Windows 2000 for audio? [Archive]

YamahaPaiste

12-03-2001, 05:36 PM

For what its worth....

I have been running win2k for about 6 montha now and can highly reccomend it. In fact I would go as far as saying you shouldn't consider any other Win version. It is extremly stable and can finally utilize over 128MB of memory efficiently.

I run Sonar on an IBM Netvista w 1500mgz P4 and 1GB of SDRAM.

I have had sevreal issues with Sonar (save...save....save). Some have been rectified with patches. This is typical of and expected from (unfortunately) new software apps.

The onle issue is the availability of HW/SW drivers for W2K. Vendors are catching up though.
Kwevin

DeComposer

11-26-2002, 12:09 AM

I would use a hardware RAID card, rather than the Win2K Logical Disk Manager for your RAID; it works well enough on a standalone server, but it chews up enough processor cycles that you'd probably rather devote to DX/DXi modeling.

The other cool thing about Win2k/XP is the ability to add addidtional displays. Through careful management of PCI IRQ assignments, I'm able to drive six monitors. It's handy to have Sonar spread out across a couple od screens and to have virtual instruments and effects out of the main work area but still visible.

__________________
P4 2.4GHz
1GB RAM
240GB RAID
MOTU 24i

TeeCee

12-02-2002, 06:58 AM

Why go to 2000 when most audio software vendors are recommending WinXP? As for RAID, buy bigger, faster disks and skip the RAID part. No need to depend on something like that. SONAR will let you have your files on separate hard drives allowing your drives to act truly independant in their reading and writing. You will need to tweak either OS for audio use.

DeComposer

12-04-2002, 04:08 PM

I agree completely with having audio stored on a dedicated disk drive. But don't rule out RAID.

RAID isn't just about performance, it's also about data security. Using RAID-3, RAID-5, or RAID 0+1 stores data on multiple drives. If one should die, your data is still intact. Just replace the defective drive, rebuild the array, and your data is safe again.

A couple of years ago, I was working on a video project. Less than an hour after I handed off the completed project, my data drive died horribly; I lost everything.

Since then, I've kept all of my project data on RAID storage systems, configured as either RAID-5 (most stuff) or RAID 0+1 (really critical stuff). And in that time, I've had some drive failures (which were actually caused by an inadequate power supply) and RAID saved my butt.

To be fair, you could acheive the same data security by backing up your projects. But that's 1.) Time-consuming, 2.) Imprecise (did I back up EVERYTHING?), and 3.) Sporadic. Because, let's be honest, if I have to do it manually, nine times out of ten, it's not going to get done. Even if I use an automated backup tool, I have to check to make sure it ran on schedule and if I'm working on projects until 4:00 a.m., you can bet there will be schedule conflicts between me and the software.

RAID systems do all the backing up automatically. I don't have to think about it. They're cheap. Many motherboards come with RAID controllers built in; all you need to shell out for are the extra drives. Plus, I get a nice performance boost, besides--especially with sustained data transfers (like streaming 24 channels of audio, say).

All that being said, a RAID system is probably not necessary for the music/audio hobbyist. It's a smart and worthwhile upgrade if you're producing in a professional setting, though.

Just my $0.02.

TeeCee

12-04-2002, 07:19 PM

RAID for redundancy is a great idea. I know it's in the name but RAID 0 which many people use for the appearance of a large disk as well as speed gains is NOT redundant.

latweek

12-06-2002, 05:53 PM

No, no, no......

RAID is great for many things, however.......

He was talking about Win2k's "SOFTWARE" RAID. Yes, the first poster was right you should skip that.. it is not the RAID that these folks are talking about.

The RAID that is useful is "HARDWARE" RAID. This means that you have a dedicated hardware RAID controller either on your motherboard or have bought a RAID PCI card. If you have, you'll probably know about it.

If you haven't - don't use WIN2k's SOFTWARE RAID - it will consume your PC's resources, which is exactly what you want to avoid when you use RAID on a DAW.

