89jetta
I just started using 2.1, i had a PII400w/ 192 ram sb live! on windows 2000 pro.
I just upgraded to PIII500 w/ 256 ram sb live! on windows 2000 pro.
atomix2.0 worked fine, i've reduced background applications, yet atomix is skipping out of control, i use a 3d soundcard w/ external mixer, WTF is going on?? is atomix2.1 just wacked? all my songs are on the same hard drive as the application.
my system should be more than enought to run this program, what other settings should i change?
I just upgraded to PIII500 w/ 256 ram sb live! on windows 2000 pro.
atomix2.0 worked fine, i've reduced background applications, yet atomix is skipping out of control, i use a 3d soundcard w/ external mixer, WTF is going on?? is atomix2.1 just wacked? all my songs are on the same hard drive as the application.
my system should be more than enought to run this program, what other settings should i change?
Posted Fri 05 Apr 02 @ 6:48 pm
Tommy_2Tall
I just took the 2.1-demo for a quick test-drive on a 500' myself today and I can understand your problems:
the graph was all jerky.. something like 20 fps... and the sound sometimes got awfully laggy.. almost as when listening to a shoutcast just barely handling the load: it chopped and skip for a while and then it was perfect at times (even though the graph was basically rendered useless by the lag)
However.. I can't be sure if it was the application itself: that machine had a virusscanner running at times(which is a big problem at times on that PC) and I had a heap of other stuff running that I couldn't stop so basically it ran faaaaiirly well on an already stressed 500Mhz-machine..
but it works a lot smoother at home when I basically run nothing but Atomix and the system itself (a 933 Mhz-system so it's not really the same is it.. but wtf.. I was just comparing how it ran on that machine and mine)
the graph was all jerky.. something like 20 fps... and the sound sometimes got awfully laggy.. almost as when listening to a shoutcast just barely handling the load: it chopped and skip for a while and then it was perfect at times (even though the graph was basically rendered useless by the lag)
However.. I can't be sure if it was the application itself: that machine had a virusscanner running at times(which is a big problem at times on that PC) and I had a heap of other stuff running that I couldn't stop so basically it ran faaaaiirly well on an already stressed 500Mhz-machine..
but it works a lot smoother at home when I basically run nothing but Atomix and the system itself (a 933 Mhz-system so it's not really the same is it.. but wtf.. I was just comparing how it ran on that machine and mine)
Posted Fri 05 Apr 02 @ 7:13 pm
hey...when u run win 2k or nt... just press ctrl-alt-del and open task manager. set atomix's priority to high or time critical...that should do the trick! :p
:+: dj vishnu :+:
:+: dj vishnu :+:
Posted Sat 06 Apr 02 @ 12:28 am
that is never recommended to run a program like that
Posted Sat 06 Apr 02 @ 8:28 pm
Tommy_2Tall
I agree with the anon': time critical/Realtime is REALLY risky as it gives Atomix higher priority than the system it is dependant on... Explorer and other needed applications might stall as they don't get the CPU-time needed.
Just don't go that far... take it from someone who knows:
you'll just be forced to reboot as Atomix stalls your system if you do.
However, I have Windows 2000 and there I can set it to Above Normal which puts it ahead of all other applications but the systemprocesses still have the upper hand on the CPU-usage.
Just don't go that far... take it from someone who knows:
you'll just be forced to reboot as Atomix stalls your system if you do.
However, I have Windows 2000 and there I can set it to Above Normal which puts it ahead of all other applications but the systemprocesses still have the upper hand on the CPU-usage.
Posted Sat 06 Apr 02 @ 9:53 pm