Pt8 w7

  • Thread starter Thread starter FoulPhil
  • Start date Start date
FoulPhil

FoulPhil

Well-known member
So, did they actually get pro tools 8 compatible with windows 7 64 bit systems? Windows 7 has been out for a while now...
 
anyone?

I need to know too so I can upgrade from my 6.8, but I don't want anything to do with the beta test version, as I won't know a bug when I get one, let alone know what to do with it when I get it...

I want to dump the old PC with 1 gig of RAM and ues my new laptop with 4 gigs of RAM
 
Cool deal, I'm going to wait till they release a non-beta version. I don't actually own windows 7 yet, but I was thinking about getting a copy.

I just built a new computer just for Pro Tools. Only pro tools and Quick Time Pro will be installed and it wont be connected to the Internet either.

I wanted something cheap, so I built an all BALLS no brains computer. Price was an issue and I didn't want to spend too much. Here are the specs.

AMD Athlon II X4 620 Quad Core Processor @ 2.60GHz, 4 GB Corsair DDR2 Memory, 1 TB SATA Hard Drive. Standard Asus mobo, powerup! tower with a 450 Watt power supply. $500 total

Try to find something close to this good for that cheap at walmart or best buy. You wont :D

They probablly wont have anything that good for $1000 dollars.
 
To be honest, with that machine I don't think you'll see much a performance increase with Windows 7 (with respect to Pro Tools). The initial releases of Pro Tools will still be a 32 bit application; perhaps including 64bit memory support; which with only 4GB of RAM you won't really benefit from.
 
I wouldn't be using windows 7 for performance reasons. I would be using it for the look of it. I love the way Vista looks sleek, I'm sure W7 is real nice looking as well.

Also take in to consideration that is they did offer support for 64 bit memory applications, it would give me a reason to add another 4 Gigs of Ram. Having 8 GB of ram would be over kill because none of the programs I use regularly have put much strain on my systems.

I have 3 Quad Core systems, 2 are gaming rigs, and the new one will be just for recording. Quad Core system tear through anything you throw at them like nothing. They are A LOT more effective than people who haven't used them know.
 
I know, I have a quad core. ;) 8 cores would be better though :D

All I'm saying is that the performance of Pro Tools would be the same (if not better) on XP compared to W7 at current. I say better because of the relatively low RAM requirements of XP.
 
FoulPhil said:
I wouldn't be using windows 7 for performance reasons. I would be using it for the look of it. I love the way Vista looks sleek, I'm sure W7 is real nice looking as well.
Click to expand...

Windows 7 is nice looking, but ideally if you're using a computer for your DAW
and nothing else, the looks are very low priority. You should really be optimizing
the system, which involves things like:
no screensavers
windows classic style (grey toolbars, regular font etc.)
no desktop wallpaper

etc. etc.

You get used to the look after a while, and the machine runs a million times
better.

http://duc.digidesign.com/showthread.php?t=200069
 
Yeah, I get what you guys mean. I just think a decent quad core system has enough power for it not to matter. I think you can still have a sleek look and great performance with a quad core system.

I guess I'll have to do some testing. It says stock PT8 has up to 48 stereo or mono tracks right? I'll work on a huge arrangement. And try to use all 48 tracks with the appropriate plug ins and all. I'm not going to max it out, I'll approach it based on plug ins I would actually need to use. I'll keep it realistic like that.

At that point if I still have no lag or performance issues, I'll max it out with plug ins and then see what happens LOL
 
I already get that kinda performance on my 2006 Mac Quad Core (pre Intel)...

The true limiting factor is the memory. You're limited to 4GB TOTAL on 32bit Windows systems (Not certain about W7-32bit but traditionally the case for XP and Vista 32). Apple systems at least gave you up to 4GB per process thread to work with; but it can still be crippling when working with very large virtual instruments, or sessions with a high edit density. It's possible that W7 gives you 4GB per process too - I don't know.

The whole power of 64bit processing is that you get to access and address a maximum theoretical 16TB (yes, Terra Bytes) rather than 4GB with a 32bit system.

I'm not saying that you have a bad system - far from it. I'm saying you have a good foundation, but to see any gains (other than aesthetics) with Windows 7, you will need more RAM. And it's possible that without that extra RAM you may well see a reduction in performance.
 
FoulPhil said:
Yeah, I get what you guys mean. I just think a decent quad core system has enough power for it not to matter. I think you can still have a sleek look and great performance with a quad core system.

I guess I'll have to do some testing. It says stock PT8 has up to 48 stereo or mono tracks right? I'll work on a huge arrangement. And try to use all 48 tracks with the appropriate plug ins and all. I'm not going to max it out, I'll approach it based on plug ins I would actually need to use. I'll keep it realistic like that.

At that point if I still have no lag or performance issues, I'll max it out with plug ins and then see what happens LOL
Click to expand...

Load up 256 instrument tracks, all with xpand!2 on em, and follow them up with
9 reverbs each, then let me know how you get on :D
 
pezking said:
The whole power of 64bit processing is that you get to access and address a maximum theoretical 16TB (yes, Terra Bytes) rather than 4GB with a 32bit system.
Click to expand...

Who would need all that RAM?!?!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
philbagg said:
Load up 256 instrument tracks, all with xpand!2 on em, and follow them up with
9 reverbs each, then let me know how you get on :D
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't use that much midi in my recordings. Most of the stuff I do is based around real instruments. I've used Xpand, but very lightly. Sometimes a piano or strings help to build a nice climax.

On average my sessions aren't over 16 tracks. A lot of times it's much less. As I've been saying, one of the benefits of pro tools using Windows 7 with 64bit memory support is being able to add more memory and the system actually use it.
 
FoulPhil said:
Yeah I don't use that much midi in my recordings. Most of the stuff I do is based around real instruments. I've used Xpand, but very lightly. Sometimes a piano or strings help to build a nice climax.

On average my sessions aren't over 16 tracks. A lot of times it's much less. As I've been saying, one of the benefits of pro tools using Windows 7 with 64bit memory support is being able to add more memory and the system actually use it.
Click to expand...

Depending on the type of music you're doing, mostly live tracks is probably the
best option. However, I reckon it'd be a good way to test out your processing
capabilites, or probably blowing up the world :eek: :D
 
philbagg said:
Load up 256 instrument tracks, all with xpand!2 on em, and follow them up with
9 reverbs each, then let me know how you get on :D
Click to expand...

Come on let's be serious about this! It's not a big dick competition!

The reverbs are no problem - I have HD :D

philbagg said:
Who would need all that RAM?!?!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

You'd have said the same thing 20 years ago if someone told you that in a few years you could have 256MB of memory for a reasonable price. It's all relative. We're already at the point where even the most basic of computers are dual core...
 
pezking said:
You'd have said the same thing 20 years ago if someone told you that in a few years you could have 256MB of memory for a reasonable price. It's all relative. We're already at the point where even the most basic of computers are dual core...
Click to expand...

It will be very interesting to see what we'll be doin in 5 or 10 years time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top