14 Jun
2007
14 Jun
'07
4:23 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
... Ardour
may be efficient, then again, it may also just 'seem' efficient on the big
fat servers it is being developed on. That is fine, design a peice of
software that only works on the fastest system available and its target
audience suddenly diminishes. Perhaps to put it another way, do we want a
situation where bloatware is coming to Linux - it if does not work then buy
a faster system?
Have you ever tried it ? Look at the output of <your favourite CPU load
monitor> while using Ardour ?
I had Ardour running for most of this afternoon, a session with 14 tracks
and 33 channels in total (some tracks are 6-ch, as is the output, can
Traverso do this ?). CPU load around 7% on my 1.7G laptop.
There is bloatware on Linux, but I don't think Ardour is part of that,
even if it has many features that I never use.
--
FA
Follie! Follie! Delirio vano รจ questo !