You must have a seperate chip on your MB or PCI card that handles the RAID commands.

It's the old "you don't get something for nothing" lesson.

TeeCee

12-08-2002, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by latweek
No, no, no......

RAID is great for many things, however.......

He was talking about Win2k's "SOFTWARE" RAID. Yes, the first poster was right you should skip that.. it is not the RAID that these folks are talking about.

The RAID that is useful is "HARDWARE" RAID. This means that you have a dedicated hardware RAID controller either on your motherboard or have bought a RAID PCI card. If you have, you'll probably know about it.

If you haven't - don't use WIN2k's SOFTWARE RAID - it will consume your PC's resources, which is exactly what you want to avoid when you use RAID on a DAW.

You must have a seperate chip on your MB or PCI card that handles the RAID commands.

It's the old "you don't get something for nothing" lesson.
No, no, no kidding. I think we had already evolved off of that.

latweek

12-08-2002, 02:14 PM

Ummm...

You might want to reread the thread from the beginning. It sure looks like no one actually clarified things for the person who started the whole thread and needed their question answered.

All this advice is very misleading. RAID is very helpful, if you want to use it, go ahead - just do it right. I don't think he ever got that clear.

As for the discourse on RAID in general - it was at best, challenged.

TeeCee

12-08-2002, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by latweek
[B]Ummm...

You might want to reread the thread from the beginning. It sure looks like no one actually clarified things for the person who started the whole thread and needed their question answered.
[B]
Sounds like you are the one that was confused by what we were talking about and why. My information was generic to software or hardware RAIDs.

latweek

12-08-2002, 07:26 PM

Actually, seems like you are the one confusing everyone here about RAID, but please do go on.... I am really enjoying this.

Now where were you? Ah yes, you were evolving.....http://www.emo.spacespider.net/popcorn1.gif

DeComposer

12-12-2002, 02:18 PM

Okay, from the top, then...

Geeheeb's question was pretty straightforward: Is Windows 2000 stable enough for digital audio production? Geeheeb also indicated the presence of a RAID configuration, managed by the Windows Logical Disk Manager, rather than a dedicated hardware RAID card.

YamahaPaiste replied with a positive recommendation for Win2k. I then threw in a caveat about the load on a CPU using software RAID, rather than a dedicated RAID controller. The RAID discussion subsequently grew into a kind of randomness, culminating in your comments.

Looking over the entire thread, it would appear that Geeheeb's question has been answered. If, however, you are of the opinion that Geeheeb's question DIDN'T get adequately answered, perhaps you could help to provide some answers.

Perhaps you could share your opinions regarding a suitable RAID configuration for Geeheeb's new DAW. Do you prefer SCSI or IDE? What RAID configurations have you found to be the most successful. Which controllers do you prefer and why?

I look forward with interest to your responses; this board could use some thoughtful discussion about the myriad variables surrounding RAID configurations. :cool:

latweek

12-12-2002, 09:38 PM

OK, here goes -

For the benefit of Geeheeb:

Why go to 2000 when most audio software vendors are recommending WinXP?

Because WinXP is Win2k -- with an alarming registration and information gathering process. I am sad to see folks rushing into the future of Windows in which your OS expires and you've got to call Microsoft to activate it. WinXP is preparing people for that next step - and I am in no rush -- frankly WinXP has offered no compelling features to upgrade. Have you seen how many applications need entirely new versions to run on WinXP? Why? This is marketing and hype.

As for RAID, buy bigger, faster disks and skip the RAID part. No need to depend on something like that.

This is just plain opinion. We really don't have enough info about his situation to dismiss outright something like RAID entirely -- as I said 'if you want to use it, go ahead - just do it right'. I agree with alot of what DECOMPOSER wrote about RAID, however not part about backup/redundancy --- to quote from Tee Cee here:

RAID for redundancy is a great idea. I know it's in the name but RAID 0 which many people use for the appearance of a large disk as well as speed gains is NOT redundant.

