Towards "A FLawless PC"

I wouldn't have either but the thing was for the bin. Nothing to lose. :)

I was looking for FL10 to check out the requirements there but all I can find is FL11.
Win 7 32/64 are listed as supported.
 
:p Got up this morning and it booted! Pretty freaking pleased with myself.

I just explained to the customer that it's a recognised fault and life expectancy is guesswork.
Given that his didn't break 'naturally' through heating/cooling, I'm optimistic that it'll last.
 
Glad you got that part sorted Doc. I would say we're missing more info on the FL install though. Have you checked event viewer after the application crash to see if you get any more details? Also does it crash instantly when you click the install or part way through. Are you installing from CD or download.

If it's from CD, I'd go to the website and get the download. If it's from a download, I would redownload it and try that out.
 
The installer crashes before it can begin work but after it has gathered my options at the start. It gets as far as choosing a location to install to and then, just as it starts, Windows steps in with the message:

"flstudio_10.09c.exe has stopped working".


I am running it from a download, originally, from my external USB hard drive, on which I keep copies of all my programs and settings. I've used this installer several times already and it's been absolutely fine.

I didn't think to check the Event Viewer, but I've never actually got much info that I can personally digest from the results. Lots of jargon.

One thing which crossed my mind, since I was advised to purchase the 64bit version of Windows 7, that it might not be compatible with this rig I built around an older, AMD Athlon processor. But in the properties panel, it does say: AMD Athlon 64 Processor 4000+ 2.40 GHz. Then, under that, it says 64 bit Operating System. I am still a little confused about that side of things, to be honest.

It's disappointing, because the installation of Windows went so smoothly and I felt I was really getting somewhere for once. I've drawn up my plans for a custom rack-mountable case which I've designed and can't wait to build the machine up properly and start hunting for a silent PSU which will fit into my plan.

I believe that if I keep it running clean and efficiently, with just the basics, this could be a really solid little computer to run my DAW app. on and serve as a stand-alone system for editing the results from the MR-8 recorder unit. This FL Studio software has always run very smoothly on it, even with an array of free, 3rd party plugins I collected.
 
I'm no windows expert but the fact that separate retail installers are provided suggests that windows 7 is not a hybrid installer.

Meaning, if your hardware didn't support 64bit, it wouldn't have installed the OS.
 
:p Got up this morning and it booted! Pretty freaking pleased with myself.

I just explained to the customer that it's a recognised fault and life expectancy is guesswork.
Given that his didn't break 'naturally' through heating/cooling, I'm optimistic that it'll last.

He said, after booking his one-way ticket to Grand Cayman :cool:
 
Hey man, I'll have you know I put the time in and stand over my work.....

Why, only today I watched over 5 hours of snooker on this machine just to make sure it was fine. ;)
 
So how come I have this Program Files (x86) thing on my computer? That's where FL Studio was going to install to. Isn't that the 32bit bit?

My friend, Chris, who builds these things says he loves the problem solving part - it's what keeps it interesting. For me, this is like pulling teeth!
 
Sorry, A PC with a 32 bit cpu wont let you install a pure 64bit operating system.
A 64bit operating system will, however, let you install 32 bit applications.

If FL has a 64 bit installer get it for safety, but if not a 32bit version should work just fine.

This is how I understand it; Feel free to correct. :)
 
Right, we're all up and running now. I wish I had included ASIO 4ALL in my set up but at least I know the program is all present and correct.
 
Why 10? V11 is available now isn't it?

Yes, it is. I only found this out recently. Except, 10 should work on Windows 7, no good reason why it shouldn't. 11 is now up and running, I'm pleased to say. I much prefer the old AMD chugger with Win7, it's nice and smooth so far but time will tell when the projects get bigger. I've run a few simple tests and done a quick render and everything seems to be working so far (touch wood). It's been a faithful old machine. I'll treat it to some more memory. I think it's earned it. :)
 
I'm supposed to upload my raw takes from the Fostex MR-8 unit, via USB, to the computer. Now that takes a while... and fine for backing up precious takes... but I've found I can route the signal in, via my mixer and play it, real time, into FL Studio's Edison recorder. It sounds flawless and removing what little noise there was, is a snap, without degrading anything.

I've done it! I have managed to create a good sounding recording station out of a cheap £15 mic, a Behringer mixer, a used Fostex DMR and an old AMD single core computer. With bargain bucket cables (which are actually pro quality - just reduced in price). I sound like some geezer off Radio 4 World Service now! :)

I'm not ready to put my feet up yet though. I need to address some processor issues and this can be done with a combination of adjusting the buffer size and latency settings. Can anyone offer a guide as to which way I need to set these to get better performance? It's fine now with the short recordings, but longer performances might suffer.
 
Glad to hear it, Dr.

If it's fine now it shouldn't become a problem with longer takes.
It would potentially become a problem with layering up tracks or adding effects, but it doesn't sound like you're doing that.

Anyway,
High buffer size in mb = High latency in ms and less chance of glitches or crash.
Low buffer size in mb = Low latency in ms and more chance of glitches or crash.

Low latency is only important if you need to hear yourself as you record.
If you don't, just turn up the buffer and walk away.
 
Sorry I'm late to the party, I have not been in this section in awhile. I just want to make one comment: you are correct that 64 bit Windows 7 would not install if your CPU did not support it. However just because your Windows works with your CPU doesn't mean that all of your drivers are going to work with 64 bit Windows. Many drivers (especially for older hardware) are likely to have compatibility problems. If your hardware is all fairly new you should not have a problem. You will just have to try it and see.

The only reason to run 64 bit Windows is if you think you are going to need more than 3.5 gigs of RAM - a 64 bit OS is required in order to address more than that.

And as for your earlier comment about whether to use ATI Radeon video drivers or just use the built-in Windows driver: The Windows driver is based on a generic OEM driver that ATI (AMD) provides Microsoft. It will probably work fine. However ATI provides chips for many video card manufacturers and not every feature may be supported by the generic driver. For example, on the Dell PCs that I support there are more configuration options for supporting multiple monitors if you use the Dell or ATI driver rather than just using the built-in Windows driver. And since you are running a 64 bit OS I would advise downloading the latest driver from ATI, it will be in the form of a large "Catalyst" driver download which will automatically figure out which version of windows you have and will tune itself when it installs.
 
Sorry, I'm late to the party as well but I fear the source of some of the problems may be the EMU 0404.

If you go to the EMU support forum on the Creative site you'll see that they stopped releasing new drivers almost two years ago and the only ones for Windows 7 are rather dodgy beta versions tons of users are complaining about.

Basically, Creative seem to have dumped their EMU section entirely and stopped providing any support for users.
 
Back
Top