• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

has vista been fixed yet?

#4
There's nothing that needs to be "fixed" in terms of audio or MIDI within Vista itself.

The delay you're referring to is probably due to the fact that manufacturers may or may not have the proper drivers written to interface with Vista. Some of them made new drivers, such as M-Audio. Others have not.

Look into the invididual audio interface hardware you're interested in and see if they have addressed compatibility with Vista.
 
#6
Im running XP with a 002 and protools for live stuff. It works great. It runs on a Thoshiba Qosimio dualcore.

We tried to build a back up comp using the singers laptop, when she got to the practice space i saw the vista logo on it. That was my face :eek:

Im getting a new Macbook pro this summer but im a bit worried... i heard alot of horror storys concerning the new Intel chip and some plug-ins
 
#8
Vista requires many more resources then XP. Unless you have a real compelling reason to go to Vista I'd hold off.

I have the best of both worlds. A macbook which I run Cubase on, and then I run WinXP inside of Parallels/Vmware (Not sure which I prefer) to run certain things like Band In a Box.

Adam
 
#9
I have yet to have a problem with the technical side, but I do have a problem with it's pricing system. It'll let you know when something is not playing nice, but that's the price you pay for the ability to control what goes on inside you computer. That said, unless you want DX10, maximised utilization of RAM (ex. you have more then 3GB) and a few other things, XP will do, especially until Microsoft rethinks it pricing.

If all you do is word processing and internet surfing, get Ubuntu, it's free.
If you want an overpriced boutique computer that won't crash, just lock up until you restart it, get a Mac.:hiding:
 
#10
When I seen the name of the thread, I said to myself "is that a loaded question"?.

Nah, I'll continue to use xp for my stuff (Use OSX in my partners studio)..... until vista does a major service pack update, MS still has a way to go for vista to be the defacto for the windows folks.
You'd be better off using Linux than using Vista right now:p


/Jason
 
#12
Vista has not been "fixed" and likely won't be, ever. Any performance improvements that come to Vista through patches or service packs will never be able to make it as fast as XP is already. It's just a bloated OS, it was designed that way. The audio subsystem is also slower than XP because there are additional layers of OS baloney that software needs to go through because of DRM or "improvements" or who knows.

I would just steer clear and stay with XP if you're a PC user. Or get a Mac. I ended up getting an ADK laptop which is specially made for audio, and thus works. It was significantly cheaper than getting a Mac, and had XP. Right now the only safe bets for audio are XP on desktop, XP on a "boutique" audio laptop, or a Mac (assuming it doesn't have that Agere FW).
 
#13
hunta said:
Vista has not been "fixed" and likely won't be, ever. Any performance improvements that come to Vista through patches or service packs will never be able to make it as fast as XP is already. It's just a bloated OS, it was designed that way. The audio subsystem is also slower than XP because there are additional layers of OS baloney that software needs to go through because of DRM or "improvements" or who knows.

I would just steer clear and stay with XP if you're a PC user. Or get a Mac. I ended up getting an ADK laptop which is specially made for audio, and thus works. It was significantly cheaper than getting a Mac, and had XP. Right now the only safe bets for audio are XP on desktop, XP on a "boutique" audio laptop, or a Mac (assuming it doesn't have that Agere FW).
Click to expand...

I can understand for the point of personal use

1) Vista runs considerably more services and because of this, has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come without a price.

2)Seeing as how the newer processors are getting better and better.There are really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores. Even though you will lose application performance by moving to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's.

3)No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor, so far. At least that's been my general consensus.

4)I have benchmarked Vista both in it's beta release and it's initial release. I have done so in "real world" and "virtual" (VMWare) environments.

5)Keep in mind that If you have The "latest and greatest" hardware out there, Vista's performance does give Xp a run for it's money.

During any of the testing I've done with vista vs. XP, this is what I've found: Hardware-Dell precision 380
Processor- Pentium 4 670
hard drive- 80GB 7200 rpm
Memory- 2GB DDR2 533mhz
Video card-nVidia 512MB Quadro FX 4500

Windows Vista SP1 and Windows XP overall performed comparably on most test operations. Differences between the two operating systems were typically less than a half second.
Windows Vista SP1 was noticeably more responsive after rebooting than Windows XP on several common business apps.
Overall, Windows Vista SP1 was more responsive than Windows Vista on most comparisons.

This is just me being subjective. Of course I have to do test/benchmarks, at my job I am responsible for this and software development and engineering.

A few differences, in Vista with out getting too nerdy:

Reduced the possibility of registry corrupting, by make the registry "read only" and it changes to read/write when needed and reverts back to "read only".

Services are actually delayed by starting the services shortly after after the boot.Xp does not.

The service control manager (kind of reminds me of Linux a bit, except vista does not ask for an admin password).
It works in that, It will ask your permission before changing a setting, ( Linux does something similar for non Sudo users, which it asks for the root password before allowing you to change something). Though it would appear to be a pain in the arse for some, it's not too bad of an idea.

There are quite a many differences between the 2, once you get past the surface. Especially in the Kernel.

Excuse the OT

/Jason
 
#16
Stick with XP. Don't bother with a Mac unless you want to spend the extra $500 for worse hardware (sorry, but it had to be said... Macs are expensive... work great, but are expensive).

Stay away from Vista even if for the sole reason that Windows 7 is probably going to be out within the next 2 years.

(that said, Vista's great for when I've used it... neither me nor any of my friends have really had any problems with it... at all :spit:)
 
#18
I had a lot of trouble getting Reason, Band-In-A-Box, and Beatcraft to stop locking up under Vista x64. On XP x64 they work fine. I haven't tried other audio apps get but I imagine the same issues will occur since the lockups are common to these different apps.
 
#19
crazyguy832 said:
(that said, Vista's great for when I've used it... neither me nor any of my friends have really had any problems with it... at all :spit:)
Click to expand...
I've had the exact opposite experience. I know I hear all these anecdotal reports of people having no problems with Vista, or even LIKING it.. Everyone I know has complained about it and regretted buying a computer with it (I work in IT so I hear this kind of stuff a lot). My gf's parents have a dell with Vista on it and that thing CRAWLS.

I'm not sure I'd like Vista even if it did run as fast as XP to be honest. To me it just seems like they moved a whole bunch of stuff around for no reason and made it shinier and slower.
 
#20
crazyguy832 said:
Stick with XP. Don't bother with a Mac unless you want to spend the extra $500 for worse hardware (sorry, but it had to be said... Macs are expensive... work great, but are expensive).
:spit:)
Click to expand...

You can build a system to run OSX with off the shelf hardware for far cheaper then buying a comparable Mac (hackintosh project). That said Apple has some of the best support I've ever dealt with (Of course you do pay a lot for it).

My personal opinion and what I've seen from my days of doing tech support is that once up and running things will run pretty well with any OS. It's when you start putting all added crap on it that things quickly go bad.

I have several Sun servers sitting in my basement if anyone wants them. They are build like tanks and stay up for years at a time :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back