nathan wolek

Been off-list for a few months. Good to be back...

Is there a way to have version 4.5 & 4.6 both setup on my new 

Macintel? Figured this would be a convenient way to use patches that 

are dependent on my old CFM externals until I get everything ported.

I figured it would have something to do with moving the "Application 

Support" stuff into the application folder, right? Just wanted to 

see if anyone had concrete instructions before doing some testing 

Searched the docs and forum. Could not come up with the right search 

times. Feel free to point them out to me.

Been off-list for a few months.  Good to be back...

Is there a way to have version 4.5 & 4.6 both setup on my new  
Macintel?  Figured this would be a convenient way to use patches that  
are dependent on my old CFM externals until I get everything ported.

I figured it would have something to do with moving the "Application  
Support" stuff into the application folder, right?  Just wanted to  
see if anyone had concrete instructions before doing some testing  
myself.

Searched the docs and forum.  Could not come up with the right search  
times.  Feel free to point them out to me.

-----
Nathan Wolek
nw@nathanwolek.com
http://www.nathanwolek.com


4-5-4-6-on-macintel

"Old" externals built for the PPC architecture can't work natively 

under Max 4.6 on Intel machines. I'm afraid you'll have to wait for 

an Universal Binary of it if there's not one already.

This has been asked many time here. Don't forget to have a look at 

Le 18 oct. 06 à 18:26, 曾 興魁 a écrit :

> error (path...) granola~: loading old CFM externals disabled.

"Old" externals built for the PPC architecture can't work natively  
under Max 4.6 on Intel machines. I'm afraid you'll have to wait for  
an Universal Binary of it if there's not one already.

This has been asked many time here. Don't forget to have a look at  
the old messages.

>
> error  (path...) granola~: loading old CFM externals disabled.
> do you have experience?

On 18-Oct-2006, at 16:55, Nathan Wolek wrote:

> Is there a way to have version 4.5 & 4.6 both setup on my new 

Max 4.5.x installs itself into the folder /Applications/MaxMSP 4.5/

Max 4.6.x installs itself into the folder /Applications/MaxMSP 4.6/

Application Support/ isn't an issue because the Cycling '74/ folder 

has been moved inside the main MaxMSP 4.6/ folder. (Discussed a few 

times on the list but I'd be hard put to find a query turning up 

I've had no conflicts, I even run both at the same time. Despite the 

overhead for Rosetta on 4.5, it's much faster when testing PPC/CFM/ 

Carbon versions of my externals than the G3s at my disposal.

I wouldn't recommend 4.5 as a production environment for audio/video 

on an Intel machine, but it's fine for testing and working on patches 

that require non-UB'd externals and even deals with MIDI reasonably 

adequately. I can't believe someone asked "why?" for this given the 

litany of laments regarding CFM-only 3P externs, of which there are 

Speakin' of which: there has been some discussion on the dev list 

touching on porting questions. That list is sufficiently focussed 

that I would recommend browsing through the entire archive of this year.

Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

Interface Building for |home | chez nous|

Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|

On 18-Oct-2006, at 16:55, Nathan Wolek wrote:
> Is there a way to have version 4.5 & 4.6 both setup on my new  
> Macintel?

Max 4.5.x installs itself into the folder /Applications/MaxMSP 4.5/
Max 4.6.x installs itself into the folder /Applications/MaxMSP 4.6/

Application Support/ isn't an issue because the Cycling '74/ folder  
has been moved inside the main MaxMSP 4.6/ folder. (Discussed a few  
times on the list but I'd be hard put to find a query turning up  
those messages.)

I've had no conflicts, I even run both at the same time. Despite the  
overhead for Rosetta on 4.5, it's much faster when testing PPC/CFM/ 
Carbon versions of my externals than the G3s at my disposal.

I wouldn't recommend 4.5 as a production environment for audio/video  
on an Intel machine, but it's fine for testing and working on patches  
that require non-UB'd externals and even deals with MIDI reasonably  
adequately. I can't believe someone asked "why?" for this given the  
litany of laments regarding CFM-only 3P externs, of which there are  
still a fair few.

Speakin' of which: there has been some discussion on the dev list  
touching on porting questions. That list is sufficiently focussed  
that I would recommend browsing through the entire archive of this year.

--------------    http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/    -------------
Peter Castine             +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
                                Universal Binaries on the way
iCE:  Sequencing,  Recording &
       Interface  Building  for                   |home    | chez nous|
       Max/MSP   Extremely cool                   |bei uns |  i nostri|
       http://www.dspaudio.com/                   http://www.castine.de

On Oct 18, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Peter Castine wrote:

For those that may encounter this thread in the future, Peter is right.

Installed 4.5 and now I can run old stuff just fine. Works right 

On Oct 18, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Peter Castine wrote:
> Sure. Just do it.

For those that may encounter this thread in the future, Peter is right.
Installed 4.5 and now I can run old stuff just fine.  Works right  
next to my newer 4.6 install.

