Hello Group!! Building a i7 PC soon.. Novice qustion here, Which OS is best to Run Cubase 4 or 5. Right now I have XP Pro SP3 and I will upgrade to Vista 32/64(?) bit, if only XP could read above 4 Gig of Ram I'd stayed with it. what's the pro's and cons between 32 and 64 bit? thanks!! Ka-eL
Rayn wrote: > Same question here. Just switched to C5 and I'm now wondering which OS > to choose... For now, I´d say - if you already have a XP 32, which is very likely - stay with XP32 and wait for Windows7, which may hopefully come out this year. Vista 64 is available, but not really a good option. Win7 is looking like an improved version of Vista - and the beta runs even faster (on kind of "old" hardware) compared to Vista... One point is the compatibility of OS and DAW software, but just as important is the availability of good and stable drivers for your audio interface(s) of choice! As experience has shown, it took quite a while, until most manufacturers even provided Vista32 drivers. XP32 has been around for long enough and is proven and stable. Drivers are available for pretty much "anything, you can think of"... so, that´s the safest route to choose by now. Yes, there´s the 3,5 GB limit with XP32, but do you REALLY need more at the moment? I mean, a few years ago, even 4 GB were practically "impossible" on normal mainboards and people still got professional audio work done with the machines back then... I understand, that you want to use all RAM, you have installed on your mainboard and it feels stupid to limit it by using an old OS, but what do YOU really do, that you really *need* more than 3,5 GB of RAM??? If I were to build a new computer by now, I´d install XP32 on it for now, wait for Win7 and get that installed, when it comes out (hopefully by the end of this year) - and simply "skip" Vista. Just my thoughts, Phil
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:19:11 +0200, "Phil W" <> trained 100 monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: >Rayn wrote: >> Same question here. Just switched to C5 and I'm now wondering which OS >> to choose... > >For now, I´d say - if you already have a XP 32, which is very likely - stay >with XP32 and wait for Windows7, which may hopefully come out this year. >Vista 64 is available, but not really a good option. Win7 is looking like an >improved version of Vista - and the beta runs even faster (on kind of "old" >hardware) compared to Vista... I agree with Phil - Win7 is (relatively speaking) right around the corner, and from what I've heard, it's worth the wait. Also, C5 is the only one that can really take advantage of 64 bit, if you're gonna head that way. -- jtougas "listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door let's go" - e.e. cummings
jtougas wrote: > "Phil W" trained 100 > monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: > >> Rayn wrote: >>> Same question here. Just switched to C5 and I'm now wondering which >>> OS to choose... >> >> For now, I´d say - if you already have a XP 32, which is very likely >> - stay with XP32 and wait for Windows7, which may hopefully come out >> this year. Vista 64 is available, but not really a good option. Win7 >> is looking like an improved version of Vista - and the beta runs >> even faster (on kind of "old" hardware) compared to Vista... > > I agree with Phil - Win7 is (relatively speaking) right around the > corner, and from what I've heard, it's worth the wait. > > Also, C5 is the only one that can really take advantage of 64 bit, if > you're gonna head that way. Well, since 64 bit CPUs have been around for a while now, it´s actually reasonable to consider using a 64 bit OS with 64 bit software. It feels a bit "limiting" to use a 32 bit OS and 32 bit software on a 64 bit system, of course... In practice, the main problem is, that software manufacturers also have to adapt to 64 bit, to take full advantage of a 64 bit system running a 64 bit OS. This may take some time, until the majority of software manufacturers make this switch. As I already said, experiences with Vista has shown, that it even took a lot of (even "mainstream") hardware manufacturers quite a while (up to a few months after Vista´s official release date!) to provide new drivers for Vista. And this applies mainly to the 32 bit version of Vista - the 64 bit Vista drivers may even have come later. :-\ I´d assume, it will be relatively the same way with most software applications for 32 to 64 bit. Until everything necessary is available in the new "format", it won´t make much sense to go for a "real" 64 bit system. So, the better choice will be to use 32 bit XP and apps, until this time has come - I hope, it will be sooner than later. Of course, you can also use Vista32 instead of XP, but generally said, Vista itself takes up "more power" on the same hardware than XP does, just to run. In other words, a machine running on XP32 will be "faster" than running on Vista32. Especially, if you´re going to use resource-demanding work, as you obviously are, with XP there will be more "power" or "resources" left for the actual applications. And, when you also consider to buy a new Cubase version, make sure, you get Cubase 5. If I got the Steinberg guy right, who did a C5 presentation here some days ago, C5 is shipping with both a 32bit AND a 64bit version in the same package. Therefore, you only have to buy it once and get both versions for one price. Then you can install the 32bit C5 on XP now and, when you upgrade to 64bit Win7 someday, install the 64bit C5 - without having to spend money on the C5 software again. From what I saw in the presentation, C5 has some new features, that are more interesting than what I saw in C4. I´m still using SX3 and still haven´t used all features in this version. Anyway, what I personally found very cool in C5, is the new "batch export" function for *all* kinds