The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Windows 10 is rolling out... share your experiences here
Old 16th February 2018
  #5341
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Interesting they come up with this after most of us have been doing this for 2 decades.
Its reaching the point of the RDF where claims of something like a multi-button mouse was touted as being ground breaking , LOL !

If they were so concerned about outright performance for workstations , there are a list of area's I could recommend they concentrate on instead of repackaging ice to the eskimos.

Old 17th February 2018
  #5342
Lives for gear
 

I read it was going to be a paid upgrade, $100 was the number I saw, IIRC.

All this seems to be is an attempt at an all-in-one solution for real power users. I'm not talking DAW power users, but rather in general. While some things might seem appealing at first glance, when you stop and think about it, it ends up potentially being not so good.

First is the 4 CPU and 6TB of RAM support. Could be great for orchestral templates but then you think of the cooling that will be required to support those and the machine might not be very quiet. I can't imagine the form factor it'd require, etc... .

The file system and RAID support don't seem to offer any value, RAID's never been ideal for audio. Has that changed with SSD's?

This quote is what really has me questioning things;

Quote:
As part of our effort to provide the absolute maximum performance we’re introducing a new power policy called Ultimate Performance. Windows has developed key areas where performance and efficiency tradeoffs are made in the OS. Over time, we’ve amassed a collection of settings which allow the OS to quickly tune the behavior based on user preference, policy, underlying hardware or workload.

This new policy builds on the current High-Performance policy, and it goes a step further to eliminate micro-latencies associated with fine grained power management techniques.
I highlighted the last sentence, it might be the 'got ya'. If it'd stopped after the words 'user preference' I'd think different. But, the stuff that comes after makes me wonder if the OS will change states when it thinks they need changing and if history has taught us anything, that doesn't go over very well with realtime processes, no time to yawn, stretch and rub the sleep out of the peepers.

This is nothing but snake oil as far as DAW use goes, IMHO. W10 Home/Pro have all settings needed to get 100% performance a couple of clicks away. If you don't want to see something in Start, uninstall it. If they'd reinstate selectable updates all would be right in the world. Aside from that W10 has been the best.
Old 17th February 2018
  #5343
Lives for gear
 
ponzi's Avatar
At the risk of getting back on topic, is there any indication that this new ultimate performance mode is different from the high performance mode it replaces? I am aware of a number of power saving features to an intel chip, and I suppose the mobo has its own. The first being the ability to slow down the clock speed in times of low activity. I think this is the latency killer as it takes too long to speed up the cpu when there is a music load. Also, I think there are features that idle some of the cpus on a chip during low activity. Maybe the mobo can slow its clock down which would impact ram speed.

Heat generated by digital electronics comes primarily from the switching from on to off in transistor circuits, due to the non square wave nature of said transits. So, heat is a direct product of clock speed.

As to some philosophical points raised earlier, it should be axiomatic that demand for improvements on said 'craftsman's tools' has lead to the sublime state of our technology today. And there is no question that both windows and osx have plenty of room for improvement in usability for non-technical folks. As a technical guy, I can generally do the under the hood stuff, but there is no reason I should have to, really.

I submit that any daw program would be well designed if it turned off all power saving features, at least on desktop systems. The limits of battery life make this more problematic for a laptop when its not plugged into wall power. I will note that the cpuid program is a good way to see of one's cpu is actually running at its designated speed--an indicator that one may want to mess with power settings.
Old 18th February 2018
  #5344
Lives for gear
 

Amazed the Creators Update foisting hasn't taken place yet on my system. I'm up to date with Windows updates, as far as Windows is telling me. Not complaining, just surprised that whatever buttons I pushed to delay it seem to have done the trick
Old 18th February 2018
  #5345
Gear Maniac
 
ericzang's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychlist1972 View Post
Pete
Hi Pete, you having a connection to Microsoft, I'm interested to know if you have any insight into a possible resolution to this "FLS slot limit" that can limit the amount of unique plugins that a DAW can load. I and others have experienced this.

Here's a pertinent post and the thread its from:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdm View Post
This is an artificial limit imposed by Microsoft for unknown reasons. There isn't really anything Steinberg can do.

Plugin developers are the ones need to move to dynamic linking so we can squeeze the most out of the FLS limit. Steinberg already uses dynamic linking and will do what they can, but most of the limit will show up when loading plugins.

