MR

I've got a question. I just upgraded my computer to VISTA. I was using Cakewalk Music Creator 4 and when I had XP I had no problems, now I'm having shitloads of problems. The playback is exaggerated and skippy. I can't record live vocals because they won't sync up. I can't find a driver online that works and support says the sound card should be working.

I bought Cakewalk Music Creator 4 because it was pretty cheap, about 40 bucks and easy to use.

Anyone know of a PC Studio that will work with VISTA and still be fairly easy to use and affordable?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

BobbyinTN wrote:I've got a question. I just upgraded my computer to VISTA. I was using Cakewalk Music Creator 4 and when I had XP I had no problems, now I'm having shitloads of problems. The playback is exaggerated and skippy. I can't record live vocals because they won't sync up. I can't find a driver online that works and support says the sound card should be working.

I bought Cakewalk Music Creator 4 because it was pretty cheap, about 40 bucks and easy to use.

Anyone know of a PC Studio that will work with VISTA and still be fairly easy to use and affordable?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Vista takes a hell of a lot more computer to run it smoothly. Ram is dirt cheap now days, so it makes sense to go ahead and max it out. If anything will help the skipping, it's more ram.

Pro Tools doesn't even make a version for Vista yet. It's got so many issues that it's not compatible with most recording programs.

If I was going to setup a new recording computer, it would have Windows XP on it.

I think most of the recording software companies are looking forward to the release of Windows 7:

01-03-2009

Windows 7 leaked on torrent sites - so what's the good news?

A couple of days ago, the world wide web was abuzz with the news that beta copies of Microsoft's new operating system Windows 7 has been leaked on torrent sites. In development since 2007, Windows 7 was unveiled in October 2008 and the first beta was due to be released at the Consumer Electronics Show in January. But a leaked version is already in circulation.

Understandably, there is a mad rush to try out the latest offering. On a well known (and notorious) Sweden-based torrent tracking site, one copy of the file has nearly 5,000 seeders (those who have got the full file) and nearly 6,000 leechers/peers (those still getting it).

So what can you look forward to in Windows 7? Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, reviewing the leaked OS on his ZDNet blog says Windows 7 installs faster and is more stable than Vista or even XP, has a new taskbar and sports nifty features like snapping windows to size (Aero Snap). For more, see lifehacker's top 10 Windows 7 features. No doubt, as more details emerge in the coming days, we will have a much clearer picture and be able to decide better if we love or hate the new Windows.

While it's bad news for Microsoft that the new operating system has leaked on the internet ahead of its scheduled release, Windows sufferers may be letting out a collective groan over the fact that Microsoft is unleashing yet another windows update on millions of users, especially those still recuperating from the Vista experience.

But there may yet be some hope, for things are changing at Microsoft. William Henry Gates III is no longer at the helm and the new Magician In Chief is sending out very strong signals that things will be different at the Redmond headquarters under his rule.

Ray Ozzie, MS's new Chief Software Architect, is a low profile industry veteran (his Wikipedia entry is less than 250 words) with incredible geek credentials (the creator of Lotus Notes, he was handpicked for the role by Gates who described him as "one of the top five programmers in the universe").

Ozzie is making it abundantly clear that he will end the practice of rush releasing a new version of Windows every few years and shift the company's focus back to what the user really wants. Some of the more interesting things Ozzie and his team are working on include MS's "operating system in the clouds" Windows Azure, and Live Mesh which will allow PC and Mac users to synchronize all their files, photos, and music with all their devices.

Here's an excerpt from a Digidesign website page:

Digidesign strives to support a wide variety of host computers and operating systems with our Pro Tools® product line, and we’re excited to support Windows Vista (32-bit) Ultimate and Business operating systems with Pro Tools LE® 7.4 and Pro Tools M-Powered™ 7.4 software. However, at this time Pro Tools HD® 7.4 software is not compatible with Windows Vista. Customers using Pro Tools HD 7.4 wishing to upgrade to Windows Vista should wait until support is officially announced.

Good luck.

BobbyinTN wrote:I've got a question. I just upgraded my computer to VISTA. I was using Cakewalk Music Creator 4 and when I had XP I had no problems, now I'm having shitloads of problems. The playback is exaggerated and skippy. I can't record live vocals because they won't sync up. I can't find a driver online that works and support says the sound card should be working.

