The X2a update will not install on a Win XP system.  Is this permanent?

sergiobklyn


The X2a update will not install on a Win XP system.  Is this permanent?

X2 was sold on the basis that XP support has been dropped so it would be unlikely that Cakewalk are going to change this.


Grum.

Vista isn't supported either, although X2 will still install and run on Vista.

Scott

--
Scott R. Garrigus - http://garrigus.com
* Author of the Cakewalk Sonar and Sony Sound Forge Power book series: http://garrigus.com/?PowerBooks
* Author of the Cakewalk Sonar ProAudioTutor video tutorial series: http://garrigus.com/?ProAudioTutor
* Publisher of the DigiFreq free music technology newsletter: http://digifreq.com/?DigiFreq
* Publisher of the NewTechReview free consumer technology newsletter: http://newtechreview.com/?NewTechReview

Both the release version of X2 and the quickfix installed fine in XP.  X2a is the problem.

IIRC I though I saw it stated somewhere that because of the Windows 8 support X2a won't install on XP, so I guess that is permanent.

It was stated that a large part of the X2 up date was some Microsoft distribution files, I am guessing that it is this that is not XP compatible. I think it stated some time back in a post by Noel or someone else from Cakewalk that Microsoft distributable changes would result in a future update not installing on XP or Vista.

It appears from another post that X2a will install and run on Vista, but no version of X2 is supported to run on anything older then Windows 7

Why is anybody still using XP? :)

It was clunky, had horrible hardware/software issues, was unreliable, had a habit of self destructing and if you pushed it 'hard' needed re-installing every 6-8 months. 

I'd rather use Vista (on a machine designed to run it) than XP!

I'd rather use Vista (on a machine designed to run it) than XP!

Not me. Vista was the worst piece of junk that ever came out of Remond, WA. Windows 7, however, was a joy. 

it's funny but if you look at Microsoft releases there appears to be a pattern that every other version of windows is poor.

Start with '95 because until then very few people were using PCs on a daily basis, '95 was released with a huge advertising campaign and was for the most part seen as good. Windows '98 was released and it was seen as hopeless. constant crashes, unreliable and not worth the upgrade. Win '98SE however was seen as a big upgrade. Then came Millennium - everyone cried foul. Then we got XP and despite it's almost complete lack of backwards compatibility (something millennium was heavily criticised for) it was seen as the greatest operating system ever. Then came Vista. People said it was crap (it wasn't and still isn't) and now we have Win8 which once folks have got used to the different start menu most of them agree it's very good.

so far, most of that sounds familiar yep?

Now let's look at it another way.....

People bought into Win '95, they bought new (expensive) computers designed to run Win'95 and for the most part they were happy. When '98 came, they may have upgraded the O/S but most didn't want to spend their hard earned money on a new PC so they soldiered on with hardware and software problems they labelled the software as 'crap' when it was really their PCs that were getting old. Win 98 SE brought a whole new raft of PCs to the market, system builders were using it and companies like Time and Tiny computers were suddenly at the forefront supplying purpose built machines. Of course windows SE ran better than '98 because people had upgraded their machines. Then, Millennium came along. Nobody was buying a new PC because they had only just invested in their '98SE machine. Millennium didn't work on these machines so was labelled a turkey. XP gets released and everybody has to update because very little of the old software still runs. PCs are now cheaper and better spec machines are built to run the new version of Windows - loads of people upgrade and XP is a success. Then we get to Vista, it didn't run well on machines designed to run XP, in fact it was horrible on 5 year old machines with low ram and small hard drives. But, if you built a PC that was designed to run Vista you got a great, solid, stable operating system. we had two machines here that ran Vista from day one. Both are quad core machines with loads of RAM and both performed flawlessly (one is still running it's original install of Vista 24 hours a day. 7 days a week and has never crashed or needed re-installing!!!). The other was upgraded to windows 7 which for serious productivity work (3D rendering) was slower than Vista and has now been upgraded to win 8 which runs like a dream on hardware that was mostly designed to run Vista.

My point is that it's not poor operating systems, it's poor users :)

Aka very nice post. You need to post more often. 


I think you have this subject well in hand. And thank you for that.