First Mac OSX-SL 64-bit DAW ? Which One will be the first ?

[muziksculp]

Hi,

Any guesses as to which Mac DAW will be the first to become a true 64-bit DAW, running under Mac OSX-Snow Leopard ?

(LP9, DP6, Live 8, Cubase 5, Studio-One, ...etc., ) ?

[YUGA]

Garageband?

[feck]

I personally find it unbelievably lame that there still isn't one. I have had 10GB RAM in my computer for 2 years that I can't use. Ridiculous.

[Greg Curtis]

What would be the benefits of running a 64-bit DAW, exactly?

[feck]

Originally Posted by Greg Curtis

What would be the benefits of running a 64-bit DAW, exactly?

Not to sound like a jerk, but I am honestly so surprised at how many people ask that. The main issue is RAM. At this point, on an 8 core Mac 2.8 GHZ with 10GB or RAM running Nuendo 4, I am able to load 2.2GB of samples until a crash. I have MANY virtual instruments which require more than that each, so instead of being able to program using the same sounds I will be committing to audio and hearing it as I program and play, I have to use stripped down presets one by one. As a composer/songwriter, it is a completely bunk thing to have to do, especially knowing that I have all the computer horsepower I need to do it, which is where the financial expense is.

[Robert Randolph]

Originally Posted by feck

I personally find it unbelievably lame that there still isn't one. I have had 10GB RAM in my computer for 2 years that I can't use. Ridiculous.

You can use it.

[muziksculp]

Originally Posted by Greg Curtis

What would be the benefits of running a 64-bit DAW, exactly?

Basically, a 64-bit DAW will help us overcome the 4 GB limitation that is inherent by the current 32-bit DAWs.

If a Mac has 32 GB of RAM installed, but an application can only access 1/8 th of that amount of RAM, then, IMHO, that is a huge limitation.

64-bit DAWs will allow us to access way beyond the limited 4 GB of RAM, which makes a lot of sense, for example, when using memory demanding sample libraries, allowing for large templates to be set-up , especially for musicians doing scoring/orchestral productions.

I sure hope this will not be the case for too long, hopefully one of the existing DAWs will eventually break the 32-bit barrier, and become a true 64-bit DAW.

I think the first DAW that becomes a true 64-bit DAW on the Mac/OSX-Snow Leopard will gain some type of a "Special Status" for finally breaking the 32-bit DAW barrier on the Mac

[shanabit]

What would solve this problem is if the DAW makers all said, "Were making our DAW 64 bit, no 32 bit bit bridge crap. This would FORCE the Plugin makers to do their re-write fro 64 bit. It would be great with no RAM limit and OSX and Vista both 64bit only

[feck]

Originally Posted by Robert Randolph

You can use it.

Not within the main DAW. That's the whole point for me.

[Nicholas Varley]

I think Yuga's reply "Garageband", although maybe intended as a witty reply, is the DAW I'd put my money on.

[muziksculp]

Originally Posted by shanabit

What would solve this problem is if the DAW makers all said, "Were making our DAW 64 bit, no 32 bit bit bridge crap. This would FORCE the Plugin makers to do their re-write fro 64 bit. It would be great with no RAM limit and OSX and Vista both 64bit only

Yes, I totally agree. The pressure will eventually be on plug-in developers to play catch-up with 64-bit capable hardware, ample amounts of RAM, 64-bit OS, and 64-bit DAWs (when they become available).

Plug-ins should be 64-bit running inside a 64-bit DAW, on a 64-bit OS. No bridge, No convoluted workarounds, No compatibility issues, just a pure, and cohesive 64-bit working environment.

The big question is.... When will this happen ? One thing is for sure, The sooner this happens, the better !

[slickshoe62]

Originally Posted by feck

I personally find it unbelievably lame that there still isn't one. I have had 10GB RAM in my computer for 2 years that I can't use. Ridiculous.

Ha! Me too!! I also have 10GB of ram just hanging out in my mac pro waiting to be utilized. Hope Studio-One is one of the first to make the transition. I'm really starting to like how you get around that DAW. Plus it's new, and they may not have to do too much reworking to get it into the 64bit realm.

[DrDeltaM]

Originally Posted by Nicholas Varley

I think Yuga's reply "Garageband", although maybe intended as a witty reply, is the DAW I'd put my money on.

If Garageband is released as 64bit, Logic is too, as it's the same engine.

[YUGA]

Originally Posted by DrDeltaM

If Garageband is released as 64bit, Logic is too, as it's the same engine.

But Logic users had to wait for quite a while to use new amp models that were first introduced in Garageband. Using the same engine doesn't necessarily mean Apple will release 64-bit versions of Garageband and Logic at the same time. And considering the fact that Apple is becoming more and more consumer-focused, it's very likely that they'll release a 64-bit Garageband first.

[TehGuitarist]

Well it would make sense for logic to go 64bit, apple has all the infrastructure to do it. Even though windows has been doing it for ages, apple seems to be doing it properly.

[muziksculp]

Originally Posted by YUGA

And considering the fact that Apple is becoming more and more consumer-focused, it's very likely that they'll release a 64-bit Garageband first.

Apple have their priorities badly reversed. It just makes no sense to have GB-64-bit before LP9-64-bit. Although they might be updated to 64-bit at the same time, since they do share quite a bit of code.

Actually, I won't be too surprised if one of the other DAWs (not Apple's DAWs) gets updated to a fully functional 64-bit DAW before any one of the Apple DAWs make it to 64-bit.

Especially, if LP9 will need to be updated to 9.1 or whatever they want to number the next version, given Apple's snail pace updates of LP8, chances are looking brighter from a time perspective, for a non-Apple DAW to jump forward, and win the 64-bit dash DAW race.