The problem is plugin developers who use static linking - i.e. they load a static C runtime library reference for each instance instead of dynamically linking one time. For sure, this is a serious issue for Windows users as it basically turns Windows into a DSP-limited system - faster CPUs won't buy you more FLS slots. There are only 128, unless Microsoft decides to change it. My guess is this limit was imposed to avoid another potential problem in Windows 10, so I wouldn't hold my breath for a change.

For now, the only workaround is to use plugins with dynamic linking so you don't pay again for each instance. There is an FLS checker plugin (VST) that will tell you how many slots you have free. Plugins that are statically linked will limit how many plugins you can run.

Decades of progress in native processing, and leave it to Microsoft to put a 1990's era limit on it.....sigh.
Steinberg Releases Cubase 9.5

Thanks!
Old 19th February 2018
  #5346
kdm
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericzang View Post
Hi Pete, you having a connection to Microsoft, I'm interested to know if you have any insight into a possible resolution to this "FLS slot limit" that can limit the amount of unique plugins that a DAW can load. I and others have experienced this.

Here's a pertinent post and the thread its from:



Steinberg Releases Cubase 9.5

Thanks!
Thanks for posting this here - I was just about to do the same.

To add to the question - Pete (MS), the FLS limit is rather significant for those of us with large templates. While most plugins and DAW dlls should be dynamic for many reasons (I have read some of Microsoft's dev notes on this), as cpu power increases, more of us will run into this limit under normal uses. While most people might not see it based on how they use plugins, or the size of projects, the limit affects enough of us to be a serious concern.

Is there anyway this limit can be increased, or removed? Is it possible a future version of Windows will not even rely on dlls (i.e. various versions of runtime libararies), and as such, have no need for the limit?
Old 19th February 2018
  #5347
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdm View Post
Is there anyway this limit can be increased, or removed? Is it possible a future version of Windows will not even rely on dlls (i.e. various versions of runtime libararies), and as such, have no need for the limit?
Hey Dedric,

I haven't seen anything like this since XP days , nor have I had any clients report this to me , so wondering what the actual trigger limit is ?

Are various plugins more prone, etc ?

Old 19th February 2018
  #5348
kdm
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
Hey Dedric,

I haven't seen anything like this since XP days , nor have I had any clients report this to me , so wondering what the actual trigger limit is ?

Are various plugins more prone, etc ?


The limit depends on how many dynamic vs. static links the DAW uses. Most plugins are use dynamic linking, but some are static. Dynamic linked plugins only allocate FLS slots one time, then each additional instance of that plugin require no additional slots.

If static, each instance of that plugin will use one or more FLS slots. I think there are around 71 in Cubase 9, and 94 or so in Reaper (Reaper has fewer extended functions that require library links - no OMF, no Eucon, etc - at least I assume those components in Cubase/Nuendo require FLS slots, being dll components).

Most plugins will use 1-2 slots for the first instance, and none for each successive instance (dynamic), so it isn't a problem running multiple EQs or Comps (such as Fabfilter). But using a lot of different plugins, each allocating FLS slots, could hit the limit.

Arturia's VIs use 5-8 slots each. It doesn't take long to hit 71 with their synths. When you hit the limit, no more plugins will load. Waves uses at least 1 FLS slot when it loads the first plugin (for Waveshell I presume). Additional Waves plugins usually don't add to that usage, but some do, and I have seen loading 6 or so Waves plugins decrease the total FLS slots available, even after all Waves plugins were removed (requiring a DAW reboot to clear).

Many users will never see it simply because they don't use that many unique plugins to each require FLS slots - most typically use several instances of the same plugins.
Old 20th February 2018
  #5349
Lives for gear
 
stella645's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdm View Post

If static, each instance of that plugin will use one or more FLS slots. I think there are around 71 in Cubase 9, and 94 or so in Reaper
As you seem to have pretty much taken these figures from my earlier test let me just clarify these numbers were the total number of unique plugs that I could load.

I have no idea which of my plugs are dynamically or statically linked....but assume some must be dynamically and so the available number of FLS slots we're talking about is presumably lower than the number of plugs I loaded.
Old 20th February 2018
  #5350
kdm
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by stella645 View Post
As you seem to have pretty much taken these figures from my earlier test let me just clarify these numbers were the total number of unique plugs that I could load.

I have no idea which of my plugs are dynamically or statically linked....but assume some must be dynamically and so the available number of FLS slots we're talking about is presumably lower than the number of plugs I loaded.

