64 bit or 32 bit OS for music composing

[rw120555]

Hi. My son is always whining that his 3 year old IBM 43 laptop (which is a lot better than my laptop!) locks up when he does complicated stuff with Fruity Loops and some other programs. So, I want to buy him a new laptop that should be a lot more powerful, along with some software and music-related peripherals.

The main question I have now is whether I should go with Vista Ultimate 32 bit or 64 bit. Either can be included at the same price, and either can be upgraded for free to Windows 7 when it comes out. The laptop will probably have 4 GB memory but I may want to upgrade later when memory prices come down.

My understanding is that 64 bit systems use memory better. On the other hand, I've heard that music peripherals don't always work with the latest technology, i.e. I am worried that peripheral devices are less likely to work if we go 64 bit.

He wants to use FL Studio 8 and, possibly, Cubase. His friends are telling him he should get an add-on sound card for recording but I don't know the specifics on that. He has some other peripherals right now (e.g. a mixer or something like that) - it would be nice to keep those but maybe they'll have to be replaced if they don't work.

Thanks for any thoughts. These lockups have been an incredible source of frustration for him, so I really hope we can get something that will do what he wants. There are some areas of computing I know a fair amount about but music is not one of them!

 

[akugami]

64 bit systems don't use memory better so much as it is able to address or "see" more memory. I believe that 32 bit systems are limited to something like 3.5GB while a 64 bit system would be able to address enough memory that for the foreseeable future, it won't be a problem.

As you've guessed, your main problem would be 64 bit support from some software. Most 32 bit Windows software should have no problems running in a 64 bit Windows environment. This is because Vista (and Windows 7) 64 bit editions contain what's called Windows on Windows 64 emulation layer (WoW64) which translates the 32 bit instructions to something the 64 bit system can use.

 

[VinylxScratches]

Originally posted by: akugami
64 bit systems don't use memory better so much as it is able to address or "see" more memory. I believe that 32 bit systems are limited to something like 3.5GB while a 64 bit system would be able to address enough memory that for the foreseeable future, it won't be a problem.

As you've guessed, your main problem would be 64 bit support from some software. Most 32 bit Windows software should have no problems running in a 64 bit Windows environment. This is because Vista (and Windows 7) 64 bit editions contain what's called Windows on Windows 64 emulation layer (WoW64) which translates the 32 bit instructions to something the 64 bit system can use.

I believe Microsoft crippled Windows XP and Vista 32bit to only allocate 3.5 gigs of ram. Windows Server 2003 doesn't have this problem.

 

[Krynj]

It's not that they crippled the 32bit versions of XP and Vista by forcing it to allocate 3.5GB of RAM (it's actually 4GB of total system memory). It's simply the nature of any 32bit OS, regardless of who made it. It's not something they did as a marketing/sales technique. You can use PAE, but it's just easier to use a 64bit OS.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: VinylxScratches

Originally posted by: akugami
64 bit systems don't use memory better so much as it is able to address or "see" more memory. I believe that 32 bit systems are limited to something like 3.5GB while a 64 bit system would be able to address enough memory that for the foreseeable future, it won't be a problem.

As you've guessed, your main problem would be 64 bit support from some software. Most 32 bit Windows software should have no problems running in a 64 bit Windows environment. This is because Vista (and Windows 7) 64 bit editions contain what's called Windows on Windows 64 emulation layer (WoW64) which translates the 32 bit instructions to something the 64 bit system can use.

I believe Microsoft crippled Windows XP and Vista 32bit to only allocate 3.5 gigs of ram. Windows Server 2003 doesn't have this problem.

misconception, it is more due to shitty drivers from 3rd parties that are limitation. you can allocate more just as you do in server editions.

 

[Kirby]

FL Studio is still 32 bit, but I've had no problem running it in Vista 64 bit. As to the mixer, you'll just have to look it up and see if there are drivers for it.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: rw120555
Hi. My son is always whining that his 3 year old IBM 43 laptop (which is a lot better than my laptop!) locks up when he does complicated stuff with Fruity Loops and some other programs. So, I want to buy him a new laptop that should be a lot more powerful, along with some software and music-related peripherals.

sometimes 64 bit will work better for a workstation program.

i use a number of 3D programs & non-3D programs (Flash, Photoshop) and it's real hit & miss as far as which one is properly & thoroughly supported in 64 bit.

one of the main things that people have to learn is how to get by with finite computing resources. that's been part of the ball-game for most of the history of computer workstations.

as far as Vista 32 on a laptop, i had Vista32 on a single core laptop & it was too slow. i loaded XP32 & it ran much faster. that system has 2 GB.

i upgraded to a dual core laptop with Vista32 & Vista64. the extra core makes a huge difference. that system has 4 GB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_I3br9m-68

Pillsbury Doughboy commercial from the 1980's. when RAM was $500 a MB & 10 MB was a "maxed out system". yet somehow Pacific Data Images (which became Dreamworks Animation) found a way to animate the doughboy with shadows (and, of course, bill the client ).

not to be cruel to your son, but it's important to know for what operations a computer is "comfortable" and when it's on thin ice, then do his creative work accordingly.

 

[rw120555]

Thanks for the comments everyone. Yes, my impression is that the software isn't the issue with 64 bit, it is the drivers. In the short run it might be safer to go with 32 bit, although in the long run I wish he had software and hardware that took full advantage of 64 bit.

