Vista Performance Testing

[itsplayed]

Interesting results.It looks like Vista can be a performer, but note the system used. I'm curious as to what results one can expect with a much lesser system that is more the norm.

http://rainrecording.co.uk/vista/performance

[nagal]

I saw this and it makes me really wonder about the testing methods used. Something is just not right

Dont get me wrong, I am not downign Vista but the performance should not jump that much on a brand new OS.

[itsplayed]

I saw this and it makes me really wonder about the testing methods used. Something is just not right

Dont get me wrong, I am not downign Vista but the performance should not jump that much on a brand new OS.

While the performance levels are very good, in the quad core category it isn't all that great considering the added benefit of lots more ram. I'd like to see it up against WinXP x64 running that quad core and 8gb of ram. I have a feeling the x64 would smoke the Vista DAW.

[nagal]

I'd like to see it up against WinXP x64 running that quad core and 8gb of ram. I have a feeling the x64 would smoke the Vista DAW.

I have a feeling you are correct as it would make it a lot more even test field or to just take a dual core and 2 gigs of ram would make a better test in my mind.

[robinv]

Dont get me wrong, I am not downign Vista but the performance should not jump that much on a brand new OS.

I think some people are jumping to some conclusions and not understanding the tests or system in play. It's not a CPU measurement, it's not an offline benchmark application - this about stable playback in Cubase on this particular system. The problem with running XP on a Quad core is that it doesnt handle the threads very well and consequently Cubase stutters way before the CPU is maxed out - but that's what i'm testing for, glitches and pops and clicks - reliable, stable playback. Vista on the other hand deals brilliantly with multiple threads and multi-threaded applications and so Cubase can run maximum CPU loads before glitching. This is why there's such a marked improvement in performance. Would the performance be the same for Core 2 Duo? No, it would be perhaps slightly better. Anything below that is likely to start performing worse as the drag of the bumpf and extra stuff going on outweighs the performance increase of utilising new technologies.

What it does show is that there are good reasons for going to Vista if you are moving into the newest range of systems and that perhaps it's not the monster that everyone seems to assume it is - or at least for your next system it won't be. Provided, of course, you have stuff that will run on it.

Many thanks
Robin

[itsplayed]

I have a feeling you are correct as it would make it a lot more even test field or to just take a dual core and 2 gigs of ram would make a better test in my mind.

I have been doing a bit more research and it would seem that Vista does do a better job running a multi-core based DAW, but in the single socket single and dual core systems, XP performs better. My conclusion would therefore be, at least for now.....if you aren't running with a monster system (a multi-core processor(4+ cores) with lots of ram) then you should leave Vista on the shelf. That said, I also get the feeling that no one has been testing with XP x64! All the comparison tests I have seen were using XP 32bit.

[nagal]

Since XPx64 is Windows 2003 Server for all purposes, I am sure it handles threads a lot better.

[tech1]

I have Sonar 6.2 and an 8Pre on XP Pro and Vista Home Premium (both 32-bit) on the same machine (P4 3.2, 1 GB PC3200, 400 MHz FSB). Perhaps I'll do a benchmark test one of these days, just to see what happens if people upgrade on older machines.

[itsplayed]

Since XPx64 is Windows 2003 Server for all purposes, I am sure it handles threads a lot better.

Yes, I'm sure it does as well. I'd like to see more head to head comparison reports that pit Win XPx64 up against Vista, not these lame attempts that show Vista as being a viable DAW OS on these quad systems with tons of ram while comparing it to XP32 bit that can't cope with multi-cores and lots of ram. While support for WinXPx64 is pretty much a thing of the past, it still has much more support in the DAW world than does vista at this stage of the game. For those that can afford these monster systems it's all good news, but the majority of users will be stuck in single a dual core world for some time yet where Vista is just not an option.

[Dracolich]

I have been doing a bit more research and it would seem that Vista does do a better job running a multi-core based DAW, but in the single socket single and dual core systems, XP performs better.

Very true; typically, newer software is designed to run on newer hardware. The bottom line is that the latest and greatest software almost always performs best on the latest and greatest hardware. Cheers!

