Calm yerself Dan... it's all good.

Some of us like our x64 Win 7's

 

Geez Dan, all that typing and you're still not being particularly helpful to anyone here . . take that shit to the Microsoft technet forums bro, that's where it belongs

Just kidding, it was awesome! But I think you'll find that musicians and engineers aren't interesting in dicking around with patching kernels of old operating systems. If YOU wanna dick around with it then go for it, but you'll make more friends at the technet forums than here

So, to summarise what we can take from this thread:

Get a computer system that fits your production needs and use it to make music, OR: dick around patching OS kernels until it makes you angry . . . like Dan!

 

They dont.

There is no 64bit edition of Starter.



PS: Never used a 64bit system in my life and never missed anything.

Will probably stay with 32bit forever.

 

Now now Captain... seems pretty obvious to me that your missing... 32 bits...

 

Don't get pushed by the hype

Since not a single person posted why microsoft licences kernel ram limitations on their OS since windows NT Server 4.0!! I rest my case

Windows 2003 Server ADS 192 gigs of ram support and is a 32 bit OS.

Again 64 bit was not just about ram support, it was to stop using PAE as that could only be used on server boards as the consumer garbage boards are always locked down so you can't use all the server features WHICH INCLUDES the proper PAE support!!
with 64 bit now you can confuse the consumers into thinking whatever info you tell them. Which explains why none of you know anything about kernel ram licences aka Microsoft and Apple.


Windows 7 ram limits ( includes 64 bit editions)

Version Limit on X86 Limit on X64

Windows 7 Ultimate 4 GB 192 GB
Windows 7 Enterprise 4 GB 192 GB
Windows 7 Professional 4 GB 192 GB
Windows 7 Home Premium 4 GB 16 GB (wtf)
Windows 7 Home Basic 4 GB 8 GB (wtf)

Now will send you a money transfer if you can now explain why a 64 bit OS only supports 16 gigs or 8 gigs of ram only.

Microsoft has been doing this since Windows NT4 Server.

They limited the amount of ram you can install based on the version and not on the 64bit goddam limit!!!! which is 192

When people talk, listen with a filter, may learn something


This is the reason why I don't do anymore network admin support, too much bullshit with intentional limitations on purpose in order to get you to buy useless shit.

Topics like this are very important as they bring out information that may not been around before




So run along now children next week is as400 server stories lol

 

I wrote this out then decided to put heading in it cause it's long
brackets () contain mostly side notes and oppinions

Now we're getting back to things I can join in the arguement with.
Micro-controllers, lets see how much I can remeber.

reason for not much change in process speed
Everytime you create a faster processor chip, you need to make things for it.
a stable clock at the new speed (the power supply for the chip)
and a system to deal with the increased heat (faster clock = more power. more power = more heat. too much heat = chip breaks down)


To start with Processors haven't gotten any slower, they've frozen at the speeds.
This is because no one's found the tecnology to do what's needed to create fater chips. I don't know what stage their at but normally when you hear about it, the problem is heat and last time they used a new semi conductor to deal with the problem.

what has changed
The tecnology is still moveing on and that is mostly in the way of size. The 3 GHz processor can bee made much smaller then it could be 5 years ago.
This advancement has resulted in it being able to be linked to other processor cips. ie. the same size processor now holds the occilator for the clocking signal and 2 to 4 microcontrolers that perform the processes.

If you have a intel I5 you have 5 chips in your processor, 1 to controll and 4 to perform tasks.
If you have a intel I7 then you have 5 chips, 1 to control and 4 that opperate as 8 most the I5's chips most of the time. This is what them mean by 4 core 8 virtual core.


why they've done it
The reason for this chosen path is due to the fact that no opperating system will only run the process that you've chosen.

Opperating systems with no background processes went away with command line based opperating systems. (I don't know Lynix so I may be wrong)
When you had to tell the PC

mount C:\
mount ProgramFiles\
mount Steinberg\
run Cubase.exe

Just to open the cubase (I didn't use pc's then, I'm only 20, but it'll do as an example. cubase proberly didn't exsist)
It only had the process of what you've said happen

once graphical interfaces where introduced the need for more then 1 process at a time came about. This is because just to show a desktop and folders you need a process (explorer.exe for windows).


