nothing's really wrong with it, unless its a 3u rack (you really do need 4u)
lian li are awesome cases, but i hate media pc cases, they're real dorky in my opinion
intel i7 980x
- Thread starter joeymusicguy
- Start date
nothing's really wrong with it, unless its a 3u rack (you really do need 4u)
lian li are awesome cases, but i hate media pc cases, they're real dorky in my opinion
o and what would you put in it if you had about £600 to spend? for use with a allen and heath zed r 16 firewire interface, sonar software, and waves plug ins
FloridaRolf
W.A.T.
Is that gonna be your OS drive? I got my Win7 64bit on a 50gb partition and it eats up ~31gb space
Yeah it's gonna be my os drive.
I don't plan to install anything but windows on it
Applications will be installed to other drives.
Microsoft says you need 16 gb space for 64 bit os install (includes space for updates). I believe them.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
Not sure that's actually possible? Project files, audio files, etc... can be on different drives, but as far as i know, in Windows, all your applications have to be installed on the same drive as the OS.
Nah, totally not true. You choose where anything goes.
Also, you can even modify where my documents and app data is stored (fully supported by the os)
No tricks, just settings.
drew_drummer
Dancefap
Really BAD idea to install your apps to another drive. Just makes no logistical sense. Backups will be a pain in the fucking ass. Program Files exists for a reason dude!!
Lol how is it a bad idea? You have no evidence to support your ignorance.
I've been a windows user and administrator for 5 years now, and there is no difference to where your programs are stored or read from. As long as the drive is running on an internal bus (ie: no external drives)
In fact it's better to have your documents on a separate drive because you want your frequently accessed data to be accessed from a separately fragmented partition, rather than having the disk heave trough more fragmented data. The os file structure changes much less than the user data will. Therefore you should have your os functioning on it's own partition or drive to get the most performance in the real world.
I've been a windows user and administrator for 5 years now, and there is no difference to where your programs are stored or read from. As long as the drive is running on an internal bus (ie: no external drives)
In fact it's better to have your documents on a separate drive because you want your frequently accessed data to be accessed from a separately fragmented partition, rather than having the disk heave trough more fragmented data. The os file structure changes much less than the user data will. Therefore you should have your os functioning on it's own partition or drive to get the most performance in the real world.
drew_drummer
Dancefap
Oh fuck off. Don't be sanctimonious. Like I said... backups will be a pain in the ass. You'll need to image two drives, as opposed to one, and maintain two sets of files.
Plus there is no guarantee that the registry wont fuck up on you. In my line of work (which is software tech support and QA) I've come across NUMEROUS borked systems because users split their programs to a separate hard drive.
You should only do that with samples and content - in my EXPERIENCE.
Plus there is no guarantee that the registry wont fuck up on you. In my line of work (which is software tech support and QA) I've come across NUMEROUS borked systems because users split their programs to a separate hard drive.
You should only do that with samples and content - in my EXPERIENCE.
Hey Windows 7 shouldn't take up 30GB of space, I think you might have you pagefile on the SSD which you don't want, because it can take up a lot of space and it will write a lot to the drive which will harm performance, SSD are great for reading, so samples and OS, but are still having performance degrading issues when used for a lot of writing too.
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
Joey, I have been installing apps on both C: and D: drive, because I needed more space. I decided from the start to install every "personnally useful" application like audio, photography, conception etc on the D: drive, and the basic applications on C:. I have never had any single problem in 2 or 3 years, and I did that on XP, Vista and now W7.
Same for the documents, in windows it's of course easy to move another location, it's just simple settings to do. And with W7, the "Libraries" are immensely practical. In one clic you can see every file you like from every folder you decided it would search in. For example, I have a "Tablature" library, it shows all my useful tablatures from a lot of places in the computer, and, from different locations in the D: drive.
On my next computer, I would do exactly how you do.
Same for the documents, in windows it's of course easy to move another location, it's just simple settings to do. And with W7, the "Libraries" are immensely practical. In one clic you can see every file you like from every folder you decided it would search in. For example, I have a "Tablature" library, it shows all my useful tablatures from a lot of places in the computer, and, from different locations in the D: drive.
On my next computer, I would do exactly how you do.
Exactley
I mean I set up systems for sheriffs departments and big offices before, and we always had offsite program and data storage no problem. We were even doing it over a network.
The stupidity surrounding windows amazes me sometimes.
At any rate, I know what I'm doing and that what I'm doing will work without a hitch. I had already planned to turn the page file off (which is something I've done on every daw I've owned).
I was under the impression that with proper trim support , there won't be much performance degradation?
The drive I got , I researched, and it does properly support trim.
most of the computer has arrived
the rest should be here today
i will have build conclusion soon!
the rest should be here today
i will have build conclusion soon!
Harry Hughes
âââ¬â¬
- Apr 25, 2009
- 4,353
- 0
- 36
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
The general word seems to be that Windows takes issue with not having a pagefile, no matter how much RAM you have in the system. You haven't experienced any OS instability disabling the page file?
I've never encountered problems. In fact, it seems like windows runs a little better when it doesn't have to worry about the page file....
I've always done that, since Windows 2000 days.
I should mention that disabling the page file is a performance perk for 32 bit only... You should leave the page file turned on in 64 bit because you no longer have a 3GB memory restriction.
Read through this whole page for more info: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/10/running-xp-with-the-pagefile-disabled.html
