Boys,

this is simple maths:

1. As XP needs at least ca. 210MB for the OS, it is no wonder, that with 512MB RAM, you are able to load more samples under Win98SE, which will (e.g. with 98lite) only occupy ca. 80-100MB of RAM.

-Win98SE: 512-100=412MB for samples
-WinXP: 512-210=302MB for samples

2. Since Win98's VMM will refuse to boot with more than ca. 1000MB of RAM, we will be able to load up to 900MB max. under Win98SE - no matter how we set the vcache and/or limit the PhysPage. XP allows you to put in e.g. 1,5GB of RAM and when you have configured your system according to the TASCAM-guide, you will be able to load up to 93-98% shown by the GS-memory-meter, which equals around 1Gig for msg32. Lower results may occur and are part of the holy plan of the universe [;)].

-Win98SE: 1000-100=900MB for samples
-WinXP: 1500-210=1290MB for samples/limited to 1000MB max.

Conclusion: You will be able to load MORE samples using XP, in case you are not one of those "poor boys" that can't get their XP-system to load the max. Shit happens [:(].

So for me it looks like this (my experiences are based on Asus boards with VIA chipsets, Athlon processors and Maxtor drives):
Under Win98SE I always get intermitting glitches and or choking streams, whenever the polyphony is topping 140 mono voices. The same hardware under XP gives me rock-solid 160 voices; no glitches, no choking. And around 100MB of RAM more for samples. Under Win2000 I was not able to load more than ca. 600MB before the "message of death" <error 5> has been shown. This is at least what I experienced in the past year and I am sure, that other hardware might give you different results...

All the best

Roman

Hmm, that's a fairly patronising tone you have there Roman, boy. [;)]

Spoke to TASCAM tech support earlier. They reckoned one thing that has (perhaps inexplicably) solved this problem in the past is a reinstallation of XP, which I might try before I go back to 98.

Was just reading through this topic and remembering the days of 98 before I upgraded... and all the crashes. All my machines run XP now, and each one has 1GB or more ram. The one recently added to run SI strings has 1.5GB, and right this moment I am looking at it at 98% full in GS. There must be something odd in the combination of gear that is preventing your machines from running correctly, and I would suggest further reseach into the matter before returning to 98 (cuz getting it to work is SO worth this time both for memory and stability purposes.)

All the machines that run GS here are built the same, and all components were chosen based on a prior system that seemed infallable on xp. I always steered clear of AMD simply because of the difficulty in making certain all components were compatable with one another. It IS far less expensive and just as fast to go AMD instead of Intel, but the difficulty in choosing totally compatable parts scared me off and made me stick with Intel. These machines were not designed to be gaming speed demons or anything, just fast, stable giga machines that could handle what I threw at them. Perhaps I've just lucked onto a good combination, so I'll share:

(all machines) - Asus Mobo P4B
(all machines) - P4 2.0b (2Ghz) (400mhz fsb)
(2machines) - 2x 512MB PC133 SDRAM Samsung ram (1GB total on each pc)
(1machines) - 3x 512MB PC133 SDRAM PNY ram (1.5GB total)
(2machines) - M-Audio AudioPhile 2496's
(1machines) - M-Audio Delta 44
Maxtor HD's all (4x 45GB, 1x 60GB, 1x 80GB)
Using MidiOverLan for midi connectivity
Midi input from Roland full size to Midiman Oxygen 8 and then in via Oxy8's USB cable.

All 3 run on XP, and have been running like this for many long months now without any having crashed on me for any reason even once. Then again, I almost never even turn those machines off. I like em ready when it's time to work [:)]

Anyway, I guess the point of this post is just to say that it IS very possible to run GS solidly on XP and make full use of all your memory, even up to 1.5gb. 98 would probably be a step in the wrong direction. On the other hand, if that ends up being the only way you get that machine to work, then by all means, do it so you can get back to making music! [:P] Then build an XP-friendly machine later on.

Seriously, good luck with the comp, Chompy. I've been there myself and hated life for a while.

