View Single Post
  #6  
Old 07-27-2007, 02:33 PM
Lee Blaske Lee Blaske is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Posts: 3,625
Default Re: Protools, Too many Bells and Whistels

Quote:
I've always wished that PT would allow you to install the feature set that you need. It might cut down on Ram overhead, and streamline the program for those that don't need certain features.
These days, especially if you're not loading a lot of plug-ins, I don't think RAM overhead is an issue at all. RAM is cheap.

Furthermore, I think it would be a safe bet that having PT load specific feature sets for specific users would most likely be a testing and stability nightmare. Every time the Mac OS would be updated, it might take years before PT would be ready to make the move.

Seriously, I think PT could be most improved if it were specifically coded natively for the Mac (and a separate version for PC), rather than one set of code ported to Mac and PC. Stability, performance and latency on the Mac would also be greatly enhanced if PT took advantage of OSX's kernel level Core Audio and Core MIDI. Apple put an enormous amount of effort into developing OSX to optimize audio and MIDI performance, and PT simply does not use it. It's an unfortunate situation. That's why challenging plug-ins (like NI's, and VSL's [which is not even released for PT]) work like a hot knife going through butter on DAW applications that support AU plug-ins, but leave PT gasping for breath on the side of the road.

PT has a great UI that's ideal for the way a lot of people work. It could definitely use a lot of work under the hood, though. It will be very interesting to see what the future holds (for PT, as well as all the other major DAW applications out there). It will be interesting to see if there will be a high-end native PT solution in the future, or if the next generation of high-end PT systems will still require rather costly hardware. Things will be interesting.

I also wonder if there will ever come a time when there will be a barrier to importing older PT sessions into the newest version of PT. Keeping backward compatibility has got to be a major strain that holds back development. At some point, one would think it would make sense to start with a fresh, blank sheet of paper and design a new system. As it is, backward compatibility of old sessions is usually quite compromised (since there are a lot of plug-ins that have fallen by the wayside, or simply not present in the system you're currently using). If you need access to things at a later date, better just keep a vintage system operating, or make sure to always bounce out a lot of stems.
Reply With Quote