ORIGINAL: jcschild

ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob



Maybe you guys can scrape together some change and buy some RAM then you could run Vista like the Pro's do.

1/2 a gig difference???? When you could run 4-8 gigs in Vista? Overall ram difference in Vista could be 5500 megs+

2 gigs of 800 DDR2 is less that $100.00 we spend more than that in webhosting.

i think you missed the point there smart guy

at least until 64 bit and audio is a reality and i can stuff 8-32g ram in there and actually use it

i have 8 gig in my Vista 64 box that does not mean anything can actually use it. (Pro Audio software) with the exception of VSL.
would all owners of VSL please give me a show of hands......
yeah thats what i thought @ $10k a copy it wont be many in this forum, maybe Northern Sounds.

i have 16Gig in my demo Xeon NLE/animation system. i actually do have a few programs that can access it.

So let me see if I've got this straight:

You won't use Vista because it uses more RAM than you want it to, but you can't actually find a use for 8 gigs of RAM with the exception of VSL and some animation proggys?

"i have 8 gig in my Vista 64 box that does not mean anything can actually use it. (Pro Audio software) "...

Sonar is 64bit by the way, and again it is a "Pro Audio Software" application...maybe you've heard of it.

Again your definition of "Pro" seems quite insulting.

ORIGINAL: AndyW

I'll take Scott and Jim's word over just about anyone in this forum anyday.

It's a mistake to take ANYBODY blindly at their word. They may be very knowledgeable and experienced, but obviously (though they may disagree ) they don't know everything. Nobody does. Knowledge is a never ending journey. And to put down people that have been using Vista professionally in the insulting way they do/have proves that they don't know everything. Do you agree with the insulting and condescending attitude too?

ORIGINAL: AndyW

ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob

So let me see if I've got this straight:

You won't use Vista because it uses more RAM than you want it to, but you can't actually find a use for 8 gigs of RAM with the exception of VSL and some animation proggys?

"i have 8 gig in my Vista 64 box that does not mean anything can actually use it. (Pro Audio software) "...

Sonar is 64bit by the way, and again it is a "Pro Audio Software" application...maybe you've heard of it.

Again your definition of "Pro" seems quite insulting.

You know, I don't normally "carry other people's water" but Scott is a valued contributor to this forum who MAKES AND SELLS DAWS AND ASSOCIATED HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE FOR A LIVING. He gets to test *EVERYTHING*. Do you have the same qualifications? His points are valid:

1. 32 bit OS's are limited to 4GB(Vista or XP). This seems to be something you are not "getting"(maybe I am misunderstanding you)
2. Using a 64 bit OS in a DAW severely limits your choices of plugins, soundcards, etc because there isn't much ported to it yet. "Complete"(ie: OS and SONAR) 64 bit computing is essentially pointless for a DAW unless you fit yourself into some pretty tight contraints and pick a soundcard that has working 64bit drivers. Couple this with the fact that the 64bit engine can be used in the 32bit realm makes going to "Complete" 64bit computing pointless in almost every case.
3. Vista(64 or 32 bit) has been shown to have poorer performance in low latency situations(until recently evidently) but still consumes a lot more resources and has higher system latency than XP.

Do what you want...but his points don't come from a position of arrogance...they come from a position of *experience*. I'll take Scott and Jim's word over just about anyone in this forum anyday.

Thats fine follow them all you want.

My original response to scott was his suggestion that "pro's" dont use Vista.

Then he makes another statement about no "pro audio" software...

I don't care if he makes gold bricks for a living and gives them away, both comments about "pro" come from someone who apparently spends more time selling stuff than he does recording for labels.

I have watched both Jim and Scott make negative comments about Vista, Jim apparently is re-investigating Vista's current condition.

Frankly I don't give that much attention to "experts" since I have had more success on my own than an entire teams of techs from, WAVES, iLok, Tascam, and Microsoft, especially if those are "soft" rather than "hard" opinions.

In this case I find Scott should probably have followed his own advice and stayed out of the thread.

And for the record I have been on Cakewalk since 9 and have built all my DAWs since 1999, and have beta tested for Microsoft since NT4 so I'm not a newbie when it comes to making software and hardware play nice in a recording studio, I know exactly what Scott meant and I also know what he said.

I have no idea what you mean by "tight constraints" as far as sound cards go, there are quite a few quality vendors out there, and having settled on Lynx in a PRO environment I have found there are no real reasons not to use 64bit Vista on 64 bit Sonar or even 32 bit sonar in 64Vista.

So far the bands and the labels we are connected to love what we do in Vista and Sonar, but my hope is someday to be "pro" and sell daws instead of record if you get my drift.

ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob

Thats fine follow them all you want.

My original response to scott was his suggestion that "pro's" dont use Vista.