[itsplayed]

Very true; typically, newer software is designed to run on newer hardware. The bottom line is that the latest and greatest software almost always performs best on the latest and greatest hardware. Cheers!

As you have pointed out, almost always. Case in point....Nforce3 motherboards perform better than NForce4 motherboards in the DAW world. A lot depends on the application. Systems tend to be trickier for DAW users to build/buy as most testing that's done, is generally geared towards either the gamer and/or for business. The sad fact is, that what's good for a gaming/business machine is not always good for a DAW.
I still believe with the current audio hardware and it's ASIO drivers, Win XP x64 would outperform Vista in the DAW world, even with that quad core machine loaded with lots of ram. This will probably change once service pack 1 is out for Vista and quad core systems become more commonplace and audio interfaces come shipped with WaveRT drivers. You may need to wait at least a year or so.

[Hard2Hear]

They should make those "tests" available for download so other people can run them and see if they get similar results on similar systems. Until then, thats pretty pointless babble to me.

[itsplayed]

If you are running with either Cubase or Sonar, here are some tests for both Cubase and Sonar that you can download.....

http://www.adkproaudio.com/downloads.cfm

[Hard2Hear]

:)
I know about those (I made some of them) I was talking about the "tests" done by Rain.

[itsplayed]

I see and yes, I agree Rains testing should be made available to anyone who'd like to compare their results. The problem I see with the test is the machine that is being used for Vista compared to the one being used for XP(32). To be fair, WinXP 64 should have been used on the same machine as Vista.

[terry]

itsplayed

This is very interesting. Since I just upgraded from xp to vista 32. I currently just install sonar 6 pe with out a hitch so far. But then again I have not run it threw its grueling paces as of yet. I'm currently running 2 hds dual boot just in case this fails. The platform was a gaming machine 1 gig mem corsair, athalon 64 34+, I don't remember what mobo it is at this time. Nvidia Geforce 6800 gt video card. The audio interface is a presonus firebox. I guess it comes down to how the platforms are set up. currently most people will tweak and strip xp as much as possible to get the best performance. Now as far as vista goes I'm pretty sure no one has gotten that far with it as of yet. I could be totally wrong about that. If I am and you have figured out all the little tweaks I would be very interested in that and disregard the statement above. If I'm right on the other hand any test done unless it was on a equal playing field would be quite lopsided. Would you agree with that assessment?

:) :) :)

[itsplayed]

Hi terry, I'm sorry to say that I haven't traveled that far with Vista yet. I have been experimenting with Vista tweaks, but not for DAW use. I'll keep you posted when and if I take it to that next level. E-MU should be providing Vista drivers any day now.

[terry]

itsplayed

Are the drivers in question going to be 64 or 32 bit versions?

[itsplayed]

Both, however it is designed for use with 32bit apps.......the beta release has been sheduled for the middle of this month while the non-beta drivers are scheduled for release in the 3rd quarter of this year.
There is some funtionality now with E-MU cards and Vista using current existing drivers, but it maybe more of a hassle than it's worth, so I've decided to wait for the official release.

[terry]

itsplayed

Thanks

[itsplayed]

Your welcome terry.

[Hard2Hear]

im calling bs on these tests. Im testing Vista64Business on a C2D E6600 with 8GB Ram and Cubase performance is TERRIBLE. Sonar is also below that of an XP system with only 2GB Ram. This system is tweaked as well, turning off visual elements and such.

*edited to add. Its low latency performance that is very much worse than XP. I wonder what Rains agenda was doing testing at 768 which very few peopole will ever use to record at. The simple Blofields Return demo included with Cubase will not run clean under 512 on this system with an RME Fireface.

[terry]

Hard2Hear

That is so weird. Ive done more with vista 32 and sonar 6 PE with out one hiccup. But cubase sl3 and win xp whats a totally different story like snap, crackle pop then crash.

[Hard2Hear]

Terry- what latency are you recording at? And are you doing input monitoring, plugins on input, or vst instruments?

[terry]

Hard2Hear

1.5 at 96hz, 256 buffer, just vst with a midi controller so far. Still getting the learning curve down. I just changed the setting ill let you how it turns out. Its for DVD surround sound quality if you were going to ask why so high. My current rig is a athlon 64 34+, 1 gig mem, mobo unknown, Axiom 49, Firebox with no updated drivers yet. :) :) :)

[itsplayed]

im calling bs on these tests. Im testing Vista64Business on a C2D E6600 with 8GB Ram and Cubase performance is TERRIBLE. Sonar is also below that of an XP system with only 2GB Ram. This system is tweaked as well, turning off visual elements and such.

*edited to add. Its low latency performance that is very much worse than XP. I wonder what Rains agenda was doing testing at 768 which very few peopole will ever use to record at. The simple Blofields Return demo included with Cubase will not run clean under 512 on this system with an RME Fireface.

This is pretty much a 'normal' find....Vista is useless on anything but a multi-core machine. Vista can be useable on a lesser machine if your DAW demands are light. If not, stick with XP as the OS of choice on that serious DAW machine. Vista is just not ready for prime time and those Rain machines are using a multi-core processor, not a dual-core. In the multi-core arena Vista can run very well, if drivers are not a problem that is.
Note: Vista has been giving consumers such a hard time of it that companies like Dell that did not, at first, offer older OS's on their builds....have now begun to provide XP to their customers as a direct result of pressure from their customers.

[terry]

itsplayed

Originally Posted by Hard2Hear
I'm calling BS on these tests. I'm testing Vista64Business on a C2D E6600 with 8GB Ram and Cubase performance is TERRIBLE. Sonar is also below that of an XP system with only 2GB Ram. This system is tweaked as well, turning off visual elements and such.

Did you expect it to be different. Cubase is not currently setup for 64 bit.
So how could you even compare it. Plus I would not make such a hard and fast statement about sonar and weather or not vista is ready as a daw system when compared to win xp. Since xp has had and still does have issues of it own. All I can do speak from experience and not make a flat out statement. There is plenty of people who have had great success with vista. Sure the drivers are a wait and see game at this point. Plus vista may not work great for everybody depending on their setup. But for my self who has cubase sl3 and a strip down xp setup it has been nothing short of a nightmare until vista and sonar 6 PE came out. I still don't have any updated drivers nor have I hand any problems. It is still sitting here stock. All I will say is If your system came with it try it. If it does not meet your needs change it.

Ill get off my soap box now.

[Hard2Hear]

This is pretty much a 'normal' find....Vista is useless on anything but a multi-core machine.

Two things, I think you missed the point I was making.

A Core2Duo IS a multi core machine. ?? Ive also tested on a system with dual Quad Xeons and it has the exact same low latency performance issues. These are not production boxes, these are purely testing systems because I do audio testing at ADK. I have also had a quad QX6700 in the E6600 box and its performance still is not in line with rains "tests".

The only reason I even test Cubase is for compatability and because I test everything that exists to see how it works, or if it doesnt. I'll say Sonar has some really interesting results on Vista64 and dual Quad Xeons. Very positive, but not something I'd put on my website to stir up crap with my competition.

[itsplayed]

Hard2Hear wrote:

Two things, I think you missed the point I was making.
A Core2Duo IS a multi core machine. ??


Of course you are correct, my terminology was in error while seperating the dual core from the quad core in my response.


Ive also tested on a system with dual Quad Xeons and it has the exact same low latency performance issues. These are not production boxes, these are purely testing systems because I do audio testing at ADK. I have also had a quad QX6700 in the E6600 box and its performance still is not in line with rains "tests".


That's very interesting......I was under the impression however, judging by the claims given by other beta testers/users, that the quad cores running under Vista was outperforming the quads running under WinXP. So, from what you say here, is it your contention that under no circumstances is Vista outperforming XP as a DAW OS?


The only reason I even test Cubase is for compatability and because I test everything that exists to see how it works, or if it doesnt. I'll say Sonar has some really interesting results on Vista64 and dual Quad Xeons. Very positive, but not something I'd put on my website to stir up crap with my competition.