Those were actually my own test numbers - as close as I can recall at least since I didn't have the exact numbers on hand to quote (I checked Reaper here since we don't know how many slots each plugin you used would require - they aren't always 1). I started testing DP9 as well but ran out of time.

It would be difficult to know which are static and which are dynamic by just loading plugins, but if all in your test are unique, and not Waves plugins, then it can give a reasonable reference point.
Old 20th February 2018
  #5351
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericzang View Post
Hi Pete, you having a connection to Microsoft, I'm interested to know if you have any insight into a possible resolution to this "FLS slot limit" that can limit the amount of unique plugins that a DAW can load. I and others have experienced this.

Here's a pertinent post and the thread its from:

Steinberg Releases Cubase 9.5

Thanks!
Yes. I work for Microsoft, in Windows (for folks who don't know).

Assuming this is the same VC runtime static linking limit, Presonus ran into this issue in 2015. It's related to the number of *unique* plugins compiled with the statically-linked runtime. There's a thread here on GS somewhere.

Presonus changed Studio One to use the dynamically-linked runtime in 3.3, which made it so they could load something like 80+ unique plugins (vs around 50 previously), with static-linked runtimes, without problems. I forget the exact details.

Solution is for plugin vendors to use the dynamically-linked (.dll instead of .lib) runtime.

This is unique plugins, remember. So to run into it, you'd have to load up and use a large number of different plugins. If you use the same plugin on multiple tracks, it's only a single plugin.

In addition to patching/security concerns (static libs don't get patched unless the developer recompiles), all those static-linked VC runtimes are also not great for memory efficiency. You've got the same code loaded a number of times in the process. DLLs are loaded once per version.

Plugins moving to dynamic linking of the vcrt fixes this.

windows - Working around fls limitations with too many statically linked CRTs? - Stack Overflow

How many DLLs can be loaded in a process ( using LoadLibrary() )

Edit: Additional info:

Quote:
Regarding performance implications of statically linking: When a single CRT DLL is used, it can be mapped into memory once and its code pages and read-only data pages may be shared across all process that use the CRT DLL. When the CRT is statically linked into a module, every “copy” of the statically linked CRT must be mapped separately into memory. This is especially important on memory-constrained systems (e.g., phones, other mobile devices, and servers). Additionally, each copy of the CRT has its own state, including one or two FLS slots and per-thread allocations that store various runtime state (e.g., errno). You are right that today there is less benefit from this due to the large number of CRT DLLs; we can’t “fix” the past, but we can try to improve things for the future.
Source: Introducing the Universal CRT | Visual C++ Team Blog


Pete

Last edited by Psychlist1972; 20th February 2018 at 03:20 AM..
Old 20th February 2018
  #5352
kdm
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychlist1972 View Post
Yes. I work for Microsoft, in Windows (for folks who don't know).

Assuming this is the same VC runtime static linking limit, Presonus ran into this issue in 2015. It's related to the number of *unique* plugins compiled with the statically-linked runtime. There's a thread here on GS somewhere.

Presonus changed Studio One to use the dynamically-linked runtime in 3.3, which made it so they could load something like 80+ unique plugins (vs around 50 previously), with static-linked runtimes, without problems. I forget the exact details.

Solution is for plugin vendors to use the dynamically-linked (.dll instead of .lib) runtime.

This is unique plugins, remember. So to run into it, you'd have to load up and use a large number of different plugins. If you use the same plugin on multiple tracks, it's only a single plugin.
Hi Pete - thank you for responding on this issue. Unfortunately, for those of us running large projects, simply relying on plugin developers to move to dynamically linked isn't a solution. I have already run into the limit with dynamically linked plugins (Arturia VIs/.dlls) that happen to use 5-8 FLS slots each, and I haven't even approached the final/mix stage. There are many other plugins that use more than one slot, increasing the chance of using enough unique plugins to hit the limit. Waves plugins also eat up FLS slots by not fully releasing what they use when the plugin is removed - also increasing the likelihood of hitting the limit.

Presonus didn't solve the problem - they just opened up more slots for plugins by minimizing what Studio One uses; just as Steinberg would be doing with their components. There are hundreds of plugins and virtual instruments on the market, and as DAW developers add features as add-on components (dlls), they will also be using more FLS slots - even when dynamically linked.

