Timeline for Massive X Compatibility with M1 Macs

Similarly there are many programs which work perfectly when moving from one Mac OS to another. I’m regularly stunned at how long NI take to sign off their stuff


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I meant 20-30 years old programs for Win work on current Wins without single change in instalation files. One takes 30 years old CD and installs.

I may také 20 years old binaries for Win by NI and most, if not all install and run on latest Win. And vice versa. I may quite often run NI plugins on old versions of Win that are not oficially supported by NI. In this respect is the life on Win easier, than on Apple. But for sure, there are other challenges to face on Win platform, that do not exist on Apple one.

 

I just wanted to give you a thumbs up for a sober take on Win v Mac...100% agree

As for NI I'd just hope for more of a timeline at some point. I'd really love to work with MX again...

 

I have to admit to being somewhat confused by the messaging on the NI. site. If you look at their statement about Big Sur compatibility, it shows that "Massive X" IS compatible with Big Sur, but Battery 4 and Reaktor 6 are not. (Canadian Site) The latter 2 have big red "X's" beside their names but "Massive X" has green check mark. That might tempt someone who uses "Massive X" to upgrade to Big Sur only to be potentially disappointed when they do. I also checked via Native Access and, as of this morning (May 16th) there was no update for "Massive X". One would assume there would be one if the various issues discussed in this forum have been addressed. Either that or Apple has made changes in the Big Sur OS and "Massive X" is suddenly compatible.

 

Maybe Massive X is Big Sur compatible, but not Apple Silicon compatible. Those are two distinctive things.

It should not be way difficult to make it compatible to Intel based Big Sur. While make it compatible with Apple Silicon is much harder task.

 

Interesting... I'm 100% sure it wasn't listed as compatible a few weeks ago when I last checked that page. Maybe NI tested it in the meantime, and found that it actually is compatible (with that Rosetta thing).

 

Compatibility with Big Sur is not the same as compatibility with M1 Macs (based on Apple Silicon) - and it wouldn't need Rosetta on an Intel Mac anyway

https://support.native-instruments....013515618-macOS-11-Big-Sur-Compatibility-News

 

Yeah absolutely. Big sur = operating system. M1 = new chipset. Massive x runs on big sur just fine. It will not install on M1 Macs though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The reason for M1 existing is this attitude from apple of abandoning old things. They can progress much quicker, have leaner software, and so on.
I'm here in this thread because I'm in the same situation. I don't like this of course, and right now being an apple user is negative, because there are a couple of programs that won't work on my new mac... but I also have a new mac that is the cheapest Mac I have bought (relatively speaking) and the most powerful, in comparison to other computers, since the Titanium PowerBook came out 20 years ago.
Sometimes apple's way of working is beneficial, sometimes it's f***ing annoying. This time, it's mostly both.

So what does this AVX do, exactly? Is that the part of the synth that does the wub-wub-wub? That's a pretty big part of Massive. Can't skip that.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions

 

I do not think Apple progresses any faster comparing to PC world. Abadoning old things has one main advantage. But not for user, but for producer. It cuts down the cost to maintain the things.... And because of monopoly, the cost of not maintaining backward compatibility may be transferred to third party SW vendors.....

M1 is not miraculous chip that overrules alll. It is modern CPU manufactured on the most advanced process. Nothing more. AMD Zen 3 processors would be comparable to M1 (CPU power delivered/energy consumption) if they were manufactured on the same, most advanced, proces.

Apple may manufacture on the most advanced (and the most expensive) proces, as the users accept paying premium price even for basic product.

Comparing M1 to many years old Intels is pure marketing. And sort of soft misleading buyers. Power of computers aproximately doubles every 2 years, so in 10 years it is roughly 10x faster, in 20 years 100x faster, in 30 years 1000x faster.

AMD Zen 3 CPUs may deliver way, way bigger CPU power than M1. But they need cooling. I wonder, how Apple will face that. It is neat to have powerfull computer without cooling or with small cooling. But it will be difficult and expensive to deliver several times more CPU power to be competetive to PC world.

 

Right, my bad.

 

M1 are out since monthes, it's a bit of a shame that there is still no compatibility update for massive X

 

Well, it takes time. It is not simple task to port MX to M1.

 

I

I got my M1 in march. It does not need much cooling.
Apple only used intel chips, so they can’t compare to amd. MacOS was written only for intel’s propriatary tech. Amd raced ahead, but their chips are not mobile optimized, their big market is gamers. Intel just survives on their mobile chips. “Needs cooling” = not mobile.
Apple has not released a desktop chip. That is a whole other market.
But these cheap mobile chips crush the intel desktop chips, so M1 macs deliver incredible value, and lead the market… in mobile.
Apple silicon was a solution to a problem Intel created.
This switch was pretty badly managed, but my mac was dying, and I was facing bying a very expensive new one that would be only incrementally better.
But I waited and got a dirt cheap mbp m1 instead.
It has some software problems, but I can live without Massive X… for now.
It sounds like you are not an apple user, and you don’t need to deal with these problems.
They can be quite a headache.
And it sounds like you don’t understand why people use apple.
Apple is not neccesary for anything, but if you are used to it, windows and android feel like a hot mess. But we don’t need to talk about that, much like you don’t really need to have an opinion on products you don’t use.
But android exists because apple created the template. Apple has perfected many product genres, windows only exists as a response to apple.
The technology for m1 existed, but you will see it copied by intel and amd in the coming months, because they have to. They have to compete with apple.
The processor slowdown happened because AMD could not compete for a few years. With no competition, intel shut down r&d. Ryzen was a top secret project, caught intel with its pants down.
Competition is what this is all about.
Apple’s attitudes make mac life hard from time to time.
But the only effect it has on pc ppl is that apple keep inventing the things you’ll need in 2 years.
Since my lot bear the brunt of this, and you don’t, you may want to not come into threads like these and troll. Or at least get a working knowledge of computer history first.

