On Wednesday 31 January 2007 23:39, Lee Revell wrote:
> On 1/31/07, David Olofson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That said, as you can't use all CPU time on a UP machine anyway,
> > and
> > as cache issues seem to make multithreaded processing virtually
> > pointless (with the possible exception o
On 1/31/07, David Olofson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That said, as you can't use all CPU time on a UP machine anyway, and
as cache issues seem to make multithreaded processing virtually
pointless (with the possible exception of multicore CPUs), it's
entirely possible that there is no real gain in
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 22:49, Lee Revell wrote:
> On 1/31/07, David Olofson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are a few hacks for RTAI and/or RTLinux, actually, but
> > AFAIK, nothing for any serious hardware... (I did one myself a few
> > years ago, for RTLinux and AudioPCI cards, IIRC.)
On 1/31/07, David Olofson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are a few hacks for RTAI and/or RTLinux, actually, but AFAIK,
nothing for any serious hardware... (I did one myself a few years
ago, for RTLinux and AudioPCI cards, IIRC.)
There's no point these days - the 2.6 -rt kernel can already del
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 21:45, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 21:35 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 21:02, Michael Ost wrote:
> > [...]
> > > We have a 32 sample setting (.7 msecs) in Receptor which I have
> > > yet to see in a Windows driver. And it act
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 21:35 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 21:02, Michael Ost wrote:
> [...]
> > We have a 32 sample setting (.7 msecs) in Receptor which I have yet
> > to see in a Windows driver. And it actually works with some plugins,
> > even a large sampler like Syn
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 21:02, Michael Ost wrote:
[...]
> We have a 32 sample setting (.7 msecs) in Receptor which I have yet
> to see in a Windows driver. And it actually works with some plugins,
> even a large sampler like Synthogy Ivory --- if you don't try to
> play too many notes. %)
[...
"Frank Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nice point and this is the strength of OS. the problems are addressed
far quicker than in Prop' software.
Yes, that's good. Microsoft doesn't give a hoot about professional
audio. We can actually tweak the OS, and Wine, to improve performance of
our specific
Lee Revell wrote:
However I didn't realize that you were using 2.4. 2.6 with the -rt
patches should definitely give better latency than Windows. In fact
it's capable of uselessly low latencies like 0.66ms on some hardware,
which is exactly the kind of thing the marketing guys love ;-)
We have
2007/1/31, Michael Ost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Now it is time for a leap to a newer OS --- 2.4 isn't giving us SATA
drive support and our Wine is getting old (vinegar? %). Our code could
do Windows pretty easily. Should I push for that, or move to a newer Linux?
I think there is no general answer,
On 1/31/07, Michael Ost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now it is time for a leap to a newer OS --- 2.4 isn't giving us SATA
drive support and our Wine is getting old (vinegar? %). Our code could
do Windows pretty easily. Should I push for that, or move to a newer Linux?
I would say it depends on ho
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:05 +, Bob Ham wrote:
Further to that, something constructive: perhaps you could try telling
your customers why *you* chose linux, rather than trying to find reasons
to tell them *they* should.
My reasons, from back in about 2000, were "cost" and "interesting".
First
I would not rule out that Linux is found to perform worse under some
circumstances. But that is ok. Adaptability is one of the strong points
of open source, once we know the problems we can start fixing them.
Nice point and this is the strength of OS. the problems are addressed far
quicker than
Hi
I can only give you a musicians 'real world' comment.
I had Sonar on my XP box and used it a lot for multitracking.
It was an a Athlon 3400 64 ( running 32 xp) 1 gig ram and an RME card for
sound.
It ran fine on the XP box but still had a few wobblies re dropout after
about 10 tracks.
Can I
Greetings:
Michael Gogins recently tested Csound5 with Windows XP Media Center
Edition and with Ubuntu 6.10. His tests indicated that Linux was the
slightly better performer, you can check out his post and commentary on
the Csound mail list archive :
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.
On 31 Jan 2007, at 14:06, Robin Gareus wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lars Luthman wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 13:54 +0100, Robin Gareus wrote:
Cons;
If "windows wants" it can perform better than a fully fledged
rt-unix-kernel. - but that remains to be proven for Vi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lars Luthman wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 13:54 +0100, Robin Gareus wrote:
>> Cons;
>> If "windows wants" it can perform better than a fully fledged
>> rt-unix-kernel. - but that remains to be proven for Vista!
>
> Are you saying that this is tru
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 13:54 +0100, Robin Gareus wrote:
> Cons;
> If "windows wants" it can perform better than a fully fledged
> rt-unix-kernel. - but that remains to be proven for Vista!
Are you saying that this is true for XP? Are there any references for
that?
--ll
-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.
On 31 Jan 2007, at 11:27, Bob Ham wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 23:30 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:18:06PM +, Bob Ham wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:05 +, Bob Ham wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:03 -0800, Michael Ost wrote:
Can anyone suggest ways to com
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 23:30 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:18:06PM +, Bob Ham wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:05 +, Bob Ham wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:03 -0800, Michael Ost wrote:
> > > > Can anyone suggest ways to compare audio/midi performance
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:18:06PM +, Bob Ham wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:05 +, Bob Ham wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:03 -0800, Michael Ost wrote:
Can anyone suggest ways to compare audio/midi performance between Linux
and Windows that
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:18:06PM +, Bob Ham wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:05 +, Bob Ham wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:03 -0800, Michael Ost wrote:
> > > Can anyone suggest ways to compare audio/midi performance between Linux
> > > and Windows that ... make Linux compare favorabl
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:05 +, Bob Ham wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:03 -0800, Michael Ost wrote:
> > Can anyone suggest ways to compare audio/midi performance between Linux
> > and Windows that ... make Linux compare favorably?
>
> > I work for a company that sells a Linux based piece of
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:03 -0800, Michael Ost wrote:
> Can anyone suggest ways to compare audio/midi performance between Linux
> and Windows that ... make Linux compare favorably?
> I work for a company that sells a Linux based piece of hardware that
> plays windows VSTs.
The word "FUD" comes to
On 30 Jan 2007, at 17:03, Michael Ost wrote:
Can anyone suggest ways to compare audio/midi performance between
Linux
and Windows that (1) are relevant to non-technical musicians and (2)
make Linux compare favorably?
Not things like "I just don't like Windows" or software feature
comparisons
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:03 -0800, Michael Ost wrote:
> Can anyone suggest ways to compare audio/midi performance between Linux
> and Windows that (1) are relevant to non-technical musicians and (2)
> make Linux compare favorably?
>
> Not things like "I just don't like Windows" or software feature
Stéphane Letz wrote:
You'll probably first have to decide which Windows version you're
comparing since Vista is supposed to be better than XP:
See:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/01/19/vista-for-music-pro-audio-exclusive-under-the-hood-with-cakewalks-cto/
Thanks for the link. There sure
Le 30 janv. 07 à 18:03, Michael Ost a écrit :
Can anyone suggest ways to compare audio/midi performance between
Linux
and Windows that (1) are relevant to non-technical musicians and (2)
make Linux compare favorably?
Not things like "I just don't like Windows" or software feature
comparisons
Can anyone suggest ways to compare audio/midi performance between Linux
and Windows that (1) are relevant to non-technical musicians and (2)
make Linux compare favorably?
Not things like "I just don't like Windows" or software feature
comparisons or the politics of open vs. closed source, but rat
30 matches
Mail list logo
