Ableton Forum

Hey up,

I'd love to know what Ableton think about this one: Windows Vista requires considerably more RAM and CPU than XP. Example:

"To experience all of Vista's features, PC users need a computer with at least a 1-GHz processor, 1 Gbyte of memory, and a 40-Gbyte hard drive. That's far beyond what's required for routine business computing tasks like word processing, running a spreadsheet, or sending e-mails.

"By contrast, Windows XP Professional requires only a 300-MHz processor, 128 Mbytes of RAM, and a 1.5-Gbyte disk."

(from http://www.informationweek.com/news/sho ... =199201492)

Even with all its features switched off, its far more resource hungry than XP. And for those of us doing music, every last drop of system resources is vital. So WHY would anyone want to use Vista?

On the flip side, wouldn't it be fantastic if Ableton were the first major commercial music software company to do a version for linux? Specifically, something like Ubuntu... or one of the linux kernels that are being specifically souped up to be good for audio? Macs have a linux base to their OS, and they're stable as f**k. So ubuntu would be:

1. Stable

2. Light on resources

3. Totally free...

And already comes with all the internet and office software anyone could need.

So....?

no for the moment i will not switch to vista. i will wait until i get a good reason to switch (and for the moment i don't see any).

i would also be glad if an ableton live version for linux comes out...

Macs have a linux base to their OS, and they're stable as f**k.

The Mac basis is actually BSD, and uses the Mach kernal, so its similar (its a kind of UNIX) but actually different to linux... but yeah i'm sure live would run cool on UBUNTU or something.... no VSTs or AUs though...

I wont be switching ever. I needed a new live set-up and givin the choice between Vista and OS X, I jumped ship and got a Mac Book Pro.

Never been happier in an OS

vista will be fine in about 2 years, when it has the drivers and hardware support it currently lacks. Much the same as any OS really, including Mac OSX - they are just at that 'comfortable' stage right now where stability has been good for a couple of years, just like XP before being changed over !

if what you already have is working for you then don't change it until you really have to. Eventually, 90% of windows users are gonna change to Vista, just like they changed from win 98 or 2000 to XP through necessity (microsoft stoppedd supporting them, 3rd party vendors stopped supporting them etc).

I understand about switching to mac but that is not feasible or cost effective for some people (have tons of windows only software, hardware, piles of windows only vsts, programs such as wavelab, fruity loops, soundforge are windows only, want to play some decent games etc) and Mac users haven't always had it easy either, the change from OS9 to OSX was a huge one rendering machines and software obsolete (yes, you could run OS9 in the background but not very convenient) and then powerpc to Intel, a lot of stuff is still not UB or optimized for Intel. Early adopters of MacINtel know about these frustrations just as win xp > vista ...

If it ain't broken, don't fix it!

nobbystylus wrote:

Macs have a linux base to their OS, and they're stable as f**k.

The Mac basis is actually BSD, and uses the Mach kernal, so its similar (its a kind of UNIX) but actually different to linux... but yeah i'm sure live would run cool on UBUNTU or something.... no VSTs or AUs though...

You'd have a million problems with audio, usb, firewire etc. unless you were lucky. I've been using linux (as a desktop and server OS) for well over 10 years and I don't need convincing of it's worth but as a platform for Live? No thanks. OSX does the job just fine (particularly on a laptop where all the power management, wireless etc needs to 'just work').

As much as I'd love to bash Vista, it's early days yet. I'd wait until you need a new machine and upgrade then. Or if you have the hardware capability wait a year.

OSX is similar when moving to Leopard. I'd wait until maybe 10.5.2 before I'd even consider it. I'd say that might take 6 months.

I switched....






to OSX

dan aktivix wrote:
"By contrast, Windows XP Professional requires only a 300-MHz processor, 128 Mbytes of RAM, and a 1.5-Gbyte disk."

