Anyone used Vista to create music?

S

sync

Pending
I was just reading a comment in this forum from another member:
I guessed you missed all the talk about Vista's DRM policies which make it virtually impossible to create and distribute your own music.
Click to expand...

That sounds silly to me. I'd like to hear comments from anyone who has actually used Vista to create music.
 
I'm testing audio on Vista this week. That line is stupid. Ive recorded at high sample rate and burned a CD and made MP3's too.

Its not good for DAW yet, but not for that reason. Latency is terrible and CPU and memory overhead is huge just to get Vista to work. With zero programs running, several services disabled, and all of the visuals turned off its still hogging 600MB of system memory.

Wait for SP1 or later to even think about it.
 
I have also tested Vista, but this was during the BETA trials. It ran like shit imo, but it was beta.... I did record using Sonar 5, and built on audio card lol, because at that point in time, there were no drivers for anything...
 
I tested RC1 of Vista and that ran like crap IMO. It's a resource hungry monster and I'm not planning on leaving XP Pro behind anytime soon. I've read on the net about better audio performance and prioritization of apps and the resources they use, but I've yet to read real world experiences on this. I guess in theory, it would be a benfit to pro audio work.
 
If you use ANY operating system that has been out for less than a year, you're noting but an unpaid bug tester and will likely bang your head into several walls of dispair.

Would you take out take out the first few untested (however well designed) airplanes or cars from a factory and wring them out??? They have a name for test pilots..... "dearly departed".....

Unless you have nothing else better to do with your time or LIKE gnashing your teeth, let someone else do constant reformats, installs and driver hunts.
 
TimOBrien said:
If you use ANY operating system that has been out for less than a year, you're noting but an unpaid bug tester and will likely bang your head into several walls of dispair.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I get paid to do this :D

But I totally agree. Let me, and all the hardware/software manufacturers have all the problems and fix them before even thinking about using it.
 
I have a free upgrade to vista coupon... but WILL NOT USE IT, until they come with a few service packs or something... or at least 1 service pack to it, and software/hardware manufacturers start pulling new drivers and programs that fix all the problems of the current new ones.
 
Hard2Hear said:
I'm testing audio on Vista this week. That line is stupid. Ive recorded at high sample rate and burned a CD and made MP3's too.
Click to expand...

Is that so?

I guess you missed this:

Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?

Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality. Windows Vista's content protection features were developed to carefully balance the need to provide robust protection from commercial content while still enabling great new experiences such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback.



What about S/PDIF audio connections?

Windows Vista does not require S/PDIF to be turned off, but Windows Vista continues to support the ability to turn it off for certain content -- a capability that has been present on the Windows platform for many years. Additionally, in order to support the requirements of some types of content, Windows Vista supports the ability to constrain the quality of the audio component of that content. Similar to image constraint for video, this quality constraint only applies to the audio from content whose policy requires the constraint, not to any other audio being played concurrently on the system. As a practical matter, these audio restrictions are not widely used today.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
 
No one has addressed the point in my original post about "DRM policies which make it virtually impossible to create and distribute your own music".

My understanding is that Vista enforces DRM for content makers that choose to use it. However, if you are the content maker then you are not forced to put DRM into your music.
 
Im not copying and pasting what someone else has said, I'm telling you from having worked with it. It being Vista Business Premium, thats what Im working with. All the above means is that you can't play copy protected media digitally unless the copy protection is sent with it. I have used SPDIF connectivity with the FF800 and the recording works just fine.

I though I answered your question, though. DRM does not affect being able to create or distribute your own music.

Vista being a memory hog does. Driver incompatibility does. Un-optimized (or non working) recording software does.

To completely address brzilian's post, the CPU cycles are of no concern to any modern system. At no load, the used CPU resources are extremely low (Core2Duo and Quad). The memory use is the real hog. Again, I'm not reposting other peoples information. I'm actively using this stuff. I do it for a living. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask and I'll try it to see what happens.
 
