The Yamaha AN1x Synthesizer mailing list group photo

Yahoo Groups archive

The Yamaha AN1x Synthesizer mailing list

Archive for AN1x-list.

Index last updated: 2026-03-30 01:00 UTC

Thread

Windows 2000

Windows 2000

2001-03-27 by DMANX@talk21.com

Please can someone adivise me on the following.
Im thining of upgrading from win98 toi win2000,so i can use dual processing,multitask,and stability.
I have a sw1000xg,plg150an card,150ANEdit,xgedit & cubase5.
How dose win2000 perform with this set up and what sort of latencys occur,and how dose it perform under audio and midi.
I know some xg users are using win2000,but yamaha R&D say stay away from it,so why have win2000 drivers on the yamaha web site?However if the above is not possible ,how dose it perform under Win ME.
Regards DMANX.



--------------------
talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com

Re: Windows 2000

2001-03-28 by jondl@jdlx-musique.com

--- In AN1x-list@y..., DMANX@t... wrote:
>
> Please can someone adivise me on the following.
> Im thining of upgrading from win98 toi win2000,so i can use dual processing,multitask,and stability.

So, in other words, you're willing to trade the devil you know for the
one you don't? ;-)

I can't answer your Win2K vs. WinME vs. Win98 questions but, IMO, I'd
stick with what works TODAY and let the other play guinea pig. There
will be ample time to play catch up later on - once the bugs are worked
out. Vendors such as Yamaha are in this for the long haul - they'll
offer a working solution sooner or later.

> I have a sw1000xg,plg150an card,150ANEdit,xgedit & cubase5.
> How dose win2000 perform with this set up and what sort of latencys occur,and how dose it perform under audio and midi.
> I know some xg users are using win2000,but yamaha R&D say stay away from it,so why have win2000 drivers on the yamaha web site?

If you review the text which accompanies that Win2K driver you'll
notice that it refers to the same conditions under which the NT driver
is posted: It's beta and the won't support it (or take responsibility
for its performance) until it's certified. I'm uncertain why but this
appears to be the trend for public beta programs and many of the
Soundcard vendors exercise the same policy.

Gary, if you see this email...do you know what's the reasoning behind
this practice - is it just CYA? I know Echo had this policy for
many, many months while their latest Mac drives were in public beta -
up until Feb. in fact. Okay, granted the driver has been working fine
with my Gina...

However if the above is not possible ,how dose it perform under Win ME.
> Regards DMANX.


Sorry I can't be of more help. I'm a Mac user anyway :-)

regards,

Jon

Re: [AN1x-list] Re: Windows 2000

2001-03-28 by Bruce Wahler

DMANX,

Just my $0.02, as someone who spent 10 years in PC development ...

>--- In AN1x-list@y..., DMANX@t... wrote:
> >
> > Please can someone adivise me on the following.
> > Im thining of upgrading from win98 toi win2000,so i can use dual
> processing,multitask,and stability.
>
>So, in other words, you're willing to trade the devil you know for the
>one you don't? ;-)
>
>I can't answer your Win2K vs. WinME vs. Win98 questions but, IMO, I'd
>stick with what works TODAY and let the other play guinea pig. There
>will be ample time to play catch up later on - once the bugs are worked
>out. Vendors such as Yamaha are in this for the long haul - they'll
>offer a working solution sooner or later.

Yeah, dual processing, stability, etc. -- that's the plan, anyway. It's
not as straightforward as it should be, though. Win2K supports dual
processors, but that doesn't mean that all applications will use the
capabilities. Windows tries to divvy up the tasks, but the algorithms used
are crude. Unless an application is designed for multi-CPU, don't expect
more than a couple of percent boost in performance.

The multitasking stability is definitely better, although Windows is a
cooperative multitasker, so it's probably still not 100%.

The multimedia support, however, is suspect, IMHO. Win2K code comes from
the NT side of things, and sound card and other MM support has always been
so-so on that end. Virtualized multimedia drivers are at a disadvantage
over brute force methods like VxD, and it often takes a while to iron out
the wrinkles. Also, this is the first generation of USB support on the NT
side, so plan on Microsoft screwing a couple of things up this round.

I agree with Jon: If it's working now, do you really want to go through
1-2 months of potential Hell to upgrade?

> > I know some xg users are using win2000,but yamaha R&D say stay away
> from it,so why have win2000 drivers on the yamaha web site?
>
>If you review the text which accompanies that Win2K driver you'll
>notice that it refers to the same conditions under which the NT driver
>is posted: It's beta and the won't support it (or take responsibility
>for its performance) until it's certified. I'm uncertain why but this
>appears to be the trend for public beta programs and many of the
>Soundcard vendors exercise the same policy.
>
>Gary, if you see this email...do you know what's the reasoning behind
>this practice - is it just CYA? I know Echo had this policy for
>many, many months while their latest Mac drives were in public beta -
>up until Feb. in fact. Okay, granted the driver has been working fine
>with my Gina...

