id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

[ninez]

No they don't. But what would you know? Did you ever write a driver for any of these platforms? Because I have.

You need to back this up, without doing so - i don't believe you in the slightest, because quite frankly you've been soooo frickin' slippery, dishonest, fallacious and generally come across as being full of shit. ~ and you haven't even tried to argue any of that because you KNOW it is the truth. (and you've had plenty of oppertunities that most people would have taken) ..plus, you haven't backup any of your other claims, only asserted I worte this, i run this company, yatta yatta... ~ it's all literally MEANINGLESS...

Lolwat, Apple uses off-the-shelf Intel CPUs and chipsets, like most OEMs do. AMD-based machines are rare, and non-Intel chipsets for Intel CPUs died out years ago because Intel stopped licensing the bus on their newer CPUs.
The machine I described was decidedly a-typical and low-budget.

I don't care about non-intel chips that died out years ago - that has zitch to do with anything. The fact is Apple has better quality control of their products and it shows. I never argued that they weren't using Intel or XYZ component....

The obvious flaw in your reasoning is that you think that 'pro audio' is somehow some specific functionality that you can just 'put in your OS'.
It's not. Pro audio software is just software, and pro audio hardware is just hardware.
The only requirement is that of low-latency I/O.

Does Microsoft include ASIO, or VST or a DAW (ie: software) NO they do not. Apple DOES via CoreAudio (and all of it's components) and most Mac's that i've purchased come with a DAW and other audio tools. So they DO put that functionality in their OS in terms of software. So Yes, they do put some of the proaudio stuff right in there. As far as Hardware is concerned (in the context of being able to use for Proaudio purposes) they make sure their shit works - many of the OEMs that ship windows may or may NOT.

Now while Microsoft does not specifically target pro audio, they *do* target low-latency I/O, since it is a more common problem, and proper low-latency I/O will make the OS suitable to a large variety of software, which Microsoft *DOES* target.
You just don't seem to see the bigger picture.

That isn't the same thing, and you know it. It isn't a question of 'seeing the big picture' - Microsoft doesn't target Proaudio specifically, while Apple does. OOTB i am ready to go with a Mac - with Windows, no. I have to rely on 3rd parties to make that happen. They may target low-latency I/O - but that doesn't change that fact that they don't target proaudio while Apple does. You can try to twist things around all that you like - you are simply wrong. Just like you've been wrong about nearly everything else you've claimed throughout this whole thread to me.

For Apple, audio is one of their niches, so they market their machine to maintain or even extend their marketshare there. Doesn't mean there's anything more than marketing in it.

Except that they actually develop a lot of Proaudio/multimedia software and provide the frameworks for them, included in MacOSX. That isn't all 'marketing' - that is creating/providing the software and targeting that market BEYOND just some marketing ploys. They make sure there platform is better for this kind of thing, because it is an important area of business for them..

Apple was committed to firewire early on, they saw it as a superior solution to USB.
The PC-world instead went for the cheaper USB option, and as such, firewire interfaces were rare, and usually cheap third-party solutions were added to systems.
Apple does not cater to the budget market, so they can afford to make their machines more expensive, and add things like Firewire and SCSI interfaces.
Such PCs have always existed as well, if you look at the more expensive workstation series from Dell, HP or Compaq. It's just not what most people buy, because they go for the bargain basement stuff. Gee, not surprising if a PC of half the cost of an Apple doesn't quite work as well.

I am well-aware of Apple's history with Firewire... And actually, most people i know who plan on doing things like Proaudio or Video-editing don't buy 'budget bargain basement junk'... Not even in the example i have used earlier in this thread, that you were trying to claim must have had via chipsets or some nonsense... I could find out how much that machine costed, but i can pretty much assure you it was more than a Mac.

Actually, the 64-bit version of Logic was one of the applications that Microsoft used to promote Windows XP x64.

Logic sucked in Windows, don't know if you ever used it...probably not, i am guessing. it was an unstable mess... I used to use Logic 8/9 on Mac though... I did however see Logic in Windows in those days and it was a sad state of affairs. Around then (or maybe a year before), I had also used Protools in Windows at a friends, but I Owned a Mac with Protools. We both agreed the Mac/protools combo was WAY better, and his machine actually had better specs...

Not at all: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...096#post281096
"MacOSX OOTB has much lower latency than windows (and a superior audio subsystem aka: CoreAudio)"

The out-of-the-box thing is utterly meaningless obviously, since you do not need to make any changes to your Windows configuration at all to get low latency. All you need is a proper ASIO device.

