E.T.A On P.T 9 64bit?

[Craig F]

Originally Posted by notesbuddy

In fact it does:
http://avid.custkb.com/avid/app/self...p?DocId=380535

Snow Leopard: Mac OS X 10.6.2, 10.6.3, 10.6.4, or 10.6.5 (32 or 64-bit)
2GB minimum, 4GB or more recommended

And, due to the statement, the second part of my original question was that can we now swicth to 64-bit kernel with PT9?

Maybe, depends on what else you run and if that is OK at 64-bit

and the reason for having more that 4 GB of RAM is so their is RAM for other things (like the OS) when Pro Tools reaches it 4 GB cap

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by notesbuddy

In fact it does:
http://avid.custkb.com/avid/app/self...p?DocId=380535

Snow Leopard: Mac OS X 10.6.2, 10.6.3, 10.6.4, or 10.6.5 (32 or 64-bit)
2GB minimum, 4GB or more recommended

And, due to the statement, the second part of my original question was that can we now swicth to 64-bit kernel with PT9?

OK I'll bite what will booting the 64-bit OS X kernel buy you?

Darryl

[necjamc]

Originally Posted by notesbuddy

Sure, as in it's included RTAS plugins but any VI's capable of addressing beyond PT memory limits, as referred in earlier post, will need another runtime external to PT RTAS engine to be able to do so.

My statement was only because you said there were no V.I.'s included in PT. that's all. And running more than 4 GB of memory is very beneficial to any 32 bit app simply because each 32 bit app can address nearly 4 GB of memory. I don't find that statement misleading. It is better to run more memory. It doesn't say that PT will use it all.

[notesbuddy]

Originally Posted by notesbuddy

It may be so but as far as I know PT app does not include any VI's in itself (they are separate apps/plugins). I read this statement as concerning PT alone (and all what's included in it, like it's built-in RTAS plugins) as nothing there says anything about VI's or anything extra.

Ok, I got it, my mistake. My comment was reply to earlier message referring to VI's capable of addressing memory beyond PT limits and should have replied "..does not include any such VI's in itself..."

You got me, ha ha

(In fact, as we speak I'm currently running PT 8 with XPAND on tracks... )

MBP 17", 3.06, 8GB RAM, 500GB/7200 RPM, OS X 10.6.3

[Carl Lie]

Originally Posted by John_Toolbox

Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked cubase on the mac is not 64 bit.

Logic is NOT modern day coded. It's the same old buggy program with a hack similar to jbridge that makes working in 64 bit mode clumsy and annoying because you have 2 windows for each plugin and you can only look at one plugin GUI at a time.

.

The 64 bit plugs work fine in Logic. So do the 32 bit plugs albeit the 2 window click is a hassle. One thing I have to give to Logic is it can handle a lot more processing before choking than RTAS.

I just switched back to Logic over the weekend to finish a demo and I forgot how much power it has. I could easily run 12 guitar tracks with amp modeling next to 12 instrument tracks without breaking a sweat.

I do half that in PT9 and get errors.

So RTAS is on my list. It's power is sub par by a long shot. RTAS running at 25 % with half the tracks I run in logic gives me errors. That's ridiculous.

As far as i'm concerned, I don't want to see any errors until RTAS is at 80 or 90%.

There are ways around the 64 bit limit but not around a crap processing standard.

Carl

[Emcha_audio]

No you're right Pt doesn't have VI that manages Ram independently, but when you look at any pro products that also deals with thrid party programs, they will often add a minimum and +. The reason being that they take into account that third party application might use a lot more ram than what their program uses.

[M-ManLA]

Just an update on Ideascale, Pro Tools for 64-bit has leapfrogged to 4th place this week with over 50 new votes. If you havent voted go to "This Link" and vote. I'd like to see this idea as the top three.

[notesbuddy]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

OK I'll bite what will booting the 64-bit OS X kernel buy you?

Darryl

Good question, I don't know. Anybody?

All I know is that at least with PT 8 you can't even try to find out because only 32-bit kernel is supported (can't remember where it was stated).

[CME]

Originally Posted by notesbuddy

And, due to the statement, the second part of my original question was that can we now swicth to 64-bit kernel with PT9?

My understanding is yes. It will run under the 64-bit kernel. However some 3rd party software won't. In my case line 6 drivers won't. Not that it's a huge deal but I can't jam on my guitarport in 64-bit kernel mode. That and the fact my MacBook pro is maxed at 4gb, has lead me to stay with the 32-bit kernel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by CME

My understanding is yes. It will run under the 64-bit kernel. However some 3rd party software won't. In my case line 6 drivers won't. Not that it's a huge deal but I can't jam on my guitarport in 64-bit kernel mode. That and the fact my MacBook pro is maxed at 4gb, has lead me to stay with the 32-bit kernel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right and staying with a 32-bit kernel will likely result in less memory consumed by the kernel.

Since I asked the leading question -- There really is no reason today anybody here should want/need a 64-bit kernel. Maximum physical RAM addressable by a 32-bit OS X kernel is 32 GB (the OS uses the Intel PAE architecture to overcome the 32 bit size limit without being 64 bit). Folks who need over 32 GB of total physical memory on their systems are the first who need a 64-bit kernel. In the long long distant future we may run into device driver issues where things will want to be 64-bit but that is so far away its not interesting now.

Darryl