OS for SONAR

This forum is dedicated to Sonar discussions.

OS for SONAR

Postby MagusCT » Fri Mar 26, 2004 11:26 pm

What do you people recommend as an OS for using SONAR: Microsoft XP Home or Pro? Or if there are any toher ideas out there then please mention those too....Thx in advance
MagusCT
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 8:56 pm
Location: Long Beach, New York

Re: OS for SONAR

by Sponsor

Forum Sponsor
 

Postby andychap » Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:46 am

Most people used to swear by windows 98 SE but now it seems to be XP all the way. One view says either Home or Pro versions because they are both basically the same. Another view says home version because you then don't have all the network stuff clogging up your system and another view says Pro because it is more stable than Home.

I use XP Pro but only because that was what I could get my hands on cheap at the time. The networking stuff makes no difference to performance and might actually come in handy at a later date if I get another computer.

I would say get whichever version you fancy or is cheapest but remember that for audio you have to tailor it and optimise it for performance. Check out the optimisation thread in the General section for sites to visit and tips.
andychap
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: UK

Postby MagusCT » Sun Mar 28, 2004 5:10 pm

hey thx for the reply..ill probably go with the Home version unless it turns out to be a lot more expensive than Pro somehow. thx again for the help
MagusCT
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 8:56 pm
Location: Long Beach, New York

Postby andychap » Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:51 pm

Whatever you get, if you have a second drive, install it on that first and leave your existing OS on the other drive. You can run twin OS on boot up when you have XP installed. This way you can tweak and mess with the settings and if you make a mistake it can be rectified with no loss of data from your other OS. Once you know what you are doing with it then you can install for real.

Always do a reformat and clean install for best results with XP. Remeber to back up all your data first. XP is easier to install than Win 98.
andychap
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: UK

Postby GretscGuy » Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:08 pm

I am running Sonar 3 with XP Pro. I used to run PA9 under W2k with no problems at all.

I probably would have upgraded to XP Home. I didn't know the differences are all in networking capabilities. I am happy with Pro though.

I got it really cheap (legal and sealed) off ebay. About half of what it was from ms or at best buy.

Good LucK!
GretscGuy
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: Massachusetts USA

I would recomend....

Postby Axeman » Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:32 am

Windows 2000. It is basically XP WITHOUT all the bells and whistles. I have swappable Hard drives, and my music drive is 2K SP4 with only **13** processes running in the background. I can strip 2K down to a lean mean music machine, without sacrificing much of anything. My 2K drive does only one thing. SONAR 3. I haven't had much luck getting XP below 20-23 processes without sacrificing something.... You just don't need all that XP stuff sucking the system resources dry. Win2K will give you all the stability of XP without all the crap. Hope it helps.

Axeman
Axeman
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:31 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Postby GretscGuy » Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:43 am

Windows 2000. It is basically XP WITHOUT all the bells and whistles


This is not true at all. Windows XP is a 32 bit OS as opposed to a 16 bit OS. Not only that, but XP supports hyperthreading and also allows you to use more RAM.

There is also a beta version of a 64 bit version of XP if you have a 84 bt system.

Windows XP has a driver rollback mode that will correct problems if you ever have problems after updating drivers.

The main reason I didn't want Windows XP when I had 2k was becasue of the cartoonish graphics. You can set it up to look like 2000 with a few clicks. You can also tune the system up very well.

2k was great for the time. XP is all new and is not built on Dos like 95,98, NT, 2k, etc... It is an all new os. I didn't want to upgrade, but now that I have my system NEVER crashes. It did not crash that often with 2k though.

If you're running an older machine (>1ghz proc) I wouldn't reccomend xp. for a newer chip, xp is the way to go.
GretscGuy
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: Massachusetts USA

Postby andychap » Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:16 pm

If you're running an older machine (>1ghz proc) I wouldn't reccomend xp. for a newer chip, xp is the way to go.


I'm running alright on a PIII 850. It's rock steady. I think it out performs ME in stability and speed. I am also now running Sonar 3 on the same machine and that seems faster as well. My processor usage has gone down a bit because of the way S3 handles audio compared to S2.
andychap
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: UK

Uh.....

Postby Axeman » Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:42 pm

Okay, I MIGHT can understand the 16bit/32bit issue....but 2000 supports Hyperthreading just as well as XP does. The fact is, there is really no performance gain to be had by using XP over 2000 in the same system. There IS however something to be gained by using 2000 over XP, namely SYSTEM RESOURCES. Which would you want to run your Sonar projects on....an XP machine using 20-30 processes, or an identical machine running 2000 with only 12-13 processes. The math speaks for itself. I have MORE available memory in the 2000 config, and Sonar Hyperthreads my plug-ins and audio process quite nicely.

XP might be newer, but it simply is NOT optimized for audio on anything short of a top of the line system. Could I run XP on my rig (3Ghz Asus P4P800 Deluxe w/1Gig of PC3200 Ram)? Sure I could....but I couldn't DO AS MUCH simultaneous processing BECAUSE of not only the bells and whistles, but the some of the other inherent processes associated with XP.

Now sure, I am probably nitpicking....but I like to squeeze every last drop of performance out of my audio production rig, and I just can't do that with XP's bulk. I'm happy to use XP for my day to day internet and gaming stuff, but I'll stick with 2000 UNTIL someone can find me a dedicated Server 2003 driver for my Audigy card. Server 2003 will smoke 2K AND XP in application performance ESPECIALLY in Sonar. I would prefer to run Server 2003 as my main OS, but there are no dedicated drivers for the Audigy, and no....the XP/2000 drivers are not stable....I tried =)
Axeman
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:31 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Postby GretscGuy » Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:18 pm

I have never heard that 2k supports hyperthreading. Is this true? It would seem odd as hyperthreading processors are fairly new.

I can say (having run 2k and xp pro on the same machine with identical hardware.software) that my xp machine runs better and seems less sluggish.

2k is great, don't get me wrong - but I don't think they are upgrading and making patches for it anymore.
GretscGuy
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: Massachusetts USA

Yes it supports HT

Postby Axeman » Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:57 am

Yes it does support Hyperthreading, and I have no problems running my current setup. 2000 will be supported until 2006 so updates shouldn't be a problem.

I guess it boils down to prefrence, but from my experimentation with Sonar in both OS's, I have found I simply have more memory, therefore more system resources, in a 2000 config. I am looking however at possibly running XP, but I want to add RAM before I do that.

Also, I can run 4Gb of Ram in 2000 if I wanted to. Just wish I could afford to =)
Axeman
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:31 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Postby GretscGuy » Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:16 am

Axeman,
Please don't post information as fact if you don't know it's true. It confuses some people and misleads others. Windows 2000 does NOT support hyperthreading as you stated above.

If you think that Cakewalk is hyperthreading your plugs, you're wrong. Your OS has to support hyperthreading in order for Sonar's hyperthreading capabilities to work.

From intel's website:

Microsoft* Windows* Operating System Desktop Based PCs
The following desktop operating systems include optimizations for HT Technology and are currently eligible to carry the new Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with HT Technology logo:
Microsoft* Windows* XP Professional Edition
Microsoft* Windows* XP Home Edition

The following desktop operating systems are not recommended for use with Hyper-Threading Technology. If you are using one of the following desktop operating systems, it is advised that you should disable Hyper-Threading Technology in the system BIOS Setup program:

Microsoft Windows 2000
Microsoft Windows NT* 4.0
Microsoft Windows Me
Microsoft Windows 98
Microsoft Windows 98 SE
Last edited by GretscGuy on Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GretscGuy
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: Massachusetts USA

Okay, I hate tit for tat as it is so childish...BUT

Postby Axeman » Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:49 am

Look, we can do this all day chief. I can post 5 links that say otherwise. Here's one to an Infoworld article that says you are wrong.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/01/ ... per_1.html
Here is a quote from the above link:

"To make this work, you need one of Intel's 533 MHz (bus speed) processors and an appropriate chipset. For servers, the operating systems that support hyperthreading include Windows 2000, Novell NetWare, and Linux; for desktop computers, it's Linux or Windows XP. When Microsoft's .Net software arrives, it will also support hyperthreading processors."

Here's another DIRECTLY from Compaq:

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/serv ... pport.html

Here is another from Tyan:

http://www.tyan.com/support/html/cpu.html

Thanks a lot, but I DO KNOW what I am talking about. If you want to cut hairs, there is a difference between the TYPE of hyperthreading support of 2000 and XP, but they BOTH support Hyperthreading. To be specific, XP takes more efficient advantage of the HT technology. Never-the-less, HT DOES WORK in 2000. My rig Hyperthreads JUST FINE!

I WILL NOT, NOR DO I NEED TO REPEAT MYSELF. I DID NOT COME HERE TO ARGUE. I run my own PC business, so give me a little credit for being a "TAD" more informed than yer average noob. YOU can debate this all you like, meanwhile I STAND BY MY STATEMENTS! And my rig HAS the power and performance to back it up.

You should know by now that what Intel says and what is actually the truth are sometimes TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Forget Marketing bs, I am talking about real world application here. Do you HONESTLY think Intel would make such a big hoopla over a feature as significant as Hyperthreading, and have it NOT be supported by the current STANDARD Business Operating System??? HELLO??????? Do you HONESTLY think Microsoft isn't going to either add in or include HT support in the current STANDARD business Operating system? Don't be so foolish. It is there and it WORKS! Now if you want to cut hairs on HOW it works feel free. Meanwhile I am chugging away with all my HT guns blazing.

Please do a little more research before you slam people who actually know more than you think they do.
Axeman
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:31 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Postby GretscGuy » Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:42 pm

Axeman,
If you read what you posted carefully, I belive they're talking about W2k Server, not the desktop version.
GretscGuy
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: Massachusetts USA

Jesus man!

Postby Axeman » Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:49 am

HELLO! Win2000 Professional support ***2*** processors, therefore it SUPPORTS HYPERTHREADING!!!

The detail is in HOW. If you took the time to read through several of the links, they explain how XP can distinguish between physical and logical(Hyperthreaded) processors and 2000 cannot. THAT is the big difference. Win2000 simply treats it as another physical processor...PERIOD, so any program that supports Hyperthreading will utilize it as such.

All I am saying is PLEASE do not arbitrarily bash a setup simply because some website says it won't work. IT WORKS, I am running it, and I can see the difference.

Here is a list of just SOME of the plug ins I use:

Waves Diamond Bundle
BBE Sonic MAximizer
Antares Mic Modeler
Korg Legacy Collection
Ohm Force (ALL)

etc. etc.

I can easily do 30-40 tracks with more than 10 total simultaneous effects WITH effects on multiple aux busses. Now I have experimented with the SAME projects in XP, and have noticed instances where I had to "trim the fat" to compensate for the added inherent processes associated with XP. Which, if I recall, was the original point of all this. 2000 is a leaner, meaner Audio OS....period.
Axeman
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:31 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Next


Similar topics


Return to General Sonar - X1, X2, Producer, Home Studio

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Music Engravers and Music Copyists
   Finale - Sibelius - Cakewalk - Archives - Cakewalk Books - Contact


Copyright © 1994 - 2019 by C.M. Press, LLC