final cut pro 4 for windows...?

valssj4 · Post by **valssj4** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:38 pm

does exist a manner(or the program itself)to convert final cut pro 4 for windows an not only for mac?

post-it · Post by **post-it** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 8:41 pm

yes; convert ti Binary file, then re-assemble in Delphi ^^

but I wouldn't want to be the one to do it!!!!

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 12:08 am

post-it wrote:yes; convert ti Binary file, then re-assemble in Delphi ^^

but I wouldn't want to be the one to do it!!!!

Uh, no. The executable format is different; the underlying API to the OS is different; the instruction set is different; just about everything is different.

Theoretically, you COULD go through the file word-by-word and convert each instruction. But that's theory, not practicality.

Seriously, post-it, if you don't know what you're talking about, just don't say anything. Incorrect help is worse than no help at all.

--

FCP4 won't ever run on a Windows machine unless

(1) Apple releases the ENTIRETY of the source code, and some enterprising hackers get ahold of it and write wrapper objects for what would amount to Cocoa (or Carbon) and a ton of OS X multimedia extensions. Not likely.

(2) The day comes when PowerPC emulators can actually emulate the G4/G5 hardware well enough to run OS X AND the OS X multimedia framework AND Final Cut Pro 4 with acceptable performance. Not likely.

(3) Someone actually does the procedure I described above. Not likely at all.

--

post-it · Post by **post-it** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:23 am

"But that's theory, not practicality."

Why is it you shoot down possibilities?

I did not say its out of the question, as you have;
-I just said the truth ( I wouldn't want to do it. )

Agreed, C++ is out of the question and most Visual Software would not understand
the API and SDK's which framed it - but its not out of the question.

traxx

PS . . there are OSX Emulators out there; I didn't say that because its shareware
and against Phade's new rules.

EOL

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:50 am

post-it wrote:"But that's theory, not practicality."

Why is it you shoot down possibilities?

I did not say its out of the question, as you have;
-I just said the truth ( I wouldn't want to do it. )

Rubbish -- it's entirely out of the question. Just because something is THEORETICALLY possible does not put a task into the realm of possibility.

Cracking 4096-bit public key encryption is THEORETICALLY possible. Unfortunately the only algorithms we have to crack such encryption schemes run in exponential time.

Assuming nobody finds a better algorithm, the universe will probably collapse or die a frozen death before you can crack that thing. So, well, yeah, it's THEORETICALLY possible, but practically? Heck no.

Translating the OS X binary of FCP to a Win32 PE would be a similarly gargantuan task. First you'd have to translate the thing instruction-by-instruction, since FCP will be drawing on all sorts of Macintosh extensions like Altivec. Then, since you'd only have opcodes, register, and memory addresses, you'd have to find what all those addresses map to -- i.e. what happens when you load this value into this register and then make a syscall? What routine is called? What parameters does it take?

Having found that out you'd have to find or develop wrappers for the appropriate OS X libraries. Such wrappers would involve a lot of mapping to Microsoft libraries. However, this still isn't an easy task, because you'd have to

(1) reconstruct said libraries purely based on the way that FCP uses the libraries, which is sheer hell;
(2) use the ADC, which (although pretty good) doesn't make the task any less daunting; or
(3) buy a Macintosh to see how things work, in which case you might as well just run FCP on that machine.

When you FINALLY get done with all that, you get to see if what you did even works.

Oh, by the way, you would also have to contend with lawsuits from Apple, since you're committing copyright infringiment (unauthorized derivative works).

Conclusion:

Not feasible.

But that's a native application. Let us say that you just want to emulate the OS X platform.

You say that OS X emulators exist. How complete are they? How fast are they? If they're slow and incomplete, then there's not much of case to use them.

schrizo · Post by **schrizo** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 10:54 am

I agree that Final Cut Pro 4 will never run on a PC. Get a Mac. Mac's are better than PC's in so many ways that it is really worth it.

valssj4 · Post by **valssj4** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:07 am

ok thanks for the help ^^

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:31 am

schrizo wrote:I agree that Final Cut Pro 4 will never run on a PC. Get a Mac. Mac's are better than PC's in so many ways that it is really worth it.

Get a PC. PC's are better than Mac's in so many ways that it is really worth is

The pendelum swings both ways on the Mac/PC issue.

Nightowl · Post by **Nightowl** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 3:44 pm

Get a Pac. Pacs are better than PCs AND Macs in so many ways that it is really worth it. It's a computer from the future that combines both Windows based machines and a Macintosh into one system. And it has a nifty cupholder.

And it's shaped like Pac Man.

-N

milatchi · Post by **milatchi** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:12 pm

post-it wrote: PS . . there are OSX Emulators out there

Bullshit, lol. Show me a working MacOS X emulator for the x86. Don't say XDarwin/XFree86 that's not an emulator: that's a port of the BSD subsytem used by MacOS X.
Anyway Apple are the only people that have Marklar (MacOS X for the x86) and they aren't going to release it unless the company should go belly-up, which isn't out to happen.