Why can't you answer my question!

[jeradcliff]

You talk about all kinds of B.S. and you can't answer one technical question.

Can a PII 350 with 192mb run Digi effectively?

Thank you,
A wanna be recording engineer,
J-me

P.S. I'm going to be famous one day! The world is going to want my sounds. And yes, I am from Arkansas! Go Hogs Go!

[Kickin.da.speaker]

Because nobody tried it yet.

[musicfest]

But isn't there a BETA version being tested right now?

Does anyone know the type of machine the Windows 98 version was used on at the NAMM show??

[shaggy]

J-me.

The world needs more good sounds. I wish you the all the best.

The world also needs more good deeds, good words, and good hearts driving the train. And please remember, most of the 10,000 users here don't work for DIGI- but are happy to offer tips & advice to those who ask!

[coaster]

jeradcliff- i highly doubt it. a pII 350 can barely handle 8 tracks of audio in cubase, let alone an application that actually requires cpu horsepower. sorry, my man.

[cs759]

I'm surpised you say that Coaster,

I have a PII 350 128mb Windows 98 first edition, and I run Cubase VST/24 with 16 tracks of Audio all the time with no problems (waiting for DIGI001 Win/98) CPU doesn't go over 30%.

Maybe if you ask the CPU to do 100% of the work, with plugins loaded on all tracks, it is going to struggle a some point.

I chose a sound card specifically to take load away from the CPU (DSP factory) and it is only the sound card that prevents me from running more than 16 audio tracks.

I rarely get crashes (2 since Christmas) with about 50 hours a week use.

I am still considering going MAC if (or more likely when I go TDM) purely because of limitations software available for NT and the longstanding history of MAC with audio

To Jeradcliff

I fully expect to be able run DIGI001 on my PII 350 but I will definitely add another 128mb RAM (making 256mb RAM). Only £40 UK pounds more than 64mb, why not.

[coaster]

i am impressed you can get that performance out of your pII 350. most of my pc buddies have to scrape their lip off the floor when the see my old mac at 300mhz smoke there pc's.

i am seriously considering getting a new pc to live with my mac. i am looking at about a pIII 500 -650mhz w/128+ ram. everytime i go to look at them, i notice how jerky the screen is, esp on screensavers and animations. this is inherent in all the pentiums i have seen, even the gigahertz one with a 64mb video card. seeing this scares me away from these machines, because if they cannot do a simple graphic, how can they do music? i am asking in all seriousness, because i want one, but i do not want to devote my life to troubleshooting more pc's than i already do.
why are pc's so jerky when compared to a mac of 1/2 it's processer power?

one case in point- a p133mhz ibm with windows 95 was jerky as heck while drawing the screen.

this same machine, when liberated from windows, and upgraded to nextstep, ran a similiar animation flawlessly.


------------------
www.mp3.com/xtac

[DigiTechSupt]

When the final testing has been completed we will post the information. Until then it's only speculation.

If you want some unofficial speculation then a PTII or PIII "should" be fine. Similar to how you can run the 001 on a G4 or a 9600. Obviously the performance would be less in the 9600 or on a PII but that's just common sense.

So as I always say - get the fastest Mac or PC you can afford and you'll be in good shape. Make sure you have Win98 installed and the rest of the details will be posted soon.

Hang in there

B Carter
Digidesign

[This message has been edited by DigiTechSupt (edited April 30, 2000).]

[cs759]

Coaster,

I'm afraid I don't know the technical reason why this jerkiness happens. I doesn't happen on mine, but I have seen it, I know what you mean.

Steer clear of Win 95, period.

I don't know if any of this will help you, but in case you don't already know:-

I think you need to be careful where you buy or what parts you choose with PCs. Try to choose obvious parts that the software developers will have used to test their software on. Also be very careful what software you install on it.

When buying, checkout PCs from shops who are selling them for audio. Try to find out whats in them. That's how I built mine. Go with safe options because weird and wonderful options create weird and wonderful problems.

A key bit of software for windows (I believe)
is partition magic ($50/£50 and worth every penny). This is how I keep my system stable.

You can divide up the OS disk into partitions, (on the fly) and so I start with a clean install and make it the front partition (fastest), then I copy this to a second partition. So whenever I want to try anything dodgy, ie new software, upgrades try out demos etc, I boot up to this copy partition, if it all works OK and I want to keep it, I just install it on the first (main) partition. Therefore my main partition is protected from crashes/file corruptions etc.

Also there there is Win98Lite, an install that allows you to install the bare minimum of win98. I also have a partition with a bare minimum win98 install(everthing a bit faster) but most of the time I don't bother to boot up to that because the main partition (full win 98) is fast enough.

I was also thinking of having PC/MAC combination, MAC for audio and PC for internet/ word etc., but I can't afford that at the moment and things move so fast, that I will have to re-evaluate in the future.

Best of luck

[coaster]

hey, thanks for your answers. it seems like the ideal thing to do is create an OS that will run .exe and mac software withouth having to recompile processor code. then we would not have to buy two machines. pc simulators just don't do it for me; we need something like a 'fat' mac program with ppc and 68k included for the 'macpc'(with mac and win code)

perhaps if the software was not dependant on the hardware type, we could truly see some vast improvement.