I bought Cakewalk Music Creator 4 because it was pretty cheap, about 40 bucks and easy to use.

Anyone know of a PC Studio that will work with VISTA and still be fairly easy to use and affordable?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

My suggestion is dump Vista. It screws up every non-Microsoft program, and continually chews up more and more of your hard drive space every time it updates - which is a lot.

Loading up on memory for a 32 bit operating system means 3-3.5gb max. 32 will not acknowledge any more than that. If you have a Vista 64 bit OS, then you can add as much as you want.

Now, as far as your program goes, did you check to see if it was Vista compatible before installing ot or switching to Vista to begin with?


This may halp a little:

http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/W ... ility_List

I've been running Vista fine for what seems like 2 years now on desktops and laptops with no issues - software or hardware. Vista isn't bad at all, and like XP early on, had bad driver support from third party vendors. Sibelus and the GArritan Big Band (which uses Kontakt player underneath) runs just fine on my systems.

You're wrong about ProTools. 7.4 does support Vista, so does 8.
http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?nav ... emid=28430 (7.4)

Most major software does at this point.

For my audio stuff I use the Steinberg products (Cubase, Wavelab), so you could look there.

T-Bone wrote:Loading up on memory for a 32 bit operating system means 3-3.5gb max. 32 will not acknowledge any more than that. If you have a Vista 64 bit OS, then you can add as much as you want.

Now, as far as your program goes, did you check to see if it was Vista compatible before installing ot or switching to Vista to begin with?


This may halp a little:

http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/W ... ility_List

Yeah, that 4GB ram limit is ridiculous. I'm showing 3.25 of 4. I installed 64bit Vista on another partition just to see if it would work, and there are no video drivers that work well with my card. When I enable dual monitors, it goes haywire. I'm glad I tried it before I went out and bought it.

Rick wrote:

T-Bone wrote:Loading up on memory for a 32 bit operating system means 3-3.5gb max. 32 will not acknowledge any more than that. If you have a Vista 64 bit OS, then you can add as much as you want.

Now, as far as your program goes, did you check to see if it was Vista compatible before installing ot or switching to Vista to begin with?


This may halp a little:

http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/W ... ility_List

Yeah, that 4GB ram limit is ridiculous. I'm showing 3.25 of 4. I installed 64bit Vista on another partition just to see if it would work, and there are no video drivers that work well with my card. When I enable dual monitors, it goes haywire. I'm glad I tried it before I went out and bought it.

What card? Video card I'm assuming? Have you tried either updating to the newest drivers or possibly going backwards to a previous driver set to see if they work better? I had that problem a while back with an ATI card. The newest drivers really screwed up a few of my games, so I went to a set that was 2 updates previous and it worked perfectly. Make sure you uninstall the drivers you have first by using the Cat-Uninstaller for ATI and whatever Nvidia uses depending on what brand you have.

Oh.... The OS doesn't acknowlede the extra memory above what it shows in properties, but aparently, the system does or is supposed to use it for video... My system is a dual boot XP Home and Vista Home Premium 64 bit. XP sees 3.25gb and Vista sees all 4gb. Oddly enough, I built almost the same system for a friend of mine but used the Q9300 processor for him and his XP saw 3.50gb for a while and now shows 3.25gb. That was odd...



Anyway, back to the program problem

Rick wrote:

T-Bone wrote:Loading up on memory for a 32 bit operating system means 3-3.5gb max. 32 will not acknowledge any more than that. If you have a Vista 64 bit OS, then you can add as much as you want.

Now, as far as your program goes, did you check to see if it was Vista compatible before installing ot or switching to Vista to begin with?


This may halp a little:

http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/W ... ility_List

Yeah, that 4GB ram limit is ridiculous. I'm showing 3.25 of 4. I installed 64bit Vista on another partition just to see if it would work, and there are no video drivers that work well with my card. When I enable dual monitors, it goes haywire. I'm glad I tried it before I went out and bought it.

