31 Jan
2007
31 Jan
'07
8:54 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Steve Harris wrote:
On 31 Jan 2007, at 11:27, Bob Ham wrote:
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
[...]
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFwJGUeVUk8U+VK0IRAlBcAJ92OtWRExkXGwzf1OFxdCTlXW2KLQCgpX+9
AbZjWHeYCQ47Zy5OnRebsnY=
=incw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----