ORIGINAL: yep


Eight years ago, a top-line, brand new computer was inadequate the day you took it out of the box. If you were planning on running internal effects or virtual instruments or high track counts then you were going to be doing a lot of bouncing and rendering and you were going to be working at >10ms latency.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Eight years ago I was running Creamware TripleDAT on a Win95/98 machine that was able to run 24-32 tracks (more actually) with real-time effects and low latency. And it worked pretty well from what I remember. Creamware's Scope system improved upon that by putting all the effects processing on DSP chips. I don't think Creamware ever got the respect they deserved for the products they brought to market. I think this might have been a Pentium 3 machine. I seem to remember that the HD was around 8GB. CD burner was 4X. No hi speed internet at the time - 56K modems were the standard. I do remember screwing up and accidentally buying Win95 on floppy disks (like 10 disks). Ahhh the good ol days

ORIGINAL: krizrox

Actually, that's not entirely true. Eight years ago I was running Creamware TripleDAT on a Win95/98 machine that was able to run 24-32 tracks (more actually) with real-time effects and low latency. And it worked pretty well from what I remember. Creamware's Scope system improved upon that by putting all the effects processing on DSP chips. I don't think Creamware ever got the respect they deserved for the products they brought to market. I think this might have been a Pentium 3 machine. I seem to remember that the HD was around 8GB. CD burner was 4X. No hi speed internet at the time - 56K modems were the standard. I do remember screwing up and accidentally buying Win95 on floppy disks (like 10 disks). Ahhh the good ol days

Oh wow floppy disks. The full Microsoft Office suite was 19 or 20 disks. I didn't have a DAW 8 years ago, but my first Sonar PC (Sonar 1.0) was a Pentium 3 550Mhz PC with 512MB of RAM. I could do about 24 tracks give or take and a few EQs and a reverb before it would start to fizzle out.

ORIGINAL: krizrox

ORIGINAL: yep


Eight years ago, a top-line, brand new computer was inadequate the day you took it out of the box. If you were planning on running internal effects or virtual instruments or high track counts then you were going to be doing a lot of bouncing and rendering and you were going to be working at >10ms latency.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Eight years ago I was running Creamware TripleDAT on a Win95/98 machine that was able to run 24-32 tracks (more actually) with real-time effects and low latency. And it worked pretty well from what I remember. Creamware's Scope system improved upon that by putting all the effects processing on DSP chips. I don't think Creamware ever got the respect they deserved for the products they brought to market. I think this might have been a Pentium 3 machine. I seem to remember that the HD was around 8GB. CD burner was 4X. No hi speed internet at the time - 56K modems were the standard. I do remember screwing up and accidentally buying Win95 on floppy disks (like 10 disks). Ahhh the good ol days

The bolded part is where your usage diverges from the problem I described. I should have clarified this distinction better in my original post, sorry.

People using ProTools systems have similarly been getting on just fine with fairly primitive computers, too. The issue is having an all-native, all-software system.

Cheers.

ORIGINAL: Jessie Sammler

I replace my computer at least three times a day. Of course, I never actually record any music, but I always have the latest technology.

Warn me before you say something like that so I don't spit my drink all over my keyboard!

Actually with my computers (and all hardware) I usually buy the most expandable model I can find, then I spend the next 6 years pimping the heck out of it until it can't take any more. My current desktop is from 1999 if you can believe it. I've got every slot & port maxed out, and now I'm just waiting for it to explode so I can get a new one finally.

I don't really know how old my PC is. I upgrade the oldest part and keep going.

I've had mine about a year. Before that, about 3 years.

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter

The standard average lifetime of a desktop PC is supposed to be 4 years.

I think most companies here write them off in 3.

three years has been the average workstation lifecycle for as long as i've known about it. incidentally, that's when i usually replace my computers. =)

I sort of piggy-back on Mr. Moore, so about every 18 months (couple of months after major introductions) I pick up the old stuff on the cheap. Been doing that for ages. Bleeding edge is not for me, or my wallet.

on my last two laptops and desktops, i have not once upgraded either of them except for a single extra hard drive that i bought. i never upgrade RAM or CPU, etc. i don't know why that is but i just don't. this time around, i'm seriously thinking of replacing my 3-year old desktop and 4-year old laptop (i got married, thus the delay ) with a single beefy laptop DAW that will also get used for other stuff i do, a bit of gaming, some development, security work, etc.

i usually don't buy top of the line, i typically wait until a technology has established itself and the next step has just come out.

ORIGINAL: yep

ORIGINAL: j boy

All true, yep... until the software developers decide they want to exploit the additional processing power, and you're back to square one again!...

I understand what you're saying, but I think there actually *is* a real point at which additional processing power becomes moot. If you are already using uncompromising plugins and doing everything you need to do sonically, what is left? Why upgrade?

This really is a different kind of turning point for native audio production I think.

i tend to agree with this. games are on the opposite end of the spectrum, always pushing the hardware envelope, and most software is in the middle (i.e., office continues to add more and more annoying feature bloat which must be turned off to avoid rage-induced seizures). but it's taken microsoft 5 years to come up with an operating system capable of taxing modern computers even a little (and this time they've really not added anything of value). audio sequencers are typically built with low-latency in mind and i would think they spend a lot of time working out the fastest algorithms and tweaking the core audio engine (at least for some, it sure isn't stability or UI that gets most of the attention ).

Bonzos Ghost


I upgrade when my needs outweigh the capacities of my pc.

The one I'm typing on here is a P3 800 which I use mostly for internet and everything else but DAW use. It's been rock solid for 7 years. No need to replace it for what I use it for.

I have a seperate PC strickly for DAW use. No internet, no garbage, no nothing. Strickly DAW. Just Sonar, Sound Forge and some related programs (plug-ins, softsynths, etc.) It's rock solid as well and I'll keep using it until such time as I need more horspower. At this point I don't, which suits me just fine.

That's my philosophy.  I've been running an Athlon X2 4800+ machine with WinXP SP3 for over 4 years.  It does the job.


However, I guess I need to upgrade the machine for Sonar X2--the specs for X2 say that Win XP is no longer supported, and a quad core processor is needed. 

I have a Dell lappy that is about 6, maybe 7 years old. It runs Vista. I used it exclusively for music for a number of years. Just over 3 years ago I built a custom DAW running XP Pro 32 bit. I had to order the OS since it was not available anymore in the stores. 

The Dell still works but I don't use it for recording. The Desktop is the main DAW now and will continue to be so until a hardware failure causes it to need a repair that will not reload XP32. 

All the new software seems to be 64 bit so I'm thinking I'm probably going to run out of any sort of software upgrade options shortly. BUT...as long as this machine works and is repairable, I will keep it running. 

I joke that the next likely upgrade I do will be to a 128bit OS.