Gigastudio 96 --OS?

[popmann]

So, I'm going to make my old PC a dedicated giga box. right now, it's a P4 2.6HT/512mb, WinXP--which runs everything I need in Giga, but I seem to remember Giga96 being more efficient under WinME. I moved on because it wasn't the main use for the box.

Now that I'm dedicating it...I'm thinking about installing 98 or ME on it. It won't be networked--literally a dedicated sampler.

Also thinking of bumping it to 1.5GB ram...in order to run some newer (but 4 year old) 16bit string samples. Vienna Horizon Chamber Strings.

What I'm wondering is whether anyone has experience running anything near this combo. Giga is limited to a GB or so of hardware RAM...and I don't remember the limit on WinME. So, would the 1.5GB give me problems under WinME? Giga was better under that OS, but I never had more than 512mb in it.

I know I have ME and XP liscenses. I may or may not have a Win2k or Win98 still. Not sure which OS I should use for the dedicated box.

[popmann]

Bump...in case anyone has a suggestion.

I've been reading up on Giga specific sites...and basically, it looks like the RAM useage is the difference. Apparently to load the same number of instrument/samples, you need 1GB of RAM under 9x--and 2Gb under XP. Actually, I believe it looks like you get a tad more with the 2Gb XP setup--but, a bit LESS with 1.5gb.

I want to build this box this coming week. String samples should be coming end of week.

It's funny, though, that everyone on those sites seems to benchmark based on how much physical memory they can fill up, even though it's just a buffer for the disk stream. I loaded my piano tonight...it was using 42mb to play a 1gb piano sample-for reference. No one (even on the VSL site) seems to talk in terms of how many articulations they can load...whether they can get full polyphony...whether they can do full string arrangements--nothing concrete-just the abstract technical RAM usage. I can't tell if this is a real world issue, or a theoretical one being debated by computer geeks.

[R3k]

I have maintained Multiple systems of Giga 2 160 under windows 98 & Me, and even more With Gigastudio 3 orchestra under Windows XP.

For either, XP is far more stable. I dont know where you got the impression that 98 / Me is more stable, it simply isn't true in all the experience Ive had with the system. Maybee your 98 box just happened to be more stable in general for giga than your new XP box? I dont think you'll be doing yourself any favour building a new windows 98 box.

Anyhow, Gigastudio Is one of the most unstable dog of an audio app that you'll encounter... as you may agree.. If you dont need it's power (If you dont need to run huge orchestras, and giant sample banks), then I would suggest just opening the Giga files on another sampler, such as EXS24 or Kontakt, inside your DAW.

But if you need Giga, XP with the latest version of 3 all the way.. We have 5 systems as such and they generally run well (enough)

On your other note, under 32bit windows, Gigastudio can't address more than slightly less than 1gb of Ram. So you will be able to load the same amount of instruments into giga with 1.5gb as you can with 2.0gb, but your system will likely run a little smoother with 2.

On you other note.. we'll nobody can give you specifics of how many samples, and how many voices you can load, because it depends upon what you load, and how you play it. Our 2.0gb Xp Giga 3 Orchestra machines can though load a huge amound of Vienna Symhonic Orchestra samples, more than enough to score the most demanding film, and still have room for more.

Good luck

[popmann]

Thanks for that. I guess I'll stick with XP. Although, since the upgrade price is just shy of completely rebuying the software, I'll keep my v 2.5 license, I think. You know...that could be a whole other discussion--the "price of upgrades"--both literal and in auxilary expense. Then...I still have an old G3/233 here with a serial MIDI interface running DP3 in "midi only mode" that I use as a dedicated sequencer. When it killed the MIDI performance/timing of later USB and PCI systems w/ modern software, I went back. So, I'm not big on the whole computer upgrade thing.

To clarify...nothing "more stable" about ME. In fact, the stability of other apps is why I left. In this case, my "better" comment meant I could load more samples into less RAM and the samples loaded faster. And had less noticable latency (even with the same audio card set to the same buffer settings). But, I didn't go directly to XP, so maybe it's not a fair assessment. I took the "hit" in performance when I went to v 2.5 and Win2k. And I guess felt like XP just felt about the same as far as the RAM&Latency.

I don't record in a DAW...and while just doing pop strings(not big orchestral scores)--that would be the main purpose of the box. If you can get a full orchestra scored with a single 2gb box, I should be fine with my little Chamber Strings to cop a little Elenor Rigby'esque action. Thanks.

[popmann]

As I reread...did you mean you score w/ FIVE GS3 machines? How many run strings?

[R3k]

Originally Posted by popmann

As I reread...did you mean you score w/ FIVE GS3 machines? How many run strings?

Hey, sorry for the late reply.

We actually run 5 x gigastudio machines on 5 x workstations.. 1 per piece, though I know of some compusers that run 4 x machines per workstation.

We have a healthy count of Brass, Woods, Strings, both solo and sections, on the 1st 6 ports, and choir samples on the 7th, and mic stuff like weird organs and piano on the 8th. Any one Logic song may only use 4 or 5 giga instruments at once, but having 40 cues in a film, the gigastudio can have quite a work out

[R3k]

Originally Posted by popmann

Thanks for that. I guess I'll stick with XP. Although, since the upgrade price is just shy of completely rebuying the software, I'll keep my v 2.5 license, I think. You know...that could be a whole other discussion--the "price of upgrades"--both literal and in auxilary expense. Then...I still have an old G3/233 here with a serial MIDI interface running DP3 in "midi only mode" that I use as a dedicated sequencer. When it killed the MIDI performance/timing of later USB and PCI systems w/ modern software, I went back. So, I'm not big on the whole computer upgrade thing.

To clarify...nothing "more stable" about ME. In fact, the stability of other apps is why I left. In this case, my "better" comment meant I could load more samples into less RAM and the samples loaded faster. And had less noticable latency (even with the same audio card set to the same buffer settings). But, I didn't go directly to XP, so maybe it's not a fair assessment. I took the "hit" in performance when I went to v 2.5 and Win2k. And I guess felt like XP just felt about the same as far as the RAM&Latency.

I don't record in a DAW...and while just doing pop strings(not big orchestral scores)--that would be the main purpose of the box. If you can get a full orchestra scored with a single 2gb box, I should be fine with my little Chamber Strings to cop a little Elenor Rigby'esque action. Thanks.

Cool... Yeah, i think a single lower spec (no lower than an athlon 2800) 2gb Machine running Xp and Giga 3 is the best bet.. from simple chamber stuff up to full orchestra scoring situations. But alas, its always somewhat unrelaible.... Lol, all the background screens on the giga machines I install have this text based 10 commadment thing, stressing such points as having to pray to the god of giga every week, and waiting 60 seconds after XP loads to start giga, and 60 seconds to shut down XP after Giga quits, thinking and living clean, and not saving a performance unless you have too because of Weird MIDI program changes messing with your channel assignments.... etc, karma comes into play just to get the damn thing to remain reliable.. almost

Anyhow, I could write a thesis in the days Giga has taken from my life... but hey