Is it wise to go to win2000 pro

ronaldmeij · Post by **ronaldmeij** » Fri Sep 28, 2001 5:45 am

Okay i have version of win2000 pro

How's it with 3.0 , nor problems can i also work error free with my sts 4000 sampler...

If it works great because i thing win 2000 runs smoother then w98 second edition

please reply , i could use some info about this ....

Zer · Post by **Zer** » Fri Sep 28, 2001 8:18 am

Although this system runs surely more stable than 98 or the buggy ME. I won´t recommend it unless your are in need of dual cpu support (beta-status means a lot things which are nessecary to improve). Developing an audio driver for win 2000 is really hard work, because there are different layer handlings. I didn´t thought that it could be managed in 2000 because of the flexible architecture of windows 2000 an the pulsar,so I am still impressed of the work of creamware. This is surely something different then to build a static driver.

[ This Message was edited by: zer on 2001-10-09 05:26 ]

ronaldmeij · Post by **ronaldmeij** » Fri Sep 28, 2001 8:24 am

thats all i need to hear

I stick to win98 ............

thankz dude

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Fri Sep 28, 2001 2:10 pm

Hey subhuman if you are reading this. How is Windows 2000 working out for you? I don't have a dual CPU but I like to use Win2K for my graphics programs and it would just be easier for me to use only one OS. My previous experience is that Win2K is more stable. You sometimes have to reboot a program but seldom your computer, also with the right drivers it will be just as fast as Win98 SE.

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:01 pm

2k is definitely more stable.. but I am still using 9x for the time being. Kind of waiting for a 2gHz P4 and 1gig of RAM.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:21 pm

I guess I won't be using it yet either because after I installed the Win2K driver my system crashed and windows 2000 would give me a bluescreen on booting :/.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Oct 01, 2001 2:32 pm

Okay, the reason win2k bombed and would not restart after loading the Pulsar driver is because I had an IRQ conflict. I had to remove my SCSI drive because I own 3 Creamware cards and Creamware is about the only company which makes cards that can not share an IRQ with other cards. I'll use an ATA 100 drive instead (as fast as the slow SCSI drives). Now Pulsar is installing in win2k. I will report the results. I own an ASUS CUSL2 motherboard with a 933 megahertz Intel CPU and 512 megs of RAM and an ATI 64 meg REDEON graphics card. The system of my dreams finally. I have a PUlsar I, SRB I, and Luna II. I will report the results here.

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Mon Oct 01, 2001 2:50 pm

Creamware is about the only company which makes cards that can not share an IRQ with other cards.

Actually this is fairly common for PCI cards which require realtime performance. What other audio card lets you share IRQs? I know SoundBlasters have issues when sharing, to name a big one...

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon Oct 01, 2001 5:21 pm

Well, about sharing, adaptec and their SCSI adapter does not share either!

I know that, cuz a had problem with mine, a AHA2940U2W

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Oct 08, 2001 1:47 pm

I was doomed. I had 3 creamware an 1 adaptec scsi card and I couldn't get Pulsar to worked. Since I took out the scsi card it works and everyone says scsi slows it down anyway. I just recently got the samplers to play without constant pops. I had to det it to the slowest latencency and lowest sampling rate. I guess they will improve the perfomance. This is in windows 2000.

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Mon Oct 08, 2001 2:11 pm

braincell do you have any mkII Creamware cards? Try moving a card with ULLI hardware (Luna2/Pulsar2) to card one -- you do this in the cset.ini file, this will let you get 4-7ms latency pretty easily on faster processors. Haven't tested this under 2k/XP yet.

_________________
<a href=http://infinitevortex.com>Infinite Vortex Audio</a>

[ This Message was edited by: subhuman on 2001-10-08 15:11 ]

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Oct 08, 2001 2:56 pm

Thank you very much subhuman. Is it under host-config? It says "boards0" I guess it should say 3 because I have 3 creamware cards or is zeo the first one? I think I did something wrong because now my Luna midi in doesn't work.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Oct 08, 2001 3:12 pm

Thanks a lot subhuman! You really helped me so much with this. I am very greatful. If anyone reading this tries it you might have to delete the Luna midi source module and drag and drop it again for it to work. I hope that future versions of pulsar will automatically adjust the cset.ini file. It obviously knew what boards I had because it listed them in the DSP load window. At the very least they should ask you if you have more than one board and what the order is during the pulsar install process then it would be easy for the pulsar to configure the cset.ini. This could save some people a lot of grief. I imagine there are people who don't realize that they are not actually getting the performance they should be.

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Mon Oct 08, 2001 7:13 pm

I hope that future versions of pulsar will automatically adjust the cset.ini file. 

... to put the ULLI hardware cards first, absolutely -- seems strange that it doesn't do this automatically already and that this does make a difference...