J
Jamie Jukosky
New member
So, I'm using Sonar on my computer right now with Windows ME as an OS. Is the upgrade to XP worth it? How about just going with windows 2000? Can anybody tell me the benefits/disadvantages of each?
F
FZmontanaDF
New member
depends on your hardware.
J
Jamie Jukosky
New member
right now I'm mostly using a laptop with celeron 800, 128 MB SDRAM, 4500 rpm 10 gig hard drive, MOTU 828, and 7200 rpm 20 gig firewire hard drive.
S
Shazukura
New member
I'm thinking XP would be a better bet than 2K. The only trouble I have with XP so far is with certain drivers when using n-track, but I has the same trouble under ME.
-Shaz
-Shaz
C
c9-2001
New member
i've been using xppro for a few months now. last night i went back to 2000... but i think i might go back XP. its a much faster Os. they both are very stable though.
with the stuff you have i don't see any reason why not to upgrade to Xp. but don't actually do a upgrade, do a fresh install.
with the stuff you have i don't see any reason why not to upgrade to Xp. but don't actually do a upgrade, do a fresh install.
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Danger! Danger!
I upgraded from ME to XP more or less out of curiosity, and I'd like to now invoke a time honored phrase:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
With a bit of fussing, cursing, and learning new administration stuff I was able to get XP running *almost* as well as ME with Cubase 5.1. Over all I'm pretty happy with it, but it doesn't give me quite the performance that it did in ME.
XP is loads more stable and faster as an operating system (songs load faster, the box boots faster) but it isn't faster for audio. Its slower. Latency is a little higher, VST instruments can't play as many voices, etc.
I'm about to switch back...really, just because I want to higher performance in the VST synths. Other than that its about the same.
I upgraded from ME to XP more or less out of curiosity, and I'd like to now invoke a time honored phrase:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
With a bit of fussing, cursing, and learning new administration stuff I was able to get XP running *almost* as well as ME with Cubase 5.1. Over all I'm pretty happy with it, but it doesn't give me quite the performance that it did in ME.
XP is loads more stable and faster as an operating system (songs load faster, the box boots faster) but it isn't faster for audio. Its slower. Latency is a little higher, VST instruments can't play as many voices, etc.
I'm about to switch back...really, just because I want to higher performance in the VST synths. Other than that its about the same.
S
Shazukura
New member
Chris S.
It's quite possible that you can tweak XP to make it run your programs better. I think it's more flexible than 2K. Bounce around the control panels and other areas that you customize your hardware and software settings. Of course you should also be getting all the latest drivers, etc...
-Shaz
It's quite possible that you can tweak XP to make it run your programs better. I think it's more flexible than 2K. Bounce around the control panels and other areas that you customize your hardware and software settings. Of course you should also be getting all the latest drivers, etc...
-Shaz
C
c9-2001
New member
Re: Danger! Danger!
o its much faster for audio than any other os i've used. latency is great under XPpro..what sound card are you using? when i was using a cport under 98 the latency was 8-12. under 2000 it was 5-8 under xp it was 2-3ms...
i think it depends on your computer,ram,hd's etc...
Chris Shaeffer said:
o its much faster for audio than any other os i've used. latency is great under XPpro..what sound card are you using? when i was using a cport under 98 the latency was 8-12. under 2000 it was 5-8 under xp it was 2-3ms...
i think it depends on your computer,ram,hd's etc...
Slackmaster2K
Gone
So far I've found my XP machines to be less stable. Hardware configurations that were fine on Windows 2000 caused lockups and other problems on XP. I found the interface to be less responsive than 2K (even in classic mode), and have seen a few programs act strangely.
However it will be a fine OS. It's not what Win2k was right out of the box, but it's pretty good. Just don't assume that your Win2k machine and software will jive perfectly on XP, which is kind of suprising really.
Personally I feel like XP is the "Windows 98" of the NT world. Kind of like not necessary right now, but in a year or two you'll have to go to it.
If I had to choose between XP and 9x/ME, I would choose XP. If I had to choose between XP and 2000, I would choose 2000 for now.
That's just my opinion. I have NOT recorded on XP! My DAW is still on 2000. I've only worked with about four XP installations so I'd hardly consider myself an XPert (horf! haha). I have been suprised by its overall clunkiness and willingness to lock up. I have since fixed all the problems and all the machines are running stable, BTW.
I'm not trying to say XP is a piece of shit. It's just that I don't have the confidene in it that I had/have in 2000. I remember moving from NT4 to 2000, I was pretty aprehensive at first....but after it installed (damn near by itself) and I was suddenly able to play games and use USB devices and all sorts of things that were a pain on NT....plus I had better luck with DAW applications....i was just fucking overjoyed. No more dual booting! XP's not quite that big of a step from 2000, so I guess I'm a little less impressed and that is probably biasing my opinion a bit.
I kinda think that MS should have waited another year. This is too soon after ME/2000 for a lot of people. It's always a bit of a hassle changing operating systems, and it's only been a year and a half since I had to pay for 2000.
You know what really makes me mad about XP? This is kind of off topic, but a lot of the features it was going to support disappeared, or are hack jobs. For instance I remember it was going to support device sharing (not just printers) which was a pretty neat idea.....if it exists I can't find it! Then the BIGGEST disappointment is that XP was supposed to be truely multiuser, FINALLY. But it's not multiuser when the machine is part of a domain!!!!! I couldn't believe it! I had to check the docs like 10 times. Mulituser support would have been SOO much more beneficial in a network environment than at the home level. Holy shit what a waste! *nix has been multiuser since the beginning. Do you know how much time it would save me at work here if I could switch between users without logging on/off????? More than you think. I was soooo looking forward to that. Oh well. Finally, I was disappointed that MS fully developed skin support for XP, but then doesn't give the user any control so you still have to get WindowBlinds (or similar) to do anything cool. I know it sounds sort of superficial, but a something like window managers on X would give users so many more interface options...it's more than just looks, but efficiency and simplicity...everybody works differently. Blah I'm just rambling now.
Slackmaster 2000
However it will be a fine OS. It's not what Win2k was right out of the box, but it's pretty good. Just don't assume that your Win2k machine and software will jive perfectly on XP, which is kind of suprising really.
Personally I feel like XP is the "Windows 98" of the NT world. Kind of like not necessary right now, but in a year or two you'll have to go to it.
If I had to choose between XP and 9x/ME, I would choose XP. If I had to choose between XP and 2000, I would choose 2000 for now.
That's just my opinion. I have NOT recorded on XP! My DAW is still on 2000. I've only worked with about four XP installations so I'd hardly consider myself an XPert (horf! haha). I have been suprised by its overall clunkiness and willingness to lock up. I have since fixed all the problems and all the machines are running stable, BTW.
I'm not trying to say XP is a piece of shit. It's just that I don't have the confidene in it that I had/have in 2000. I remember moving from NT4 to 2000, I was pretty aprehensive at first....but after it installed (damn near by itself) and I was suddenly able to play games and use USB devices and all sorts of things that were a pain on NT....plus I had better luck with DAW applications....i was just fucking overjoyed. No more dual booting! XP's not quite that big of a step from 2000, so I guess I'm a little less impressed and that is probably biasing my opinion a bit.
I kinda think that MS should have waited another year. This is too soon after ME/2000 for a lot of people. It's always a bit of a hassle changing operating systems, and it's only been a year and a half since I had to pay for 2000.
You know what really makes me mad about XP? This is kind of off topic, but a lot of the features it was going to support disappeared, or are hack jobs. For instance I remember it was going to support device sharing (not just printers) which was a pretty neat idea.....if it exists I can't find it! Then the BIGGEST disappointment is that XP was supposed to be truely multiuser, FINALLY. But it's not multiuser when the machine is part of a domain!!!!! I couldn't believe it! I had to check the docs like 10 times. Mulituser support would have been SOO much more beneficial in a network environment than at the home level. Holy shit what a waste! *nix has been multiuser since the beginning. Do you know how much time it would save me at work here if I could switch between users without logging on/off????? More than you think. I was soooo looking forward to that. Oh well. Finally, I was disappointed that MS fully developed skin support for XP, but then doesn't give the user any control so you still have to get WindowBlinds (or similar) to do anything cool. I know it sounds sort of superficial, but a something like window managers on X would give users so many more interface options...it's more than just looks, but efficiency and simplicity...everybody works differently. Blah I'm just rambling now.
Slackmaster 2000
S
Shazukura
New member
Slack,
Do you know if those systems were "upgraded" or re-installed? Generally it's a bad idea to "upgrade" an O.S. Most people are better off backing up what they care about and starting with a clean disk format
Do you know if those systems were "upgraded" or re-installed? Generally it's a bad idea to "upgrade" an O.S. Most people are better off backing up what they care about and starting with a clean disk format
S
shackrock
New member
ok, but what about win98?
i am recording on WIN98, should i get XP, ME, 2000, or stay?
I use N-Track..
i am recording on WIN98, should i get XP, ME, 2000, or stay?
I use N-Track..
Slackmaster2K
Gone
They're all clean of course.
Slackmaster 2000
Slackmaster 2000
J
Jamie Jukosky
New member
So, to add to this question.... What kinds of things can I do in Windows Me to lower latency and improve stability? I already have one hardware profile dedicated only to recording. I am going to do a fresh install soon because of all the crap on my computer before I started recording.
-Jamie
-Jamie