Desktop for recording and nothing else

Beck said:
I run XP SP2 for DAWs. I won’t even install SP3, but that’s a long story for another thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah, same here....though I don't have any particular reason for not installing SP3, other than SP2 works fine, so why bother adding a pile of SP3 crap to the system. It's just going to be tons of patches and updates for stuff I don't use, need or care about, especially since my DAW runs offline.

Why are you hating on SP3, anything specifc...?...give it to me in a nutshell, unless of course you want to start a new, long thread. :D
 
Beck said:
Do you have a Win XP CD around? IMO XP is still the ultimate DAW OS. Win 7 is more of a resource hog. It’s a somewhat improved Vista but still doesn’t fly as well as XP for audio/video. Win 7 can be trimmed down, but not as effectively as XP can. I run XP SP2 for DAWs. I won’t even install SP3, but that’s a long story for another thread.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement. Win7 is really a good solid OS and has many improvements over XP. Having ran everything since the DOS days, I think Win7 is as good an OS as MS has ever produced.
 
DM60 said:
I disagree with this statement. Win7 is really a good solid OS and has many improvements over XP. Having ran everything since the DOS days, I think Win7 is as good an OS as MS has ever produced.
Click to expand...

Someone always does... I expect that. If your focus is for DAW use the OS is hugely important, as the OS itself can impede performance in critical areas. XP is the DAW OS, lighter, faster and more configurable/customizable than Vista or Win 7 or 8. Things you can trim down in XP simply aren't an option in anything from Vista on. XP is more open and tweakable. Microsoft has become more controlling in fact since XP SP3.

But not enough people understand how to setup an OS from initial installation to post installation tweaks, nor understand that they should.

A multipurpose purpose computer that you use for everything from gaming to word processing should not be your DAW, and with Vista, Win 7 and 8 you have less options to configure it for anything other than a multipurpose PC. There are tweaks, but not to the depth of XP.

As I said earlier, optimize or compromise... these are the two directions you can go with any OS. When the software maker takes away options to optimize you very simply have less of an OS for optimization.

The only thing better than Win XP is Linux.
 
Yeah....if you're going to run all kinds of different current apps, then being current might be of value....though still, I find little that I like about Win7.
It's a bloated, convoluted OS that will happily control everything for you....if that's how you like to roll, and I admit, many people prefer that. They don't want to get under the hood...so they are happy with Microsoft's decisions and choices that you get in Win7 (Win8 is ever worse in that regard).
Having been under the hood of every OS going back to DOS....I find XP the most user-friendly in that regard, and for a DAW-specific system, I like that.

I think if you're 64-bit obsessed, as seems to be the current norm, then maybe Win7 might be a better choice instead of XP 64-bit, just because it was more of an afterthought with XP.

My daily use work computer has Win7....and I'm always a little pissed at how some things are done in that OS. The way it seems to almost fight you and force you do things how the OS wants rather than how you want.
There haven't been any things that I thought "Wow, I LOVE how they implemented that in Win7 compared to XP".

Yes, Win7 may be "prettier" on the surface than XP, but I for one don't give a damn about OS creature features if that comes with the price of less transparancey...and to me, Win7 is less transparent as an OS than XP.

Anyway...to each his own.... :)
 
Just an observation and comment: W7 is not 'pretty' when you disable Aero and set it up for audio recording.

Once silly things like superfetch and other crap that W7 added are disabled, it almost the same. Just 64-bit and some different menus. This is just my take on it, I could be wrong. But I never had a single issue with W7.

Vista however, can eat my soiled shorts...
 
Beck said:
Someone always does... I expect that. If your focus is for DAW use the OS is hugely important, as the OS itself can impede performance in critical areas. XP is the DAW OS, lighter, faster and more configurable/customizable than Vista or Win 7 or 8. Things you can trim down in XP simply aren't an option in anything from Vista on. XP is more open and tweakable. Microsoft has become more controlling in fact since XP SP3.

But not enough people understand how to setup an OS from initial installation to post installation tweaks, nor understand that they should.

A multipurpose purpose computer that you use for everything from gaming to word processing should not be your DAW, and with Vista, Win 7 and 8 you have less options to configure it for anything other than a multipurpose PC. There are tweaks, but not to the depth of XP.

As I said earlier, optimize or compromise... these are the two directions you can go with any OS. When the software maker takes away options to optimize you very simply have less of an OS for optimization.

The only thing better than Win XP is Linux.
Click to expand...

No, you're just not correct here. You have your computer setup the way you need it. I would be a proponent of saying, "don't fix what isn't broken", in that regards, I would never suggest to someone to make a change for change sake.

