25 Jul
2003
25 Jul
'03
3:51 p.m.
Hi
I'm now 1 small step from getting a laptop for music applications
(mainly live csound, but also some sequencer (muse?), some soft synths
(csound/PD), some sample playback + maybe HD-recording.
I'm looking at 2 machines
a)P4 2.4Ghz, 256Mb RAM, 20Gb HD, 1400x1050
b)P4 2.66Ghz, 512Mb RAM, 40Gb HD, 1024x768
Since I'm comming from AMD K6-300, 256Mb RAM, 8Gb HD, I cannot judge if
a) is gonna be too small for my use? Every salesperson will tell you
that you *have* to have 512Mb RAM, since they're assuming you're running
WinXP, how true is this with linux. I don't see the smaller HD as a big
problem, although the bigger the better...
Any thoughts are appreciated.
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
25 Jul
25 Jul
4:15 p.m.
256MB will be pleanty for audio recording, but if you're going to do any
soft synth work with things like sound fonts, you'll want and probably use
the 512MB.
Cheers,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-user-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-user-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Atte
Andre Jensen
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:39 AM
To: lau
Subject: [linux-audio-user] how much ram?
Hi
I'm now 1 small step from getting a laptop for music applications
(mainly live csound, but also some sequencer (muse?), some soft synths
(csound/PD), some sample playback + maybe HD-recording.
I'm looking at 2 machines
a)P4 2.4Ghz, 256Mb RAM, 20Gb HD, 1400x1050
b)P4 2.66Ghz, 512Mb RAM, 40Gb HD, 1024x768
Since I'm comming from AMD K6-300, 256Mb RAM, 8Gb HD, I cannot judge if
a) is gonna be too small for my use? Every salesperson will tell you
that you *have* to have 512Mb RAM, since they're assuming you're running
WinXP, how true is this with linux. I don't see the smaller HD as a big
problem, although the bigger the better...
Any thoughts are appreciated.
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
4:59 p.m.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:01:50 -0700
"Mark Knecht" <mknecht(a)controlnet.com> wrote:
256MB will be pleanty for audio recording, but if
you're going to do
any soft synth work with things like sound fonts, you'll want and
probably use the 512MB.
You mean assuming I use large soundfonts, right? I'm pretty sure I
couldn't fill up 256MB with samples. That would be my whole sample
library... Well, that might change of course... Hmmm. Right now i would
say that if large soundfonts are my only problem, I'm going for the
smaller machine.
Aren't there any software outthere that works like GigaSampler, that is
a softsampler that can play directly from HD?
BTW: I also asked this in my local LUG and one of the posters was
shocked, and said that he had never sat behind a machine with more than
256 MB RAM. Is the "don't go with less than 512MB, or you'll be sooo
sorry"-speach only for windows users or is there some truth in it for us
linux users also?
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
5:12 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 08:47:52PM +0200, Atte Andr? Jensen wrote:
Aren't there any software outthere that works like
GigaSampler, that is
a softsampler that can play directly from HD?
there was a project to do something similar, but i haven't heard any
progress reports in a long time. It's here:
http://linuxsampler.sourceforge.net/
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
Look! Up in the sky! It's MYRKSKOG BLANCMANGE!
(random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)
5:14 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 08:47:52PM +0200, Atte Andr? Jensen wrote:
BTW: I also asked this in my local LUG and one of the
posters was
shocked, and said that he had never sat behind a machine with more than
256 MB RAM. Is the "don't go with less than 512MB, or you'll be sooo
sorry"-speach only for windows users or is there some truth in it for us
linux users also?
Your sample library will almost certainly increase over time. Which
would you rather do - have to worry about what samples were available,
or just load them all and get on with life? ::-)
You'll also get more benefits - even if you can fit your whole sample
library into 256M, you're loosing that much memory that would otherwise
be used for disk cache. As a result, your system performance will
suffer.
--
Ross Vandegrift
ross(a)willow.seitz.com
A Pope has a Water Cannon. It is a Water Cannon.
He fires Holy-Water from it. It is a Holy-Water Cannon.
He Blesses it. It is a Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He Blesses the Hell out of it. It is a Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He has it pierced. It is a Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He makes it official. It is a Canon Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
Batman and Robin arrive. He shoots them.
