justcrash

ohhh it's killin' me....

I suspect noone will miss him in the meantime. Agreed. From reading some posts from before he and his wife were even separated it seems his wife has always been ready to jump at chances to gratify herself without taking her own family at all into consideration. I doubt he will be missed either. I am not familiar with Tu Be's history, but like I said, the thought of a woman, any woman, being able to legally take a mans child away from him for pretty much no reason pisses me off at our legal system. Especially when you consider all of the {censored}ty dads who can't be bothered to be dads. So lets punish the dads who are stand up guys.

Sorry it took so long to deal with the loiking character, guys. I have to sleep sometime. Hopefully his attitude will be adjusted when he gets back in 6 months. Tu Be, sorry to hear about the divorce crap. I really don't want to even fathom being in your shoes.

Hey guys, I just wanted to show off my first ever home recorded project. It probably stinks so you don't need to tell me...lol. I was just proud and wanted to share. Enjoy! http://www.myspace.com/stereotypicality

I run a Mac based studio, but just for the experience/fun I recently built a fairly hardcore Vista machine (in fact building and attempting to operate this machine persuaded me to stick with Macs for my audio work). However, I certainly believe it can be done rather well on a PC - just not my preference. Ok well to start off - I went with the 64 bit version of Vista as I didn't feel like shelling the dough for another operating system when they get all the drivers updated in a few months. Just cannot afford to upgrade a hobby computer in a few months. So - just to test it out I downloaded Reaper (for one because I wanted to test Reaper out and #2 I wanted to see how my PC could handle audio), and attempted re-mixing a few old projects (that were fairly skimpy requirement wise). What I decided is that while the driver support is not awful - it certainly could be quite a lot better. It was usable, but not as good as I had wished (or was used to from my Macs). This became especially pertinent when I realized many DAW manufacturer's haven't upgraded all their drivers - especially for 64 bit Vista. Not only that, but Vista itself is kinda slow. I mean I have a 1.2 ghz G4 processor with 1 gb of ram in an old iBook, and it is not much slower than my overclocked 1.86 ghz Core 2 Duo with 2 gb of memory. I was disappointed. And yes - I only went with two gigs of dual channel memory - with the possibility of adding two more eventually. However, the way I see it is alot of things in 64 bit Vista cannot even use 4 gb's so I did not feel on shelling out the dough for the extra memory just yet. This machine run games just fine, but it is not my first choice for audio. Hope this helps (and apologize if I come off to anti-PC...I really am not, I just want to provide as accurate a representation as I can). Thank you! You may be one of the most even handed unbiased MAC users I have ever met!

Drum synths. A drum synth like BFD itself can use more than 4GB of RAM, leaving aside the OS and DAW software. I use the 40 velocity level version of it right now. If I flip the switch that tells it to load all the samples (for the small drum kit I use, not a big one) into memory, it will zoom past 2GB and start swapping like crazy. I've not let it continue since it would just kill the machine. But if that small kit at 40 layers eats that much memory, clearly a Neil Pert type kit, at the 128 layer level, would probably hit 4GB or more. So what you end up with otherwise is a scheme where it loads the first parts of the samples into memory, just enough to get the sound playing while it loads the rest of the sample from disk. So you really have to have a separate hard drive for its samples and it beats that drive hard and can get behind in really frenetic sections and glitch (not during the final mixdown which is done offline, but while tracking/mixing.) With a 64 bit system that had say 8GB, you could just let the whole kit load to memory and have a very much higher performing system. I'd love to go XP 64, but my machine has to double as a software development machine during the day (when I'm not wearing the cape and tights.) I'd really have to buy a second machine in order to do that. In the meantime, I think that just going up to a 32 bit quad core would be a better investment for me. Exactly, my current machine can't run EZ Drummer and Amplitube 2 without going crazy and making white noise. So add in reverbs, compressors, high passes, eqs, delays and I essentially have a project I worked three months on that I have no way of mixing. Thus the new PC.

Look at it this way... your machine is ready for the future. When 64 bit OS's, drivers and applications catch up to your hardware you will be ready for them. Both apple and MS are in the same boat here... neither one has a viable 64Bit OS yet. But they both will within the next year or so. And the previously mentioned point about XP (or Vista) not recognizing more than 3GB of RAM is correct. But again, once 64 bit OS's catch up you'll be ready. Ok, you've talked me down, though I am still up in the air on Vista 32 for the RAM recognition. STOP ME! QUICKLY!

Very well, 32 bit versions of Vista won't really use all 4GB, some of it is reserved for system use, so you actually get between 3GB and 4GB. As mentioned, if you want to go beyond 4GB of RAM, you would have to go to a 64 bit version of Vista, which would really magnify the driver and software incompatibility issues, but 4GB will wotk with any version. Microsoft quotes 512MB as a minimum and recommends 1GB. From everything I have read, going from 1GB to 2GB is still supposed to improve performace. I am about to upgrade from 1GB to 3GB, but haven't installed it yet. Performance on my machine (Core 2 Dup, 1GB RAM) is much better than my older XP machine, but it had a much slower processor. See, I have a hang up that since i have a 64 bit processor, I need a 64 bit OS. Help me stop!!

In general it's true that Vista will run slower than XP on similar hardware (there are lots of XP machines that either can't run Vista at all or run it very slowly). There are a few buts, though.... XP tends to really slow down over time as you add and remove applications. It is alos much more susceptible to viruses/spyware. These will slow your system down, as will attempts to prevent them (running Norton, for example, really takes a big hit on your system resources). More importantly, applications which really need speed (primarilty audio and video) are (or are going to be) written to take advatage of two (or four, or eight) processor cores). If you are running something like that, you might well run considerably faster under Vista. A speed penalty, even 40%, won't matter much on apps like word processing, which don't come anywhere close to taxing the processor. There are also ways to speed up Vista easily. Much of the eye candy can be turned off when not needed, and I really like Ready Boost - plugging a thumb drive into a USB port causes a speed boosr - I use an old broken MP3 player for this. I guess threads like this show why Macs are so popular for recording. The machine I am building will have an atholon 64 bit 3 gig CPU with 4 gigs of RAM in it. How would that handle Vista?