Depends on the service pack for vista. If you're not running sp1, you wont "see" the full 4gb of ram. On my desktop, I have sp1 installed, and it most definitely 'shows' 4gb of ram when you pull up my computer. Whether or not the full 4gb is available to the pc is an entirely different story....it might just be that there's a workaround in sp1 that will display 4gb if that's what's plugged into the machine.



As far as recording platforms, If this were a year ago, I would say stay away from Vista and remain with XP. However, things have changed enough over the year that you could run a fairly rock solid recording platform on vista and not have many issues. You have to be a little more selective with software and hardware to avoid conflicts...but it can be done.

Before you make any additional hardware investments, I would recommend spending a *shitload* of time on the various recording forums and determine what hardware would work on your setup. homerecording.com, gearslutz.com, etc....

I've been running Vista for about a year now and no trouble. I'm recording with Sonar 7pe with toontrack's ezdrummer vst installed. No problems on vista whatsoever. Since I fucking hate drummers with a passion and I've never met one that recorded in time or with proper dynamics, ezdrummer has been a godsend.

EZdrummer has enabled me to also get rid of alot of the multitrack audiointerfaces...I used to track with an old M-audio 1010. That unit was rock solid...I wouldn't recommend M-audio these days...especially their firewire interfaces, as they've been known to have issues after a year or so. Same goes for Presonus...the firebox has a shitty preamp, the firepod (or it's called an fp10) has better preamps, but if both firewire ports are still working inside of 13 months, you're a lucky bastard.

I've heard great things about the MUTO 8pre and I've got a buddy that's using 2 lightpiped into an 896. Granted, he's a prog dork and his drummer has to compensate for a small cock with a 15 piece drumset. The RME stuff is tits, but it's more expensive than broken condom at the wrong time of the month.

After alot of research, I recently placed an order for an Echo Audiofire 4. It's a simple 4 input firewire box with a pair of preamps. I did some rather exhuastive research on the audiofire's pres and they repeatedly compare to the RME stuff....which was important to me. I didn't need 8-24 inputs...but I most certainly needed 2 really good ones. The firewire ports on the audiofire are reportedly more robust than the current m-audio and presonus junk. I get the unit early this week, I'll be happy to post a review if anyone is interested.

T-Bone wrote:

Rick wrote:

T-Bone wrote:Loading up on memory for a 32 bit operating system means 3-3.5gb max. 32 will not acknowledge any more than that. If you have a Vista 64 bit OS, then you can add as much as you want.

Now, as far as your program goes, did you check to see if it was Vista compatible before installing ot or switching to Vista to begin with?


This may halp a little:

http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/W ... ility_List

Yeah, that 4GB ram limit is ridiculous. I'm showing 3.25 of 4. I installed 64bit Vista on another partition just to see if it would work, and there are no video drivers that work well with my card. When I enable dual monitors, it goes haywire. I'm glad I tried it before I went out and bought it.

What card? Video card I'm assuming? Have you tried either updating to the newest drivers or possibly going backwards to a previous driver set to see if they work better? I had that problem a while back with an ATI card. The newest drivers really screwed up a few of my games, so I went to a set that was 2 updates previous and it worked perfectly. Make sure you uninstall the drivers you have first by using the Cat-Uninstaller for ATI and whatever Nvidia uses depending on what brand you have.

Oh.... The OS doesn't acknowlede the extra memory above what it shows in properties, but aparently, the system does or is supposed to use it for video... My system is a dual boot XP Home and Vista Home Premium 64 bit. XP sees 3.25gb and Vista sees all 4gb. Oddly enough, I built almost the same system for a friend of mine but used the Q9300 processor for him and his XP saw 3.50gb for a while and now shows 3.25gb. That was odd...



Anyway, back to the program problem

It's a Nvidia 7900 GT. I tried about 3 different drivers. One was still in beta, and it was the worst. I didn't try older ones though. If I ever install it again, which I probably will, I'll try that. Thanks.

strangegrey wrote:
Depends on the service pack for vista. If you're not running sp1, you wont "see" the full 4gb of ram. On my desktop, I have sp1 installed, and it most definitely 'shows' 4gb of ram when you pull up my computer. Whether or not the full 4gb is available to the pc is an entirely different story....it might just be that there's a workaround in sp1 that will display 4gb if that's what's plugged into the machine.

