Le 04/05/2015 22:03, Paul Davis a écrit :


On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@linuxaudio.org> wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:02:37PM +0000, Ivan K wrote:

> Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?

* When A3 emerged it offered little advantage if you
didn't need the new MIDI features.

A4 now has about 3000 bug fixes compared to A2. I suppose that if you know that A2 never has a problem with your workflow, good for you.

For everybody who doesn't know that, A2 is just a completely stupid choice.

;)
Always weighting the words, hey!
I don't think it's a "complete stupid choice", as well as A4 is not either. And if you don't need MIDI, I also think you might not want to change, as all the bug fixed weren't criticals, and also because the new GUI isn't that easy for someone not used to that scrolling way (I insist, and that's what I've been able to check with starting students).

And I agree with Fons about the memory use too.

Obviously, you and the whole staff did a really big work with A3 and A4, and there's not point arguing it was better before, it was not.


But I've to say that I felt a bit "lost" when the switch has been done, telling my students that A3 arrived, A2 being unsupported, and then finally telling them to wait a bit cause there were several severe bugs to be fixed - which is no problem to me, that's the way it has to be, and I suppose there was no way to allow A2 to open A3 sessions (to be able to get back). That's why even now, I feel safer telling them to use A2, and telling them A4 exists but I cannot tell them I'm sure it works, as I don't have tested the same way as A2, for which there are bugs, known for most of them, and for the most critical, I explain them what to do to avoid them.

-- 
ORL
AMMD - Freak & Free Arts Coo[r]p
www.ammd.net - 095 234 72 48