Why Vista sounds worse

[carbon111]

Didn't we just have this thread a week ago?!

 

To reiterate my position: Vista is currently a broken piece of crap and "Mac" is a pretty piece of non-extensible fluff.

 

As soon as we get tired of the {censored} MS and Apple are feeding us, maybe we'll get a lean OS again that doesn't eat up a lot of the CPU just by itself, leaving what's left for the apps.

[mytee2.0]

Didn't we just have this thread a week ago?!

and the week before that, and a week before that.... and....

[wades_keys]

this is why virtually all programers/ engineers/ and computer-savvy people in general still use windows- you can always customize your system to run how you need it

i'm laughing my ass off.

You can't be serious.

Real engineers use Linux, because they can customize every aspect of the system the way they need it, including the kernel, if need be.

[ShakaCthulu]

I am a PC user. Ive looked at mac, but didnt got here because of cost. What I have realized for a long time now, and has gotten me through many very successful platform moves is simple: stay BEHIND the curve.

 

 

Words of wisdom.

 

It's true that Macs are more expensive, but the gap has narrowed quite a bit more. It's not that much more for a dual core MacMini or Imac. There's plenty of dual G5s and G4s out there for nice prices too. You don't need the latest and greatest, whether it's Mac or Windows.

 

Vista is looking more and more like Windows ME:

 

"Acknowledging criticisms that the Windows operating system is "bloated," a senior company official said the software maker has adopted a new, modular approach to OS development that will yield more streamlined products beginning with Windows 7 -- a successor to Windows Vista that's expected to be available some time in 2010."

 

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202404710

 

I don't think this exactly encourages driver development from the prosumer audio companies.

[soundwave106]

That's so naive it's almost sad. The planet's computer-buying and computer-manufacturing population does not give the smallest {censored} about musicians, for they are overwhelmed in numbers by everyone else.

 

 

Pretty much. Microsoft is so dominated by the business world, that's where their money comes in from and that's who they listen to first. I can attest that a lot of what might be thought of as Microsoft "bloat" is actually pretty useful when it comes to business demands.

 

Transferring to a new bit architecture is always a pain in the butt, especially for users that don't tend to be quite as bleeding-edge oriented (audio apps count MHO). My guess is that in a year or two, Vista will be fine for audio applications. Right now, XP 32 bit is still the way to go, on the PC side.

[mytee2.0]

i'm laughing my ass off. You can't be serious. Real engineers use Linux, because they can customize every aspect of the system the way they need it, including the kernel, if need be.

 

I hope you were kidding

 

*edit*

 

ah, you werent talking about audio, just engineers and programmers. nevermind! as you were...

[poumtschak]

 

Real engineers use Linux

So does MI companies:

http://www.mvista.com/downloads/Case_study_MontaVista_Linux_and_Yamaha.pdf

 

On the PC front, Ubuntu studio is attractive.

[P321]

Ok, I read the article in full. The message is pretty clear: Dont use WaveRT, but ASIO should work fine, so long as you optimize other areas of the system and keep it running lean.

Apparently it wasn't pretty clear, because it's exactly the opposite. Under Vista you WANT WaveRT drivers to remove the additional layers Vista adds before a driver can talk to the kernel. Those additional layers will add a performance penalty. So start telling companies you want WaveRT support if you use Vista, NOT ASIO.

 

The problem is there are some EARLY WaveRT drivers based on a flawed model from Microsoft, which they later updated after taking advice from others. It's those you want to avoid. I doubt even a good WaveRT driver will provide equal performance to XP, but it should help a bit.

[Tony Scharf]

[quote name=P321;26272958
Apparently it wasn't pretty clear' date=' because it's exactly the opposite. Under Vista you WANT WaveRT drivers to remove the additional layers Vista adds before a driver can talk to the kernel. Those additional layers will add a performance penalty. So start telling companies you want WaveRT support if you use Vista, NOT ASIO.

