Favourite Operating System ?

[The Noodlist]

Linux Mate for everything but DAW
Windows 10 DAW and the odd MS Office use (Win 7 was better for DAW use, less bloatware)

Honourable mention
Dux XP, a modified configuration file for Nlite and Windows XP - superseded by Win 7 X64 for no ram limitations.

I'm surprised gamers and DAW users aren't catered for with a modified MS Windows OS, no bloatware and optimised for its purpose.

[vurt]

i fought alongside your father in the os wars, he was killed by a powerful sith called darth vader...

[BONES]

Linux Mate for everything but DAW Windows 10 DAW and the odd MS Office use (Win 7 was better for DAW use, less bloatware) I'm surprised gamers and DAW users aren't catered for with a modified MS Windows OS, no bloatware and optimised for its purpose.

Office is Office, it is the same no matter which version of Windows you run it on. It's 2022, what would be the point of an optimised OS today. It made sense when computers were 1% as powerful as they are today but how much are you going to save now? I can't see how it's worth the hassle.

The only thing I have to reboot for is music-making on Windows, and that's a context-switch anyway. It would be nice not to, but dropping Linux would be more painful.

In my experience it only takes that one thing to make it super annoying. I was a bit the same - the only thing I needed Windows for was compositing, After Effects and Combustion, everything else I could do in Linux, to a greater or lesser degree. But I spent so much time switching between the two that I eventually realised it was stupid, when Windows could do absolutely everything I needed to do. It's when I worked out that the smart thing was to choose your applications and let them choose your OS for you.

[THE INTRANCER]

For me it's still Windows 7... more polished than 10.

More polished? It's a f**king disaster from start to finish. It's Vista SP2. Every single thing that was bad about Vista is still there in W7. Every, Single. Thing. It is the worst version of Windows I have ever used and I couldn't wait to get onto the W8 beta programme so I could be rid of it. It was/is a complete workflow killer.

Infact I'm using Windows 7 now because Windows 10 doesn't like one of my Hard Disks after I did a check disk on it. Windows 7 seems more accepting of it so I'm able to access it.

So when that disk fails and you lose everything, that will be your fault, not Windows'.

The only thing Windows 10 has over Windows 7 is being able to access all my ram that I have (20 Gigs).

What about accessing your applications? W10 has a Start Menu that is actually useful. I'd have thought you'd love it for its customisability, if nothing else.

having to buy a third party program to make Windows 10 look more prettier and a free alternative to customise the Start menu seemed like a bit much

Why would you need to do that when it's already so flexible? I mean, I've had to do that for W11 but W10's Start is pretty close to perfect. Everything is laid out so it's easy to get to. I pretty much never have to go looking for anything, it's like a built-in memory palace. OTOH, W7's Start was all but useless and everyone had stopped using it, which is why they came up with such a radical solution in W8, which they refined beautifully for W10.

Then there is the simple fact that Windows 10 uses one-third less system resources than Win7. That alone makes it a no-brainer. Or it should.

I'll save my time in highlighting other points, but really I can't stand Windows 10 start menu and the rest of the GUI isn't great either unless you use third party utilities to make it look better.

https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/rip-w ... ystem-ever

[The Noodlist]

It's 2022, what would be the point of an optimised OS today. It made sense when computers were 1% as powerful as they are today but how much are you going to save now? I can't see how it's worth the hassle.

Yeah, I get it.

Computers are more powerful, how much is wasted on unnecessary services and apps?
I also notice computers using more resources when idling compared to older OS.

I also notice the efficiency difference between Reaper and Studio One, optimised vs? This is evident when using Acustica and other high demand products, optimisation can't be a bad thing.

Analogy, a tuned sports car vs a model direct from a showroom. One might be better at racing and the other for commuting.

[chk071]

OS's are of course still optimized these days.

Due to the amount of services running in the OS, and frameworks used in programming these days, some things surely take more system ressources, and, it's surely also in the back of the heads of the developers that people have fast computers these days. But, not keeping an eye on the least possible CPU or memory footprint would be crazy.

[BONES]

Except Windows gets more effiicent with every release, not less effiicent. Win8 uses one-third fewer system reesources than Win7 and half the resources of XP. I've not seen anything specifically about Win10 or Win 11 but you have to think that if either was worse than Win8, we'd have heard about it.

I'll save my time in highlighting other points, but really I can't stand Windows 10 start menu

So change it. It doesn't have to be one thing, it can be pretty much anything you like. That's what's so awesome about it. Unlike every other version of Windows (and every other OS or Window Manger I have seen), W10 lets you make it exactly how you want it to be. If you think Live Tiles are lame, don't have any. If you think the default tile size is too big, make 'em smaller. Think they are too small, make 'em bigger. Think there aren't enough tiles, add more. Think there are too many, get rid of some. Think the menu is too small, drag it out bigger. Think it's too big, drag it in smaller. Think it's too high, drag it down and then out so you can still see everything. Think it's too wide, drag it in and up so you can still see everything. Think it's too disorganised, organise it into categories with or without labels. Don't like the colours, choose new ones. Honestly, if you can't customise the perfect Start experience for yourself in Windows 10, it's because you haven't tried. Moving to Windows 11 feels like putting on a straightjacket.

the rest of the GUI isn't great either unless you use third party utilities to make it look better.