It's a very bad extension of a terrible trend that arose about 6-7 years
ago in computer products -- releasing new models/versions before they are
really ready for production. By listing the software as "beta," companies
get useful feedback from users, while being able to pick and choose their
support battles.

It's one of the reasons that I got out of the PC business.

Regards,

-BW

--
Bruce Wahler
Design Consultant
Ashby Solutions"
www.ashbysolutions.com
CloneWheel Support Group moderator
978.386.7389 voice
978.776.0096 fax
bruce@...

Re: [AN1x-list] Re: Windows 2000

2001-03-28 by Robertdol

If your system is not on the list for Win2k compliance, you may lose most of your sound card and other drivers.

I would suggest that you check with your hardware vendors to see if they support the win2k OS.

Many systems will die with Win2k unless they are more corporate systems. I have an HP pavilion and Compaq Presario laptop.
I will not upgrade to Win2k on either.

I have been in the IT industry for about 18 years.
Just a warning.
----- Original Message -----
From: jondl@...
To: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:56 PM
Subject: [AN1x-list] Re: Windows 2000


--- In AN1x-list@y..., DMANX@t... wrote:
>
> Please can someone adivise me on the following.
> Im thining of upgrading from win98 toi win2000,so i can use dual processing,multitask,and stability.

So, in other words, you're willing to trade the devil you know for the
one you don't? ;-)

I can't answer your Win2K vs. WinME vs. Win98 questions but, IMO, I'd
stick with what works TODAY and let the other play guinea pig. There
will be ample time to play catch up later on - once the bugs are worked
out. Vendors such as Yamaha are in this for the long haul - they'll
offer a working solution sooner or later.

> I have a sw1000xg,plg150an card,150ANEdit,xgedit & cubase5.
> How dose win2000 perform with this set up and what sort of latencys occur,and how dose it perform under audio and midi.
> I know some xg users are using win2000,but yamaha R&D say stay away from it,so why have win2000 drivers on the yamaha web site?

If you review the text which accompanies that Win2K driver you'll
notice that it refers to the same conditions under which the NT driver
is posted: It's beta and the won't support it (or take responsibility
for its performance) until it's certified. I'm uncertain why but this
appears to be the trend for public beta programs and many of the
Soundcard vendors exercise the same policy.

Gary, if you see this email...do you know what's the reasoning behind
this practice - is it just CYA? I know Echo had this policy for
many, many months while their latest Mac drives were in public beta -
up until Feb. in fact. Okay, granted the driver has been working fine
with my Gina...

However if the above is not possible ,how dose it perform under Win ME.
> Regards DMANX.


Sorry I can't be of more help. I'm a Mac user anyway :-)

regards,

Jon



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



Community email addresses:
Post message: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: AN1x-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: AN1x-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: AN1x-list-owner@yahoogroups.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AN1x-list


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [AN1x-list] Windows 2000

2001-03-30 by Gary Gregson

Personally I think Win2K is a superb OS. Having used it on my main dual proc
system for over a year now, I wouldn't consider moving back to Win9x.
Furthermore with the imminent release of Windows XP later this year, you
will find software support for Win9x/Me declining and all development
focusing on Win2K/XP. Internally Microsoft are almost exclusively developing
for the 2K kernel. Their aim will be to get people away form Win9x as
quickly as possible after the release of XP.

Theoretically Win2K is a much superior OS for multimedia as it can
'guarantee' more predictable context switch and interrupt response times.
The WDM driver model is also superior to the older VxD model. (Albeit that
manufacturers have been slow to transition to the model and use it to full
advantage).

Note that you shouldn't expect dual proc systems to give you twice the
performance of a single proc system. The CPU allocation simply doesn't work
that way. Basically the OS performs a simple load balance between the CPUs
as each new process thread is created. The net result is that you only get
increased performance if you have multiple threads within an application (or
multiple applications running). For most sequencing apps there will be some
performance gain (as most sequencers will utilise at least two or three
separate threads). Even if you don't find that you can run a significantly
greater number of tracks/effects etc, you will at least find that the UI is
more responsive.

In fact you will find the whole OS multitasks alot smoother when using dual
CPUs. I can certainly notice the difference when I dual boot between Win2K
and WinMe on my system.

Furthermore the stability of Win2K is superb. I can run my systems for weeks
at a time without a reboot or fatal crash (and even then the crashes are
normally caused by some major errant code I am in the process of developing
:-)

It should be noted that the migration of high end sequencer apps to Win2K is
already under way. You will find that Steinberg and Cakewalk are already
targeting their top end products primarily at the Win2K platform.
Furthermore all DirectX development within Microsoft is now targeted at
Win2K.

