question on switching computers

ashcat_lt said:
I have 8G in 3 XP machines. I use a utility called RAMDisk to treat the part that XP can't access like a tiny hard drive, which is where I put my page files.
Click to expand...

If XP can't access it, how have you made a ram drive out of it? I thought the system would just report 3.25gb, or whatever.
I'm familiar with ram drives - genuine question here.
 
Steenamaroo said:
If XP can't access it, how have you made a ram drive out of it? I thought the system would just report 3.25gb, or whatever.
I'm familiar with ram drives - genuine question here.
Click to expand...

IDK, but it works. I think because it acts like driver for an actual physical disk, and exists at some level below where that limitation kicks in. When you go to set it up, it shows the full 8G as available.
 
I've always kind of thought it would be cool to use a RAM disk as a "working drive" to get the fastest, widest pipe possible for tracking and mixing, and then move all the files to a more permanent disk for storage. I think for now SSD is close enough, though.
 
ashcat_lt said:
I've always kind of thought it would be cool to use a RAM disk as a "working drive" to get the fastest, widest pipe possible for tracking and mixing, and then move all the files to a more permanent disk for storage. I think for now SSD is close enough, though.
Click to expand...

I set two ram drives up a few years ago before I had SSDs. I do remember it being ridiculously fast transferring between them but the DAW wasn't noticeably faster under average use.
Video guys or people would massive sample libraries might be loving it!?

You can create them via command line in OSX. I thought that was pretty cool.
 
I guess I'm not looking for it to run faster, but wider - more simultaneous tracks at lower latency settings. Or rather, I was. I'm now at the point where the disks are fast enough and the RAM is big enough that the CPU is the bottleneck. Before I went to SSD, I just couldn't get enough data onto or off the discs at one time.
 
ashcat_lt said:
I guess I'm not looking for it to run faster, but wider - more simultaneous tracks at lower latency settings. Or rather, I was. I'm now at the point where the disks are fast enough and the RAM is big enough that the CPU is the bottleneck. Before I went to SSD, I just couldn't get enough data onto or off the discs at one time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that makes sense. I remember when a 5400rpm drive was my bottleneck. SSDs kick ass, huh. ;)
As of today my bottle no longer has a neck (ram upgrade). It's going to be nice not having to worry for a year or two.
 
Just an observation?
Samplitude gives you the option to write directly to ram. Presumably this would be ever so quick?
Not seen the option in other DAW software.

Dave.
 
Well, I figured out why the sound was dropping out on my computer. Jordo had done some percussion tracks for me and, since my studio computer isn't online, I downloaded the files to my daughter's laptop and then burnt a cd. I thought I had loaded them to my daw. I edited the tracks and mixed them...the whole 9 yards. It was then my computer started acting up.
Well, yesterday I was going to mix on the song some and Burn a reference cd to play in a few systems. I pulled the cd out that had jordo percussion and got a missing file error message. It froze my computer up so bad I had to start it in the safe more....weird. the 4.percussion tracks were empty. I tried opening the song again...same thing....safe mode reboot.

Anyway, i ended up putting thr percussion files on the desktop and they work fine and the audio isn't dropping out like it was. Obviously I don't know how to load audio files into a daw.
On this particular project, I'm up to 17 tracks with various plug ins and the old threaded single core, 2 gb RAM, dinosauer computer is handling it so far.
I just hope I can do another 3 or 4 tracks. When I finish with this tune I'm going to start using my new laptop.
 
It has long been my practice to always dump files from CD, USB sticks etc on the desktop then run them from there.
This also applies to driver discs and when done you can move the files off to another location for safe storage (CDs get lost/buggered). In my case on a 2TB NAS drive.

Dave.
 
And that depends on the project. I have one stick that is solely dedicated to the Vegas files for our Church performances. The Vegas files contain audio, video for the screens, midi for the light show and fog machines, etc. I never load a file into the project unless it's on the stick. That way when I transport from home to the church, I don't have to worry about missing files. OTOH, what I do in my DAW is always in the folder for the project I'm working on.
Just got into the habit a long while ago to keep whatever files were being used where they were being used. Glad your problem was that simple, man! :D
 
if you are seeing 4 bars on your cpu then you have a quad core. a duo core shows 2 bars. i have Sonar 8.5 and was running a duo core and had 2 bars till i switched to a intel duo quad 8300 on windows xp with sonor until i switched to 7 pro and i still have 4 bars runing 8 gug instead of the linited 4 with xp
 
I would suggest that if you are somewhat handy, and if financially possible, build yourself a new i3, i5, or i7 64 bit W7 system, as more and more applications are dropping XP support & using the 64 bit capabilities of the new processors. For about $600-$700 you can build a respectable audio workstation. If you prefer to go with high-end horsepower, you can build a system optimized for video editing in the DIY section of the videoguys.com website. You might also check out Reaper, a fully functional DAW that costs $60 unless you are running a business that earns $20,000 or more.
 
kevin6string said:
if you are seeing 4 bars on your cpu then you have a quad core. a duo core shows 2 bars. i have Sonar 8.5 and was running a duo core and had 2 bars till i switched to a intel duo quad 8300 on windows xp with sonor until i switched to 7 pro and i still have 4 bars runing 8 gug instead of the linited 4 with xp
Click to expand...

Also, if you put up Task manager, click Performance then Resource Monitor you will see the cores listed on the right. Note! they are counted from zero so don't think you are missing one!

Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top