This limit doesn't exist on Mac OSX, so for many of us, if not today, then with future systems (more cpu power, etc), we will reach a limit with Windows where we simply can't finish projects on Windows and will have to consider switching (despite having no fondness for Macs). It is already a serious issue for many of us. I am already weighing the tradeoffs of going to a Mac for my next host system (and no, I really don't like Apple, but getting work done is more important than platform loyalty).
Old 20th February 2018
  #5353
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdm View Post
The limit depends on how many dynamic vs. static links the DAW uses. Most plugins are use dynamic linking, but some are static. Dynamic linked plugins only allocate FLS slots one time, then each additional instance of that plugin require no additional slots.
Interesting that some plugins require more slots, why would Artura for example require more for single instances that are not multi timbrel, which then raises the question whether instruments like Kontakt which have the ability to have 16-64 instruments per instance use more slots, or is the multi part/timbrel aspect not relevant ?

Not being a programmer I have no concept of what issues may arise by removing or raising the ceiling , Pete might be able to give further insight on that if it is in fact relevant.

Old 20th February 2018
  #5354
Re: FLS.

I'm looking into this on my side.

I still find it interesting that it took a decade for folks to run into this. From what I understand, this was introduced in Vista. It makes me think something else is going on, or that devs are only now switching from TLS to FLS or similar.

Pete
Old 20th February 2018
  #5355
kdm
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychlist1972 View Post
Re: FLS.

I'm looking into this on my side.

I still find it interesting that it took a decade for folks to run into this. From what I understand, this was introduced in Vista. It makes me think something else is going on, or that devs are only now switching from TLS to FLS or similar.

Pete
Hi Pete - simple answer - cpu power, SSDs and memory speeds have finally caught up, and plugins have become more complex, capable and there are far more options. That is why. With Vista systems, a quad core was cutting edge, and running 50 plugins generally meant basic EQs.

Now we can run 20-30 VIs easily, each for their unique character and capabilities, multiple outputs, and then 50 plugins on top of that for mixing. That really wasn't the case until the past 5 years or so. I can max out FLS slots without coming close to maxing out ASIO/cpu load.

Last edited by kdm; 20th February 2018 at 08:22 PM..
Old 20th February 2018
  #5356
kdm
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
Interesting that some plugins require more slots, why would Artura for example require more for single instances that are not multi timbrel, which then raises the question whether instruments like Kontakt which have the ability to have 16-64 instruments per instance use more slots, or is the multi part/timbrel aspect not relevant ?
I have contacted Arturia and they are looking into it. It probably depends on how they load libraries for each plugin - i.e. they might be using core libraries for each plugin, and separate/unique libraries for individual characteristics. Just a guess. I really don't know.

Waves' Abbey Road Plates uses 3 slots, and it doesn't release 1 of those, leaving it allocated even when all instances are removed from the project (rebooting Cubase is the only way to release it). That could be a bug (not releasing), but why it uses 3 links, I don't know - probably the same as Arturia - 2-3 common libraries being called rather than the plugin being programmed with everything self-contained. Pete could answer this better as I may be making an inaccurate association here, but from what I remember of my C programming days, calling libraries is a more efficient way of loading code than programming every line into a plugin. If that is the case, it isn't necessarily better to use fewer library calls, and it may depend on the plugin. That is another reason why a limit to slots could return us to the days of TDM - carefully planning and limiting mixes around available "dsp", or in this case, FLS; submixing, bouncing, and mixing stems. Hardly progress given the cpu power we have available now.
Old 20th February 2018
  #5357
Lives for gear
Microsoft’s own security patch download links are based on HTTP, not HTTPS.

Pete, I don't know how big a deal this is in practice, but the link cites repeated attempt requests that Microsoft fix this. Maybe it's alarmist, but seems like an easily fixed item ?

Microsoft is distributing security patches through insecure HTTP links | Computerworld
Old 20th February 2018
  #5358
Lives for gear
 
throbert's Avatar
 

So the best way to update to the latest build of W10 is to do a fresh install. So
where do you get it? I Assume the media creation tool still has the earliest build
Old 20th February 2018
  #5359
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by throbert View Post
So the best way to update to the latest build of W10 is to do a fresh install. So
where do you get it? I Assume the media creation tool still has the earliest build
Why is that more preferable than just to do the normal update?
And - if this is the case, why does the MS not advice that the millions of users?
Since we have a MS expert Pete here, maybe he can reply...
Old 20th February 2018
  #5360
Gear Guru
 

I think there's also a way to upgrade your existing Win 7 or 8 to 10, and then delete / clean the system drive of old OS/system files. Of course you'll lose some stuff in the process, but you could obviously always clone a backup or whatever.
Old 20th February 2018
  #5361
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by throbert View Post
So the best way to update to the latest build of W10 is to do a fresh install. So
where do you get it? I Assume the media creation tool still has the earliest build
Incorrect. Upgrades should trigger a fresh OS install, not updates. Think buying a new car but keeping the old's interior with all the accumulated stains and damage.

