Hi All,

Getting BIAB has made me realise I should probably upgrade (i.e. replace) my computer (sorry computer!).

Other than general computer use my main use will be BIAB and similar. I don't have any form of external MIDI but that's not to say I may have in the future.

I was just wondering if there's any particular specification of video/sound card and anything else BIAB related that I should get now.

Also, is it reasonable to assume that if I upgrade now it will meet the system requirements of BIAB and RB etc. for the forseeable future? Thank you.

Regards,

Dave

Hi Dave,

Go for the best and fastest computer possible with the biggest hard-drive and the most RAM that your dollar allows you to buy That philosophy has always worked for me.

Regarding operating systems, the choice is between 32-bit and 64-bit. Eighteen months ago I did a little bit of research and discovered that many of my programs wouldn't work in a 64-bit environment and so I chose 32-bit, Vista. My programs were important and I wasn't prepared to sacrifice them. Once I had the OS installed, I then discovered that Vista did not have drivers for my soundcard. This was a bit upsetting seeing that I had spent a reasonable sum to get an upmarket external soundcard. Eventually I got the soundcard working but it wasn't without its dramas. My advice regarding 64/32-bit is to do your homework and find out which will work best for you given your situation. Also, do your homework in relation to the OS and whether or not drivers are available for things like scanners, soundcards, etc.

From a BIAB perspective, the soft synth VSC/DXi will not work in a 64-bit environment: this piece of software is exclusively 32-bit. From what I understand from the posts on these forums is that all other aspects of BIAB/RB are fine in a 64-bit Windows environment. I'm sure that others will chime in with their thoughts on this, too.

Regards,
Noel

I went from XP to Win&X64 and was lucky to have drivers available for everything that I need. Just a music computer though.

I recently oredered a new computer so in the same boat. I use my computer for day to day home stuff plus music (BIAB and Sonar). Going from 8 year old Pentium 4 to Core i5 760, XP to W7/64.

Here are just a few things I found needed due consideration.

I don't go for "Buy all the computer you can afford". I could afford $10,000, but spent $900, and probably would have been good spending $500. I have more RAM and HD than I'll ever need and the processor is pretty good bang for the buck."Get the best value that meets your current and future needs. Then go a bit future" is my advice.

1. Whatever OS you decide on, check the websites of all your hardware manufacturers to be sure they have drivers for that system. All mine were good except the audio interface. But the manufacturer and others on forums agreed that the Vista 64 drivers work perfect with X7/64 machines - so I have my fingers crossed on that one.

2. Know if you can expand RAM in the future. Some machines are pretty tight.

3. Know what "slots" you may need and what are offered. My audio interface needs a PCI slot. Some computers I was considering had no PCI slot. That would have been a bummer.

4. Think of the future needs. Are there other programs (DAWs, video editing, etc) you think you may be getting into that need faster CPU and more RAM? RAM and HD can be expanded, CPU speed - no. So think about buying a CPU above current needs.

5. If your thinking two monitors in the future, be sure your Vid card supports this (most do, I think) - and pay attention to needed and offered VGA and DVI ports. My approach to Vid card was - since I can't tell exactly the performance spec I need, I got the get the stock "cheapo" (GeForce GTS 240) that comes with the base computer. I think (hope) it is adequate. If it turns out is wanting, I'll deal with it later by swapping it out.

6. Ask at this forum. Lots of experienced help here.

Good luck.

Guys,

Thanks for the info...most of which I understand...my computer & musical skill is only exceeded by my extreme good looks!!!

Below is the machine I was thinking of getting which seems to fit with most of the above advice. Only just started with BIAB so I'm not at all sure if I need to worry about the the soft synth VSC/DXi? Thanks for the help.

Processor Cooler Intel Stock Cooler
Processor Intel Core i3 540 3.06GHz
Sound Card High Definition 7.1 Onboard Sound Card
Optical Drive LG GH22NS50 22x DVD+RW SATA ReWriter
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-H55M-S2 Intel H55 (Socket 1156) DDR3 microATX Motherboard
Memory Corsair XMS3 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit
Hard Drive Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB SATA-II 16MB Cache
Graphics Card Onboard Intel GMA graphics
Power Supply OcUK 450W

Regards,

Ugly Dave

Looks like a monster. Are you going with W7/64? I'd be interested to hear how that graphics system works out.

My present computer is also too slow for biab/rb 2011.

Along with biab/rb 2011 and tracktion 3.
I have other older software and a plotter that Win 7 32 or 64 does not support.
So I found someone to build a faster system for me, with xp Professional.
With this faster sytem and xp Prof. my max ram will be 4 gig.
Plus a video card with 1 gb of ram.
The processor will be an Intel dual core 3.02 gb 1066 fbs.

My biggest dilema in putting together a new computer was dual core vs quad core.

I chose a dual core rather than a quad core based on info I had gotten from other forums on the web.
but like many forums, the content may or may not be totally accurate,
so any input as to the validity of the following thought process would be greatly appreciated.

My understanding was money would be better spent on a faster dual core processor than on a slightly slower quad core.
Even though in theory, under most application, the slightly slower quad core would normally process more info than the fast dual core (more paths for data to flow) and actually run many programs faster.
Processing functions of programs like Biab/rb does not take full advantage of the extra cores, and should actually run faster on the faster dual core rather than the slightly slower quad core.
Programs like games however with sound effects along with graphics/animation would take advantage of more cores in the processor, and therfore would actually run faster with the slightly slower quad core.

Again, the above thought process may or may not be accurate.
Maybe someone in the know will comment as to it's validity and clear up this grey area of dual core vs quad core.

Good luck on your new computer system.
Sorry I could not help you much, but I thought by highlighting this processor issue some tech savey folks might chime in and help.

Hi Jed,

I note a 500 GB hard drive in the specs you give. If this was me, I'd be upgrading that to a 1 TB hard drive and then partitioning it into (say) 2 x 500 GB partitions. I've found that when working with music, disk space can disappear very quickly.

Regards,
Noel

I was under the impression that 4 gig on XP was un neccessary, since XP does not recognize 4 gigs. Is that true or not?

Rob,

My understanding is that 32-bit XP will recognise 3.7'ish GB of the 4 GB and that 64-bit XP can recognize more than 4 GB.

Regards,
Noel

In XP professional, you can go into the boot ini file and flip a switch to 3GB, as the default is 2 gig for *any given process*.

As I understand it, you can have 4 gig in the machine and XP pro will recognize it. However only 2 gig is allowed for any application and the operating system reserves the rest. By flipping that switch you can have 3 gig RAM available to applications and the system reserves just one.

From MS site-
Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

Guys,

Thanks for the additional advice and comments I have taken heed and learned quiet a bit in the process.

Cheers,

Dave

Bear in mind that "proper" use of DDR RAM with the XP machines that support it means that your *actual* ram count is going to be twice that of the physical ram size.

So the 4g limit would in effect be the same as having 8g of single density ram available.


--Mac