Gustin Johnson wrote: > Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > >> Perfect research isn't possible. ASRock K7VT2 and a Thunderbird @< >> 900MHz was fine with 98se and XP running Cubase SX, but the CPU run out >> of resources when using Linux, while there was enough RAM, for Windows >> 256 MB was enough, for Linux I added 1 GB to have enough RAM. Chipset >> > > There is never such a thing as "enough" RAM. Especially with Windows. >
Especially I'm not using Windows myself, but especially for pro-audio Windows needs less resources and especially a 32bit Windows for pro-audio cant use more than 3.?GB, nearly 4 GB but not more. I have 2GB for my Linux and I can't see that any problem has to do with to less RAM. >> was a VIA KT266A. Many Linux applications don't run on that machine, >> audio and MIDI were fine, excepted of a too slow CPU. >> > > I had an older chipset that did not support DDR memory. I started to > drift away from audio production for a couple of years, until I started > doing it again under Linux (audioslack, then 64Studio and a customized > Ubuntu laptop). > > <snip> > >> It's impossible to do perfect research. >> > > I agree, but I *know* that you were warned about AM2 based systems. You > went ahead and bought one anyway. > 1. It's true that most people recommended older sockets. 2. But also my mobo was recommended. Anyway, I wished and wish to have modern hardware, if I spend money. In Germany you don't get any new mobos without AM2, only second hand mobos have other sockets and than you need second hand CPUs too and second hand fans. Soon or later Linux will be AM2 socket compatible, if this will be the problem. By the way: "[snip] 2) no core file will be produced. the timeout is the problem, not a code problem. the realtime watchdog thread has detected that JACK's core functions appear to have stopped (or never started), and to save the machine from locking up (which is perfectly possible) it kills JACK and clients. what happens with older JACK's at this point is not relevant. 0.109.2 had so many holes in it that its not even funny. if this behaviour exists for 0.116.1, then i need to look into it ASAP, otherwise its just a historical footnote. however, its mostly likely caused by your card configuration or JACK configuration. [snip]" (Paul Davis in a reply to a request I sent today) JACK seems to be configured right, but I'm not sure what configuration of the Envy24 is. I guess I does everything correct by using Envy24 Control.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 64studio-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
