|
Subject:Am I the only slacker?
Posted by: RiRo
Date:9/30/2003 2:14:30 PM
I still use win98se. I guess I am outta the loop on SF 7. Bummer. I would like the effects automation and volume envelopes. RiRo |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:10/1/2003 1:57:51 PM
Why, yes, you are. ;o) Seriously, users need to realize that in order to progress and gain the power we need, we must forgo previous, older technology. I can honestly tell you myself that Windows XP and 2000 are, overall, way more stable and powerful than 9x/Me ever thought of being. (You just have to make sure you have the system to run either OS.) To add, Microsoft will not support 9x or Me anymore. Iacobus ------- RodelWorks - Original Music for the Unafraid mD's ACIDplanet Page |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: kbruff
Date:10/1/2003 2:47:47 PM
Effects automation is worth it. |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: kbruff
Date:10/1/2003 2:53:06 PM
Yeah -- you should upgrade -- at least to win 2000 --- You can buy win - 2000 from EBAY without much hassle and plus install the service packs 1 - 4, and you will be all set. |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: miagi
Date:10/3/2003 4:39:44 PM
You know, there's another thread elsewhere regarding 98SE being dated. The ONLY reason it is dated is planned obsolescence. XP is a failure, riddled with bugs and leaks like a dyke. It is so fat with junk features that try to seduce users into believing they are getting a better OS. It's a shame that consumers support such marketing hype by buying into it. I will say that XP has included some new functionality, but none of which is necessary. It also takes away more control from the user, as each version of Windows has since 3.1. Ever notice how any downloads or much software requires a special patch for XP users? It was rushed to market and sold under the pretense that it would be the best version yet, lol. 98SE is the most reliable across a wider variety of user configurations. ME was about as useful as 97 (anyone remember that one?). 2000 is basically an NT upgrade, again it's fussy and requires special patches to make existing software run correctly. XP mandates significant boost in processor speed. Some of you will say that people should buy a new computer. I have a P100 at my parent's house that still is VERY functional running 95! MS and the industry are in bed together, forcing demands on computers so that you MUST upgrade, even if the work you do wouldn't require it. I wonder how many people are chomping at the bit for the next version, Windows BS? Bet it would be their biggest seller, lol! BTW, Steinberg host apps, Adobe's Audition and many other great programs work fine on 98SE. I will wait until SF7 has about 6 or 7 minor revisions before taking it seriously. SF6 users will always have that opportunity. If not, you're being railroaded. Amazing how people loved being fleeced, and in blissfull unawareness, speak ignorantly about the need to move forward. I love the silly analogies too. Hey, it's your money. Too bad that kind of mindset is what's fueling the unnecssary advancement in technological fluff. Sure, PT Barnum is old too, but his words were never wiser.....ok, now the bruised egos can attempt to rebutt, but it all comes down to either you see the truth for what it is or you try to justify mistakes you made by saying "it was the best thing I ever did, you're whacked, dude!" Hehe... ;-) |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: pwppch
Date:10/3/2003 7:20:59 PM
>>BTW, Steinberg host apps, Adobe's Audition and many other great programs work fine on 98SE. << The latest version of Nuendo and Cubase all require Win2000 or XP SONAR 3.0 requires Win2000 or XP Audition currently supports the legacy Win9X OSes, but the next version will only support Win2000 and XP. Win9X is legacy and gone. Don't expect to see any support for these OSes in the future updates of any major vendor. Peter |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: Chienworks
Date:10/3/2003 11:31:27 PM
miagi, then you should be very happy sticking with SoundForge 6. Actually there was no Windows97. There was an Office97, but Windows went from 95 to 98 to 98SE. |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: miagi
Date:10/4/2003 1:50:48 AM
Thank you for this information Peter. I'm sure many, as myself, appreciate a look ahead at what developers have in mind for their products. It's still a shame that companies assist MS in the euthinasia-like practice of putting a perfectly good platform to sleep in order to corral the herd in the direction of buying new operating systems to run more sophisticated software. The argument will always be that it is for the benefit of the consumer to incorporate advances in software that would not have been possible otherwise. I guess it's all in the perspective we choose to look at, but I can't help but smell the sweet stench of Capitalism working at it's greedy worst. Yes, that's the cynical perspective, but cynics aren't born that way, they've usually lived and learned. Anyway, I won't belabor this any further, I was just throwing in my 2 cents to RiRo to let him know he wasn't the only slacker :-) Also, regarding Windows 97, you never hear about it, but it was a miserable disaster. I believe it was pulled shortly after release and reintroduced later as Win98. I bet MS has tried so hard to forget about it that they may refuse to even acknowledge it. I was a little boistrous with my initial post (thanks to readers for letting me vent that). It's just that Win98SE finally was an OS that had reasonable stability and universal compatibility. That has yet to be the case with ME, 2000 and XP. They may work with little or no problems for some users, but they are not as universally compatible with the majority of PC users as 98SE. As another member posted on another thread, still over 60% of PC users are continuing to use 98SE per whatever poll he was quoting from. That's a message in itself, and I bet most of the other 40% are only using something other than 98SE because it was free with a new computer purchase. It just shouldn't be interpreted that a majority of people are desiring these changes, they are forced to move in that direction even if they are satisfied with what they have for their individual needs. Sometimes we move ahead just to go nowhere much faster than before. I'd just like to see technology stop for about the next 5 years so we can utilize what we have. More, larger, faster...until we can be more creative and less demanding of things just because it's available, it's all a bill of goods. Take SoFo 6 or ACID 4. 5 years ago you wouldn't have been able to afford that kind of power. I can recall some of the greatest recordings ever made over the last 30 years that didn't even have that! In a very general way, we have so much at our disposal, yet we obsess over getting more, thus encouraging perfectly useful technology to be short-lived, hence sending the signal to manufacturers to obsolete what is likely more than we already need. Pink Floyd's The Wall for example is over 20 years old. Genesis' Selling Englnd By The Pound, The Beatles' Abbey Road, Yes' Close To The Edge or Ambrosia's first album go back even further. These are timeless productions and I bet any DAW in the last 5 years touting a professional pedigree (even with stock accessories) running Win98SE would be capable of such work. Who's really benefitting here, that's all I'm saying. It's frustrating to see all this "great new technology" and lack of credible output (not that there aren't examples, granted). When "supergroups" such as any of the boy/girl bands or even Creed (I didn't say I didn't like them) produce such superficial, disposable creative output, what do we need SoFo 7 or even the latest ProTools for? If it's to produce more of that, give us all a Fostex 4-track (cassette) machine for cryin out loud. It doesn't NEED to sound that good, let alone dominate the airwaves! Besides, half the time today's "artists" are using hi-tech, lo-fi samples. Talk about oxymoron :-) The bar has been lowered (I think its been dropped, or ripped off) and still we encourage by buying more. Of course, tomorrow's cutting-edge technology will yield more of tomorrow's next mediocre musical offerings. It seems the best the future has to offer has already happened. If you don't see that, you missed a whole lot. If I'm living in the past, please go on without me, we'll all be happier :-) Hey, thanks for the soapbox and attention if you made it this far, I respect that! |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: captn_spalding
Date:10/4/2003 8:20:14 AM
Assuming, for the moment, that the recordings you listed are "timeless productions" you must be aware that for every one of those there were thousands or even tens of thousands of mediocrities and worse. Will the new technology increase this ratio - probably. Will the new technology prevent the next Pink Floyd, et. al from creating timeless productions - no. Your beef is not with technology, it is with the muxic business. That is where the imputus for "superficial, disposable creative output" cones from. The new technology, if anything, gives a voice to the truly creative artist. Like many I started with a 4 track Teac reel to reel and a few shure microphones. Did some good work, too. Do i want to back to that? Hell no!! This whole 98se thing reminds me of when Windows and the Intel 386 started pushing DOS out of the picture. Well, there down in the basement along with the Teac. ..spalding |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: vitalforces
Date:10/4/2003 2:58:12 PM
miagi, your passion appears to be more politics than practicality. I had ME and now have XP Home, and there is absolutely no question that XP is more stable than ME was. You're getting caught up in semantics. ME and XP are both Windows operating systems. If Microsoft had named XP as ME2, it would still be the same bundle of improvements, interfacing with other changing systems out there. Get a grip. This is a forum for discussions concerning NLE editing. |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: miagi
Date:10/4/2003 5:47:01 PM