Take windows XP as an example (since I can actually remeber more of this one)

you have approximately 28 opperating system processes (if I remeber right)
on top of them you'll have your anti-viruse
what ever you've installed that runs all the time
and the program your running.

so we'll give the processes of the opperating system numbers 1 to 28.
the anti-viruse can be process 29 and 30 (most have more then 2 processes but we'll just have 2 for this)
we'll pretend there's no extra background programs ( I've really seen a PC like it but it's and example)
and then the program you want's process.

single core processors manage by switching tasks.
The windows opperating system defaultly has your process as more important so will come up more often.
it will do it something like this.
process 1, your program, 2, antivirus, 3, 4, your program, 5, 6, 7, 8, your program, 9, anti viruse, 10, 11, your program.....ect

a twin core processo will do it the same but as it has more cores, your program's process comes up more often.

core 1 - 1, your program, 2, antivirus, 3, 4, your program, 5, 6, 7, 8, your program.....ect
core 2 - 20, 21, 23, your progem, 24, 25, 26, 27, your program, 28, anti-virus, 01.....ect
(these where lined up but it keeps removeing my spaces)

A Note about your systems
I know a lot of you go into the properties and set the background programs to be equal to the programs you've chosen.
This is because AISO drivers are a background process and to run better on slow processors you must have them running more often then once every 50 odd cycles threw the tasks.
With background tasks equal to your program the cpu will simple run threw the tasks 1 to 28, andti-viruse, your task, then back threw 1 to 28.

Just by looking at the 2 cores you can see how much more often parts of your programs process is done. If you got more cores its done faster.

The thing to remeber is the clock speed is the speed the parts are done at. the clock speed is the 2 GHZ, 2.5GHZ or 3GHz bit. The fastest clock spped hasn't really changed much so copying files takes almost the same time now as it did 5 years ago. This is because the multi-core processor can't do 1 task any fater then 1 core processor of the same clock speed dose 1 task.
The increase in core has however increased the speed and smoothness of performance when working with your complexed programs with the extra processes from plugin's.

If your planning on useing a PC for music you need the newer processors, mostly just to manage the ASIO driver and program. This is without takeing into account any extra plugin's and stuff so don't start complaining about Processors as well as 64bit opperating systems.

What I use
I used a 1 core processor (Intel P4 3.03 GHz) up untill I built this PC (Intel I5 3.33GHz). I try'd a Multi core processor with 2.52 GHz and before I built this machine and I felt the drop in speed. Keep the same clock speed and you feel a massive increase most of the time in speed.

(So far in my life I've only gotten a hole new machine once every 8 years and I can't see 32 bit holding out for 7 more years so I built a 64 bit system)

Diffeance between theorectical speed and what you get
If you go from a 5 GHz processor Machine to a machine with 5 1GHz processors you will find it rediculusly slow, even though the theoretical speed of the processors are the same (theoretical and practical are not the same). The max speed is 5 GHz for a task in the first machine and 1 GHz in the second.
Its not hard to remeber to at least keep at the same speed when you buy a new machine.

I stick by my earlier statement of we're all going 64bit because we're upgradeing. We don't like doing it and most can't afford to do it every year. So we get the least likely to go out of date.
at the moment its 64bit.
A few years time it'll be 128 bit. Iit's all about reduceing the likelyness to update again soon.


Sorry I'm not good at spelling and punctuation.
There's alot of writeing, so forgive me for any mistakes.
I'm off to bed


before I go I forgot to say, microsoft started limiting so that you do't use new untested hardwear. The windows 98 first edition would install a hard drive of 20 GB's but was unable to use it, it would error and crash when ever it try'd to use it.
They made a update to provided the system with a error message when the new hardwear came out.
People without internet to update contacted them an complained. To prevent this happening they created the limits in XP. Stopping people doing what isn't tested.

I don't know what your on about Windows 7 starter but to me it sounds like a demo version.
I thought Windows 7 Home premium was the basic version, thats what I've got and I've been able to use all my 8GB's of memory

 

lol finally someone is reading Windows 7 Home basic supports only up to 8 gigs ( your board may let you install more of course but it will not be available to use unless you patch the kernel)
This is the issue I am talking about there are imposed limits and they should not be there as this pushes new " must upgrades to useless shit"

Like I said all the Titanic digital scenes back in 1996 were rendered on render farms running 32 bit with 36 bit extensions Intel alpha chips with linux servers.