With regards to being "comfortable", it wouldn't surprise me if he isn't the most efficient computer user out there; but unfortunately he is not the type who is going to try hard to live within his computer's limits. He'll just get mad at it and complain it isn't working. Indeed, I'm worried that all a new machine will do is just take him a little longer to get to that point.

 

[Nothinman]

I believe that 32 bit systems are limited to something like 3.5GB while a 64 bit system would be able to address enough memory that for the foreseeable future, it won't be a problem.

The limit is 4G but there's addresses lost to hardware for I/O so it's 4G minus whatever range your hardware requires. Most BIOSes let you remap the lost memory above the 4G mark so it can be used, but not by 32-bit Windows clients because MS crippled their PAE implementation.

This is because Vista (and Windows 7) 64 bit editions contain what's called Windows on Windows 64 emulation layer (WoW64) which translates the 32 bit instructions to something the 64 bit system can use.

WoW64 just does some file and registry redirection to make sure the process gets 32-bit libraries and such, the actual binary is passed down mostly untouched and executed directly on the CPU because AMD64 CPUs do 32-bit x86 instructions natively even in long mode.

Windows Server 2003 doesn't have this problem.

You need Enterprise edition or higher, but yea.

It's simply the nature of any 32bit OS, regardless of who made it. It's not something they did as a marketing/sales technique. You can use PAE, but it's just easier to use a 64bit OS.

No, every other 32-bit OS out there supports >4G of memory. It's only easier to use a 64-bit release of Windows because MS intentionally crippled their 32-bit client releases.

 

[mmntech]

The simplest answer is that there's no reason not to go 64-bit. Just check to see if there are 64-bit drivers for his peripherals.

 

[Nothinman]

The simplest answer is that there's no reason not to go 64-bit. Just check to see if there are 64-bit drivers for his peripherals.

You just listed one reason...

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

You do NOT want Vista for audio. You also do not want a cheap built-in sound device and you must diasble WiFi. This forum is not going to be good for your DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) questions, I suggest www.gearslutz.com (a great community of professional and hobbyist recording engineers, musicians, and hardware vendors). While, I am able to run FL on my crappy DELL laptop with Vista 32 and cheap built-in sound, it is not what you want if that's your main application. XP 64 would be much better, disabling the WiFi and getting an outboard (low-latency ASIO) device. The firewire chipset in most laptops can cause problems, too. Here is one that has the desired TI chipset:

http://h18000.www1.hp.com/prod...12442_na/12442_na.HTML

 

[KentState]

I've been using Vista 64 with Cakewalk in conjunction with a Tascam audio interface and it has been stable, no lag, and full driver support. I just make sure that everything is turned off like network, virus software, and so on. The preference is to use 64-bit if possible because of the extra memory and secondly the better recording software can take advantage of dual cores and make sure you get a fast drive to record to. If I was more interested in recording right now, I would look at getting a nice SSD.

 

[rw120555]

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai
You do NOT want Vista for audio. You also do not want a cheap built-in sound device and you must diasble WiFi. This forum is not going to be good for your DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) questions, I suggest www.gearslutz.com (a great community of professional and hobbyist recording engineers, musicians, and hardware vendors). While, I am able to run FL on my crappy DELL laptop with Vista 32 and cheap built-in sound, it is not what you want if that's your main application. XP 64 would be much better, disabling the WiFi and getting an outboard (low-latency ASIO) device. The firewire chipset in most laptops can cause problems, too. Here is one that has the desired TI chipset:

http://h18000.www1.hp.com/prod...12442_na/12442_na.HTML

Well, just when I thought I was ready to order...

The computer can be upgraded to Windows 7. Is that supposed to be better for audio?

I can get a pretty good deal on a Dell XPS Studio 16. It seems to have very good reviews. It is meant for playing audio and video, but I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it is good for recording it. It also comes with this "Complete Care" warranty, which my son seems to desperately need. I don't know if his current computer is a lemon or if he is just too rough on it, but he certainly has had one problem after another with it.

Turning off Wifi and antivirus sounds like a good idea. We will get him some sort of external sound card.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

Originally posted by: rw120555
Well, just when I thought I was ready to order...

The computer can be upgraded to Windows 7. Is that supposed to be better for audio?

I can get a pretty good deal on a Dell XPS Studio 16. It seems to have very good reviews. It is meant for playing audio and video, but I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it is good for recording it. It also comes with this "Complete Care" warranty, which my son seems to desperately need. I don't know if his current computer is a lemon or if he is just too rough on it, but he certainly has had one problem after another with it.

Turning off Wifi and antivirus sounds like a good idea. We will get him some sort of external sound card.

Not sure if Win7 is better because it's not officially out yet. Piracy is seriously frowned upon in the music industry. Whatever you choose, I hope it works out for him! :music:

 

[rw120555]

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai

Not sure if Win7 is better because it's not officially out yet. Piracy is seriously frowned upon in the music industry. Whatever you choose, I hope it works out for him! :music:

Thanks! All the reviews I have read of Win7 have been good, but again I don't know how much that applies specifically to audio.

And I agree with you on piracy. Besides the ethical problems, there are a lot of practical concerns. When my son was younger, he basically destroyed a computer I was letting him use. I swear, he must have seen stuff like "10,000 popup ads for free" or "destroy your computer and get a free song!" and just jumped on them. Maybe smart pirates can do better than that, but I hopefully made it pretty clear that I never wanted to see him pirating anything again. He and I can get academic discounts that make most software prices tolerable.