I can see that...it all depends on your definition of "Pro" I suppose. This issue isn't "Can Vista be used in a specific set of circumstances with certain use cases that are successful in a pro studio?". It is "Is Vista the most hassle-free, highest-performance, most-compatible choice for a pro studio?" I believe the "Pro" opts for looking at question 2 as the correct question to ask.

I have watched both Jim and Scott make negative comments about Vista, Jim apparently is re-investigating Vista's current condition.

I have seen a LOT of people say negative things about Vista.

And for the record I have been on Cakewalk since 9 and have built all my DAWs since 1999, and have beta tested for Microsoft since NT4 so I'm not a newbie when it comes to making software and hardware play nice in a recording studio, I know exactly what Scott meant and I also know what he said.

I've been here since CWPA 7 but who needs to quibble...

I have no idea what you mean by "tight constraints" as far as sound cards go, there are quite a few quality vendors out there, and having settled on Lynx in a PRO environment I have found there are no real reasons not to use 64bit Vista on 64 bit Sonar or even 32 bit sonar in 64Vista.

A simple listing of the list of equipment with 64 bit drivers vs 32 bit drivers would illustrate. So would a list of vst's and other plugs that don't work(or don't work well) in the 64bit environment. 64bit Vista is definitely not the most compatible environment.

So far the bands and the labels we are connected to love what we do in Vista and Sonar, but my hope is someday to be "pro" and sell daws instead of record if you get my drift.

I think you are chosing to take offense vice any offense actually occuring...just my perspective. The data supports that your pro studio would have higher performance if you were on XP...it is as simple as that.

ORIGINAL: AndyW


This reminds me of back when VIA chipsets were causing all kinds of problems for SONAR users. Jim strongly recommended against VIA chipsets IIRC...problem was, I had already purchased a MB with a VIA chipset and for my use cases...I didn't have any issues....I was lukcy but I certainly didn't challenge the data Jim was posting or the myriad others who had issues with VIA chipsets because my *specific case* was working.

enough said.

I'll just add one last thing. Vista's 'overhead' or 'latency' or it's evil domination of the world (note no quotes on that one ) , have nothing to do with being able to produce professional results or being a professional.

ORIGINAL: Modulation

ORIGINAL: AndyW


This reminds me of back when VIA chipsets were causing all kinds of problems for SONAR users. Jim strongly recommended against VIA chipsets IIRC...problem was, I had already purchased a MB with a VIA chipset and for my use cases...I didn't have any issues....I was lukcy but I certainly didn't challenge the data Jim was posting or the myriad others who had issues with VIA chipsets because my *specific case* was working.

enough said.

I'll just add one last thing. Vista's 'overhead' or 'latency' or it's evil domination of the world (note no quotes on that one ) , have nothing to do with being able to produce professional results or being a professional.

I suppose I can agree with that....by most definitions I am not a "professional" anyway...well...at least for music stuff...

ORIGINAL: AndyW

ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob

So let me see if I've got this straight:

You won't use Vista because it uses more RAM than you want it to, but you can't actually find a use for 8 gigs of RAM with the exception of VSL and some animation proggys?

"i have 8 gig in my Vista 64 box that does not mean anything can actually use it. (Pro Audio software) "...

Sonar is 64bit by the way, and again it is a "Pro Audio Software" application...maybe you've heard of it.

Again your definition of "Pro" seems quite insulting.

You know, I don't normally "carry other people's water" but Scott is a valued contributor to this forum who MAKES AND SELLS DAWS AND ASSOCIATED HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE FOR A LIVING. He gets to test *EVERYTHING*. Do you have the same qualifications? His points are valid:

1. 32 bit OS's are limited to 4GB(Vista or XP). This seems to be something you are not "getting"(maybe I am misunderstanding you)
2. Using a 64 bit OS in a DAW severely limits your choices of plugins, soundcards, etc because there isn't much ported to it yet. "Complete"(ie: OS and SONAR) 64 bit computing is essentially pointless for a DAW unless you fit yourself into some pretty tight contraints and pick a soundcard that has working 64bit drivers. Couple this with the fact that the 64bit engine can be used in the 32bit realm makes going to "Complete" 64bit computing pointless in almost every case.
3. Vista(64 or 32 bit) has been shown to have poorer performance in low latency situations(until recently evidently) but still consumes a lot more resources and has higher system latency than XP.

Do what you want...but his points don't come from a position of arrogance...they come from a position of *experience*. I'll take Scott and Jim's word over just about anyone in this forum anyday.

