dinopop Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Microsoft recently announced that they would be releasing WindowsXP later this year (yeh, right). Whenever it hits the market, though, I think it will bear watching from those in the audio community who use the Wintel platform. This new version will make good on something MS has been promising for a while which is the ultimate demise of an operating system built on top of MS-DOS (i.e. Windows 95, 98, Me). It will essentially be a home version of Windows 2000. The good news is that it will be much more stable than Win9x. The bad news is that there are a lot of hardware and software manufacturers who so far haven't lifted a finger to provide drivers/versions that run on the NT platform. It will be interesting to see how fast these vendors get off the schneid and if maybe some are unable to deliver. (Developing NT/Win2K drivers is much more difficult than for Win9x) It would be wise for anyone planning Wintel purchases over the next year to check out the current/planned compatibility with Win2000 on the products you're evaluating. M I C - See ya real soon. K E Y - Y? Cause we get paid! S O F T - Layne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHAN Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 >>>>It would be wise for anyone planning Wintel purchases over the next year to check out the current/planned compatibility with Win2000 on the products you're evaluating. M I C - See ya real soon. K E Y - Y? Cause we get paid! S O F T --------------------------------------------------------------- Or you could just get a MAC and worry about creating great recordings.... http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/owen/scatter.gifhttp://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/owen/smash.gif This message has been edited by KHAN on 02-19-2001 at 09:01 AM So Many Drummers. So Little Time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alndln Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 My PC has been rock solid on 98 se for over 2 years.I don't have to worry about what program(s)I can't use.I'll wait&see what the new OS has to offer. "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Windows XP is pretty much Windows 2000 with a facelift. Although, you can revert back to the old GUI if you'd like. Supposedly they're also improving the WDM audio support, but I would be willing to bet that the same audio support will be added to Win 2k Service Pack 2. XP will use the exact same drivers as Windows 2000, so you can expect the same compatibility. XP does boot noticeably faster than 2000, which is a nice improvement. Still, don't expect too much to change overall from Windows 2000. The real deal with XP is that it will be the common OS that merges people over from the Win 9x systems. -Dylan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Ah yes, the X files - Windows XP and for the Mac, OS X. Both are such distinct breaks from what has come before, not just facelifts, although it may look that way from a user standpoint. The WDM thing looks really promising. Maybe it will clean up the audio loose ends that are a part of the older Win9X stuff. Meanwhile, OS X will supposedly deal with MIDI and USB better than 9.0.4. Both require fairly major changes to software (new drivers etc.) but it's clear that these are the wave of the future for their respective platforms. Of course, the biggest bummer is what happens to programs that no longer work on the platforms, from companies that have since gone out of business... Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotobonhome.com Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 There are two very major reasons to use Windows XP: 1. WDM drivers. Truly multiclient, ultra low latency (1ms with my Delta 1010 + logic 4.62 under Win98SE), and a unified, open platform. 2. Fusion, the technology that promises the end of .dll hell. Fusion keeps application files from overwriting the original system files. For instance Cakewalks system_x_.dll won't overwrite the true system_x_.dll in the root folder of the OS. Fusion has been implemented in small doses since Win98se, so it's a maturing technology and should be in full swing for WinXP. WinXP also comes in lots of flavors, consumer, pro, server, and advanced server just like Win2k. So you won't get stuck with mom's watered down system. Also being able to skin the interface like you can with Linux with window managers like Enlightenment is a huge happy factor for me. What I'm not clear on is if they'll be implementing a true 24/96 audio engine into the kernel to replace the ancient 16/44.1 'wavemapper' from old win9x. What a pain! You can't use Media Player to review 24/96 audio files in Explorer...that I know of yet. -rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alndln Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 WDM Drivers can be used in Win 98 or ME,and since these drivers are written to get around the K-mixer's inherint latencey they're going to vary from card to card manufacturer. "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADWilson Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Haven't we heard how great the next windows version will be often enough not to believe the hype on this one? I can't see how increased integration of internet and streaming audio features will help a DAW run better. It will only add to the headache. If you use Win98SE and all is well, stick with it. If your hardware offers NT support, switch to NT. Your performance will increase minus the headaches. Angie Dickinson Wilson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHAN Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Craig wrote : >>>Of course, the biggest bummer is what happens to programs that no longer work on the platforms, from companies that have since gone out of business... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OSX will have the ability to run OS9 programs. They are calling it the Classic layer. Bassically ,both OSX and OS9.1 will be on the same hard drive. You can have both on the same partition if you wish, or keep them on seperate partitions. If you're running under OSX , and open an OS9 app. , The Classic layer boots up and runs the app. With OSX's ability to utilize duel processors , protected memory, and Digital Performer 3 on the horizon(altivec optimization for plug-ins) , I,for one,am PSYCHED... WAR MAC http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/drowned/tank.gif So Many Drummers. So Little Time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Triny Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Originally posted by ADWilson: Haven't we heard how great the next windows version will be often enough not to believe the hype on this one? This is the first one that deals with professional audio as a stated goal. -david abraham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Triny Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Originally posted by Anderton: Ah yes, the X files - Windows XP and for the Mac, OS X. lol, well in my case that would be Windows XP and SONAR XL http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif -david abraham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 WDM drivers should work equally as well with Windows 98SE, ME, 2000, and XP. Of course you get a better kernel and SMP support in 2k or XP, but there's the whole software compatibility issue that the Win 9x OS's don't have to worry about. Yeah, the support to get rid of DLL Hell is very cool. Still, my main gripe about all of this is that WDM only shows up in current apps as 16-bit, and stereo only in the case of the Delta cards unless you use an app like Sonar that can take full advantage of WDM. Given time all apps should perform better with WDM once all of the kinks have been worked out. Still, I hope that users aren't forced to upgrade to XP just because Microsoft couldn't get WDM right with 98SE, ME and 2000. There's no reason why they couldn't make all of these OS's up to speed with WDM with a service pack or two. The skin interface thing is kinda cool, but I'd worry that it would take up too much overhead for critical apps like the ones we use. After using the Whistler beta for a few days I have to say that the classic interface is much more crisp than their new Mac/Be OS lookin' shell. Also, Whistler Beta 1 did not play nice with the Delta WDM drivers (crackle and pop city), so I don't see how it will be much better than the current OS's that support WDM until Microsoft works out all of the kinks. One cool feature of XP is that it boots up much faster than older NT OS's, but still not as fast as Millenium. -Dylan Originally posted by robotobon@home.com: There are two very major reasons to use Windows XP: 1. WDM drivers. Truly multiclient, ultra low latency (1ms with my Delta 1010 + logic 4.62 under Win98SE), and a unified, open platform. 2. Fusion, the technology that promises the end of .dll hell. Fusion keeps application files from overwriting the original system files. For instance Cakewalks system_x_.dll won't overwrite the true system_x_.dll in the root folder of the OS. Fusion has been implemented in small doses since Win98se, so it's a maturing technology and should be in full swing for WinXP. WinXP also comes in lots of flavors, consumer, pro, server, and advanced server just like Win2k. So you won't get stuck with mom's watered down system. Also being able to skin the interface like you can with Linux with window managers like Enlightenment is a huge happy factor for me. What I'm not clear on is if they'll be implementing a true 24/96 audio engine into the kernel to replace the ancient 16/44.1 'wavemapper' from old win9x. What a pain! You can't use Media Player to review 24/96 audio files in Explorer...that I know of yet. -rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Worthington Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Originally posted by KHAN: OSX will have the ability to run OS9 programs. They are calling it the Classic layer. Bassically ,both OSX and OS9.1 will be on the same hard drive. You can have both on the same partition if you wish, or keep them on seperate partitions. If you're running under OSX , and open an OS9 app. , The Classic layer boots up and runs the app. With OSX's ability to utilize duel processors , protected memory, and Digital Performer 3 on the horizon(altivec optimization for plug-ins) , I,for one,am PSYCHED... The are only a couple of problems with this. First there are cool programs that haven't been updated since before OS7. A lot of them still limp along under OS8. They don't run under OS9 and hence won't run under the compatibility layer. Also, as I understand it you can't talk to hardware from Classic Mode. jw Affiliations: Jambé Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHAN Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 John Worthington wrote: >>>The are only a couple of problems with this. First there are cool programs that haven't been updated since before OS7. A lot of them still limp along under OS8. They don't run under OS9 and hence won't run under the compatibility layer. Also, as I understand it you can't talk to hardware from Classic Mode. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As I am new to this whole computer thing(my first computer is this G4-350 with OS9), I havn't had much experience with pre OS9 programs. I know that you couldn't talk to hardware in "Classic" in OSX beta, but am hoping you can when the full release comes out. I'll have to check into that one. You can always boot from an earlier OS on another partition if needed. There will definately be a work-around period for any upgrade of this magnitude , but in the long run I think whatever platform you are on the future looks pretty bright. I'll drink to that http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/cwm2/spit.gif So Many Drummers. So Little Time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHAN Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 http://macweek.zdnet.com/2001/02/11/0213windows.html http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/net4/orb.gif So Many Drummers. So Little Time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvster Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Microsoft's Secure Audio Path (SAP) technology is already present in ME, but may be "enhanced" (read: actually used) in XP if they feel the Windows Media Player market is large enough. In typical Microsoft fashion, SAP has somewhat frightening implications for consumer rights and the competition. I don't know exactly how this might affect MI music software and soundcards, but it's something to know about. * * * * * Windows XP Can Secure Music by Brad King 2:00 a.m. Feb. 13, 2001 PST A new digital media security solution developed by Microsoft provides protection for content owners while excluding other digital rights management systems. The Secure Audio Path (SAP) adds "static" interference to media files that require video and audio cards to authenticate themselves with Windows software before they can be played. The company would be able to verify that a media player isn't playing an "unsecured" file, which according to Microsoft would eliminate much of the threat of piracy. More.... http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,41614,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Marvster: that a media player isn't playing an "unsecured" file, which according to Microsoft would eliminate much of the threat of piracy. That does nothing at all to eliminate piracy, that's silly. Does MS expect everyone to just erase Winamp from their systems and give up MP3 files? As for the "secured" files, once the file has been unlocked and a stream established it should be just as easy as anything for a savvy programmer to make something to snag it. I get to say this again: what has to change is the philosophical outlook towards the issue. The technology can't be put back into the bottle, *ever*. If any of you dingbat VC's out there need someone to knock you upside your head with reality look me up... I can't believe MS is probably about to lead another round of "so and so has found a way to increase network security and reduce piracy". Hmm. This will hit CNN in about... 4 months I predict. http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alndln Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 Maybe so but the more work the average "Joe" has to go through to unlock a file the less he is likely to bother. "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADWilson Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 Originally posted by David Abraham Fenton: This is the first one that deals with professional audio as a stated goal. -david abraham This is also the first that will incorporate a form of copy protection where in you must re-register the software everytime you change hardware. If you've ever had to use software that uses this form of copy protection, you'll know what a pain that will be. Angie Dickinson Wilson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.