KVR Audio

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:27 pm

Why would anyone connect a studio computer to the net

What is this, 2004? Here's a small heads-up: not everyone uses XP on an old Windows box today.
Some people even use Macs, which are somewhat more popular with the malware creators today, but the operating system is actually made to protect against idiot moves by the user (which would enable such an issue), for... a few yrs now.

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:38 am

fluffy_little_something wrote:
aciddose wrote: AMD64 (64-bit) is better than x86 (32-bit) across the board unless you're trying to run buggy, poorly written, unsupported old software that doesn't run correctly on a modern processor.

That about sums it up.
Not sure what the point is in comparing 64-bit AMD to 32-bit Intel platforms.
I hope the choice of processor brand is not really relevant anymore with the latest generation.

https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70734

Jace-BeOS · Post by **Jace-BeOS** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:12 am

Backsnack wrote:
AnX wrote:
Jace-BeOS wrote:
yellowmix wrote:Because Microsoft has excellent legacy support and some places are stuck with 32-bit processors and apps for whatever reason.
Lots of industry still has ancient hardware. In fact, COM ports are still desirable in mission critical systems.
The NHS still uses WinXP
Glad to hear one of the largest entities of healthcare delivery in the world still uses an operating system that's been deprecated for almost 4 years.

An especially wonderful idea considering the massive number of ransomware attacks on healthcare entities that continue to occur. Do these cheapskates/luddites really need to have a colossal security failure to light a fire under their asses to finally get with the times? This shit makes me angry.

Sorry, I'll calm down now.

I suspect that some of this has to do with the conservatives constantly trying to defund government institutions...

Jace-BeOS · Post by **Jace-BeOS** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:24 am

chk071 wrote:
AnX wrote:
Backsnack wrote:
AnX wrote:Security issuses aside, if it works why change it? I used XP for 7 years, and ive been on Win7 for 5 years. I prob wont 'upgrade' till this pc dies. I havent had any OS related problems with my music software, and havent seen anything in Win8/10 that i need or looks useful.
This is a fine attitude to have if that computer never communicates with the internet.
Mine never did, nor does my current one.

Why would anyone connect a studio computer to the net
Obviously, most people seem to think differently, with all those online hubs in DAW's on the start page. And the built in update check option.

I abandoned all this "keep music machine off the internet" nonsense back when i decided managing multiple computers was a nightmare bigger than managing one computer. Most software protection abuses users in some way or other, but a lot of it is now expecting an internet connection, most software is no longer on physical media, and I'm tired of "sneakernet" with USB sticks and DVD/CD-Rs and whatnot to install and update and resister and unlock and unlock and unlock yet again... What do Adobe subscribers do if they want their computer off the internet??

This is what developers demand, so i guess they're running their mission-critical computers while connected to the internet too. Consumers aren't the ones in power. Not any more, at least (if we ever were). Go with the flow or be beaten down over time by attrition.

nIGhT-SoN · Post by **nIGhT-SoN** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:10 am

jancivil wrote:
fluffy_little_something wrote:
aciddose wrote: AMD64 (64-bit) is better than x86 (32-bit) across the board unless you're trying to run buggy, poorly written, unsupported old software that doesn't run correctly on a modern processor.

That about sums it up.
Not sure what the point is in comparing 64-bit AMD to 32-bit Intel platforms.
I hope the choice of processor brand is not really relevant anymore with the latest generation.
https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70734

Why would you bring a 3 years old thread up? There is no difference between Intel's x64 and AMD's x64, the same goes for x86. Why? Because Intel developed x86 and AMD "lend" it from Intel to use it on their cpus and AMD developed x64 and Intel "lend" it from AMD to use it on their cpus. So there is no difference between the two manufactured chips when it comes to this.

The only question you could ask is "Is x64 better than x86?" But I think we all know the answer to that. Depends on how much ram you intend to add to your system. If you use 4GB, there is no real need for a 64bit operating system.

AnX · Post by **AnX** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:18 am

jancivil wrote:
Why would anyone connect a studio computer to the net
What is this, 2004? Here's a small heads-up: not everyone uses XP on an old Windows box today.
Some people even use Macs, which are somewhat more popular with the malware creators today, but the operating system is actually made to protect against idiot moves by the user (which would enable such an issue), for... a few yrs now.

The point is, if you have a studio computer, you use it for making music. Time is money. If you want to f**k around on the web, use a laptop or your phone, not your business tools.

Jace-BeOS · Post by **Jace-BeOS** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:44 am

AnX wrote:
jancivil wrote:
Why would anyone connect a studio computer to the net
What is this, 2004? Here's a small heads-up: not everyone uses XP on an old Windows box today.
Some people even use Macs, which are somewhat more popular with the malware creators today, but the operating system is actually made to protect against idiot moves by the user (which would enable such an issue), for... a few yrs now.

