[Dewitt]

I know this might seem below most members of this group with high end
budgets but.

I've run out of RAM at the 3.2 GIG that windose XP can use. Now it's
time to save up for a new motherboard,CPU and about 8 GIG of RAM for
my DAW.

I'd like to hear from anyone if VISTA64 bit OS is going to work worse
or better than XP64? Or if It would coss reasonable better to buy a
my first MAC. I will need to duo-boot so my family can still have
protection and all the other goddies running in the background or I
can boot with it naked on the resources used in task manager.

It's for film and T.V composition and currently I only have an M-audio
Fastract Pro to imput with (which has been sufficient for 2 track
imputers like me)

I run:

Fruitty Loops
Finale
Kontakt
and Still am debating between Sonar 6 and Pro Tools (that's a money
issue)

[Arny Krueger]

"Dewitt" wrote in message
oups.com
I know this might seem below most members of this group
with high end budgets but.

I've run out of RAM at the 3.2 GIG that windose XP can
use. Now it's time to save up for a new motherboard,CPU
and about 8 GIG of RAM for my DAW.

I'd like to hear from anyone if VISTA64 bit OS is going
to work worse or better than XP64? Or if It would coss
reasonable better to buy a my first MAC. I will need to
duo-boot so my family can still have protection and all
the other goddies running in the background or I can boot
with it naked on the resources used in task manager.

It's for film and T.V composition and currently I only
have an M-audio Fastract Pro to imput with (which has
been sufficient for 2 track imputers like me)

I run:

Fruitty Loops
Finale
Kontakt
and Still am debating between Sonar 6 and Pro Tools
(that's a money issue)

What about this as a late-life kicker for XP?

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/...ProductID=2180

[Ethan Winer]

Dewitt,

I've run out of RAM at the 3.2 GIG that windose XP can use.

Why do you think you need more RAM than that for audio work?

--Ethan

[Roger Christie]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
Dewitt,

I've run out of RAM at the 3.2 GIG that windose XP can use.

Why do you think you need more RAM than that for audio work?

--Ethan

Really. What on earth are you doing that 3 gb isn't sufficient?

[Geoff]

Dewitt wrote:
I know this might seem below most members of this group with high end
budgets but.

I've run out of RAM at the 3.2 GIG that windose XP can use. Now it's
time to save up for a new motherboard,CPU and about 8 GIG of RAM for
my DAW.

I'd like to hear from anyone if VISTA64 bit OS is going to work worse
or better than XP64? Or if It would coss reasonable better to buy a
my first MAC. I will need to duo-boot so my family can still have
protection and all the other goddies running in the background or I
can boot with it naked on the resources used in task manager.

It's for film and T.V composition and currently I only have an M-audio
Fastract Pro to imput with (which has been sufficient for 2 track
imputers like me)

I run:

Fruitty Loops
Finale
Kontakt
and Still am debating between Sonar 6 and Pro Tools (that's a money
issue)

Is there anything you actually NEED 8GB for, or 3GB for that matter ?

geoff

[[email protected]]

Well we don't want you running naked during boot around here. This
is a pretty conservative forum. But that being said, note that
Vista is a memory hog. It is designed differently than XP. If it
sees RAM it gobbles it up like a crack fiend. Unused memory is a bad
thing according to the eyes of Vista. It pre-loads all sorts of junk
into your system, trying to anticipate what you will need. But like a
planned economy such as communism, it is a failed idea. Don't let big
government tell the people what and how much they need, and don't let
Vista tell you how to spend your ram.

It's really stupid. Apple's OS-X is a much better operating system.
It is built on a Unix core. The Intel Macs on OS-X power on and shut
off way faster than Vista. You might be surprised (amazed?) that a
modern Mac will power down somewhere between 3 and 9 seconds most of
the time. Try that with Vista!

But for many reasons, you might want to stay away from Mac (price,
etc.). Boot camp works very well in my experience. XP on an Intel
Mac runs way better than Vista on a PC in my experience.

What you should do is get rid of Vista. Use XP Professional instead.

[Joseph Ashwood]

"Dewitt" wrote in message
oups.com...

I've run out of RAM at the 3.2 GIG that windose XP can use. Now it's
time to save up for a new motherboard,CPU and about 8 GIG of RAM for
my DAW.


I'd like to hear from anyone if VISTA64 bit OS is going to work worse
or better than XP64?

There are many complicating matters in this and with 8GB of RAM there is no
way of saying for certain which one will be technically faster. Either way
it'll be tiny fractions of a percent and there's be larger differences in
different motherboards of the same make and model. For the highest
performance make sure you buy the fastest RAM available, the difference will
be much more than the XP vs Vista difference. The bigger question is
drivers, many manufacturers simply haven't issued 64-bit drivers yet.

Or if It would coss reasonable better to buy a
my first MAC.

For memory performance I don't think you'd see any benefit from a Mac. At
the scale you're looking at the best memory performance will come from UN*X
variants, but the difference is miniscule. So MacOS may offer slightly
better performance, but the extra stuff taht Apple has added to the BSD
kernel appears to slow it down to the same level, and so in my opinion there
will be little to no performance difference versus XP or Vista. At this
point in time it really is a matter of which interface you prefer and what
has drivers and software available.
Joe

[Laurence Payne]

On 20 May 2007 18:45:57 -0700, wrote:

It's really stupid. Apple's OS-X is a much better operating system.
It is built on a Unix core. The Intel Macs on OS-X power on and shut
off way faster than Vista. You might be surprised (amazed?) that a
modern Mac will power down somewhere between 3 and 9 seconds most of
the time. Try that with Vista!

