RE: Using a laptop onstage: Dominic Frasca's take is misguided

[Warren Sirota <wsirota@wsdesigns.com>]

To all,

No-one's complained, but I can see that some of my posts maybe seem
argumentative. I'm not trying to be argumentative. (It just comes
naturally). Honestly, I'm sorry if I come off that way - I just seem to 
find
it entertaining to stir things up here and there. And in this area I fully
expect there to be hardcore hw fans and hardcore sw fans, and I wouldn't
expect either side to really get the other (since I am guilty of not really
"getting" the hw thing).

I'm obviously a sw booster. And I have vested (albeit pathetically small)
economic interests in boosting music sw. But still, I'm a sw booster for
quite a few valid (for me, at any rate) reasons. I'm not really interested
in proving I'm right (ok, I'm lying, but I'm striving for that), but I do
like to respond fully if I think there are new points to make.

Anyway...

Travis, good points. I have had to pay Cycling 74 more than twice over the
years for MAX/MSP upgrades as computer systems evolved (but I've used it 
for
a *long* time, and the PC version was *free* once I'd paid for the Mac
version). But the difference for me between that and, say, a guitar
controller with special features becoming obsolete or a synth dying is that
I *can* pay for an upgrade to the software. Since I'm a software
manufacturer, I don't mind paying other software manufacturers for updates
at reasonable intervals and reasonable prices. Now, some manufacturers seem
to be a bit extortionist when it comes to their prices for updates (or
frequency - but how can you complain about frequent updates?), and for 
those
I usually fall behind until the latest version presents a compelling
value/price proposition. 

Upkeep costs are not limited to sw. When I got my first mono tape recorder
as a teenager, I was shocked by my first repair bill only a few years 
later.
When the repair guy said, "expect to pay 1/4 of the price of the machine
every year for maintenance", I staggered out of the store in shock, 
thinking
"they didn't tell me that when they sold me the machine."

I think your best point about incompatibility relates to DAWs. They mostly
use proprietary formats. But now that's largely addressed, isn't it, by the
OMF format?

Travis, you were unfortunate in your timing with the OS's - you adopted OS9
during its death throes. The transition from 16-bit pseudo-multitasking
operating systems to 32-bit pre-emptive multitasking OSs was a huge one for
both Microsoft and Apple, and both companies learned how to create a
"modern" OS in the process (more or less). Both had to scrap compatibility
in the process - the 16-bit systems weren't designed well-enough to 
survive.
Windows 3.1 users moving to Windows 95 had similar problems.

However, this won't happen in the switch to 64-bit. The installed base of
32-bit software is a zillion times bigger than the installed base of 16-bit
software ever was. The stakes are huge. Plus, the big players in the music
sw world have been around long enough that at least a few of them can be
trusted to provide upgrade paths (not for free, of course). Sonar already
has a 64-bit version, and there's a bridge that lets 32-bit VSTs run under
the 64-bit version of Windows.

To me, something doesn't become obsolescent if there's an upgrade path, 
even
if it costs something (reasonable). I care about being *able* to perform 
all
my pieces, even after my current computer or footcontroller breaks or is
repurposed.

Bottom line for me: I've had to discard or replace tens of thousands of
dollars of hardware, and at least temporarily retire quite a few pieces
because of this. Hw doesn't become obsolete? It sure hurts like it does...

Best wishes,
Warren Sirota


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Travis Hartnett [mailto:travishartnett@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5:19 PM
> To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> Subject: Re: Using a laptop onstage: Dominic Frasca's take is 
> misguided
> 
> 
> Comparing cars to computers is often problematic.  I'd 
> compare the computer in this case to a tape deck, or some 
> rack gear, or an instrument.  For a long time, these were 
> tools that with simple periodic maintenance would continue to 
> do what they were designed to for literally decades.  Of 
> course, cars were more like that when they were largely non-digital.
> 
> It depends on what you mean by "the" software.  I've been 
> using computers for hard disk recording for seven or eight 
> years, and the first three programs I used won't run on my 
> current system due to the OS9/X switchover.  Since I started 
> using OS X, I've had to give Digidesign several infusions of 
> cash to keep my ProTools setup working.  I could have stopped 
> updating the operating system and ProTools, but most people 
> don't get into computer solutions to eliminate options.
> 
> None of the plugins that I was using on my OS 9 PCI system 
> work on my OS X setup.  Some of them have updated versions, 
> which I could purchase, but the line between "using the same 
> software and paying for updates" and "buying a new piece of 
> software" starts to become sort of academic.
> 
> I'm skeptical of the idea that we're in a new age of 
> computing where software doesn't suffer obsolesence.  
> Regardless of how clever the OS designers may be in providing 
> a platform that favors long-term compatibility, the 
> application folks aren't thinking "Gosh, I must make sure I 
> follow all OS programming guidelines to insure that my 
> software doesn't break with the next update", but more 
> "Hey--this clever hack will give me performance that I need, 
> I'll worry about the ramifications when the next OS update arrives..."
> 
> TravisH
> 
> On 1/4/06, Jeff Larson <Jeffrey.Larson@sun.com> wrote:
> > David Kirkdorffer wrote:
> > > To all the computer-based people, how many of you are 
> running NT on 
> > > your laptops today - a standard from just 5 years ago.  
> Five years 
> > > from now what will be available, I wonder
> >
> > I don't run NT any more, but everything I bought for NT 
> still runs on 
> > XP Home. Five years from now we will be running Windows XP 
> 2010 and it 
> > will run most if not all of the software you have now.
> >
> > Home computer operating systems have matured to the point where I 
> > really don't expect to see any dramatic changes other than 64-bit, 
> > more eye candy in the user interface, and "utilities" like that new 
> > searching feature in OS/X.  OS/X is basically Mach where it 
> counts and 
> > that's been around for 20 years.
> >
> > I don't find the "eventual obsolescence" argument very 
> interesting, I 
> > guess because I've been conditioned to look at a computer purchase 
> > like a car purchase.  I'm going to buy a new one every 4 or 
> 5 years, 
> > it's just part of the cost of living.  Horses live longer 
> than cars, 
> > but people don't seem to complain about that any more.  Should 
> > computers be held to a higher standard?
> >
> > Jeff
>