why not try developing (or at least proof of concept) a receptor based on one of the the ms windows os'? xp or embedded? from the user perspective, i really don't care what's under the hood. however, it would seem that all of these plugins have a better chance of running in the native os that they were developed for.
you still have all of the advantages of a portable hardened device with all of the audio and midi i/o pre wired and configured. so it's a better buy than simply buying a rackmount pc.
call me crazy but ...
-
- KVRist
- 209 posts since 25 Jun, 2004 from New England
-
- KVRist
- 60 posts since 28 Apr, 2003 from San Francisco, CA
well, a few things
1) by using a linux operating system they are able to optimize the system for audio. There is some custom kernel stuff going on that aides in throughput
2) costs! adding windows to your system requires a liscense fee to Microsoft. I'm not sure by how much, but it would increase cost on the system.
3) I don't think you'd get the reboot times under windows that Receptor gets.
1) by using a linux operating system they are able to optimize the system for audio. There is some custom kernel stuff going on that aides in throughput
2) costs! adding windows to your system requires a liscense fee to Microsoft. I'm not sure by how much, but it would increase cost on the system.
3) I don't think you'd get the reboot times under windows that Receptor gets.
-
- KVRian
- 661 posts since 15 Jun, 2004 from blue america
a few things:
windows is a sprawling mess designed to run apps on a desktop for easy interaction...
unix (linux) is designed to run programs...period! unix doesn't give a hang about presentation or interaction (that's the responsibility of the app developer)...
receptor is designed to provide stability and reliability and high execution speed...unix (linux) meets these requirements much better that windows due to its design simplicity.
what this means is that the app developer has to do more work (which, again, is a necessary part of providing: stability, reliability, and high execution speed)...
what this means for us (consumers? no, creators!) is that we have to: wait...wait...wait...
my question: how about a dual-core receptor?
windows is a sprawling mess designed to run apps on a desktop for easy interaction...
unix (linux) is designed to run programs...period! unix doesn't give a hang about presentation or interaction (that's the responsibility of the app developer)...
receptor is designed to provide stability and reliability and high execution speed...unix (linux) meets these requirements much better that windows due to its design simplicity.
what this means is that the app developer has to do more work (which, again, is a necessary part of providing: stability, reliability, and high execution speed)...
what this means for us (consumers? no, creators!) is that we have to: wait...wait...wait...
my question: how about a dual-core receptor?
overthrow KRAPITALISM ! you have nothing to lose but your claims.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 209 posts since 25 Jun, 2004 from New England
i'm still not convinced (i don't wait very long for my xbox to boot up or shut down) but let's drop it before it gets ugly. it was just one of those random thoughts i had.