of tracks. That means, all (selected!) tracks (audio and VSTi) can be exported to individual "track mixdown" audio files in a single "batch" process. This makes it a lot easier - and saves a good amount of time, too - to make your projects audio and VSTi tracks ready for exchange with other folks, who use a different DAW program than C5. Just consider the situation, that you record a session with Cubase5, apply some fx, edits and automation and have to export all this (not just raw audio files) to individual files, which you (or your client) take to another studio using ProTools, Logic, DP or whatever for a mix session... If you have ever done this on a track-by-track procedure, you will know, how time-consuming it is. ;-) Besides that, there are some other features, that may come in handy. BTW: before anyone asks about using Cubase on XP64 - Steinberg does *not* officially support it! According to the Steinberg C5 presenter, it works, but if you experience problems, Steinberg won´t help you about it. XP64 was rather a kind of "experiment" and is generally not widely supported by software and hardware manufacturers. There are only very few drivers and apps, that were really "designed" to work properly with XP64. Hope that helps, Phil
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:56:02 +0200, "Phil W" <> trained 100 monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: >Well, since 64 bit CPUs have been around for a while now, it´s actually >reasonable to consider using a 64 bit OS with 64 bit software. It feels a >bit "limiting" to use a 32 bit OS and 32 bit software on a 64 bit system, of >course... Yeah, but between the OP's choices of C4 and C5, C4 isn't running at true 64-bit - C5 is. I honestly don't know how well C4 will run as 32-bit on top of a 64-bit system with more than the 3Gb RAM that a 32-bit OS is limited to. I'm sure it'd do fine, just don't know how much performance advantage you'd get. -- jtougas "listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door let's go" - e.e. cummings
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:17:46 -0700 (PDT), DM <> wrote: >Hello Group!! > >Building a i7 PC soon.. Novice qustion here, Which OS is best to Run >Cubase 4 or 5. Right now I have XP Pro SP3 and I will upgrade to Vista >32/64(?) bit, if only XP could read above 4 Gig of Ram I'd stayed with >it. what's the pro's and cons between 32 and 64 bit? thanks!! > >Ka-eL 64 bit will address more memory. Do you need to? Have you got applications that can do anything useful with more? Can you transfer your existing XP pro licence to the new machine? If so I'd do that for now. See what happens next year when the new Windows has settled down. Actually, unless your present computer is restricting you seriously, I wouldn't build now. You'll be buying power that I suspect you won't be able to use until the next generation of software. Build then, by which time even more power will be even cheaper. CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"DM" <> wrote in message news:... > Hello Group!! > > Building a i7 PC soon.. Novice qustion here, Which OS is best to Run > Cubase 4 or 5. Right now I have XP Pro SP3 and I will upgrade to Vista > 32/64(?) bit, if only XP could read above 4 Gig of Ram I'd stayed with > it. what's the pro's and cons between 32 and 64 bit? thanks!! > > Ka-eL I mostly agree with Phil. Vista 64 is your only current choice if you want the benefits of extra RAM on the PC platform. I've had a system running Vista 64 Ultimate 64 bit since 30 Jan 2007, and have found it to be very stable and a great performer when customised by turning off a lot of the stuff that appeared as the diversionary 'gloss' or WOW factor, BUT there is the driver issue, which can be very frustrating if you have something in terms of an audio device that's still current, yet the manufacturer of said device(s) hasn't yet bothered after two and a half years nearly to provide 64bit support for Vista despite there being a lot of demand (are you listening Yamaha?). I wasn't WOW'ed by User Account Control, Windows SideBar or the Aero interface in particular, and I was less than impressed that Microsoft still seem to be chasing the dream of making Windows into some kind of Mac OS clone. Neither was I happy that things like Add and Remove Programs in the Control Panel has had its name changed for no apparent good reason or that the Control panel itself cannot be listed in 'Computer' (used to be called My Computer) and if you want it anywhere other than on the Start menu the only easy place to show it is stuck on the desktop. Irritations, irritations. Once most of those irritations have been dealt with or accepted however, 'under the hood' I think Vista has had a lot of work done in preparation for Windows 7 and in 64 bit format particularly. I work with computers in general for a living and needed to get a grip on Vista right at the start of the final release in Jan 2007 which is why I dived in straight away primarily, but of course I installed all my audio software like Cubase just to see what worked and what didn't. Very little software didn't work. Wavelab was a bit fussy and quite a lot of audio interface manufacturers hadn't even got off the starting blocks, but some like MOTU and Edirol had good 64bit drivers ready to roll from day one which shows a bit of a different attitude to some other manufacturers, and one which I believe has held back the move to 64bit computing for many.. Vista 64 does not allow end users to install unsigned hardware drivers by default and this is responsible for a great deal of its heightened stability in my opinion. You can of course force Vista 64 to start with an unsigned hardware driver, but this can give unexpected results, and is clearly Microsoft's way of saying'we don't take any responsibility if you mess up your system, you chose to do this, and you are very much on your own' However having got Cubase 5 running on a recently built i7 (early Feb this year) with Vista Ultimate 64bit, I don't think you'd regret the move provided your devices are supported with drivers if you were to go down the 64 bit road and you are prepared to turn off all the normal Vista 'out of the box' bloated nonsense. Within a week of me, a friend bought a ready built i7 system (cost his emoloyer twice as much as my system which is 95% identical) with 3GB RAM and XP Pro 32 bit - his system flies as does mine, and there's not a lot to choose between them in terms of performance. 