Fine Tuning Windows?

RickZ wrote on 9/22/2000, 6:43 AM

Hi Brian,

Many sources have recommended disabling Virt Mem as part of a 'tips
and tricks for audio use', but I found out the hard way that Vegas is
actually optimized to run on default settings of Win9x. Currently
I'm specifying the size of VirtMem, so that a paging file does exist,
but using same max and min, so Win9x doesn't periodically try to
resize on its own. Between that and rearranging my cards to get the
audio card its own IRQ, I've eliminated my problems of 1)sporadic
stopping in the middle of recording, and 2) exceptions that kill the
prog. Also set power mgmt to always on for everything.

Re Win2k, it depends a lot on your audio interface. On one system I
have DAL CardDeluxe, another RME DIGI96. DAL says no-can-do W2K
driver because MS has introduced a layer that can cause latency over
30 ms. RME says they've conquered the problem and their driver gets
latency under 3 ms.
DAL - www.digitalaudio.com, RME - www.rme-audio.com/english.

I've been building up my PC's from components lately, and bought
Win98SE OEM CD from www.microx-press.com for about $100. Probably
the best 'tune-up' is a fresh install, and with that CD I don't have
to go back to Win95 or Win98, the upgrade etc.

Sorry so long winded, hope this helps . .
Regards,
Rick Z

Brian Franz wrote:
>>Does anyone know how to fine tune windows or have any
>>pointers, so that audio works at its best performance on
>>Windows 98. I've used Cubase VST in the past and have found
>>forums that descibe settings in windows to cutdown on system
>>background activity so that your audio programs run
>>smoother. I believe it has to do with all the file cacheing
>>that windows does. So now that I'm using Vegas I'm
>>wondering if there's any tweaks I can adjust in windows so
>>that everything runs smooth and has the least amount of
>>crashing for Vegas. I'm using seperate hard drives for my
>>programs and audio already and I defragment on a regular
>>basis. I also use SCSI drives to record on. I want to
>>upgrade to Win2k because I read that Win2k uses the speed of
>>my SCSI drives better. I'm kinda leary about doing the the
>>upgrade to win2k because I'm afraid that some of my DX
>>plugins or other software may not work, so I would like to
>>fine tune Win98 first. Then maybe I'll roll the dice and try
>>Win2k.

karlc wrote on 9/22/2000, 7:17 AM

Most of the time it is not the software that you have to worry about
with Win2K (except for some programs like CD Direct), but Win2K
drivers for your hardware.

Do a carefull check on the net for all your hardware, particularly
your sound and SCSI card, to see if Win2K drivers are available. Read
the fine print because there are Win2K drivers for cards like the
Delta cards that may have some exclusions for running under Win2K
with certain hardware configurations.

We have been running VV hard now for a month under Win2K Pro on a
dual processor machine and have not had one incident of gapping or a
much as single hiccup. It is amazingly solid. If you decide to make
the jump, I would definitely go with Win2K Pro and not Server as Pro
seems to require less resources and runs a good deal faster in my
experience.

In short, if your hardware has the drivers available, you will doing
yourself a favor by stepping up to Win2K.

BTW, according to SF Vegas does not need to be fine tuned for Win9x
like other audio software as it was designed to run under the stock
configuration. Other than having your swap file on the fasted drive,
there is probably not much that you can do that is going to make a
cumulative difference under Win9x.

KAC ...

Brian Franz wrote:

>>my SCSI drives better. I'm kinda leary about doing the the
>>upgrade to win2k because I'm afraid that some of my DX
>>plugins or other software may not work, so I would like to
>>fine tune Win98 first. Then maybe I'll roll the dice and try
>>Win2k.

