ouroboros Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 ok so i just got a virus indigo right? so now that i got a real synth i need to get serious and get a real sequencer right? so i look at cubase....what the hell? windows 2000 and up only? what the fuck is that? why on earth would i want to use anything other than 98se? i wouldnt and niether would anyone else whos been paying atention. so now im screwed cuz i already know logic is mac only. i am NOT getting windows 2000 or xp, or a freaking mac. no way. no how. so.... now what? anyone got any ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kits Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 yah, just get the windows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouroboros Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 i wont. 2000 and xp are both pure crap. i dont want 'em and i wont get 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inkubator Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 what about cakewalk's sonar? imho your'e wrong, 2000 is much more stable than 98se (i worked with both). and why do you think 2000 is crap? "crap" is not an argument... peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouroboros Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 hhmmm..... well i was going to look into sonar. but i never hear anyone talk about it so i wasnt sure if it was any good. i will check it out. thnx. and i dont wanna get into a discussion about windows stuff. if you have had no problems with 2000, great. my personal expeirience is different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shpongled Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Well... you can use Cubase 5.1 on win98se. But I would also recommend win 2000... it's more stable IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shpongled Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Did you know that win98 can use only 192 MB of RAM....... if you have more you are wasting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouroboros Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 the ram limit is 512 not 192 i dont have 512 and im not worried about it. right from microsoft: "Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed The information in this article applies to: Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition Microsoft Windows 98 Microsoft Windows 95 This article was previously published under Q253912 If this article does not describe your hardware-related issue, please see the following Microsoft Web site to view more articles about hardware: http://support.microsoft.com/support/windo.../hwddresctr.asp SYMPTOMS If a computer that is running any of the versions of Windows that are listed above contains more than 512 megabytes (for example, 768 megabytes) of physical memory (RAM), you may experience one or more of the following symptoms: You may be unable to open an MS-DOS session (or command prompt) while Windows is running. Attempts to do so may generate the following error message: There is not enough memory available to run this program. Quit one or more programs, and then try again. The computer may stop responding (hang) while Windows is starting, or halt and display the following error message: Insufficient memory to initialize windows. Quit one or more memory-resident programs or remove unnecessary utilities from your Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files, and restart your computer. CAUSE The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine). WORKAROUND To work around this problem, use one of the following methods: Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less.For additional information about how to use the System Configuration utility, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB or less. STATUS Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed at the beginning of this article. MORE INFORMATION Vcache is limited internally to a maximum cache size of 800 MB. This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to addresses in the system arena. For example, if Vcache is using a maximum cache size of 800 MB and an AGP video adapter has a 128-MB aperture mapped, there is very little address space remaining for the other system code and data that must occupy this range of virtual addresses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stuart Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 just get a mac and a copy of logic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ArcHammer // Ethereal Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 ..or use Sonar I've never had any problems with it. Works perfectly both in 98se and 2000/XP, and it has more than enough features to make it really powerful. bw /Fredrik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shpongled Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 Ok Ouroboros... it seems I had some old/wrong info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathers Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 I used windows 98 for many years. I was one of the first to install it when everyone else was using 95. It was a big improvement. Many years later I was still using 98 when everyone else was starting to use ME and 2000. By this time my computer was crashing more and more. Some programs wouldn't even run at all and I would send nasty emails to the programmers and tell them how crap their software was. Then one day I decided to install windows XP. All of those programs I said were crappy and badly designed, suddenly worked! My computer stopped crashing (what's a blue screen? We don't have those with XP). I noticed something else... All of my programs ran faster. Even Photoshop and windows explorer were noticably quicker. A year later and I've just installed a second XP on another partition. XP allows you to have multiple installations and it set's everything up to allow this effortlessly. I did have Windows ME as a 2nd OS but like Windows 98, it was unstable and slow and extremely ugly to look at. I would never go back to one of those old crappy operating systems now. If I were you I'd get rid of those 98 crap and don't even consider any sequencer other than Cubase SX. I've tried them all. Logic