Anybody Care About Windows XP?

[Anderton]

As in...waiting anxiously for it to come out? Or is it just too much hassle to change operating systems just now? Or are you giving up and migrating to OS X? Personally, my PC is working just fine. Last thing I want to do is introduce a whole new set of variables, update a whole new bunch of drivers, etc. But I think I have the solution (at least for those with some bucks). When a new OS comes out, you buy a new computer. You then re-install the programs you want to use, one at a time, and make sure everything shakes out. Meanwhile, you still have your old, happy, working machine around to keep you covered should everything screw up royally. When the new OS is working fine, then the old computer gets relegated to some dedicated task -- like running GigaSampler or a bunch of softsynths, or whatever. You then repeat the process in 3 more years .

[joegerardi]

I have it already, I just can't install it because my DSL provider has no drivers yet. If I install it, I lose the internet. I'm really antsy to get it installed. It's closer to an NT operating sytem than any other version of Windows, and NT (and Win2k) is MUCH more stable than any of the Windows systems out there.

[Uh Clem]

I'm ready for it - slightly less extreme plan: - disable the existing Win2K system drive(just to make sure the setup doesn't touch it), install XP on another drive, re-enable the other drive and edit the boot.ini to allow dual boot to either. Start installing and testing apps - if the critical ones work, begin migrating over. I think things like WDM will do better on XP, maybe a little faster and more stable, although 2K(sp2) is not so bad. There are other new features in it I need - if there were not, I'd probably be slower to upgrade.

[Rod S]

Personally, I get annoyed as hell with it. In 3 years we've seen - win 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP. Just release one damn thing, and make it work right, and make it upgradeable. Make it modular so that the core is still there, and you provide support for new technologies. I have a friend who works for SUN who has an old workstation that he uses as his PC. The thing is 6 years old, stable and hell, and works perfectly. I'd rather deal with UNIX and all its confusion (I've had to setup HP Unix workstations in the past), than keeping dealing with a hit and miss for MS products. I was hoping BeOS (or something like it) was going to come to 'save the day'. I really like to use a PC so that I can have midi and audio in one place, but I might change my mind. I'm in the process of moving over my work to a laptop (running ME), as soon as I get up and running I'll post my results. In a year or so I'll be rebuilding a PC, either with 2000 and XP, or XPSE, or XP new edition or whatever is around... [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img] But seriously, I'll be paying attention to what people say so that I have info to build a PC sometime next year. I was using a PII with Win 98, and personally, it was working fine, and I wish I could stick with it. I really want to give soft synths a shot, but I have to go mobile for the next several months. I always thought upgrading an OS in an existing installation is nuts. You really have to start from scratch.

[-]

I still think Windows 95 is the coolest, fastest, least bloated, most flexible OS Microsoft has ever released. As long as you know what you're doing, you don't thoughtlessly install software without thoroughly testing it elsewhere, and you don't ask the operating system to do too many things (use it for music stuff only -- not games, an internet connection, or word processing), Win95 is stable, too. I don't have the need or desire to switch to anything else. My Win95 box is a speed demon and it works great! [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

[studioman adam]

you do really have to start from scratch, but... Here is what I've found. I put XP on my laptop which previously ran 98SE. Unfortunately, the machine has a 500MHz AMD in it with a 4700rpm harddrive - neither or which are condusive to audio. When I bought it initially, I found it at a pawn shop just so I could have something to get the B4 to gigs with. It worked fine. I tried Win2k on it and it was dreadfully slow. 2k runs a few more processes than 98 and it runs on a different kernel. So I switched back. Finally, I got a hold of XP and even though I knew better, just for kicks, I put it on. XP, as far as I can tell in my digging is an AOL-styled interface on top of the original NT kernel running Win2k. There are a couple of little extra features and stupid little games. You still have to go through and get rid of all of the useless junk after the initial installation. You can set up the interface to look and behave like Win2k, but what's the point? It runs about the same pace as 98SE did and T-Racks works on it where it doesn't work on my 2k machine at home. Of course, I really only use it to take notes in class and occasionally shoot a room for a client or capture a reverb or whatever. As long as it's not more than 8 tracks or more than one plug-in - it's OK. But it was just the same with 98. So what I'm trying to say here is that any Win2k compatible hardware or software should run under XP. I used 2k drivers in XP and I've used NT drivers for 2k. It's the same kernel. One advantage to XP is that if it crashes while your working on something - only the program closes - like 2k - but it also saves whatever you had so that you can start where you left off and get more done before the next crash! adam