MacMoney wrote on 9/22/2000, 8:21 AM

Hello All
I also tried fine tuning my 98se system and it seem to make it run
worse, I have 512mb ram and I disabled VM,I ran OK but when I opened
up Cakewalk to sync to VV I started to see some problems, So I set my
VM to 512mb and everything is stock. Also on this system I don't have
alot of crap ONLY the music programs that I use. No modems, No screen
savers etc.There's nothing running in the background other than
Explorer and Systray. There was some other stuff I did but I don't
remmber,I read it off of a Steinberg forum a while back. With my
system stock it's very solid, great track count,I run a lot of trk
fx's and 4 to 6 buss fx's on the MOTU I/O's. As a matter of fact im
waiting MOTU to get off their ass with Win2k drivers.I heard good and
bad things about Win2k and WinMe. So i'll waite and see.
I hope this helps

George Ware

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>Most of the time it is not the software that you have to worry
about
>>with Win2K (except for some programs like CD Direct), but Win2K
>>drivers for your hardware.
>>
>>Do a carefull check on the net for all your hardware, particularly
>>your sound and SCSI card, to see if Win2K drivers are available.
Read
>>the fine print because there are Win2K drivers for cards like the
>>Delta cards that may have some exclusions for running under Win2K
>>with certain hardware configurations.
>>
>>We have been running VV hard now for a month under Win2K Pro on a
>>dual processor machine and have not had one incident of gapping or
a
>>much as single hiccup. It is amazingly solid. If you decide to make
>>the jump, I would definitely go with Win2K Pro and not Server as
Pro
>>seems to require less resources and runs a good deal faster in my
>>experience.
>>
>>In short, if your hardware has the drivers available, you will
doing
>>yourself a favor by stepping up to Win2K.
>>
>>BTW, according to SF Vegas does not need to be fine tuned for Win9x
>>like other audio software as it was designed to run under the stock
>>configuration. Other than having your swap file on the fasted
drive,
>>there is probably not much that you can do that is going to make a
>>cumulative difference under Win9x.
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>Brian Franz wrote:
>>
>>>>my SCSI drives better. I'm kinda leary about doing the the
>>>>upgrade to win2k because I'm afraid that some of my DX
>>>>plugins or other software may not work, so I would like to
>>>>fine tune Win98 first. Then maybe I'll roll the dice and try
>>>>Win2k.

gmarrero wrote on 9/22/2000, 11:46 AM

I recently upgraded to Win2kpro:
It is definitely more solid than any of it's predecessors. W9x and
(winMe) are as strong and stable as an uncooked egg, while win2k is
more like a hard-boiled egg. note: they are still eggs and if left
unattended, they both tend to stink. I don't run games and I did find
all the necessary win2k drivers. Check with your hardware
manufacturers for win2k drivers and/or compatibility issues.

Things that slow systems down:
Antivirus software
Microsoft Office
Norton Anything
DisKeeper

