OSX and Linux status update

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:58 am

I have tried VNC with my Windows boxes, and since VNC is VNC I can safely say:

VNC is a great way to remotely admin a box. When it comes to needing somewhat realtime visual feedback from a highly graphical environment (like scope) it is less than stellar. Its basically sending uncompressed blocks of screen space as they update. There are other versions that attempt to use jpeg compression (like TightVNC) but then it gets hard to read numeric values.

I believe there is a network-level solution for utilizing the same keyboard & mouse across multiple machines (each machine having its own monitor). I'll have to dig to remember what it is, or perhaps someone else here will recal...

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:12 am

http://synergy2.sourceforge.net/

jules · Post by **jules** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:37 am

Many thanks for the link, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to support OS9.... That could have been great, still with the need of an extra screen however.
I'm sorry to say again but creamware is gone for me.
Sad cause it was a nice and convenient piece of equipement.
But G5/Logic 7 quick ass for me.
CW est mort, vive CW!!

MBSound · Post by **MBSound** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:45 pm

Like jules, i've recently taken the CWAudio part of my system out of my studio setup. Also very sad about leaving it, as i've stated before 'I really think Creamware has a lot of potential'. See what kind of products Universal Audio (UAD1) and TC Electronics are bringing out these days, ... pci-driven plug-ins! something creamware is very good at as wel. So at the moment my Pulsar II & Luna I/O-box are on a shelf. I'm wondering wether I should sell them or hang on to them for possible future possibilities. So, even though i'm not using the hardware right now, i'll be dropping in on the forum to check if there are any good developmentts hapening.

Currently i've upgraded my system too, ...MAC G4 dual 867Mhz (already had it), running Logic 7.2 with a RME Fireface 800 as an AD - DA convertor, which is absolutly fabulous. Missing the softsynth's and effects of CWAudio, but it has great routing/mixing posiblilities via one firewire 400 connection and RME are one of the best on digital Clock (digital synchronisation).

Maybe in the future i'll buy a pc to run the CWAudio and connect it to my mac via adat optical???

Cheers Marius

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:38 pm

I've found using my CW cards in a 2nd system is a great option. I use WinXP on my main DAW and I personally prefer having Scope in a 2nd machine, its used more like a powerful modular VA & Fx box than a mixing solution now, although I could certainly mix there if I chose to.

johnbowen · Post by **johnbowen** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:15 am

For those of you thinking to upgrade to future Intel-based Macs, I wonder if this recent Apple announcement will mean you could use Scope software (except for the fact there will probably not be any older PCI slots in the hardware

)....

- Apple Computer unveiled new "Boot Camp" software today that allows Intel-based Macs to run Microsoft's Windows XP software. The software allows users with a Windows XP installation disc to install the OS on an Intel-based Mac computer. It also lets users choose to use either Mac OS X software, or the Windows software when they restart their computer. "Apple has no desire or plan to sell or support Windows, but many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple's superior hardware now that we use Intel processors," Philip Schiller, Apple senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in a statement."

ooo000ooo · Post by **ooo000ooo** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:20 am

we already can use scope on windows, we could use any old cheap PC for that.
what we want is use our cards on OSX.
If creamware is not going to evolve scope they could at least let others do it by releasing the source code for the damned driver.

AndreD · Post by **AndreD** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:33 am

On 2006-04-07 03:20, ooo000ooo wrote:
we already can use scope on windows, we could use any old cheap PC for that.
what we want is use our cards on OSX.
If creamware is not going to evolve scope they could at least let others do it by releasing the source code for the damned driver.

A scopecard cannot be used with osx:
no pci-x, no pci-express...

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:40 am

They mean old Macs with OS X.

I'm sure users would love to spend their time porting the current Scope line to OS X, but of course it's silly for CW to waste their time doing it unless they're working on new hardware for the new Macs. If Scope ever comes to the new Macs, it has to be: a) PCI-Express; b) both Intel Mac and PowerPC-compatible. Of course, there could also be a hybrid 3.3v/5v PCI version as well for everyone else (which is probably still a majority of the users out there).

As I've kept saying, a FireWire version of Scope is not feasible because the low bandwidth would make it not compatible with legacy devices, unless you cooked up a system-memory-emulating scheme??

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:41 am

On 2006-04-07 03:20, ooo000ooo wrote:
we already can use scope on windows, we could use any old cheap PC for that.
what we want is use our cards on OSX...

I assume John wants to point out that future developements will me much closer for the Mac and PC platform.
They tease XP users only to establish a broader coverage - I bet they are (much) more interested to establish OSX on any PC hardware

and then there will be PCI slots again - if not supported out of the box someone will patch them in (most likely).

...If creamware is not going to evolve scope they could at least let others do it by releasing the source code for the damned driver. ...

it has been mentioned numerous times that it's not about a driver, but an application port - and that needs documentation that they are (obviously) not willing to share. Period.

And since once someone had the smart idea to use WINE with a basic driver - don't hold hold your breath on things running at this level.
I've tried it with a 'not-directly-supported' Windows app which seems to do a fair amount of low level mem stuff - it crashed even before WINE could start it's log.

Several more 'simple' apps (copied over from my Windows machine to the CoreDuo Mac) did in fact run acceptable in the beta WINE version for MacOSX (DARWINE) - so one could be tempted to consider it too easy

cheers, Tom

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:33 pm

Hoi tom,

I use the Windows drivers from my wifi cards on both a freeBSD and Demudi (Debian) machine, and driver emulation uses ndiswrapper. Any driver installed in Wine must be forwarded to/from that one at least, as a minimum requirement before Wine can even start talking to the devices (in my case, wifi cards).

Hope this elaborates,

at0m.

ps. I've been more successfull in using qemu/vmware than Wine...

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:36 am

yeah, makes sense - but in my case it's not even driver related.

To be specific it's about the runtime output of a developement system.
It would be extremely convenient to have this (as local client softeware) running on Macs.
It doesn't matter under which OS the development is done, so no need to port (modify) the 'sophisticated part'.

The runtime apps are a .exe and an identically named .ovl which is load/executed on startup. It's entirely self-contained and doesn't even need an installer.
The manufacturer doesn't see a (fundamental) problem why it shouldn't run under WINE, though they never tried it themselves.

It was just an example that things may be not that simple...

cheers, tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-04-08 01:37 ]

ooo000ooo · Post by **ooo000ooo** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:58 pm

it has been mentioned numerous times that it's not about a driver, but an application port - and that needs documentation that they are (obviously) not willing to share. Period.

I tend to think that the app is ported since the times of NOAH and that it's what allows them to sell the ASBs as OSX compatible (not that I have tested). After all they used to trumpet the portability of the underlying framework (heh).
and after all was it just an app it would run in classic, it's the driver that needs to be ported imho, or whatever they use to comunicate to the card that apparently includes the authorization code.

And about that "Period" I'd say it was not so dramatic when they were bankrupt, maybe they just hadn't looked at the code for some time.

[ This Message was edited by: ooo000ooo on 2006-04-09 16:04 ]

valis · Post by **valis** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:22 am

As has been pointed out several times recently, Apple (OS X and its hardware) have proven to be a rather rapidly moving target the past few years. Remember how 'necessary' it seemed to some that Creawmare invest immediately in PCI-X development? Where is the market penetration for that now outside of legacy slots on a few server & workstation boards....

One would hope that future development efforts will support OSX as well as Xp/Vista/etc, especially since the binary level isn't as incompatible as it once was. However don't be surprised if it takes a new generation of dsp cards to bring OSX support. Simply "releasing the code" isn't so simple for reasons that have also been stated over & over & over...

ooo000ooo · Post by **ooo000ooo** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:02 pm

Apple (OS X and its hardware) have proven to be a rather rapidly moving target the past few years.

There's a good number of companies that have not abandoned their mac customers.

Simply "releasing the code" isn't so simple for reasons that have also been stated over & over & over...

All I say is that if they are not going to update the software any more (as rumored) they shouldn't care.
PCI is already legacy, it's not apple specific. They will focus on external boxes and they will do better.

[ This Message was edited by: ooo000ooo on 2006-04-11 14:16 ]

Post by **garyb** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:15 pm

who said they are giving up on scope?

with all respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

i agree that osx support would be great.

ooo000ooo · Post by **ooo000ooo** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:17 pm

I was editting the message at the same time you posted.
I think scope will survive on external boxes.
Anyway you know what I'm talking about, it has been discussed here. Not that Scope is changing much lately anyway.

[ This Message was edited by: ooo000ooo on 2006-04-11 14:19 ]

bill3107 · Post by **bill3107** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:04 am

well, we all know why they did not developp on OSx, right? This developpemnt would have been a waste of money if you consider that it was obvious that osx was on the "decline" because of the intel-Mac deals rumors. We all agree that creamware lost time in the MAc developpement but it is time for them to follow the economic and marketing trends. I definitly think that it is what they are doing : shifting to hardware or hard/soft systems that won't depend on the fast software evolutions. People ask for hardware "touch"... As for the pci cards, as all the other brands (Pro tools, uad...) thay will be usable for a long time as the market has always offered tools to mix "old" and brand new computer systems (Magma boxes for laptop, firewire systems...). So i am not anxious about the pci soundcards...

Jo

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:46 pm

I hope they sell Creamware to a company that wants to do something with it.

samplaire · Post by **samplaire** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:38 pm

On 2006-04-07 04:33, AndreD wrote:
A scopecard cannot be used with osx:
no pci-x, no pci-express...

Is it an (un)official CW statement?