The MCT has at least 1709, last I checked.
Old 20th February 2018
  #5362
Quote:
Originally Posted by throbert View Post
So the best way to update to the latest build of W10 is to do a fresh install. So
where do you get it? I Assume the media creation tool still has the earliest build
The Media Creation Tool always downloads the latest ISO when started, you cannot even load an older version if you wanted to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_O View Post
Why is that more preferable than just to do the normal update?
And - if this is the case, why does the MS not advice that the millions of users?
Since we have a MS expert Pete here, maybe he can reply...
Well, not Pete here, but MS' policy is to have as many customers on the same platform as possible with as little user activity as possible. That is why upgrades are pushed.
Doing it the manual way is cleaner, as it avoids conflicts with AV software, copy protection and wobbly programmed drivers which may cause havoc with a patched upgrade. I have had it once, a clean install ran superb, the upgrade was instable regarding performance. My office laptop had no issues with upgrades so far, despite a gazillion of applications installed on it (a lot legacy as well).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I think there's also a way to upgrade your existing Win 7 or 8 to 10, and then delete / clean the system drive of old OS/system files. Of course you'll lose some stuff in the process, but you could obviously always clone a backup or whatever.
Yes, type "cleanup" in the start menu and push the "cleanup system files" button after the first scan.
Old 20th February 2018
  #5363
Lives for gear
 
throbert's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Wade View Post
Incorrect. Upgrades should trigger a fresh OS install, not updates. Think buying a
new car but keeping the old's interior with all the accumulated stains and damage.

The MCT has at least 1709, last I checked.
Hi Nate, good to here from you,
I have MCT from back in 2016, so should I re DLL it to get 1709. I went back to W7 but I'll be
using your guide this time so no internet until the trigger/reboot.

Oh, and a couple questions:

1. how do you do the overwrite mode in Command?

2. I wanted to know if this is what you mean by system administrator:

open command with run as administrator and type:
C:\>net user administrator /active:yes
log off/reboot and get an administrator account

thanks for your help,
throb
Old 20th February 2018
  #5364
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
The Media Creation Tool always downloads the latest ISO when started, you cannot even load an older version if you wanted to.


Well, not Pete here, but MS' policy is to have as many customers on the same platform as possible with as little user activity as possible. That is why upgrades are pushed.
Doing it the manual way is cleaner, as it avoids conflicts with AV software, copy protection and wobbly programmed drivers which may cause havoc with a patched upgrade. I have had it once, a clean install ran superb, the upgrade was instable regarding performance. My office laptop had no issues with upgrades so far, despite a gazillion of applications installed on it (a lot legacy as well).

Yes, type "cleanup" in the start menu and push the "cleanup system files" button after the first scan.
Well, I think the origin of my question was caused by the confusion, that the person I referred, talked about "update". Update for me, is which happens inside one product version, e.g. Win 10. If I´ve understood correctly, the person was talking about "ugrage". That makes more sense to me.

But talking about the updates, some updates are pending in my Win 10 updater, I guess a bigger one since last week (?). Is that a major one, and more important than the other? I didn´t find any special information about that in the MS site. The MS site of the list of update history is inadequeate in the way, that there are no realease dates (?), which makes following the history difficult.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...update-history
Old 20th February 2018
  #5365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_O View Post
Well, I think the origin of my question was caused by the confusion, that the person I referred, talked about "update". Update for me, is which happens inside one product version, e.g. Win 10. If I´ve understood correctly, the person was talking about "ugrage". That makes more sense to me.
I agree, and I noted the "confusion" as well.
Quote:
But talking about the updates, some updates are pending in my Win 10 updater, I guess a bigger one since last week (?). Is that a major one, and more important than the other? I didn´t find any special information about that in the MS site. The MS site of the list of update history is inadequeate in the way, that there are no realease dates (?), which makes following the history difficult.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...update-history
Not sure, I don't follow updates closely myself.
Old 20th February 2018
  #5366
Gear Addict
 
Magnus Lindberg's Avatar
 

@ Psychlist1972

Pete, do you have more info about the Ultimate Performace feature?
Why only on Pro for WS?
Will us "normal Pro" users be able to upgrade to acces this feature?

