error 9128 running out of CPU power with XP

[in10shun]

PIII 933Mhz
768MB PC133 RAM
ASUS CUSL2-C motherboard
IBM Deskstar 40gig 7200RPM hard drive
Windows XP Pro

*no background appz running

I've been highly impressed with XP, until now. I was working on a session that only had 6 tracks and 2 Waves plugins going, and I got error 9128, running out of CPU power. I set the max CPU usage limit to 85% but it didn't help. I never had this problm with 98. In fact I've had sessions ten times more demanding than this going and no problems.

So, anyone else had this issue? I know there are several posts about performance complaints but I did a DUC search for 9128 and got nothing current.

Thanks,
James

[lemonrico]

I have the same issue. I opened a small session that had no problems before (in 5.1.1 with Win98se with only 256RAM) and got the CPU usage error message 9128.

I bought the XP upgarde and went to 5.3.1 to get better performance and instead I got worse performance.

I heard that someone with a Gig processor got 100 plugins... I'd be happier if I could get 10.

Not sure wat the answer is. Can someone out there help?

PIII 800Mhz
512MB PC133 RAM
ASUS CUSL2-C motherboard
IBM Deskstar 40gig 7200rpm hard drive
Seagate Baracuda 4.3gig 7200rpm drive (audio only)
Windows XP Home

[Captain_Pants]

Xp is actually a really good upgrade for protools....if your system can handle it. Its takes a bigger machine to push XP to its maximum capabilities. My XP machine screams with Pro Tools compared to my 98SE machine. But, from everything I have read, I wouldnt suggest upgrading to XP unless you have at least a 1.5 gig processor; everyone else seems to be displeased with XP Performance on slower machines. I guess stability shouldnt come with sacrifice to these people.... [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Captain_Pants]

TJ, I dont know what your systems problem is, you should be getting better results then that... hopefully soon we'll figure it out..

[Alvin]

I have had these problems. The only thing that worked was reinstalling XP TOTALLY (not upgrading) and installing Protools before any other music software.

[in10shun]

Originally posted by Captain_Pants:
My XP machine screams with Pro Tools compared to my 98SE machine. But, from everything I have read, I wouldnt suggest upgrading to XP unless you have at least a 1.5 gig processor; everyone else seems to be displeased with XP Performance on slower machines. I guess stability shouldnt come with sacrifice to these people.... [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My processor has actually been less tied up when running other appz (like Fruity Loops) than it used to be with 98. Fruity on XP can handle like twice as many plug-ins as before. So how come 5.3 can't even handle two of these same plug-ins where it used to do dozens? XP doesn't eat up the processor that much. There must be a more specific answer out there.

James

[tjkili]

The similar case on my System.
When doing the Davec Test on WinXP I only get 19 Tracks and on Win98 I get 24 Tracks+13 Aux.
I´m still trying to figure out where the problem is.

[tptman]

My old Tbird 750 in my Abit KT7 got 4 more tracks on the DAVEC (19 v. 15) after the XP upgrade. So not everybody with less than 1.5 GHZ is unhappy.

Peter

[in10shun]

So am I staring down an upgrade here or not? I'd need a new mobo, processor and RAM. Also a CPU fan/heatsink and most likely a stronger power supply. It would be a shame, my machine has always been a rock.

Thanks in advance,
James

[Silence]

I have the same issue. I opened a small session that had no problems before (in 5.1.1 with Win98se with only 256RAM) and got the CPU usage error message 9128.

This may be off track but...

I am still on 98SE with a PII350, and experiencing major 9128 problems, but that's to be expected. What I have noticed though is that I can get adequate performance with some sessions and virtually no performance at all on others (like audio playback of 1.345 seconds before 9128 appears).

There seems to be an inconsistency here though because a session with adequate performance may have more tracks and plug-ins than a session with less tracks and no plug-ins. I can't figure that.

I'm wondering if in some way and for some reason a particular session has an element in it that results in poor performance and the problem experienced above lies outside of the OS/CPU relationship that has been pointed to in the above posts. As if every so often a session will be 'stamped' or draws a hex from an ex-girlfriend or something.

I could just be procrastinating but thought I would throw the idea into the mix.