Is it possible to install both macOS x64 and macOS ARM64 versions on the same machine at the same time? And if so, how?
There are a few reasons I would like to do this
- Compare the performance of the two versions. I’m especially interested to see if the ARM64 can support larger patches, given that x64 only supports a single thread.
- I want to begin exploring the ARM64 version, but not all plugins are available yet, and I want to be able to continue access to my old patches that use plugins that have not yet been compiled for ARM64.
If you install rack free and rename it it works
For a while I have been rack free arm and rack pro x86 and that worked well for me too. Once Andy’s cf100 and entrain are in the library though I will move pro to arm
The only thing a bit funky is the apps have the same bundle id so double click gestures in finder are a bit luck of the draw
Rename the executable? a folder? …
And then I suppose you must set up different user folders as well?
The folders differentiate plugins by arch
And yeah just rename the app
easy, just append x64 and arm64 to the binaries and be done, user folder is same, plugins are in separate folders (installer takes care of that) I have both running fine
The 240 sdk does this for you also
Thanks @baconpaul and @fractalgee
I renamed the binary and all works perfectly as you said. Very easy.
What about the AU and VST plugins in Rack Pro? I don’t think it’s as simple as renaming with plugins?
depends a bit on host… hosts should not care about filename, rather pluginId
Id suspect hosts that supports both architecture may well have an issue loading two plugins with same pluginId from different files (though they’d support it from a universal binary)
but if your host is running host arm OR intel (rosetta) exclusively it may work, as it’ll fail to load the other architecture anyway. but ymmv depending on host.
I hope that a future version of VCV will support universal binaries (standalone, plugin and module), this makes life quite a bit simpler for end users.
as for OP, I really do thing the VCV library needs to incorporate ‘architecture’ support as a primary attribute - so users only see modules in the library they can actually use.
I get the ideal is all modules are cross compiled for everything, and over time Im sure this will happen (to some extent), but there are always going to be some modules that are unavailable for various reasons.
I get its tricky to ‘retro fit’, but even if defaulted incorrectly, at least going forward things would improve.