Question for Nemesys,when wil giga studio/windows 2000 be avalible?

[Kenn159]

Just wondering when a windows 2000 version of Giga studio will be released?
Also wondering when Giga studio will support 96 k sample rate.

[elle]

I have the same questions.
I need NT in order to build a SMP dual processor DAW.
Is there a point in waiting for the NT version, or will it never come (due to sloppy midi timing on NT, ...etc)?

[Joris Vincken]

I remember someone from Nemesys saying the end of the year. maybe you could check with Nemesys directly.

[LHong]

Sounds very interesting! Thanks elle, for mentioning the Dual PIII CPU systems(Athlon\'s not supported yet). To support WinNT/2000, would be the near future of DAW systems, which also would be advantaged in multiple CPU solution...Nemesy? anyone does see it on the market yet?

[jbibbo]

The short answer is: we are working on the Win 2k version as we speak, and I would expect a solution by the end of the year.

The longer answer is: the port to Win2k is alot more complicated for software like the GigaX than people might expect. Because we program at the lowest levels of the operating system to increase performance, moving software from one OS to another OS is a complicated process. The Win9x and WinNT/2000 architectures are completely different. The entire driver model has been reachitected. Which brings up a concern - the availability of audio drivers for pro audio cards. There are a couple of things that make this difficult for your hardware manufactures - MS documentation on the new driver model is scarce and MS lack of enthusiasm for pro-audio. I suspect that this new driver/os paradigm will eventually dominate, but it will take a couple of years before our industry can fully embrace MS\'s new OS.

A side note on dual processor systems:
It is easy to be fooled into thinking that if I have 2 processors, that I should be able to do twice as much work - it is never the case. Because performance is a function of many things in a computer, including harddrive speed, memory, graphics subsystem etc, it is nearly impossible to keep both CPU fully utilized. However, there are things that the software can do to help optimize the performance on a multiprocessor system. We are working on not only a port to the Win 2K, but architecting our code to take advantage of multiple processors within a single system.

Well that is it for now. I hope this addresses some of your concerns.

Regards,
Joe (NemeSys)

[Kenn159]

By the way ,your probably wondering why one moment Im asking when win 200 will work with giga studio and thew next Im dising win 2000.
Well I guess it\'s a lesser of two evils.
Win 2000 is supposed to be more stable than win 98.But still not as stable as it should be .
I have a couple friends that have Macs and there programs that they run actually work and do what they are supposed to do ,no blue screens or illegal operations .
Why are the Mac\'s more stable, is it the hardware ? No .Just the Op system . There\'s no reason why a PC can\'t run that well.

[Bill Gates]

Huh, what???
What\'s this BeOs & Mac-nonsense??
watch it you damned heretics, i\'m on to you!
there can be only one OS!

And don\'t forget that I have all your ip:s logged, so watch your tounges!

Bill Gates

[elle]

sounding younger everyday, Bill

[ondrej]

Hi!

As regards the poll, my answeer is yes. I was following the development of BEOS for a long time hoping that some usable products will make it onto the market. Even if I am happy Cubase user I would have switched to Logic would the Emagic finished their porting. And if GSt would run on BEOS as well? Would have been wonderful.

But I think we can forget BEOS, they basically dropped it, so did Emagic and I doubt that Nemesys would take so much trouble to do another OS version.
But nice vision, that everything would work and faster....

Ondrej

[David Abraham]

BeOs would have had it\'s own problems. Where there is code there will be bugs. Since Beos had no real apps to speak of it\'s inpossible to prove/disprove it\'s real world stability. We probably would have had a significant number of driver issues as well.

With the right hardware/software mix any reasonable OS can be stable. Win2k is likely to survive in the long term and it makes good sense to target that platform.

As good as Win2k is reported to be, and with as much money that it has behind it, it still has a hard time competing with Win9x because of the latter\'s installed base. BeOs doesn\'t have a chance.

Best bet: dedicate a Win98 machine to GS and leave it alone.

Meanwhile the hardware vendors that are slow to develop WDM audio drivers will be toasted.

-david

[Kenn159]

Quoting Joe

- MS documentation on the new driver model is scarce and MS lack of enthusiasm for pro-audio.

Responding
Just wondering since MS doesn\'t care that much about the proaudio market[and windows isn\'t that stable anyway],have you concidered writing giga studio for another OP system.
If I could get Giga studio and atleast one good sequencer running on another platform like Beos I would change OP\'s in a second.
Since Beos is optimised for audio,Im sure they would gladly take our support and offer info on proaudio card drivers.
I think Bill Gates has had a long enough run of forcing a unstable inferior product down our throats.
I understand that It might be alittle chancy writing a program for a OP system that your not sure if your customers will want to change over too.
Lets take a pole and find out how many giga studio/giga sampler users would change Operating systems if Nemesys and Cakewalk [or another good sequencer] were writin for another format like Beos.
Ok everybody Yes or No

[Cool7s_Dad]

Kenn:

This post will hopefully answer some of your questions concerning the stability of the Win9x platform.

To understand why Win9x is so unstable, you have to have a sense of history concerning the evolution of the OS.

In the case of the Mac, the first incarnations of the OS were written to entirely proprietary hardware platforms. The PC has *always* had a very open architecture. This architecture is still more open today than that of the Mac, even though Macs now support PCI cards.

Creating an OS for a machine that supports all kinds of third party hardware is a daunting, if not impossible, task. Making that OS extremely stable is even more difficult. Heck, there are dozens of motherboard brands alone available for PC\'s. The Mac has one.

In the face of all that, the developers of Win9x have also been faced with another extremely daunting task: DOS and Win 3.x compatibility. Win NT/2000 is a much more stable platform than Win9x (although they still have a long way to go), but the support for third party hardware is far more limited.

Add to all this (as if it\'s not enough), that the Win9x platform supports literally hundreds of thousands more applications than the Mac does.

Yes, Win9x is frustratingly unstable. However, a Mac is a waste of good money simply because there are very few decent apps for it.

Pick your poison.

Peace,
Tim
http://www.elithic.com (\"http://www.elithic.com\")

[rivethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cool7s_Dad:
Kenn:
To understand why Win9x is so unstable, you have to have a sense of history concerning the evolution of the OS.
[/URL] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wanna know how to make a stable Win9x installation? Do a clean install, and install nothing. Win9x by itself is a very stable OS. Its only when you start installing other stuff that it starts bogging down (as the previous poster stated).