Thanks!
Old 20th February 2018
  #5367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_O View Post
Why is that more preferable than just to do the normal update?
And - if this is the case, why does the MS not advice that the millions of users?
Since we have a MS expert Pete here, maybe he can reply...
I only do clean installs when I upgrade my hardware. Otherwise, I use the normal upgrade process.

I have a *lot* of crazy stuff on this PC. Not only do I use it for making music (and trying different DAWs) and for video editing, but I also do a lot of work with IoT devices, and their various compilers, plus normal Visual Studio work.

But I also use the built-in anti-virus stuff. If you use third-party products.

No issues with upgrades here. But if you really want to do a rebuild from scratch, it'll remove any unknowns and give you a clean slate. I'm just not up for doing that every 6 months.

On my PCs that are in the insiders program: there's no way I'd do a clean install every week.

Pete
Old 20th February 2018
  #5368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_O View Post
Well, I think the origin of my question was caused by the confusion, that the person I referred, talked about "update". Update for me, is which happens inside one product version, e.g. Win 10. If I´ve understood correctly, the person was talking about "ugrage". That makes more sense to me.

But talking about the updates, some updates are pending in my Win 10 updater, I guess a bigger one since last week (?). Is that a major one, and more important than the other? I didn´t find any special information about that in the MS site. The MS site of the list of update history is inadequeate in the way, that there are no realease dates (?), which makes following the history difficult.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...update-history
We refer to them as "Quality Updates" (the things that happen more often, and fix bugs, security, etc. and "Feature Updates" (or upgrades). The latter happens twice a year, and despite being called "Windows 10", behave a bit more like a new OS version.

Pete
Old 20th February 2018
  #5369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus Lindberg View Post
@ Psychlist1972

Pete, do you have more info about the Ultimate Performace feature?
Why only on Pro for WS?
Will us "normal Pro" users be able to upgrade to acces this feature?

Thanks!
I haven't asked for inside info on this, but it strikes me as the same type of power management stuff that some of the DAW builders here have been doing. (disabling core parking, etc.)

It's really just about power management, and is only for desktops (not laptops). On workstations with multiple Xeon procs, I can see how this might help a bit. For the typical i5/i7, you probably wouldn't notice much. But, again, not something I've tested or asked about.

If it's important to see in regular pro, log or vote-up feedback in the feedback hub. That's the best way to convince folks that there is interest/need for something.

Pete
Old 20th February 2018
  #5370
Lives for gear
 

The biggest issue I've seen with upgrading an OS, take W7-W10, is that drivers get carried over, it works for a while, and then WUP decides to update drivers and then misery. I've seen it time and again. Not only that, but a lot of other useless crap is carried over. In a DAW environment where so many devices/programs have to interact seamlessly, how could that be a good thing? Now consider troubleshooting, surely a clean install takes countless variables out of the equation. Last, add changes between the OS's and possible obscure conflicts they can cause add intermittent to obscure and a clean install may be the timesaver in the long run.

Even with Cubase, I've learned to never upgrade due to the changes between versions, I always do a clean install. Further, I finish projects in the version they were started in most times.

I've run Cubase on at least 7 different systems over the years without any crazy issues. By crazy I mean intermittent or non-100% repro-able. I never have dropouts during any process, no crashes, nothing. From Dells to self-built, employing my methods of installs, tweaks, imaging and multi-booting with hidden partitions has allowed me to just make music non-sense free. Not to toot my own horn, but I must be doing something right.

Just like you wouldn't look at the condition of the paper after the last wipe of the morning constitutional to decide if it should be carried over to the next round, so shouldn't you upgrade an OS.

And yes, if I find the Quality Updates introduce some kind of funkiness that requires anything that would ruin a perfect install, I'll redo the OS. So far I've gotten bit once but it turned out an update (probably quality) changed my time zone so it broke copy protection and auths. I just booted to a working, non-updated install and carried on. Later that week I just bit the bullet not knowing all it was, was the clock being off and did a fresh install. Later I noticed the clock and what had happened.

The latest cumulative update broke CCleaner in that it would skip cleaning cookies for both IE and Edge. Seemed a setting in Windows' Cleanup got changed so it skipped cleaning them. It had to do with Favorites or similar, I'll have to note it next time. I don't recall seeing the setting before, so maybe it's new? Anyways, toggling it has CCleaner cleaning again. There was something else odd, another setting that got changed but I can think of it ATM.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump