id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

[Scali]

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

I merely mentioned Windows as one of a number of platforms that have a stable binary interface. I wanted to focus more on Android, but people kept trying to corner me into discussing Windows.

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.

Nope, it is not the same problem.
You see, drivers are third-party code. They are not part of Windows itself.
The linux kernel and Xorg are crucial parts of a linux distribution (at least one aimed at gaming, which is the topic here, ID/Valve and such).
In Windows, problems are caused by *some* drivers for *some* hardware.
In linux, the problems are caused just because you update parts of the OS itself, regardless of what hardware and software you want to use.
So it is a very different issue. Linux periodically breaks both nVidia's and AMD's drivers, forcing nVidia and AMD to release new drivers.

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")

I'm just being realistic. There's a whole lot more hardware available for Windows than for OS X, and a lot of it is vague bargain-basement stuff with poorly designed hardware (eg relying on the CPU to perform various tasks that would otherwise be performed by dedicated hardware, very common on network/wifi cards, and in the past the infamous winmodems) and lousy drivers to boot.

The point I'm making is that the fact that OS X users experience less of these problems is not because of some kind of inherent OS design. Because it isn't. Just like how less malware is not exactly a result of Apple's superior security design and patch-policy... Quite the contrary, as discussed here: http://allthatiswrong.wordpress.com/...ibly-insecure/
Yes, it is safer, no it is not more secure by design.
Like how the same car is more likely to get stolen in one area than another. Same car, same security, different environment.

[ninez]

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.

Nice cop-out. The fact is, you have been misrepresenting almost everything i say. You have been very deceptive, fallacious, making erroneous claims and are unwilling to back up them up...and it's not like you haven't been given many opportunities. Many of your ideas are ridiculous and you are ridiculous - thus are deserving of ridicule by definition.

You keep coming back to the insults thing, as a tactic of avoidance - it's very transparent, since you tend to reply with this type of comment, right after i have shown various claims that you made were demonstrably false. You have insulted me many many times, so I am not buying what you are selling. it is nothing more than an excuse to absolve yourself of any responsibility and is nothing more than a cop-out and the kind of tactic i would usually associate with either someone who is smart, but very deceptive ~ or someone whom is a complete ninnyhammer... My insults (contrary to your belief) do not invalidate my positions that have been correct ~ even if you don't like my language or me personally.

But oh well, I've added you to my ignore list.

[Scali]

The fact is, you have been misrepresenting almost everything i say.

More like you're tripping over your own arguments.

Thing is, your 'arguments' are mostly insults, laced with some poorly constructed 'arguments' (like the one about the latency between speaker and ear... oh yea, like speakers and ears are not involved when you're using digital processing, right?... That part is a constant and is obviously not part of the equation here).
You post links to articles that don't even support your own statements... And you wonder why I stopped bothering to respond to your 'arguments'...

[russofris]

The point I'm making is that the fact that OS X users experience less of these problems is not because of some kind of inherent OS design.

While I think you meant to say "is not because of some kind of inherently superior OS design.", I would like to point out a couple things.

OSX only needs to support Mac hardware. Rather than supporting the entire Nvidia/AMD family of products Apple only needs to support the four chips that ship in the Mac in static configurations. With a dozen output/fan/memory configurations per member chip, it is no mystery why the vendors and OS developers have issues.

It's really not fair to compare a Mac to a win/nix PC, in the same way that it is not fair to compare an Xbox360 to a PC. They're completely different animals, despite the similarities.

While Intel and AMD have put a lot of momentum behind Linux recently, I fear that it will all be in vain if we do not begin working on improvements to the DE. Canonical releases one of the most highly consumed linux based distributions at the moment, and it is obvious from the state of the Unity desktop that they just don't get it. I feel like Maddox every time I use Unity.

F

[Scali]

While I think you meant to say "is not because of some kind of inherently superior OS design.", I would like to point out a couple things.

Well, that's one way to put it... I was thinking more along the lines of "inherent to certain aspects of the OS design" or "inherent to the design of the OS"...
But something like that yes.

It's really not fair to compare a Mac to a win/nix PC

Well, I don't mind people pointing out the differences, and how they may or may not affect the end-user.
But I object to people falsely attributing something to OS design when clearly the OS can function properly on a given subset of the available hardware.
The cause is with drivers or applications stealing too much CPU time.

I've come across this many times with those monitoring utilities that come with most motherboards. Generally they will update once or twice per second, reading out voltages, frequencies and whatnot. Problem is, I found many of these utilities to hog the system during that time. If you were to play a game, even a simple game such as Portal 2, you'd see it stutter at that exact interval. Just close off the monitor utility, and it's smooth as butter.
Another offender I have found was the HD dock utility that comes with VIA onboard HD audio. If you leave it running in the tray, you will also see this 'spiky' behaviour in games and such (on Vista/Win7 at least, XP has an older version of the tray utility which does not suffer from this problem).
Close the utility, and the problem is gone (the audio device itself works fine).
Now, many other audio devices have similar utilities that don't suffer from this issue, so clearly it is not some kind of deficiency in Windows.

And to get back to the Mac... well, what choice of motherboards/onboard audio and utilities do you have there? Exactly...

[ninez]

More like you're tripping over your own arguments.

