ORIGINAL: John

Thanks for taking the time to do this John. But, just to be clear, did you just compare CPU readings in Sonar with/without Aero or did you actually start moving windows around? Don't pay too much attention on CPU readings and just try to make the audio glitch by moving plugin windows around from monitor to monitor. But you first need to open as many Multiband Compressors as the system can handle without glitching. Is this what you did? Did it glitch more with Aeron ON or OFF?

I didn't do any of that. I just did a quick test of the project to compare the reading in Task Manager. All things were the same except Aero being on or not. I have 4 cores and I found it hard to read a % of total usage in Sonar. That was all I was testing.

and this is exactly why i have a hard time with you debating me on anything...

i and others scientifically benchmark stuff, where you do well i'm not sure what you do
and yet you'll debate until your blue in the face.

ORIGINAL: jcschild

ORIGINAL: John

Thanks for taking the time to do this John. But, just to be clear, did you just compare CPU readings in Sonar with/without Aero or did you actually start moving windows around? Don't pay too much attention on CPU readings and just try to make the audio glitch by moving plugin windows around from monitor to monitor. But you first need to open as many Multiband Compressors as the system can handle without glitching. Is this what you did? Did it glitch more with Aeron ON or OFF?

I didn't do any of that. I just did a quick test of the project to compare the reading in Task Manager. All things were the same except Aero being on or not. I have 4 cores and I found it hard to read a % of total usage in Sonar. That was all I was testing.

and this is exactly why i have a hard time with you debating me on anything...

i and others scientifically benchmark stuff, where you do well i'm not sure what you do
and yet you'll debate until your blue in the face.

Oh, Jesus... first Jeraz and now you? Who let you in the door anyway? Has Cubase.net finally crumbled into dust?

ROFLMAO... it'll take you awhile, Scott... or maybe it won't.

I'm sorry, let me clarify. I recognized him from Cubase.net and was just having a little fun at his expense. I was just surprised to see him on this board.

Scott has been here a long time and is well respected. You may know him as a maker of computers. He has a great knowledge of things hardware related. We unfortunately disagree on a some points dealing with Vista.

ORIGINAL: John

Scott has been here a long time and is well respected. You may know him as a maker of computers. He has a great knowledge of things hardware related. We unfortunately disagree on a some points dealing with Vista.

Bows gracefully to the might John and says humbly

thank you!

i care John because you make statements like you do without any substantiation and then attempt to defend them to the end

Sonar works better with Aero on!
OK.. prove it.

if you follow Jose's benchmarks recommendation to the letter you may find you were incorrect.
i personally have always left it on with my systems but i am absurdly overpowered.
and really its a matter of personal choice.
however when we ship systems with Vista they look more like Win 2k than Vista. we strip alot of crap outta there...

so my point is if you are going to pontificate about Vista at least be prepared with some facts based on tests rather than it just feels faster.

95% of the time you give great advice , but when you get on the vista flag waving, sanity seems to leave

peace

I did and I did what Jose asked me to do if you bothered to read further down. I do back up what I say with documents and articles. I don't see how I can do any thing more. If you will not except what those documents say then you place me in a position of simply saying it is so. If you don't agree with those documents please say why or don't say anything.
I was testing CPU usage in the first test as I also did in the second. There was nothing wrong in the way I did it or the procedure I used. If you see flaws please let me know what they are. Attacking me for disagreeing with you is silly.

OK, hold on one second here!

Scott, are you saying that Aero does not improve Sonar's performance? I just wanna know because, if so, then I won't need to replace my video adapter (at least not for this reason).

Thanks in advanced!

ORIGINAL: John

I don't think its the drivers Jose. I do think 256 MB is not enough graphics ram for a dual monitors and high res in Aero. Sorry.

I was under the impression (though it may not apply to Vista) that graphics cards with large memory utilised more system memory & that as Sonar didnt "require" much video memory you were better off, free memory wise, with smaller memory on the video card. I certainly noticed a sizeable chunk of extra free memory when swapping from 2x512MB PCIe cards to 2x256MB - in XP.

Does anyone know if this applies to Vista? And, if so, is there an Aero/more video memory performance gain that might trade off the reduced free sysem memory?

Here's a handy/dandy tool for monitoring video card resources - RivaTuner http://downloads.guru3d.com/RivaTuner-v2.09-download-163.html (mainly NVidia chips only). Though I'd stay away from the GPU tweaking parts of it - a bit scary complex. It shows Sonar only using minimal graphics memory under XP - is Vista with or without Aero different?

Sorry for dragging XP into the thread - just trying to collect info for the inevitable move to Vista or later.