That said there are some issues with Pro Audio and particularly with the
Yamaha SW1000XG card.

In terms of Audio, Win2K implements a Kernel mixer. The task of this code is
to share the machines audio resources between all apps running on the
platform (i.e. so that you don't get the 'device in use' type message). This
is great for games and other multimedia apps, however it creates problems
for pro audio sequencers. In particular the KMixer buffers audio thus
introducing 30 ms of latency into the audio path!! The good news is that
this can be overcome by routing audio around KMixer. However to do this you
need both applications and drivers that support the bypass. These are
starting to appear (Cakewalks new Sonar application employs the mechanism)
as do several of the newer Win2K WDM compliant low latency sound cards.

Unfortunately the SW1K is relatively old and Yamaha have been slow to
implement stable Win2K drivers. The current Win2K driver does not bypass
Kmixer for audio and has a severe problem with MIDI IN when used on dual
proc systems. Consequently I cannot recommend Win2K if the SW1000XG is your
primary audio/MIDI device.

That said the card does work under Win2k (if you don't use the MIDI input or
have a single proc machine) and PLG card support is not affected. Note
XGedit and AN1xEdit will both work fine under Win2K (as do Cubase, Cakewalk,
Reason and several other sequencer apps).

Yamaha claim they will release a 'fixed' driver for the SW1K under Win2K
shortly, however I have not seen any firm release dates quoted.

So my recommendation is to stay with Win98SE if the SW1K is currently your
primary sound device. However if you are looking to upgrade in the near
future you should definitely be moving to Win2K (or wait for WinXP). Under
no circumstances would I recommend WinMe...its basically a dog!!!


Regards

Gary Gregson

Email:gary@...
http://www.yme.co.uk/yme

-----Original Message-----
From: DMANX@... [mailto:DMANX@...]
Sent: 27 March 2001 23:06
To: sw1000xg@yahoogroups.com
Cc: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com; sw1000xg@yahoogroups.com; gary@...
Subject: [AN1x-list] Windows 2000



Please can someone adivise me on the following.
Im thining of upgrading from win98 toi win2000,so i can use dual
processing,multitask,and stability.
I have a sw1000xg,plg150an card,150ANEdit,xgedit & cubase5.
How dose win2000 perform with this set up and what sort of latencys
occur,and how dose it perform under audio and midi.
I know some xg users are using win2000,but yamaha R&D say stay away from
it,so why have win2000 drivers on the yamaha web site?However if the above
is not possible ,how dose it perform under Win ME.
Regards DMANX.

RE: [AN1x-list] Windows 2000

2001-03-30 by Bruce Wahler

Gary,

>So my recommendation is to stay with Win98SE if the SW1K is currently your
>primary sound device. However if you are looking to upgrade in the near
>future you should definitely be moving to Win2K (or wait for WinXP). Under
>no circumstances would I recommend WinMe...its basically a dog!!!

Funny you should mention WinMe. I wholeheartedly agree with your
assessment. I had it for about three weeks, and found Microsoft's approach
to be completely unusable. It basically fixes a half dozen problems in
Win98SE, while causing other issues. I actually got Microsoft to take it
back on a technicality -- they still include the MIDI Mapper (which I
sometimes use in live performance situations), and it still shows up in the
list of MIDI devices, but there is no applet or Control Panel method to
access it in any way! -- and I am now happily back in Win98SE. Maybe
"happy" is too strong a word, but at least I'm able to set my system up the
way I like, without Windows going in and changing things on me.

The biggest problem with Win2K (and probably WinXP, too) is the memory
requirement. If your machine doesn't have at least 256K or RAM, the WIn2K
response is not going to be pleasing. My desktop is OK, but my laptop is
only at 192K right now. I wish memory would take another dive soon ...

Regards,

-BW

--
Bruce Wahler
Design Consultant
Ashby Solutions"
www.ashbysolutions.com
CloneWheel Support Group moderator
978.386.7389 voice
978.776.0096 fax
bruce@...

RE: [AN1x-list] Windows 2000

2001-03-30 by Gary Gregson

>>
The biggest problem with Win2K (and probably WinXP, too) is the memory
requirement. If your machine doesn't have at least 256K or RAM, the WIn2K
response is not going to be pleasing. My desktop is OK, but my laptop is
only at 192K right now. I wish memory would take another dive soon ...
<<

I think Win2K is OK with 64M RAM. However I agree...I always ensure I have
over 256M of RAM in a machine. RAM is usually more important than CPU speed
for modern apps/OS's!

