Is PT 7 or 7.1 universal binary?

[Mauro371]

Have ProTools 7 or 7.1 been compiled as universal binaries?

[Vaphoron]

Are Intel Macs ready for purchase?



I think your answer is the same...

[Mauro371]

Digi, now that 10.4.4 has been released today and is completely intel ready and universal binary, and new intel iMacs were also released today, and in the near future new powerbooks and powermacs will be intel based, can you elaborate if PT7 has been compiled as a universal binary?

Thanks.

BTW, can't wait for the intel macs... The iMac now comes with dual core Intel processors and it seems pretty fast... quoting... "each one of the intel processors is 2 or 3x faster than the fastest single G5 used in the latest top of the line iMacs..."

oh.. and wooohoooo!!!! new Intel powerbooks announced today! Dual processors...4 to 5 x faster...

[AvidCS]

Pro Tools is not currently compatible with the new iMac and MacBook Pro computers.

Pro Tools is not a universal binary.

We currently do not have a release date for the Pro Tools update that will be needed for compatibility with these Intel based computers.

DigiCS

[PastaViking II]

Do TDM plugins have to be universal binaries to run on IntelMacs or only the RTAS ones?

On that note, I can't wait to see the performance increase of RTAS on the new Intel Macs. But what a bumpy update ride ProTools has been these last few years on Mac: First HD, then OSX, then PCIe, then PT7 and now Intel. It's a miracle that only Lexiverb, TC Tools and a few other plugs have been left behind!

xoxo pv

[Rail Jon Rogut]

Everything will have to be recompiled for the Intel chip -- that includes plug-ins.

Personally I don't like the idea of universal binaries which have 2 separate code segments in the application files (one for each processor) -- this just means that the files will be almost twice the size on the drive.. with about 40% doing nothing (the resources will be common). Give me 2 installers -- one for Motorola and another for Intel processors.

Rail

[JFreak]

Personally I don't like the idea of universal binaries which have 2 separate code segments in the application files (one for each processor) -- this just means that the files will be almost twice the size on the drive.. with about 40% doing nothing (the resources will be common). Give me 2 installers -- one for Motorola and another for Intel processors.

Actually, it's probably more like the INSTALLER being double the size, and then it would just install compatible binaries to chosen platform and leave the incompatible parts alone. Application bundle sure looks like a file, but it is in fact a special directory that includes the actual binary somewhere deeper in the structure; so, it's not very difficult to not bloat the system

[Rail Jon Rogut]

No - I researched this when the Universal Binary idea was created... the applications themselves will contain dual codes.. at run time it'll check the processor and run the correct binary.

Rail

[JFreak]

No - I researched this when the Universal Binary idea was created... the applications themselves will contain dual codes.. at run time it'll check the processor and run the correct binary.

That might be the easy way offered by default; however, there is always a possibility of clever people writing better installers if people in general become offended about the growing hard drive requirements. We will know when they deliver.

I myself do not have any problem with this. It's only binaries which would double their size, but binaries are not very large percentage of large software installations. The support files are usually the biggest PITA, and those are not duplicated. Imagine having a PT installation of two gigabytes (it's a lot smaller, but this is for example) and having a 20GB sample library, totalling 22GB. Now if you double binaries in that PT installation, and let's say it has a whopping 50% of executable binary data, then the installation would then grow by one gigabyte, totalling 23GB. The universal binary tax is only 1GB of 22GB, which is less than 5% -- and this is assuming half of PT installation are executable binaries. Yes, those will double, but that's not like saying "my whole application folder size doubles".

Ok, enough for this example. Yes, it's bad to waste resources, but it's a minor issue and avoidable. If not by installer itself, you can always surf into the bundle and delete unnecessary binaries. Or write a unix shell script that cleans bundles automatically. Or just not care about few megabytes

[rockridge]

Remember when Apple went from the 040 to the PCC?
The software was written "Fat"... code for both systems.
But in no time, there were utilities that would strip the code the user didn't want.

But, these dual binary things are a necessary evil from the developers stand point.
... only have to ship one box, or one download fits all...

My question is, will these apps be harder to deal with... less stable internally?

And what happened to Rosetta; the promise what we would be using PPC plugs and apps on the Mactels for eternity?