Jump to content

Windows isn't as important to Microsoft any more


electrow
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

If you just google The Verge and Microsoft, you'll find it.

 

It's a pretty empty article, at the core just a few tidbits about some restructuring and which divisions of Microsoft are growing/not growing, etc.

 

Added over the top is a some guesswork by the author who says things like:

 

Consumers are no longer interested in purchasing devices for the familiarity or compatibility of Windows, and it’s hard to even list 10 desktop apps I really need on a daily basis.

 

Yawn.....

 

 

nat

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Looks like Silicon Valley once again thinking only in their own bubble, that everyone, everywhere has unrestricted access to the internet. "The Cloud" is nothing more than someone's server. To get to the server you need a connection to the internet, either by wire, fiber-optic, or cell, all of which are limited where I live. Additionally, my internet is metered. Go over a specified limit and you are hit with overage fees.

 

Microsoft really doesn't know what it wants to be. Four reorganizations in five years says a lot about not knowing what your company should be doing.

 

Glad I like Linux and can use it instead of Windows. Who knows, maybe BandLab will create a version of SONAR for Linux. Then I would be set and could be free from Windows altogether!:angry15:

Edited by Mandolin Picker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

Consumers are no longer interested in purchasing devices for the familiarity or compatibility of Windows, and it’s hard to even list 10 desktop apps I really need on a daily basis.

 

There are probably just about 10 that I use on a daily basis but that doesn't count any audio applications other than a media player or two. I don't consider any of them, or anything I do with them, an "experience." And I don't talk to any of them. However, there are probably 50 or 60 applications that I use more than once a year, and, when I need them, couldn't do without them. Windows is a pretty handy way to organize them, and most of them use the same conventions (because it's the Windows way).

 

I'd be very sad if my computer could only "provide experiences." I'd have to find a new way to get work done. Maybe that would finally push me over to Linux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

There are probably just about 10 that I use on a daily basis but that doesn't count any audio applications other than a media player or two. I don't consider any of them, or anything I do with them, an "experience." And I don't talk to any of them. However, there are probably 50 or 60 applications that I use more than once a year, and, when I need them, couldn't do without them. Windows is a pretty handy way to organize them, and most of them use the same conventions (because it's the Windows way).

 

I'd be very sad if my computer could only "provide experiences." I'd have to find a new way to get work done. Maybe that would finally push me over to Linux.

 

Yeah, with work, on a Windows desktop, I regularly use at least a dozen programs every workday. Then add the Windows music computer where, counting VSTs, I've got what, 150 programs I use - not daily of course (what does that matter?), but I paid for them and expect them to work.

 

It just seems that some people get excited envisioning a world with no desktop computers, but only portable devices. It's amazing what some people get excited about.....but it's all just so silly since untold millions or billions of businesses and individuals are quite locked into Windows desktops and laptops.

 

IF streaming and wifi became robust, safe, secure, reliable, super-fast, universally available, and affordable, and we all just logged into some remote computer that did all the processing, kept all the data, and the apps worked as well or better than programs loaded onto local, personally owned and maintained machines - I'm sure I'd sign up. But it seems to me we're a long long way from that.

 

nat

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

It just seems that some people get excited envisioning a world with no desktop computers, but only portable devices. It's amazing what some people get excited about.....but it's all just so silly since untold millions or billions of businesses and individuals are quite locked into Windows desktops and laptops.

 

The people who get excited about this fall into two piles. One are those who avoid doing things on a computer, but jump on mobile apps. Things like getting driving directions, paying bills, checking bank and credit card balances, and tweeting and facebooking (nobody uses e-mail any more ;) ). And on the other end, there are the developers who can force those like me away from our computers by reducing the functionality of computer-based applications and making them available only on a mobile device. And then there are the data miners - but Google already knows everything about me.

 

IF streaming and wifi became robust, safe, secure, reliable, super-fast, universally available, and affordable, and we all just logged into some remote computer that did all the processing, kept all the data, and the apps worked as well or better than programs loaded onto local, personally owned and maintained machines - I'm sure I'd sign up. But it seems to me we're a long long way from that.

 

That's all kind of scary to me. One of the things that I like about owning recordings is that I can listen to them anytime I want, as long as I have a playback system available. I can't depend on a streaming service having a copy of a 50 year old LP, but if I think I might want to listen to it on a road or airplane trip, I can make a copy, put it on my phone, and have it available for listening without having to be in ethernet range. And it doesn't cost me any more money to listen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

That's all kind of scary to me. One of the things that I like about owning recordings is that I can listen to them anytime I want, as long as I have a playback system available. I can't depend on a streaming service having a copy of a 50 year old LP, but if I think I might want to listen to it on a road or airplane trip, I can make a copy, put it on my phone, and have it available for listening without having to be in ethernet range. And it doesn't cost me any more money to listen.

 

I'm the same way, mainly for reasons of reliability, control, and sound quality. I still buy the occasional CD so I can rip it lossless and listen to it per those three criteria at my will.

 

But I still stream a bunch, too. It still is sinking in, just how much material is available for almost nothing.

 

Civilization is basically a long evolution in the direction of separation of skills and tasks and responsibilities, and a web of co-dependent structures and suppliers, workers and controllers. It's already scary in ways we don't feel the fear any longer. You couldn't feel all the dangers all the time or you'd go totally off the rails...

 

nat

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author
As to Windows and desktops...no one should be surprised. Desktop computers were overkill for people who just wanted to run a word processor or surf the web. When alternatives became available' date=' people gravitated to tablets and mobile, depending on what they needed.[/quote']

 

Mobile devices are fine for text applications, but who wants to watch a movie or even an educational video on a 5" screen? People do it because they can. Web pages that are optimized for mobile devices aren't as easy to use as their desktop equivalents. Personally, I don't get it. But I suppose that today most activity on computer-like devices is with social media, which has been designed to fit a small screen.

 

There will always be a reason for powerful computers, Pixar couldn't exist without them. It just may go back to the days where there are custom integrators selling something that resembles an S-100 computer, running Linux or some special-purpose variant.

 

Or maybe I'll have to go back to tape :)

 

You don't need a high-powered computer for making music, or for surfing the web (though in my advanced age I'm getting to appreciate a large monitor driven by a graphics engine with good resolution), but still, using music production as an example, software has grown to fill the available computer power. (Whose rule is that?) And then there's game playing, and virtual reality trying to make some headway.

 

As for me, I'm still running Windows XP on Pentium 4s on several computers, though I recently found that I was forced to upgrade a couple to Windows 7 and Core 2 Duo computers when I found some worthwhile software that's written for a 64-bit OS. And on the "social" side, I've found a few web pages that used to work fine with the old XPs, but have been "enhanced" so they stumble badly without a more powerful computer.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'll second Craig's post above. It really does depend on what type of music you make. For composers with immense orchestral templates, 16-32 GB of RAM is considered something of a starting point.

 

For example (skip to 2:27 for the template discussion):

 

[video=youtube;MjEJzl53Qfc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjEJzl53Qfc?t=148

 

Best,

 

Geoff

Edited by Geoff Grace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author
I'll second Craig's post above. It really does depend on what type of music you make. For composers with immense orchestral templates' date=' 16-32 GB of RAM is considered something of a starting point.[/quote']

 

Well, I figure that you guys know by now what kind of music I make - live as possible, almost always fewer than 16 tracks, never use samples, rarely use plug-ins. A Pentium 4 with 4 GB RAM works just fine even if I have to use a DAW (it's most likely going to be Reaper).

 

But if you're going to be buying a couple of grand worth of samples and hard drives to load them from, and a barrel full of CPU-hungry plug-ins, then the cost of a computer with 8 CPU cores and 32 GB of memory is relatively small potatoes. But then, the topic here is CPU power, not cost. But you get much more computer for your budget amount today than you did ten years ago, so why not?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Members

I froze my studio years ago to Win XP SP2 and Adobe Audition 3, and one of the best Pentium 3 mobos ahead of it's time then... ASUS P3B-F. It's blazing fast and I know it well.

 

As some may remember I advocated saying goodbye to the endless software upgrade trap more than a decade ago. Of course as always the heart of my studio is still analog. Digital is an also-ran in my studio. I sync analog and digital keyboards to analog tape during mixdown.

 

My system might seem to be more work for someone familiar with only today's technology, but I come from yesterday. It's easier and less costly for me to use older recording gear same as I do older guitars and keyboards. Frozen in time. No one has ever accused me of being trendy. :cool:

 

I skipped all that Windows Vista, Windows 7 and etc rigamaroo we talked about a lot in this forum back in the day.

Edited by Beck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...