I do understand your beef with Rain, I have assumed all along that their results were overly padded and well aimed at making the competition seem lax on doing the research needed to be done......Shame on Rain! I say this not for only trying to discredit the work being done by people like yourself, but for deceiving those that would buy into what he's trying to sell.

[terry]

Hard2Hear

Do you have hard numbers to share IE vista 32/64 vers XP. Sonar 6 PE vers cubase 4 (Which in it self seems weird on vista 64), dual core verises quad core.

[Hard2Hear]

So, from what you say here, is it your contention that under no circumstances is Vista outperforming XP as a DAW OS?

In Reaper, and to a smaller extent Sonar6PE, and under certian circumstances, a completely loaded dual quad Xeon with 4GB Ram Vista will outperform XP in the fact that it load balances the processors much better than XP does. That shows alot of promise for Vistas capabilities, but nothing I would want to publish because its very specific and can be tainted by the smallest of variables, i.e. what latency setting you are using or any plugins that are or are not multicore effecient.

I don't have numbers yet that I care to share. Again, too many variables of things that don't work right.

[itsplayed]

Thanks for the confirmation H2H, keep up the good work!

[terry]

Is reaper true 64 bit or more like cubase 4. No valid numbers! small extent sonar 6 PE!

[Hard2Hear]

Reaper uses a 64 bit audio engine and includes 64 bit effects. Justin has also released plugins with it that are 64 bit optimized. Its way ahead of Cubase in some regards.

[terry]

Hard2Hear

WOW! In that case it will put it way, way, ahead of cubase. Does he (I have to assume) or will he have it set up for surround sound. That is one of the biggest reasons I went with Sonar 6 PE, plus it works flawlessly for my self. I cant say the same for quitbase. I guess the biggest thing that really bugs me is all the nay sayer about vista 32/64 but yet most have yet to even try it but have all these opinions on it and telling people not to use it or its not ready as a daw system. "what a bunch of bull" . Plus despite all the testing numbers (which are flawed for the most part using cubase go figure) It has worked fantastic for my self and yet Ive done nothing to tweak it at all.

So I suggest before people start getting on their soap box and start preaching about how it not ready or its flawed. They might want to give it a shot! :cool: :cool:

[Hard2Hear]

http://reaper.fm/
They have a great user forum there. He is also quick to respond to update inquiries and requests. The two requests I made for new features were done within 2 days. Depends on the plausability and need.

I agree, theres a bunch of bunk each way about Vista. My biggest complaint with Sonar itself on it (and in 64) is BitBridge. But if the 3rd party plugin manufacturers would get off their duffs and do 64 bit plugins that would be a moot issue. Other little things, but it will eventually get there. Sonar and its newest updates installed just fine for me in each Vista box I loaded it in and works fine with a RME FF400/800 or MOTU 828mkII. Smaller systems just get a pretty big performance hit and you're mostly stuck with included plugins and VSTi's.

[terry]

Hard2Hear

But if the 3rd party plugin manufacturers would get off their duffs and do 64 bit plugins that would be a moot issue.

I totally agree! Plus the biggest offenders are the manufactures and drivers. M-AUDIO is on my hit list, They have the gaul to state they have been working with the vista team and developing drivers for their products from the beginning. Still no drivers for their midi keyboards. Also which really erks me is the "Don't call us, Well call you when its ready" I think its time i went and looked at a different keyboard. I would like to check out the CME line.

[itsplayed]

I guess the biggest thing that really bugs me is all the nay sayer about vista 32/64 but yet most have yet to even try it but have all these opinions on it and telling people not to use it or its not ready as a daw system. "what a bunch of bull" .

If it's not outperforming XP there's no 'bull' about it and no need to make the switch.

[terry]

itsplayed

Not from my point of view.

[itsplayed]

itsplayed

Not from my point of view.

Agreed, to each his own. However, most people upgrade their systems to get the most from their DAW applications, whether it be more ram, faster hard drive, more powerful processor etc. and Vista would be a step backwards in this regard.

[terry]

itsplayed

My position has always been is if have it try it, if you like it keep it, If it does not work for you change it. But don't dismiss it base on some one else's say so.