And XP Lite knocks that down to only 310 Mb on disk and 43 Mb of RAM used using XP professional/home.

http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html

leedsquietman wrote:including Mac OSX - they are just at that 'comfortable' stage right now where stability has been good for a couple of years, just like XP before being changed over !

yeaaaaa. i dunno about that.



difference is (from personal experience also and word of mouth.) , with OS X (for the past 3 yrs ive had a mac and including the macintels with their "hiccups") i never really have to do shit and it runs smooth. XP on the other hand, u need to install AntiVirus to protect from internet viruses etc. in order for my computer to run smooth for audio apps you have to go in and tinker with many parameters to optimize it, while with an OS X hardly anywork. Im not knocking XP or Vista , but why is it many PC users are delusional thinkin they could just "enjoy the ride" like OS X users but know they gotta really put in alot of work to keep their PC in optimal shape (OS wise and general functionality.)


ramble.

quite frankly, if MS stops supporting XP and forces me into that clunky piece of shite Vista, it's Mac for me (although how to afford it is another matter entirely).

Contra wrote:

leedsquietman wrote:including Mac OSX - they are just at that 'comfortable' stage right now where stability has been good for a couple of years, just like XP before being changed over !

yeaaaaa. i dunno about that.



difference is (from personal experience also and word of mouth.) , with OS X (for the past 3 yrs ive had a mac and including the macintels with their "hiccups") i never really have to do shit and it runs smooth. XP on the other hand, u need to install AntiVirus to protect from internet viruses etc. in order for my computer to run smooth for audio apps you have to go in and tinker with many parameters to optimize it, while with an OS X hardly anywork. Im not knocking XP or Vista , but why is it many PC users are delusional thinkin they could just "enjoy the ride" like OS X users but know they gotta really put in alot of work to keep their PC in optimal shape (OS wise and general functionality.)


ramble.

Well thats the whole thing.

Off the shelf Mac easy to use = Porsche
Off the shelf PC, pile of shit = 78' Pinto
Tricked PC = Top Fuel dragster

I use both and although OSX is great. For music, XP running "XP light" and kept off the net is just as easy once its set up properly.

vista is the biggest undersell in history, no offence but only mugs will rush out and buy it. it is resource hungry because MS sell most operating systems through OEMs and the only reason consumers upgrade their machines is if they break or current software requires superior processing power.. hence vista requiring frankly staggering amount of system resources to run.

and not only is it resource hungry for no good reason, the content protection crap in it may disable asio drivers..

taken from http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/p ... a_cost.txt

Quote:
In order to appropriately protect content, Vista will probably have to disable
any special device features that it can't directly control. For example many
sound cards built on C-Media chipsets (which in practice is the vast majority
of them) support Steinberg's ASIO (Audio Stream I/O), a digital audio
interface that completely bypasses the Windows audio mixer and other audio-
related driver software to provide more flexibility and much lower latency
than the Windows ones. ASIO support is standard for newer C-Media hardware,
see for example http://www.cmedia.com.tw/?q=en/PCI/CMI8788. Since ASIO
bypasses Windows' audio handling, it would probably have to be disabled, which
is problematic because audiophiles and professional musicians require ASIO
support specifically because of its much higher quality than the standard
Windows channels.

the only reason I can think for switching is that you are quite horny and wanna get f*cked by microsoft.

io wrote:vista is the biggest undersell in history, no offence but only mugs will rush out and buy it. it is resource hungry because MS sell most operating systems through OEMs and the only reason consumers upgrade their machines is if they break or current software requires superior processing power.. hence vista requiring frankly staggering amount of system resources to run.

It requires more resources because it is designed for machines 5 years newer than those for which XP was designed. It's not staggering, in fact a 1GHz processor was easily available in July 2000, not exactly cutting edge. Yes, Vista requires more RAM, but it uses it in a different way, and will use all of the available RAM with dynamic caching. If you do not understand this it does seem to use masses of RAM compared to XP.

That article quoted always makes me cringe. The author uses probably more than I would expect, don't you think, it's not exactly a considered opinion based on fact.
Vista does have DRM support.
It has support for third party DRM but NONE of it's own.
It simply supports whatever restrictions third-party ISV's choose to implement. DRM from the OS itself is non-existent.
Content protection does not disable ASIO, unless asked to do so by a third party program. At the moment OSX is actually more restrictive, thanks to the iTunes DRM.