[Alndln]

The main deal with Win XP is "Memory management",which is why things won't crash as easily as it will with 98se/2k.Also .exe compatibility with 95/98se/NT4/2k.Also 64 bit apps which are probably being written by audio people as we speak which obviously can't run on 2k or 98se.If you wan't comparable memory management now on 98se get the new Cacheman(free).Beta tester's on the Nuendo forum have been pretty much all raves.Try it on another partition or spare drive until you can safely switch over.A product called Partition Magic will let you partition without reformatting.The down side to XP? Supposedly everytime you change hardware or reformatt you have authorize with MS online,with exceptions being the XP buisness edition because Xerox threatened to sue.The reason for this is MS wants to eliminate multiple copies on multiple machines,in other words copy protection.Also rumours of a phone home spy .dll to monitor your internet voyages are 2 things that are stopping this otherwise wonderfull OS from becoming the DAW chioce defacto.

[studioman adam]

Nifty. Freaky. So, uh, I guess I just wouldn't use it online?? What's the deal with memory management? Doesn't the NT kernel do that anyway by assigning specific memory adresses for everything?(which is why it's so fucking hard to accomplish the easiest things sometimes - a program will crash anytime it tries to directly access the memory or access memory that's not specifically assigned!) Fill me in, for sure. I'm definitely interested in gorey details. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif[/img] adam

[Alndln]

Yes NT does have memory management as well,but XP seems to have more recources and as a result crashes even less or not at all and seems much faster.And yes XP is based on the NT kernel.

[studioman adam]

oh - it crashes. I try really hard to squash those little damn bugs! The crashes are not quite as hard hitting as they used to be. It's only from, say 200 feet instead of 2000. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] adam

[Alndln]

One of the reason 95/98/98se crashes is because of the damm on board 64k which NT/2K/XP has done away with,also on 98 programs stay in memory when closed which eventually leads to a pile up(crash),not to mention V-Cache.Again if your using 98se the new Cacheman rectifies most of these problems.After that your on your own.

[gtrmac]

The stability and memory management improvements sound great for DAW users but the online authorisation thing is a big turnoff. I don't have my DAW online for one thing and I don't plan to either. This could be a problem for me obviously. I'm probably gonna stick with win2k SP2 for a while. Maybe when my audio software starts boasting about 64bit support I'll start considering a switch. I have been staying a bit behind the curve lately anyway since I value reliability over cutting edge. I got tired of first version drivers and other buggy stuff. ------------------ Mac Bowne G-Clef Acoustics Ltd. Osaka, Japan My Music: [url=http://www.javamusic.com/freedomland]www.javamusic.com/freedomland[/url]

[ljp]

No, thank you. I'm doing just dandy with Win2k. I don't need the hassle of "software activation according to MICROS~1". Especially when it's limited to just three (?) hardware upgrades. I very often am changing out soundcards, video capture cards, harddrives, or whatnot. I'll be damned if I have to call MICROS~1 on the phone, be on hold for hours just to beg them for 'activation' codes because I changed a soundcard, or had to reinstall for the umpteenth time because the system crashed and wouldn't reboot, no matter what the heck I tried. No thank you, MICROS~1, I'd rather use Linux than to go on your expensive upgrade bandwagon any longer. ljp

[Dylan]