32 Vista has some annoying frippery, most of which you can turn off, and I think personally was a lot of wasted effort on Microsoft's part, and once that's done, Vista can be set up almost exactly like XP in terms of working with it. As Phil says though - unless you really need the luxury of extra RAM right now, I'd hold off and see what benefits Windows 7 has to offer. Not regretting the move to Vista 64 bit is not necessarily entirely the same thing as being totally happy with it either As it happens, for now, for me it does offer the best flexibility that's available, but it could be better, and hopefully will be when Windows 7 arrives. I am as happy as I'll ever be considering, that there's always part of me and people like me who are always curious and somewhat expectant of the capabilities of the next new thing. It's a weakness I'd say that I'm about 90% happy with Vista 64 bit and audio work, which is pretty good. The reports from those who are beta testing Windows 7 are encouraging, but we may have to wait some time after its initial release for audio manufacturers to realise that users want 64 bit support. That said, Microsoft are stating that what runs in Vista will run in Windows 7 and that machines compatible with Vista will remain compatible with Windows 7. Whilst that may be totally true, I'll wait until Windows 7 is available before believing it. I haven't bothered playing with the beta yet, although I have downloaded it. Bottom line: as other have said, if you don't need 64bit right now, Vista won't offer you anything fundamental that XP doesn't already offer you in a time served, proven and familiar package. Three and a bit GB of available RAM should be plenty enough memory for most projects.
jtougas wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:56:02 +0200, "Phil W" <> trained 100 > monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: > >> Well, since 64 bit CPUs have been around for a while now, it´s >> actually reasonable to consider using a 64 bit OS with 64 bit >> software. It feels a bit "limiting" to use a 32 bit OS and 32 bit >> software on a 64 bit system, of course... > > Yeah, but between the OP's choices of C4 and C5, C4 isn't running at > true 64-bit - C5 is. It sounds like the OP would have to buy a C4 or C5 anyway for his "new" machine. If you read the later part of my posting, you´ll see, that I strongly suggest getting C5 instead of C4! ;-) Not only because of the 32bit vs. 64bit aspect, but other functions and features. Anyway, if one takes builds a completely new machine, it´s only consequent to equip it with the latest software available. C5 has been out for a few months now and is technically advanced, compared to C4. In many cases, it´s okay to save some money by getting the latest previous version of a software, but in this case definitely not! The step between a 32bit and 64 bit version is more important, than just deciding if you really need a few extra functions or not... Phil
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:44:06 +0200, "Phil W" <> trained 100 monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: >jtougas wrote: >> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:56:02 +0200, "Phil W" <> trained 100 >> monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: >> >>> Well, since 64 bit CPUs have been around for a while now, it´s >>> actually reasonable to consider using a 64 bit OS with 64 bit >>> software. It feels a bit "limiting" to use a 32 bit OS and 32 bit >>> software on a 64 bit system, of course... >> >> Yeah, but between the OP's choices of C4 and C5, C4 isn't running at >> true 64-bit - C5 is. > >It sounds like the OP would have to buy a C4 or C5 anyway for his "new" >machine. If you read the later part of my posting, you´ll see, that I >strongly suggest getting C5 instead of C4! ;-) *snippage* Agreed. -- jtougas "listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door let's go" - e.e. cummings
On Apr 19, 10:52 am, jtougas <> wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:44:06 +0200, "Phil W" <> trained 100 > monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: > > >jtougas wrote: > >> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:56:02 +0200, "Phil W" <> trained 100 > >> monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: > > >>> Well, since 64 bit CPUs have been around for a while now, it´s > >>> actually reasonable to consider using a 64 bit OS with 64 bit > >>> software. It feels a bit "limiting" to use a 32 bit OS and 32 bit > >>> software on a 64 bit system, of course... > > >> Yeah, but between the OP's choices of C4 and C5, C4 isn't running at > >> true 64-bit - C5 is. > > >It sounds like the OP would have to buy a C4 or C5 anyway for his "new" > >machine. If you read the later part of my posting, you´ll see, that I > >strongly suggest getting C5 instead of C4! ;-) > > *snippage* > > Agreed. > > -- > jtougas > > "listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door > let's go" - e.e. cummings Wow!! Thanks for all the informative inputs Guys!!! I do have Cubase Studio 4 and will upgrade soon C5 I'll stick with my XP Pro32 for now and will wait for Win 7 by the end of the year! Thanks again!!
