Maybe there is something to that. I’m one of the lucky ones as my Cubase setup has been rock solid for as long as I can remember, on multiple different computers. I always run the latest version of Windows, latest version of Cubase and install all updates as they become available and my computer is online most days. I also use VST3 wherever possible and I got rid of all my 32Bit plugins quite a while ago.
It’s been over 4 years since Win7 was the ‘current’ version.
You make an interesting point…I wonder if it’s possible to ascertain which particular Windows updates are relevent to Cubase’s performance? if any?
It’s also been a while sine Windows 8.1 was current. However my finger have been badly burn’t upgrading my Laptop with an over-install. Yo do a fresh install of windows 10 seems too much like hard work on my music machine. All those 100’s of plugins to re-authorise.
I also dislike the idea of an over-install. I generally never do it but I did do it with Win10 and it worked fine. Just got a new computer a couple of weeks ago anyway and have now done a clean Win10 install.
Unfortunately, I can totally understand the OP’er.
Cubase is rock solid stable on my new system but I have some puzzling issues - i76700HQ, 16GBRAM, GTX960M (Integrated graphics wtf?), Windows 10 Home-Cubase 8.5.2 64bit laptop.
Opening a Waves GUI can suddenly throw my laptop into CPU overload fits. What is even stranger is that it doesn’t happen all the time ! Usually happens on projects that are over 50% CPU load already.
A project that starts at bar 1.1.1.1, by necessity eg. a 30 sec spot, will have strange delay compensation issues where a plugin “ramps” into processing. Turning off the offending plugin will solve the issue, but, it’s hardly the cure. What if I really need that processing to start right at bar 1.1.1.1 ? Anyway, the solution was to start the project at bar 2.1.1.1 and adjust the counter. Never had that happen before Cubase 8/Win10. Never.
Also, I noticed that my projects need to go to higher buffer settings sooner than ever before. I’ve been forced to be a programmer rather than a player. Who can play anything at 1024 ? Is it my audient id14 and crappy drivers ?
What can be particularly frustrating are the possible solutions and the financial risk they involve. For example, buying a different audio interface ala RME, or, updating my WUP. But, will these options just result in a huge credit card bill at the end of it with the exact same results ?
I know both Shadowfax and Hippo are long time users, me too. Cubase has always pushed the barriers of the PC and this can get very frustrating as a day to day experience, seeing those meters max out again, when your on your tenth PC build, or more. A 486 with 40 mb of memory is just never going to hack it, but we did not understand that too well, at the time. The PC/laptop too, has had it’s issues and Windows too (why still no decent sound control?).
From a Steinberg view, I can understand this pushing to the walls, as they simply want the best and want their DAW to utilize all, even on the best most powerful workstations. Having said this, here, I am having the best experience I ever had with Cubase 8.5 (and I champ for 9). I have 1264 tracks loaded here disabled and parked, in a total windows size of 4.9gb. It’s surprising that Shadowfax has so many issues. IMO.
Perhaps tomorrow is Xmas
I appreciate your view. I would counter that so many here and other places I’ve seen complain about Cubase’s lackluster CPU performance compared to many other DAWs packed with features on par with Cubase. I came from Pro Tools with bouts here and there on Reaper, and the sonics are at best the same on Cubase, which is awesome since Pro Tools and Reaper both currently have fantastic sound…so there’s no reason for there to be such a CPU efficiency tax on Cubase since there’s no sonic benefit anymore, though I do understand that there used to be. I much prefer Cubase to Pro Tools and Reaper in some key ways but I was very disappointed to find that I couldn’t have sessions nearly as large as I was used to on the other two (I’ve been on the phone twice for along time with Steinberg tech, have tried everything with ASIO settings, etc. They said that it’s performing as it should). I don’t mean to complain, but reality is not always the pretty thing. 
So, here’s to a huge amount of positive hope for C9!! 
I have no problem coughing up the fact that I have never used anything except Cubase, and hear that lobby too. Here my CPU starts at 13%, and there is lots that can be done when you do hit the wall, Shadowfax of course knows this.
There are two areas that Daws now need to address - use of CPU and RAM. RAM wise (IMO) its about deep sampling VSTs and purging what you don’t require, when you don’t require it - there are huge things that can be done, before reaching for a second DAW. Maybe that’s VST 4. If the DAW knows what track a user is working on, the rest of the samples not required for a specific playback journey are simply not required. Yes that takes a while to load and unload but on an i7 it’s around a second - livable with.
We should not need Vienna Ensemble and even muting should take out the samples that are no longer required.
CPU wise, I think the answer is more technical, and beyond the scope of my understanding here. There are some great, Moores Law conforming, developments though, it’s getting really capable at last. I am confident Steinberg will address the CPU, but maybe not until the next engine - they say in March.
Z
Interesting post, thanks! What kinds of things do you do when you hit the wall?
And they say there’s a new engine coming in March? I know there’s a new video engine, but also audio engine?
Make sure you have unloaded unsused outputs on Multis, freeze, purge, look at Options in VSTs, but best of all keep all your tracks in disabled when you don’t want them. If these things are no good, there is one last thing…
If I had a huge template, and I wanted to run on a laptop. I would make it so that my working project was virgin, and when I needed an oven ready track, I would use the file ‘import tracks from project’ to copy what I need out of an otherwise unloaded track.
guys, RAM is NOT the issue, Cubase and OS are 2.8gb together, VSTi’s barely add
and it’s near impossible to load 10GB of samples in a project, though you might have 70GB of libraries on your hardrive.
if you have 16GB in your DAW, it’s plenty. just check utilization in your task manager
My cat came back from the garden with this:
I think the pic is a fake but there might be something dug up…
maybe…
It’s a bit of fun anyways.
Z
My priority would be sorting out many existing issues and bugs.
Not sure why peeps keep mentioning CPU and RAM …neither of these are a problem (for me anyway) my computer is hardly working at all while Cubase is maxing out in it’s performance…on a project with less than 30 tracks and less than 30 plugs…7 of em Cubase’s own…it’s just not right! 
I’m not sure why anyone is mentioning RAM, either. But the CPU thing you mention is exactly what I’m talking about, anyway! It seems like Reaper and Pro Tools are more directly related to the actual CPU use of the computer, whereas Cubase maxes out far earlier. I guess the best way to describe it would then be> Inefficient use of CPU (?).
Cubase is definitely inefficient at a lot of things. Unfortunately it also has the features and workflow that appeal most naturally to me. I was blaming plugin manufacturers for a while, especially smaller more independent ones, for poor CPU performance, but that’s not fair. A plugin like Disto which maxes out most Cubase systems in 8-12 instances can have over 50-60 instances in Reaper and still be using only 35-50% of the CPU. There’s no excuse for that.
Like stated a few times in this thread, to have a good Cubase system you need a computer with well tuned components, and all that really means is that you’re very careful about DPC latency. That’s common sense though, and that’s puts the blame for a poorly working system on the end user which is unfair because time and time again Cubase has proven to also be unpredictably inefficient.