Access Future,hardware or software or both?

[Berni]

Originally Posted by to-pse

Well - as the whole Virus is primarily software I would dispute this claim.

But there is a big difference between writing embedded code for a specific
hardware (which one has total control over) and writing low & high-level
software for two totally distinct OS-architectures (Win & OS X) which
is meant to run on all kinds of different OS-versions, architectures (32 &
64 bit), with all kinds of different USB-hardware as basis for realtime
low-latency communication and a truck-load of different hosts which
need to interoperate with the higher-layer.

I don't know how many people are working for Access or how much of
their development for the total Integration was outsourced.

But this whole thing is a giant task - and unfortunately one that constantly
needs to be refinded due to OS-Updates, hardware-updates, host-updates
etc.

And it seems to be one task that IMHO no other hardware-synth manu-
facturer has burdened themselves with...

Best regards,
Tobias

So what are you disputing? VC is a great piece of software?

[to-pse]

Originally Posted by Berni

So what are you disputing? VC is a great piece of software?

Like I wrote in my reponse I dispute that Access is not able to write
solid, reliable software - as obviously the Virus itself (since the A
version in the 90s) is primarily software.

I could repeat my whole post again, but the essence is that there
are various kinds of software:

a.) embedded software (stuff in the virus)
b.) system-level software (USB-drivers for TI-integration)
c.) user-space software (VSTi plugin)

And at least in the part a.) they know how to deliver!

But especially the b.) part is tricky to get right (again like I wrote
in my last post).

Look how many companies still struggle to provide high-performance,
reliable drivers even after years in the business.

It might be that Access overstrained themselves in this task, but it
seems that the quality of the integration has improved over time.

Tobias

[Berni]

Originally Posted by to-pse

Like I wrote in my reponse I dispute that Access is not able to write
solid, reliable software - as obviously the Virus itself (since the A
version in the 90s) is primarily software.

I could repeat my whole post again, but the essence is that there
are various kinds of software:

a.) embedded software (stuff in the virus)
b.) system-level software (USB-drivers for TI-integration)
c.) user-space software (VSTi plugin)

And at least in the part a.) they know how to deliver!

But especially the b.) part is tricky to get right (again like I wrote
in my last post).

Look how many companies still struggle to provide high-performance,
reliable drivers even after years in the business.

It might be that Access overstrained themselves in this task, but it
seems that the quality of the integration has improved over time.

Tobias

Yeah I got it the first time...what your saying is that they can write software for the synth they manufacture, & lets face it, not much good without it, although it has had a lot of problems. But the other stuff, the 'tricky' kind...not so much. I concur...
They HAVE been at this for years btw...