RAID will not give you a speed increase if you are going for redundancy -- it will decrease it. Sure it's still better than working with one drive, but really the chief benefit of investing in RAID in a DAW is speed/track count -- excuse the analogy here -- using RAID only for redundancy is like putting four wheel drive on a Formula 1 car -- it really misses the point. For backing up, there are many automated solutions out there -- just keep a tape in your backup drive and let the backups kick off at 4 or 5 am in the morning. Of course, RAID 5 is great compromise if you can afford it -- but honestly I doubt that someone who is using SONAR is working with that kind of budget.

DECOMPOSER, I think you gave good advice, but it got mixed in with a lot of others uh.... stuff.

I hope Geeheeb you will read this - if not, I am not going to continue bickering with TeeCee again. That is not my purpose here.http://www.emo.spacespider.net/grr06.gif

TeeCee

12-12-2002, 11:29 PM

For the benefit of all:

latweek said
Because WinXP is Win2k -- with an alarming registration and information gathering process. I am sad to see folks rushing into the future of Windows in which your OS expires and you've got to call Microsoft to activate it. WinXP is preparing people for that next step - and I am in no rush -- frankly WinXP has offered no compelling features to upgrade. Have you seen how many applications need entirely new versions to run on WinXP? Why? This is marketing and hype.

This is just plain opinion. We really don't have enough info about his situation to dismiss outright something like RAID entirely -- as I said 'if you want to use it, go ahead - just do it right'. I agree with alot of what DECOMPOSER wrote about RAID, however not part about backup/redundancy --- to quote from Tee Cee here:

RAID will not give you a speed increase if you are going for redundancy -- it will decrease it. Sure it's still better than working with one drive, but really the chief benefit of investing in RAID in a DAW is speed/track count -- excuse the analogy here -- using RAID only for redundancy is like putting four wheel drive on a Formula 1 car -- it really misses the point. For backing up, there are many automated solutions out there -- just keep a tape in your backup drive and let the backups kick off at 4 or 5 am in the morning. Of course, RAID 5 is great compromise if you can afford it -- but honestly I doubt that someone who is using SONAR is working with that kind of budget.

Win 2000 does not handle WDM drivers properly and adds latency. It also has issues with excessive MIDI and/or audio ports, just as Win95 did. Windows XP does not. Not only have I had no issues with any of my software in Windows XP, Cakewalk and Sonic Foundry both recommend Windows XP. So I use WinXP on my main audio PC, fully tweaked for audio with no issues.

If you need more speed than a single drive can offer these days, you are doing some serious multi-track work. Fortunately for you, programs such as SONAR can distribute tracks across hard drives so you don't need to use RAID configurations.

If you want to use RAID, go ahead. But why? To do it right, you'll need a real RAID card and lot's of expensive SCSI drives.

No bickering. Just facts. And no attitude.

donl

12-16-2002, 02:55 AM

Man TeeCee you seem to be in defence mode. Stop, read, think. Learning is much easier if you don't chew up your CPU thinking of a riposte.

TeeCee

12-16-2002, 07:30 AM

The best defense is knowledge. I'm just trying to spread it. If you'll notice, latweek sort of through out his "knowledge" saying I was talking ****.

donl

12-16-2002, 08:39 AM

To cap it all off with something totaly unrelated other than it falls under the topic of knowledge, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" I saw this quote today while I was Christmas shopping at Walden's and it touched me. I get so involved in the techy end of my studios that I often forget why since 1970 ( 4 track teac ) I have had to have a tracking device on premises. To explore the whims of imagination. Anyway the raid information was good regardless of the heat. I have occasionaly thought of doing I just never have run into a situation where I needed it yet. My projects are normaly 24 to 30 tracks and I can squeeze out almost 45 in a pinch with an adequate amount of muscle left for effects. So yes, knowledge is prime if balanced with the most important thing. ..your art. Enough babbling it's 6:30 am here for me, Time for bed. See you out there. :cool: ;) :)

donl

12-16-2002, 08:43 AM

Oh! I forgot the author of the quote! Albert Einstein! That's the part that kind of blew me away. If anyone was a ever tech head huh? :bounce:

jeharris

12-20-2002, 02:59 PM

Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 2 applied makes for a great OS. I also have Windows XP Professional but I do not use it because I do not care for that OS.

