The 32bit legacy - Bitbridge or jBridge?

I use jBridge more than Bitbridge. Mainly I use it for Drumagog and the Korg Legacy collection. In particular the Legacy Cell was very problematic for me under Bitbridge. Drumagog was a little finicky as well, but jBridge fixed that. The other reason I use it more is that I was always getting "Telesport Server" errors with Bitbridge, either in SONAR itself, or when trying to close it down. jBridge is very inexpensive, works nicely and seems more stable to me.

No need to use dual boot. Simply install both the 32 and 4 bit versions in their respective folders (32 bit in the program files (x86))

You can then simply switch between them at will...

I did this for a while but I've abandoned most 32 bit devices by now. Actually, I use PC modules for almost everything. 

Keni

I personally prefer jbridge. The interface is a little easier to use and it doesn't insist on staying on top all the while.

Good question, never used X-Ray, it never played nice with my Waves stuff so I gave up on it way back in 2007. jBridge does have an issue with the GIUs of certain plug-ins when minimized but they provide a check box to over ride that issue.

For the record and later forum searches:

jBridge installation fixed my problems with crashes due to 32 bit soft synths. 15€ cure for serious headache!

I use it now for all of the IK soft synths, but failed to apply in general i.e. to all of my remaining 32 bit tools.

The following synth / FX had to stay with BitBridge (but all now set to load into different bitbridge servers which seems to help):
VC64 does not work with jBridge (error message).
Fantom and ARX module behave strange and get stuck when jBridged.
Cakewalk Sound Centre gives error at shut-down.
Amped SVX didn't output any sound when jBridged.

x-ray works with jBridge although you need to tick the force refresh GUI option for some plug-in otherwise GUI gets empty ...

I use jBridge exclusively. It seems to keep a degree of stability  in SONAR not present when using Bitbridge or both.

Because I also use Presonus Studio One 2 and it doesn't have internal bridging, jBridge does universal duty in my 64 bit world.
no real evidence for that statement except it seems so with my own system.

Heroics


why ? A good programmed "Tool "would not make problems ...imagine stuf flike this WOULD be in aircraft ?
starting to  get my point ?
FLAWLESS software --is possible ...with alot of work only though
 
 
can you do it also ? I realy use alot of plugs ,and they all should work in sonar 64bit
  But anyways ....good to read ....I now know what the issues are in X2 on my system ; P
 

Just a couple of thoughts to add...


- If it were developed for use on an aircraft it would be a LOT more expensive.  It would be developed under very controlled processes and practices and undergo extensive testing.  You won't find this level of development/testing rigor in a consumer product.  It is way too expensive and takes way too long.  The marketplace has determined what is acceptable.  This is not a bad thing.  If a DAW were developed under the same rigorous controlled conditions as that for the aircraft (medical, military, ...)  industry it would be outrageously expensive and I doubt that many of us on this forum would have a copy.  Again, the marketplace has determined what is acceptable.  It is a balancing act.  Too expensive = it won't sell.  Too buggy = it won't sell.  There are companies that go broke with either scenario. 


- Keep in mind that even with all of the controls and rigorous testing of NASA software there have still been several notable and extremely expensive software bugs.  I am quite sure no expense was spared during the development and testing phases but there were still problems.  When dealing with complex systems it is extremely difficult to guarantee that there are no errors.  Development tools and processes have improved tremendously over the years.  For a simple system the tools/processes can guarantee no errors.  Unfortunately for the complex systems (such as a DAW)  that complexity makes it virtually impossible to deliver a 100% bug-free product .  It has however made it possible to develop reasonably bug free products that can be sold at a reasonably inexpensive price that even a hobbyist can afford.


I don't want to start another endless debate over the possibility of creating bug-free software.  I have never shared my thoughts on this in a forum before but thought I would chime in this time.  Not to say anyone else is wrong but only to share my personal experience of almost 30 years of experience in software/hardware development.


We live a wonderful time for consumer toys.  New software and devices that are inexpensive and fun (and sometimes when we are lucky even incredibly useful) are showing up at a rapid pace.  The marketplace will determine when things need to slow down a bit and there needs to be an increased emphasis on quality.  We see signs of that everytime there is a fumble by Apple with a new iPhone release or there is a huge recall.  My 2012 Nissan Quest just had a recall to have new software loaded due to a bug where it would stop running under a certain set of conditions.  Just a software bug.  But it got through the development and testing processes.


Don