Save Windows XP !!

[SMann]

Hello all,

For those of you who think as I do that Windows Vista is being forced down our throats, have a look at the following and sign the "Save XP" petition!

http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/archives/2008/01/learn_why_xp_sh.html

Regards,
Steve Mann

[chorn]

Here's info about when Microsoft will cease to sell WXP licenses: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

[adri]

This is the reason why I am saving up for a MAC Pro at the moment; Vista is very good news and business for Apple, because lots of people are switching over to Macs. Mac’s slogan is also that you have their operating system and Widows on a Mac. I read an article by someone whose last name Dvorak (no relation to the composer as far as I know) and he was forward against Vista, in favor of the old XP and even more so in favor of Macs. I read other articles in the doctor’s office about XP vs. Vista. XP wins hands down.






or is that:



or:

:D

[JPSmith]

I'm reading that Vista SP1 performs on average only half as well as XP SP3 on a given machine, and is even slower than the original release of Vista.

Great progress, Microsoft.

[Lougheed]

I seem to recall the same thing moving from Windows 3.1 to XP. No one wanted to use XP at first, since it was so bloated, there weren't drivers etc. Remember?

I even remember moving from DOS to Windows. Talk about bloat!

Lawrence

[bcollins]

I've been in this business since 1990. Before that I was "IT" (we didn't call it that back then) for other people.

True, everyone complained about each major Windows upgrade. Although:

3.1 was a godsend to 3.0

98 (SE) was a godsend to 95

ME was trash!

Windows 2000 is still acceptable. 2000 was basically NT but with the (improved) 98 GUI. Once you ran 2000 you would never go back to 98.

XP is basically 2000, but with an even cleaner, slicker GUI.

Vista is... ME all over again. I'll wait for 2010. XP/32 rules!

Of course this is coming from the standpoint of someone who has no need or desire to use anything other than a completely dry, mono organ. Therefor 3GB suits me just fine. If I needed a bigger organ I could add another XP/32 box and split the divisions between them.

I would bet that I could buy a second PC, a second copy of HW and another 16 to 24 channels of audio cheaper than I could buy a MAC with the same horsepower I would get out of (2) multi core PC's running XP/32.

[SMann]

Perhaps those more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe Longhorn’s most revolutionary advancement over its predecessors was to be the introduction of the superior WinFS file system with its relational database structure. Microsoft apparently was not able to make that a reality and what's left is simply not compelling. Throw in its poor performance and Vista is downright repelling!

Oh, but yeah, I forgot... it's sooooo pretty! XP is a stable, mature operating system with vast acceptance. Vista is a solution in need of a problem.

Steve

[Radioman]

True, everyone complained about each major Windows upgrade. Although:

3.1 was a godsend to 3.0

98 (SE) was a godsend to 95

ME was trash!

Windows 2000 is still acceptable. 2000 was basically NT but with the (improved) 98 GUI. Once you ran 2000 you would never go back to 98.

XP is basically 2000, but with an even cleaner, slicker GUI.

Vista is... ME all over again. I'll wait for 2010. XP/32 rules!

This sums up pretty much my experience as well.
I really don't like Vista, and this has nothing to do with anti-Microsoft feelings. It seems to me all the effort put in Vista was directed towards being a 'safe' OS. I guess Microsoft was tired of getting the blame for spyware and viruses on peoples PC's. When I use Vista, I feel like I'm a prisoner of the OS, no longer in control. Big daddy taking care of everything ("are you sure you want to delete this file?" > yes > "are you REALLY sure you want to delete this file?" > yes > "something terrible might happen if you delete this file, are you really really sure?" > yes, do it > "allright then, just press OK once more, just to make sure").
And, not unimportant for us Hauptwerk users: Vista uses a lot more memory than XP, so there is less left for our sample sets. Furthermore there is the annoying activation procedure, and the bloated GUI. My advice: switch to 'classic view' whenever you can (do this also in XP). The people at Redmond really don't have any taste at all.