Service pack has nothing to do with it. It's entirely based on whether you have a 32 bit or 64 bit operating system. Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate both come in 32 bit and 64 bit versions. The differences are the fact that the 64 bit versions will unlock certain aspects of a 64 bit capable Processor Chip, where as a 32 bit OS will run as normal and use the 32 bit aspects only of the 64 bit processor chip. One of those aspects is the fact that a 64 bit OS will unlock the 64 bit processor and utilize and acknowledge more memory.

One of the downfalls to that is a while back, none of the aftermarket manufacturers really made drivers that were 64 bit compatible. These days, 64 bit is becoming more and more popular, especially for music programming, video editing and other Processor Heavy duties. As for gaming, there's not much out there right now that's really stressing to a 64 bit processor or even a Quad Core Processor as of now. Core 2 Duo's are working fine for gaming. Besides, C2D's overclock much higher and easier than a Quad Core as I've found out...

Rick wrote:

T-Bone wrote:

Rick wrote:

T-Bone wrote:Loading up on memory for a 32 bit operating system means 3-3.5gb max. 32 will not acknowledge any more than that. If you have a Vista 64 bit OS, then you can add as much as you want.

Now, as far as your program goes, did you check to see if it was Vista compatible before installing ot or switching to Vista to begin with?


This may halp a little:

http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/W ... ility_List

Yeah, that 4GB ram limit is ridiculous. I'm showing 3.25 of 4. I installed 64bit Vista on another partition just to see if it would work, and there are no video drivers that work well with my card. When I enable dual monitors, it goes haywire. I'm glad I tried it before I went out and bought it.

What card? Video card I'm assuming? Have you tried either updating to the newest drivers or possibly going backwards to a previous driver set to see if they work better? I had that problem a while back with an ATI card. The newest drivers really screwed up a few of my games, so I went to a set that was 2 updates previous and it worked perfectly. Make sure you uninstall the drivers you have first by using the Cat-Uninstaller for ATI and whatever Nvidia uses depending on what brand you have.

Oh.... The OS doesn't acknowlede the extra memory above what it shows in properties, but aparently, the system does or is supposed to use it for video... My system is a dual boot XP Home and Vista Home Premium 64 bit. XP sees 3.25gb and Vista sees all 4gb. Oddly enough, I built almost the same system for a friend of mine but used the Q9300 processor for him and his XP saw 3.50gb for a while and now shows 3.25gb. That was odd...



Anyway, back to the program problem

It's a Nvidia 7900 GT. I tried about 3 different drivers. One was still in beta, and it was the worst. I didn't try older ones though. If I ever install it again, which I probably will, I'll try that. Thanks.

What manufacturer made the card? XFX? BFG? Try THEIR drivers from their own website and not just the plain Nvidia drivers if you can. Some of these companies have their own tweaks for their own cards even though they're Nvidia or ATI based.

My current card is an Nvidia XFX GTX260 Black Edition. Although stock drivers will work for this cards, the tweaked drivers that XFX has made especially for this card unlocks some of the factory overclocks and fan speeds. If you have your original install disk, try that first

The under 4GB limitation is purely a 32-bit one as T-Bone says. No 32-bit desktop version of Windows can basically access )meaning use) more than about 3.2GB of RAM even if there is more in the system.

StyxCollector wrote:The under 4GB limitation is purely a 32-bit one as T-Bone says. No 32-bit desktop version of Windows can basically access )meaning use) more than about 3.2GB of RAM even if there is more in the system.

Indeed... Although like I stated, the system itself is supposedly using the remaining memory not shown in system properties for video cache. Besides, XP uses about HALF the system power that Vista uses. During normal use, XP uses about 512mb of memory and up to 1.5gb under HEAVY use where as Vista uses almost 1gb just for everyday surfing and 2gb and more for gaming and heavier programs such as Video Editing and Audio production.

I will add that it's pretty funny when the newbies on my computer messageboard build themselves a new rig and load it full of 8gb of memory, install a 32 bit operating system and then come back and ask why? I've even seen MANY of them RMA memory on NewEgg complaining about only showing 3.25gb with XP Home and giving it 1 star rating, although claiming Tech Level Very High

Anyway... Back to the ORIGINAL post....


I'm assuming that your program wasn't made to be Vista compatible, or... you need to go to the programs website and see if there's a patch or fix that'll aid it in working with Vista

StyxCollector wrote:You're wrong about ProTools. 7.4 does support Vista, so does 8.
http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?nav ... emid=28430 (7.4)

That's good to know. I guess I'd better reinstall Vista right away.... not!

Seriously, what can Vista do that XP cannot do? The only difference I saw was some new graphics, they renamed a few things, moved a few things, and put in a bunch of firewalls and security alerts that hinder performance and were only designed for old people who have never ran a computer before. The new CSA of Microsoft even admitted that Vista was rushed to market just to meet a quota as opposed to finding out what customers actually wanted in their OS:

Ray Ozzie, MS's new Chief Software Architect, is a low profile industry veteran (his Wikipedia entry is less than 250 words) with incredible geek credentials (the creator of Lotus Notes, he was handpicked for the role by Gates who described him as "one of the top five programmers in the universe"). Ozzie is making it abundantly clear that he will end the practice of rush releasing a new version of Windows every few years and shift the company's focus back to what the user really wants.

I run Pro Tools 7.4 on a Dell Quad Core Q6600 with 4GB RAM running Windows XP Pro. It does pretty much everything I need it to. Why fix it (or upgrade) unless it's broke? I wouldn't see any performance benefit at all by switching to Vista. I think I'll wait for Windows 7.

I run XP with the Object desktop, IE 8 Beta and Vista sidebar made for XP. It looks prettier than Vista and runs great on 2 gig of ram, Soundblaster Xtreme audiocard, and a one gig Nvidea video card so I won't be upgrading anytime soon.

T-Bone wrote:

strangegrey wrote:
Depends on the service pack for vista. If you're not running sp1, you wont "see" the full 4gb of ram. On my desktop, I have sp1 installed, and it most definitely 'shows' 4gb of ram when you pull up my computer. Whether or not the full 4gb is available to the pc is an entirely different story....it might just be that there's a workaround in sp1 that will display 4gb if that's what's plugged into the machine.

Service pack has nothing to do with it. It's entirely based on whether you have a 32 bit or 64 bit operating system. Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate both come in 32 bit and 64 bit versions. The differences are the fact that the 64 bit versions will unlock certain aspects of a 64 bit capable Processor Chip, where as a 32 bit OS will run as normal and use the 32 bit aspects only of the 64 bit processor chip. One of those aspects is the fact that a 64 bit OS will unlock the 64 bit processor and utilize and acknowledge more memory.

You're missing my point...The point I said is that if you're running SP1, you *see* 4gb. In truth, a 32bit operating system will use 3 and change...but SP1 'presents to the user' a 4gb readout. Like I said, I'm fairly certain that it's just a work around so that they can reduce the amount of service calls of people going "hey, I have 4 gb in this machine, why is it only reading 3.78gb" or whatever...

Also, while the 64 bit OS will 'unlock' the extra memory, as you say...the underlying reason is that once memory is partitioned, there's a bit-length limitation that exists with 32 bits.

strangegrey wrote:

T-Bone wrote:

strangegrey wrote:
Depends on the service pack for vista. If you're not running sp1, you wont "see" the full 4gb of ram. On my desktop, I have sp1 installed, and it most definitely 'shows' 4gb of ram when you pull up my computer. Whether or not the full 4gb is available to the pc is an entirely different story....it might just be that there's a workaround in sp1 that will display 4gb if that's what's plugged into the machine.

Service pack has nothing to do with it. It's entirely based on whether you have a 32 bit or 64 bit operating system. Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate both come in 32 bit and 64 bit versions. The differences are the fact that the 64 bit versions will unlock certain aspects of a 64 bit capable Processor Chip, where as a 32 bit OS will run as normal and use the 32 bit aspects only of the 64 bit processor chip. One of those aspects is the fact that a 64 bit OS will unlock the 64 bit processor and utilize and acknowledge more memory.