Thing is, your 'arguments' are mostly insults, laced with some poorly constructed 'arguments' (like the one about the latency between speaker and ear... oh yea, like speakers and ears are not involved when you're using digital processing, right?... That part is a constant and is obviously not part of the equation here).
You post links to articles that don't even support your own statements... And you wonder why I stopped bothering to respond to your 'arguments'...

Weird, i set you on the ignore list and this still showed up in my email (may have not kicked in yet?)..

Did you or did you not claim that when you play guitar through your amp that you had quote 'ZERO latency'??? (yes, you did!). Did i claim ever that there was ZERO latency involved when processing digital audio, or that their wasn't latency involved with ears or speakers? NO i did not. In fact, i said there IS latency coming from speakers, instruments and playing on stage...Again, you are misrepresenting my position;

yet again, another strawman. You want to talk about 'poorly constructed arguments'?!?!? WTF?!?! - fallacious claims are ALWAYS poorly constructed arguments - which you seem to be a huge fan of... I simply pointed out, you are wrong to say there is ZERO latency ~ which is entirely true and now because you don't like that i pointed that out that you are contradicting yourself (with a severe lack of logic/reason/rational thought processes) and you are trying to say i said something which i did NOT.

sorry dude, no dice.

Hopefully, the 'add to ignore list' kicks in, now. bye

[Scali]

Did you or did you not claim that when you play guitar through your amp that you had quote 'ZERO latency'??? (yes, you did!).

In the context in which I said it, it was clear I was only speaking about the amp itself (seeing as digital processing does not include the poweramp/speakers part anyway).
And yes, I'm sure if I let you, you'd then argue about the fact that it doesn't take 'zero time' for the electrons to pass through an electrical circuit, and then start insulting me about how I don't even know that sort of basic physics etc etc...
While any sane person would understand from the context that this 'physical delay' is still significantly smaller compared to the theoretical minimum digital delay of 1 bit, and definitely smaller than the best case digital processing chain in practice.
But only someone who's really desperate would follow such a line of argument in the first place. It also shows that you have very poorly evolved linguistic skills, not being able to pick up on things like hyperbole and such.

[gamerk2]

Oh boy, Windows Audio, my specialty!

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....

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-57492376-82/why-i-regret-buying-an-imac/

Whoops...

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.

Because ASIO is not an OS component, nor should it be. Its handled at the Device Driver layer. The ASIO4ALL driver more or less supports every sound device out there. No other OS configuration is necessary aside from a ASIO Device Driver.

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.

You fail to see the point. Microsoft isn't bloating their OS [hey, thats a big thing for Linux guys, right?] with unneeded functionallity. Instead, they just provide an interface, and let the device manufacturers create a device/driver that does what it needs to.

Personally, I have two M-Audio cards hooked up for various input connectivity, and an ASUS Xonar Xense to output to my headset (currently an Audio-Technica M50), or output to my receiver via HDMI from the GPU. So don't tell me Windows can't handle professional audio.

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..

Software != OS. Its an extra built in stand alone program, no different then if MS decided to package Word with the OS. The fact some audio software is thrown in the OS by default is itself no an indication that OSX is any better or worse at handling proaudio.

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.

More then a Mac? And its 50% markup? *laughs*

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.

Provably false. My home system gets <1ms latency when I have multiple audio inputs and outputs going on at the same time. [You CAN do this if the application allows manual selection of audio input/output devices.]

..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.

Theres no perfect thing as lossless audio either. But theres a point where you can say that "latency is effectivly zero because its so tiny, its impossible for me to detect".

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.

I'm more then willing to take up that challenge with you.

[ninez]

In the context in which I said it, it was clear I was only speaking about the amp itself (seeing as digital processing does not include the poweramp/speakers part anyway).
And yes, I'm sure if I let you, you'd then argue about the fact that it doesn't take 'zero time' for the electrons to pass through an electrical circuit, and then start insulting me about how I don't even know that sort of basic physics etc etc...
While any sane person would understand from the context that this 'physical delay' is still significantly smaller compared to the theoretical minimum digital delay of 1 bit, and definitely smaller than the best case digital processing chain in practice.
But only someone who's really desperate would follow such a line of argument in the first place.

Strawman Fallacy, again. No dice.

..and any sane person would realize it is entirely dependent on the distance relative to the sound source. If i remember corretly (too lazy to look it up) 1ms = 34cm of distance travelled. Stand a few meters away from your amp, now do the math.

[Scali]

The ASIO4ALL driver more or less supports every sound device out there.

I wish you hadn't mentioned that one!
ASIO4ALL gives ASIO a bad name, because it tries to implement ASIO on devices that were never designed for low latencies in the first place (if they are, you get an ASIO driver with them, even your run-off-the-mill Sound Blaster or Audigy comes with ASIO drivers, despite being marketed at gamers, not musicians).

It's much like how Adlib and Sound Blaster gave MIDI a bad name. Yes, if you played a midi file on an early 90s PC, you got ultra-cheese stock sounds from the cheap Yamaha FM synth.
For some reason this cemented a bad reputation for MIDI that lingers on even today. Which is all the more ironic since MIDI was a popular standard in the professional studios even before the first PC could ever play a MIDI file at all, and is still being used heavily today.