Windows 8 Support by Sonar X2

Does Sonar X2 work with Windows 8?  There is an asterisk on the System Requirements that says it will be coming in a patch later this year.  So I really can't upgrade my DAW to Windows 8?  I remember reading a blog post about Sonar X1 working pretty well with Windows 8, so what doesn't work in X2 prior to the forthcoming patch?

And when will the patch arrive?  I've been running Windows 8 RTM for over a month.

Thanks,
Ryan

Upgraded to Win 8 and X2 and everyone plays nicely.   Haven't had the time to test all my synths, but all my spectrasonic stuff, DMG, and BFD stuff works, emulator X3, mashcine, & recycle seem to be fine as well.....I do need to test Diva, but I think that will be ok too.  Win 8 is awesome.......Its Win 7 but sleeker.

I wouldn't run it on anything else. LOL I really love Win 8. X2 feels very much at home.

FWIW, I find performance to be about the same as running X2 under Win7.  No dramatic increase/decrease

That said, there are many potential issues that could crop up... because Win8 was just released.
For the platform to be absolutely rock-solid, you'd (ideally) wait for BIOS updates, driver updates for the motherboard's core components, firmware and driver updates for audio specific hardware, and updates to the OS itself.

Jim Roseberry

I wouldn't run it on anything else. LOL I really love Win 8. X2 feels very much at home.

FWIW, I find performance to be about the same as running X2 under Win7.  No dramatic increase/decrease

That said, there are many potential issues that could crop up... because Win8 was just released.
For the platform to be absolutely rock-solid, you'd (ideally) wait for BIOS updates, driver updates for the motherboard's core components, firmware and driver updates for audio specific hardware, and updates to the OS itself.

Have you noticed better core scheduling? I have.  

Alex its easy to compare X1/X2 by looking at the CPU meter in the CB on different OSs. It doesn't require any special skill just a glance. On Vista one core is always way above all the others. On Windows 8 they all are even.  

This is also what Noel reports in his blog on Windows 8. 

Try setting your Windows power profile to performance mode.

Have you noticed better core scheduling? I have.  

Hi John,


I've not seen a major difference in core scheduling between Win7x64 and Win8x64.
ie: The X2 demo tune "Where Did We Go Wrong?" plays at the same approximate load.

Subjectively, I think Win8x64 responds to navigation just a little "snappier" than Win7x64.

> It doesn't require any special skill just a glance. On Vista one core is always way above all the others. On Windows 8 they all are even.

This is exactly the observed behaviour when core parking or speedstep is turned off.

Please understand the difference between power management saving of CPU cores vs core scheduling - they are two entirely different things, although both manipulate which core should be used next... so it's easy to misunderstand that they are both one and the same.

Also note changing power profile to performance does nothing here in this scenario without a registry hack for core parking, at least in Windows 7 and Vista: 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=1861804

Now Win 8 may have different defaults, so the easiest way to compare like with like is to turn off core parking or powerNow in the BIOS which should override all this stuff I'm talking about for both OS's and give a more faithful benchmark comparison. When people are testing this I notice that nobody even mentioning this as a factor, hence I said earlier that I'm not satisfied with these tests.

I have a strong feeling that what you and people are benchmarking are actually saying is that you/they prefer the default settings supplied with Windows 8 which is not the same as saying Windows 8 is more efficient. Also people running upgraded copies of Win 8 may have different behaviour to a clean install of Win 8 (they maybe using the Windows 7 default settings).

Cheers...

> Alex I have a Q6600. It does not support speed step

Oh dear John...
Have you read a specification of a Q6600 when it comes to Intel Speed step?

http://ark.intel.com/products/29765/Intel-Core2-Quad-Processor-Q6600-8M-Cache-2_40-GHz-1066-MHz-FSB

ps Nobody said you know nothing John...but you seem to have some matcho thing about computers going on John. I really don't understand what your issues is... But OK I give in, I'd rather not beat my own drum if you want to play who is better than the other person rather than discuss and debate facts....

