[realmusicians] Re: Hello From D!J!X!
- From: "D!J!X!" <megamansuperior@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <realmusicians@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:10:34 -0400
Yea we are testing it, hopefully we can get that hsc file ported over to go
completely x64...
D!J!X!
-----Original Message-----
From: realmusicians-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:realmusicians-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 1:19 PM
To: realmusicians@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [realmusicians] Re: Hello From D!J!X!
Hi i'm certainly gonna wait a while yet anyway, Nice to see Vic has the 64
bit JSonar up and running though.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "D!J!X!" <megamansuperior@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realmusicians@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 5:40 PM
Subject: [realmusicians] Re: Hello From D!J!X!
> 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:
