OSX 10.7 Lion + PT9

[Dism]

Originally Posted by franzbri

Sorry for my bad english. What I meant was that I think if you´re among the biggest manufactures, you have to be up-to-date. Pro Tools is not exactly a freeware.

Ok... So tell that to Apogee, Steinberg, Propellerheads, Adobe, Focusrite, RME, etc, etc, etc...


Whatever happened to patience being a virtue?

[danander11]

After reading some of the replies I have to ask.. What on earth did you folks do before Lion came out? You make it sound like you MUST have Lion or you cannot do anything.. and somehow Avid is responsible for your current predicament.. Sheesh..

Honestly, If you need to record at the level that PT does, can you not get a separate system for it? or at least partition a drive?

I use an older Mac Pro and an older version of OSX and PT runs perfect on it..

If I feel the need to use that computer for other things, they're always secondary to PT.. If I have something that I feel is very important, I put it on a utility computer that handles all of the mundane stuff, and I try VERY hard to not put anything on this MP that would jeopardise PT. But that's just me..

[lancejorton]

Originally Posted by DigiTechSupt

Understood, but are they THAT critical that it a few weeks is going to make or break the deal, considering how many apps and plug-ins are still not Lion compatible?

For those with new machines that only have Lion I can understand the urgency, but for everyone else - we've been through this cycle before, several times. There almost always are issues in a new OS, or various apps on the new OS, that crop up and require a fix to function properly. I guess I'm more the 'play it safe' and let things settle down a bit before upgrading.

I'm also waiting to buy new hardware. However, my primary issue is the lack of communication. As it is, we are basically told, "It doesn't work. We'll let you know when it does." No commitment to "weeks". Why was Avid not working on this with Apple two months ago when all developers had relatively stable beta copies of Lion?

If you really want to wait for the Gold Master, why not try something like this? "We are working on testing. We plan to release a Lion compatible version on September 1. We will open it up to public beta on August 1. If you plan to try the public beta, we recommend that you dual boot so you have the option of using Snow Leopard."

Everyone knows that 9.0.5 beta is out there (Waves blew that one). The easiest way to test it is to let everyone try it (or at least a large group of people... like maybe people who use the forums?). You'll find most of the bugs before it's ever released. AND, you'll find them faster than you ever could internally leading to a faster release.

You ask, "Why do you need it?" I think the answer is, "We don't need the newest release of Pro Tools. But when it comes out, we want it. And you are happy we do." So my contention is that the burden is on Avid. When there is an easy way for developers to test Lion months in advance, why is Avid not ready?

[lancejorton]

For the record, I love Pro Tools. I have an old HD2 PCI system sitting in a G5 that I keep hoping one day I will be able to upgrade. When PT 9 native came out, I was excited to go back to using your software on up-to-date hardware.

I'm not upset. I don't spend my entire day mad at Avid for not being ready. I think there are features in Lion that could help productivity but I will wait until I have finished a project I'm working on in PT before upgrading, even if a compatible release is available.

But given the fast pace of computer systems and software today... and the consumer mentality of people in general... for me, this is just a discussion on trying to understand why Avid is not ready. The end.

[aka21stCentury]

With SL on the newer MBP's there is the issue of the dual graphics. No current way at the moment in SL to stop the auto swapping from the built in Intel graphics to the Radeon card. Is that a potential DPC interrupt that could introduce audio glitches when recording?


I would ck to see if the new thunderbolt iMac or mini is using this same built in Intel graphics along with the Radeon, part of the mobility, i5, i7, motherboard / Intel chipset?

That post from Cockos developers good news in that the only problem they have seen has been the failed Python installation. But are they testing on a MacPro or mobility chipset machine? That we don't know.

So Lion may address this issue. Has anyone seen this in Lion's system prefs?

[DigiTechSupt]

Originally Posted by lancejorton

For the record, I love Pro Tools. I have an old HD2 PCI system sitting in a G5 that I keep hoping one day I will be able to upgrade. When PT 9 native came out, I was excited to go back to using your software on up-to-date hardware.

I'm not upset. I don't spend my entire day mad at Avid for not being ready. I think there are features in Lion that could help productivity but I will wait until I have finished a project I'm working on in PT before upgrading, even if a compatible release is available.

But given the fast pace of computer systems and software today... and the consumer mentality of people in general... for me, this is just a discussion on trying to understand why Avid is not ready. The end.

In answer to this - it's testing that takes the longest. Because of the large number of software and hardware devices that we make and support (including 3rd parties) our 'test grid' is much larger than any other DAW manufacturers. No other DAW supports the number of control surfaces, protocols, video hardware, etc. that we do. Thus our testing takes longer. A typical 'full grid' take 12 weeks - while we've been testing throughout the Lion dev period, you *really* need to test against the gold master as there are usually things that crop up by the final version that need to be addressed. During that testing issues can arise that could take awhile to fix - the reason we can't predict a release, nor do we 'advertise' even a planned date is that, in the past, we've seen significant issues that may take longer than the predicted date to fix.

If we give even a predicted date we all know what happens when we don't meet it.

We're working as quickly as possible on this, but don't want to skimp on testing just to rush something out the door.

[Breathless]

Originally Posted by DigiTechSupt

In answer to this - it's testing that takes the longest. Because of the large number of software and hardware devices that we make and support (including 3rd parties) our 'test grid' is much larger than any other DAW manufacturers. No other DAW supports the number of control surfaces, protocols, video hardware, etc. that we do. Thus our testing takes longer. A typical 'full grid' take 12 weeks - while we've been testing throughout the Lion dev period, you *really* need to test against the gold master as there are usually things that crop up by the final version that need to be addressed. During that testing issues can arise that could take awhile to fix - the reason we can't predict a release, nor do we 'advertise' even a planned date is that, in the past, we've seen significant issues that may take longer than the predicted date to fix.

If we give even a predicted date we all know what happens when we don't meet it.

We're working as quickly as possible on this, but don't want to skimp on testing just to rush something out the door.

Amazing. A thoughtful answer from Avid. Thank you - I think that is all that most of us were expecting, other than of course it being Lion ready from the Lion release date.

Thanks!

[lancejorton]

Originally Posted by DigiTechSupt

In answer to this - it's testing that takes the longest. Because of the large number of software and hardware devices that we make and support (including 3rd parties) our 'test grid' is much larger than any other DAW manufacturers. No other DAW supports the number of control surfaces, protocols, video hardware, etc. that we do. Thus our testing takes longer. A typical 'full grid' take 12 weeks - while we've been testing throughout the Lion dev period, you *really* need to test against the gold master as there are usually things that crop up by the final version that need to be addressed. During that testing issues can arise that could take awhile to fix - the reason we can't predict a release, nor do we 'advertise' even a planned date is that, in the past, we've seen significant issues that may take longer than the predicted date to fix.

If we give even a predicted date we all know what happens when we don't meet it.

We're working as quickly as possible on this, but don't want to skimp on testing just to rush something out the door.

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

[PBGas]

I'm glad there is a more concerted effort this time as it looks. Last time with Snow Leopard, I believe the wait was close to 6 or 7 months. That was a very long time.

[DigiTechSupt]

Originally Posted by PBGas

I'm glad there is a more concerted effort this time as it looks. Last time with Snow Leopard, I believe the wait was close to 6 or 7 months. That was a very long time.

Agreed - and we're working to improve that significantly.