Elektron-Users

MokBor wrote:
Well i know the stabilty has improved but nog enough out of the box. I use Cubase SX2 on XP and it does crash... And trust me i got A parts... So it's not stable enough.

Blame steinberg first.....why do other apps run stable and this one doesn't?

Also A parts doesn't mean everything. A lot of A parts don't have A drivers. And this is where things go wrong a lot.

I've spend a lot of my professional career finding sollutions for problems like these (as a systems/network engineer) and found the problem often resided in badly written drivers. This can make or break the stability of an OS.

Well I'm just a Apple freak, but for the Wintel. Can you run an session on program 'X' from your own Wintel without any problems on all other Wintels?

depends on the program you are using
and if not, the developer of the program is to blame in 99.9% of the cases

Windows simply developed. And even if I hate Microsoft, I must admit that they did a good job. And Microsofts job is far harder than the job that Apple does - Apple has to optimize it's software for their own hardware. They can really boost it with ease while Microsoft has to test it on thousands of systems and after those tests it has to run on hundred of millions of different systems. They all have different hardware-configuration, which makes it nearly impossible to let it run well on all of them. With the NT-line, they did a good job.
The same thing for linux - it's even a little bit more complex because it isn't platform dependent to x86.

Just my 22c

Acidfever wrote:

MokBor wrote:
Well i know the stabilty has improved but nog enough out of the box. I use Cubase SX2 on XP and it does crash... And trust me i got A parts... So it's not stable enough.

Blame steinberg first.....why do other apps run stable and this one doesn't?

Also A parts doesn't mean everything. A lot of A parts don't have A drivers. And this is where things go wrong a lot.

I've spend a lot of my professional career finding sollutions for problems like these (as a systems/network engineer) and found the problem often resided in badly written drivers. This can make or break the stability of an OS.

Yes i know that. I build pc systems quite alot. I also have an ICT training/job, so i know what the deal is.
I won't blame steinberg, becuase Windows XP needs alot of tweaking to get it stable enough(acpi, irq, good drivers)
I almost always use Asus parts which have A drivers... So that can't be the problem.

The point is: macosx doesn't need _any_ audio configuring to play logic or cubase straigt out the box. It saves much shit, i can can know becuase i use both systems for audio frequently. But maybe longhorn will finally make it better compatible for audio(native asio or a better WME)

Acidfever wrote:
Ah another victim of the cleverly thought out synthetic benchmarks Apple puts out there. Look at those high scores in that benchmark!!!! (off course nthey are high, they selected this test because the G5 is good at it).

Just because a mac outperforms a pc on photoshop doesn't make this a fact for every application.

True but the powermac g4 or g5 architecture has several advantages compared to x86, shorter pipelines etc. A Mac is much more powerfull that you think, i run logic 7 express with 2x times the 2600v(8voices per synth) and 5 times an altiverb without problems.(and a some other plugs aswell) And that's just a minimac.

As someone said before. It's no use starting some OS war and i'm not going to.

I think you've done that already :-D


Apple will have to find another way (and that way is Intel cpu's so the news goes round).

Also don't expect that to be a x86 cpu. Apple clearly stated before they don't like the way the x86 arch works, and that their keeping their own arch.(which it's ok, alsong as it's faster )

i switched to mac little more than half a year and it works a MILLION times better for ME than PC ! it's all in the user experience h?, very personal...

I also switched to MAC in the last year. Anyone who has used both and still says a PC is better is just in denial because they can't afford a MAC. There is NO COMPARISON!........and this coming from an ex PC cheerleader.

OK, and let's all stop now about the mac versus windows ranting.... Their both ok, it's just what you prefer.

MokBor wrote:

Acidfever wrote:

MokBor wrote:
Well i know the stabilty has improved but nog enough out of the box. I use Cubase SX2 on XP and it does crash... And trust me i got A parts... So it's not stable enough.

Blame steinberg first.....why do other apps run stable and this one doesn't?

Also A parts doesn't mean everything. A lot of A parts don't have A drivers. And this is where things go wrong a lot.

I've spend a lot of my professional career finding sollutions for problems like these (as a systems/network engineer) and found the problem often resided in badly written drivers. This can make or break the stability of an OS.

Yes i know that. I build pc systems quite alot. I also have an ICT training/job, so i know what the deal is.
I won't blame steinberg, becuase Windows XP needs alot of tweaking to get it stable enough(acpi, irq, good drivers)
I almost always use Asus parts which have A drivers... So that can't be the problem.

The point is: macosx doesn't need _any_ audio configuring to play logic or cubase straigt out the box. It saves much shit, i can can know becuase i use both systems for audio frequently. But maybe longhorn will finally make it better compatible for audio(native asio or a better WME)

It could be that Asus had high wuality drivers 5 years ago but trust me on the fact that those days are gone. I have a lot of Asus hardware because it's great quality. I do however never use Asus drivers because they are not as stable as i would like them to be.

Tobi wrote:
depends on the program you are using
and if not, the developer of the program is to blame in 99.9% of the cases

Windows simply developed. And even if I hate Microsoft, I must admit that they did a good job. And Microsofts job is far harder than the job that Apple does - Apple has to optimize it's software for their own hardware. They can really boost it with ease while Microsoft has to test it on thousands of systems and after those tests it has to run on hundred of millions of different systems. They all have different hardware-configuration, which makes it nearly impossible to let it run well on all of them. With the NT-line, they did a good job.
The same thing for linux - it's even a little bit more complex because it isn't platform dependent to x86.

Just my 22c
Bingo! You are the first person i've ever heard of that realises this. Apple knows wich hardware they are coding for. Microsoft has no idea what hardware they are coding for.

The only real "gray" area Apple has are sound and graphicscards. The rest is al own territory.

People that have good knowledge of PC hardware/ Digital electronics and software creation.

Basicly both are good platforms with their own haters and enthousiasts.

Who cares...... Too many apps i use run on X86 so no mac here. hehe

MAC hardware looks funky though!