 

AMD has mobile CPUs, and they are superior to current Intels. AMD has 15 W, 35W and 65W mobile processors. And it is real 15 W, 35W and 65W, not like Intel's values, which may be easily double in reality... (If you meant by mobile CPU something for phone/tablet then yes, neither Intel, neither AMD has one. They are not involved in this CPU segment.)
And AMD mobile ZEN3 outperfprms M1. But yes, M1 has better (lower) energy consumption than ZEN3. But it is not because of miraculous CPU architecture of M1, but because of the most advanced chip production proces. Apple users do not mind to pay premium price for best available technology..... But it is not Apple technology, Apple just paid to get it done by third party.

Apple could have used AMD processors instead Intel, but they decided to use its own processor.

Intel and AMD processors are internally RISC. There is a layer above it to behave it as CISC. But AMD also works on RISC processors.

I understand, why people use Apple. It works, there is not many products, so it is easier to decide what to buy, ekosystém,.... And Apple products have nice design. And you are right, they brought many inventions that pushed world ahead.

PC and Win gives user more freedom and choise, more possible problems and mostly not so sleek design. And also more or less long term compatibility. It is not uncammon that 25-30 years old program still runs on current Windows. And it works also oposite direction. Many of current programs run flawlessly under 20 years old Windows.

Apple coppied concept of graphical user interface from XEROX. Microsoft has released first Windows two or thrree years after Apple, so most probably they had to work on it before release of Apple's first graphical UI OS. So, they might copy some ideas from Apple/Xerox, but not the whole concept.

I am used to Win so learning OS would be the same obstacle as learning Win for Mac user. And I do not see much benefit to pay high premium for Apple. But I understand that other people see the benefits and are willing to pay premium.

 

We agree that intel sucks and AMD is great. And I’ll add that apple hitching their wagon to Intel was a mistake.
But AMD processors are more generic, Intel has always added proriatary tech, and apple with their tight intergration adapted the os fully to its capabilities, so while the switch would have been simpler than x86->arm, it would still have been a big task, for little gains, and they would still be beholden to an outside companies’ decisions. Apple got screwed by IBM during the ppc era, and then again by intel. the ppc>x86 switch was not voluntary, we were just stuck with the same 500mhz ppc chip for years while pentium raced ahead. Around the same time, the old OS was fully obsolete, it could not multitask at all, and the switch from system7 to osx was a huge relief. I can still emulate the old OSes, just not right out of the box.
my point is that I understand apple’s decisions. And windows’ capabilities with old software is for enterprise users, servers and such, they often can’t do without that. This is very uncommon mac side, so over here emulations or legacy hardware does this. And there is very little legacy software I miss, but I do have an emulator for macrimedia freehand.

Afaik, apple’s ARM implementations are miles ahead, which is why their smartwatches crush androids, but the big competition is from garmin, who are better at gps and comparible at monitors, and who’s users don’t need their watches to make phonecalls and such.
So you are probably right (this is not my speciality) about apple just licensing bleeding edge production, nanometers and whatnot, but their coprocessors are pretty unique I gather, and at the end of the day, I still assume that the macbook air has no rivals in its price range. The energy factor is a big deal - since a notebook and a thick laptop are not the same thing. Also, build plays a part, how long they last, laptop macs can be resold in 2-3 years, and last at least 6, so the price is not just specs, but years.

Doing without layers and emulation is a big part of the M1 magic, I suspect. Removing nooks and crannies from the products also removes security risks.

First three windowses were hot garbage, I used ‘em all. Windows 95 was the first real os, the previous were Dos shells. xerox’ gui was a cute little exhibition, making it into a product was the innovation. Much like how no car manufacturers actually bring their concept cars to market, apple did like tesla, took something “ready” and made it marketable. That effort, the last mile, is what few companies are willing to do.

If I had the cash I’d have an amd macine on the side for all the **** my mac can’t run on m1, so the feeling is mutual.
I hate this, but I also appreciate that in a year, the apple ecosystem will be great.
And I suspect that this mass adaption of arm compatible code will really help android down the line.

 

Well, Win 95 was a toy for home users.... It was OK, but Win NT, that came two years before W95 was The real systém for real work. I agree, Win 1 to Win 3,0, were not great systems. W 3,1 was the first usable, but next year WinNT came...

Maybe. Most problems had Intel, AMD few. And also ARM processors have vulnearities...

Hard to say, if Apple makes better ARMs than competitors. And it is also question of price. It may be hard to make excellent implementation. It may be way harder to get customers to pay for it.
Most of Android runs on ARM. IMHO there is not big excellence of Apple's ARM CPU, but excellence of Apple;s SW over Android. Garmin is good, I use their GPSses for more than 25 years. They could go to GSM market, if they decide so. They make satelite telephony for decades.....

I understand your frustration. The thing is, it takes time to redesign MX for ARM, it is not easy task. If it was easy Rosseta would do it.

I am going to buy something like this, but waiting for updated version to be used with Zen 3 APUs.
https://www.asrock.com/nettop/AMD/Mars 4000U Series/index.asp
https://www.asrock.com/Nettop/AMD/Jupiter X300/index.asp#Overview

One may have up to 8 full size cores, up to 64 GB memory, big disc, or two. It is small to carry, if needed. One may have pretty strong computer in sleek form factor.

 

This is incorrect. macOS can be made to run on AMD CPUs, as AMD CPUs can also execute x86 instructions that Intel CPUs are also using.

LOL.

 

Well this thread has gone to hell….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk