Best OS for Digital Audio?

[mark4man]

A tech at OLM (my web hosting service) is of the opinion that Win 2000 is a better Operating System for digital audio applications than Win XP; & I was hoping to get some feedback from audiophiles as to whether or not this is true. Thanks.

mark4man

[AcousticPro]

Currently I would say this is true. For the reason that it's supported, all technical reasons aside. What good does a technically superior operating system do you if nothing is supported and working with it? XP is not by any means fully supported yet, why even consider it?

[Rabelais]

I'm happy using Windows XP (Pro version, for dual processor support) with Sonar and two sound cards with WDM drivers. It's far more stable than Win 2000 and any of the 9x OSs.

[newness_of_life]

XP is running great for me... it seems to run all of my 2000 compliant software and handle all of my 2000 hardware no sweat.

I switched over to Windows after getting badly burned by my Apple G4 (you wouldn't believe how terrible this thing ended up being, and how much $$$ I lost both in studio downtime & cost of the Apple, software, hardware...) and I haven't had one complaint about my PC, despite the general vibe in audio that Mac is better for recording, I seriously beg to differ!

I think as long as you're running either 2000 or XP you should be fine - but my vote is definitely for XP!

:D

[Sporter]

I love XP, pro version. I believe it is MS's best system so far, yet I still run across incompatibilities with it and W2K. It's still hard to beat Win98 if you use a variety of applications, although 98 seems less stable overall than XP. I have no experience with the home version of XP. I think the Mac guys are running out of bragging ammo :)

I used ME for a short period of time...man, what a hastle. I spent so much time re-booting, I rarely got anything done!

I'm going to wait till everything I have works with XP (LAP version 5.0 is in route, or so I'm told...), and use XP pro exclusively. Very stable, and the computer seems faster, too.

[AcousticPro]

I'll just put this out on the table. The reason I moderate this forum is that I could care less about computers except that I have owned and used both Apple and "PC" compatible computers since the early 80's. I could care less about the machines themselves. Sweetwater is an audio company and we help people make music. If you want to monkey with computers in either camp then that's fine, but I prefer to go home and make music with them. I care less about the operating system, processor, RAM, chipset or antyhing pertinent to those topics, I wouldn't even know them if I didn't have to. Why anyone else would want to unless they had to is beyond me. Someday when I retire from this place I plan on retiring from knowing everything I have to know and trusting someone younger with more time on their hands to know it for me and let me focus what time I have on actually making music. Any thoughts?

[bape]

hi sorry to bother you guys out there, but i really in need of your help.
i'm now a IT student and in the middle of my networking project. i came across some problems and i hope that you all are able to enlighten me.

Please give me some answer to my question.
a)what network OS and workstation OS does adminstrator use?
b)has the OS helped to make the job easier?
c)what OS would adminstrator recommend? and give me some advantage about it
d)and lastly what hardware configuration are you using?

thanks alots
bape

[arbiter]

Well, PC users are finding themselves in much the same boat as our MacOS friends.
XP presents a ton of new innovations and improved performance and stability, but there are a few things that we could do on 2000 or the 9x versions that are not yet supported under XP. Give us about a year for the manufactuers to get up to speed on new drivers and hardware, and you'll see XP flying along at full speed as a audio workstation OS. Mac users are facing the same thing, OSX is an awesome improvement, but the developers are just learning how to optimize their systems for the new kernel and extentions and we'll reap the benefits later than the typical home / office computer market.

As for AcousticPro's comments, I see nothing wrong with wanting to understand computer hardware as fully as you do audio. The way things are changing soon computer knowledge will be almost as vital as knowledge of standard music gear. But I can understand that you probably have a greater passion for the Art of music than the Science of technology, even though you have a full grasp on both.

[AcousticPro]

arbiter,

That is the thrust of my message. Music has two sides, truthfully it's a science and for those of us who are good at it the technology comes somewhat naturally, either way I prefer to base my perception on the science and art related to music instead of how it relates to computers. Much like the perception of the "Music Business" vs "The Business of Music".

[MorturaryMan]

The best Windows OS has to be XP.

Although not fully supported (some manufacturers are just to slow..<cough> Digidesign <cough>) Windows XP is the most stable
and forgiving Microsoft OS yet. If you plan to buy or build a new PC thats
using relatively new hardware you wont be disappointed.