So this is 1996 and now it's 2012 64 bit is old and kind of useless unless we get opened hardware mobos, as of right now they are still too "locked up"

And yes all my machines are 64 bit as that's all you can buy now but all of them have 32 bit OS
all have dual boots with ubuntu and one (video editing has windows 7 64bit due to adobe premiere native 64 bit only, it is slow man the 32 bit flew faster on the older version)

We are in this mess due to the graphics card companies, since memory swapping 1 gig video cards memory is very demanding on the mobo and ram.

128 bit is coming we all know that but oh well will be forced at the last minute I guess

 

who the hell uses 7 basic??

Dan, get with the times, and stop referring to people as children eh? *no*

 

not sure why this turned mostly into ram talk. i load up cubase5, battery, kontakt5 and still only use 30%ram at this point. aka 1.2gb from 3.5gb.

if u r smart u can get away with 32bit easy, it'a simpler and works smooth so u 8/16gig heads i think u need to not overintoxicate your productions.

work smarter.

 

Try 6 instances of Kontakt, Omnisphere, Tirlian, and RMX, then throw on some Waves plugs, stutter edit, a loaded drum rack, 4 sends with various effects....25-30 tracks...

a couple of gigs of ram and an old OS wont get you too far..

 

A link to the patched kernel would be handy

 

dan01
just want to say this loudly that a 32 bit os with 4 gig ram is really all you need.


Well if you have a x86 setup with 4g of ram all you will use is 3g that's max with windows os and programs so you have lost a gig all ready, for instance windows will use say 800mb leaving 2.2 gig for programs.

where as x64 setup with 8g say you will use again 800mb for windows os and you are using 32bit programs you will get the full 3g limit for that program so thats gaining 800mb all ready witch is handy when using with spectrasonics omnisphere.

x86 max ram 3gig
x64 max ram 128gig

One reason

"Try 6 instances of Kontakt, Omnisphere, Tirlian, and RMX, then throw on some Waves plugs, stutter edit, a loaded drum rack, 4 sends with various effects....25-30 tracks...

a couple of gigs of ram and an old OS wont get you too far.. "

dam right and and that bouncing down won't get you to far as well

 

RAM so cheap +
windows 7 X64

It's like having no limits. Don't buy the i7, get the i5 and buy ram instead is what I say to everyone.

 

yeah i have 8gb ram but choose 32bit, i3 @ 3.10 ghz is pretty decent if anything i'd upgrade processor but i never see it struggle. i'll soon install omnisphere/trillian and also kontakt can have like many instruments per 1 instance why u load 5?? might post test result an see how i go.

tip: just run your sequencer alone to reduce mem usage.

"i use win7 pro 32 bit, not XP"

 

So your useing 8 Gb's of RAM and a I3 processor on a 32bit XP? If your PC is stable no wonder its fater, win 7 uses more of its resorces then XP.

I nearly try'd that till I got advised against doing it by my electronics lecturer. A professor at a university tells me not to and I'm incline to listern.
It was something about the processors instruction set not being supported by the opperating system, I think.

It was the begining of last year so it no suprise I can't remeber.

If it's stable for you go for it.
For me it took me way to long to get the money for this PC and I spend way to long on my music to risk eather being lost due to a stability issue.

I study electronics and music in my spair time. I don't study Computers so there's alot I don't know

 

just out of curiosity,,,where did u find 192 gb ramsticks and a mobo that supports them?

 

All the Server MOBOS are unlocked unlike the crap for normal consumers. Unless you have worked in the Server IT field ( 10 years), you don't know the "imposed on purpose" limits put on hardware and software for the normal consumers.

The ram limits are not an issue like they used to be, in order to use the FULL 192 gigs of ram on server boards ( with windows 2003 ADS Server 32 bit ) you had to buy the boards from "****" that kind of nonsense, as only those boards "****" supported hardware PAE.

With PAE with do not need this 64 bit crap bullshit, WE NEED 32 bit apps with 36 bit extentions not fuckin 64 bit apps!!!

I dare anybody to a challenge make a 32 bit app add 36 bit extensions and that fuckin app will access 192 gigs !!! that's the limit for 36 bit!!! Servers use these apps all the time

I think that most people have no clue at all about this 64 bit issue, it was all a hype for hardware and software sales and morons bought into it cold, lined and SINKERED!!!

I am okay with my 16 gigs of ram and I use it all if I want, instead of running tracks from the hard drive why don't you make a RAM drive and load all your tracks in there??