The point is, if you have a studio computer, you use it for making music. Time is money. If you want to f**k around on the web, use a laptop or your phone, not your business tools.

"Business tools" expect the web to be present more and more. If time is money, don't browse the web when you're supposed to be working.

AnX · Post by **AnX** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:57 am

My machine has never been online since its been in the studio. Files are transfered via usb/dvd. Never had a problem.

fluffy_little_something · Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:32 am

Some music software automatically checks for updates. If you have a lot of plugins etc., you have to take care of updates manually.
Updating the Mixcraft DAW for instance works like Windows Update, it gets patched. I don't think that's possible offline.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:43 am

fluffy_little_something wrote:Some music software automatically checks for updates. If you have a lot of plugins etc., you have to take care of updates manually.

Yep. That's also why they all offer their plugin managers, like Arturia, Native Access, Waves Central, Cakewalk Command Center etc.

Anyway, i don't see any reason why a DAW would NOT connect to the internet. If you want to do so, go ahead. I wouldn't. Even with my DAW open, i think it's quite nice to be able to browse the net, if you want to check something.

fluffy_little_something · Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:49 am

One might also prevent DAW communication by blocking it in the firewall.

I assume some people think a computer connected to the Internet is automatically at risk. But if that were the case, there are other things that are much more critical than a DAW, for instance online banking. Yet, obviously online banking is safe these days, unless one does really stupid things, in which case one should not connect to the Internet at all.

Or work. I could not work and earn my living without the Internet. So, it is of utmost importance to me, just like the DAW is to professional musicians.

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:53 am

fluffy_little_something wrote:One might also prevent DAW communication by blocking it in the firewall.

Or just switch off WiFi in the taskbar or dock or whatever.

Apratim · Post by **Apratim** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:30 pm

dont know weather any one has already commented or not but i will still mention it again
each plugin stores it data in i particular space with a address number which an be interacted by the os kernel
for for
16-bit it is 64 kb
32-bit is 4 gigs
64-bit is ....you do the math(4gigs*(2^32))
so if you try to run programs like y cruncher which needs memory address more than 13,000,000,000,000 then you need a kernel which can interact with memory location more than that so thats that same goes for vst
best example is kontakt which dumps all it samples into ram if you need the lowest latency possible
and some sample library is more than 4gig in size so you know thats an advantage and nothing more

and regarding host and daws reaper has a inbuilt 32 to 64 bridging which is damm stable

EDIT:there is no diffrence between amd x64 or intel x 86
if there was then Microsoft would have to make two different kernels with two different architectures type
windows AMD 10 threadripper editopn and WINDOWS INTEL 10 kabylake edition
WOW....

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:09 am

nIGhT-SoN wrote:
jancivil wrote:
fluffy_little_something wrote:
aciddose wrote: AMD64 (64-bit) is better than x86 (32-bit) across the board unless you're trying to run buggy, poorly written, unsupported old software that doesn't run correctly on a modern processor.

That about sums it up.
Not sure what the point is in comparing 64-bit AMD to 32-bit Intel platforms.
I hope the choice of processor brand is not really relevant anymore with the latest generation.
https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70734
Why would you bring a 3 years old thread up? There is no difference between Intel's x64 and AMD's x64, the same goes for x86.

That's an interesting point-of-view, but I'm not convinced that's a fact.
I don't have a Windows-centric POV at all, I'm not going to be building a windows box really ever, but the debate continues. I'm going to use Intel because that's what there is for me. It used to be that certain things I used would_not_work on AMD, period. I don't know today because it's a moot point since I use Mac OS (for some years now).

That was about Cubendo in relation to the question, btw.
Here's a 2017 DAWBench:
In this instance the AMD 1700X under-performs all of the Intel chips at lower buffer rates.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/03/02 ... for-audio/

but they're the same! Ok then.

nIGhT-SoN · Post by **nIGhT-SoN** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:27 pm

He probably was testing with 2400Mhz ram, but from then till now things have changed and you can use higher frequency ram which Ryzen loves and gives better performance to the cpu because the cores communicate faster between them with higher frequency memory. That's how Ryzen is made. But even if it was still the case, applications are better optimized for Intel right now. Ryzen is what? 6 months old? It's a new platform from the bottom to the top and it will take some time for developers to adapt their applications for newer architecture. The thing to remember is that overall, for example in Adobe Premiere, Photoshop, AfterEffects, Ryzen beats or is equal to Intel's chips that are like twice the price:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh9waDDbrL8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9xuUkZ-eDg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No7eZZb3jdA

I had only Intel systems, until now. Now I have a Ryzen 1700 and it's more than I need. I can't seem to be able to max it out so I'm really glad I got it. PS. I didn't even overclock.

But this has nothing to do with 64bit/32bit architecture, that's a different thing.

64 and 32-bit hosts forever?