[realmusicians] Re: Hello From D!J!X!
- From: "D!J!X!" <megamansuperior@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <realmusicians@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:40:21 -0400
Sounds good, which is what I've told many people who want to make the jump
but don't have the compatible stuff to do so or are just better off waiting
for bugs to be worked out due to the nature of their work...
D!J!X!
-----Original Message-----
From: realmusicians-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:realmusicians-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Kingston
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:56 AM
To: realmusicians@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [realmusicians] Re: Hello From D!J!X!
Eh, sounds like just another case of having to wait for the rest of the
industry to catch up in order to reap the full benefits. I'll spare myself
the headaches and wait until we're in a real 64 bit world.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "D!J!X!" <megamansuperior@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Kind of confused now, are we speaking of upgrading an x64 capable system
> and
> installing an x64 OS? No matter how much memory you have on an x64 system,
> for some (not all) x86 applications there might be stability or
> performance
> issues that might not be noticeable or that might be so. This is due to
> the
> wow64 protocol which x86 apps have to use to work in the x64 environment.
> Let me put it this way: in some cases you are not losing anything that you
> had on the 32bit platform, and you aren't gaining any of the benefits of
> the
> 64bit one either because the app is a native x86 app. In other cases
> you'll
> lose some performance depending on how much translations/interactions the
> wow protocol has between the application and the OS. You'll for the most
> part however never gain any of the benefits of x64 when using an x86 app.
> I
> guess what you could do is upgrade to win7 x86 and therefore allow for the
> full 4gb memory limit of the platform, which windows vista and 7 both
> handle
> better than xp. Then when your apps are all x64 compatible or you have
> found
> replacements, or you just don't have a choice (lol) you can jump on the
> x64
> wagon... It however all depends on your x86 apps. I can't just say that
> all
> x86 apps run slower on x64, or that all x64 apps run faster than their x86
> counter parts for that matter.
> One test that anybody with an x64 system and an x64 version of say
> windows7
> can perform is run IE x86 and then IE x64 and see the difference of the 2.
> IE x64 opens instantly and the pages are a bit faster, by a noticeable
> margin. Of course ms has to include IE x86 on the x64 system because
> people
> can't fully shift to the x64 version since popular plugs such as adobe
> flash
> are not x64 compatible as of yet... This pattern is seen for many native
> x64
> apps and their x86 versions running on a native x86 system.
> But another thing to consider is that yes, x64 aps require a bit more
> memory
> to run. For example, windows7 x86 only requires a minimum of 1gb of ram
> while windows7 x64 requires 2... I've seen a few other apps that require
> more memory in x64 mode than its x86 version, but not sure if it's an ms
> thing since they were mostly from them...
>
> HTH, D!J!X!
> P.S. Thank God for proofreading and revisions and the people that make
> them,
> because before I revised this email and added an important f, the sentence
> "Of course ms has to include IE x86 on the x64 system because people can't
> fully shift to the x64 version since popular plugs such as adobe flash are
> not x64 compatible as of yet..."
> Would have read:
> "Of course ms has to include IE x86 on the x64 system because people can't
> fully shit to the x64 version since popular plugs such as adobe flash are
> not x64 compatible as of yet..."
> Hmmm... Now don't ask me what 64bits and adobe have to do with people
> taking
> a shit, other than "the tweeting toilet," but I'm just glad I was able to
> fix that 1 before it was sent... Just wanted to share that 1 and encourage
> all to proofread and revise before they send their emails lol!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: realmusicians-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:realmusicians-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Kingston
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:22 AM
> To: realmusicians@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [realmusicians] Re: Hello From D!J!X!
>
> Hey D!J!X!
>
> Just want to make sure I've got this right.
>
> You're saying if I upgrade an existing system; that is to say, no hardware
> upgrades other than adding more memory, any 32 bit app's are actually
> going
> to slow down a bit? Well, I guess the first thing I have to do is see if
> it's really practical. That is, how many of the app's I use offer native
> 64
> bit versions.
>
> Tom
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D!J!X!" <megamansuperior@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> Wow, "The real nut cruncher" LMAO! Good way to start the day...