My setup is as following:

DAW1
OS: Windows 2000 Pro/SP 2
Memory: 3GB ECC Registered DDRAM
CPU: Dual Athlon MP 1900+
HD: Three Maxtor 80GB 7200 UltraATA-133 Drives with one for software and the other two for data (using Windows 2000 Pro software RAID).
CD: Samsung 48x32x40 CD-R/W
Keys: Midiman Keystation61 Controller
Mixer: Mackie 1202
Monitors: M-Audio 5B
Soundcard: M-Audio Delta 1010 LT
Software:
Sonar XL 2.1; Reason 2; Cubase SX; V-Stack; DirectiXer (which allows me to use VSTis in Sonar); Sebilius; Acid Pro 4; CD Architech; DC5 Noise Reduction/Restoration software and a host of other soft synths

DAW2
OS: Windows 2000 Pro/ SP 2
Memory: 1.5 GB PC-133 SDRAM
HD: 60GB Maxtor 7200 UltraATA-133 Drive, 80GB Maxtor 7200 UltraATA-133 Drive
CD: Samsung 48x32x40 CD-R/W
Soundcard: Soundblaster Audigy Platium
Software:
Cubase SL; V-Stack

DAW3
OS: Windows 200 Pro/ SP 2
Memory: 1.5 GB PC-133 SDRAM
HD:HD: 60GB Maxtor 7200 UltraATA-133 Drive (data), 120GB Firewire/USB 7200 UltraATA-133 Drive (data)
CD: HP 9100B CD-R/W
Soundcard: Soundblaster Audigy Platium 2
Software:
Cubase VST Score; GigaStudio 160' V-Stack

I've had no problems running anything under Windows 2000 Pro. and Besides, all drivers are there for this OS, unlike XP.

Hope that helps.

:banana:

jeharris

12-20-2002, 03:20 PM

I'd like to add something about XP that I was not going to mention, but since latweek stratched the surface, I'll let you know what it is that I REALLY HATE about XP.

First of all, I'm a Computer Programmer by profession. I've worked with PCs since they were introduced and coined by IBM in 1981. My problem with Windows XP is that:

1. By Default, it loads services that you do not need, consuming CPU resources. Unfortunely, most people do not know how to tweek their systems to get rid of this garbage.

2. Although I must admit, at first listen, audio actually sounds better from a default point of view under XP. However, besides the elaborate sceme from Microsoft with the sign up and all, this OS is riddled with hidden components that "Call back to the mothership" (MICROSOFT of course). I had to do some heavy tweeking to turn that stuff off. But,

3. When you turn the components off, WinXP acts like a spoiled child, and will refuse to run software other than that written by Microsoft. This is not suprising, since Win95 played the same stupid games in its initial release. Typical Microsoft.

4. In my prior email, notice I'm using Service Pack 2, and not 3. Service pack 3 has built that crap into the Win2k update and I'll have none of it. And, last but not least,

5. I have not seen one instance in which a software driver was not available for Win2k, but I've seen if often when it comes to XP. But that's not a problem, since I do not have time for "spyware".

:banana:

TeeCee

12-21-2002, 06:40 AM

JEHJR:
I'm with you on most of your points (right with you). Are you familiar with the limitations I mentioned on Windows 2000? I agree that XP out of the box is a nighmare, but I believe that a tweaked XP system is currently the best for audio.

joboj

12-22-2002, 12:02 AM

hey... anybody running Windows 2000 in "Standard PC mode"? Runs like NT, and is definately better for IRQ management (kept having conflicts via the plug & play detection). The guys @ M-Audio clued me in on this one....

-joboj

TeeCee

12-22-2002, 03:44 PM

I've installed Windows XP and 2000 in standard PC mode. I may have put XP in the default mode on my wife's PC.

NukleoN

12-24-2002, 07:40 PM

Apparently Win XP runs better in ACPI mode and Standard mode isn't recommended, though I have heard standard mode is recommended for win2K. RME has a lot of good info about this on their website. ;)

TeeCee

12-25-2002, 12:13 PM

Apparently because of what RME says or do you have some experience to back that? My PC is running great in Standard PC mode.

donl

12-25-2002, 05:04 PM

You know it's funny...I'm running a motherboard with two p3 1ghz proccessors, I'm using Win 2k and 98 SE both ( win 2K because it's supposed to be the software to actually utilize both CPU's) as it turns out 98se performs better (using VST and Cakewalk pro audio9) especialy with Cakewalk. CPU usage is a little better with 2k but hard drive usage is far better with 98se I'm using the same hard drive with the same settings, DMA activated, 72000 rpm Maxtor drive. I love the stability of Win 2K but I just can't get hard drive perforance up to snuff. So I end up doing any heavey tracking on 98se. I tried "standard PC" mode in 2k...not much difference if any. Any tips from anyone out there? donl:confused:

TeeCee

12-25-2002, 09:31 PM

That's a fast drive!!! (72000 RPM) Are you sure that 2000 is seeing both CPU's? I think you are supposed to use ACPI with two processors.

donl

12-26-2002, 02:10 AM

I figure tech freaks can see through the typos (I hope). I originally ran it in ACPI mode and switched to PC to see what would happen with it's performance. Whether or not 2000 (200000000) saw both CPU in PC mode I don't know but I doubt it, yet there was no distinguishable difference in speed or multitasking capabilities. My real question was "why would a storage drive's performance be more sluggish in 2000 than in 98SE if all the setting were the same." If no one has any answers for me please feel free to at least spell check my reply:D

TeeCee

12-26-2002, 06:56 AM

I would use some standard measure to verify hard drive performance and whether or not Windows 2000 was using both processors. The only thing I can think of that would make the hard drive perform worse in Windows 2000 is a driver issue. Is there any chance that there could be an updated Win2K driver for for your motherboard's hard drive controller?

donl

12-26-2002, 12:33 PM

Good thoughts thank you.

jeharris

12-31-2002, 05:47 PM

Hi everyone!

First to TeeCee: I agree with you about limitations with WDM drivers in Win2k but the problem lies in kernal streaming and not the WDM drivers themselves.

I read an excellent article on how to get around this. It was several months ago. I will look for it and when I find it, I'll send the URL.

:D

jeharris

12-31-2002, 05:52 PM

Joboj:

Standard PC is fine if you have a single processor system. ACPI will eventually cause you problems if you are using that mode for audio beyond the typical, which I'm sure you are, since you're on this site. Of my three DAWs, only one runs in ACPI Multiprocessor mode and that's because it has two processors and that's a better setting there.

However, there are many other things that may need to be done if you're using Win2k or WinXP, such as shutting down services that you do not need. This is another subject, in which Info world wrote about a few months ago. I've been on vacation and I'm sure that I bookmarked the URL. I'll check when I get back to work on Thursday, Jan 1, 2003. :D

jeharris

12-31-2002, 05:56 PM

DonL:

As was my reply to Joboj, check which services are running and see which ones you can do without. BELIEVE ME, Win2k and WinXP loads tons of garbage that may be fine for a business setup, but murder for a DAW.

The thing is, there's no one receipe, as it is different depending on what you're running on your DAW. Once again, I'm sure I bookmarked the article on this, alone with information on things that you can shut down. I'll get it when I return to work on 1/2/03. Once I have it, I'll post the URL for everyone to see.

:D

jeharris

12-31-2002, 06:22 PM

DonL:

TeeCee is absolutely correct. You should be running your PC in APCI Multiprocessor mode. As for the drive: I only use Maxtor drives and mine are the same speed (72000) UltraATA-133.