Remember: Just about every program writes to the Registry (A flawed
design) The larger the registry, the longer the boot time and the
systems seems to run more like a little piggy. This is why so many
people suggest reinstalling W every 6 months....I never had this
problem with DOS 3.3.... As for SF office politics: Musicians and audio professionals are a niche market (small and limited revenue)but, 'almost everyone' is obsessed with producing web content. Q: Where do you think the big bucks are? A: Definitely not the niche market. This is a publicly traded company that has to make its numbers, so it can pay back its shareholders. It is no different from any other business. It's clear that SF is going in the direction of media streaming and optimization for the web. (I really do not have any intention of heading in that direction because to me, the web is a tool for information, not entertainment. I don't even surf with the audio on... Shockwave? Shockthis!) I think SF has found a way to simplify the creation, editing, and publishing of A/V media and has done it for a reasonable price, which has enabled just about every schmo be able to use it with minimal effort. Try to find the hardware equivalent of the above and see what a chunk of change it'll cost you. (and then learn how to use it) While I would love to own a couple of ADAT XT20s, a big`ol mixing console, and a wall of effects and cables....At this point, for me it makes more sense to do it all out of my PC with a good power amp and some quality nearfields. But.....If and when SF pisses me off by discontinuing a product that I use AND not make a public announcement about it, I will simply move on. And.... I think the next release of SoundForge will probably be more videocentric with big focus on web content creation. Do you think they might finally add 24bit support? What a shame.... My apologies for the long-winded post. George ____________________________________________________________________ George Ware wrote: >>Hello All >>I also tried fine tuning my 98se system and it seem to make it run >>worse, I have 512mb ram and I disabled VM,I ran OK but when I opened >>up Cakewalk to sync to VV I started to see some problems, So I set my >>VM to 512mb and everything is stock. Also on this system I don't have >>alot of crap ONLY the music programs that I use. No modems, No screen >>savers etc.There's nothing running in the background other than >>Explorer and Systray. There was some other stuff I did but I don't >>remmber,I read it off of a Steinberg forum a while back. With my >>system stock it's very solid, great track count,I run a lot of trk >>fx's and 4 to 6 buss fx's on the MOTU I/O's. As a matter of fact im >>waiting MOTU to get off their ass with Win2k drivers.I heard good and >>bad things about Win2k and WinMe. So i'll waite and see. >>I hope this helps >> >>George Ware >> >> >> >>Karl Caillouet wrote: >>>>Most of the time it is not the software that you have to worry >>about >>>>with Win2K (except for some programs like CD Direct), but Win2K >>>>drivers for your hardware. >>>> >>>>Do a carefull check on the net for all your hardware, particularly >>>>your sound and SCSI card, to see if Win2K drivers are available. >>Read >>>>the fine print because there are Win2K drivers for cards like the >>>>Delta cards that may have some exclusions for running under Win2K >>>>with certain hardware configurations. >>>> >>>>We have been running VV hard now for a month under Win2K Pro on a >>>>dual processor machine and have not had one incident of gapping or >>a >>>>much as single hiccup. It is amazingly solid. If you decide to make >>>>the jump, I would definitely go with Win2K Pro and not Server as >>Pro >>>>seems to require less resources and runs a good deal faster in my >>>>experience. >>>> >>>>In short, if your hardware has the drivers available, you will >>doing >>>>yourself a favor by stepping up to Win2K. >>>> >>>>BTW, according to SF Vegas does not need to be fine tuned for Win9x >>>>like other audio software as it was designed to run under the stock >>>>configuration. Other than having your swap file on the fasted >>drive, >>>>there is probably not much that you can do that is going to make a >>>>cumulative difference under Win9x. >>>> >>>>KAC ... >>>> >>>>Brian Franz wrote: >>>> >>>>>>my SCSI drives better. I'm kinda leary about doing the the >>>>>>upgrade to win2k because I'm afraid that some of my DX >>>>>>plugins or other software may not work, so I would like to >>>>>>fine tune Win98 first. Then maybe I'll roll the dice and try >>>>>>Win2k.

Rednroll wrote on 9/22/2000, 2:37 PM

Thank you everyone for your post, they have been most informative.
It looks like I will attempt win2k Pro like suggested in the near
future. I am running dual Gina Sound Cards and a Tekram Scsi Card. I
believe the last time I was at Echo's site it said it was in beta
testing for a win2K driver for its sound cards. So there looks like
my first steps checking Echos and Tekram driver support.

And George I believe you are most correct on that software list in
slowing your system down. I did install Microsoft word out of that
list but none of the rest of the MS office tools. I have noticed in
the past after installing Norton Utilities that my system slowed down
and seemed to run into problems on a regular basis, that Norton was
always fixing. It seemed like norton created problems and then fixed
them temporarly to show that you made a wise investment. I definitely
have stopped loading games on my computer, because I've notice the
slow performance and the problems they created. I went out and
bought a Sony Playstation, so when I work, I now use my computer and
when I play I use the Playstation, computers just aren't truly
multitasking like they're suppose to be.