>> I want to upgrade to sonar8.5 to see what the new access bridge is all
>> about, to find out as I was mentioning over on the Jsonar list, wil sonar
>> make 32bit plugs appear to be native x64 apps/processes to windows, or
>> will
>> they just run inside sonar x64 as 32bit apps/processes and use the wow64
>> protocol to communicate with windows/drivers/the hardware, it will make a
>> difference in performance, maybe not noticeable or big, but it'll add up
>> eventually I think...
>> You're right, time to let go of the old treasures, unless sonar as I was
>> speculating runs them as native x64 apps to the OS instead of x86,
>> thereby
>> given the plugs direct access to the drivers and hardware... I'd hate to
>> have to let go of stuff like fm7 and absynth along with VSampler and
>> reason,
>> so I'm hoping sonar can do something in the meantime, while I find x64
>> compatible replacements; running x86 (32bit) apps on an x64 OS, while
>> doable, they run a bit slower then as if they were running on the native
>> x86
>> platform, I believe it's due to the wow64 protocol and all the
>> translations
>> it needs to do to make the x86 software compatible to the x64
>> architecture,
>> so it's best to run all x64 apps on an x64 OS to truly get the real
>> experience. On some of the workstations I was putting together recently
>> for
>> example, the way those native x64 apps launched and performed, man! It
>> might
>> have to do with the fact that these were 4gb+ systems, but even jaws was
>> almost instant! Besides that however I didn't notice any other
>> improvements
>> to the x64 edition of theShark11.0 in terms of stability, it's actually
>> really bad or worst...
>> So here's hoping for some miracle that 32bit plugs will appear as x64 to
>> the
>> OS (which = better speed than if the OS had to translate the 32bit to
>> 64),
>> or that companies like steinberg native instruments and musiclab would
>> update some of their more popular plugs to be x64 compatible (highly
>> doubt
>> it)
>>
>> End of rant, D!J!X!
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: realmusicians-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:realmusicians-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Belle
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:48 AM
>> To: realmusicians@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [realmusicians] Re: Hello From D!J!X!
>>
>> Hey Tom, sonar has been 64 bit since version 5.
>>
>> The real nut cruncher is letting all the plug-ins catch up, especially
>> third
>> party ones, many of our favs just won't work in 64 bit.
>>
>> Especially the dxi ones.
>>
>> I understand my favorite synth hypersonic2 won't work in 64 bit yet.
>>
>> But they'll get there, but what you bet lots of good stuff especially
>> stuff
>> that worked for us will be orphaned.
>>
>>
>> At 08:48 PM 10/6/2009, you wrote:
>>>Hey D!J!X!
>>>
>>>Welcome aboard.
>>>
>>>First question. Is Sonar 8 ready for 64 bit processing or does it
>>>require a special 64 bit version. I'm just asking because you
>>>mentioned it and I'm too lazy to look in the manual right now. Grin.
>>>Also, the thought of upgrading to Windows 7 64 bit on one of my
>>>systems is rolling around in the back of my head.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Tom
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "D!J!X!" <megamansuperior@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello guys, not sure who's on here and who's not, just wanted to say
>>>>hello
>>>>and let you know that I'm onboard and will be as long as this doesn't
>>>>turn
>>>>to midimag part 2 lol...
>>>>For those who don't know me, D!J!X! is what i go by, real name is
>>>>Xavier,
>>>>here to help in whatever i can... DJX Studios excells in anything from
>>>>website and graphic design to music production to building/repairing
>>>>computers and workstations! So feel free to pick my brain and i'll do my
>>>>best to help!
>>>>Speaking of building computers, after leaving midimag and having time to
>>>>then do some real work :-), I had the pleasure of putting together and
>>>>configuring a daw for a client using the i7 920 processor and the x58
>>>>chipset on windows7 x64, man! What a joy to see sonar x64 run on that
>>>>thing!!! Can't wait to put 1 together for myself...
>>>>So yea, hello, hi, D!J!X! is here! lol... Looking forward to interacting
>>>>with the family again... O yea, THX Chris and your wife for finding us
>> (real
>>>>peoples) another home... Glad to know that I'll be able to enjoy and
>>>>learn
>>>>from Tom's informative posts once again... :-)
>>>>
>>>>Regards, D!J!X!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>>>signature database 4485 (20091006) __________
>>>>
>>>>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.eset.com
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 4487 (20091007) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4487 (20091007) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
Other related posts:
