Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

    id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

    Phoronix: id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

    While id Software was known for years as being a Linux-friendly game company with providing native ports of their in-house titles with support for the id Tech engines on Linux, this is no longer the case. John Carmack, the founder of id Software, has lost his commitment to seeing Linux support...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE1NDA

  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
    I said *support*, not *support well*. Yes, if the HW can't handle the low latencies, ASIO4ALL tends to break, for somewhat obvious reasons. And yes, most every soundcard has an ASIO driver these days.
    Yes, it's a catch-22.
    If the hardware can handle low latencies (and full duplex, another requirement), it will have an ASIO driver (ASIO drivers are probably the simplest drivers I've ever written).
    Which means that you only use ASIO4ALL on hardware that can't do what ASIO is meant for in the first place.
    Oh well, it can work as long as you don't do things that require low latency.
    For playback, the latency is not an issue really. And if you're recording, most software will be able to figure out how much delay the ASIO driver is causing, and move your recordings back in time so they end up in the right place, regardless of how much latency you have.
    But things like realtime monitoring or processing... not a chance

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    Microsoft doesn't target that market specifically
    Microsoft doesn't really target *ANY* market specifically. I think that exactly is their strength.
    They deliver the most universal system out there. It may not be 'the best' solution for anything, but it is a 'good enough' solution for just about everything. That's what makes Windows so hard to compete with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    Scali is also incorrect - you can overclock MacPros and this is widely known, and not something even remotely new
    If you mean to say that it is possible to overclock because Apple uses the exact same CPUs and chipsets that allow you to overclock regular PCs, then I think my response would be something like....

    Durrrr-Hurrr-Durrr

    However, last time I looked, you still need third-party software for this. It doesn't come with OS X itself, let alone pre-installed.
    Where most PC motherboards will have such utilities included on their driver CD.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    If you meant something different, then you need to try communicating it again, because we're all seriously confused.
    No, that was the obvious part. It's about the consequences of that obvious part: Apple selects hardware and software that doesn't have cycle stealing issues, hence end-users never encounter such issues.
    When you buy a PC, it is your own responsibility to select that hardware and software, because there's also a lot of junk around.

    Leave a comment:


  • ninez
    replied
    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    If you mean, "You have no choice, you always receive the onboard audio controller, drivers, and software providing an audio API to applications when purchasing a Mac", then I think my response would be something like....

    Durrrr-Hurrr-Durrr

    If you meant something different, then you need to try communicating it again, because we're all seriously confused.
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. hilarious

    Scali is also incorrect - you can overclock MacPros and this is widely known, and not something even remotely new ... You can overclock Macbook pros too, but i am not sure if you would want to overclock it (although people do) and overclocking an iMac probably isn't that good of an idea either... I personally wouldn't overclock them, at least not MBP or iMac.

    Leave a comment:


  • russofris
    replied
    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Well, what I meant is that you have no choice. All Apples come with Apple motherboards. They don't even have any overclocking or monitoring functionality as far as I know, so that is one less potential problem.
    Likewise, all Apple motherboards come with onboard audio and software chosen by Apple. There's the other problem solved.
    If you mean, "You have no choice, you always receive the onboard audio controller, drivers, and software providing an audio API to applications when purchasing a Mac", then I think my response would be something like....

    Durrrr-Hurrr-Durrr

    If you meant something different, then you need to try communicating it again, because we're all seriously confused.

    F

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    You have the choice of using the onboard audio, or you can use an external (firewire, Thunderbolt, or USB) solution.
    Well, what I meant is that you have no choice. All Apples come with Apple motherboards. They don't even have any overclocking or monitoring functionality as far as I know, so that is one less potential problem.
    Likewise, all Apple motherboards come with onboard audio and software chosen by Apple. There's the other problem solved.

    Leave a comment:


  • ninez
    replied
    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    I think that the iMac does have a place though. If I were doing composition, or experimenting with orchestration, I would be happy with an iMac, a receiver connected via to TOSlink, some decent speakers, etc. I also do some rough mixing on the iMac prior to sending a project to the engineer so that I can steer him in the direction I want him to go.