George Marrero wrote:
>>I recently upgraded to Win2kpro:
>>It is definitely more solid than any of it's predecessors. W9x and
>>(winMe) are as strong and stable as an uncooked egg, while win2k is
>>more like a hard-boiled egg. note: they are still eggs and if left
>>unattended, they both tend to stink. I don't run games and I did
find
>>all the necessary win2k drivers. Check with your hardware
>>manufacturers for win2k drivers and/or compatibility issues.
>>
>>Things that slow systems down:
>>Antivirus software
>>Microsoft Office
>>Norton Anything
>>DisKeeper
>>
>>Remember: Just about every program writes to the Registry (A flawed
>>design) The larger the registry, the longer the boot time and the
>>systems seems to run more like a little piggy. This is why so many
>>people suggest reinstalling W every 6 months....I never had this
>>problem with DOS 3.3.... >> >>As for SF office politics: >>Musicians and audio professionals are a niche market (small and >>limited revenue)but, 'almost everyone' is obsessed with producing web >>content. >>Q: Where do you think the big bucks are? >>A: Definitely not the niche market. >> >>This is a publicly traded company that has to make its numbers, so it >>can pay back its shareholders. It is no different from any other >>business. >> >>It's clear that SF is going in the direction of media streaming and >>optimization for the web. (I really do not have any intention of >>heading in that direction because to me, the web is a tool for >>information, not entertainment. I don't even surf with the audio >>on... Shockwave? Shockthis!) >> >>I think SF has found a way to simplify the creation, editing, and >>publishing of A/V media and has done it for a reasonable price, which >>has enabled just about every schmo be able to use it with minimal >>effort. Try to find the hardware equivalent of the above and see what >>a chunk of change it'll cost you. (and then learn how to use it) >> >>While I would love to own a couple of ADAT XT20s, a big`ol mixing >>console, and a wall of effects and cables....At this point, for me it >>makes more sense to do it all out of my PC with a good power amp and >>some quality nearfields. >> >>But.....If and when SF pisses me off by discontinuing a product that >>I use AND not make a public announcement about it, I will simply move >>on. >> >>And.... I think the next release of SoundForge will probably be more >>videocentric with big focus on web content creation. Do you think >>they might finally add 24bit support? What a shame.... >> >>My apologies for the long-winded post. >>George >>____________________________________________________________________ >>George Ware wrote: >>>>Hello All >>>>I also tried fine tuning my 98se system and it seem to make it run >>>>worse, I have 512mb ram and I disabled VM,I ran OK but when I >>opened >>>>up Cakewalk to sync to VV I started to see some problems, So I set >>my >>>>VM to 512mb and everything is stock. Also on this system I don't >>have >>>>alot of crap ONLY the music programs that I use. No modems, No >>screen >>>>savers etc.There's nothing running in the background other than >>>>Explorer and Systray. There was some other stuff I did but I don't >>>>remmber,I read it off of a Steinberg forum a while back. With my >>>>system stock it's very solid, great track count,I run a lot of trk >>>>fx's and 4 to 6 buss fx's on the MOTU I/O's. As a matter of fact im >>>>waiting MOTU to get off their ass with Win2k drivers.I heard good >>and >>>>bad things about Win2k and WinMe. So i'll waite and see. >>>>I hope this helps >>>> >>>>George Ware >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Karl Caillouet wrote: >>>>>>Most of the time it is not the software that you have to worry >>>>about >>>>>>with Win2K (except for some programs like CD Direct), but Win2K >>>>>>drivers for your hardware. >>>>>> >>>>>>Do a carefull check on the net for all your hardware, >>particularly >>>>>>your sound and SCSI card, to see if Win2K drivers are available. >>>>Read >>>>>>the fine print because there are Win2K drivers for cards like the >>>>>>Delta cards that may have some exclusions for running under Win2K >>>>>>with certain hardware configurations. >>>>>> >>>>>>We have been running VV hard now for a month under Win2K Pro on a >>>>>>dual processor machine and have not had one incident of gapping >>or >>>>a >>>>>>much as single hiccup. It is amazingly solid. If you decide to >>make >>>>>>the jump, I would definitely go with Win2K Pro and not Server as >>>>Pro >>>>>>seems to require less resources and runs a good deal faster in my >>>>>>experience. >>>>>> >>>>>>In short, if your hardware has the drivers available, you will >>>>doing >>>>>>yourself a favor by stepping up to Win2K. >>>>>> >>>>>>BTW, according to SF Vegas does not need to be fine tuned for >>Win9x >>>>>>like other audio software as it was designed to run under the >>stock >>>>>>configuration. Other than having your swap file on the fasted >>>>drive, >>>>>>there is probably not much that you can do that is going to make >>a >>>>>>cumulative difference under Win9x. >>>>>> >>>>>>KAC ... >>>>>> >>>>>>Brian Franz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>my SCSI drives better. I'm kinda leary about doing the the >>>>>>>>upgrade to win2k because I'm afraid that some of my DX >>>>>>>>plugins or other software may not work, so I would like to >>>>>>>>fine tune Win98 first. Then maybe I'll roll the dice and try >>>>>>>>Win2k.