Vista would be a step backwards in this regard

Oh please! a step backward from what xp sp1 or sp2 take your pick depending on if you happen to like a ton of fire wire problems.

[itsplayed]

itsplayed

My position has always been is if have it try it, if you like it keep it, If it does not work for you change it. But don't dismiss it base on some one else's say so.



Oh please! a step backward from what xp sp1 or sp2 take your pick depending on if you happen to like a ton of fire wire problems.

I'm not sure of the particular firewire issue you have encountered but personally, I haven't found that to be the case in my builds. Compatability issues usually stem from not doing ones homework on what works and what doesn't. If you see better results from using Vista...it's the exception and is probably due to not doing your homework on what works with your choice of interface and your app. running under XP and if you had done your homework, the setup running XP would outperform the setup running Vista under most, if not all scenarios. But as I have stated before, this may be a moot point if your not pushing the system close to it's limits. Vista may be fine to use for the hobbiest running a few tracks or for those that have purchased a system without thinking of how their components would react to it, but for those looking to get the most from their DAW setups it's not the OS of choice and probably won't be for some time yet.

[terry]

itsplayed

I guess we will come down to simply disagreeing on this point. As far as doing your home work I totally agree on that. Thats why I did several months of research before I bought my first fire wire interface and software. By all means I will not say vista is the "IS ALL BE ALL" for every one. Nor will I say xp is the total answer either. They both have their issues. But at the same token I will Absolutely not dismiss vista no matter what any body's opinion is. I look at what I'm accomplishing as far as my goals are with my setup and I read what you are saying, guess what! Ill let you fill in the blank________. Ill let people judge for them selves. AS far as fire wire goes all you have to do is a search on other sites. Which I'm surprised at what you are posting. So anyhow I no longer wish to discuss this. At least I got to give my two cents.

[itsplayed]

AS far as fire wire goes all you have to do is a search on other sites. Which I'm surprised at what you are posting.

Forums make for a poor indicator in their very design, as people post concerning their issues, not their successes. Out of the thousands of firewire devices sold, only a very small portion actually have issues that remain unsolvable.....that goes for USB devices as well.
I agree that this is a dead issue, I was only looking to point out that Vista is not the answer to software/device issues for the benefit of others looking for guidance concerning their gear and was not meant to be a personal dig on your particular situation.

[terry]

itsplayed

Since you have put it that way. I totally agree with you on all points including the firewire. Most of the issues listed for fire wire 1. they are not looking at the fire wire requirements set by the interface manufacture. 2. To complicate things even worse is the sp2 degradation of fire wire which most are resolved by either the patch or simply reverting back to sp1. It was not intended as personal dig nor was it taken as such. You are also right vista by all means is not a solution for problems. But also is not a problem in it self if the research and home work is done when putting all the pieces together. I have seen to many times people telling others to dump vista and go and buy xp and not once ever firing it up to at least see if will work or not. Thats when I have to raise my hand and say wait a minute Thats just plain wrong they have no idea if it will work or not. So my point is if it works use it, if it doesn't change it.

Enough said about this.

[jcschild]

for a decent (while only steiny products) review of XP/Win 64/ Vista 64

go here
http://www.aavimt.com.au/dawbench/blofelds-xp-v-vista.htm

cuts right thru the marketing Hype

Scott
ADK

[tech1]

ayneadams, you're welcome. jcschild, the link is missing. Can you please repost it?

[jcschild]

DOH....
thanks

[itsplayed]

Excellent link, I'm not surprised by the OS scores so much, but I am a little surprised by some of the hardware scores noted.

[jcschild]

HI,
FYI our benchmarks matched to a tee what Vin found (the link)
other daw builders have echoed the same. seems only one company thinks Vista is better :rolleyes:
Scott
ADK

[itsplayed]

Lol, I have been following your posts on many different forums as well as other reputable DAW builders for quite some time now.The wealth of information you and others provide is invaluable and greatly appreciated. As a small time builder, I'm not able to test much in the way of hardware/software combos and therefore, to say that I am disappointed when some information given, turns out to be nothing more than marketing hype to drum up business, would be a major understatement.....keep up the good work!

[terry]

I saw the tests before. I don't remember as to what program was used was it reaper, qubase or sonar. Now I guess Ill have contend that in allot of the aspects xp did beat vista. Ill not denie that. Also yes Ill admit if given a choice between the two I would still recommend xp over vista because of its early stage. But and this a Big but vista has worked flawless for me and it has for others as well. Now when you read the first few paragraphs of the tests they flat out stated their testing could be flawed because of so many variables. Also the major contention is has been it is slower than xp "true" it can be but not enough to call it a pig nor was it ever noticable. Another factor which some people seem to ignore is that vista was not design for speed but instead full utilization of the duel core processors which in it self was not designed around speed but a much more efficient way of doing its tasks. I'm just stating this just from personal experience. It has not once given me any problems at all and I still don't have the up dated drivers as of yet.

Ill close again not defending vista nor xp. If you have it try it if works keep it. If it don't change it. Just don't go out and waste money on another OS with out trying the one you have first.

[jcschild]

Now when you read the first few paragraphs of the tests they flat out stated their testing could be flawed because of so many variables.

at least he has the guts to say this where Rain did not.
however my test matched his completely. he only used cubase SX3 and Cubase 4 i tested with sonar, Samp, Cubase, N3, Reaper.
all results were the same. (so maybe all tests are flawed?)


Also the major contention is has been it is slower than xp "true" it can be but not enough to call it a pig nor was it ever noticable.

i call it a pig until it has the speed and compatibility of XP.
i can not sell it in good conscience, it is NOT ready for prime time, however alot of that has to do with hardware and software vendors not Vista itself.

Another factor which some people seem to ignore is that vista was not design for speed but instead full utilization of the duel core processors which in it self was not designed around speed but a much more efficient way of doing its tasks

LOL how funny this sounds. its a contradiction, an oxymoron.

multicore ultilazation IS more speed.... Vista obviously is not cutting it.
it takes 8 cores to finally see some real load balancing going on.

great it works for you. rock on. it still does not distract from the facts.

it is slower
it is not compatible with all things
you must not do any midi work, as working with very low buffers is required by most sampling guys. and does any midi devices even work yet?

AND LASTLY
i am not against Vista, we need vista to work, badly we need more memory addressing in a big way.
i am however against BS marketing ploys, sorry you fell for this one.



Scott

[terry]

jcschild

i am however against BS marketing ploys, sorry you fell for this one.


Make no mistake about this I have no delusions about vista and xp. They both have their flaws and strengths. I'm nether a promoter of either one. Until a test is setup where all the software and equipment is on a equal playing Field not using demo programs and done by a independent testing facility by unbiased people. Until then Ill take any tests with a grain of salt. Again all I can do is go by my own experiences.

If you have it try it. If it works keep it. If it doesn't change it! That goes for both xp and vista.

PS. As far as how or what I use for recording you have no clue!

[TAFKAT]

Until a test is setup where all the software and equipment is on a equal playing Field not using demo programs and done by a independent testing facility by unbiased people. Until then Ill take any tests with a grain of salt. Again all I can do is go by my own experiences.



Not the first post I would have prefered to have made, but I need to chip in ..

Terry,

No matter what evidence is presented, there will always be those with nothing to offer but arm chair expertise, that will try and tear down the efforts presented , without actually offering anything past hot air.. !!

All of the benchmarks I developed and utilised are public domain, and can easily be quantified by anyone who takes the time to actually get off the arm chair, and run the tests for themselves. , so I can't see how you can accuse me of being biased, also , the only thing I see flawed here, is your logic.

Another factor which some people seem to ignore is that vista was not design for speed but instead full utilization of the duel core processors which in it self was not designed around speed but a much more efficient way of doing its tasks.

????

I have absolutely no idea what point you actually thought you have conveyed with that statement.., but It does give me a good indication where your technical ability lies..

Hows that Arm Chair .., Comfy ??

V:

[terry]

TAFKAT

Comfy enough to know when totally bad advice is given. You might want to go back and reread all the posts as well the whole post not just select parts. The only position I have is this. Here ill even put in bold so its easer to read.