On 18 oct. 06, at 19:36, Peter Castine wrote on the maxmsp list:

> Despite the overhead for Rosetta on 4.5, it's much faster when 

> testing PPC/CFM/Carbon versions of my externals than the G3s at my 

Yes Peter, this is much handier than working with 2 machines but I 

Is it reliable to test PPC version externals only with Rosetta on 

I mean, is it sure they will always behave the same (run fine) on PPC 

> Despite the overhead for Rosetta on 4.5, it's much faster when  
> testing PPC/CFM/Carbon versions of my externals than the G3s at my  
> disposal.
Yes Peter, this is much handier than working with 2 machines but I  
wondered:
Is it reliable to test PPC version externals only with Rosetta on  
Intel Macs?
I mean, is it sure they will always behave the same (run fine) on PPC  
machines?

On 18 Oct 2006, at 18:36, Peter Castine wrote:

> I've had no conflicts, I even run both at the same time.

I've had 4.6.x throw all its toys out of the pram because of a 

MaxAudioAPI.framework belonging to some earlier incarnation, so the 

PPC and UB installations are capable of lobbing projectiles at each 

nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- 

I've had 4.6.x throw all its toys out of the pram because of a  
MaxAudioAPI.framework belonging to some earlier incarnation, so the  
PPC and UB installations are capable of lobbing projectiles at each  
other...

   nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http:// 
www.cassiel.com


On 18-Oct-2006, at 22:27, Nick Rothwell wrote:

> On 18 Oct 2006, at 18:36, Peter Castine wrote:

>> I've had no conflicts, I even run both at the same time.

> I've had 4.6.x throw all its toys out of the pram because of a 

> MaxAudioAPI.framework belonging to some earlier incarnation, so the 

> PPC and UB installations are capable of lobbing projectiles at each 

Hmmm. I installed 4.5.6 first, then 4.6. Don't know if that order is 

significant. Also, I didn't test all the betas that were out there, 

is it possible there were some changes to the framework along the way?

It's good to know that the 4.5/4.6 combination can go wrong, but it 

can also go right. Nathan's main concern (the location of the 

On 18-Oct-2006, at 22:27, Nick Rothwell wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2006, at 18:36, Peter Castine wrote:
>
>> I've had no conflicts, I even run both at the same time.
>
> I've had 4.6.x throw all its toys out of the pram because of a  
> MaxAudioAPI.framework belonging to some earlier incarnation, so the  
> PPC and UB installations are capable of lobbing projectiles at each  
> other...

Hmmm. I installed 4.5.6 first, then 4.6. Don't know if that order is  
significant. Also, I didn't test all the betas that were out there,  
is it possible there were some changes to the framework along the way?

It's good to know that the 4.5/4.6 combination can go wrong, but it  
can also go right. Nathan's main concern (the location of the  
'Cycling 74 folders) isn't the problem.

On 18-Oct-2006, at 21:23, Roby Steinmetzer wrote:

> Is it reliable to test PPC version externals only with Rosetta on 

> I mean, is it sure they will always behave the same (run fine) on 

You're only going to get 100% reliability with extensive end-user 

beta-testing covering every possible hardware configuration on Planet 

Rosetta seems to be sufficiently identical to PPC-based chips for 

testing purposes in the context of the one-[wo]man development team 

building externs. My experience with beta-testing Litter Power and 

porting another dozen or so externs is that I have had zero issues 

But I take no responsibility for what happens to you.

On 18-Oct-2006, at 21:23, Roby Steinmetzer wrote:
> Is it reliable to test PPC version externals only with Rosetta on  
> Intel Macs?
> I mean, is it sure they will always behave the same (run fine) on  
> PPC machines?

You're only going to get 100% reliability with extensive end-user  
beta-testing covering every possible hardware configuration on Planet  
Earth.

Rosetta seems to be sufficiently identical to PPC-based chips for  
testing purposes in the context of the one-[wo]man development team  
building externs. My experience with beta-testing Litter Power and  
porting another dozen or so externs is that I have had zero issues  
due to Rosetta vs. real PPC.

On 19 oct. 06, at 11:07, Peter Castine wrote:

> On 18-Oct-2006, at 21:23, Roby Steinmetzer wrote:

>> Is it reliable to test PPC version externals only with Rosetta on 

>> I mean, is it sure they will always behave the same (run fine) on PPC 

> You're only going to get 100% reliability with extensive end-user 

> beta-testing covering every possible hardware configuration on Planet 

> Rosetta seems to be sufficiently identical to PPC-based chips for 

> testing purposes in the context of the one-[wo]man development team 

> building externs. My experience with beta-testing Litter Power and 

> porting another dozen or so externs is that I have had zero issues due 

I just read on macfixit.com that there may be some maths problems with 

http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20061017090342511

> On 18-Oct-2006, at 21:23, Roby Steinmetzer wrote:
>> Is it reliable to test PPC version externals only with Rosetta on 
>> Intel Macs?
>> I mean, is it sure they will always behave the same (run fine) on PPC 
>> machines?
>
> You're only going to get 100% reliability with extensive end-user 
> beta-testing covering every possible hardware configuration on Planet 
> Earth.
>
> Rosetta seems to be sufficiently identical to PPC-based chips for 
> testing purposes in the context of the one-[wo]man development team 
> building externs. My experience with beta-testing Litter Power and 
> porting another dozen or so externs is that I have had zero issues due 
> to Rosetta vs. real PPC.

