OS for SONAR

This forum is dedicated to Sonar discussions.
GretscGuy
Posts: 434
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: Massachusetts USA

Post by GretscGuy » Sat May 01, 2004 7:13 pm

Aceman,
I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that all the plugs you listen are evn written to take advantage of hyperthreading.

I'm not bashing you or your system btw.


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

Post by Axeman » Sun May 02, 2004 6:50 am

Dude, I never SAID all my plug ins support Hyperthreading...I said 2000 supports Hyperthreading. I think we've gone way beyond the original point of the thread... :shock:

And I know yer not bashing my system....it really doesnt matter whether I am running 2K or XP...my system rocks regardless of the OS. I just swapped out with a 3.4 running at 4Ghz with custom Air cooling. 250Gb SATA RAID array is next on the list. Western Digital 120Gb SATA's are running under $100.00 that should make a significant difference in my max # of tracks.

I suppose at this point is really doesnt matter if I use XP or not.

jack_the_ex-cynic
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:52 am

Post by jack_the_ex-cynic » Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:02 am

to whoever said that win2k was 16 bit... it isn't. win2k is 32bit, just like xp. there are some differences with xp (besides the cosmetic ones) such as a better virtual machine for running legacy apps. xp has more fluff, so it depends on which platform sonar was tested better on... probably xp.

xp pro is almost always always the best choice from a general point of view. never having run sonar on it, i wouldn't know, but my 2k box (p3 800 with 256mb of ram and two scsi160 hard drives) runs it smooth. right now i have 21 processes running with 161,000k of my 261,292k physical memory available (that of course includes task manager and sonar isn't running). it's not what i consider a dedicated audio machine either, although being in the computer systems administration industry i viciously kill any process that doesn't need to be running. =) i would not venture to run xp on my p3, but i do have it running (pro) on my laptop. really, you want 512mb of ram for xp to give yourself enough room to play.

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

Post by Axeman » Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:39 am

Well, I suppose running at 4Ghz this whole point is moot. I don't suppose it really matters. I could run anything I want. I run 2000 simply because I don't NEED all the fluff sucking up resources that I could use elsewhere in Sonar. While it is true Win2K isn't "dedicated" to Hyperthreading. It DOES allow for it although not in as advanced way as XP.

What I REALLY want to do is to run Server 2003 which is considerably faster than both 2000 AND XP. BUT, I cannot find a stable driver for my SB Audigy for it! Can you believe that??? They tell you to use the XP driver, but it isn't stable enough. Server 2003 really is faster in almost every respect, but WHY would you not have a driver for one of the most dominant Sound card lines on the planet??? That makes no sense! I want to use it for playback....is that so hard, or so much to ask?

I have a driver from a group called "The Kx Project", that makes a third party driver for the Ensoniq chipset on the Audigy cards. It is supposedly compatible with Server 2003, but I am not sure of the available functionality or what the driver does and doesnt allow for. Anyone else know anything about this?

Ultimately, I would love to run Server 2003 with Sonar 3 and all the plug ins.....based on my experience with it, I believe I could squeeze a considerable amount of headroom out of Sonar just by switching to the newer OS, as it is considerably more efficient and it's Hyperthreading functions are even MORE advanced than XP. Anyone got any ideas on the Audigy issue though?

andychap
Posts: 685
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: UK

Post by andychap » Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:05 am

jack_the_ex-cynic wrote:to whoever said that win2k was 16 bit... it isn't. win2k is 32bit, just like xp. there are some differences with xp (besides the cosmetic ones) such as a better virtual machine for running legacy apps. xp has more fluff, so it depends on which platform sonar was tested better on... probably xp.

xp pro is almost always always the best choice from a general point of view. never having run sonar on it, i wouldn't know, but my 2k box (p3 800 with 256mb of ram and two scsi160 hard drives) runs it smooth. right now i have 21 processes running with 161,000k of my 261,292k physical memory available (that of course includes task manager and sonar isn't running). it's not what i consider a dedicated audio machine either, although being in the computer systems administration industry i viciously kill any process that doesn't need to be running. =) i would not venture to run xp on my p3, but i do have it running (pro) on my laptop. really, you want 512mb of ram for xp to give yourself enough room to play.
You system specs are nearly the same as mine PIII 850, 256 mb ram and your figures look exactly the same as mine, 22 processes running woth 161 mb of Ram available.

The only difference is I am running with XP Pro and it runs dam fine as well.

You will probably find that when you strip all the extras out we end up running the same processes so in effect I am running as a Win2000 machine.

I also find that I have still always got Ram left to play with when I am running Sonar with various plugins. It's processing power that I run out of before Ram so I think a PIII with 512 Mb Ram might not benefit too much because the CPU is the limiting factor.

jack_the_ex-cynic
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:52 am

ram

Post by jack_the_ex-cynic » Tue Jun 01, 2004 4:02 pm

the only problem i've had so far performance-wise is with big vsampler instruments. for instance, the huge piano vs3 that comes with sonar producer, even by itself i can't run it real-time with the kind of polyphony i use with piano solos... the cpu meter goes through the roof. i've actually never checked the ram while running sonar, but i do know that my biggest song has well over 200mb of samples. i have no idea whether sonar would load the entire song into ram or not.

it's good to know that i could put xp on my p3 box, but i am going to be getting a new computer soon anyway. what kind of hard drives do you have? i have always used scsi wherever possible for performance, but even on my biggest song (19 simultaneous mono tracks), i never get more than 10 or 15% disk usage. i like the reliability of scsi but serial ata is so much cheaper.

just looked at the ram and still have some left, although my total ram usage is around 615mb... sonar is gobbling up 66mb of that. simply reinforces my belief that 1gb of ram is the way to go, although i have two drives (one as a system drive, the other for my audio cache and mp3s).

jack_the_ex-cynic
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:52 am

Post by jack_the_ex-cynic » Tue Jun 01, 2004 4:06 pm

i just exited sonar and my ram usage went from a peak of 618mb down to 167mb... that's around 450mb. so the extra ram might be worth it, but i am clueless as to why sonar would not use the extra physical memory it had available anyway...

andychap
Posts: 685
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: UK

Post by andychap » Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:38 pm

I use normal IDE 120 Gb 7200rpm Western Digital hard drives and they work fine for me at ATA100.

I'm afraid I don't use the VSampler, I use Kontakt and it streams samples direct from the disc. For Piano I use a demo version of the Bosendorfer 290 Grand in Giga format in Knotakt, it's about 200 meg and streams fine.

Given the chance I would upgrade but lack of funds (disabled) means that I have decided to stick with what I have instead of going into debt.

I am happy enough with the limitations of the PIII, it just means I have to be sensible in the way I work. I also find it very stable with no silly crashes for no apparent reason.

GretscGuy
Posts: 434
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: Massachusetts USA

Post by GretscGuy » Fri Jul 09, 2004 2:06 am

What I REALLY want to do is to run Server 2003 which is considerably faster than both 2000 AND XP. BUT, I cannot find a stable driver for my SB Audigy for it! Can you believe that???
Axeman, if you don't mind a dumb question - why would you spend all that money to build a 4Ghz audio machine and then use a SoundBlaster card? That seems like building a car with a bigblock and putting a chevette transmision in it.

Just wondering, for the coin/time you have dropped into your machine, I would have built a slightly slower machine and gotten a card by RME, MOTU or one of the pro companies.

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

Post by Axeman » Sat Jul 10, 2004 12:46 am

I use a Tascam FW1884 for my I/O stuff. The Audigy just does the playback chores. And thats really all I'd like for it to be able to do in Server 2003 as well, but I guess it's pointless to bother considering that even IF I got it to work, there's no way I'd be lucky enough to get the FW1884 to work properly in Server 2003. Oh well, it was just a thought =)

It DOES annoy me however that my Asus onboard Sound DOES work in Server 2003 while the SB Audigy does not. To me, that's just f'ked up =) Microsoft can include a generic driver capable of running the onboard sound but not the most widely used consumer sound card on the market? SOMEwhere in there SOMEbody is smokin crack. :shock:

Guest

Post by Guest » Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:20 am

It appears you opened it.