    For real mixing and production, I agree that you typically want the hardware in a silent enclosure or in the adjacent room. You are correct that this pretty much excludes the iMac. While it is fairly quiet, the fan sound would still drive me nuts.
    We are in agreement... iMac's do have their place for the usage you are talking about above, it would be fine. But obviously in the Studio it really isn't the best choice.

    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    For live performances, you are dead-on with the MBP. It's portable. Nobody (except for those that have professional roadies) carry around a Hammond B3. A Rhodes is about as big-as-you'll-see when touring, and they're still really (really really really) heavy. Most of the time, you see a Macbook plugged into a Roland. Not because it's better than a real Rhodes or Hammond, but because you can carry it, set it up, and plug a single wire into the snake. You don't even have to worry whether or not the house-sound-guy knows how to mic a Leslie.
    Very true. This is the same reason that i dropped a lot of my heavy analog gear and replaced it with my Rackmount + lighter midi-controllers. There are other reasons too, like flexibility - access you a wider variety of patches, sampling, etc all in one place. But i should note, that even a lot of big band / pop acts don't bother carrying around that gear either ~ for example, Radiohead stopped bringing a lot of the older analog gear with them on tour and instead made them into sample banks. Not only because the equipment was a pain in the ass to move, but also they were slowly ruining some of these classic old-synths. Plus, you can emulate rhodes/hammond/etc fairly easily using much less bulky gear...and yes, no worrying about in-house sound guy, either.

    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    Guitarists have it easy. We simply cary a combo (JMP50, AC30, etc) and two guitars. To set up, we simply unscrew the ball on one of the house's SM58's, position it on the X (that we made with a felt-tip on the cab years ago), plug in, and we're good to go.
    No doubt. I don't gig a whole lot (i used too, though) but do Jam every week. I leave my strat+amp at where we jam, and only have to bring my keyboards+stands plus, my rackmount and floor-board. ~ this definitely beats years ago having to lug tons of haevy peices of gear around, i'll tell you that


    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    What a strange way of making art. Perhaps the blip-bloop kids making "music" today are right.
    lol. i would hope not. You can put me in front of any guitar, drumset, bass, piano/keys and i can play music. but if you take away their laptop - there is no music for them to trigger and play, hell, you give them someone else's computer (to make the comparison fair) and they still won't be able to play music on the spot. While i love electronic music - i don't consider anyone but those whom play music or can actually sing to be 'real' musicians...that's just my opinion though

    Leave a comment:


  • russofris
    replied
    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    about iMac's as i said before - not exactly the best choice for Proaudio work, MacPros tend to be the choice amongst professionals (aka: in studios) and MacBook Pro's for live-performers - and as you also know Logic-Pro includes MainStage - which targets live-players as well. And then for those keyboard players whom want to bring their virtual synths - for specific sounds they may be using in the studio - they can buy a receptor pro - and not fuss with a laptop (and all the hassles that can come with that) or they may be using a Keyboard workstation of some kind (or both).
    I think that the iMac does have a place though. If I were doing composition, or experimenting with orchestration, I would be happy with an iMac, a receiver connected via to TOSlink, some decent speakers, etc. I also do some rough mixing on the iMac prior to sending a project to the engineer so that I can steer him in the direction I want him to go.

    For real mixing and production, I agree that you typically want the hardware in a silent enclosure or in the adjacent room. You are correct that this pretty much excludes the iMac. While it is fairly quiet, the fan sound would still drive me nuts.

    For live performances, you are dead-on with the MBP. It's portable. Nobody (except for those that have professional roadies) carry around a Hammond B3. A Rhodes is about as big-as-you'll-see when touring, and they're still really (really really really) heavy. Most of the time, you see a Macbook plugged into a Roland. Not because it's better than a real Rhodes or Hammond, but because you can carry it, set it up, and plug a single wire into the snake. You don't even have to worry whether or not the house-sound-guy knows how to mic a Leslie.

    Guitarists have it easy. We simply cary a combo (JMP50, AC30, etc) and two guitars. To set up, we simply unscrew the ball on one of the house's SM58's, position it on the X (that we made with a felt-tip on the cab years ago), plug in, and we're good to go.

    What a strange way of making art. Perhaps the blip-bloop kids making "music" today are right.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X