I'm interested in hearing people's views on which OS they think is best for music production?
Edited by: markeg3000 at: 10/15/02 5:52:22 pm
Printable View
I'm interested in hearing people's views on which OS they think is best for music production?
Edited by: markeg3000 at: 10/15/02 5:52:22 pm
i used to use 98 on my old machine and that coped well for wot i was doing then, now im on XP and i must say ive had no problems with it so far
Still running the ol' WIN 98SE simply because I haven't felt like wiping my drive and getting a new OS up and running. I haven't run into any problems yet over the year with this system.
If the machine can handle it, I suggest using XP but I don't think the operating system makes too much difference to the music software aslong as it's above Win 98
I'm sticking with Win98 SE for the moment, mainly cause it's pretty good with all the packages I'v installed. I'm may go to Win 2000, XP is nice, but too damn anoying for my taste.
What you package you using now Si? I've gone back to CuBase... the VST plugins can work wonders!
Nothing more... Nothing Less...
I'm using XP Pro @ the mo with Reason/CuBase/Fruityloops and some others but my knowledge of them is limited.
XP Prop? nice one.
Not used that one, I'm hoping it's more stable when it comes to driver files... as XP seems to deman it has ITS drivers with your hardware... can be a pain!
Nothing more... Nothing Less...
i am testing xp on my spare machine (this one) i am sticking wth 98se for all audio work at the mo for stability sake...if it aint broke don't fix it.......
I have been using Win2000 for the last 18 months on my main music system. I use a rackmount server box in my case and while at home, its your basic audio station to screw around with, I also use it with a numark DMC-MP3 controller so i can store a truck full of vinyl in the machine. But to make it work properly, the machine cant have any problems with stability and I certainly cant be rebooting it whenever it acts funny.
I have heard from people that WinXP is as stable with some better support for some applications, and even running a bit faster on some probably because of the less overhead it needs, but I'm not ready yet to convert everything over after spending so much time getting it running in the first place
Speaking of hardware though, I recently broke out my old Atari with Notator and the old Amiga I used to play around with. I actually made an Amiga .mod file for the first time in 10 years.
I still think the Atari makes a better MIDI station than anything out there currently. I just wish it wasnt so storage limited.
Mike
I have tried using WINMe with my Midex 8 interface and all I get are stuck notes so I had to partition off half the HD and load on WIN98se and hey presto it works fine. I also have a laptop with WinXP but Steinberg still ain't made proper drivers to support it which I think is pretty lame. Eitherway most forms of software can be unstable.
Paul.
www.paullangley.net
www.jackstar-recordings.com
I swear by WIN98SE ...
Nice 2 c u on the board Paul...
Edited by: markeg3000 at: 10/17/02 9:34:13 am
NT (Windows 2000, XP Professional) is an enterprise solution because of its stability, security, and scalability. However, most home audio users will be better off with Windows 9xthough it is different under the hood, the user interface is the same except for device management and a few because it is easier to use, configure, has better legacy support, and there is more consumer oriented software available designed for it. With NT it is not any harder to install on good hardware/software (actually quicker) and other issues. It is far more stable the 98 will ever be if you are running multiple apps.
As soon as the Linux gurus start pushing audio software out on the Linux platform my copy of XP prof will be thrown out the window…
Not to start a flamewar, but I think it will be a very very long time before you see anything professional running on Linux. The audio drivers are truly horrid, the libraries they use to access them are just as bad. They are trying to get bits and peices from people like Silicon Graphics and copy other things they seen in other OS's, but nobody can seem to get things straight.
In fact, if you have to look at all the little hack jobs they have to do to do something as simple as say let 2 audio streams from different (or even the same) application access the sound device, they have to wait in line with an external application. That functionality should ALL be built into the audio libraires, but linux keeps changing the way they do things. They move from one type of library to another type of device and never actually finish the first part to perfection.
The linux programming model is based on the assumption of "If we build it, someone else will fix it later". The problem with that is that nobody wants to go back and fix it later. They all want to work on the coolest newest project.
MacOSX, now with its new overhaul is also very Unix like, and is the cheapest Unix based solution you can get, once all the applicatoins are ported over for it natively (which is coming fairly quick).
MacOSX and SGI are the only Unix platforms where you can get fully capable sound devices such as 8 channel ADAT optical capable .
I wish there was more options available, because my primary occupation is unix kernel programmer , and Id much rather use it to windows. Im not a big fan of macs yet, and everytime I need something SGI, except on rare occasions it costs me an arm and a leg, but I can write my own glue software to make things work together a little better, and not worry about the audio quality, or messing things up because of the work SGI has put into say thier audio libraries and midi subsystem.
I have tried every single Linux audio application that I have run into, and they have all left me very wanting. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and Linux is a prime example of that.
Mike
You go in hard, and you go in fast.
Dont be to hard on Linux, its growing every day. Linux doesn't have any realtime hooks into the kernal, which I think is the problem for audio applications, but there's still some usable stuff available. MiXViews is alright and the guys at AGNULA look like they are getting somewhere. Things are starting to get interesting with the 2.5 kernel and I think Linux can be a solid platform for this type of work. We just need some major players to get involved and port their applications over to Linux. It will happen...
Do you know anywhere you can read up on Linux and what it's about on the net?
Well linux has become an incredibly popular operating system choice with mostly the hard core geek set over the last few years. For the most part, its usability is mostly in the server space and not so much the desktop side of things, but they are doing alot of work on trying to create a comprehensive enviroment for daily use desktops.
The phenomenon that has become from what Linux started as, which was basically a small project by a university student in Finland a bit more than 10 years ago, into what it is today has been breathtaking to say the least.
I dont have any specific places or directions to point you in for more information regarding it, as there is a HUGE amount of resources available, and sorting through what is relevant to what you want and what is out there might be somewhat difficult.
The major philosophy and the driving force behind Linux, if it can be put into such a small nutshell, is the fact that the entire operating system has full source code available to any user free of charge, and not only can any person using it make changes to the way the system works, providing they have the programming skill to do it, this method is actively encouraged by the community and is what furthers its growth.
What it does give people is the access required to change something they dont like. If their computer is acting in a way they dont like, that can be changed without much difficulty. The driving force behind its userbase is the fact that they attempt to ensure stability above all else, which is something that Windows users tend to not enjoy to a great degree, and also explore realms in design and features that arent normally found in a commercial product.
Unfortunately, because of the nature of the Linux, there are countless different versions and packages and distrubutions, all sharing for the most part a common beginning and codebase, but operate in sometimes very different ways.
I think given some more time, it will mature into something useable by a larger number of computer users, but it is stll in its toddler stage and still having some growing pains at times.
The peope who use it though swear by it. I dont think I have ever seen a group of more determined zealots (meant in a nice way), to realizing their goals of having Linux take over the spot that Windows currently resides in usage numbers.
Commercial applications for Linux havent been adopted as much as the users might hope for it, and that should change in the future. Most of the commercial applications that do exist for it, are in the server and scientific side of things, but the application base is growing fast. In the next few years a significant amount of desktop related applications should emerge providing companies that make them are being supported by its user base.
It should be looked at as the next possible big thing in the computing world, and is from a internet server point of view already having a market share that astounds almost everyone.
The fact of its either very very low cost in a purchased box, or outright a free download ffor those that wish it, also fuel its acceptance.
One day we might all be using it, but that day is more than likely a significant time coming.
I tried to write this without my usual tilt and bias towards Linux that I usually show ( i have approx 40 unix machines covering about 15 variants none of them linux, and a bsd daemon tattoo on my shoulder), but if I havent, I apologize
Mike
You go in hard, and you go in fast.
boy did I ever run at the mouth there, but that subject matter happens to be what pays the bills right now and I can get somewhat long winded regarding it
You go in hard, and you go in fast.
Try:-
www.linuxjournal.com/
www.linux.org/
If you do experiment with Linux make sure you have some idea of what you want to do with it. Many people download or buy the system, install it and think now what the fuk do I do now?
I've been using Win98SE for over 2 years but I switched to XP.
And I have to say - it was a good decision. Much more stability and apps (particularly Logic Audio) is running faster.
BTW, here is site with lot of tips & tricks for musicians who are using XP:
http://www.musicxp.net/
I changed from 2000 to XP a couple of months ago, and the bootup seems a lot faster, all my software is running fine, one word of warning, although the hardware shouldnt be an issue (same kernel or something), my modem that worked on 2000 didnt work on XP. Don't know if this problem could occur with audio hardware, but its as well to check.
Ive been usin 2000 pro for a few years now and dont have any major problems. Someone i know has just got xp, and the vst wont work with cubase.Any ideas anyone?
nah, vst should work fine, but xp is showing a tendention to freeze cubase a lot. i get a lot of blue screens of death, so i dont use it.
Have a gander at this site for Linux Mark
www.linux.org
FAT32 seems to gel with music software and games , NTFS seems to be to fussy ,
Reccomend 98SE or ME for Music & Games ,
2000 for Office products ,
XP for a gamble on everything , fussy bleeding thing indeed is little old XP !
As ive said on another forum , XP is a money spinner !
95 , 98 , ME machines came ready to go with correct spec's ie ,,,,
95 - 8MB RAM
98 - 16MB RAM
2000 - 128MB RAM
XP machines though are as follows !
3.2 GHZ Huge fast sexy processor
Wicked graphics card
Amazing Soundcard
40 GIG Hard Drive
But the most important bit of the machine
128 - 256 MB RAM ,
My point is to run stable , XP needs 512MB RAM , they have f#cked you straight away ,
you will return in a week complaining on how slow it is , then they will simply pop in another stick of 256 or 512 , and off it goes , £100 out of your pocket again ,
Peeps , Build your own machines , at leats you know whats inside !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nah, I have been using XP on three machines, all with different amounts of Ram.. 128, 256, and 192Mb, and they all run fine.Quote:
My point is to run stable , XP needs 512MB RAM
Win2K is the slowest OS ever made by Windows due to the security features in it IMO, and I have to say, I have yet to see XP blue screen on me.
I havent tried it with music software yet, but as it runs Fireworks, Dreamweaver and Photoshop at the same time very comfortably, I dont see music software being a problem.
However, I could just be lucky. :wink:
I think yer lucky mate !
My birds machine has got 128 mb ram on xp , runs like old people screwing !
Mine runs sweet as a nut ,
Hmmmmmmm