Also yes Ill admit if given a choice between the two I would still recommend xp over vista because of its early stage

Ill close again not defending vista nor xp. If you have it try it if works keep it. If it don't change it. Just don't go out and waste money on another OS with out trying the one you have first.

I love the personal attacks. Like I told others you have no clue as to what I do or how I do it. Nor will I explain it.

[TAFKAT]

Terry,

Bad advice , eh, and what advice would that be exactly ?

We do find our own truth.. !

My reply was in direct response to your conclusion that I have offered flawed and biased data.

You may not consider that a personal attack, but I do , so lets not get all melodramatic about me personally attacking you ??

And your right , I have no idea about who ,what or where, and to be honest , it doesn't make one iota of difference who you are or claim to be, or what you do.

What I am concerned about is that you will flippantly make claims against those of us that have made the effort to share quantifiable technical knowledge with the greater DAW community , but you have nothing to offer but, "Hey, I don't need to explain myself.. "

I have no issue with people sharing their personal experiences , but without acknowledging in what Real World context those experiences are gauged by, it doesn't amount to much except another unsubstantiated opinion.., and you know what they say about opinions.. !! :-)

Bring It , Don't Sing It !

PS: @ Audiodude : What ever was edited out.., I am a Big Boy, let him have his shot.


V:

[terry]

TAFKAT

Lets get down to the nitty gritty. Lets not make any mistakes about this I have ate my words before and I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. I have no problems with your testing. But on the other hand it was stated you were using demo version soft ware. If it is true than enough said If it is not then Ive been miss informed. Also in your testing it states it could be flawed. NOW lets set all this aside OK! my position on this and has always been is when one person advises another to drop an OS and get something else with out first trying what they already have is just plain wrong. I personally don't care if they have vista 32 or 64, nor do I care if they have xp 32 or 64. Ive stated it before. If given a choice between vista or xp Ill always advise xp. Vista is to new for most who don't where to start. Now you and I both know on all new home computers already comes with vista 32/64 there for dont really have a choice in the matter. I say try it because my self included as well many others don't have a problem with it. Now on the other hand, base on it's set up and if there is problems Ill always advice to go xp if everything else has been exhausted. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree then we don't have a problem. If you disagree I guess you and I will have many, many more discussions.

When people ask me about building a new daw system I always start with the sequencer, plug-ins and such first. Pick what ever one they like as long as they are compatible. Then work on the platform by starting with the manufacture of the software and asking them what was the best setup they used for their software as well what interface was used and so on. That also includes the OS. Then build on that.

[TAFKAT]

Lets get down to the nitty gritty. Lets not make any mistakes about this I have ate my words before and I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. I have no problems with your testing. But on the other hand it was stated you were using demo version soft ware. If it is true than enough said If it is not then Ive been miss informed. Also in your testing it states it could be flawed.

Terry,

I am at a loss where you are getting your information .

Lets get on the same page here..

I used Nuendo 3.20 and Cubase 4.02, and their respective native plugins, across XP32, XP64 and Vista64 , where was it ever stated that I used demo versions of software.

Also, I never claimed that my testing/results could be flawed.

I am not interested in continuing this discussion with you, as its pretty clear to me you went off half cocked , and have fired off a few rounds without actually having your facts straight.

I am also not interested in debating whether "Home" Computers come with Vista Pre installed. That has absolutely no relevance to the debate at hand.

I am a Professional PC DAW solutions specialist, and as such, I will utilise what ever O.S will provide my clients the best performance for their chosen application. For now, that isn't Vista, and that is exactly what I have concluded in my closing summary. I far more than you, realise that Vista needs to be addressed more sooner than later in regards to Professional Audio, and I am constantly testing and reassessing that option, but I am not prepared to jump on the passing parade until I see a tangible benefit..

We may simply have differing tolerance levels to what is considered working fine, or not having a problem. To me , if the performance in Vista is not at least on par with XP32/64, then there is absolutely no reason to make the move, and I refuse to buy into the hyperbole being postured.

It isn't rocket science.