I'm currently dual booting with Win 2k SP2 and Windows XP Beta 2. Win 2k is almost perfect for my needs, but XP does seem to perform a bit better under low latency operation. Also, the 10 device limitation found in most WDM drivers under Win 2k is removed in XP (it's now a 32 device limit). So will I upgrade? I dunno. I'll probably milk my beta copy for all that it's worth and hang out until Microsoft works out the activation biz. If the gold release is anything like the beta activation, then it's really not a big deal. You have the option or registering (i.e., providing all of your personal info) or simply just activating, which doesn't send any of your information to Microsoft. It would be great to see Apple follow through with their promise to port OS X to x86 architecture, but like anything Apple says, I'll believe it when they actually release it. -Dylan P.S. Popmusic is totally right about Windows 95B (also known as OSR2). If you don't need USB, Firewire, WDM, or the latest DirectX support, then it's a great choice! Rock solid, lightning fast, and no bloat!

[studioman adam]

There is also the difference between running GUI on top of DOS or running a GUI which is part of the OS design and runs on the kernel. I kept Win2k on my home computer. It does fine but I'm also waiting for the right time to do another mega-upgrade. I'll probably do reasearch on BeOS or Linux. More companies are recognizing that Linux exists - and this would make it easier to implement c++ programs I write into whatever I need to, I think. I would like to see more software support multi-processor stuff. adam

[XNU8D]

Was wondering if any XP users could tell me anything about driver compatibility. Does it use Win2K(NT) or Win95-98 drivers or is there going to be a whole new set?

[-]

[quote]Originally posted by Dylan Walters: [b]P.S. Popmusic is totally right about Windows 95B (also known as OSR2). If you don't need USB, Firewire, WDM, or the latest DirectX support, then it's a great choice! Rock solid, lightning fast, and no bloat![/b][/quote] Yep, I use Win95B -- it's after Microsoft got the initial Win95 bugs out, but before they started integrating IE with everything in the operating system. I don't use any USB periphials, although one of the Win95 CDs I have says it has USB support. I don't use Firewire -- I use an Ethernet card to transfer data between computers. I use ASIO (Cubase), not WDM. I could be wrong, but I think even the newest DirectX versions still work on 95. (At least, I know up to DirectX 7 runs on 95.) The best part is... Every time I upgrade my hardware, Windows gets faster and faster. If you were going to upgrade your operating system at the same time you upgrade your hardware, you can very easily end up with a system that is as sluggish as the one you were upgrading from. For example, I have an old 100 mHz Pentium laptop with 24 megs of RAM running Windows 95. It's slow, but it gets the job done. I have access to a newer, faster laptop (I think the specs are 400 mHz, Pentium II, 128 megs of RAM) running Windows 2000. Guess what -- from a user interface perspective, the supposedly more powerful laptop is about as slow as my old Pentium. Double click on "My Computer"... Wait 5 seconds... Arrgh! [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/mad.gif[/img] At least for my purposes, Win95B works beautifully... Can't recommend it highly enough. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

[Anderton]

So many of you have mentioned Linux -- why aren't you just jumping to Mac OS X? Seems like it has the benefits of Linux, a nice GUI, and growing support for music applications.

[-]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]So many of you have mentioned Linux -- why aren't you just jumping to Mac OS X? Seems like it has the benefits of Linux, a nice GUI, and growing support for music applications.[/b][/quote] I used to *love* my Macintosh, but, once Apple killed the Mac clone market, I felt burned. I want more than one hardware vendor to buy my computer from... I'm not gonna pay a premium price for hardware just because it's Mac-compatible. Plus, there's much less selection for hardware as well as fewer places to buy it. If Apple releases OS X for standard Intel PCs, then I'd take a look... If I have to buy Apple or Mac-specific hardware, though -- forget it.

