program like Logic, I think there has to be an elegant graphic shell on top of whatever flavor of UNIX. My feeling is that X is pretty good - but I agree with you about wanting some lean mean performer without too much eye candy or overhead. Makes you yearn for Be, doesn't it?

I'm currently running Logic 6 Platinum (OSX) on a G4/800 PowerBook along with Reason 2.0. Rewire2 works fine BUT, Reason won't recognise the Factory Sound bank either on my HD or on the CD! When asked to select the Refill on loading the program, clicking on Factory Sound bank just reads 'Bad Format'. Strange thing is, Reason recognises the Orkester Sound Bank without a glitch! Has anyone else encountered this problem? I've tried reinstalling both programs and think that the error may be to do with Logic 6 as Reason runs without a problem when Logic isn't installed. I've even run software restore on my mac to clean up the OS but still get the same problem. Any suggestions would be appreciated!

On Sunday, July 20, 2003, at 12:03 AM, Oblivian | Bacteria AS wrote: > What good will excellent code in Logic do if no one releases software > for > it? When the OS vendor is also making the software it is isolating > itself > (Logic) from the market. At best you are stuck with plugins from Apple. > Apple competes with NI, Steinberg, Waves, MOTU, etc. The plugins > Emagic has > released earlier is great, but not versetile or, in my view, good > enough > compared to what "more dedicated" plugins/ss companies make. > Don't know what you mean really - I just ordered some AU plugs from NI - it has taken some time for the plug makers to come around but now they are showing up. My feeling is that plug makers who won't write for Mac wouldn't have done so even if Logic was still cross platform.

> On Sunday, July 20, 2003, at 12:03 AM, Oblivian | Bacteria AS wrote: >> What good will excellent code in Logic do if no one releases software <snip> On Monday, July 21, 2003 8:54 AM, <mercutio> wrote: > Don't know what you mean really - I just ordered some AU plugs from NI > - it has taken some time for the plug makers to come around but now > they are showing up. My feeling is that plug makers who won't write > for Mac wouldn't have done so even if Logic was still cross platform. It is a future scenario, not a current. The point is that Apple competes with NI making software samplers and softsynths, against Waves on misc. plugins, Steinberg on software samplers, plugins and hosts, MOTU on hosts. I can't see what good comes out of that.

>It is a future scenario, not a current. The point is that Apple competes >with NI making software samplers and softsynths, against Waves on misc. >plugins, Steinberg on software samplers, plugins and hosts, MOTU on hosts. I >can't see what good comes out of that. How about this good: if apple (emagic) didn't do it, there would basically not be enough plugins and softsamplers to be able to do any work in OSX at all right now? NI and waves both have better compressors and better instruments than are available from apple. All they have to do to be perfectly competitive is simply unthumb their buttholes and make them available.

On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 05:38 AM, Oblivian | Bacteria AS wrote: > It is a future scenario, not a current. The point is that Apple > competes > with NI making software samplers and softsynths, against Waves on misc. > plugins, Steinberg on software samplers, plugins and hosts, MOTU on > hosts. I > can't see what good comes out of that. > Yes it is a confusing world - but let me say this: I used to buy on "future" considerations. But now I buy on what I need "now". As far as competition is concerned: I don't care if it is Apple or Emagic competing against the rest. As long as they all see the need to top each other, see the need to keep pace, then I as a consumer will benefit. As for the Emagic-Apple alliance.... I keep using Logic until someone else blows me away - just like I used Performer until Notator blew me away on a "marginal" platform (Atari). In other words, a few plugs are not going to make me switch to a)Cubase and b) PC. Why on earth should it? btw - if you think that MOTU is the creme of hosts... please think RME :-)

> ** Original Message follows... > From: "paul_martinsatmac_com" <altonate@...> > Subject: Reason & Logic 6 - Sound Bank recognition > > I'm currently running Logic 6 Platinum (OSX) on a G4/800 PowerBook > along with Reason 2.0. Rewire2 works fine BUT, Reason won't recognise > the Factory Sound bank either on my HD or on the CD! > > When asked to select the Refill on loading the program, clicking on > Factory Sound bank just reads 'Bad Format'. Strange thing is, Reason > recognises the Orkester Sound Bank without a glitch! > > Has anyone else encountered this problem? There is some info on Propellerheads' site about a potential problem and fix with Logic 6.1 and Reason. Also, it is possible that there is a problem with the CD itself. I know a few people who had to have either the Factory Sound Bank or Orchestra CD replaced. Mars