really that big of a difference between win2k and everything

A place to talk about whatever Scope music/gear related stuff you want.

Moderators: valis, garyb

Post Reply
User avatar
Neutron
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Great white north eh
Contact:

Post by Neutron »

I was looking at some page about edirol synths because I thought it might be good simple stuff for some video editor guy who wants some softsynths. anyways on the page there is a chart for required CPUs

PIII/IV,Athlon
Win2000 700MHz or higher
Win98/ME/XP 800MHz or higher

Celeron,Duron
Win2000 800MHz or higher
Win98/ME/XP 1.0GHz or higher

(Please note: The installer will check for the CPU's above)

Is it really true that windows 2000 is that much better than all other windows that it can take a whole 20% or so lower processor for its minimum requirement? or is Edirol(Roland) completely wrong

http://www.edirol.it/europe/details.asp ... d=12&la=UK

If this is true I would think we should be using win2k for audio. (except it can have only 10 midi drivers..doh)

has anyone seen any "max number of native plugin" type tests for win2k vs the rest?
Post Reply