OSX 10.9 Mavericks Compatibility

[JFreak]

How about this? It says menu bar on every display, and Dock where you need it (active display).

[Drew Mazurek]

BTW, for brave souls that like to play in the unsupported world, 10.3.6 runs great on 10.9DP4. 11 does not.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by JFreak

How about this? It says menu bar on every display, and Dock where you need it (active display).

I'm thinking more gimmick than anything else. I don't need or want the Dock moving to whatever display I'm working in. Hopefully it's one of those things that can be turned off.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by musicman691

I'm thinking more gimmick than anything else. I don't need or want the Dock moving to whatever display I'm working in. Hopefully it's one of those things that can be turned off.

I myself have been drooling for this very feature, because I would really want Dock to appear on *that* window where my mouse currently is. Not the display that carries #1 in it. Also, I'm all for seeing menu bar on every display because I don't want to move my mouse two meters left just to click on the Apple menu.

This is all great. Once we have it, we will wonder how on earth we managed without it in the past...

[mahko]

I'm using PT 9.0.6 successfully on Mavericks with a MOTU UltraLite Mk1. I've been running it since DP4 with zero problems. This is on a Mid 2011 iMac 2.7gHz i5 27" and a Mid 2012 MBP 15" (non Retina) 2.7gHz i7.

Caveat: I am not running a big pro rig with a bazillion tracks & plugins. I do fairly simple radio production with voiceover and a couple music tracks. So far however all recording, editing, automation and plugins work with zero problems.

[tommaso.s]

Does anyone know if the focusrite saffire liquid 56 is definitely compatible with the new mac os x maverick?
Thx

[darkgoob]

Originally Posted by musicman691

Went to the Apple site - can't find what you're talking about with Finder on all monitors. Heck we've had multiple monitors since at least 10.4 - either mirrored or extended desktop. Finder on all monitors - is that supposed to mean having the Dock on all monitors? If so - what a waste of space.

Biggest things I can find are all things that would screw up PT. Timer coalescing - allowing your cpu to go into a low power state more often. App Nap - slowing down an app that's completely hidden behind all other windows. Not something you want or need a PT or any recording rig to do. These might be good for laptop users doing regular work but in recording - not so much.

All in all a big yawn - they're turning OSX into another iOS variant. Then again what I'm reading about the new Haswell processors - aren't they the new generation of low power cpu's? Then they'd need Mavericks.

As a developer, I can tell you that there are a ton of improvements in Mavericks at the core level of the OS that they just don't talk about to the public. There are several bug fixes to foundation-level APIs that ought to improve stability and memory management.

Also rest assured, Apple says "App Nap is an opt-out feature. The user can opt an application out of App Nap manually with a checkbox in the Finder “Get Info...” pane".

Remember, Apple makes a DAW (Logic). They also have a lot riding on this new Mac Pro. I am very confident that Mavericks is not just an attempt to make battery life better, but also, to make over-all performance better. The reason I say this is that the same things that increase battery life when you're not hammering your CPU, will also increase the performance of Pro Tools when you are hammering your CPU.

This is because they improve battery life by throttling down the processor usage of background stuff when those background apps are just kind of idling. This will either (a) allow the CPU to go into a lower power state, or (b) free up more CPU (and RAM!) for your DAW software to monopolize, making it run better.

I know after the initial release of Final Cut X people in the pro community have felt pretty blah about Apple's support of the pro market. But I think people read a lot too much into Apple's approach, which Apple never publicly came out and said. Apple tends not to publicly say anything except at certain core events. I think Apple did hurt its relationship with pros over Final Cut X but I think that it's going to try to win some people back now that it's had time to fully develop that software. They had to transition the code base to 64-bit and modern APIs at some point. I think they just didn't have it as high of a priority as say, Avid or Adobe did.

If anything what I'm concerned about is them moving OS X to a model where data that is specific to applications is sandboxed to that application, just like the do with iOS. That is something that I loathe about iOS but I understand why they do it -- because they want your documents to be richly enhanced by these database wrappers that are very application-specific.

Pro Tools could actually benefit from its files being sandboxed, in a way. Because lets say your project folder has its audio files in a folder inside there. What if another application comes along and makes changes to some of those files, renames them, moves them, etc.? Pro Tools is not aware of it, and it can corrupt your project. Under sandboxing this would no longer be possible; Pro Tools would have a special API available that other software would have to go through to get at any of the files in a Pro Tools project.

