-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Steve Harris wrote: > > On 31 Jan 2007, at 11:27, Bob Ham wrote: >> [...] > > I don't think that's necessarily the case, just because Linux had better > RT performance in 2000 doesn't mean it still does today, with Vista and > general improvements. > > I think it's reasonable for management to question if it's still the > best choice. > pick two out of three: cheap, quick, good. - Who's in the management? :) IMO most modern PC/PPC hardware and OS are equally good enough for non-hi-end audio engineering. -> tweak your personal flavor! [hardware-]end-users are concerned about low-latency, scalability and reliability. (audio-processing-quality, easy-use, etc. are irrelevant here) Pro's for gnu/Linux that come to my mind: - flexibility (all kinds of... GNU) - reliability (you have the option to see what's the OS/HW is doing) - existing "free" Live-cds - active and open developer community ;-) - ... Cons; If "windows wants" it can perform better than a fully fledged rt-unix-kernel. - but that remains to be proven for Vista! It would be nice to have a software-suite to compare linux-audio-realtime performance .. - For linux/linux tests there seem to be various code-snippets out there... does anyone care to share pointers? robin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFwJGUeVUk8U+VK0IRAlBcAJ92OtWRExkXGwzf1OFxdCTlXW2KLQCgpX+9 AbZjWHeYCQ47Zy5OnRebsnY= =incw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
