Another major dev may have quietly dropped Win XP support

[Skorpius]

while there may be no improvements that matter to you (i, for one, see loads of them), there certainly aren't any major drawbacks to it either.

This is not quite true: I still don't see the advantage of two different "Program Files" folders (Win 7/64) over a single one (XP). Quite the opposite: It makes installations more difficult, at least if the installation location is important to you. Also, try to change the icon of a certain standard file type in Win 7: This is simply not possible without an additional tool.

Let's continue: Try to save a preset from within a VST plug-in to C_Program Files_VSTPlugins while your DAW is running: Simply not possible, Win 7 won't allow it. You're forced to save it elsewhere due to access restrictions.

These are just a few examples, I could carry on for a while...

I'm not saying that Win 7 is generally worse than XP, but you should be very careful about calling the Windows development a progress.

I was able to do things on my 1992 Atari Falcon I will probably never be able to do on a Windows, MAC, or Linux system. There, you could simply take a complete program folder, copy it to anywhere on the hard disk and start the program from there. The Atari OS (TOS) didn't care at all. Now, go ahead and try this on a Windows system...

Not to mention that Atari used a user-friendly, icon-based desktop system when you still had to type cryptic commands into DOS systems. And last but not least the fact that NO virus could ever do any harm to an Atari OS, simply because it was burned in a hardware ROM chip and thus not accessible for viruses.

So, what you and others call progress, is not necessarily technological advancement, especially not in the case of Windows.

[ezelkow1]

Let's continue: Try to save a preset from within a VST plug-in to C_Program Files_VSTPlugins while your DAW is running: Simply not possible, Win 7 won't allow it. You're forced to save it elsewhere due to access restrictions.

Ive done this just fine

I was able to do things on my 1992 Atari Falcon I will probably never be able to do on a Windows, MAC, or Linux system. There, you could simply take a complete program folder, copy it to anywhere on the hard disk and start the program from there. The Atari OS (TOS) didn't care at all. Now, go ahead and try this on a Windows system...

This is not an accurate comparison. You can most definitely do the same thing on windows/mac/linux, it all depends on the program. If I were to write my own standalone app that had no dependencies and create a single executable(or folder with everything it needs), you could move that around all you want. However once you get in to much more advanced programs, things that couldnt be dreamed about on an atari, it gets way more complicated due to external dependencies like shared libraries and advanced things the OS provides. Of course a programmer doesnt have to take advantage of these and could create a standalone app if they wished, but that greatly increases dev time for no real benefit. They may as well stick to the conventions that make the applications non-portable for both ease of development and ease of use of the end user. Since the vast vast majority of end users couldnt care less where a program actually resides, why make it movable when the downsides greatly outweigh the benefits

[Zombie Queen]

you should be very careful about calling the Windows development a progress

Quote of the year.

[robogone]

I was able to do things on my 1992 Atari Falcon I will probably never be able to do on a Windows, MAC, or Linux system. There, you could simply take a complete program folder, copy it to anywhere on the hard disk and start the program from there. The Atari OS (TOS) didn't care at all.

Have you ever used a Mac or Linux system, or understand how Unix based systems work?

[asdfrewq]

This is not quite true: I still don't see the advantage of two different "Program Files" folders (Win 7/64) over a single one (XP). Quite the opposite: It makes installations more difficult, at least if the installation location is important to you.

One for 64-bit programs that use 64 bit libraries and one for 32 bit, seems pretty logical and easy to remember... Also this feature was in XP Pro 64 so it is not a problem with new OS it is because of going to 64 bit (you'd have the same issue with XP if you went to 64 bit XP Pro OS).

EDIT: That said I am not jumping from 7 to 8 anytime soon...

[arkmabat]

I was able to do things on my 1992 Atari Falcon I will probably never be able to do on a Windows, MAC, or Linux system. There, you could simply take a complete program folder, copy it to anywhere on the hard disk and start the program from there. The Atari OS (TOS) didn't care at all.

Have you ever used a Mac or Linux system, or understand how Unix based systems work?

It goes back to which app you're talking about. A vst can be placed anywhere on a pc and it'll run anyway (as long as you scan the folder it's in of course). Most apps can't be moved because of dependencies that the app dev chose to link it to.

[robogone]

I was able to do things on my 1992 Atari Falcon I will probably never be able to do on a Windows, MAC, or Linux system. There, you could simply take a complete program folder, copy it to anywhere on the hard disk and start the program from there. The Atari OS (TOS) didn't care at all.

Have you ever used a Mac or Linux system, or understand how Unix based systems work?

It goes back to which app you're talking about. A vst can be placed anywhere on a pc and it'll run anyway (as long as you scan the folder it's in of course). Most apps can't be moved because of dependencies that the app dev chose to link it to.

It's much easier to pick up a folder and move it on a Mac and Linux than it is on Windows. Unix based systems have a fixed folder structure that shouldn't vary from machine to machine, and locations of various files that are dependencies are usually referenced by absolute paths.

[ew]

My old Midisport interface doesn't run on anything later than XP so I had to buy a new interface.

?

There's drivers for W7 and every Midisport interface on the M-Audio site. The one thing you DON'T have is the remote mapping app for the 8x8. My Midisport 8x8 was working fine on W7x64 until it finally bit the dust, but it was 12 years old; it was bound to die sometime.

ew

I wish that were true for my Music Quest 8Port/SE and my 10x Digidesign interface. I loved those things and they are now just dust collectors in my rack.

Sorry to hear yours bit the dust ew!

Happy Musiking!
dsan

It's cool- I replaced it with a MOTU MIDI Express XT. The routing options with that are more comprehensive.

ew

[layzer]

It's cool- I replaced it with a MOTU MIDI Express XT. The routing options with that are more comprehensive.

ew

i have the older MEXT....



i have used for years, i upgraded the roms in it and its been rock stable workhorse since, and with the routing software it is priceless.

[optofonik]

Oh come on, it's 13 years since XP's initial release. upgrade already.

No.

You'll get to use more RAM if you upgrade to x64

If you upgrade to the x64 version of XP.

All kidding aside, a reliable source tells me one of the longest running shows on American TV still uses a ten year old version of PT for audio post. Just sayin.

[toothnclaw]

And when one spends 99% of his time in Window's Explorer and opens his favourites up a couple of hundred times a day, this soon gets a bit tiresome.

Whaaat, you're doing this AND still using Windows Eplorer?!?!?
Never heard of xplorer² pro?
Well here's a link then: http://zabkat.com/.
Be sure to watch this: http://zabkat.com/tour/x2intro.htm
And there's a free lite version you could use with most features of the pro. The most useful ones: Bookmarks and Tabs. http://www.zabkat.com/x2lite.htm

I haven't used Windows Explorer for years... and never will use it again! This thing is shit - both in XP and 7/8.

New NI updates aren't working on XP* and I definitely want to update Omnisphere.

For Omnisphere, try Universal Extractor. Extract the installation file, then manually replace the dll's and any other folder as needed. For NI, the Extractor won't work. Find where the dlls and exes are in the new installer (data/OFFLINE/subfolders) and replace them. See if this works.

Oh come on, it's 13 years since XP's initial release. upgrade already.

The problem is that they're deliberately breaking XP compatibility. That's beyond lame IMO. These softwares (NI and Spectrasonics) used to run on XP for a decade or so, now they suddenly don't (unless you roll up your sleeves and make them to). The companies behind them have all the knowledge and skills to keep them running on XP but won't, 'cause they don't want to. Again, that's beyond lame and is hurting their clients.

We're not talking about any complex apps that are hugely OS and performance dependent, we're talking about synths, FFS!!!

[whyterabbyt]

while there may be no improvements that matter to you (i, for one, see loads of them), there certainly aren't any major drawbacks to it either.

This is not quite true: I still don't see the advantage of two different "Program Files" folders (Win 7/64) over a single one (XP).

ahem, you'd get that on XP X64 too. Its nothing to do with which version of Windows it is, its to do with the 64-bit version of windows supporting X86 applications.

Quite the opposite: It makes installations more difficult, at least if the installation location is important to you.

Why does it make it more difficult? Your x64 programs go in one, your x86 applications go in the other. If the application installer supports a custom location, you can sidestep that completely.