I just read on macfixit.com that there may be some maths problems with 
Rosetta introduced with X.4.8.
-> http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20061017090342511

On 19 Oct 2006, at 10:07, Peter Castine wrote:

> My experience with beta-testing Litter Power and porting another 

> dozen or so externs is that I have had zero issues due to Rosetta 

As I recall, Rosetta doesn't emulate Altivec.

> My experience with beta-testing Litter Power and porting another  
> dozen or so externs is that I have had zero issues due to Rosetta  
> vs. real PPC.

On 19-Oct-2006, at 11:45, Patrick Delges wrote:

Do you have a reference that doesn't require a paid subscription?

If the problems are as obscure as the Pentium math problems of 

yesteryear (ca. 1995), you probably won't notice them in cs10format.

Like I said, no guarantees. But I've not had problems.

On 19-Oct-2006, at 15:56, Nick Rothwell wrote:

> As I recall, Rosetta doesn't emulate Altivec.

Possibly. I didn't notice any Altivec in the source for registry:-)

As a starting point, may I suggest the following (freely available) 

Yes, there is software that doesn't run properly on Rosetta. But look 

at what that software is: mostly stuff coding directly to hardware or 

very low-level system functions: DiskWarrior, drivers, games (low- 

level graphics). Look at what percentage of the software has 

problems. Suggest also looking at the sort of issues named. If those 

issues effect your external, then be warned.

Patrick: if you want to have a real PPC Mac for testing, I've got a 

Lombard that will be going up for sale soon.

On 19-Oct-2006, at 11:45, Patrick Delges wrote:
> -> http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20061017090342511

If the problems are as obscure as the Pentium math problems of  
yesteryear (ca. 1995), you probably won't notice them in cs10format.

On 19-Oct-2006, at 15:56, Nick Rothwell wrote:
> As I recall, Rosetta doesn't emulate Altivec.

As a starting point, may I suggest the following (freely available)  
link? 

Yes, there is software that doesn't run properly on Rosetta. But look  
at what that software is: mostly stuff coding directly to hardware or  
very low-level system functions: DiskWarrior, drivers, games (low- 
level graphics). Look at what percentage of the software has  
problems. Suggest also looking at the sort of issues named. If those  
issues effect your external, then be warned.

Patrick: if you want to have a real PPC Mac for testing, I've got a  
Lombard that will be going up for sale soon.

On 19 oct. 06, at 23:17, Peter Castine wrote:

> On 19-Oct-2006, at 11:45, Patrick Delges wrote:

> Do you have a reference that doesn't require a paid subscription?

Ooopps. No. I don't pay neither, there is free access to these articles 

only during a couple of days after publishing. There weren't many 

details, only the fact that 4D users were asked not to upgrade to X48 

If you google with "rosetta" and "4d", you'll find some articles.

> If the problems are as obscure as the Pentium math problems of 

> yesteryear (ca. 1995), you probably won't notice them in cs10format.

> Patrick: if you want to have a real PPC Mac for testing, I've got a 

> Lombard that will be going up for sale soon.

We have enough PPC Macs and clones (and even pre PPC) here, but only 1 

intel iMac, the administrator's one, that I used with Max4.6beta demo 

early in the morning to port sfmarkers~ to UB.

As the demo expired, I can't port my amazing cs10 externals family to 

Centre de Recherches et de Formation Musicales de Wallonie asbl

> On 19-Oct-2006, at 11:45, Patrick Delges wrote:
>> -> http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20061017090342511
>
> Do you have a reference that doesn't require a paid subscription?

Ooopps. No. I don't pay neither, there is free access to these articles 
only during a couple of days after publishing. There weren't many 
details, only the fact that 4D users were asked not to upgrade to X48 
because of some rounding issues...
If you google with "rosetta" and "4d", you'll find some articles.

> If the problems are as obscure as the Pentium math problems of 
> yesteryear (ca. 1995), you probably won't notice them in cs10format.

> Patrick: if you want to have a real PPC Mac for testing, I've got a 
> Lombard that will be going up for sale soon.

We have enough PPC Macs and clones (and even pre PPC) here, but only 1 
intel iMac, the administrator's one, that I used with Max4.6beta demo 
early in the morning to port sfmarkers~ to UB.
As the demo expired, I can't port my amazing cs10 externals family to 
UB.

_____________________________
Patrick Delges

Centre de Recherches et de Formation Musicales de Wallonie asbl
http://users.skynet.be/crfmw/max


On 19 Oct 2006, at 22:17, Peter Castine wrote:

> Possibly. I didn't notice any Altivec in the source for registry:-)

It didn't seem worth trying to look up lists and symbols using the 

DSP chain. One can be *too* performance-obsessed...

It didn't seem worth trying to look up lists and symbols using the  
DSP chain. One can be *too* performance-obsessed...

4.5 & 4.6 on Macintel