Of course, I'm very against that. I say, it's my computer, and I want direct access to everything, from whatever program I'm using. Programs shouldn't be able to open any file unless I specifically select it first, or it's a preferences file generated by that app. But I'm against sandboxing and always will be; the cost to the user in terms of rights over your own files and documents is too high. I like the desktop metaphor that Apple stole from Xerox but sometimes I feel like Apple is trying to go away from it.

One of the most major changes that might affect Avid customers is the removal of QuickTime from OS X in Mavericks. It's being replaced by a more advanced thing called AV Kit. Over-all this is a good transition, that really needed to happen for a long time for many reasons. But it's going to require some software updates to programs that rely on QuickTime, of that I'm quite sure!

[Katherine_Focusrite]

For those wondering about the Focusrite and Novation Products we have posted the following articles this morning:

http://global.focusrite.com/answerba...-osx-mavericks

http://global.novationmusic.com/answ...h-os-mavericks

Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you.

Best regards

[gives]

Originally Posted by darkgoob

As a developer, I can tell you that there are a ton of improvements in Mavericks at the core level of the OS that they just don't talk about to the public. There are several bug fixes to foundation-level APIs that ought to improve stability and memory management.

Also rest assured, Apple says "App Nap is an opt-out feature. The user can opt an application out of App Nap manually with a checkbox in the Finder “Get Info...” pane".

Remember, Apple makes a DAW (Logic). They also have a lot riding on this new Mac Pro. I am very confident that Mavericks is not just an attempt to make battery life better, but also, to make over-all performance better. The reason I say this is that the same things that increase battery life when you're not hammering your CPU, will also increase the performance of Pro Tools when you are hammering your CPU.

This is because they improve battery life by throttling down the processor usage of background stuff when those background apps are just kind of idling. This will either (a) allow the CPU to go into a lower power state, or (b) free up more CPU (and RAM!) for your DAW software to monopolize, making it run better.

I know after the initial release of Final Cut X people in the pro community have felt pretty blah about Apple's support of the pro market. But I think people read a lot too much into Apple's approach, which Apple never publicly came out and said. Apple tends not to publicly say anything except at certain core events. I think Apple did hurt its relationship with pros over Final Cut X but I think that it's going to try to win some people back now that it's had time to fully develop that software. They had to transition the code base to 64-bit and modern APIs at some point. I think they just didn't have it as high of a priority as say, Avid or Adobe did.

If anything what I'm concerned about is them moving OS X to a model where data that is specific to applications is sandboxed to that application, just like the do with iOS. That is something that I loathe about iOS but I understand why they do it -- because they want your documents to be richly enhanced by these database wrappers that are very application-specific.

Pro Tools could actually benefit from its files being sandboxed, in a way. Because lets say your project folder has its audio files in a folder inside there. What if another application comes along and makes changes to some of those files, renames them, moves them, etc.? Pro Tools is not aware of it, and it can corrupt your project. Under sandboxing this would no longer be possible; Pro Tools would have a special API available that other software would have to go through to get at any of the files in a Pro Tools project.

Of course, I'm very against that. I say, it's my computer, and I want direct access to everything, from whatever program I'm using. Programs shouldn't be able to open any file unless I specifically select it first, or it's a preferences file generated by that app. But I'm against sandboxing and always will be; the cost to the user in terms of rights over your own files and documents is too high. I like the desktop metaphor that Apple stole from Xerox but sometimes I feel like Apple is trying to go away from it.

One of the most major changes that might affect Avid customers is the removal of QuickTime from OS X in Mavericks. It's being replaced by a more advanced thing called AV Kit. Over-all this is a good transition, that really needed to happen for a long time for many reasons. But it's going to require some software updates to programs that rely on QuickTime, of that I'm quite sure!

LIke all that you said. However, even though I am a composer of music, I hear a lot of editors whom I work with have now either stayed on FCP 7 or just gone to Adobe Premiere, which btw, they ALL say that they like better. I think most of them are Post Avid or use that too, but the FCP 10 was a big change.. No more nesting etc.. etc.. They changed the architecture too much and left the pros behind.. All about the bottom line I guess. That is not a good thing to do in my humble opinion. Hope they get that together, since I am a big Apple fan.!

Regards, G

[gonsdeejay]

Hi everyone!. Here in my MacBook Pro Late 2011, I upgrade To Mavericks from Mountain Lion, My 2 Versions of Pro Tools 10.3.7 and 11.0.2 Run without any issue....With 16 Gb on Ram this is awesome. Sessions with around 64 tracks. bunch of plugins..without problem. If this can help.!!!! take it!!!

Cheers!