Like what?

https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/rip-w ... ystem-ever

Not so much as a single word about anything other than sales and the fact it was a PITA to update. So it says W7 was popular but it doesn't say why it was popular, presumably because there are no actual reasons.

Computers are more powerful, how much is wasted on unnecessary services and apps?

As I said, ,not enough that I'd bother worrying about it, much less trying to do anything about it. I don't even think it's worth turning on Aircraft Mode any more. I twon't get you another instance of Omnisphere so why bother?

I also notice computers using more resources when idling compared to older OS.

That's because they are doing good things for you while you're not busy, like defragging/optimising your drive(s), searching for better wi-fi signals and other stuff that actually helps you.

I also notice the efficiency difference between Reaper and Studio One, optimised vs? This is evident when using Acustica and other high demand products, optimisation can't be a bad thing.

OTOH, Studio One rarely manages to get over 50% CPU use, even on our most demanding songs, so why would I worry that Reaper might be a few percent lower than that? The differencebetween 50% and 45% is meaningless.

Analogy, a tuned sports car vs a model direct from a showroom. One might be better at racing and the other for commuting.

That's optimising them for different purposes. If I was going to optimise my computer for anything, it wouldn't be audio, which it handles very easily. I might be tempted to put it into Aircraft Mode if I had a few big 3D renders to do but I doubt it would save me more than a few minutes in an overnight render. My best bet would be ensuring all my drivers were up to date and the settings were optimised for the task at hand, same as I do for my audio I/O device.

If I look at my Task Manager right now, the only background services using any CPU at all are the anti-malware service in Defender, because I have a browser open, and my audio device, which is using 0.1% of my available CPU power. Nothing else is using any CPU at all, apart from Edge and Studio One, which has four songs loaded and is playing one. Interestingly, where S1 is reporting CPU usage in the range of 30-36%, Task Manager is telling me it's only 12-18% most of the time, with small spikes as high as 26%. Utilisation is really good, too, with all 8 threads showing similar levels of activity.

That's the thing, there was a time when I would never have even thought about running any other application when I was doing music but these days I've pretty much always got a browser open and I usually have Xara Designer Pro open, too, so I can flit between the music and artwork for it, or modify set lists or whatever, and none of that affects Studio One, so I see no reason to worry about anything that might be going on in the background when I've got all that shit happening in the foreground.

[The Noodlist]

^^
Great reply, very logical.

[chk071]

As I mentioned, say goodbye to the thought that software isn't optimized. Or, that the one software is optimized, and the other isn't. They all go through an optimization process during development. Especially real time audio software. Everyone who tells you something else is just BS'ing you.

Reagrding Reaper: It has a lot less going on than other DAW's (lot less running in the background than in Cubase, for example). I don't doubt that it's very efficiently coded though. After all, the people behind it are really good at what they're doing. Even though I will never be a fan of Reaper.

[uOpt]

FreeBSD. "A little" iffy for audio use tho

[uOpt]

Computers are more powerful, how much is wasted on unnecessary services and apps?
I also notice computers using more resources when idling compared to older OS.

I really don't think this is true.

A good way for me to measure this is virtual machines. I have the common OSes in virtual machines and I can see the total resource usage on the host OS.

Windows, MacOS, Linux and FreeBSD are all idling around complete idle. Practically no CPU taken. Windows takes more RAM of course, but the processes are just sitting there doing nothing, so they wouldn't interfere with audio work.

[jackoo]

Win8 uses one-third fewer system reesources than Win7 and half the resources of XP.

Sorry, but this sentence is complete and utter rubbish!

[The Noodlist]

Win8 uses one-third fewer system reesources than Win7 and half the resources of XP.

Sorry, but this sentence is complete and utter rubbish!

1% system resource in 2005 is different to 1% today. The test would be both OS installed on the same modern machine then benchmarked.

[chk071]

Win8 uses one-third fewer system reesources than Win7 and half the resources of XP.

Sorry, but this sentence is complete and utter rubbish!

1% system resource in 2005 is different to 1% today. The test would be both OS installed on the same modern machine then benchmarked.

Might not even be possible, if the older or newer computer don't support the older or newer OS, driver wise.

[jackoo]

Win8 uses one-third fewer system reesources than Win7 and half the resources of XP.

Sorry, but this sentence is complete and utter rubbish!

1% system resource in 2005 is different to 1% today. The test would be both OS installed on the same modern machine then benchmarked.

Well ok, if you put it as "As today I've started to have a million dollars (and.... now everybody is a millionaire), the 120 dollar product I pay for now is less pricey than the 100 dollar product I bought yesterday", then it might make some? sense. But I don't know if that was the original idea behind saying that the OS gets more efficient.