I have been building computers since the ZX80 came out. I've been building PC's for almost 30 years. I have worked for ICL, Samsung, JDS Uniphase and silicon valley based companies. I have probably built over a thousand PC's in my lifetime. Actually that only taught me the basics, developing software gave me a lot more experience that slotting an airfix kit together.
Oh and my degree is in computers and I have worked a two major recording studios you might have heard of. ...
None of that is important when it comes to my last post or the post before... Frankly I don't give a darn about people experience, who they are or what they have done, all I care about is proven facts and whether they are nice people or not. 

Time for your cup of coco Major.

CakeAlexS


ps Nobody said you know nothing John...but you seem to have some matcho thing about computers going on John. I really don't understand what your issues is... But OK I give in, I'd rather not beat my own drum if you want to play who is better than the other person rather than discuss and debate facts....

I have been building computers since the ZX80 came out. I've been building PC's for almost 30 years. I have worked for ICL, Samsung, JDS Uniphase and silicon valley based companies. I have probably built over a thousand PC's in my lifetime. Actually that only taught me the basics, developing software gave me a lot more experience that slotting an airfix kit together.
Oh and my degree is in computers and I have worked a two major recording studios you might have heard of. ...
None of that is important when it comes to my last post or the post before... Frankly I don't give a darn about people experience, who they are or what they have done, all I care about is proven facts and whether they are nice people or not. 

Time for your cup of coco Major.

No not not at all, I just can't abide your attitude. Its smug and presumptuous. 

Alright, everybody hit the deck! The forum police are here!

"OK, which one of you knuckleheads..." 

Still I'm loving this... If you dish it out you gotta take it.

* Have you noticed better core scheduling? I have.  
Alex its easy to compare X1/X2 by looking at the CPU meter in the CB on different OSs. It doesn't require any special skill just a glance. On Vista one core is always way above all the others. On Windows 8 they all are even.

Er nope, not without benchmarking... if it's that visibile difference with your eyes that is not core scheduling at work. Most likely core parking/speedstep or wishful thinking. You have to have a massive difference for it to be really visible with your own eyes so it's probably core parking or drugs.

* How do you switch it off? - Try setting your Windows power profile to performance mode.

Er no registry hack for power profile or go into BIOS and turn off speedstep.

* I've not seen a major difference in core scheduling between Win7x64 and Win8x64.

Interesting. It could be that no OS would ever have the gall to give you problems.

Er no it's probably because Jim did an upgrade and John did a clean install. Or a motherboard/registry setting is different. Or maybe no crack involved within observed results.

* Please understand the difference between power management saving of CPU cores vs core scheduling - they are two entirely different things, although both manipulate which core should be used next... so it's easy to misunderstand that they are both one and the same.

Nor do I need a lecture on this subject from you. You presume way too much.

Right ho John. All your answers have been totally right so far ;).

> Alex I have a Q6600. It does not support speed step.

Er a quick google and we can find out it does....

> Not try to lecture people that have been doing this a very long time.

Er the assumption is that I haven't. Wrong again (see previous posts, not gonna bang my drum again). Although my badge says "silver" and his is platinum :). Guess more posts in one forum means more experience ;).

We still don't know what motherboard he is using...  I haven't seen a uncompatible motherboard that supports chips that support speedstep. That doesn't mean to say this doesn't exist, so hopefully he will at least get this one right... Or he might end up going quiet on this one....

Well anyway like John implies, all I do is lecture and talk crap (that's probably fair comment, I can't prove it otherwise), I should bow down to my masters who are self declaired more experienced - they can build their own PC you know. Those who buy standalone PC's from manufacturers clearly really don't know what they are doing ;) So says the Lord..

John


Alex I have a Q6600. It does not support speed step. Further I do know quite a bit about computers. I build them. 

Been doing so for over a decade. The reason I ask Jim things is because I respect him. Does that mean I don't know the answers? You would be making an error if you thought so. 

Nor do I need a lecture on this subject from you. You presume way too much.

Let me put it another way when I need your help I will ask for it. 

You have been on here for a couple years I have been here since before there was a forum. I have forgotten more than you ever knew. What you should do is go back and read my posts from the very beginning to get a handle on what I do know.

You should try to contain yourself here and learn from the rest of us. Not try to lecture people that have been doing this a very long time.

I hope I have made myself clear. 

John,  If CakeAlexS quit trying to lecture people on computers he'll just double up on lecturing about forum posting and behavior.  It's a lose lose.