The problem is there are some EARLY WaveRT drivers based on a flawed model from Microsoft, which they later updated after taking advice from others. It's those you want to avoid. I doubt even a good WaveRT driver will provide equal performance to XP, but it should help a bit.

When WaveRT drivers are available and they work proberly...then YES uses them. Until that time, stay clear and use ASIO (which is what I already use, and happily so).

Again, give it 6 months to a year and this problem works its self out.

[Goofball Jones]

LOL. Even a Windows guy like me has to admit that Microsoft is incapable of creating a viable Internet business model.

Like tying the whole OS into a web-browser (Windows95)...where even the file directory could be a web browser and download things from the net! What could possibly go wrong?

[TowJam]

get a mac

Not so fast...

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9060678&intsrc=hm_list

and

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120172199374929447.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

[SelenaBassGirl]

My desk top with XP is in the shop now, and I am having to use my laptop with the stupid Vista on it and I HATE IT! Lucky I hooked up my subwoofer and satellite speakers to it and I got my tunes but still it is always slow, has a habit of "not responding", kicks me out of internet, hate the way you have to download all the photos instead of checking/unchecking them when you up load from your cam, and more! I HATE IT!!

[carbon111]

And now for something completely different...

 

 

...someone please wake me when "Monty Pythons Computing Platform Thread" is over.

[Goofball Jones]

Not so fast... http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9060678&intsrc=hm_list and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120172199374929447.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

Oh...ok...yes...a new machine that's basically a "niche" product is having problems. Lets not ever buy another product from them!

Wait, Microsoft is having problems too. Let's not buy one of those either.

Linux?

Screw it...maybe Ted Kaczynski had the right idea...lets just throw technology away!

[robotsquid]

It'd be nice if music software manufacturers could get together and work on a Linux distribution that was specifically designed for music production and didn't need to be optimised at all, then wrote software to run on it, got the interface companies to write drivers for that OS and then we wouldn't have to worry about any of this stuff.

 

I doubt it'll ever happen but we can dream can't we?

[XorAxAx]

Screw it...maybe Ted Kaczynski had the right idea...lets just throw technology away!

You do have a point... The AC30 clone I received today has no software, no plugins, no background services, no latency, no bugs. It doesn't have any microchips or transistors. It doesn't seek to manage my rights, nor does it market value-added services to me. It doesn't play games or display email. There is no upgrade path, no automatic update. It has no sample rate, no bit depth, no converters, no aliasing. It does not get spyware or viruses. It does not contact its manufacturer without my knowledge or permission. It does not receive or send spam. It has no configuration files, no registry, no dialog boxes, no error messages.

However, it does sound great.

[XorAxAx]

It'd be nice if music software manufacturers could get together and work on a Linux distribution that was specifically designed for music production and didn't need to be optimised at all, then wrote software to run on it, got the interface companies to write drivers for that OS and then we wouldn't have to worry about any of this stuff. I doubt it'll ever happen but we can dream can't we?

 

Screw Linux. Give me an even leaner OS that runs the music software on the bare metal.

[BonsoWonderDog]

really Do you own Yahoo stock ?

 

 

Son of Heffalump:

 

No, I don't.

 

I do implement a Microsoft product though......not Vista.

[wetwareinterface]

Screw Linux. Give me an even leaner OS that runs the music software on the bare metal.

 

 

 

there are a few choices there for that...

no gui - dos, cpm

with gui - win 3.11, win 95, win 98, os/2 warp 3 and 4 etc...

 

there are even sequencers and hard disk recording software that will work under win 3.11 that you can still find. win 95/98 is an even better choice as you can even have vsti and direct x synths and effects along with your bare metal apps.

 

problem with bare metal operating systems is this little thing called the internet. every boob on the planet wants to plug any and all computers, even music ones into it. so you get a anti-virus, pop-up blocker, anti-spyware, firewall, etc... and an os that tries as much as it can to seperate malicious software and misbehaving apps from taking the whole system down.