'xcuse me, Chompy, good lord - NO! I never intended to sound "patronizing", I rather loved to sound "petrifying" or even "paralysing" [;)]. - No, honest:

Sorry, dear. I really don't wanted that. I went ill yesterday and was in a somehow rude state. I know how it feels like, when you just can't get your gear running in an acceptable way; noone wants to be told then: "Hey, you poor su**er, look at me, it works great at my place!!" I didn't want to sound like that. To maybe give you something back:

Besides stability and performance there seems to be an issue under XP, you won't experience with 98SE: a loading slow-down someone over here already mentioned. It occurs on my systems at around 80% of load. Whenever I try to load a giga-instrument , which is part of a large sample-pool and doesn't use the whole lot of them, the loading starts to snail and takes minutes. The CPU-meter of the taskmgr slows down (usually the CPU shows a high peak after short while transfering samples to RAM before GS is done). The only way to get around this, seems to load giga-instruments that really take the whole pool, e.g. a full-version-piano. I successfully separated giga-instruments out of a large gig-archive (the ".gig" file explorer shows you) using the editor and the "save limited/check unreferenced samples"-function as a workaround. Such separated giga-files with only one instrument contained usually load fast even under high-load conditions. As I have been checking this out with Tom Hopkins, it was nice if someone over here would add his/her experiences regarding these slow downs. But I am going to get OT, sorry...

What I wanted to say is: if you can't manage to get XP to give you an higher load and if you can get your system running well under 98SE, it might not be the worst thing to do, despite the fact that I consider everything MikeG has said to be true. I have heard of many people with very stabil performance under 98, too. But as you WILL have to move to XP as soon as GS 3.0 might be able handle the RAM-limitation, the 98-system won't be your final destination, I guess...

Good luck


The Roman Patronator ||Qo== ......... (large pump-gun)

My apologies also Roman - I wasn't in the best of moods last night at all. [:)]

I would rather stay on XP than 98 if at all possible - especially seeing as (from Mike's post) it IS clearly possible to get past 78%. Just a little gremlin somewhere.

On the AMD / Pentium thing - I would always, always go for a Pentium if I was buying for myself, but this is a company PC, and it's company policy (for some reason) to go for AMD...

Thanks for sharing the 'lucky' spec Mike. [:D]
It's very similar to my own setup, Asus mobo, Midiman and M-audio interfaces. But I notice your RAM is not DDR, whereas mine is... and of course there's the AMD / Pentium difference.

If I get anywhere, I'll post.

I have to agree with what Peter has shared here. I can now say from experience on two different systems that "downgrading" from Win2000 to WinME has literally doubled the number of instruments that I can load. I think I mentioned in another post that addiding in excess of one gig of RAM while running Win2000 actually caused me to be able to load *less* instruments.

Actually, maybe I can try to test this myself again, and install XP on one of my Giga PCs, replacing the well working Win98 setup (with RME Hammerfall). I will first make notes on the memory load of my strings template, etc. After installing XP, I will then add 512 to the already installed 1 Gb. And let's not forget to make a good backup first [:)]

I have become curious again about this stuff.

Cheers,

Peter
trying to start fixing something that ain't broken... [;)]

Are you sure you want to do that, Peter? [*-)]

I know if my system was working well, I'd leave it alone...! [:D]

Just to add fuel to the fire. I have 2 Win 98se machines and one new XP machine....both 98 machines are stable and have been for many months. My XP machine appears to be stable (it's new). All have a gig of Ram. XP will load to 99%. I am loading twice as much stuff into my 98 machines.

Chompy,

I can feel with you! I bought Gigastdio and my first PC 16 month ago. Up to this point I was a Mac only user. Until my first GS machine did work I nearly had a nervous breakdown. It’s only because I know that it can work from other people that I went on. I am by far not such a tech guy as the other members writing in this thread, but I know one thing: Exactly the same configuration - Gigastudio+OS - will work fine on one PC and give much trouble on another. There was so much controversial stuff written about al this that it is difficult to know who really knows all about this. To me the problems are in the hardware (mostly motherboards / how your machine is configurated etc.) I did not get my first GS machine to work until I did change the motherboard. From then on it did work fine without much tweaking. Now I have 2 GS machines which are the same except the motherboard; one works fine with 1.25 GB RAM and the other one does not even start with 1 GB RAM.....Also your drivers - soundcard/Midi interface can have some influence.

Probably the most important thing is to keep cool, because sooner or lather it will work. And then do not touch anymore.....I am not a Mac fanatic anymore. I do have a PC laptop for al my Internet stuff - I am writing on it right now- and I even can use it as an additional GS machine, it works great! But sometime and for some people, getting Gigastudio to work is not an easy task, especially because when you are impatient to make music and get the dam thing to function!

I am sorry to not being able to be of more help, but once more : it will work!

