TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Vista or XP
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Vista or XP

for the music producers, any thing worthwhile with vista. or is it just a resource hog making it more advantageous to stick with xp? I turn off all the fancy smancy stuff in xp as it is, so unless theres anything special, i couldn't see a real point.

Wait for service pack 318. Then buy Vista.

^ any notable improvement you can see in vista for production?

Okay. I don't get it. This is something I've complained about before, and so have millions of others.

Every Windows upgrade requires MORE resources to run. But Microsoft SAYS it will run faster.

This is illogical. Build the fastest computer you can, and use the most lightweight operating system possible.

This is my OPINION though. I personally think why would you waste the money for something that is going to have bugs from the get-go, something that is going to SLOW DOWN you're computer because you won't have the greater equivelent of power for Vista. It's not worth it.

However, Create Digital Music did interview a Cakewalk guy who worked with Vista for a while:

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/...-cakewalks-cto/

The only thing that seems to be worthwhile is that Vista is WaveRT:

quote:

WaveRT is the new Vista architecture for high-performance, real-time, low-latency audio drivers, designed for pro audio. The streaming model for such drivers is somewhat like [Steinberg?s] ASIO and [Windows? previous driver model] DirectKS, but there are important differences. The WaveRT signal flow permits direct access to the internal audio hardware buffers and sample position counters, allowing a DAW application to stream audio to the hardware in the most efficient manner possible.

However this is only worthwhile if say, you have a DAW that takes advantage of WaveRT, or your hardware uses WaveRT drivers (this is my assumtion here).

Just wait. Be patient. When Vist gets more fixes, and comes down in price, then consider buying it.


EDIT:

PS, This was a joke

quote:

Originally posted by wrzonance Wait for service pack 318. Then buy Vista.

thx for the info...i'm not in a rush to get it now anyways, just wanted to see if there was any advantages to getting it. Like many others, i'll need a computer upgrade to make it worthwhile, but that was on my list anyways, vista aside.

actually i've found that xp runs faster (for most things) and is more stable than 2000 pro. i don't think you should go for the lightest OS possible....like installing windows 98....it would be very quick, but it probably would be crashing like crazy trying to run the increasingly complex programs of today.

programs usually run best on the OS that they were designed for...

Has anybody ever tried Tiny XP?

quote:

Originally posted by thesuperfunk Has anybody ever tried Tiny XP?

No... but it's downloading right now. I'll let you know what I think.

I'm going to stick with XP and linux...

I'm done with Microsoft's bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by thesuperfunk Has anybody ever tried Tiny XP?

its awesome i use it on my production pc and my laptop.

If you strip vista down you can get similar performance to XP, if not better, because of the kernel redesign. But by strip down, I mean strip it down to basically being windows xp - no aero, no indexing, no unnecessary services.

quote:

Originally posted by thesuperfunk Has anybody ever tried Tiny XP?

Yes, it's crap.
Get nLite and do it yourself, the results are much better.

Next year

4gb of ram
Vista
Intel Penryn quad core cpu
dual 500gb drives


and you'll be laughing.......



But then again this is next year, I'm running vista now and while I think its the strongest windows release ever. I dont think its ready for audio. Wait till 3rd parties have time to develope proper drivers.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm Yes, it's crap. Get nLite and do it yourself, the results are much better.

which version did u use?

version 2 and 3 are the ones i use cant fault them in anyway

theres also a tiny vista too on topic

Vista boots faster but performs significantly worse than XP. What, you think you get the "Aero Glass" shit for nothing?

Vista's got some minor usability improvements and a lot of development which Microsoft claims is "under the hood" (like the SPP, their remote kill switch, just in case XP's goofy activation scheme wasn't irritating enough). The Start menu is also vastly improved. Other than that, there's not much to write home about.