Regards

Gary Gregson

Email:gary@...
http://www.yme.co.uk/yme

RE: [AN1x-list] Windows 2000

2001-03-30 by Bruce Wahler

Gary,

>I think Win2K is OK with 64M RAM. However I agree...I always ensure I have
>over 256M of RAM in a machine. RAM is usually more important than CPU speed
>for modern apps/OS's!

FWIW: During my MIDI Mapper search, I got to speak with a senior support
engineer at Microsoft. He asked me why I wasn't running Win2K, and I
explained that I had five machines to update, and so memory was an
issue. He explained that Win2K runs really well "with only 256M of RAM."
(!) He also did not recommend updating my wife's laptop, which maxes out
at 96M.

Regards,

-BW

--
Bruce Wahler
Design Consultant
Ashby Solutions"
www.ashbysolutions.com
CloneWheel Support Group moderator
978.386.7389 voice
978.776.0096 fax
bruce@...

Re: [AN1x-list] Windows 2000

2001-04-04 by Peter Korsten

This is an old thread and rather off-topic, but...

From: "Gary Gregson" <gary@...>

> Furthermore the stability of Win2K is superb. I can run my systems for
weeks
> at a time without a reboot or fatal crash (and even then the crashes are
> normally caused by some major errant code I am in the process of
developing
> :-)

Funny. Our Unix machine (one of those 1U 19" Sun servers, with dual
processors, 1 Gb memory and some 200 Gb disc) has been up for 142 days now.
It basically shoves around the data of all the pre-paid mobile phone calls,
running into some 200 Mb of data per day (it's a small country). At the
moment, I'm straining it to the limit by loading several months' worth of
data. Looking up what calls someone made in that month - where you have to
look through millions of calls - takes two or three seconds.

Pro audio software running on Unix, now that's another story. :) But the
fact that Unix (actually, Mach and BSD) are the basis of MacOS X made my
decision to move from Windows to MacOS.

After I buy a car and pay for my honeymoon, that is. :)

- Peter

RE: [AN1x-list] Windows 2000

2001-04-04 by Gary Gregson

Peter wrote:
>>
Pro audio software running on Unix, now that's another story. :) But the
fact that Unix (actually, Mach and BSD) are the basis of MacOS X made my
decision to move from Windows to MacOS.
<<

The jury is definitely still out on MacOS X...it may be built on UNIX but
its still a relatively unproven product, and it includes a lot of legacy
support that may prove to be problematic. Still, It will be interesting to
see how it performs over the coming months. I am still on MacOS 9 and my Mac
is fairly old (A PowerMac 8500 upgraded to a G3). So I guess I will be
looking for some new hardware before moving to MacOS X. Hopefully by then
the bugs will have been shaken out a little :-)

Until then I am more than happy to use Win2K for my primary system.


Regards

Gary Gregson

Email:gary@...
http://www.yme.co.uk/yme

Re: [AN1x-list] Windows 2000

2001-04-06 by traun@mail.com

Gary Gregson wrote:

> Peter wrote:
> >>
> Pro audio software running on Unix, now that's another story. :) But
> the
> fact that Unix (actually, Mach and BSD) are the basis of MacOS X made
> my
> decision to move from Windows to MacOS.
> <<
>
> The jury is definitely still out on MacOS X...it may be built on UNIX
> but
> its still a relatively unproven product, and it includes a lot of
> legacy
> support that may prove to be problematic. Still, It will be
> interesting to
> see how it performs over the coming months. I am still on MacOS 9 and
> my Mac
> is fairly old (A PowerMac 8500 upgraded to a G3). So I guess I will be
>
> looking for some new hardware before moving to MacOS X. Hopefully by
> then
> the bugs will have been shaken out a little :-)
>
> Until then I am more than happy to use Win2K for my primary system.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Gary Gregson

Hello the Win2000 and WinNT is also based on a old Unix kernel, and that
explains the stability of Win2000, there are other things than Windoze
and MacOS have you ever heard about realtime kernel like BeOS and
rtlinux for exanple? Hi-Performace Fileformats like BeFS and ReiserFS?
The way I see it theres a lot more to come.

Regards

Joergen


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [AN1x-list] Windows 2000

2001-04-07 by Peter Korsten

From: <traun@...>

> Hello the Win2000 and WinNT is also based on a old Unix kernel, and that
> explains the stability of Win2000, there are other things than Windoze
> and MacOS have you ever heard about realtime kernel like BeOS and
> rtlinux for exanple? Hi-Performace Fileformats like BeFS and ReiserFS?
> The way I see it theres a lot more to come.

NT (=2000) based on a Unix kernel? More like VMS, I would imagine.

BeOS is not real-time.

But it's off-topic anyway. :)

And I do want MacOS. It isn't really new, since it's basically 12 year old
NeXT Step. They just have a funny way with Unix standards.

- Peter