But you are just wrong on the OS, XP was a fine OS in its day, served us well, but as the technology in hardware changed XP will not cut it. The most configurable Windows was 3.1. You could tweak that OS like any Linux machine. But, I wouldn't run 3.1 today for anything. Its old and cannot handle today's processing power. I put XP in the same category.

You're thinking is fundamentally flawed. As hardware progresses, the OS must progress as well. XP was a very bad 64 bit OS. A more favorable OS would have been Win2000. Making a statement about using an old OS with new hardware is really not helping people in today's world. XP was built for 15 year old technology, if we think like this, we should go back to the analog forum.

Linux is a great OS (I love it, but it requires you to become an OS geek to optimize), but you have to really understand computer to run it, so there is a compromise. Ease of use for power.

If you want control, Linux is still the best OS, (Redhat is probably one of the best versions). Otherwise, I still contend Win7 is a fine product and would not go back to XP. I like to move forward and not be stuck in yesterday. But, to state the obvious, if I had a machine working and getting it done, then it speaks for itself, I wouldn't upgrade either.
 
DM60 said:
You're thinking is fundamentally flawed. As hardware progresses, the OS must progress as well. XP was a very bad 64 bit OS. A more favorable OS would have been Win2000. Making a statement about using an old OS with new hardware is really not helping people in today's world. XP was built for 15 year old technology, if we think like this, we should go back to the analog forum.
Click to expand...

What hardware are you referring to....the computer hardware or things like audio converters...?
AFA newer audio converters...as long as you have the drivers, they will work fine with XP.

You can drop XP on current computer hardware...it just might not take full advantage of all the multi-core and extended RAM stuff...but it will run as it did on hardware of its day, with maybe just some BIOS tweaks.
Granted, as software has moved into the 64-bit world, it's not the best combination to run XP with all that...but that assumes that you're wanting/needing to upgrade all your apps/hardware too....or you're just wanting to have the latest.

Point Beck was making wasn't to tell people they should be looking into buying XP machines etc....but rather that XP systems still run just fine today as they did back in the day when XP was it.
As long as your apps/plugs/drivers are compatible....there's no real down side. If however you buy stuff that is no longer written/built to work with XP, then of course, you would be better off with and need Win7 or newer.

My previous DAW was a W2K box....and it STILL runs fine today as the day I got it, and I can still run a bunch of stuff on it. Of course, when I purchased a couple of apps that required XP or newer to run, and they didn't work with W2K....I moved away from W2K.
Same thing with Win7...unless you choose to move to apps that don't run on XP, you really don't need Win7 to have a decent DAW. That's what Beck was saying.

That said, it also depends on how hard you want to run ITB...and how much RAM you really need.
When 4GB was the limit with 32-bit...people worked with it fine. Now that RAM capability has dramatically increased, people adjusted how they work to make use of all that RAM. Since everyone is writting for 64-bit, it forces everyone to also move there...though I know a lot of folks that still run 32, and many like their 32-bit apps/plugs.
There's this thing with numbers....people will always assume higher=better.
I'm not saying 64-bit can't do more in some areas...but it's not the absolute must have with a streamlined, purpose built DAW.....unless you just want to have the latest.
It's a never-ending chase....and everyone then gets to run out and buy all new systems and software once again. :)
I get tired of dicking around with upgardes....seems like as soon as you get your system where you want it, it's time to upgrade it again....and a LOT of people do just that! :facepalm:

I just don't see the point of upgrading everything....until I really *can't do* what I need to do with my XP based DAW....and honestly, at this time I don't see that wall anywhere in sight. My recording SOP is fully supported and I'm using tons of the latest apps and plugs....they all work perfectly fine on my XP based DAW...
...but yeah, everyone has to find what works for them in their situation.
 
I run an off network computer for my DAW.
It's a dual core nothing very special but is optimized for audio and is most definitley XP because it's light, stable and has fewer background things to get in the way or to disable. It is also compatible with everything I use.
As hardware progresses it attempts to meet the OS of the day no matter how unstable, unbugged that OS is. Many people move to a new OS when it has been proven stable and compatible over time - I'm one of them. Vista and 6 were neither of these things so I'm still with XP until such time as it is bettered. Marketting rules the progression of the OS and the hardware does similarly interms of it's compliance.
I suspect the vast majority of hardware newly available would work beautifully in XP IF there was a marketting need to write the necessary drivers.
I use AVG SOHO on my networked/internet computers so that anything going onto or from a thumbdrive is checked automatically. This means the thumb drive about to go for walk to the DAW is checked and fixed as a matter of course.
The DAW comp runs very happily and I'm happy to keep it offline as I've lost 2 machines that I was using as DAWs due to viruses etc.
 
miroslav said:
I just don't see the point of upgrading everything....until I really *can't do* what I need to do with my XP based DAW....and honestly, at this time I don't see that wall anywhere in sight. My recording SOP is fully supported and I'm using tons of the latest apps and plugs....they all work perfectly fine on my XP based DAW...
...but yeah, everyone has to find what works for them in their situation.
Click to expand...