It's alright to get Vista if you're purchasing a new computer and you have to pay for an OS anyway, but don't bother upgrading an existing computer. I'm sure I'll upgrade eventually, but only in several years from now when XP development stops and I'm forced to upgrade because everything requires Vista.

quote:

Originally posted by djbruuen thx for the info...i'm not in a rush to get it now anyways, just wanted to see if there was any advantages to getting it. Like many others, i'll need a computer upgrade to make it worthwhile, but that was on my list anyways, vista aside.

If you buy vista then turn off all the vista improvements, you'r left with xp, only probably slower, because current programs arent optimized for vista. Until new programs come out which are optimized for vista, it would be a disadvantage. vista is a waste of time and space for music. Yes, it's really good for normal people, looks prettier for sure, but we need all the resources we can get. Someone told me you need dual cores just to have the new start menu!Therefore, my next computer will not come with vista, it will come with mac OS.

Atm XP, but who knows about the results in the future. Vista might (and probably will be better) but we'll be waiting a while for that to happen.

well the new sound drivers sound like a nice feature...but myself I'll wait untill XP will be totally off...then think about updating to vista...why actually trying to fix something, what's totally working and is reliable?
or in case changing it for a new system, which is probably full of bugs:?

some of the comments are pretty much along what i was thinking. As a producer, i completely strip down all the pretty stuff to get as much resources as possible. So I wasn't really looking at Vista for its visual appeal, but for its stability and efficiency with production programs. I'm sure waiting a year or 2 couldn't hurt when everything is centralized around vista. I'm trying to ride out my current computer as long as i can (which is very much under standards for producers - 1.8gig AMD w/1gb ram) and get a quad core when they're available.

funny thing is that I heard the same stuff from people about XP, when it first came out. A lot of people were saying its no good, its a resource hog, dont bother, ect...well look at it now. I dont like Microsoft and I agree with one of the posters that my nest computer will be running Mac OSX.

I'm just considering the possibilities that Vista might just be good for audio too(with the right hardware...lol).

quote:

Originally posted by nutsan which version did u use? version 2 and 3 are the ones i use cant fault them in anyway theres also a tiny vista too on topic

Revision 4...

OSs has a thing called dependencies.

When you rape the OS and basically just delete files from the core of it, every time a dependent service is needed the computer will cry on the inside. You probably already know that, but when you think about how complex programs actually are, it is easy to see why stripping an install down isn't a good idea.

"Great, lets disable services XYZ, less services = faster!" - No. Every time that service is needed, your computer will loop and shit itself, you just don't see it.

TinyXP is useful for very specific purposes. If you use your computer for more than one thing, its not a good idea.

My rule; build your drivers into the ISO, and only disable things Windows will allow you to disable. You'll find it will be alot faster and stable...

Vista actually DOES run alot of stuff quicker, just fyi troops. If you have the PC to handle it that is.

quote:

Originally posted by Limit funny thing is that I heard the same stuff from people about XP, when it first came out. A lot of people were saying its no good, its a resource hog, dont bother, ect...well look at it now. I dont like Microsoft and I agree with one of the posters that my nest computer will be running Mac OSX. I'm just considering the possibilities that Vista might just be good for audio too(with the right hardware...lol).

When XP first came out it was slow, didn't boot fast and it was so full of security holes that hotfixes are still being released today. And the outlook email filter still doesn't recognise multiple extensions like .exe.scr.

Windows 95 was the same story.

After a while Microsoft irons out the bugs and the glitches and the performance issues and now most of us have got our gear working on windows XP which means theres a 99% chance something will fuck up if you move over to Vista before they fix all the bugs. At least the big ones anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by deceptikon Vista actually DOES run alot of stuff quicker, just fyi troops. If you have the PC to handle it that is.

You realize how little sense that makes, right? If you need beefier hardware to run it, then ipso facto it's less efficient.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You realize how little sense that makes, right? If you need beefier hardware to run it, then ipso facto it's less efficient.

Exactly what I said earlier. How many times does this have to be said to make sense?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.