audio is particularly bad because it's totally non-intuitive (as all MAC software is). Cubase SX is the only sequencer that scores on every count and is easy to use. Fruity looks fun to play with but when you start to use it as a serious tool it soon falls apart. Stop complaining and install XP. Kissy, Feathers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathers Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 Sonar is easier to use than Logic Audio but it's still a pile of crap compared to Cubase Sx. Read a previous post on this forum, where I relate my experience of different sequencers. You are angry about XP and 2000 and for what reason? XP is the best operating system to date! 98 was better than 95. Xp is better than 98 and ME. Get real! The other thing you will notice (upon installation) is that all hardware conflicts will disappear! There are cases where cards haven't been able to run at all under 95,98 and yet they run fine under XP. The list of improvements under XP is too numerous to list here. Don't bother posting here again until you have it installed... :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathers Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 P.P.S. Here's some logical thought for you... Steinberg's programmers have publicly stated that win XP is the best operating system yet. They have stated that Cubase SX runs very well under XP. Now... Who knows best? Ouroboros who hasn't tried it (and refuses to install it) or Steinberg who have used and made their sequencer compatible with it? My 2nd installation of XP is used solely for running Cubase sx (as Steinberg recommend). Needless to say the two (XP and SX) run very smoothly together and are extremely stable. Install XP and also convert to NTFS. Feathers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouroboros Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 ummm............... i didnt say i never tried it. we have xp at work. it sucks. its slow and even more of a disgusting system hog than 98. it crashes almost daily. i am not one, but i know quite a few i.t. people and the running joke is that xp stands for x-tra problems. thnx, but i think ill give sonar a try. and just because the guys at steinberg say its better doesnt make it so. the guys at microsoft say lots of things. hell..they say windows is the best os available. but we all know it isnt. for all i know steinberg has some kind of deal with microsoft. i am NOT installing xp. i use it every day at work and its a piece of crap. if you like it...thats great, you can use it. if you have no problems and things run better for you...wonderfull.....but im not about to screw up my system for it. and im sure as shit not going to install xp just to use with one program. my system runs near perfect as it is. im not istalling any new os anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathers Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 What machines are they using at work? Are they AMD based PC's? Do you have an intel CPU? You see... You're blaming an operating system when in actual fact the problem is nothing to do with the OS. A friend of mine has an AMD system and he can't even install XP. He's had problems with every OS from 98 to ME on that machine. Another friend bought the latest AMD system with 2.1Ghz CPU and it was fine for games... At Multitasking AMD suck and since your OS counts as a program then anything you run after that counts as multitasking :-) Try running more than a couple of programs on your AMD at one time and you will have problems, even with 512mb Ram installed. XP runs faster than any other OS on my machine. It's the most stable OS I've ever used and so this leads me to believe that the problems you've witnessed lay with the hardware. There are so many factors with any PC... The particular make of a component and also the particular model. Problems can arise simply by using a certain brand/model of graphics card with a certain program. For example... How many people are using ZoneAlarm as a Firewall? I used to use it and I thought it was great... Then after a particular version was released my machine became very unstable.. I eventually traced the prob to ZoneAlarm. Their helpguide suggested I turn off Hardware acceleration for the video card. I did so and it was still unstable. I stopped using ZoneAlarm and started using Sygate Firewall. All my problems went away. I used Sysgate for a couple of years and until last month... I installed a virus killer and my machine became unstable. I tried a different virus killer and still my normally stable machine was unstable. Then one of the virus killers suggested I remove Sygate firewall and use it's own Firewall instead. I did this and all my problems disappeared. On it's own Sygate Firewall is a very stable program and it does it's job well... When you add a virus killer then the problems begin. These problems occured under 98 as well as XP. You will face more and more problems the longer you insist on using 98. This is because many programmers aren't really that concerned with making their software work with an old OS. How many programs do you see listed for 95 compatibility? 98SE is one step away from 95 and oblivion. There are many programs that won't work with 98 now and you will blame the programmers when in fact it's your OS that's to blame. I'm using two installations of XP on an old P3 intel with a Russian motherboard and PC100 Ram. My system is very stable and crashes are pretty much a thing of the past. If XP was unreliable and slow then I'd be the first to bitch about it! I agree with your comment about MACs for example. I think they're a pile of crap and MAC software is always the same.. Sugary coated graphics with non-intuitive interface and sub-standard design. It's easy to blame the OS. The OS is not the problem it's down to hardware or setup issues. Perhaps you'll get on well with Sonar. Sonar is much better designed than Logic Audio Platinum crap. It's not as well designed or feature packed as Cubase Sx however. Your comments about XP being slow are again, totally absurd. It may well be true that it runs slow on your work's PC. Again, it's not down to the OS but poor hardware or clumsy installation (by so-called