V:

[terry]

TAFKAT

http://www.aavimt.com.au/dawbench/blofelds-xp-v-vista.htm

OK. Ill ignore the whole blistering I'm greater than thou nonsense and the usual you don't have a clue and other direct personal attacks.

Ill ask some very simple questions you either chose to answer them in a simple professional manner or not is up to you. Try and leave out all the hot air.

1. Was or was not any of the software demo versions?

2. Was or was not any the OS's tested a beta version?

3. Was or was not any of the Sequencers used in the testing vista ready?

4. The equipment used IE interface and such had up to date vista drivers?

5. Why only Steinberg Sequencers used in testing and not any others.

You have a choice to either answer them in a calm professional manner or ignore then. Its up to you!

[terry]

I'm back! What decided not to keep your last posts up and simply ignore me. I mean I felt so privileged that TAFKAT took the time from his job just to post here and chastise me. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:, So here it is, you decided not to make any comment on this and simply scurry around it.

My position on this and has always been is when one person advises another to drop an OS and get something else with out first trying what they already have is just plain wrong.

Well do you agree or not.

quote by TAFKAT
I am also not interested in debating whether "Home" Computers come with Vista Pre installed. That has absolutely no relevance to the debate at hand

You should after all isn't that the reason your buddy posted the findings here in the first place. If I'm not mistaken on other forums as well.

My quote as well jcschilds

Now when you read the first few paragraphs of the tests they flat out stated their testing could be flawed because of so many variables.


at least he has the guts to say this where Rain did not.
however my test matched his completely. he only used cubase SX3 and Cubase 4 i tested with sonar, Samp, Cubase, N3, Reaper.
all results were the same. (so maybe all tests are flawed?)


TAFKAT quote.
Also, I never claimed that my testing/results could be flawed

Thats interesting! first you do now you don't. :confused:

Now on to the last post! Even though you both deleted them. Just wasn't quite fast enough. So again are you going to answer the questions at hand or should I expect to be ignored or just more attacks.

What I really don't understand with all this nonsense is I basically agree to a certain extent with you. Ive even stated that several times now. But instead you seem to take the road of attacking me. Which basically means your insecure about your findings. That comment about my self and a rain computer makes me wonder if its not you who happens to be their competitor. Ive never own a pre build desk top PC I build my own as well for others for about 25 years now. Now is it really necessary for me to restate my only position in bold again.

[TAFKAT]

Terry,

First of all my friend , do not flatter yourself, I did not delete my post, and btw, it was actually a response to Scott , I had no intention of responding to your inane questions, simply because all of the answers are in the report, well at least for those that can actually comprehend it.

As I have said previously I am not interested in discussing this with you, as you have proven nothing more than you have an inability to comprehend the written word.. !!

There has never been any mention of me using Demo or Beta Software, I have absolutely no idea where you would even get that idea , or what point it is that you think that you are actually making by even attempting to draw me into that conversation.

This continuing B.S about me admitting that my results are flawed, or that I am somehow confused or insecure about my findings ?

Really Mate, you need to let go before you hurt yourself.

The only person here who is confused is you.., and as usual you have brought absolutely nothing to the table except an incoherent ramble.., I made no comment about any competitor, and if I have any comment, I will make it directly to them..

I have no doubt this post will be deleted by the moderators as the last posts by both myself and Scott have, seems you have the luxury of being a protected species here as your "contributions" seem immune.. !!

So you can have your Soap Box Back.., I am sure your continuing contributions will be of great value to the community here

I'm outta here.. :-)

V:

[Audiodude]

Alright, this has gotten out of hand.

This thread isn't about Vista any more. It's about a pissing contest between two or three people, so I'm locking it.

Everybody... Go back and read the rules you agreed to when you registered. Keep your posts on-topic or the risk being removed. Personal comments directed towards one person should be sent as a private message, not posted here for all the world to see.

I deleted two posts from this thread earlier because they were a conversation between two people and had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Something along the lines of, "Hey - here's how I think you should respond to this..." "Yeah, you're right..." Sorry, but that doesn't need to be posted in the forum. So I used my delete button.

In conclusion, please play nice, or at least go pee in someone else's pool.