Yes, vitalforces I didn't mean to digress from the NLE aspect of this forum, I was just responding/expanding on this particular thread, which really was only about whether anyone else was still using 98SE. I was also never defending WinME, I thought that was a money grab too. I also agree with you Chienworks, SF6 is best for me at this time, but the automation is truly a nice touch in 7. BTW, I like your tutorial site :-) I do agree with you capt_spalding, it is the music business that has diluted modern creative output. My connection with technology was that we have better means for the consumer to do great things, yet we press on and rarely find similar gems that came from a period where studios would have loved to had the power a typical DAW offers today. Of course I don't want to revert back to a 4-track, that was not the analogy I was trying to draw. The examples I gave were of basic standards anyone would recognize, not particularly my favorite examples. They represent the equivelant of a speck of sand on a beach. That type of integrity does not exist today, or is the equivelant of a speck of sand on a beach. I was just saying that you can be a supergroup today before the public even realizes it. 30 years ago you paid dues and it was well-deserved and branded only to a select handful of visionaries by comparison. Good taste is timeless and today there is simply no real pioneers doing great stuff. It's truly a subjective point of view and age plays a big part on anyone's perspective. |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: captn_spalding
Date:10/5/2003 9:38:57 AM
>>Good taste is timeless<< Say amen, brother! Wilma Cozart Fine, Robert Fine and David Hall for Mecrucry used one mic and later three along with a ton of talent, taste and discipline to produce some of the greates recordings ever made. ..spalding |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:10/6/2003 7:29:54 AM
"The ONLY reason it is dated is planned obsolescence. XP is a failure, riddled with bugs and leaks like a dyke. It is so fat with junk features that try to seduce users into believing they are getting a better OS. It's a shame that consumers support such marketing hype by buying into it." Do you feel like someone is always watching you? Do you feel the need to rise up and revolt against "The Man" for years of deliberate brainwashing and repression on the republic? I say, "hear ye.....What..Do..Yoooou...Want..to...do...with..Your Life!? I WANNA ROCK!!! |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:10/6/2003 2:01:12 PM
LOL Seriously, I've been a witness to the tech industry for more than a few years now. Fact: 2000 and XP are based on Windows NT, a more robust platform to develop for. The only thing that stopped NT these past years from taking over is that it did not have the multimedia support that 2000 and XP now have. Otherwise, you probably would have seen 9x/Me die the good deaths they deserve. Microsoft did try to implement DirectX support into NT, but it was not all that great. It was hit or miss for users. There's no conspiracy theory there. NT was touted as a business solution and for good reason. And let's reason here: If you develop for just one platform, it would be easier to concentrate making that platform better and more stable, rather than having to spread resources thin across several, no? Iacobus ------- RodelWorks - Original Music for the Unafraid mD's ACIDplanet Page |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: pwppch
Date:10/6/2003 9:03:58 PM
From a developement perspective, WinNT 3.51 was superior in every way for streaming audio than any Win9X version. I wrote NT audio drivers before I came to Sonic Foundry and the low level streaming model for audio and native wave drivers kicked the tar out of anything running in Win9X hybrid 16/32 bit land. I am not saying that a Win9X app couldn't be written to perform well, but a comparable system running WinNT would blow the socks off any Win9X system. The problem nobody was writing many apps that were completely NT compatible - other than Sonic Foundry. I had a DEC Alpha machine that just screamed performance. At the time, only serious video NLE tools were running on NT. The cost of hardware or software was rarely an issue to the early Native NLE crowd. The lack of drivers also played into this. It was chicken and the egg stuff. It didn't help that WinNT had expensive hardware requirements at the time. I have NEVER seen a situation where any Win9X OS could outperform a WinNT kernel based system. This has nothing to do with MS and conspiracy or any other such nonsense. I recall the great debate over Win9X when it replaced Win16. All kinds of users were up in arms over how the bloated and buggy Win95 was yet another money grabbing tactic of Microsoft to blatently attempt to control the users and developers. Developers had no choice because Microsoft strong armed them and theatened them to switch or else. Never happened, and isn't happening now. Progress, whether you believe it to be good or bad, must be made. XP is an outstanding OS compared to Win98SE. WinNT was a better OS than any Win9X could ever hope to be on even the most carefully configured Win9X system. If Win9X with a 3-4 year old version of a title is sufficient and meets your needs, then go with it. Be prepare to miss out on new developements or features though. Obsolence is sometimes painful, but the end result does justify the direction taken, though it may not be readily apparent in the short term. Peter |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: Geoff_Wood
Date:10/6/2003 10:50:34 PM
Miagi, You have some seriously flawed misconceptions regarding XP. It was better from the first release in all ways than Win9x ever was. I am finally forced to upgrade my editing machine from 98SE to XP, and will have to make do without my beloved ADB Multiwave digital i/f (no drivers, unless somebody knows different - Peter ?). That was the *only* thing keeping me on Win16. geoff |
|
Subject:RE: Am I the only slacker?
Reply by: discdude
Date:10/6/2003 11:08:08 PM
You could always dual boot NT 5.x and Win 9x and get the best of both worlds. The only downside is you have to buy two expensive OSes instead of just one ;) |