+1

These guys know what they're talking about!

cheers,
Chris

Sure glad I didn't happen upon this thread while the pissing contest

was in full swing, its the shoes, my new shoes ... walks away

carefully

          (}    (}    (}  (}    (}    (} 
              (}    (}   (}   (}    (}   (}

Man, you really are not getting it are you? Everything I've ever defended in Vista or what you are in deed WRONG about has NOTHING to do with latency or any of the things you are clinging to. My point (AGGGGGGAIN) is that it simply does not matter as much as you make it out to. AGAIN, if you use a hardware mixer (most pro's and pro studio's do). AGAIN, if you have a high quality sound card with direct monitoring (I can't imagine a pro that does not).

You and the others like you are WRONG in stating that Vista can't be used professionally or by professional. A pro could use windows 98 and 400 mhz cpu. That is what I've been saying. And this is where you and the others have been wrong, wrong, wrong. And insulting to boot. And for the record (as I've said many, many times), I do record live vocals and instruments directly into my DAW and also monitor with fx (through my DAW). In real time. At low latency. I just said I don't do Hans Zimmer 100 tracks at once. I also play soft synths and e-drums triggering samples. Low latency IS very important to me. I've been doing that since win 98 and now with Vista for the last few months. And latency has not been an issue for me AT ALL (and believe me, I would notice).

My only contention with you guys is that you keep/kept claiming that Vista could not be used by pro's. This assertion is completely FALSE and WRONG. And the way you and the others have gone about it has been insulting and condescending.


You have proven, to me at least, that your level of expertise is questionable. I could build a DAW that is just as good as anything you could. Am I an expert now too? All I have to do is buy the same off the shelf parts that you use. It's not rocket science. It's kind of like legos. And installing the drivers and software and tweaking a DAW is no major mystery either.
And before you tell me of the thousands you have built...building a computer is so easy. If you've done it a few times, you are an expert too. I mean how many times do you need to plug in a microphone to be be a expert at it?

Now, with all that out, have a great night and keep doing whatever you do.

I really have nothing further to say on this subject.


BTW- Girls go out with me because of ME. Not my car. And my DAW is no moped. If anything, your analogy is also flawed. Vista would be the beautiful, comfy Cadillac. XP would be the more economical Toyota.

All you guys need to watch this.
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&PostID=145665#145665&d=0

Im not sure how Vista can have high system latency when it uses less components in the audio stack.
I think Vista is just made to perform better with Wave RT drivers than WDM or ASIO.

ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry

Im not sure how Vista can have high system latency when it uses less components in the audio stack.
I think Vista is just made to perform better with Wave RT drivers than WDM or ASIO.

Hi ST,

System latency with audio latency are two different things.
Here's a link to read a bit about system latency... and a tool to measure it:
http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml

Hi Jim,

So do we really have to worry about system latency if audio latency performs well?
and what is system latency exactly?

Hi Jim,

So do we really have to worry about system latency if audio latency performs well?
and what is system latency exactly?

My point is this...
High system latency is a negative in regards to any realtime application. It makes the system more prone to drop-outs/glitches/etc. (for the reason Chris mentioned above)
MMCSS is a means by which Vista circumvents the problem of higher system latency.
Until v7.02, there was a problem with ultra low latency performance under Vista.
I suspect this is related to MMCSS
Now that you can successfully circumvent the underlying problem (new developement as of 7.02), it's certainly much less of a factor.
However, what happens if you want to run an app that doesn't use MMCSS?
If Vista had the same (low) system latency as WinXP, this would all be a moot point. All low-latency problems would be gone...
You wouldn't need MMCSS (WinXP runs great without it).
Doesn't it make more sense to solve the problem at the source... than to provide workaround (band-aid) type solutions?

BTW- Girls go out with me because of ME.

Glad to hear it, and I would hope so!

So if I've got this straight, you're RIGHT and Jim is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, correct?

-Susan

My resume/reputation speaks for itself.
The day you've built not 10 or 20 DAWs... but rather far into 4 figures... and you've maintained a sterling reputation for 14+ years in the business...
then you come challange my level of knowledge/expertise.
Until then, you're simply some unknown "pro" who doesn't want to hear that his new toy isn't the best choice for the job.


As I said before...
P-L-O-N-K

You can see from the above that the 2.8 ASIO4ALL Driver does NOT introduce any additional latency - if it did, why are the results for the WDM over-layed with the ASIO part of the ASIO4ALL driver [Result B ] not lower ?

The only result that is any different or lower is Result E - are people actually saying / thinking that the 2.8 ASIO4ALL Driver only introduces latency when running in WaveRT over-lay mode ? I really doubt - I get the feeling the ASIO4ALL developer is a lot more thorough than that.

Hi Tom...

Email me if you need the CEntrance round-trip latency measurement tool.
Makes it quick/easy to measure the round-trip latency.

The standard ASIO-4-ALL driver does add latency
The CEntrance tool shows roundtrip latency of:
ASIO-4-ALL - RTL= 9.68ms (64-sample buffer/44.1k)
Stock MOTU ASIO - RTL = 5.51ms (64-sample buffer/44.1k)