Yet, that doesn't change the fact that you totally misquoted me, were being fallacious and a totasl deceptive little snake. You also didn't need to quote that - being as i already did. CoreAudio is superior to Windows Audio subsystems, and without a proper ASIO device - you have no low-latency proaudio experience in Windows. The fact is you made some dumb fallacious argument up - that didn't correspond to what i said - plain and simple.

Oh btw, I didn't see your rant earlier on guitar fx.
Sadly for you, I'm actually a 7-string playing shredder. Playing fast, REALLY fast is what I do.
You're also wrong about older guitar fx being slower. If anything, they were faster, because they were mostly analog. It's mostly the early digital modelers that can be rather annoying in terms of latency and response. But not my PC setup. Plays just fine.
Besides, guitarists generally play over real amps, not digital crap, so they know what NO latency is like.

So, nice try, but as usual, completely uninformed and mostly your wrong assumptions.

I was referring to older digital guitar FX - i wasn't comparing Apples (digital) to Oranges (analog). I don't see how you think i was either, when i did mention analog -> i was only talking about older analog synth's like moog's which afaik do have more latency than my keyboard. It's actually really funny that you are dumb enough to think i was refering to analog fx boards/pedals. lol.

..and FYI guitarists and all musicians should be aware of latency - the furhter you move away from the speaker the more latency there will be ~ all musicians encounter latency (whether they realize it or not) there is no such thing as ZERO latency while you are plugged into your guitar amp, stage, acoustically, etc. what a dumbass you are.

As usual, you don't quite seem to understand the context here, so let me point out the obvious:
On linux, if you tweak it for 'lower latencies', you are actually reducing the timeslice length of the entire system, meaning you get more CPU usage *all the time* because the system performs more context switches per second.
On Windows you do not need to modify the timeslice length at all, you do not need to 'supercharge' the thread scheduler to make it more responsive. Out-of-the-box settings are good enough for < 1 ms latencies.
As a result, the CPU usage is the same as it always was.

Execpt for the fact that you aren't even addressing what i said. I said if you reduce/use smaller samples CPU load is going to be higher, regardless of OS. I know when my machine idles in (rt)Linux my CPU usage is slightly higher (which i already said a long time ago - apparently, you don't remember that), but i also know that it is far more deterministic/predictable and can reach deadlines well below Windows running on the same hardware... it's also far more reliable.

Right, once again you don't quite get what I'm saying. I said that if it works for them, then why not.
Also, obviously as long as your processing requirements are low enough, then so are your CPU needs. Even my phone can easily run most of the VSTs that I used 10 years ago. That however does not change the fact that the CPU overhead may be higher than with another system. That's all I said. But apparently you are having trouble separating absolute and relative characteristics.

I did actually misread what you wrote, there. Sorry about that. But regardless, it (the overhead) is Negligible and thus not a big deal.

Yes you did, but you probably weren't aware of it.
You quoted those statements about DPC overhead in Windows and all that.
The only way to get rid of that DPC overhead is to disable the device whose driver is causing this. Hence, disabling/removing hardware.

No not in the context of what you were replying too, i wasn't. Let me refresh your memory, okay you disingenuous little snake;

and when you claimed shortly after that 'i must be doing something wrong, for tweaking windows'

Disabling/removing hardware does not qualify as 'tweaking Windows'.

And if you care to go back and read what this was in reference to - which AFAIK wasn't what you are now claiming it was - but was in fact tuning Windows (not by disabling hardware), and the whole part about companies like ADK tuning the OS. Stop being so dishonest, i not only remmber but can easily go back and read my old posts - i CLEARLY was not talking about the quote from the articles or USB device manuals recommending to disable wireless or something - you trying now to say i was, is not only MORONIC but just continues to show how full of shit and deceptive you are. Nice try, but you have rocks in your head thinking you can peddle such BS. epic fail.

The longer you rant on, the less convincing you sound...

You haven't been convincing in any shape or form (at all). you've literally been incorrect about almost everything you have said in this thread, with fe minor exceptions/// You have said fallacious comments (and not even denied or tried to show that they weren't - because you know they were), you have tried to scam your way out of any situation that it was pretty obvious that you didn't know what you were talking about, or you just ignored them (for the same reason).

you're pathetic!

frankly, it doesn't matter if you think i am 'convincing' ~ you're full of shit!

[squirrl]

chewing gum

1. Xorg is a major problem on older hardware
2. Too many 'Won't Fix' bugs in distributions
3. Up-stream is another term for, "We can't fix it"

I'm getting to the point I run CentOS only.

Back before Slackware jumped on the Good-ship Insanity (KDE 4) you were guaranteed a sane release.



Get a hacK0r out of an out-house and show him a toilet and you still get the same old sh3t.

--
l33t speak originated in the 80's from BuCk rOGeRs

[ворот93]

Sounds exactly like Linus Torvalds' attitude...

You are trying to argue with a fanboy. I have added him to ignore list, suggest that you do so as well.

[Scali]

...

You know, if most of your posts weren't pathetic insults, some people might actually bother to read what you're saying, and may even take you seriously.

[ворот93]

you're pathetic!

frankly, it doesn't matter if you think i am 'convincing' ~ you're full of shit!

Is THIS Linux user base? Then it's good that Linux has <1% on workstations: <1% of people are arrogant immature fanboys unable to listen to outsider's opinion.

I used to be a Linux advocate. But seeing the 'general population' in this thread makes me feel less and less pro-FOSS.

Have a nice day.

[ChrisXY]

Is THIS Linux user base?

A tiny, tiny part of it.

Then it's good that Linux has <1% on workstations:

You know, there are millions of PCs with linux on it.

<1% of people are arrogant immature fanboys unable to listen to outsider's opinion.

How many people you don't like have you seen here in the phoronix forums? A dozen? Out of how many? Millions of users?

I used to be a Linux advocate. But seeing the 'general population' in this thread makes me feel less and less pro-FOSS.

I'm considering invoking Godwin's law...

[Scali]

<1% of people are arrogant immature fanboys unable to listen to outsider's opinion.

Or even insiders.
I would say nVidia is very much an insider, having the longest and most successful history of supporting linux. But does Linus Torvalds listen? Nope.
Or Ingo Molnar, a linux kernel developer and Red Hat employee: https://plus.google.com/109922199462...ts/HgdeFDfRzNe

I myself don't feel like an insider, since I want to distance myself from people like Linus Torvalds and the linux community in general.
However, I *do* support the platform. I maintain various open source projects, which have full linux support (among other OSes, such as OS X and FreeBSD). So I am an 'insider' in the sense that I develop for linux (both FOSS and closed-source). Then again, I license my open source stuff under the BSD license, which again is probably not 'good enough'.

[TheBlackCat]

Well, there's the catch: it's not being done correctly. See gamerk2's remark.

Yes, in a perfect world, everyone does exactly what Microsoft prescribes, and all hardware and drivers are perfect and bug-free.
But the world is not perfect, so the moment you allow third parties to sell hardware, write drivers or applications, you open up your platform to potential issues of resource hogging and whatnot.

So let me see if I understand correctly: because we don't live in a perfect world, neither Linux nor Windows can be counted on to behave exactly as we expect. So the conclusion from this is that Windows is great and Linux sucks? Double standard much?

[Scali]

So let me see if I understand correctly: because we don't live in a perfect world, neither Linux nor Windows can be counted on to behave exactly as we expect. So the conclusion from this is that Windows is great and Linux sucks? Double standard much?

Wow, there's a gem of selective reading if there ever was one!
Firstly, I was talking about Android vs linux, other people prefer to focus on Windows instead. I don't think anyone actually said "Windows is great" or anything to that extent. There have been various attempts of putting such words into other people's mouths though.
Secondly, the fact that no system is perfect does in no way imply that all of them are just as bad in every single way.
Double standard? Not quite.

[TheBlackCat]

Firstly, I was talking about Android vs linux, other people prefer to focus on Windows instead.

You were the one who originally brought up windows, and you have continued discussing it at great length.

Secondly, the fact that no system is perfect does in no way imply that all of them are just as bad in every single way.
Double standard? Not quite.

But in the two cases I quotes, they had the exact same problem, i.e. third-party developers not following the correct practices, leading to applications not working properly. When this happens with Windows, you blame the third-party developers. When it happens with Linux, you blame Linux as a platform. When Mac Os X has this problem less in the exact same area than windows, you intentionally downplay the issue ("it's just that it is more rare on OS X"), yet when it is a difference between Linux and Windows, you blow the difference into a huge, insurmountable deal-killer. So yes, it most certainly is a double standard.