professional PC/Network engineers). You are right not to believe everything you read... I simply relate my own experience of XP and other OS's. I don't disagree with you just for the hell of it... Just when I know you're talking crap. What hardware do you have? What hardware are they using at work? Feathers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathers Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 I'm not too bothered whether or not Steinberg has a deal with MS. The quote I made from Steinberg was from a piece regarding Optimizing XP for use with Cubase Sx. The programmers are certainly right when they advise on giving SX it's own partition. I have music sequencers running on my regular installation of XP as well. I have hundreds of programs installed from games, paint programs to the latest music software. It generally runs pretty fine considering I have such an old PC! The problem is that the more you add to an OS then the less efficient it becomes. I can still use music software on my regular XP but if I want maximum performance then I'm smart enough to know that I need a minimum installation. My other XP has nothing more than Cubase Sx and a couple of programs. I will of course be adding lots of VSTI's but I won't be adding games, graphics or other software. My new installation of XP runs much smoother than the general one because it doesn't have all of the crap left in the registry or hundreds of new DLL's. XP is brilliant for it's general stability and performance increase... It is accepted that games run faster under XP. All of my friends have verified this. My other programs also work faster. There are some unecessary features of XP that can be turned off in order to make things run even faster and use less Hdisk space. I'm guessing your workmates don't know much about XP. If they did then they wouldn't have slow and unstable systems. What are they using for Firewall? What virus killers? What crap do they have installed in startup? You even seem to object to the idea of giving Cubase it's own OS... How dare Steinberg suggest creating a separate installation just for their sequencer! It's not something that has to be done. It's just common sense if you want to maximise performance. These principles would apply equally to any other type of software. Cakewalk Sonar would also run better on it's own on a fresh installation of any version of windows, common sense! What file system are you using? FAT 32 or NTFS. Of course you're using FAT32 and this means that a fresh installation of windows is even more important for maximum sequencer performance! I wait with interest to see whether or not you're going to tell me what system you're using (and what system you have at work). Feathers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouroboros Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 im not "talking crap" i am relating my own expieriences just as you are. which is why i made a point of saying if it works for you than good. this whole thing is really not even open to debate. its like arguing over synths....some people think the virus is crap and overated and over used with lame filters...some people think its the best, sickest most bad ass synth going. the same goes for macs. some people will tell you if you dont use a mac for music than youre an idiot. they will go on and on about how macs never crash (yeah right) and how they are so much better for music making bla bla bla. i hate macs and i wont ever get one. i dont care how many people say they are better. they are not better for me. i dont like xp and i dont want it on my system. my home system p3 1ghz 128 rdram 98se (as you know) 30 gb hd 4 gb hd (from an older sysytem) i use black ice fire wall nortons anti work system p3 500mz (i think) 128 sdram 6gb hd (plus network drives) nortons anti i have no idea what firewall they have. its not on the computer its on the server which i have no access to. while my computer runs near perfect right now i do concedeone of your points. 98se is being phased out. i am well aware of this and i will hold out as long as i can. eventualy i will need a new os but hopefully by that time something newer than xp will be out and it will be ok...although im not holding my breath for that. i dont object to giving cubase its own os. i object to having to go out and buy a new os that i dont want just for one program. my main piont is this: i use xp at work and dont like it. my system is running great as it is..i am not about to risk screwing it all up just to use cubase when i dont have to. and as a side note..... xp is not accepted as being faster for games. any real gamer knows 98se it still the best for games. my friend owns and runs a gaming cafe where they have a bunch of comps. all laned up and people come in there and pay to play various games. they have 98se installed on thier systems. just because alienware and falcon put xp on the system by default doesnt make it better for games. they just want to pander to people who think newer is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathers Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 "eventualy i will need a new os but hopefully by that time something newer than xp will be out and it will be ok" - Yes... Just as something newer and better than 98 and ME was released - Windows XP. Something better than windows XP will be released eventually. Each and every OS that MS have released has been better than the previous. You have written off an OS without even understanding where the problem originates. Do you seriously think 98 is better than XP? It's not simply a case of newer is better... I always thought windows NT was crap. But it had some features which made it very reliable and error free and those features have been incorporated into XP. XP is quite simply the best OS that's been released so far. I'm sure that MS will develop something better in time but XP is certainly the best at this moment in time. Why am I even tai ping this if you are so stubborn and inflexible?... Your original post was a complaint because Steinberg forgot to program SX for your obsolete OS. Obviously you are much wiser than Steinberg's programmers (given your experiences at work) and then the question is why haven't you modified Cubase sx to work under 98? Better still why not forget about sx and design your own sequencer from scratch. Don't bother making it compatible with XP or 2000 because as we all know, those OS's are slow and unstable. Please ensure that your sequencer runs ok on 95 and windows 3.1 also (98se is a pile of shit compared to 3.1). "my system is running great as it is..i am not about to risk screwing it all up just to use cubase when i dont have to." - Wrong again dear... You're so used to antiquated OS's that you don't even comprehend that XP wouldn't dare screw up your system. You could run XP's setup from within 98se and it would ask where u want to install it. You would tell it to install on another partition because you want to keep your existing pile of poo intact. Xp would then install itself on said drive and in said folder and then automatically create a dual boot for you. You'd then be able to boot into your crappy 98 or XP. You'd be able to switch between the two without any problems at all. This is yet another reason why we must love windows XP. You must also love windows XP if you want a happy future. That's the beauty of it... You have nothing to lose. Now wiseup or go buy a MAC (then you'd really have something to bitch about!) And just for the record... Mac's really are a pile of crap. Has anyone noticed that Macs these days are very similar in design to PCs? Shame the software is such poo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathers Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 P.S. I haven't checkup up on BlackIce for a long time but it used to have a bad reputation. Many hackers found it extremely easy to penetrate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouroboros Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 holy crap man...did you write xp or something? im sorry feathers but you seem to miss the point. ill try to type slowly for you. i am not purchasing and installing an os i have no real need for and dont like just to run one program. oh..and this is what i got from shields up (internet security checker) using black ice: Attempting connection to your computer. . . Shields UP! is now attempting to contact the Hidden Internet Server within your PC. It is likely that no one has told you that your own personal computer may now be functioning as an Internet Server with neither your knowledge nor your permission. And that it may be serving up all or many of your personal files for reading, writing, modification and even deletion by anyone, anywhere, on the Internet! Your Internet port 139 does not appear to exist! One or more ports on this system are operating in FULL STEALTH MODE! Standard Internet behavior requires port connection attempts to be answered with a success or refusal response. Therefore, only an attempt to connect to a nonexistent computer results in no response of either kind. But YOUR computer has DELIBERATELY CHOSEN NOT TO RESPOND (that's very cool!) which represents advanced computer and port stealthing capabilities. A machine configured in this fashion is well hardened to Internet NetBIOS attack and intrusion. Unable to connect with NetBIOS to your computer. All attempts to get any information from your computer have FAILED. (This is very uncommon for a Windows networking-based PC.) Relative to vulnerabilities from Windows networking, this computer appears to be VERY SECURE since it is NOT exposing ANY of its internal NetBIOS networking protocol over the Internet and i had 11 out of 13 ports stealthed and the other two were closed. mmmmmmm....................... not too shabby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anti Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 feathers you talk so much shit!!!!!! even in other forums!!! what, is your head so far up your arse you can only talk shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathers Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 What part is that you're referring to Anti? Aren't you able to hold a proper conversation? I'm guessing your one of those people who never actually has much to say apart from "you talk shit..." The problem is that nobody actually knows what it is that you're objecting to. What you're actually doing is trying to raise your status within the forum by posting 'cool' insults. It's been done before by countless people who have virtually nothing to contribute to a virtual forum. Now if you have anything more meaningful to say then I'd be happy to read it. If you're unable to post anything more meaningful (I suspect this) then I will let you make a noose for your own neck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathers Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Is Anti the type who spends his days in a perpetual rage and tries to infect people's computers with computer viruses? It was someone from another forum who tried infecting my computer with different mail attachments. The person in question was too dumb to figure out that a badly worded email might make me suspicious and that I never open exe's from people I don't know. Doesn't the person in question realise that I'm probably using a virus killer that picks up such attachments and chews them up in seconds? It takes an incredible amount of energy to conduct a hate campaign and it could be that Anti devotes most of his energy towards trying to make problems. On the other hand it could be that Anti is pretty harmless but angry with life. So what software are you using, Anti and which sequencer do you prefer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathers Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 ouroboros: I can understand you wouldn't want to buy an overpriced OS just to run one sequencer... It was only an issue because of your initial post. It's just a question of how important Cubase SX is to you? As far as I'm concerned Sx is pretty much a work of art in the world of sequencers. It's the only sequencer I've found that doesn't have any problems or issues. I will check back on BlackIce. It was more than a year ago when I read bad reviews about it. Yes I wrote XP... And I got Anti to test it's security features for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.