5:45 p.m.
256MB will be
pleanty for audio recording, but if you're going to do
any soft synth work with things like sound fonts, you'll want and
probably use the 512MB.
You mean assuming I use large soundfonts, right? I'm pretty sure I
couldn't fill up 256MB with samples. That would be my whole sample
library... Well, that might change of course... Hmmm. Right now i would
say that if large soundfonts are my only problem, I'm going for the
smaller machine.
Aren't there any software outthere that works like GigaSampler, that is
a softsampler that can play directly from HD?
BTW: I also asked this in my local LUG and one of the posters was
shocked, and said that he had never sat behind a machine with more than
256 MB RAM. Is the "don't go with less than 512MB, or you'll be sooo
sorry"-speach only for windows users or is there some truth in it for us
linux users also?
really depends on a lot of things.
how many programs do you like to have running simultaneously?
Do you have 10 browser windows open? Kde and Gnome apps will probably use
more than simpler ones.
linux has aggressive caching of hdd in RAM which will drastically
speed up certain operations.
how long do you keep your machine on for? If you leave it on for months
you may run into memory leakage problems with beta software, requiring
more RAM.
you probably dont _need_ more than 256M, but i think a ram upgrade is
pretty good value for money performance upgrade. I'm going to upgrade
to 1GB. But if money is tight you can always start small and upgrade later.
best regards
--
Tim Orford
6:52 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-user-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-user-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Atte
Andre Jensen
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 11:48 AM
To: linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] how much ram?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:01:50 -0700
"Mark Knecht" <mknecht(a)controlnet.com> wrote:
Really, if the only cost difference is the cost of the RAM, I'd suggest
going for the larger one. It isn't so much that you are adding 256MB and
you're going to use it. The issue is more that you will use up most of your
256MB running the OS, XFree86 and the audio applications for recording and
the soft synths. After they are all loaded, then you'll load the sound fonts
and find that you've gone beyond 256MB (which is what I used to have) and
need more memory. You won't need it all, but you will likely need more.
256MB will be pleanty for audio recording, but if
you're going to do
any soft synth work with things like sound fonts, you'll want and
probably use the 512MB.
You mean assuming I use large soundfonts, right? I'm pretty sure I
couldn't fill up 256MB with samples. That would be my whole sample
library... Well, that might change of course... Hmmm. Right now i would
say that if large soundfonts are my only problem, I'm going for the
smaller machine.
Aren't there any software outthere that works like GigaSampler, that is
a softsampler that can play directly from HD?
Nope. There is one project, the 'Linux Sampler' but there is basically no
visible work taking place TTBOMK. There are also patent issues surrounding
playing samples from hard drives...
BTW: I also asked this in my local LUG and one of the posters was
shocked, and said that he had never sat behind a machine with more than
256 MB RAM. Is the "don't go with less than 512MB, or you'll be sooo
sorry"-speach only for windows users or is there some truth in it for us
linux users also?
It is completely true for Linux audio application machines IMO. I actually
think that when you compare Linux apples to Windows apples the memory usage
isn't really that different. The problem I have with Windows is that there
is no simple way to strip things down and get the stuff you want out of the
system. In Linux, I find that if I load KDE and all the services that
Windows runs, Linux uses similar amounts of memory. What I also find true
about Linux is I can strip everything out and run a very minimalistic
environment and use half the memory, which is a big advantage.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for even suggesting that Windows and Linux are not
that different in this regard, but it's my experience and opinion.
Cheers,
Mark
26 Jul
26 Jul
11:19 a.m.
Hi
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:38:02 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote / a écrit:
In Linux, I find that if I load KDE and all the
services that
Windows runs, Linux uses similar amounts of memory. What I also find true
about Linux is I can strip everything out and run a very minimalistic
environment and use half the memory, which is a big advantage.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for even suggesting that Windows and Linux are not
that different in this regard,[snip]
oh no, this is so true and this is one of the strenght of Linux.
BTW, I wanted to add that it's a good thing to buy ram when it's cheap. I tend to
think that prices are lower just before there are no more (obsolete). I remember that I
stayed stuck with an old 48 Mo EDO machine because there where no more EDO ram available
at a decent price.
So one can wait to buy more ram, but there is a time when it must be done.
cheers all.
GuyCLO~
-----------------------------------------------
#219055 http://counter.li.org
-----------------------------------------------
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/guy.clotilde/index.html
-----------------------------------------------
25 Jul
25 Jul
4:59 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 11:01:50AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
256MB will be pleanty for audio recording, but if
you're going to do any
soft synth work with things like sound fonts, you'll want and probably use
the 512MB.
true, but they'll probably overcharge for preinstalled RAM.
I just ordered another 256 MB of PC133 ECC sdram for about $40...
2.66 Ghz vs 2.4 GHz is not that big a deal - 10 % difference
even if the performance is linear with MHz (yeah right).
as for disks - if you do much recording you should seriously
consider a second audio-only disk.
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
Look! Up in the sky! It's SUPER DARK SUPERVISOR!
(random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)
5:17 p.m.
Paul Winkler wrote on Fri, 25-Jul-2003:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 11:01:50AM -0700, Mark Knecht
wrote:
Definitely, go with less preinstalled and buy the additional RAM module
separately at a good price. Just make sure to get the correct variety.
256MB will be pleanty for audio recording, but if
you're going to do any
soft synth work with things like sound fonts, you'll want and probably use
the 512MB.
true, but they'll probably overcharge for preinstalled RAM.
I just ordered another 256 MB of PC133 ECC sdram for about $40... as for disks - if you do much recording you should
seriously
consider a second audio-only disk.
Yes, some laptops can take a second harddrive in one of their
expandable bays. The other alternative is to get an external
firewire HD, (and a Cardbus firewire interface, if the laptop
does not include it on-board). I have had good success using
ardour with large track counts from a firewire HD.
jlc
6:35 p.m.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:03:35 -0400
Jesse Chappell <jesse(a)essej.net> wrote:
Exactly my thoughts. Only were I thinking USB2.0, but I guess they're
not as fast as firewire...
Seems you guys made up my mind:
Screen resolution is hard (!) to buy later. RAM is easy, and recording
and keeping audio rocordings on an external HD would be handy anyways.
I'm gonna go for the 2.4, 256, 20, 1400x1050, assuming the next step
works out: running Knoppix on the sucker tomorrow in the store.
Thanks alot. I'll probably be back soon with more software questions...
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
Paul Winkler wrote on Fri, 25-Jul-2003:
Aha, and I thought it was suposed to be cheaper to buy what I need now.
true, but they'll probably overcharge for
preinstalled RAM.
I just ordered another 256 MB of PC133 ECC sdram for about $40...
Definitely, go with less preinstalled and buy the additional RAM
module separately at a good price. Just make sure to get the correct
variety. as for disks -
if you do much recording you should seriously
consider a second audio-only disk.
Yes, some laptops can take a second harddrive in one of their
expandable bays. The other alternative is to get an external
firewire HD, (and a Cardbus firewire interface, if the laptop
does not include it on-board). I have had good success using
ardour with large track counts from a firewire HD. 
28 Jul
28 Jul
11:48 p.m.
I have one gig. RAM is cheap, might as well throw as much of it at your
system as you can.
-l[e^2]
------------------------------
http://www.fallingforward.net/
people experimenting with music, art and technology
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Atte [ISO-8859-1] Andr� Jensen wrote:
Hi
I'm now 1 small step from getting a laptop for music applications
(mainly live csound, but also some sequencer (muse?), some soft synths
(csound/PD), some sample playback + maybe HD-recording.
I'm looking at 2 machines
a)P4 2.4Ghz, 256Mb RAM, 20Gb HD, 1400x1050
b)P4 2.66Ghz, 512Mb RAM, 40Gb HD, 1024x768
Since I'm comming from AMD K6-300, 256Mb RAM, 8Gb HD, I cannot judge if
a) is gonna be too small for my use? Every salesperson will tell you
that you *have* to have 512Mb RAM, since they're assuming you're running
WinXP, how true is this with linux. I don't see the smaller HD as a big
problem, although the bigger the better...
Any thoughts are appreciated.
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
7586
days inactive
7589
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
11 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Atte André Jensen -
Guy Clotilde -
Jesse Chappell -
Lee Azzarello -
Mark Knecht -
Paul Winkler -
Ross Vandegrift -
tim