[Dylan]

[quote]Originally posted by popmusic: [b]If Apple releases OS X for standard Intel PCs, then I'd take a look... If I have to buy Apple or Mac-specific hardware, though -- forget it. [/b][/quote] My thoughts exactly! -Dylan

[Rod S]

[quote]Originally posted by popmusic: [b] I used to *love* my Macintosh, but, once Apple killed the Mac clone market, I felt burned. I want more than one hardware vendor to buy my computer from... I'm not gonna pay a premium price for hardware just because it's Mac-compatible. Plus, there's much less selection for hardware as well as fewer places to buy it. If Apple releases OS X for standard Intel PCs, then I'd take a look... If I have to buy Apple or Mac-specific hardware, though -- forget it. [/b][/quote] Well, that's the problem. I do think (and I've said it in this forum before) that one of the reasons that Mac OS is more stable is that it doesn't have to deal with their variety of hardware and compatibility issues that a PC OS has to it. Not that this is the only issue with PC OS's, mind you.... :roll eyes: If Apple can do a solid OS for a computer with multiple hardware options, I'll eat my words.

[spokenward]

[quote]Originally posted by Rod CA: [b] If Apple can do a solid OS for a computer with multiple hardware options, I'll eat my words. [/b][/quote] actually this might be more of a possibility with OSX than it ever was before. A large part of the success of Linux and the Unix variants like BSD has been seen in their ability to compile and run on different hardware. The appeal of Linux is philosophically distinct from what Apple is doing. A Linux box is usually not an attempt to be all things to all people. You configure the kernel and choose those elements that you actually want to enable. Everything from PCMCIA to FireWire and the chips on your SCSI card are options. When a Linux installation is broken there are fewer places to look for breakage. When it is working, it pretty much just _works_. Linux is promising as a platform for audio work, but it is stronger in niches than in mass appeal products. This group http://www.demudi.org is assembling a Debian based Linux distribution for audio and media. But media work has not been the engine that has driven Linux. Linux has done well because it runs well on modest hardware doing web and server stuff that needs to be done.

[ljp]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]So many of you have mentioned Linux -- why aren't you just jumping to Mac OS X? Seems like it has the benefits of Linux, a nice GUI, and growing support for music applications.[/b][/quote] That's easy, going to OS X would require at LEAST $1000 for a decent machine, whereas for the cost of a 3 hour download, I can use linux (which also has a nice GUI, and a growing support for music applications) on my already sooped up PC. Actually, I would prefer BeOS to even Win2k, except that Be really isn't viable (think Amgia). ljp

[studioman adam]

[quote]Originally posted by llornkcor2: [b] That's easy, going to OS X would require at LEAST $1000 for a decent machine, whereas for the cost of a 3 hour download, I can use linux (which also has a nice GUI, and a growing support for music applications) on my already sooped up PC. Actually, I would prefer BeOS to even Win2k, except that Be really isn't viable (think Amgia). ljp[/b][/quote] It takes you 3 hours to download Linux? I don't think Mac OSx is really all that. I've seen it crash too much with protools. Especially when you have to deal with extra crappy software like Microsoft Outlook (on a mac?) or IE. I also don't like the fact that it is infinitely more difficult to manipulate Mac OS than it is Windows or Linux, for sure. The advantage that Mac has is that it's all SCSI. The buss is much faster so I imagine people percieve that it's better because the info gets to RAM faster (which is only applicable when the OS actually has to OPEN a program or call up files that are not already stored in RAM). In reality, I think that Mac OS is probably not nearly as well written considering the parameters. When your OS only has to deal with one kind of system configuration as far as communication with peripherals, then your code would be much smaller and more limited. At least with windows, if we have to, we could write the code in visual C++ and then integrate it. I don't know about doing that with a Mac. After all, the Mac GUI is based on an idea that Xerox ditched! So, I suppose that if I took the time to learn to write drivers, I could do anything with Linux. If I was good enough, I could reconfigure the kernel to be more efficient with audio. I don't know how to do that either, though. Now, RADAR runs on a BeOS system, doesn't it? What other software is written for it? What hardware will it support? I'll have to check out the Be webpage. Sorry I typed so much useless info, guys. adam [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

[fuzz]

well i was hoping for beos to take off...but well it didn't. for me a mac is pretty much out of the question...mind you 5 years ago i was one of those crazy "mac people" who believed in all the hype. for me win98se is working fine...but it seems to me that the new mac os and new win os are so bloated with "consumer" goodies that they all just kinda suck...how many megs of ram do you need to run an os? not 32 for sure. maybe someday we will have an os just for us.....but i am not holding my breath [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] [b]~o¤°§þÅ¢£ ߪ$§°¤o~[/b] This message has been edited by spacebass on 10-02-2001 at 11:25 PM

[Technicolor]

I would be excited about Windows XP if there was some clear advantage to using it, or some cool new technologies that made making music on it better. But it seems to be just a facelift built on the same proprietary code. Mac OSX on the other hand is being built from the ground up (more or less). Crucial audio/midi I/O options are implemented right into the OS (at least according to the PR machine). Since there are no apps available it's hard to tell just how good/bad the new Mac OS will perform. The fact that it's built on open standards and makes those options available to power users while equally balancing the classic MacOS ease of use is pretty remarkable...just my opinion. As far as peripherals go. I don't really see a clear advantage on either platform. Sure there are more available for Windows but the sacrifice is that the OS is considerably less stable (as history has shown) to accommodate the slew of mediocre devices. Where as the choices are more limited on Mac platform but the product is more likely to work without causing too many headaches. In addition, with all the new audio/midi connectivity options emerging like FireWire and USB the plug and play options of OSX are looking very good. re: studioman adam-Let's remember that the idea that Xerox ditched to become the Mac OS is also the same idea that uh, "inspired" Microsoft to make Win 3.0. Justin

[studioman adam]

*sheepishly* yes. Aparently you seem to know what Mac is improving on. That's hip. Now, USB and Firewire are available on PC platforms too, right? You know, it's crazy to think that all of these standalone machines we dig all run on some OS or another. Tell you what... I would be willing to dual or triple or quadruple boot if it took a different or dedicated OS to run a specific program correctly and without crashing. And as far as RAM, Win2k takes up ~23meg just to run the OS - but remember - the RAM is the only memory that the CPU can directly access, so everything that has to run or be accessed (soundfiles, etc...) have to be loaded into RAM first. This is why dorks like me have over 1Gig of RAM so we can do multitrack without using the harddisk. adam (of course - I'm just an amateur - PLEASE keep in mind that I may be talking out of my ass without even knowing it! [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img])

[aeon]

[quote]Originally posted by studioman adam: [b]I don't think Mac OSx is really all that. I've seen it crash too much with protools. The advantage that Mac has is that it's all SCSI.[/b][/quote] I think we can safely judge the accuracy of these statements by the fact that: 1. ProTools does not run on MacOS X. 2. Apple has not had a SCSI-based Mac since...last century? [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] I am not trying to start a flame war, as so often happens when people discuss the Mac and PC, but accuracy in information is always welcome. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

[Alndln]

Midi implimentations built into the OS will be forthcoming in OS X.1,not OS X,and that you can have with my blessing.Win2k and especially XP represent a clean break from Dos and as I stated earlier neither OS is chained to on board memory.And "History shows" that 2K has better memory management than OS 9 or 9.1 and crashes less,Win XP by all beta reports is even more stable.Next?

[studioman adam]

Right. Uh. Okay. You see, I know so much that I don't know what I'm talking about. I actually thought that OS X was a reference to any version of Mac OS (OS 7, OS 8, etc...) like windows 9x. See how smart I am? No, really! As far as the SCSI thing, I thought that SCSI was standard for Mac's Harddrive interface. If I'm wrong - so be it. Apparently I dug myself into quite a hole in this one! Guess I'll go study some more. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] But wasn't NT a clean break from DOS? It uses a totally different kernel - the same one that 2k and XP uses, right? Uh, it's late - I'm tired. That's my lame excuse for now. We'll see what sort of crap I can come up with tomorrow! [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] adam