I was under the impression (though it may not apply to Vista) that graphics cards with large memory utilised more system memory & that as Sonar didnt "require" much video memory

This was true with XP that is the low mem needed for Sonar. Vista with the Aero desktop is in full 3D graphics mode. Not the 2D graphics of XP. It needs the added memory of the graphics card. Now as to using memory with more graphics memory that is new to me. You do have a portal that is reserved in the BIOS for graphics but this is the first time that I have heard system memory is used for this. But it could be true. The page has to go via some route. It makes sense that it would take some system mem to prepare the page to be sent to the graphics card. But this is a frame rate issue in Vista not so in XP. What I think we are loosing track of here is that if you look at a game for eaample Flight Simulator its a 3D game with all the calls to these renderings sent directly to GPU. The greater the processing power of that card the faster the frame rate is. Now some think that a frame rate of 24 30 FPS is good enough. Well it isn't. You need much higher frame rates in the 100 FPS range to get the supper quick response needed to play the game well. This needs heavy duty graphics power. Vista is tapping into this power to draw the desktop. This was never done with XP or any other OS. Now if the desktop is not being created by the CPU it makes it very clear that the CPU is free to do what it does very well and that is calculating not updating the GUI.

Gswitz you may not know this but I needed that. I really thank you for saying that.

No prob. I meant it with sincerity.

BTW, I have no Microsoft Certifications. I am a programmer and am comfortable using .Net languages. I work for UPS Freight and write PL/SQL for Oracle (on Unix) much of my time (although I was debugging a .Net app today). My point is that I do not owe anything to Microsoft or have any hidden allegiance to them. I am not striving for a Microsoft MVP. I do work in an IS Dept of 150 and I have been involved in many different areas of the department. My expertise is mostly useless to this user group, but I thought I might share my background as a show of good faith.

My digital recording history is weak. I got a Akai DPS12 in 1999 and a Tascam 2488 in 2004. I still use the Tascam for recording (it's not bright and very quiet) and I move the 24 bit wavs to the laptop for mixing with Sonar 8. I do not own an interface, but I can record a single track direct to the laptop and sometimes do for practicing.

The neat thing is that I have on affiliation with MS either. I am a user of things MS and that is it. Years ago I did some programing in Fortran and C not C++. But that was never my thing. But I will give the devil his due when he deserves it, In this case MS has a winner and it bothers me that we get the bashing of it when it does not deserves it. This thread started because Jose and I were discussing this in another thread. I felt we should be in our own thread and this was the result. It is meant to inform and dispel some nasty rumors and myths that seem to follow Vista wherever it goes.

I know when I first was thinking about Vista I had a lot of concern. It was based on what was said about it here and in other places. I did figure out with some difficulty that that there were plenty that knew their stuff that had no problem with Vista. When CJ said he had it and it was working well for him and then Noel here gave a sort of endorsement to it I did feel I could try it and see. I was amazed by it. I wrote a thread outlining how it went for me and what I had found.

Now I will say I was building a new computer and I did my homework in being sure all the components would be Vista ready. That was a major reason I had no problems in installing it or running it. I did not use cheap stuff or stuff that was not well tested and well known.

The reason I am doing all this is to inform my fellow Sonar users what I have found out to be the truth about Vista. That is my only motivation and that is why I am here anyway in this thread.

Hey guys,

Interesting thread and I thought I'd chime in with some personal experience.

I have found that systems, specifically motherboards, that are not designed for Vista will not perform well with Aero or SONAR at low latency. What I mean is motherboards which were designed before Vista was released and XP was standard. So I think if you planto use Vista do it with hardware that was designed to run it.

Also, in regards to Jose's specific Aero issues ... be aware that the higher resolution you run Windows the more GPU memory it will consume. If you have 256megs of RAM on your GPU then I doubt that is enough for two screens at high resolution. I would be curious to see the results of your tests with and without Aero at a low screen resolution, or at the high screen res but with a 512meg or higher video card.

Well, I haven't built a new rig in a couple of years. It would be nice if someone could start a thread, or even a sticky, with a list of components that play well and are optimized for Vista. Easy enough to Google I suppose, but I would rather hear from people who are using it with/for Sonar and not for gaming or home/work computing. This would go a long way in easing some of the concerns people(myself included)have and make the transition to Vista a lot more appealing. Yes, I love XP... but once upon a time I liked Win98 too. You gotta move on at some point...oh Mojave

Well, I was just on Newegg and put a list together. Give me a second and all start a new hardware/Vista thread. I would appreciate your thoughts and suggestions on the config I'm choosing... as well as anybody else who is using Sonar with Vista.

ORIGINAL: Jose7822

OK, hold on one second here!

Scott, are you saying that Aero does not improve Sonar's performance? I just wanna know because, if so, then I won't need to replace my video adapter (at least not for this reason).

Thanks in advanced!

i do not know how or if we have ever tested that. i would have to check with my guys on monday (or maybe hard2hear will post over the weekend)

as i said i dont turn mine off.

so without facts i wont comment.. must be a reason we tweak vista to look like Win 2k.