XP truely does rock

[eman]

I have used /win98se/win2000/XP Pro/Mac OS 9.2 and out of all of them, so far I have had the best performance/stability with XP Pro.

Currently, I have been very happy with CubaseSX/XP Pro/MidimanOMNI/Delta Card. With my 800mhz PIII - 512 mb memory, and single Pyro Firewire Drive (7200rpm IBM IDE Drive inside) I have been able to playback 32 simultaneous 32bit audio tracks and run a LM-Mark II drum machine (VST Plugin).

Now, that Logic is no longer and option from PC user, due to Apples aquisition. And that Mackie has created the new "Mackie Control" http://www.mackie.com/products/mackie_control/mackie_control.asp

I think that this is a great way to go. The only consideration, I would mention, is that I had previously used Cubase and CubaseVST, so my learning curve for SX was easier. Someone, just starting out with a DAW system, needs to consider that there will be a definite learning curve.

I'm finding a need for recording outside the studio on location. I'm thinking of replicating my system with a laptop (P4) and CubaseSX. I'm considering the MOTU Firewire interface and the Presonus Firestation. Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on either card or on a good PC laptop for music?

[TeeCee]

So, has anyone said why one OS is better than the other? Jeff had the one major point: support. This is big time important. I don't know if it's still relevant, but it is a good point.

Why is XP better than 2000?

XP can support more MIDI and audio channels, not software, but hardware.
Win95 and the first 98 had the MIDI limit and somehow 2000 got a limit as well. I can't find the backup, trying searching yur other favorite pro audio web site.

XP supports WDM drivers (MS's answer to low latency drivers) not just better, but fully.
Win2000 only handles WDM drivers avoiding the KMixer's inherent delay if the software is written to circumvent the KMixer. In English, only if you're running SONAR. WinXP is supposed to deal with this properly.

I would recommend either Win98SE or WinXP for an audio PC that you wanted to run with multi-channel audio and MIDI devices. I can't say that I've run WinXP on my own machine yet. I can say that I hate it's interface. I'll be dual booting within a month or so to check out WinXP on my own PC. No time to experiment at the moment.

[TeeCee]

DrGroove asked


What issue do you take w/ WinXP's interface? Yes, the cartoonish icons and backgrounds can be annoying, but these are easily disabled or replaced w/ any of the available 'skins' (found on sites such as tweakxp.com (http://www.tweakxp.com)). With the XP look disabled, the interface is nearly identical to Win2K.
I haven't run it on my own PC to get to disable evrything and make Control Panel look like it's supposed to, not grouped according to how WinXP wants to group it's contents. That's my issue. The reason it will always be an issue is that I wil always be asked to work on PCs that have not been tweaked and I cannot rightly make evryones PC look like I want it to so that I can work on it. The navigation gets very tiresome.

[Foreverain4]

i have been running winME with vegas audio/video 2.0 and a gadget labs wave pro 8/24 sound card. i also have an alesis adat edit card. i have not crashed for over 6 months. this is the most stable system i have ever run. i have a dual boot for win2000, but never use it, as i cannot get my hardware and software to function without crashing. i know it sounds weird that ME could be that stable, maybe it is just freak or something.

[Foreverain4]

it think it is more the hardware and how it is configured with the OS that determines how stable a system is. if i am wrong, please let me know.

[AcousticPro]

I think the reality here is that you need to pick what you want to go with and tweak it. With enough effort anything will work and be stable as long as there are decently written drivers for you hardware. I understand TeeCee's point about not being able to set everyone's system the way he wants, but for matters of discussion here we're assuming your referral to functional differences or things that relate to your personally owned or operated equipment most of the time. Everything is so customizable these days it almost creates more problems than solutions for guys like TeeCee. This is one of the reasons historically Mac has been preferred in the studio environment. It's consistent. You always know what you're going into. It can be very annoying to go into a customized Windows situation that you can't stand to look at let alone work on.

[arbiter]

No, I'd believe it. I'm still running win98SE which some people hate, some love.
I had a machine that crashed every 30 minutes and when I migrated it from win95se to win98 it was fixed. I never did figure out what the issue was, but apparently one of my pieces of hardware had driver issues with 95. That's the problem with pc's from the mac viewpoint. Too many variables, there are tons of manufacturers, some of whom sell their technologies to other companies to incorperate w/ their product, and by the time you get your os installed, it's impossible that every possiblity has been forseen by the programmers. Once in a while you find that zone where you have a system that just is very compatible with the OS you're running and if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it unless you have to.