Hard2Hear said:
I though I answered your question, though. DRM does not affect being able to create or distribute your own music.
Click to expand...
You mentioned in your first post that you burned a CD and created MP3s. But it wasn't clear to me whether you could play them on other computers.

Thanks for confirming.
 
my boss is using windows x64 or something with an emu 1820m and it was workign OK i believe, it was all in 64 bit or whatever and thats why he did it.

but he went through days of hell getting it to work, and i think he said he was gonna roll back to XP until its more stable.
 
I have no current plans to switch to Vista, but more and more people will be asking about it and I want to give them good advice.

Several people have mentioned that Vista uses a lot of memory. Vista is designed to use all your Ram. It introduces a new concept (for windows at least) to use the ram instead of leaving it doing nothing.

How does it use the ram? It tries to learn and predict what you'll use the ram for. If you use skype, firefox, and Messenger, on a regular basis, then it would try to load these programs (or files that the programs need) into memory, so they launch faster when you need them.

When you launch an application that 'needs' the ram then it dumps what it doesn't need right now out of memory so it can launch what you need.

People bitched and moaned about XP when it first came out too.
 
sync said:
People bitched and moaned about XP when it first came out too.
Click to expand...

People always say that as though it actually means something. The truth is that statement is only relevant in the most general sense, and all you are really saying is that XP was crap when it first came out. Is that somehow supposed to make us comfortable with crap?

First, people are like, "Oh, it's only beta, you can't judge it on beta," and then we get "Oh, its only RC1 (2,3,4 etc.), you can't judge it based on that," and now people are asking us not to judge it based on it's actual gold release. That's ridiculous. From all that I have seen and my own tests trying to set up a machine for audio with Vista, I will give the simplest advice that I can: stay the hell away. This OS is not for Pro Audio. Period. The sheer CPU overhead is ridiculous and the amount of RAM it uses just to run the OS is also ridiculous. Remember that an OS's purpose, it reason to exist, is to provide us with a platform on which to run the applications we want and need to run. If the OS itself is a resource hog, then it will degrade the performance of your applications.

Right now, XP can be finely tuned for Audio work, and if you need a shiney UI go get windowblinds, it uses less resources than Vista and gives you more options (I would recommend you forget about a shiney UI altogether so you can devote 100% of available resources to your music).

For all you Windows freaks out there who keep telling us we should reserve judgement until whenever, here is a word from the pragmatist: I owe nothing to Windows or MS. My loyalty is to myself and my music. When It comes to software, no judgement is final until they stop developing it altogether. I will revisit Vista when the time comes, probably in a year or so. But I won't be holding my breath, because I have a perfectly workable OS on my PC and Vista offers NOTHING at the moment for musicians and pro audio users except headaches.
 
sync said:
People bitched and moaned about XP when it first came out too.
Click to expand...

That was 2001 - this is 2007.

Now, a move to OS X is not as painful since all Macs use the same Intel processors as PCs. Oh yeah, Apple's runs XP quite well now too...

Microsoft has apparently learned nothing in 6 years while Apple's OS X has matured quite nicely.

Vista seems to be the final straw for me. My next system will most likely be a Mac.

I find it interesting that nobody has picked up on the fact that basically every version (except for Home Basic and Corporate Basic) of Vista has Media Center functionality. Last time I checked, pretty much every pro audio hardware and software vendor said they would not support XP MCE. Where does that leave Vista?
 
sonnylarsen said:
People always say that as though it actually means something. The truth is that statement is only relevant in the most general sense, and all you are really saying is that XP was crap when it first came out. Is that somehow supposed to make us comfortable with crap?
Click to expand...
No it is not. I'm not suggesting that people use Vista. I started off by saying that I do not have plans to upgrade.

I have no problem with pointing out the faults of Vista. But I want to make sure I point out faults that are valid instead of spreading speculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top