6 ms·

For many audio hardware drivers, it's not simply a matter of recompiling to 64-bit. Apple has deprecated a lot of things and seems to be trying to move everyth

by AlanYx 7y ago

For many audio hardware drivers, it's not simply a matter of recompiling to 64-bit. Apple has deprecated a lot of things and seems to be trying to move everything over to AudioServerPlugins, which essentially requires a full rewrite of the drivers. The architecture isn't similar at all (AudioServerPlugins actually follow a Microsoft-style COM interface, among other things). I don't even think Apple makes any sample code for updating old Firewire drivers to run on Catalina, so it's a tough slog, and low-level CoreAudio expertise to update old drivers is getting scarce. Traffic on the CoreAudio developer mailing list is down to less than a dozen posts most months. There hasn't been a single post to the mailing list yet in October. I strongly suspect that some interface vendors are not going to update their 32 bit drivers for Catalina. (MOTU in particular is one, which kind of marks the end of an era because they used to be champions of some of the best CoreAudio features, like Firewire clock syncing.)

chrisseaton 7y ago
> I don't even think Apple makes any sample code for updating old Firewire drivers to run on Catalina Surely, surely it was obvious for years that Firewire is on the way out? Why are people so reactive and sluggish? People should be ready for change.
- Hammershaft 7y ago
  As a independent dev I would rather spend my time working on new features and projects on an OS where my older projects continue to work fine rather than spend my time constantly playing catch up with Apples policies. This combined with the notarization requirement has pushed me to stop developing for Mac OS.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    This isn't just an OS thing, though, so I think that's crap. This change is a hardware change that's been forecast for literally years. To dismiss it as "playing catch up with Apple's policies" is nonsense.
    - AlanYx 7y ago
      You have a point, but another thing to note is that the quality of Apple’s developer docs for audio drivers and CoreAudio has been decreasing. Some major behaviours/quirks of new frameworks like AVAudioEngine on OS X are not documented at all. It’s a lot harder to chase the target than it used to be. This is IMHO one of the likely reasons that MOTU chose to implement as much as possible as an on-device web interface on their newer gear.
      - dkonofalski 7y ago
        >new frameworks like AVAudioEngine on OS X AVAudioEngine is not a new framework on macOS. It was first available on macOS Yosemite which was in beta in 2013 and released in 2014. Developers have had 6+ years to develop and test using these frameworks. This literally just boils down to developers complaining that Apple isn't further letting them procrastinate.
        AlanYx 7y ago
        That illustrates the problem though... It’s not a new framework, but the documentation is still poor, and important limitations of it on OS X are not documented at all, years later. (I picked this example specifically because it was a subject of traffic on the CoreAudio mailing list last month.) Apple expects developers to adopt new technologies, but often never gets around to documenting them well enough to drive adoption. It’s been a real issue for low level audio work on the platform.
      - michaelrmmiller 7y ago
        As a former MOTU engineer who worked on the software side of the new interfaces, the built-in web server was really about cross-device and multi-user access, not avoiding CoreAudio. We still had to write CoreAudio server plug-ins for Thunderbolt and proxy the web server through the driver as well. I hear they are planning to update their 32-bit drivers for the older MIDI and audio interfaces with the exception of the PCIe devices. (There are no existing Macs that can run Catalina and the old PCIe interfaces with the exception of the new Mac Pros, but there will be no driver so...)
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Counterpoint: BareBones software has continuously updated BBEdit as Apple transitioned from: - 68K Classic MacOS - PPC Classic MacOS - PPC OS X - x86 MacOS
    - flomo 7y ago
      However BareBones did drop TextWrangler, and that's one of the thing that's going to keep me on Mojave for a while.
      - wl 7y ago
        What's the issue with using BBEdit in free mode?
        flomo 7y ago
        Didn't know it existed - thanks!
    - selectodude 7y ago
      BBEdit is not a real time audio engine. It’s a text editor. And they’ve released thirteen versions which all require a relatively substantial amount of money to upgrade.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        And what’s the problem with paying for software you use?