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

Post by Axeman » Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:11 am

Yep....it happens to the best of us :wink: I DO wish I could use Server 2003 though. Head to head it is considerably faster than XP.

rick_james
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 4:59 pm
Location: Dublin

Post by rick_james » Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:21 pm

I Use windows 2000 and its works(finally) I mean everything works, crashes very rarely.

I just thought i'd butt in cuz I recently upgraded 14 pc's from win2k pro to xp pro as i do some work in a internet Cafe. I tell you that when the systems where updated xp was more of a power sucker and much less stable. People complained of crashes twice as much as before. I've now realised that you should always stick with the most stable operating system. I dont want to be a beta tester on my pc handling the DAW, its not worth it. Win2000 SP4 is the tried and tested OS. Win Xp has some issues that need resolving. I certainly wont be ungrading till I get a new PC. OS's have to stand the test of time and for some reason I dont think I'll change until 2006 when the new microsoft OS is out as it sounds vastly superior and is described as the biggest change(update of any MS OS). This OS apparently is being designed with multitasking and stability in mind. Till then Its Win 2000 pro. After all it does everything I want or could think of so I guess the saying goes; "if it aint broke, dont fix it"

I recommend WIN 2000 SP4 Pro for PC audio, XP is fine on a fast machine as long and you do a bit of customizing and make sure you patch it regularly.

I dont think you should update for the hell of it. Especially if the machine was designed for Win98, WinME, or Win2k(b4 XP)

LAter

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

Post by Axeman » Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:06 am

When it comes to stability I have no issues with XP. In fact, I find XP to be just as stable as 2000. The difference *I* see is in the Bloat...aka the bells and whistles you just don't need to do the same stuff as the 2000 OS. If all it does is suck resources, why use it? I don't need Eye Candy, I need more tracks, more effects, and more headroom in general. I actually prefer XP for most things EXCEPT audio simply because of one thing. The Error Reporting Tool. Does it send *** to Microsoft that you're unaware of?...Probably.....but it DOES at least tell you what just caused that occasional Blue Screen of Death that keeps aggrivating you. I get BSoD's in 2000 just as much, the only difference is 2000 doesn't TELL me why. XP and 2000 are both based on the same NT kernel code. Hence, to *ME* they are pretty equal in the stability dept. BOTH had serious BSoD issues when they first came out, in fact, I remember when 2000 first hit, I HATED it, because nothing would run on it properly. No games would run, and compatibility was horrendous. Now, 4 Service Packs later, 2000 is Bliss. XP might be too if we can ever get on with SP2.

Oh yeah....and you don't SERIOUSLY think Longhorn is going to be anything CLOSE to flawless when it hits in 2006 do you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA If Microsoft is having THIS much of a problem with a Service Pack for an existing OS, do you REALLY think their "major leap forward" in OS technology is going to be anything resembling perfect?

Don't hold yer breath...... :shock:

rick_james
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 4:59 pm
Location: Dublin

Post by rick_james » Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:40 pm

I dunno windows is a great OS never mind if you like microsoft or not...they have the money to employ the people to make it possible. Obviously it wont be stable at first but I think it will be a big success, I'd like a hardcore multitasking pc with sata drives and 2 processor hopefully while running that OS.

Why go to xp when there are no advantages for your system. It just looks a bit more pretty, While it sucks up your power that could be an extra realtime effects on a tracks or dxi/vsti synths running.

Of course as gradually software stops supporting win2000. The change will have to be made but until I need a piece of hardware/software that will only work with xp. UNTIL THEN ITS 2K

Post Reply