Ableton Forum

McQ714 wrote:

UKRuss wrote:drag queens?

might as well be.. but, no!

that's Tyra Banks. and what do you know, she too is a whiner!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOQh3ev ... re=related

knotkranky wrote:

McQ714 wrote:

UKRuss wrote:drag queens?

might as well be.. but, no!

that's Tyra Banks. and what do you know, she too is a whiner!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOQh3ev ... re=related

and she uses a mac so therefore...

SubFunk wrote: @ Neb... i just realize... that is 34 tracks, that is a joke right?

to avoid misunderstanding... that is very little, my friend.

nebulae wrote:

SubFunk wrote: @ Neb... i just realize... that is 34 tracks, that is a joke right?

to avoid misunderstanding... that is very little, my friend.

The arrange window shows 63, without having to scroll.

nebulae wrote:

SubFunk wrote: @ Neb... i just realize... that is 34 tracks, that is a joke right?

to avoid misunderstanding... that is very little, my friend.

The arrange window shows 63, without having to scroll.

SubFunk wrote:

nebulae wrote:

SubFunk wrote: @ Neb... i just realize... that is 34 tracks, that is a joke right?

to avoid misunderstanding... that is very little, my friend.

The arrange window shows 63, without having to scroll.

OK, that shows what?

that a PC can handle that... of course, dismissed. you also miss the point of discussion.

does it make windows more comfortable and reliable... NO. even if i don't doubt that it never lead to problems in your case... take 500 other users vs 500 OSX users. or if you are so good in PCs come to our company and deal with the systems there... but be aware that it might extend your home hifi / Ableton Live studio.

"I running windwos Vista 64-bit with 8-GB of ram. Most of my applications are 32-bit applications. How much RAM can VISTA dedicates to 32-bit application?"

64 bit editions of Windows can only attribute a total of 4 GiB of RAM to any single 32 bit virtual memory instance (or application), regardless of your total RAM. The reason is simple, 64 bit editions of Desktop Windows run on the x86-64 architecture, which is a processor architecture capable of running both 64 and 32 bit instructions, limiting 32 bit instructions (or applications) to what 32 bit limits them to, thus, 4 GiB of RAM.

Intel and AMD's specification of PAE does support the x86-64 architecture but the software layer of Microsoft's PAE (the API), called AWE, is not supported on 64 bit editions of Windows, so Windows Vista 64 bit cannot attribute more than 4 GiB of RAM for a 32 bit application.

In fact, true 64 bit architectures like the Intel Itanium processor do not support 32 bit applications. The only reason 32 bit applications work on 64 bit editions of desktop Windows is because the very architecture at its core, called x86-64 (often erroneously shortened to x64), is a hybrid architecture capable of running both 32 bit and 64 bit instructions.

It's also the reason why drivers may not work in 32 bit, but applications will, on Windows Vista 64 bit. The Windows Vista 64 bit kernel is written in 64 bit, and thus, drivers must also be written in 64 bit. If Microsoft would have made the kernel in 32 bit, expanded support would have had to rely on PAE, but drivers wouldn't have had to be re-written. In fact, Apple used that strategy with Mac OS X's transition to 64 bit processors and only its future Snow Leopard will have its kernel in 64 bit.

Machinesworking wrote:

nebulae wrote:

SubFunk wrote: @ Neb... i just realize... that is 34 tracks, that is a joke right?

to avoid misunderstanding... that is very little, my friend.

The arrange window shows 63, without having to scroll.

ummmm, Digital Performer was tested 6 years ago running 130 tracks on a shitty under powered mac.... Way to fail on the dick wagging there. WTF do you need 63+ tracks for anyway?? I've never understood the incentive to needlessly stack tracks? I typically run 22 or so, and not because my computer can't handle it, but because the song is layered enough at that point IMO.

nebulae wrote:Just to get serious for one second (before going back to being a total ass, that is)

1. I've never had an issue with any of the PCs I've built in the past 10 years.
2. Never a trojan that my virus protection didn't thwart and destroy...meaning zero infection or infiltration.
3. Always cheaper than a mac by about 40-50%.
4. Always faster than an equally speced mac, especially with Live.
5. More options with software and hardware.
6. Ability to swap critical components without having to buy a whole new computer. Last year, new drives and ram. Some months ago, swapping the chip to a quadcore. And now, new video card.
7. Windows 7 is f-ing OUTSTANDING.

I have no doubt that OSX is excellent, and no doubts that the hardware goes thru ridiculous quality control. But I have a hard time making blanket statements like "macs are better" when my personal experience for over a decade is not the case.

Machinesworking wrote:Sounds like a recipe for some fun software conflicts to me.

McQ714 wrote:so for all of you who said that vista sucked because the drivers didn't work, that's because 3rd party devs didn't do what they needed to do to fix that.