22 Sep
2004
22 Sep
'04
1:31 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 02:36, Erik Steffl wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
Warez groups maybe. Most legitimate Windows software is distributed as
a self-extracting exe. Anything else looks fly-by-night. It's annoying
when you go to reinstall a Windows box and you haver to install WinZip
to get one fscking driver. Of course they finally added native support
with XP so it's no longer as much of an issue, but it still requires an
extra step. On Windows people expect to be able to download the file
and double click it to start the installer.
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 21:34, Erik Steffl wrote:
Because most people use them on Windows and you need a third party
program to uncompress zip and gzip on that platform.
???
pretty much everything else (that I have seen on various windows
centric download sites or usenet newsgroups or ftp sites etc.) is
distributed in zip or rar formats, pretty much everybody uses winzip anyway.
>I got
it. It wasn't the .sf2 file being bad -- it was having an old
>version of sfxload hanging around in /usr/local/bin. The new version
>downloaded by apt-get sounds fine.
>
Also, there are much better free (as in beer) soundfonts available than
the ones that come with the SBLive. Google for "personal copy
soundfont".
Q: why are soundfonts mostly in funny formats (exe? sfArk?), instead
of compressed *SF2 files (using some common compression program like zip
or gzip etc.). That's not only on personal copy site but pretty much all
the site that have soundfonts. sfArk is third party too, plus it seems like
it's not even available
anymore. and the personal copy guy even offers the program for download
instead of offering the soundfonts in some 'normal' format.
seems like a soundfont conspiracy to me.
No, the SoundFont loader that comes with the Windows driver can load
sfArk files directly. Also many soundfonts were not packaged to be
loaded on computers, you would load them into your hardware synth.
Lee