I would like to add something in favour of XP x64 Edition, not mentioned by Bob Collins in his posting above.
XP x64 Edition is built on the Windows 2003 Server kernel, effectively the latest and most mature version of Windows XP. If you have the appropriate drivers for your hardware, nothing beats the performance of XP x64 Edition in my opinion. Just for fun, I recently held a private 'shootout' with a friend of mine. He has a Mac Pro with Leopard running on it, four cores of 2.6 GHz etc. In all the (multimedia) benchmarks the XP machine (four cores of 2.6 GHz) was faster than the Mac Pro! We both had the same amount of memory installed.
Something else: although the Mac Pro is a relatively silent machine, mine is DEAD silent (I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to building my own PC).

I can easily understand why Martin Dyde wants us all to get a Mac. Giving adequate support will then be a lot easier. Sometimes I really pity him, having to assist on a 24/7 basis all these Hauptwerk users, struggling to get their PC's and soundcards going. But, it has to be said, Martin never tires, and is always extremely kind.

[ian99]

I always been a 'PC man' and have only once had a hands on session on a Mac when trying to fix a scanner problem.

However over the last year or so I have become increasingly fed up with Gigastudio crashing when trying to play NDB organs. So when I decided to give Hauptwerk a shot, I took the plunge and bought an Imac 2.4.

I only wish I'd done so sooner!

The whole experience is much more satisfying and intuitive. I don't get the feeling that there is some monumental Microsoft beast lurking behind the scenes ready to throw a tantrum if you don't play by its rules.

Leave Windows in the office where it belongs!
Vista is a gimmick, like ME was.

Ian

[mdyde]

I'm reading that Vista SP1 performs on average only half as well as XP SP3 on a given machine, and is even slower than the original release of Vista.

With Hauptwerk the performance (polyphony at a given latency with a given audio interface and PC) I measured was essentially identical between 32-bit XP and 32-bit Vista and between 64-bit XP and 64-bit Vista. Hence Vista might have unnecessary gimmicks that make general non-Hauptwerk use slower or less convenient (I too find having to confirm almost everything I need to do in Vista at least twice very annoying, and really can't understand why asking confirmation of a given action once isn't sufficient!) but from Hauptwerk's point of view it seems to perform just as well as XP.

The notable exception might be that Vista uses a bit more memory than XP, leaving less for Hauptwerk to use, but that didn't seem to be a major problem.

Either way, I think poeple will have to get used to Vista in the longer term because almost all new audio/MIDI interface driver development is for Vista only now.

I would say that the best thing about 64-bit Vista compared to 64-bit XP from Hauptwerk's point of view is that at last most audio/MIDI interface manufacturers now have 64-bit drivers (for 64-bit Vista), whereas they were relatively rare for 64-bit XP. (Unfortunately M-Audio still don't have either yet.)

It is at least possible to set the Vista GUI back to 'classic', disable UAC (to reduce the amount of annoying confirmation messages) and set Windows and Internet Explorer back to having a menu so that they can be used at a reasonable speed, etc. Once you've found everything (e.g. the changed/renamed/moved items in Control Panel), and have done those things, I don't really find Vista that different to XP to use.

Just for fun, I recently held a private 'shootout' with a friend of mine. He has a Mac Pro with Leopard running on it, four cores of 2.6 GHz etc. In all the (multimedia) benchmarks the XP machine (four cores of 2.6 GHz) was faster than the Mac Pro! We both had the same amount of memory installed.

If there was a significant difference, my guess would be that the benchmark applications you were running on 64-bit XP were natively 64-bit, whereas those on the Mac were 32-bit? Mac OS X has effectively only just become capable of a 64-bit GUI (with Leopard), so I'd doubt many Mac benchmark applications are natively 64-bit yet.

In the (albeit not extensive) tests I've done between a Mac running 32-bit Hauptwerk under OS X and 32-bit Hauptwerk under 32-bit Windows, I didn't see any significant differences in performance. Native 64-bit Hauptwerk usually gives roughly 25 percent higher polyphon than 32-bit and Macs should be able to benefit from that too in the future when there is a 64-bit version of Hauptwerk for Leopard (which there isn't yet).