Though DP8 is a reliable workhorse, moments after DP9’s launch, an internal dialogue assured me I would not be returning to Version 8 anymore. In the rare case the upgrade does not match anticipation or has technical issues that need resolution, simply launch a prior version and continue working. It’s good to note that with DP, it's not necessary to un-install prior versions before installation or upgrading. The installation of DP9 was also effortless, taking less than :90 to complete. While this experiment was hardly scientific, I’d say there was about a 10 to 15 percent performance increase across the board for all commands, even with identical buffer settings. It appeared that DP9 used a touch less RAM with a touch more CPU draw. Digital Performer 11 bdzie oferowa midzy innymi natywne wsparcie dla architektury Silicon CPU firmy Apple (bez koniecznoci uywania Rosetta 2) oraz systemu operacyjnego MacOS Big Sur, a take pen kompatybilno z protokoem MPE, zmodernizowany sampler oraz ogólnie ulepszony interfejs uytkownika. After opening the same massive session in both DP8 and DP9, I examined the Mac System Profiler, as well as the CPU graphical display in both DP sessions. This discovery prompted me to compare the two just to make sure I was not imagining things. Sessions opened quickly and responded with enthusiasm. Some of these things cause creative blocks, require tedious workarounds or simply aren’t cool. Upon first launch, the difference was immediate. There’s quite a few things that I would like improved and features that I feel are blatantly missing compared to the competition.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |