SFS Privileges

[Scroobius]

Hi Peter -

At using the Straight Contiguous Memory setting for the first time, a message may follow that your "privileges" have been set, with the question to reboot.

I am trying to track down a problem with my o/s can you please let me know what privileges are set?

Regards

Paul

[PeterSt]

Hi Paul - Does this help you ?
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1547.msg15678#msg15678

[Scroobius]

Thanks Peter - I tried this earlier and it did not work so tried it again manually adding me and administrator to the list (again) and that did not work - straight away. So then after reboot and retry many times it now seems to be working. Fingers crossed that it continues to do so.
Thanks for your help as always
Regards
Paul

[Scroobius]

Well problems continued - XX would not consistently run with any SFS at all (i.e. anything above 0.2) so in the end after complete removal of XX twice and re-installation it now seems to be working OK within one exception. With SFS at 430 it XX runs on straight contiguous provided that I first run it on Mixed otherwise I get "straight contig" error messages. I can live with that but it seems odd - I have not had these problems before and this is on a clean install of W7 pre SP1.

And hot keys works - yippee!! I could not get hot keys working at all on SP1 no matter what security settings were used.

[PeterSt]

Must be something odd Paul. Especially since it looks to be happening with 0.9z-6. But is it really ?

- Could you use SFS-SC before without issues ?
- Did you acually use Unattended before (reg. your HotKey thing) ?

The latter is not really related, but somehow I feel it might.

Let me know,
Peter

[Scroobius]

I have W7 SP1 on original partition on same PC - no problems running XX9-52 and XX9-6 (with SFS 240 & SC) on that partition apart from hot keys did not work properly. To be honest I did not spend much time trying to sort that out. I did not really use unattended.

I have an old W7 RC prior SP1 version on a new second partition to be used only for XX. It is on this partition I have had the problems - it will work now with SFS at 420 & SC but only if I run XX on Mixed first. This problem happens with xx9-52 just the same as xx9-6 and it also happens just the same whether the o/s is minimised or not. I have tried unattended a couple of times the first time it worked ok the second time it locked the PC.

[PeterSt]

Ok. "Most probably" (but far from sure) this can be related to whatever it is you did to that partition. It also looks similar to what boleary described the other day.

In the end this may go back to whatever it exactly was you did on indication of others (you may recall that).

*If* you recognize such a thing, it may not be a coincidence that for sure boleary applied those changes, after things got messed up. What I don't know though, is whether boleary set up the OS from scratch after that. And, if that was something like a dual boot situation. But even if he did set it up all over (and even if you did) ...

Remember what I ever back told about dual boot situations influencing eachother. They really can - and I'm not even sure whether this would be an MS bug.

Yes, this makes things fairly complex - I know ...

Peter

[Scroobius]

I created a second partition on same disc. Formatted it then installed W7 - very straightforward bog standard install.

When I get time I will install W7 pre SP1 on a stand alone disc i.e. no dual boot and see what happens.

At present SP1 partition works fine and pre SP1 partition works but with the problems posted above.

Regards

P

[Scroobius]

So I disconnected the original disc that came with the PC which had W7 Pro originally installed on which XX works OK (but problems with hot keys which did not work). A second partition with W7 Ultimate 2009 pre SP1 was set up on which XX was very flaky see earlier posts.

So I disconnected the above originally supplied disc and connected a new clean formatted disc - loaded W7 Ultimate of 2009 vintage pre SP1. This is a clean copy and installation bog standard. Installation of XX9z-06 was very straightforward no problems. So no dual boot now and very straightforward system set up.

So what happened? I still have the problem that I have to run XX in "Mixed" memory mode first even for just a second stop change to "Straight Contiguous" and then it works fine ( I can operate up to 600 or 700 SC without a problem). All functions seem to work and I can shut down and start up XX and it continues to work OK. But if I reboot then I do need to run in Mixed first before running in SC - if I don't then I get "SC - reboot" error message.

The difference compared with the second partition dual boot version is that the single disc single boot version is much more stable apart from this strange little problem.

Mmmmmm strange methinks - but of course it is a computer so there must be a simple logical explanation.

P

[PeterSt]

but of course it is a computer so there must be a simple logical explanation.

I will be working on it Paul.

Thanks much for "sharing" (yea, sounds strange I know, but still - helpful !)

Peter

[boleary]

Hey Paul, so what does a SFS of 600 or 700 do to the sound compared to 300 or 400? Just wondering cause 350 is as high as I go.

[PeterSt]

Hey Paul, so what does a SFS of 600 or 700

I didn't even see that !

But I say : impossible. And when it looks like that : must be a bug.

[Scroobius]

There is definitely something wrong - it seems I can set SFS to anything (provided I first run in Mixed then switch to SC) but in resource monitor I always see about 1.3Gb memory usage - I would have thought XX would reserve more memory the bigger the SFS file (Peter ?) this is on the new install of "vanilla" W7 Ultimate pre SP1 of course.

I now I have fired up the original disc and am running on the original W7 PS1 partition - memory being used as shown in resource monitor is 4.6Gb (regardless of SFS setting) and I can also increase SFS (when running SC) up to anything I like but it does not change the memory being used.

I cannot comment on sound quality because I only have one speaker working, one of my amps is out of action and NOS1 is in a box awaiting a short break in Holland.

............... but this looks suspicious I need to check out what memory is being used by which apps etc but I just put some Gill Evans on and I am rather wanting to listen to it all the way through and enjoy a rather fine glass of red wine which sits beside me as we speak :-)   - I will make some more checks tomorrow. By the way I have 12Gig memory but even so I do not think that would allow the SFS of 1300 I went up to (and I think I could set it anywhere really).

Peter if there is anything you want me to look at please let me know.

All the best

P

[PeterSt]

Paul, this is definitely a bug. You are just ahead of me by perfectly supporting what I thought of last night;

What happens is that now the Audio Engine leeps on running all the time, this memory is not re-allocated. Well, this was the whole idea about that. Still, one can change the SFS along the way. Ehm, that *setting*. Not the workout, because nothing happens anymore after a first "allocation" which is at the first attempt of playback ...

A small thinking error on my side ...

Either setting the SFS lower or higher should have no effect anymore after this firt playback. What's extra confusing is that when the allocation fails, the Engine stops (the program quits) and *then* you can have another attempt of setting it lower. To you (and boleary undoubtedly experienced the same) it seems that the first attempt fails, a next with Mixed Contiguous (or Mixed alone) works (this would be true) to next see it happening that Straight now works too. But this last step is a "fake" one ...

Solution for now : Stop de Audio Engine (the Off button) and *then* retry as usual.

Peter

[Scroobius]

Peter - I am finding that Engine 3 stays in memory and I have to kill the process via task manager (even if I shut down XX GUI) before having a go at CS again. But it does appear that the amount of SC I can allocate successfully is small say around 50mb which is very small for the resources I have (i970 with 12Gig)

P