Page 1 of 2
Let's put this another way... is *anyone* running in 64-bit?
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:17 pm
by mbenigni
Sorry to sound like a broken record (CD/MP3 for the young ones) but my last post re: Vista x64 got off track and no one answered directly.
Is anyone here running Live 7 under a 64-bit installation of Vista? I ask because performance and stability suck here and I'm not sure whether to point the finger at Vista x64 or whether to point the finger at my Presonus Firepod (alledgedly supported w/ latest drivers and firmware, but always take these things with massive chunks of salt.)
Any feedback would be much appreciated.
P.S. to anyone who followed my griping in the last thread, much (but not all) of the difficulty I described with my MoBo actually came down to a defective DIMM. Hard to diagnose w/ limited replacement parts on hand.
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:25 pm
by b0unce
let me put it this way, i'm not not-not not running in 64-bit. j/k I'm actually not not-not running in 64-bit.
edit: get a mac
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:02 pm
by mbenigni
Post-b0unce bounce.
Intrepid x64 users please chime in!
P.S. Not much interest in a Mac, but if I didn't have so many other PC apps to run, Vista might have actually pushed me over the fence.
Now an iPhone, that's tempting...
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:06 pm
by TITBAG
i heard lee perry was, but it might not be true
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:22 pm
by Pasha
There are many articles on the Web regarding the 64bit move hype. Snow Leopard vs Vista 64. In general it shouldn't deliver big advantage. What seems certain is that Mac OS X will follow the Intel specs with better detail but MS will be working on that with Windows 7. Live is still a 32bit Apps and so are all plugins So where' the hype?
It's too early - give it a couple of years.
- Best
- Pasha
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:05 pm
by mbenigni
Looks like my next project is setting up dual boot w/ XP then. Thanks.
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:27 pm
by Undercover Soul
No don't do it don't run 64 bit. Robert Henke himself even said there was no point and that they only reason that Ableton now offers it was for marketing purposes as their competitors are selling the product boasting about 64 bit.
Watch this
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2008/03/2 ... e-is-more/
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:50 pm
by snakedogman
there's a difference between 64 bit audio and running applications in 64 bit.
See the bit in the article you linked:
* Other processing/synthesis: Cakewalk’s products now support a fully 64-bit signal chain. (Digidesign I’ve seen pitching its bit depth and rate, too, but while they’ve broken the 16-bit barrier they’re not at 64-bit, so hence the focus on Cakewalk.) Now, maybe 64-bit isn’t useful in a summing engine — that’s debatable. But there’s also the question of what it does for certain digital processes, like signal processing and synthesis, and in that case additional headroom could have potential. Live 7 only deals with the summing engine. Just as certain image processing techniques use higher-resolution colorspaces, even if you can’t see what’s going on, it’s possible some techniques will make use of this additional information digitally to produce things you can hear. That’s a discussion for another day, though.
* 64-bit memory addressing: More importantly, Cakewalk is also support 64-bit computing — something Ableton doesn’t do yet. On Windows, that means the ability to access larger amounts of RAM under Windows “x64″ or “64-bit” Vista. Totally unrelated to sound, but very, very useful for people using larger sample libraries. (It’s a non-issue on Mac OS X, because the Mac already addresses memory beyond 3-4GB without any extra effort.) I wouldn’t ding Cakewalk’s competitors for not supporting this, because the migration has been very slow for the whole Windows platform. But it is there — and it is a completely different subject.
* 64-bit processing: Running under 64-bit Windows also squeezes a little more performance out of a CPU. The gain isn’t huge, but it’s real. This isn’t yet available on Mac OS (that is, only parts of the OS currently support 64-bit processing), though it is available on Linux. (Even on Linux, though, people often choose to run 32-bit versions of the OS for compatibility.)
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:25 pm
by Undercover Soul
That's what ya get for not reading things properly, sorry!
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:40 pm
by TITBAG
LETITIA DEAN: 64
ENYA: 32
CHICO: 64
JAYNE MCDONALD: 256
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:36 pm
by mbenigni
T-bag... incomprehensible.
Anyway, I hope Ableton plans on supporting x64 for v8. Vista may have gone over like a lead balloon and all, but nevertheless people are starting to migrate to x64 just for the large (and now cheap) memory support. Devs can't hide their heads in the sand forever...
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:54 pm
by TITBAG
mbenigni wrote:T-bag... incomprehensible.
Anyway, I hope Ableton plans on supporting x64 for v8. Vista may have gone over like a lead balloon and all, but nevertheless people are starting to migrate to x64 just for the large (and now cheap) memory support. Devs can't hide their heads in the sand forever...
ableton are strung out on glue pal. 7.0.10 or whatever the fuck it was is the last we'll be seeing from these krauts
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:42 pm
by 3dot...
TITBAG wrote:i heard lee perry was, but it might not be true
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:24 am
by ethios4
TITBAG wrote:ENYA: 32
Shit, well that explains it!
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:24 pm
by NipplesAndBass
so ableton definitely doesnt support 64-bit no?
i've just upgraded my computer to an absolute quad-core 4mb beast and i need to know whether to put xp x64 on it.
i've done alot of reading and i really want to do it, cause i can use the whole ram. also just found this video about it too:
http://www.microsoft.com/winme/0602/271 ... lk_MBR.asx
f it, i'll just try it anyway. i think the main issue is getting you drivers sorted for 64 bit.. then we'll see how ableton performs...
but if anyone has any experiences, advice, it would be much apppreciated.