OK. Just did. 8s to shutdown on this Vista laptop. If it matters.

[John L Rice]

"Dewitt" wrote in message
oups.com...
I know this might seem below most members of this group with high end
budgets but.

I've run out of RAM at the 3.2 GIG that windose XP can use. Now it's
time to save up for a new motherboard,CPU and about 8 GIG of RAM for
my DAW.

I'd like to hear from anyone if VISTA64 bit OS is going to work worse
or better than XP64? Or if It would coss reasonable better to buy a
my first MAC. I will need to duo-boot so my family can still have
protection and all the other goddies running in the background or I
can boot with it naked on the resources used in task manager.

It's for film and T.V composition and currently I only have an M-audio
Fastract Pro to imput with (which has been sufficient for 2 track
imputers like me)

I run:

Fruitty Loops
Finale
Kontakt
and Still am debating between Sonar 6 and Pro Tools (that's a money
issue)

Take a look at Windows 2003 Server.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/win...te/family.mspx

[Dewitt]

On May 20, 9:45 pm, wrote:
Well we don't want you running naked during boot around here. This
is a pretty conservative forum. But that being said, note that
Vista is a memory hog. It is designed differently than XP. If it
sees RAM it gobbles it up like a crack fiend. Unused memory is a bad
thing according to the eyes of Vista. It pre-loads all sorts of junk
into your system, trying to anticipate what you will need. But like a
planned economy such as communism, it is a failed idea. Don't let big
government tell the people what and how much they need, and don't let
Vista tell you how to spend your ram.

It's really stupid. Apple's OS-X is a much better operating system.
It is built on a Unix core. The Intel Macs on OS-X power on and shut
off way faster than Vista. You might be surprised (amazed?) that a
modern Mac will power down somewhere between 3 and 9 seconds most of
the time. Try that with Vista!

But for many reasons, you might want to stay away from Mac (price,
etc.). Boot camp works very well in my experience. XP on an Intel
Mac runs way better than Vista on a PC in my experience.

What you should do is get rid of Vista. Use XP Professional instead.

I tried XP64 bit and it worked great with Sonar but because it
couldn't make my PC double as a family PC as well I had to dump it. I
heard that XP professional is just better at networking than XP Home.
I've got latency issues when trying to use Finale and even worse when
using 3rd party stuff because there's no re-wire to Finale. I
sometimes even get Sonar locked up when trying to mix with many tracks
with individual EQ,Compression, rev....etc..... So far all I have to
do is file save and close Sonar and reopen it. But eventually I just
reboot. I've gone to great lengths to tweak XP and even boot with
bare bones.

I just don't know if Fruitty loops, Finale, and Kontakt will work
better all together from Sonar with XP64. Anybody else use XP64?

[Preben Friis]

wrote:

Vista is a memory hog. It is designed differently than XP. If it
sees RAM it gobbles it up like a crack fiend. Unused memory is a bad
thing according to the eyes of Vista. It pre-loads all sorts of junk
into your system, trying to anticipate what you will need.

Who ever told you that Vista will not free that memory again if a program
needs it?
Who told you that it does not do that in a thread at idle priority, which
means that it only uses CPU power that you are not using to fill RAM that
you are not using?

The Intel Macs on OS-X power on and shut
off way faster than Vista. You might be surprised (amazed?) that a
modern Mac will power down somewhere between 3 and 9 seconds most of
the time. Try that with Vista!

You seemingly haven't tried it yourself...? Vista is faster at startup and
shutdown than XP.

What you should do is get rid of Vista. Use XP Professional instead.

If you want to use XP for audio, use XP Home and not XP Professional - but
then you don't get the faster audio engine of Vista.

/Preben Friis

[Preben Friis]

"Dewitt" wrote:
I heard that XP professional is just better at networking than XP Home.

Where did you hear that? XP Professional is better if you need to connect to
a domain server on a network or use offline files, but do you need that? XP
Professional is required for dual CPUs though.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...choosing2.mspx

/Preben Friis

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:19:03 +0200, "Preben Friis"
wrote:

I heard that XP professional is just better at networking than XP Home.

Where did you hear that? XP Professional is better if you need to connect to
a domain server on a network or use offline files, but do you need that? XP
Professional is required for dual CPUs though.

So it's better for networking. Admittedly, if you only need basic
networking, you don't need the better features.

[Arny Krueger]

"Preben Friis" wrote in message
. dk
"Dewitt" wrote:
I heard that XP professional is just better at
networking than XP Home.

Where did you hear that? XP Professional is better if you
need to connect to a domain server on a network or use
offline files, but do you need that? XP Professional is
required for dual CPUs though.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...choosing2.mspx


But not dual cores.

[Preben Friis]

"Arny Krueger" wrote :
"Preben Friis" wrote in message
XP Professional is required for dual CPUs though.

But not dual cores.

Not even quad or octa cores ... the licence is per socket ...

/Preben

[Geoff]

Dewitt wrote:

I tried XP64 bit and it worked great with Sonar but because it
couldn't make my PC double as a family PC as well I had to dump it. I
heard that XP professional is just better at networking than XP Home.

It has some extra applets and services relating to server and network
management. WRT just running on a network, Home is just fine. There are no
differences that would relate to DAW usage, except the Pro might have some
extra superfluous services running by default.

geoff