You're missing my point...The point I said is that if you're running SP1, you *see* 4gb. In truth, a 32bit operating system will use 3 and change...but SP1 'presents to the user' a 4gb readout. Like I said, I'm fairly certain that it's just a work around so that they can reduce the amount of service calls of people going "hey, I have 4 gb in this machine, why is it only reading 3.78gb" or whatever...

Also, while the 64 bit OS will 'unlock' the extra memory, as you say...the underlying reason is that once memory is partitioned, there's a bit-length limitation that exists with 32 bits.

Yeah...Who doesn't know that!

Thank you all VERY much. I figured it out last night, FINALLY. I'm WAY the wrong person to be working on these things, I like to point and click and get on with my day.

The issue turned out to be something with the soundcard. I had to go into my music studio and let it know what the soundcard was and it ran a check on the system. It's playing and recording perfectly now.


I really like VISTA so far, but when we upgraded my computer we put a new 500 GB harddrive and 3 GB of memory. I've got space and memory galore.

Thank you all again for your time and your help.

I love having so many knowledgable people to come to with these problems.

BobbyinTN wrote:I've got a question. I just upgraded my computer to VISTA. I was using Cakewalk Music Creator 4 and when I had XP I had no problems, now I'm having shitloads of problems. The playback is exaggerated and skippy. I can't record live vocals because they won't sync up. I can't find a driver online that works and support says the sound card should be working.

I bought Cakewalk Music Creator 4 because it was pretty cheap, about 40 bucks and easy to use.

Anyone know of a PC Studio that will work with VISTA and still be fairly easy to use and affordable?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

BobbyinTN- I use CW3 but not with Vista. Check the Cakewalk MC forum. They're SUPER helpful over there.
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tt.asp?forumid=18

Oops, missed the last response. Anyway, they're great people over there to answer your CWMC questions.

brywool wrote:

BobbyinTN wrote:I've got a question. I just upgraded my computer to VISTA. I was using Cakewalk Music Creator 4 and when I had XP I had no problems, now I'm having shitloads of problems. The playback is exaggerated and skippy. I can't record live vocals because they won't sync up. I can't find a driver online that works and support says the sound card should be working.

I bought Cakewalk Music Creator 4 because it was pretty cheap, about 40 bucks and easy to use.

Anyone know of a PC Studio that will work with VISTA and still be fairly easy to use and affordable?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

BobbyinTN- I use CW3 but not with Vista. Check the Cakewalk MC forum. They're SUPER helpful over there.
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tt.asp?forumid=18

Oops, missed the last response. Anyway, they're great people over there to answer your CWMC questions.

LOL! Thanks Bry. I'm sure I've worried the shit outta those guys at Cakewalk support. LOL

BobbyinTN wrote:

brywool wrote:

BobbyinTN wrote:I've got a question. I just upgraded my computer to VISTA. I was using Cakewalk Music Creator 4 and when I had XP I had no problems, now I'm having shitloads of problems. The playback is exaggerated and skippy. I can't record live vocals because they won't sync up. I can't find a driver online that works and support says the sound card should be working.

I bought Cakewalk Music Creator 4 because it was pretty cheap, about 40 bucks and easy to use.

Anyone know of a PC Studio that will work with VISTA and still be fairly easy to use and affordable?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

BobbyinTN- I use CW3 but not with Vista. Check the Cakewalk MC forum. They're SUPER helpful over there.
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tt.asp?forumid=18

Oops, missed the last response. Anyway, they're great people over there to answer your CWMC questions.

LOL! Thanks Bry. I'm sure I've worried the shit outta those guys at Cakewalk support. LOL

Well the peeps in the forum aren't staff (most of em), they're users and they've walked me through a lot of the CW BS (and there's a lot of it) But I still dig the program and use it all the time.

BobbyinTN wrote:Thank you all VERY much. I figured it out last night, FINALLY. I'm WAY the wrong person to be working on these things, I like to point and click and get on with my day.

It sucks that you have to be a complete computer genius just to make music....
I spent a ton of time getting my stuff to work. I actually still have my recording stuff on Win2K because it's dependable. XP would probably be fine, but I don't have a copy with my puter. Oh well, Win2k lets me run CWMC, CW, all my effects, midi and Ezdrummer. So far, it's working fine. I KNEW that I wasn't going to get Vista. Too many horror stories.