From: nick@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: MIDI under Windows 3.
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:31:26 GMT
Organization: Friends of the Salter Duck
In-reply-to: JROSSI@EAGLE.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL's message of 15 Apr 92 17:59:00 GMT

In article <9204151800.AA00831@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> JROSSI@EAGLE.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL writes:
   With the inclusion of
   the multimedia section of Win 3.1, and the availability of device independent
   MIDI drivers, I can't think that making anything (hardware) work from within
   Windows will take any kind of time.

Just out of curiosity - who is writing the MIDI system? I wouldn't trust
MicroSoft to programme their way out of a wet paper bag, but this isn't
to say that there isn't scope for a very nice MIDI environment under
Windows from some third party (after all, Opcode have contributed a lot
to the Mac environment).

   Almost all companies who thrive on the
   PC marketplace and play toi the Windows environment are accustomed to writing
   the necessary drivers to make their product work up front.

This suggests that companies are going to bring along a lot of old ideas and
baggage to Windows rather than adopting up-to-date ways of working and
presenting their products...

   Even though it may be hard for Mac people to believe,
   Microsoft has convinced the world that the Mouse and GUI were invented in
   Redmond, Washington

Oh, no, that's very easy for me to believe. MicroSoft Windows has just
introduced the idea of moving/copying files by dragging them between
windows - what a smashing idea, why did nobody think of it before?

   So, Nick, in answer to your question.  3 Months, max.

Hmm. I'll watch what happens.

   All I am saying is that, for me, the Mac does not provide
   the kinds of bandwidth to which I have grown accustomed
   ...
   does not have the throughput
   bandwidth to fully support 32 (or even 6) very dense MIDI streams.  In many
   ways, I believe that MOTU's advertizing is a little deceptive about this
   matter.  I also believe, that while it may be true that nobody would ever
   need 32 saturrated MIDI streams of throughput, I need more than the Mac-->MTP
   interface can provide.

I still can't think of any real applications where this bottleneck
would be a serious one; but I'm not saying there aren't any, and if
John has run into some, then I can't argue. I *will* say that you'll
probably find bottlenecks in your instruments and the host software
well before hitting them in the Mac<->MTP connection.

   I also believe that there may be others out there
   who would find themselves in similarly compromised situations which didn't
   meet their expectations which they based on listening to satisfied Mac users
   and reading the MOTU and Opcode interface hype.

I still stand by everything I say. Listening to hype is always a bad idea.

   Granted, I was not aware that a Mac serial port could run
   that fast (but then how could I have been expected to know that given the
   paucity of information available through knowledgable sources)

You didn't ask, John.

   what is
   needed in the Mac world if it seriously wants to compete with the new PC-
   dominated world computer order is some kinds of devices which can capitalize
   on high speed serial connections or on the Nu-bus.

I'll agree with this, though. Whether it's important for MIDI is another
matter, but various Mac boxes use NuBus and/or SCSI for digital audio and
the like.

Nick.
--
Nick Rothwell, LFCS, Edinburgh | Mark X here if article is a gift .. .. .. (X)
             nick@dcs.ed.ac.uk | Il s'agit d'un cadeau
Mentation Consultancy Services | or a sample of merchandise .. .. .. .. .. ( )
   cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk | d'un enchantillon de marchandises