15 Feb
2011
15 Feb
'11
11:30 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:07:51AM +0100, Robert Jonsson wrote:
2011/2/12 Hartmut Noack
<zettberlin(a)linuxuse.de>de>:
No offence ment but what 1.6 GHz/1GB RAM machine is that?
I had Seq24 running on a Toshiba Laptop with 1GHz PIII and 256RAM and it was
running perfectly OK. A collegue used it professionally on a 800 MHz Celeron
with 256 RAM.
I'd have to agree with that, most old sk00l linux sequencers should
really have no problem on an 1.6Ghz machine.
This thread woke old memories of trying to create music in a linux
environment ten years ago and the trials and tribulations you had to
go through.
We've definitely come long way, though there is always ways to go.
I recall having a Pentium II Celeron 300A (likely overclocked) at that
time which I was running MusE under, midi was never a problem, could
only run a few audio tracks though.
OK, after working on this a bit, I have the following to report:
1) The problem isn't really the sequencer. It is running the sequencer *along with all
of my softsynths* (which are of course using RT priority) that causes even seq24 to slow
to an unusable crawl.
2) Rosegarden is fine for most uses, except it tends to crash, and the transport key
shortcuts are totally different from Ardour, which continually trips me up (I guess I can
customize those somehow, I'll look).
3) The screen real estate issue is a much bigger problem than the performance. I mean,
this is the open dialog: http://restivo.org/misc/big.png
4) I haven't tried Muse but I'll have a look. I tried qtractor years ago when I
think it was still a work in progress, but will have another go at it now.
Thanks all for the nostalgia!
-ken
Am 12.02.2011 00:12, schrieb Ken Restivo:
<...>
Seq24 fits your description 1:1.
Thanks. I used it successfully for years on a 64-bit 2.33Ghz Intel PC with
2GB RAM, but it is unusably slow on a 1.6Ghz 32-bit Intel PC with 1GB RAM. 