I'm a LAW user and I totally agree with the sentiment that Emagic is failing to direct resources at the Windows version. This seems crazy given that PC audio use is growing far faster than Mac, especially after all the Emagic hype about complete equality between platforms. DirectX utilisation is still awful, ASIO is shaky, CPU too slow has not been fixed and is driving users gradually round the bend, PIII optimisation should have been top of the list when they recoded the PC version but didn't happen at all, multiprocessor support was "imminent" when I asked 9 months ago - still nothing, and and and .... I'd complain to Emagic directly but all I ever get is an automated response promising a proper answer within days and then nothing else - there was a time when Emagic's reputation for support was excellent; clearly no longer a priority for them. Even getting a response on whether issues like this are being worked on is practically impossible, leaving users feeling completely isolated. Who knows, maybe it's all lined up for LAW 4.5 and just around the corner, I doubt it though. Jules ----- Original Message ----- From: Mat Jarvis <mat@...> To: <yavuz@...> Cc: Logic@Onelist <logic-users@onelist.com> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 2:56 PM Subject: [LUG] Re: Wish list: NTFS, Rewire, PIII Optimization,Multi processor support, Multi DS2416 support. > From: "Mat Jarvis" <mat@...> > > From: Yavuz <yavuz@...> > > I have a few wishes from emagic and I would like other people to back-me > > up on this subject if they agree, since LAW is falling back compared to > LAM > > for a while now. First of all the most significant competitor of LAW > > I agree with Yanuz, these are more than minor details. > > It's clear that Emagic supports the Mac more than they do PC, which is ok as > long as LAW gets the Mac features eventually, but sooner rather than later. > I've already heard of a few people going back to Cubase from Logic, Mark > Tinely included, bacause of LAW dragging it's heals. > > It would be interesting to see the amount of LAMers against LAWers. My > guess is it's about equal. I would expect a lot of new LAWers now that 4 > has been released. > > >1 * Cubase already works under Win2000, Win NT, Win98. > > This is a definite. Support for W2000 as soon as poss. > Any seq that doesn't support W2000 will not be 'seen' as professional > Logic will support it, it's just a question of when > > > >4 * Cubase Supports VST Plugins > > Another definite. You could say that Cubase comes with hundreds of free > plugins and softsynths (PC at least), whilst Logic comes with about 30 > > > >5 * Cubase uses SSE instructions of PIII Processors. > > Emagic anounced Altivec support for LAM before it was even released. We are > still waiting for MMX support let alone PIII support. Cubase is already > almost TWICE as efficient as Logic, I don't think Enagic should drag it's > heals too long about getting a 'free' performance boost. > To be honest I was a little disapointed with the 'increase' in performance > with LAW4 over LAW3.x. After a total rewrite and 100% 32 bit code I was > expecting a little more. > > > >6 * Cubase will support multi processors very soon. Nuendo already does. > > I'm sure Logic will support multi processors with W2000 support, it's just a > question of how efficient the multi threaded code is. Hopefully it will > boost performance by about 80%? > > > >Now LAM has some of these features like the newest altivec support, VST > >support, OS9 support??( I am not sure about that). However LAW sdoes not. > > >I mean THESE ARE NOT REALLY MINOR DETAILS. Don't you think? Anyone? > > >(I know Emagic will not respond to this so please anyone with similar wish > , > >respond) > > >Thank You > > >Yavuz >