Yes, I 100% agree. If it works, it works. That is why I wouldn't tell guys who love analog they should go digital. They like it, it works, why change if you don't need or want to.

My push back was more about making sure new people didn't think they had to get XP to make music.
 
If your running a new 64bit DAW multi-core system with a lot of RAM, I'm pretty sure Windows 7 is the appropriate OS. There are many optimization guides you can use to make Win7 work flawlessly.
 
dainbramage said:
Reaper should be a standalone OS. Now THAT would be awesome.
Click to expand...

You know, that is actually a great idea. If they ported it to Linux, built Linux to a minimum (making an OS is pretty freaking hard) and you would have your optimized OS. Only problem is, plugins would require a port to Linux as well. But it could be done.
 
Try Dream Studio

DM60 said:
You know, that is actually a great idea. If they ported it to Linux, built Linux to a minimum (making an OS is pretty freaking hard) and you would have your optimized OS. Only problem is, plugins would require a port to Linux as well. But it could be done.
Click to expand...

You may be interested in the following.
Since 2009 I have run Pro Tools 8 & Reason 4 on a Dell Inspiron Laptop. I am unable to upgrade the laptop,
with more ram. It currently has 2Gb of ram which is insufficient plus a host of other issues. I do have a desktop
with a more powerfull processor, heaps of ram, 4GB expandable to 8Gb and a 1Tb hard disk. I thought
installing Pro Tools onto the desktop would be a simple procedure. I experienced several problems and went
to the Avid support site. The experience of dealing with them has been less than impressive and my conclusion
is that they SERIOUSLY SUCK. Their suggestion to upgrade to version 10 (at the time) and all my problems
would be solved was one I took with a grain of salt and there was also the financial consideration. Both computers are running
the same operating systems etc.

About 16 months ago I had remarked in a Linux forum that although Linux was very stable, as far as I was
concerned it was useless to me as it could not run Pro Tools (I had experimented with trying to install an early
version of Pro Tools using an Audiomedia 111 sound card onto Linux Red Hat 8 - painful / frustrating /
unsuccessfull).

One of the users informed me that there were several options available these days. I thanked him and was
going to explore these options when my body decided to stymie everything by having a heart attack.

About a month ago I contacted the user from the forum and advised him I was about to take the Linux plunge.
I installed Dream Studio 3.5.357 10 days ago. Dream Studio partitioned my hard drive so that I can dual boot.
It comes with Ardour (Professional digital audio workstation, comparable to Digidesign Pro Tools, Steinberg's
Cubase/Nuendo, Apple's Logic, and Sonar), drum machines, around 100 software synthesisers, midi, and
note this - ALL FOR FREE (and that is only the sound production software).

Having been a huge fan of Pro Tools, I am totally blown away by Dream Studio. It's an operating
system designed purely around multi-media. The bonus is that I can access files on my Windows partition as
Linux treats the partition as another folder. As I have a wireless network for all the family I will be able to access
the laptop as well, it will just be another folder.

The only purchase I had to make was for a Lexicon Omega interface which self installed seamlessly.
It will take me some time to explore Dream Studio and get used to the Linux way of doing things but as
stated I am totally blown away by the sound / graphics / video software which comes with the Dream Studio installation.
Dream Studio takes about 50Gb to install.:thumbs up:
 
I was not aware of this version. I knew of the UbuntuStudio, which DreamStudio is based off Ubuntu as well. Ardour I've know about for the last 4-5 years, but I will be honest, I just never took the time out to explore it.

If they would port Reaper over to Ubuntu/Linux I think they would have a winner. I would be interested to hear how you progress.
 
Dream Studio

DM60 said:
I was not aware of this version. I knew of the UbuntuStudio, which DreamStudio is based off Ubuntu as well. Ardour I've know about for the last 4-5 years, but I will be honest, I just never took the time out to explore it.

If they would port Reaper over to Ubuntu/Linux I think they would have a winner. I would be interested to hear how you progress.
Click to expand...

I will let you know how it goes. It will take some time however as I am currently limited by some physical constraints:laughings:. I am hopeful of doing some recording over the easter break.
 
garryspicer said:
The only purchase I had to make was for a Lexicon Omega interface which self installed seamlessly.
It will take me some time to explore Dream Studio and get used to the Linux way of doing things but as
stated I am totally blown away by the sound / graphics / video software which comes with the Dream Studio installation.
Dream Studio takes about 50Gb to install.:thumbs up:
Click to expand...

Looks very cool, but it seems like there is no available Linux drivers for my interface.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top