I get flawless times on my drives under Win2k. Check Task Manager and see just how many "Services" win2k is running when you start it. Also, as I've already said, there's an article covering this matter and once I'm back at work, I'll check, because I'm pretty sure I bookmarked the URL. If I did not, I'll find it somehow and post it, because I believe that this is one of the reasons that people do not like using Windows for audio. You have to do many things to prepare a windows pc for proper audio.

:D

jeharris

01-09-2003, 09:25 PM

Hi Everyone:

Sorry I took so long, but my job has been hectic. Anyway, I have those links that I promised I'd get for tweaking Win2k/Winxp machines.

NOTE:Precautions before doing this:http://www.blkviper.com/WinXP/supertweaks.htm This site guides you through it step-by-step.
NOTE: Shutting off WinXP services you don't need:http://www.blkviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
NOTE: Shutting off Win2K services you don't need:http://www.blkviper.com/WIN2K/servicecfg.htm

:D

JvM

01-21-2003, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by donl
I figure tech freaks can see through the typos (I hope). I originally ran it in ACPI mode and switched to PC to see what would happen with it's performance. Whether or not 2000 (200000000) saw both CPU in PC mode I don't know but I doubt it, yet there was no distinguishable difference in speed or multitasking capabilities. My real question was "why would a storage drive's performance be more sluggish in 2000 than in 98SE if all the setting were the same." If no one has any answers for me please feel free to at least spell check my reply:D

I found this about Win2000 Pro at the MS site. Might explain?

SYMPTOMS Windows 2000 does not support ATA 100 (Mode 5) for IDE hard disks. All ATA 100 IDE hard disks that are used with Windows 2000 default to ATA 66 (Mode 4).

RESOLUTION A supported fix is now available from Microsoft, but it is only intended to correct the problem that is described in this article. Apply it only to computers that are experiencing this specific problem. This fix may receive additional testing. Therefore, if you are not severely affected by this problem, Microsoft recommends that you wait for the next Windows 2000 service pack that contains this fix.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;260233

J.

donl

01-21-2003, 07:02 PM

:bounce: By Jove!!!! I think you hit the nail on the head!!! Thank you

jeharris

01-21-2003, 10:27 PM

JvM:

If you have dual processors, YOU SHOULD NOT BE running in standard mode. That's only for one processor systems. You should be running ACPI Multiprocossing mode.

Also, there are tons of "services" that BOTH Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP load by default. you need to turn off the ones that you do not need. Windows 98/98SE does not do this, but it is NOT a better solution.

Go to the following links to find out services that you can "safely" turn off. Audio on Windows is VERY sensitive and Windows PCs, by default, are BUSINESS machines and NOT audio. Macs, on the other hand, make it easier for you. The links follow:

NOTE:Precautions before doing this:http://www.blkviper.com/WinXP/supertweaks.htm This site guides you through it step-by-step.
NOTE: Shutting off WinXP services you don't need:http://www.blkviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
NOTE: Shutting off Win2K services you don't need:http://www.blkviper.com/WIN2K/servicecfg.htm

:D

elsteve9

12-07-2003, 05:01 PM

How do I get the service pack for W2k if I don't have my DAW machine hooked up to the internet?
Can you d/l the service pack, burn a cd, and then take it to the other pc?

Comments, advice?

-Stephen

elsteve9

12-07-2003, 05:08 PM

Any ideas on this problem, or where to find help?:
Every so often, when I turn on or restart my W2k advanced server machine (it was the only version I had), I get an error telling me about problems with my hal.dll file. On reflection I think I've only noticed this after running Cool Edit Pro, but that may not be true...
Any ideas, folks?
Thanks,

stephen

jeharris

12-07-2003, 10:37 PM

You can either download the most current sevice pack from the internet or, if you need to patch a machine with no internet connection, download the service pack from another machine, burn it to a CD and use the CD to pach the machine that needs to be patched.

jeharris

12-08-2003, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by elsteve9
Any ideas on this problem, or where to find help?:
Every so often, when I turn on or restart my W2k advanced server machine (it was the only version I had), I get an error telling me about problems with my hal.dll file. On reflection I think I've only noticed this after running Cool Edit Pro, but that may not be true...
Any ideas, folks?
Thanks,

stephen

If you're having problems with the Hal.dll, simply reinstall the same one that you have. Open up "my computer" -> "properties"->"hardware tab"->"device manager". From there, select "Computer" to expand the entry. At this point, you'll be able to see which computer "type" you have installed, for example: "Standard PC". Right-click on the computer type, and then click on "Update Dirver". Choose the same one that you have installed.

Once you reinstall it, you'll probably be asked to reboot your computer. This should solve your problems. NOTE: If you change the computer type to a different one, you will experience stability problems and will probably have to do a re-install of the operating system.

elsteve9

12-08-2003, 12:10 PM

HOLY COW!
I followed some advice, and was trying to get my w2k Adv. Server system out of ACPI mode.
So first, I set it to standard pc mode, and spent all night getting that all tweaked out.
But it seemed that the whole computer was still running more slowly than before. I had to increase my ASIO buffer size a bit.
So I got to looking, and realized that Standard PC mode still used ACPI. So I really need to use the 'MPS single processor' setup.
Well, holy frickin' cow. (a frickin' cow, at that.)
When I switched that over, my pc won't start. :-)
So if anyone has any input...
I'm expecting to have to reinstall the OS.

I also understand that this may not be the best place to post this question. Does anyone have any better ideas?

Thanks for all help,
Stephen

jeharris

12-08-2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by elsteve9
HOLY COW!
I followed some advice, and was trying to get my w2k Adv. Server system out of ACPI mode.
So first, I set it to standard pc mode, and spent all night getting that all tweaked out.
But it seemed that the whole computer was still running more slowly than before. I had to increase my ASIO buffer size a bit.
So I got to looking, and realized that Standard PC mode still used ACPI. So I really need to use the 'MPS single processor' setup.
Well, holy frickin' cow. (a frickin' cow, at that.)
When I switched that over, my pc won't start. :-)
So if anyone has any input...
I'm expecting to have to reinstall the OS.

I also understand that this may not be the best place to post this question. Does anyone have any better ideas?

Thanks for all help,
Stephen
elsteve9:

I guess you made the change before you read my response. If you change the HAL from the installed type, the OS becomes unstable!

There is, however, another way around this. Yes, now you will need to do a reinstall, but you can do a parallel install. When you do a parallel install, all of your old settings for your programs will stay the same, thus you will not loose anything. Sometimes, however, it does not overwrite the "Documents and settings folder", which is the way some people like it anyway. Following are the instructions for a parallel install:

Performing a Parallel Installation of Windows 2000

NOTE: The Documents and Settings folder is not overwritten by this procedure.
Boot your computer from the Windows 2000 CD-ROM.
After Setup finishes inspecting the computer's hardware, press ENTER to set up Windows 2000.
Press ESC to install a fresh copy of Windows 2000. If you are installing the same version of Windows, proceed with step 4.
Press ENTER to set up Windows 2000 on the selected item.

NOTE: You can install Windows 2000 on any available partition. If there are problems with your Boot.ini file, you may want to install Windows 2000 on the same partition as the original installation. Your values in the Boot.ini file are the same.
Press ENTER to leave the current file system intact.

IMPORTANT: If you choose to change the file system, you will lose data from the partition to which you are installing.
Press ESC to install Windows 2000 in a different folder.

If you installed the original copy of Windows 2000 in the default Winnt folder, you must type the name of a different folder, and then press ENTER.
After you change the default folder to a different folder, you can proceed with the installation procedure. Select the components and settings that are required for your installation.

That should make your life easier! Personally, I do not recommend win2k advance server for audio, unless you tweak it to behave like a workstation (win2k pro).

Cheers!