Comments on: Apple Explains Audio Unit Changes to Developers

By: ben

ben — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:20:15 +0000

hey Peter,
thanks for the info - and everyone else!
so do you make a clone of your hard-drive before every update?
man, that kind of diligence is impressive, and scares the crap out of me for some reason.

ben

By: Flip

Flip — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 05:16:40 +0000

Yeah, I’m definitely not defending Apple! I was infuriated when they took over Logic and messed it up for a good year or so. I remember it crashing like crazy and not being able to get plugins to show up. It seems most of those problems are ironed out. I run every plugin mentioned in this thread without any problems, yet I back up every day. It’s the only way….(no rhyme intended) Updates always make me nervous.

By: Peter Kirn

Peter Kirn — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:45:59 +0000

Thanks for the backup tips, everybody! Actually, with all these operating systems flying about, maybe a backup roundup for both Mac and Windows is in order.

@Flip: The problem is, as even Bill notes elsewhere in the email, sometimes the way auval handles a failed indication is by crashing Logic. ;) So, obviously, that’s not something you want to have happen as an end user, let alone as a developer.

@Chris: I hope this is getting directed at Apple; the fact that there was finally an explanation of the change on the Core Audio list perhaps an indication that it was. ;) WAVES not getting it means “seeded” is definitely not the right word, if that’s the case. And these things should be solved before builds ship, not after.

Changes happen … this seems to be about getting better communication going. Like I said, no reason for a flame war; developer relations is something that is always worth improving and fixing.

By: Flip

Flip — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:27:03 +0000

Hey Chris, I’m afraid I’ll have to take issue with your statement:

“if an AU fails auval (for whatever stupid reason Apple came up with this week) then it is unusable in Logic.”

False…I use failed plugins all the time without any glitches. Within the AU validation app, you can choose to use a failed plug, regardless of it’s status.

The lesson to be learned from this thread is to not jump the gun while updating your OS. Back up often and you’ll side-step any of this bullshit. It’s that simple.

By: oscillations

oscillations — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:46:33 +0000

Another vote for SuperDuper as far as making images of boot drives. It has the big advantage of being able to update an existing drive clone. Imaging a drive can take a while, but if you do it once with SD any subsequent images only write the changes - taking much less time.

By: Chris Randall

Chris Randall — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:19:50 +0000

I’m afraid I have to take issue with this statement:

“Regardless of any [failure of the validator], auval has no actual influence or affect on the audio unit when it is used within a host app.”

Logic uses auval directly to determine whether or not it will allow an AU to be used. auval itself doesn’t influence Logic, but if an AU fails auval (for whatever stupid reason Apple came up with this week) then it is unusable in Logic. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, quite frankly.

In any event, I’m not sure who the hell they “seeded” to, but it wasn’t any AU developer I know. We weren’t told. Ohmforce wasn’t told. Fucking WAVES wasn’t told. That runs the gamut from small to large, and none of these companies knew. As far as I’m aware, the _only_ place these changes were noted was on the AU Lab mailing list, something that like 4 people actually read. It wasn’t mentioned on CoreAudio, the logical (withering pun intended) place for such a discussion.

No offense to Bill intended, but if you guys are gonna re-invent the wheel anyways, could you just do it the once, rather than coming up with a new wheel every 9 months?

By: amoeba

amoeba — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:35:12 +0000

chronosync is excellent, very granular, but doesn’t creat bootables
http://www.econtechnologies.com/site/Pages/ChronoSync/chrono_overview.html

and superduper is great too, and will make bootables
http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html

By: Jokton

Jokton — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:44:04 +0000

I backup my mac with apple’s own Disk Copy, I just make a compressed image file onto another hard drive, then use the restore feature if I need to jump back.

By: Flip

Flip — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:32:38 +0000

Retrospect is my favorite. It’s never failed me and has definitely saved my ass a few times. I remember even in the past year having to “reverse” directions and restore about 2 terabytes of data after a nasty update. This is even while keeping a clean directory via Disk Warrior, repairing permissions, running sbin/fsck -f & running reset-nvram and reset-all. You never know when a hard drive might fail or your software ends up scrambled. ALWAYS back up everything before any update.

By: Peter Kirn

Peter Kirn — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:04:55 +0000

Please, let’s not start an OS comparison here. I would never use this as the basis to choose operating systems, but in my experience:
* It’s easier to deal with system files at the command line with Mac.
* It’s easier to clean-install the operating system, while leaving previous system files.
* Integrating existing system files is easier to do.
* It’s easier to install multiple operating systems on the same machine.
* It’s easier to create bootable drives on Mac.
* The lack of the intrusive authorization measures on Mac makes it far easier to install in multiple locations. Of course, it also means the OS is easier to pirate; it’s not a coincidence that Apple’s in the hardware business and Microsoft is in the software business.

I didn’t say it was impossible on Windows, and the tools you suggest are all good ones. Vista is a big step forward with its image-based install, but there’s still work to be done.

Obviously, on Windows you equip yourself with similar tools and make it work.

I do still think it’s a major concern that the Mac operating system has had so many incremental updates. Whether the developers were seeded these updates or not, this has the potential to produce some major compatibility issues, and it directly increases the number of variables developers have to face — not simply getting ready for 10.5, but supporting 10.4.9, and 10.4.8, and 10.4.7, etc. Microsoft’s updates, beyond SP1 and SP2, have tended not to introduce those kind of issues, and I hope that continues to be the case.

Anyway, yes, the most important thing is to make these systems work for you … all of them.