Iwan

A bump to the top for this thread, with some info on a changeover I've just made.

I now have 2 machines for Giga that were both until recently running Win XP. One had 1.5Gb of RAM, the other 1Gb. I took the 1Gb machine and installed Win 98. This has made a huge... vast... immense, nay, collosal difference to how much I can load into Giga.

Under XP I was maxing out my memory in the 1Gb machine, to 99% - couldn't load another thing. Under Win98, with exactly the same patches loaded, I am only using 56% of my memory! I can load a BUCKETLOAD more samples under 98 than I can under XP.

My advice to anyone thinking of using XP for Giga would be "don't do it". This may all get sorted out with v3 of Giga, but until then, 98 is your OS.

Hello,

I Posted this message a few weeks ago on the tascam/giga forum :

@Another User said:

I recently made some tests to know what is the best solution to load a big set of gigs (VSL library): Win98 or Win XP
I copy the gigapiano 30 times and load it as many time as I can :

Windows XP :
512Mo : 8 Gigapiano
1024Mo : 18 Gigapiano
2048Mo : 22 Gigapiano

With 2Go of ram, and 22 Gigapiano, Gigastudio use 58% of the ram due to the 1Go barrier.

Windows 98 :
512Mo : 12 Gigapiano

If you have more than 1.25Go on your computer you can load the same amount of gig's files on win98 and winxp, and depending of you motherboard, it could be difficult to have a working windows 98 system with more than 512Mo of Ram.
So Windows 98 isn't always the best Os to use.
----------------------------------
Stéphane Péneau
http://perso.easynet.fr/~teknico/samplitude
----------------------------------

I have repeated your test with a Win98SE machine with 1 Gb RAM.

I was able to load 32 pianos into memory (the entire Gigs, not single instruments, so I got 64 midi programs, the light and the full piano x 32). I stopped with the memory counter at 97%. Footprint on disk: 20 Gb.

I am not sure if the difference between 512 Mb = 12 and 1024 Mb = 32 can be explained by the memory for Windows itself.

Maybe you don't have a low, fixed VCACHE setting? I have used a 32 Mb setting. I did not want to pull out memory sticks to re-run this test with only 512 Mb Ram...

I have a different conclusion: Win98SE is really more effective AND cheaper for running GigaStudio than XP, assuming the same fast CPU, memory and Mobo.

Cheers,

Peter

@Another User said:

Maybe you don't have a low, fixed VCACHE setting?

I played with the MaxPhysPage settings but didn't reach to let the computer boot windows 98 with 1 Go ram. I'll make more tests asap.
BTW : you can make the test with 512Mo of Ram without unplugging memory sticks with the MaxPhysPage :
just add MaxPhysPage=20000 in the [386Enh] section.

Perhaps it could be better to move this thread to the gigastudio's section of the forum. Admin ?

Best,

MaxPhysPage is a different setting than Vcache.

You can use up to 1 Gb Ram without a problem if you make sure that this section is in System.ini:

[VCACHE]
MinFileCache=32768
MaxFileCache=32768

VCache is a portion of physical memory that Windows can use to "cache" file contents. This is NOT the same as the swap file, which contains memory blocks (that can contain anything). By default, Windows uses a proportion of RAM for VCache. With this approach you effectively tell Windows to reserve only a small, fixed amount.

For more information, search the NorthernSounds Forum, Hardware section(s) for the keywork VCACHE. A forum that every GigaStudio owner should visit regularly, by the way.

Your data, and problem with using > 512 Mb really must relate to this.

I am sorry I cannot do any tests today, maybe later.

Cheers,

Peter

And now the down-side of Win 98... the 2-minute click. The bug whereby exactly every 2 minutes there is an audible pop/click in the audio output from Giga. Anyone know how to get round this? I'll post in the dedicated VSL gigastudio forum.

Chompy,

Look on Nemesysmusic.com ... I found a fix for this bug. It's a software you open once and the bug is fixed ... Work on version 2.53 and later ...

Mathieu Laprise
Sonomax inc.

Hi Syquest,

The only mention i can see of the 2-minute click bug on the updates page at nemesysmusic is the 2.53.05 maintenance patch. I'm already running 2.54. Does 2.54 not include the 2.53.05 maintenance patch, meaning I have to run the maintenance patch separately? Or do you mean something else?

Let me know.

Cheers!

Seems that it is indeed the aforementioned maintenance patch that you need to run...