[TeeCee]

AcousticPro said
I think the reality here is that you need to pick what you want to go with and tweak it. With enough effort anything will work and be stable as long as there are decently written drivers for you hardware.
That should do it. And once you get it running smoothly, make an image of the hard drive. Or copy the boot drive to a backup drive. And dedicate the PC to be your DAW, only. And don't install every demo of every audio app on that PC. In other words, use it like the tool it is. And if you want it to work, don't mess with it.

[TimOBrien]

- Best OS for Digital Audio?

Whatever works with all your stuff!!

What OS you choose is a moot point if it doesn't work with your soundcard, interfaces or software. Go with what works (the manufacturers will tell you what they designed your stuff to work with) and tweak it properly.

[arbiter]

Oh, there is an alternative to dual booting your system.
There are some devices out there that occupy a 5.25 inch drive bay that allow you to have two or three drives hooked up to your master IDE cable, then you just flip a switch to change between the two Master drives. A hardware alternative to bootloaders. Only reason I would consider this is that some of the MS family of operative systems have a tendency to be unfriendly to their dual boot neighbors filesystems, or to scream "scandisk" any time you boot to the other system and then back to them. Plus this way you retain your other 3 ide channels.

This would be a good way to allow you to have a "pure" audio machine and then change it over to a desktop mode.

[AcousticPro]

I would like to see some clarification here if I could have everyones commitment and help. Could we all please edit our posts containing XP to discuss which version of XP we are referring to? I think this may be something confusing for a lot of people reading our posts. Even though XP Home and XP Pro might be thought to be similar, they are very different underneath. Thanks!

[Foreverain4]

Originally posted by DrGroove



sounds like you were the lucky recipient of the single copy of WinME w/o a memory leak... ;)




could you please explain this a bit? i am not aware of a "memory leak" in windows ME. :bunny:

[Dix]

The bug will not necessarily affect all users, mainly those who work with large files (200Mb or higher in tests). According to the man who discovered it, Matt Vlasaty, a Chicago- based electrical engineer. :D

Last I knew there was still no patch for this bug.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,10816,00.asp

There is an unrelated memory-leak bug in the Atmuni.sys file, that effects not only ME... but 98 & 98SE as well.

This happens when a Network Driver Interface Specification (NDIS) miniport driver disables Interim Local Management Interface (ILMI).

There IS a fix for this bug, but you have to convince Microsoft that you are experiencing the problem for them to wave the support fee for the patch.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;Q278368&

[Foreverain4]

what exactly is "memory leakage"? i have worked with files (video) up to 3.99GB and have not noticed any problems. does the leakage cause a crash? does it cause files to be no accessible? what is the result of leakage?

[Dix]

Without trying to get too technical…

What happens is that Windows “forgets” to return resources to the “available” column, even though they are no longer being used.

If you have allowed Windows to control your “swap file” size and usage (which is the default setup) you slowly enter what I call Window’s “Swap File Hell”. Where Windoze relies more and more on the swap file for memory, the file grows to gargantuan proportions, and operation gradually becomes more and more sluggish, and can lead to an eventual crash.

If (like me) you have your swap file set to a permanent size (so as to place it on the fastest access area of your drive) then you eventually hit the dreaded “out of memory” error or the “Windows does not have enough memory to:
- complete the desired task”
- open the requested application”
- complete the current operation”
- etc.

[Matthias Powerbomb]

I have used Windows 98, 98SE, ME and XP. Haven't used 2000. I like XP better than any of them. XP is more stable, supports WDM drivers and I just like the interface and improvements in normal use. he stability is probably the biggest improvement. I've also heard it uses recources and RAM better. I've only had one unresolvable harware conflict and no software conflicts. The hardware was a DC10 Plus video capture card. I have a super8 video camera and you have to have an analog video capture card for that. The next Pinnacle card is expensive as hell so I'm just going to go for a digital video camera and a lot cheaper digital capture card. Other than that, XP has been the best by far. Networking has been easier too, if that's a concern for you.
:bunny: :evil: :bunny: