windows 7 updates - completely new, non-backwards-compatible system?

[Abadoss]

Starla: Yes, it is the ME of our generation...

Airwalker: You can buy the copy, so you can buy the upgrade to OS7 cheaper... just a thought...

[Equinox]

Hopefully 7 will ONLY run x64. If you're gonna start all over again, don't create the same schism between architectures. It'd be really nice to see 64-bit become defacto, as I believe mobo's that support far more RAM would become commonplace. Which is especially good for running large sample libraries.

QFT, this would be the perfect opportunity to completely work 64 bit into mainstream.

[BlueMage]

awesome! maybe this time we won't get a load of crap, like what vista is now.

I reject this - Vista runs everything I want it to, all crashes being due to shonky drivers on third-parties' fault.

Yes, yes, I've heard all the horror stories. I don't care. IT WORKS.

And it boots faster than the lightweight linux distro I've got on here too. Yes, you heard me - Vista boots faster than linux.

If you want to run Vista, run it on the hardware it's intended for.

[prophetik music]

I reject this - Vista runs everything I want it to, all crashes being due to shonky drivers on third-parties' fault.

Yes, yes, I've heard all the horror stories. I don't care. IT WORKS.

And it boots faster than the lightweight linux distro I've got on here too. Yes, you heard me - Vista boots faster than linux.

If you want to run Vista, run it on the hardware it's intended for.

http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/177855

http://itnews.com.au/News/72401,windows-vista-sp1-wreaks-havoc-on-some-pcs-users-complain.aspx

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/16/vista-sp1-sp1-toilet-paper-hit-japan/

orly?

i don't want this to be about vista vs. xp vs. linux, so let's leave those notions to ourselves from now on (as much as i want to flame vista users for using vista) and focus this thread on the up-and-coming.

any more information, anyone?

[Effef]

Vista isn't all that terrible. In fact, its better in several ways, (network stack, ram usage, file transfer speeds, and many more) but none of these make me want to pay $400+ dollars for a new OS. It simply isn't worth it.

Plus Aero Glass annoys me.

Also,

http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/177855

There are many signs that M$

haha oh wow, you actually consider slashdot a reliable source

[zircon]

RAM usage better with Vista? The RAM requirements for that OS are higher than XP, even if both are tweaked roughly the same way.

[Effef]

RAM usage better with Vista? The RAM requirements for that OS are higher than XP, even if both are tweaked roughly the same way.

Thats because it uses it differently. Vista caches whatever programs you use the most (Firefox, Photoshop, Word, etc...) into system ram so it does not have to pull it from the hard disk every time. If you happen to need that RAM for a huge Photoshop project or music file, it is freed up instantly. OSX has been doing this for years. This is also why Vista runs better with >2gb of RAM, since it needs the space for the cache.

So it does use more RAM, but it uses it much more efficiently. Besides, inactive RAM is wasted RAM.

[prophetik music]

eh, you've got less headroom because of the immense requirements of all versions of vista. i still prefer x64 xp.

[Effef]

eh, you've got less headroom because of the immense requirements of all versions of vista. i still prefer x64 xp.

There aren't any immense requirements. If you have a computer made in the last 4 years and with 2 gigs of ram (which is standard nowadays) then you will not have any trouble.

If you don't have a computer that meets these specs, then it would be better to stick with XP.

[zircon]

Thats because it uses it differently. Vista caches whatever programs you use the most (Firefox, Photoshop, Word, etc...) into system ram so it does not have to pull it from the hard disk every time. If you happen to need that RAM for a huge Photoshop project or music file, it is freed up instantly. OSX has been doing this for years. This is also why Vista runs better with >2gb of RAM, since it needs the space for the cache.

So it does use more RAM, but it uses it much more efficiently. Besides, inactive RAM is wasted RAM.

Admittedly, for musicians, our requirements are different. We want absolutely minimal RAM overhead, because we need every last MB for loading maximum simultaneous audio tracks and lots of samples. Inactive RAM isn't wasted for us because we WILL be using it. That, combined with Vista's inferior and inefficient audio processing (even with native Vista or 64-bit apps) makes it a weak platform for music. XP32 outperforms it (and every other Windows OS) with X64 coming in a close second.

[Effef]

Admittedly, for musicians, our requirements are different. We want absolutely minimal RAM overhead, because we need every last MB for loading maximum simultaneous audio tracks and lots of samples. Inactive RAM isn't wasted for us because we WILL be using it.

This is true,I suppose. Music files take up a great deal of RAM.

That, combined with Vista's inferior and inefficient audio processing (even with native Vista or 64-bit apps) makes it a weak platform for music. XP32 outperforms it (and every other Windows OS) with X64 coming in a close second.

I didn't even think of that, they really did fuck up the audio stack. It works in a completely different way than in XP.

[prophetik music]

i could never get anything to work well in vista, regardless. xp is just so much more stable for audio stuff - which is all i really use it for, besides surfing and a game or two.

[Effef]

Its a function of the way Microsoft did the audio. Why they decided to rework it is beyond me.

[zircon]

I think their goal was to push their new WaveRT thing, but it didn't catch on with third parties...

[SirChadlyOC]

This thread has allowed me to come to the realization that I really have no idea what's going on with computers. Pre-emptive "sorry" for what may be an extremely stupid question:

What are some potential cons with the lack of backwards compatability? Does this mean that I won't be able to play SimCity 2000, or am I completely off base?

[prophetik music]

it means you have to buy all new software - EVERYTHING - to get it to run properly. all your vst plugins, all your word processing...everything.

[Drack]

XP32 outperforms it (and every other Windows OS) with X64 coming in a close second.

Windows Server 2003 outperforms XP all settings equal, from my own tests.

Steep price to buy it if you don't need the server features, though. Fortunately I was able to get it free through MSDN Academic Alliance.

[The Pezman]

I tinkered with a customized version of Server 2003 for consumer machines. In the end, for me, the performance tradeoff wasn't worth what was stripped out. Server 2008, on the other hand, I've yet to try.

[prophetik music]

i never really touched 2003 server. was was taken out?

[Drack]

i never really touched 2003 server. was was taken out?

Nothing I don't need, or that doesn't come back at the flick of a setting.

-Every theme except Windows Classic has been removed.

-Sound is disabled by default but can be instantly enabled.

-Wallpapers that aren't .BMPs can't be set (I have no idea why).

-DirectX isn't included but you can install it.

-In fact, any kind of graphical acceleration is disabled by default and the setting must be changed.

-None of the Windows XP Media Center Edition specific stuff is included.

-Internet Explorer is crippled not to browse anywhere except microsoft.com by default, but again can be easily changed (add/remove programs, uninstall the enhanced ie security).

-There are a few server-centric things you'll want to change.

--Performance (the whole reason non-server users will want 2k3) must be set to prioritize programs instead of background services and system cache if you're using it as a workstation.

--By default 2k3 will demand a reason if you want to shut down. This can be disabled.

[Sengin]

there's one hole in that argument, pez.

32-bit: up to approx. 3.5 gigs (due to video ram, system space reservations)

64-bit: up to 127.5 gigs of ram (due to the same reasons).

128-bit: way more.

Wait wait. You're telling me that 2^64 bytes is equivalent to approximately 127.5 gigs? No no. With a 32-bit system, you can have 4GB of RAM installed (though you can't utilize the whole 4GB, only about 3.5 like you said). But with 64-bit, that's approximately 18 QUINTILLION bytes. Basically, that's saying GB? What the hell is that? TB? Ancient. Petabytes? Well, at least we're starting to barely push the ball rolling. Exobytes? There we go, but with ~18 of them. With 4 exobytes of RAM possible to install, there is no fucking way the system would only leave 127.5 GBs to use. We aren't anywhere CLOSE to hard drives containing an exobyte, so we definitely aren't going to be installing nearly that much RAM, but still. And with 128-bit, well, that's just WAY too damn much. I don't think we have prefixes for the numbers around those areas yet.

it means you have to buy all new software - EVERYTHING - to get it to run properly. all your vst plugins, all your word processing...everything.

Unless I read the article wrong, didn't it say that everything will be backwards compatible with virtual machines? So that it will come installed with a virtual machine on it. So everything you have you just need to install and it will work fine, or work fine already.

Well, I definitely have hope for Windows 7. Is it supposed to come out at the end of '09?

[Drack]

Sengin is correct.

128 gigs would be the limit of a theoretical 37-bit system, not a 64-bit system.

I believe you made the mistake of multiplying the 4GB 32-bit limit by 32 instead of multiplying it by 2^32. Big difference, heh heh.

[Ramaniscence]

What's interesting is that we're only hearing about this now, and from a development perspective, 7 isn't all that far away... if they're really going to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start from a clean slate designing what amounts to a new OS, you'd think they'd want more time... unless they've been working with this idea in mind for far longer than we know.

This is pretty much the most important thing I get from Windows 7. "We're rebuilding in OS from the ground up in no time flat!"

Given how long it took them to make Vista, and how well that went, and how long it's been for them to decide that Vista isn't going to work out and they have to build a new OS from scratch, how much will they actually have at the time of release? What's to say it's not going to be horrible? Does no one remember all those awesome things about Vista that were going to change computing that never made it out of Alpha?

[Steffan Andrews]

Within the context of this site being about music production, the best candidate for an operating system is XP. Vista is great maybe for office applications but there's no way I'd consider it for any serious audio purposes. I run x64 on outboard samplers, but not after going through quite a few driver headaches and experimentation with VST hosts in order to utilize more than 4GB of physical memory.

It will be interesting to see where Windows 7 leads things, but if it's anything like trying to move to Mac Intel/Leopard it'll be some kind of nightmare. Software updates are spotty and tempermental, and some software vendors have completely refused to release updates. Case in point, M-Audio bought out wizoo's Latigo/Darbuka sample libraries and there is no way possible to run them on the "new" generation of Macs and there never will be because they simply refuse to update it. (And no, Rosetta is absolutely not an option.)

[prophetik music]

Sengin is correct.

128 gigs would be the limit of a theoretical 37-bit system, not a 64-bit system.

I believe you made the mistake of multiplying the 4GB 32-bit limit by 32 instead of multiplying it by 2^32. Big difference, heh heh.

whoops! i messed that up slightly. 128 was something completely different that i switched in. 64-bit can take 16tb of ram, not that you'd use it.

sorry about the mixup.

Unless I read the article wrong, didn't it say that everything will be backwards compatible with virtual machines? So that it will come installed with a virtual machine on it. So everything you have you just need to install and it will work fine, or work fine already.

well, virtual machines don't function nearly as efficiently as standard equipment does. also, it means that all new software coming out will not be backwards compatible in the least - and you can't run a vst on a virtual machine into a w7-compatible sequencer.