        selectodude 7y ago
        Nothing. But it's in their best interest to keep it working since they're going to charge you for the upgrade that continues to work.
        scarface74 7y ago
  - spsful 7y ago
    A caveat: the notarization is not forced. Apps can still run even if they aren't notarized, it just takes an extra click.
- kbob 7y ago
  Many studios and many musicians are not wealthy enough to throw out a roomful of working equipment just because it doesn't conform to industry trends.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    And they shouldn't have to. Developers should support their working equipment by updating drivers. They've known about the transition to 64-bit for years and it's not something that can just be ignored because all the hardware is now 64-bit. It's not like this was done on a lark.
    - chc 7y ago
      This was addressed earlier in this subthread. It's not just an upgrade to 64-bit — they're also changing the low-level interfaces, and the new ones are apparently not well documented. So while it probably wasn't done on a lark, it doesn't sound like it was done in a very well considered manner either.
      - dkonofalski 7y ago
        >the new ones are apparently not well documented The low-level interfaces in question were changed almost 4 major versions back. There aren't any new interfaces or APIs that haven't existed for 6+ years already. The only people complaining are the ones that procrastinated because Apple continued to support their outdated apps.
        chc 7y ago
        Apple introduced new low-level interfaces four major versions back, and Apple couldn't work up the interest to document them in the intervening years, and then Apple decided to cut off the interfaces that are documented, and somehow any problems resulting from this sequence of choices Apple made are the fault of third-party developers for not jumping to new technology that Apple didn't care enough to document? That interpretation of events seems a bit obsequious to Apple. If everyone should have been prepared because this change has been in the works for so long, then surely it's inexcusable for Apple to have left the new stuff in a poorly documented state all that time. If you do feel that Apple's lack of preparation is reasonable when they had even more warning than third parties did, then it seems unreasonable to fault developers for also not being prepared.
- pier25 7y ago
  > Why are people so reactive and sluggish? People should be ready for change. I'm not sure if you'd be so ready for change if it meant replacing expensive gear that is still totally functional.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    But the point is 32-bit apps aren't functional anymore. You either keep up by thinking ahead, or you find yourself suddenly stumped. There's no option to just ignore it.
    - pier25 7y ago
      > But the point is 32-bit apps aren't functional anymore No? How come I can use Ableton Live 10 in 32 bits to make music then?
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        On macOS Catalina?
        vetinari 7y ago
        The main objective is to make music. Running macOS Catalina is optional.
        chrisseaton 7y ago
        Ok but we were talking about running on macOS Catalina here - you need to be 64-bit to run there. And if you don't, you're likely to get left behind.
        davrosthedalek 7y ago
        Or, you know, having to upgrade anyway, people might switch platforms to one which has a better track record in supporting old software.
- jcelerier 7y ago
  studio hardware can generally last 20+ years (and can cost > 5000$ for one rack) - you really don't want to throw it all every 3 macos releases
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    The hardware isn't the problem, though. The software is. All of these vendors have had ample time to update their software to work with the hardware.
    - NobodyNada 7y ago
      Assuming the vendor is still in business, still supports the product line, and still develops software updates for models that have been obsolete for over a decade.
  - nomel 7y ago
    Apple isn’t exactly known for backwards compatibility. I could never justify a long term hardware life knowing that I’m signing up with a short term software life cycle. Not only a short term software lifecycle, by a short term computer hardware/OS lifecycle. Want more memory or a faster processor? Not with that old OS! Btw, you have to rewrite all of your software if you want that extra memory.
- qmmmur 7y ago
  Because firewire interfaces that were purchased a long time ago still work fine in professional settings.

by AlanYx 7y ago

chrisseaton 7y ago

> I don't even think Apple makes any sample code for updating old Firewire drivers to run on Catalina Surely, surely it was obvious for years that Firewire is on the way out? Why are people so reactive and sluggish? People should be ready for change.

Hammershaft 7y ago
As a independent dev I would rather spend my time working on new features and projects on an OS where my older projects continue to work fine rather than spend my time constantly playing catch up with Apples policies. This combined with the notarization requirement has pushed me to stop developing for Mac OS.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  This isn't just an OS thing, though, so I think that's crap. This change is a hardware change that's been forecast for literally years. To dismiss it as "playing catch up with Apple's policies" is nonsense.
  - AlanYx 7y ago
    You have a point, but another thing to note is that the quality of Apple’s developer docs for audio drivers and CoreAudio has been decreasing. Some major behaviours/quirks of new frameworks like AVAudioEngine on OS X are not documented at all. It’s a lot harder to chase the target than it used to be. This is IMHO one of the likely reasons that MOTU chose to implement as much as possible as an on-device web interface on their newer gear.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      >new frameworks like AVAudioEngine on OS X AVAudioEngine is not a new framework on macOS. It was first available on macOS Yosemite which was in beta in 2013 and released in 2014. Developers have had 6+ years to develop and test using these frameworks. This literally just boils down to developers complaining that Apple isn't further letting them procrastinate.
      - AlanYx 7y ago
        That illustrates the problem though... It’s not a new framework, but the documentation is still poor, and important limitations of it on OS X are not documented at all, years later. (I picked this example specifically because it was a subject of traffic on the CoreAudio mailing list last month.) Apple expects developers to adopt new technologies, but often never gets around to documenting them well enough to drive adoption. It’s been a real issue for low level audio work on the platform.
    - michaelrmmiller 7y ago
      As a former MOTU engineer who worked on the software side of the new interfaces, the built-in web server was really about cross-device and multi-user access, not avoiding CoreAudio. We still had to write CoreAudio server plug-ins for Thunderbolt and proxy the web server through the driver as well. I hear they are planning to update their 32-bit drivers for the older MIDI and audio interfaces with the exception of the PCIe devices. (There are no existing Macs that can run Catalina and the old PCIe interfaces with the exception of the new Mac Pros, but there will be no driver so...)
- scarface74 7y ago
  Counterpoint: BareBones software has continuously updated BBEdit as Apple transitioned from: - 68K Classic MacOS - PPC Classic MacOS - PPC OS X - x86 MacOS
  - flomo 7y ago
    However BareBones did drop TextWrangler, and that's one of the thing that's going to keep me on Mojave for a while.
    - wl 7y ago
      What's the issue with using BBEdit in free mode?
      - flomo 7y ago
        Didn't know it existed - thanks!
  - selectodude 7y ago
    BBEdit is not a real time audio engine. It’s a text editor. And they’ve released thirteen versions which all require a relatively substantial amount of money to upgrade.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      And what’s the problem with paying for software you use?
      - selectodude 7y ago
        Nothing. But it's in their best interest to keep it working since they're going to charge you for the upgrade that continues to work.
        scarface74 7y ago
- spsful 7y ago
  A caveat: the notarization is not forced. Apps can still run even if they aren't notarized, it just takes an extra click.
kbob 7y ago
Many studios and many musicians are not wealthy enough to throw out a roomful of working equipment just because it doesn't conform to industry trends.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  And they shouldn't have to. Developers should support their working equipment by updating drivers. They've known about the transition to 64-bit for years and it's not something that can just be ignored because all the hardware is now 64-bit. It's not like this was done on a lark.
  - chc 7y ago
    This was addressed earlier in this subthread. It's not just an upgrade to 64-bit — they're also changing the low-level interfaces, and the new ones are apparently not well documented. So while it probably wasn't done on a lark, it doesn't sound like it was done in a very well considered manner either.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      >the new ones are apparently not well documented The low-level interfaces in question were changed almost 4 major versions back. There aren't any new interfaces or APIs that haven't existed for 6+ years already. The only people complaining are the ones that procrastinated because Apple continued to support their outdated apps.
      - chc 7y ago
        Apple introduced new low-level interfaces four major versions back, and Apple couldn't work up the interest to document them in the intervening years, and then Apple decided to cut off the interfaces that are documented, and somehow any problems resulting from this sequence of choices Apple made are the fault of third-party developers for not jumping to new technology that Apple didn't care enough to document? That interpretation of events seems a bit obsequious to Apple. If everyone should have been prepared because this change has been in the works for so long, then surely it's inexcusable for Apple to have left the new stuff in a poorly documented state all that time. If you do feel that Apple's lack of preparation is reasonable when they had even more warning than third parties did, then it seems unreasonable to fault developers for also not being prepared.
pier25 7y ago
> Why are people so reactive and sluggish? People should be ready for change. I'm not sure if you'd be so ready for change if it meant replacing expensive gear that is still totally functional.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  But the point is 32-bit apps aren't functional anymore. You either keep up by thinking ahead, or you find yourself suddenly stumped. There's no option to just ignore it.
  - pier25 7y ago
    > But the point is 32-bit apps aren't functional anymore No? How come I can use Ableton Live 10 in 32 bits to make music then?
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      On macOS Catalina?
      - vetinari 7y ago
        The main objective is to make music. Running macOS Catalina is optional.
        chrisseaton 7y ago
        Ok but we were talking about running on macOS Catalina here - you need to be 64-bit to run there. And if you don't, you're likely to get left behind.
        davrosthedalek 7y ago
        Or, you know, having to upgrade anyway, people might switch platforms to one which has a better track record in supporting old software.
jcelerier 7y ago
studio hardware can generally last 20+ years (and can cost > 5000$ for one rack) - you really don't want to throw it all every 3 macos releases
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  The hardware isn't the problem, though. The software is. All of these vendors have had ample time to update their software to work with the hardware.
  - NobodyNada 7y ago
    Assuming the vendor is still in business, still supports the product line, and still develops software updates for models that have been obsolete for over a decade.
- nomel 7y ago
  Apple isn’t exactly known for backwards compatibility. I could never justify a long term hardware life knowing that I’m signing up with a short term software life cycle. Not only a short term software lifecycle, by a short term computer hardware/OS lifecycle. Want more memory or a faster processor? Not with that old OS! Btw, you have to rewrite all of your software if you want that extra memory.
qmmmur 7y ago
Because firewire interfaces that were purchased a long time ago still work fine in professional settings.