 

real bare metal computing as you put it is the quickest way to an unstable hence unproductive system out there. even without a net connection and virus issues, one glitch in a piece of software will take the whole system down as there isn't a watchdog kernal to recover from errors or an api in the way to have a failsafe and error trapping. not to mention the rediculous notion that software developers want to re-invent the wheel just to provide mouse and keyboard support for their app every time they write one let alone audio and graphics.

[Yoozer]

Screw Linux. Give me an even leaner OS that runs the music software on the bare metal.

 

 

Linux is a kernel, the fluffy windows and effects (Compiz, X11) can be disabled, but a lot of the usefulness of a softsynth is in the GUI. Atari 1040 with GEM or an Amiga with Octamed are options.

 

The problem with bare metal is that it requires specific hardware; then you have a chance of not ruining things for people.

 

Of the Windowses 98SE (do we all remember calling Windows 95 bloated in the age of a 4 mb 486DX? No? Selective memory, people!) is the most useful/compatible, but the UI rendering is all done by the CPU instead of offloaded to the graphics card. Still, the gains you'll have from running a way older OS on newer hardware (it can't even handle the memory and drive sizes) are completely negated; just overspec your computer and run XP.

[J3RK]

Running an Echo Audiofire interface, Reaper, and a ton of VSTs (Waves plugs, KarmaFX, Audiorealism, OPX Pro, Native Instruments plugs, Poly-Ana, etc. etc.) under Vista X64 with absolutely zero problems. Performance is great, stability is perfect, and no issues with output, latency, etc. One just needs to know how to put a good system together. (which includes software)

[XorAxAx]

The problem with bare metal is that it requires specific hardware; then you have a chance of not ruining things for people.

Right. People would need to buy that hardware. It's kinda like BeOS was, except that people would have an actual reason to use the OS.

[xmlguy]

It'd be nice if music software manufacturers could get together and work on a Linux distribution that was specifically designed for music production and didn't need to be optimised at all, then wrote software to run on it, got the interface companies to write drivers for that OS and then we wouldn't have to worry about any of this stuff. I doubt it'll ever happen but we can dream can't we?

 

 

What if your dream has already happened, but you just didn't know it?

 

You've just described Receptor by Muse Research.

 

http://www.museresearch.com/receptor.php?r=faq

 

It's uses a custom Linux distribution made specifically for live music production. It uses Windows VSTs without Windows. It also has a lot of hardware/software integration besides that, to eliminate the need for a monitor/mouse during live gigs.

[robotsquid]

What if your dream has already happened, but you just didn't know it? You've just described Receptor by Muse Research. http://www.museresearch.com/receptor.php?r=faq It's uses a custom Linux distribution made specifically for live music production. It uses Windows VSTs without Windows. It also has a lot of hardware/software integration besides that, to eliminate the need for a monitor/mouse during live gigs.

 

 

That's the opposite of what I want, all it does is run plugins without the convenience of their dedicated GUIs. If I'm going to use hardware I'll just use proper hardware thanks.

 

What I want is something that looks like a computer, has a screen and a mouse like a computer, I can plug whatever audio interface I want into it like a computer and will run Pro Tools or Live or Cubase like a computer, but doesn't have those things you don't need in a music machine like email, web access, virus checkers, fancy OS eyecandy.

[nice keetee]

That's the opposite of what I want, all it does is run plugins without the convenience of their dedicated GUIs. If I'm going to use hardware I'll just use proper hardware thanks. What I want is something that looks like a computer, has a screen and a mouse like a computer, I can plug whatever audio interface I want into it like a computer and will run Pro Tools or Live or Cubase like a computer, but doesn't have those things you don't need in a music machine like email, web access, virus checkers, fancy OS eyecandy.

Seems like you need a computer. Without the bloat of pre-installed crap. Either remove from an oem or learn computereze? Struggled with this myself.