NO CHOKEUPS on editing and playback!! what 200+ tracks with no issues.

This ram feature has been in samplitude for years. I wonder why the other DAWS have not had this... mmmm perhaps tied to hardware and stroking too much.. lol

Anyways 64 bit is for lamers and fools
Make 32 bit apps with 36 bit extensions, open up the mobos with PAE and all your limits go away.

 

exactly run audio from a ssd! cause ssd is memory based..grow brains you won't use 3gb of system ram like this.

 

hold up a second, are you suggesting useing a SSD drive as RAM? How much money do you have to wast?

RAM is basic trasnsistors, their just switches, they don't work without power.
SSD hard drive use Transistor based flash tecnology. They wear out.

If you start treating a SSD hard drive as RAM, load stuff in for temporery use then clearing it, you'll drematically shorten its life span.
Flash tecnology is not for infinite use. Hence the fact that it's been used as file transfer tecnology for so long and not instantly used as permanent storage.

EEPROM was Flash's predecessor, we didn't made hard drives out of it as it had a slightly shorter life span, worked for less wright, clear rewrights. It wasn't even used as memory sticks.

SSD hard drives are made to hold permanent files. Opperating system and programs, stuff thats rarely changes. You can store samples on it to quickerly load them into your RAM for use but it'll die after a few months if you use it as RAM.


Any way changeing from 32bit to 64bit allows for more then just memory increase. If we go back to dan's complaint about processors, 64bit allows for approximately 4,294,967,296 more words to be added to the processors instruction set.
If you give it a 64bit word that's says write data location to CD it'll write much faster then it did when it had to do 1 word for spin disc, then another for load data from location, then a 3rd for write data, then a 4th to stop disc.
Increaseing the instruction set will allow faster processing from the same speed processor's, I don't really know if this is whats slowing down older processor's cause I don't work for Intel or AMD.

The new I3, I5 and I7 are all 64bit processors. So have 64bit word instruction sets. limiting it to only it's basic words in it's instruction set is what dan01 is doing by useing a I3 at 32bit. He'll never get the full speed of his Intel I3 processor but it's fast enough for him anyway.
Loading a bigger opperating system and haveing to convert programs from 32bit uses more processing power then what he'd be gaining so he's best staying 32bit, I can accsept that.

But useing flash tecnology for RAM is a foolish wast of money.
Use it for storage and it's almost instant transfer of data to RAM but never in as a actuall format of RAM. Your PC will clear it all out when it sets up and it's only got so meny uses of each transistor switch

 

I won't even bother that Microsoft sold millions of windows 2003 ads server 32 bit that supported 192 gigs of ram!!!

I leave you with the Microsoft IMPOSED limits on windows 7

Again why is microsoft limiting 64 bit ram support? Since 64 bit supports more ram "64 biters out there" then explain the limits on the windows 7 editions of 64 bit
They have been doing this since NT4 server FYI!!!
By the way PAE has been around for decades
There are no limits to anything, there are only imposed limits.

Take a special look at the Home Premium and the Home basic editions

and the starter does exist in 64 bit it is on the overseas markets ( seen it in europe on vacation last year) and it's limited to 2 gigs x86 and 64 bit

From the horses mouth

Physical Address Extension (PAE) is a processor feature that enables x86 processors to access more than 4 GB of physical memory on capable versions of Windows. Certain 32-bit versions of Windows Server running on x86-based systems can use PAE to access up to 64 GB or 128 GB of physical memory, depending on the physical address size of the processor.


Enabling PAE

Windows automatically enables PAE if DEP is enabled on a computer that supports hardware-enabled DEP, or if the computer is configured for hot-add memory devices in memory ranges beyond 4 GB. If the computer does not support hardware-enabled DEP or is not configured for hot-add memory devices in memory ranges beyond 4 GB, PAE must be explicitly enabled.

To explicitly enable PAE, use the following BCDEdit /set command to set the pae boot entry option:

bcdedit /set [{ID}] pae ForceEnable

IF DEP is enabled, PAE cannot be disabled. Use the following BCDEdit /set commands to disable both DEP and PAE:

bcdedit /set [{ID}] nx AlwaysOff
bcdedit /set [{ID}] pae ForceDisable

Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP: To enable PAE, use the /PAE switch in the boot.ini file. To disable PAE, use the /NOPAE switch. To disable DEP, use the /EXECUTE switch "