5/2/97 11:00 PM
Subject: MAX Digest - 1 May 1997 to 2 May
1997To: Recipients of MAX digests 

There are 6 messages totalling 212 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. 2.5.2 on a LCIII
  2. MAX Digest - 30 Apr 1997 to 1 May 1997
  3. Charging for backup disks
  4. Venting Opcode Frustration
  5. seeking French speaker


Date:    Thu, 1 May 1997 21:27:40 -0700
From:    David Zicarelli 
Subject: Re: 2.5.2 on a LCIII

Gregg Wagstaff - Lecturer in Sound, Time-based-arts, Duncan of
Jordanstone College of Art, University of Dundee, Scotland writes:

>I'm running 2.5.2 on a LCIII. I have a patch which on loading requires to
>read 192 PICT files (only v.small - no more than 2.2 Meg in total).
>Search paths are fine - however on loading MAX freezes whilst reading
>these PICTs and I have to reset. I have 5 Meg allocated to the
>application so I can't see that causing the problem. The patch in itself
>is only about 500k.
>The most PICTs I can read without freezing is 8 (!) and the patch then
>functions perfectly.
>Can you help ?
>p.s. What does the PICT size given in the MAX window relate to ?

It's not clear from the message which object Gregg is using to
read in the PICTs, but let's assume the worst case and say it's
the "pict" object. While a PICT file might be small, this is
no indication of the actual amount of memory used when it is read
in. PICTs in files are compressed, and a pict object stores a
bitmap for each one. In addition, if there is a large graphic
window, there will be a bitmap for that too. In addition, I have
a vague sense that there might be some bugs in the pict object
from 2.5.2. Gregg might seek out a more recent version. I believe
there's one on the IRCAM ftp site.

David Z.


Date:    Fri, 2 May 1997 06:00:03 -0400
From:    Ted Scalzo 
Subject: Re: MAX Digest - 30 Apr 1997 to 1 May 1997

I agree with Stephen Kay that we shouldn't gripe about the $15 bucks. At
time I am concerned with all Apple supporters. To stay with the platform is
gamble to say the least. The press has done a great diservice in regard to
this platform.
On another note does anyone know where I could get a heart rate sensor that
copulds plug into an I-cube to be used with Max?
Ted Scalzo@AOL.COM


Date:    Fri, 2 May 1997 07:38:30 -0400
From:    Keith Kothman 
Subject: Re: Charging for backup disks

While I agree that it costs money to support software, and that
companies have a right to charge for it, I also thing that there
should be some responsibility on the part of the company to
provide an authorization process that is NOT prone to
self-destruction.  Perhaps a warranty period would be
more appropriate.  My install disk corrupted in less than
six months.  I do not think Opcode is justified in charging for
a replacement for failures that occur that soon after purchase.

Keith Kothman                
Department of Theory & Composition
University of Miami School of Music                305.284.4338
                                              fax: 305.284.4448


Date:    Fri, 2 May 1997 08:11:18 -0700
From:    Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City 
Subject: Re: Venting Opcode Frustration

From:    David Zicarelli 
>Subject: Re: Venting Opcode Frustration
>I believe the new Vision/Studio Vision release uses the new
>version of Pace. We didn't use it on Max because it was in beta-test
>at the time 3.5 was released. Pace claims that the installs in the new
>version can survive low-level disk formatting, and that they have
>solved the problems with lost installs.
>Of course, if we switched Max over to the new version, we'd have
>to send out new key disks to everyone, which would apparently cost
>all of you $15.

Ugh indeed. My understanding is that the new Pace system was added to
MAX in the 3.5.1 update; is this incorrect?

Another question (please forgive me if this is slightly off topic, but
it does point to a ray of hope for MAXers tired of losing installs):
does anyone have any hard data, as opposed to supposition and rumour,
on the relative security and reliability of hardware-based vs.
software-based systems (i.e. dongles vs. authorizations)? I don't know
much about kracking, but it would seem to me that a dongle CP scheme
would provide more system reliability (less likelihood of failures, to
say nothing of the ability to back up one's apps) at the cost of
easier kracking (figure out what the app looks for in the dongle,
build it into the code, and you're done).

Opcode has never said anything at all even hinting that they might
consider going to dongles, at least not to me. But I can't help but be
curious about whether such a scheme would make life better or worse
for MAXers. It should be obvious that I bring to the topic the
fresh-faced naivete of someone who's never worked with dongles....


The technology does fascinate me.
But that doesn't mean I want it in my house.                  (n. rothwell)
Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA  15217-0675 USA
 =  --   --  800.924.ATOM  =
CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825


Date:    Fri, 2 May 1997 17:15:22 +0200
From:    "David K. Mason" 
Subject: seeking French speaker

I am seeking a French speaker would can help me
with some terminology in French.  If you can help,
please send me the French equivalents of these 23=20
some terms to my private email address below.
Many, many, many thanks in advance!!

MIDI device -=20
Note number -=20
Velocity value -=20
Channel number -=20
Preset number -=20
Preset name -=20
Program number -=20
Description -=20
Loading data... -=20
Saving data... -=20
Save data as... -=20
Load program -=20
Save program -=20
Program ready (as in "ready for use") -=20
Play (as in "play sequence") -=20
Stop (as in "stop playback") -=20
Default setting -=20
Synthesizer -=20
Sampler -=20
Measure (or bar) number -=20
Configure MIDI setup -=20
Volume range (as in "lowest and highest
volume values") -=20
Voice number -=20

Would others on the Max-list be interested it=20
such information?

Dave Mason


Date:    Fri, 2 May 1997 16:49:15 -0600

In reference to the very recent posting by Stephen Kay

> Perhaps you would prefer Opcode to be out of business, and all your
> software frozen at it's current level forever.

I feel obliged to perhaps try to clear up some unintential
misunderstanding I may have triggered by my posting after I read through
this forum that Opcode now charges for disk authorization.

Please be reminded again that I firmly believe in disk authorization.
However it is rather difficult to believe that Opcode is in such
financial dire straights that demanding 15 bucks from the customer to
protect the Opcode software will save the Opcode enterprise.
Furthermore it is not my fault that Opcode has delved into  new unproven
(oh now I understand the reference to Apple) computer wizardry to
protect not only my investment but also their investment. What about the
business that created this new authorization where is their obligation
to provide a reliable product to all concerned?  However as I clearly
stated in my comments if Opcode demands the 15 bucks I will/must for
sure cough up because after purchasing the software what choice do you
have to keep it alive. On the other hand Opcode must also recognize that
its success is aided by the end users/customers passing on the a good
recommendation which I always have done and will continue to so do
because it is a great software. At this time if I may, I strongly
suggest that Opcode should forewarn/advice all its new customers
regarding their new policy or just jack up the price of the product and
include the additional authorizations for Free.  What a novel idea!
When Opcode or any other busine$$ makes a  retroactive rule I find that
to be an unethical business practice even though we do have Billy Gates
leading the way in the unethical department. Besides I always thought
that only government powers can invoke retroactive rules.

However with all due respect to all at this Max forum I will try try try
and refrain from injecting common sense aimed at those Opcode CEO types.

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada


End of MAX Digest - 1 May 1997 to 2 May 1997