Also, try to change the icon of a certain standard file type in Win 7: This is simply not possible without an additional tool.

Not exactly a normal day to day task that.
Try burning an .ISO to DVD from XP. Oh wait, can you do that without an additional tool?

Let's continue: Try to save a preset from within a VST plug-in to C_Program Files_VSTPlugins while your DAW is running: Simply not possible, Win 7 won't allow it. You're forced to save it elsewhere due to access restrictions.

Change the security settings for the STPlugins once. Done. Never a problem again.

These are just a few examples, I could carry on for a while...

I could carry on for a while about things XP doesnt do either.

I'm not saying that Win 7 is generally worse than XP, but you should be very careful about calling the Windows development a progress.

Except that it is.

I was able to do things on my 1992 Atari Falcon I will probably never be able to do on a Windows, MAC, or Linux system. There, you could simply take a complete program folder, copy it to anywhere on the hard disk and start the program from there. The Atari OS (TOS) didn't care at all. Now, go ahead and try this on a Windows system...

You might want to google 'Portable application'

Not to mention that Atari used a user-friendly, icon-based desktop system when you still had to type cryptic commands into DOS systems.

Yes, because mentioning what a PC could do in the mid 80s is incredibly relevant. And 'cryptic commands are an intrinsically bad thing.

Could your crude little boxy UI selectively find and replace every instance of a character string in every text file within a subdirectory? I doubt it.
Command-line tools have a lot of use.

And last but not least the fact that NO virus could ever do any harm to an Atari OS, simply because it was burned in a hardware ROM chip and thus not accessible for viruses.

Were your files burned into a hardware ROM chip too? Personally its my data I want secured. Did your Atari ST support RAID-6 arrays with multiple failover? Could you even hook it up to a proper network?
No? But those things are significant progress. More so than changing icons.

So, what you and others call progress, is not necessarily technological advancement, especially not in the case of Windows.

Im not sure your perculiarly selective idea of what's significant, some of which seems just seems to be a basic lack of understanding of the reason for it in the first place, has the weight of argument you think it does. On the other hand, having to change icons with a 3rd party tool, my god, if you cant do that then what the hell is an operating systems for?

[whyterabbyt]

Most apps can't be moved because of dependencies that the app dev chose to link it to.

Actually, I'd suggest its more likely to be that it cant be (easily) moved because of registry entries pointing to it. Moving smaller applications is often actually fairly trivial.

But why would you want to move it after installation anyway? That's not what I would call rational usage of a system. Install it where you want it in the first place.
Or, if you're somehow dead set on moving the application files out of Program Files after the fact for something other than the sheer randomness of it (eg saving space on C:), move the directory where you need it and replace it with junction point.

[whyterabbyt]

The problem is that they're deliberately breaking XP compatibility. That's beyond lame IMO. These softwares (NI and Spectrasonics) used to run on XP for a decade or so, now they suddenly don't (unless you roll up your sleeves and make them to).

Erm, if it works after you 'roll up their sleeves' then they're not 'deliberately breaking compatibility'. But they're not supporting it in the installer because they're not guaranteeing you compatibility.

If they were 'deliberately breaking compatibility' it wouldnt run on XP at all. Youve just admitted thats not the case.

The companies behind them have all the knowledge and skills to keep them running on XP but won't, 'cause they don't want to. Again, that's beyond lame and is hurting their clients.

Sorry, are you saying that the version you were happy with up until two weeks ago has suddenly stopped working?

If so, then yes they're hurting their clients.

Otherwise, all they're doing is introducing an upgrade which some people cant utilise because they've taken the decision to continue working using an OS which was formally obsoleted by Microsoft for consumers four years ago.

You'll maybe want to put that against the context of Apple who renders anything obsolete thats more than about 4 years old.

We're not talking about any complex apps that are hugely OS and performance dependent, we're talking about synths, FFS!!!

Since when were realtime audio engines not hugely OS and performance dependent? Getting seamless, glitchless low-latency audio that doesnt bog down on an OS clearly not designed for it is probably one of the hardest software niches out there. Its certainly harder on the system than just about any other content creation niche out there.

[toothnclaw]

blah-blah