Tracktion Software

P.T. · Post by **P.T.** » Thu May 12, 2005 7:04 pm

Some of us are on win98 and will need new computers and a new operating system to upgrade to T2, unless Jules is successful in his attempt to make T2 win98 compatible.

rpc9943 · Post by **rpc9943** » Thu May 12, 2005 8:03 pm

its time to upgrade to winxp. Even on a older computer. It'll work. I run my 500mhz laptop on winxp sp2 and it runs smoother than on win98. stop being scared.

RoNC

P.T. · Post by **P.T.** » Thu May 12, 2005 8:33 pm

rpc9943 wrote:its time to upgrade to winxp. Even on a older computer. It'll work. I run my 500mhz laptop on winxp sp2 and it runs smoother than on win98. stop being scared.

RoNC

Mine is 500 mhz also.

How much ram do you have? How much ram does xp need compared to win98?

valley · Post by **valley** » Thu May 12, 2005 8:36 pm

RAM is the main crunch. You'll need *at least* 256MB to be comfortable.

Speed is less of an issue once you disable all the eye candy.

braj · Post by **braj** » Thu May 12, 2005 8:38 pm

It's really hard to call anything in XP eye candy though. Even on a fast machine it is best to turn it off.

diverdee · Post by **diverdee** » Thu May 12, 2005 8:41 pm

My pc boots up with only around 80 meg or so of ram in use - after all the tweaks etc., might be less - it's a while since i've checked & i found a couple of other services i could disable.
Vanilla xp is ram hungry, & it's positively ravenous if you are using Norton sytemworks etc., once it's all tweaked though it isn't so bad.

edit:nope - around 44 meg, it goes up to around 80 once the firewall is on & i'm surfing

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Thu May 12, 2005 9:04 pm

braj wrote:It's really hard to call anything in XP eye candy though. Even on a fast machine it is best to turn it off.

Which bits do you recommend disabling, just out of interest? I've disabled various things such as background services I don't need, etc, but kept some of the "eye candy" (e.g. the 3D Start menu button, etc). Which things have you disabled where you noticed a particular performance improvement?

braj · Post by **braj** » Thu May 12, 2005 9:14 pm

headquest wrote:
braj wrote:It's really hard to call anything in XP eye candy though. Even on a fast machine it is best to turn it off.
Which bits do you recommend disabling, just out of interest? I've disabled various things such as background services I don't need, etc, but kept some of the "eye candy" (e.g. the 3D Start menu button, etc). Which things have you disabled where you noticed a particular performance improvement?

Everything. Rt-Click My Computer>Properties>Advanced>Performance. Turn everything off.

I use an app that gives windows shadows because that actually aids in usability (distinguishing stuff like plug-un GUIs from the background. I'd rather take a performance hit for that than animated menus and that ugly blue interface nastiness.

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Thu May 12, 2005 9:28 pm

Thanks for clarifying braj. I don't notice a major improvement in performance when I disable this stuff (i.e. not a discernable difference in track count/VSTs I can run with or without). But next time I run into CPU problems I'll try again.

Switching off some other tasks in task manager, and reassigning power schemes (I'm on a lappy) did make a major difference to me a while back when I went through *the tweaks*

By the way, I hate the blue too! I tend to swap around between the silver and the olive green.

valley · Post by **valley** » Thu May 12, 2005 9:36 pm

I tend to set everything off, but then I enable a few things such as drop-shadow.

In win2k-alike mode, WinXp runs much smoother on older machines, and when screen real-estate is a premium.

Disabling unecessary services and background tasks makes the biggest difference of course.

Karbon L. Forms · Post by **Karbon L. Forms** » Thu May 12, 2005 9:39 pm

good lord. are people still using 98 and stuff?

thats funny. if so. aint read whole fred...

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Fri May 13, 2005 1:50 am

Back to the topic:

Looks like everyone should be saving their masters and hopefully we can re-render later at higher quality after a patch is issued.

rpc9943 · Post by **rpc9943** » Fri May 13, 2005 3:03 am

256mb ram, on my 500mhz. use musicxp.com or whatever they have all the settings to setting up a daw.

just do it.

RonC

IIRs · Post by **IIRs** » Fri May 13, 2005 8:25 am

Frippertronix wrote:Back to the topic:

Looks like everyone should be saving their masters and hopefully we can re-render later at higher quality after a patch is issued.

There's always TapeIt..

P.T. · Post by **P.T.** » Fri May 13, 2005 8:44 am

Should I use Tape it for all rendering, or is this a problem only for certain types of audio?

Tracktion Software

KVR Audio

Rendering in T is not as perfect as I thought