KVR Audio

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 pm

There was something newer in the works, but I don't have any details I'm afraid.

rockstar: most magazine reviewers feel that the RAM-boost thingy offers minimal performance boost. It's certainly not the same as adding RAM.

legendCNCD · Post by **legendCNCD** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:42 pm

My first experience with Vista was on A64-3200+/1GB/160GB/Ati R300.
The biggest problem seems to be the drivers at the moment and their immaturity, remember the drivermodel changed completely. Despite that, with the default VGA driver that ships along with Vista, it was still a walk in a park. Much faster than XPSP2 on same machine.
I also ran Vista Ultimate into this HP nx7010 (P4-M 1,86GHZ/1GB/80GB/Ati R9200) and if there would be drivers ready, XP wouldnt sit now on this machine, it was so much faster. Not that XP ain't running perfectly on this machine.

hseiken · Post by **hseiken** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:02 am

Sorry, to throw this in, but I saw a funny quote a few minutes ago:

"A computer is like an air conditioner. It doesn't work if you open windows."

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:09 am

VitaminD wrote: I like Linux.. However, its simply not at a point where its able to take over Windows in all areas... theres no way around that I'm sorry to say.

I don't think it's ever been suggested that "Linux will take over Windows in all areas." I doubt that's even a goal of anyone developing it.

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:42 am

You don't think that tonnes of Linux advocates use the "anything I can do in Windows, I can do in Linux, and BETTER!" argument? Come on now, James.

Lots of people claim that Linux is equipped to take over Windows in "all" areas, plus it's a better (subjective, of course) server platform than Windows Server. Much of Linux discussion, advertising, rhetoric, etc. is centred around exactly that. It's fair to say that not *everybody* thinks it can/will/should "take over" Windows, but saying that nobody using and also nobody developing Linux have that as a goal isn't accurate. MANY people have exactly the opinion that desktop Linux is (or at least WILL be shortly!) a replacement for Windows.

If not to "take over" Windows, then what else ARE they advocating? What you're possibly getting at (and I might be misunderstanding) is that there's no overt mandate to approach things the Windows way, nor any reason to adopt Windows APIs (though the popularity of WINE is sure proving otherwise). Nobody developing Linux wants to it BE Windows. That's the whole point-- they want to do it better than Windows.

But the users and developers of desktop distros certainly want to imply and even state that Linux is a viable candidate to replace (not supplement... replace) Windows installations.

Greg

hseiken · Post by **hseiken** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:41 am

Well, the biggest area that IS better than windows is the OS security itself (this doesn't involve getting virii and such). In other words, a monkey mashing on a keyboard could break windows...an installation of one program can break another quite easily. I mean, half the time, installers don't check to see if a required sub-program is already up to date before installing an older version, which in turn breaks a program that requires the NEWER version. So from a pure, stays working after you've gotten it working, Linux IS better. Hell, to even install programs at all requires a password, which I think is AWESOME, especially if you have friends that come over from time to time and play with your setup. It really keeps things in order. Even in the short time I've been using this OS, I've found that it can actually repair itself and knows when it's been screwed with...for instance, my power went out while installing a package. When I turned the computer back on, and tried installing it (from ubuntu's add/remove programs thingy on the app menu), it said specifically "xxx package is corrupted. Run synaptic package manager to correct this." Then when you run Synaptic, there's a specific function to isolate broken installations and either correct them or remove the pieces. In windows, you can break an installation easily by going into Program Files/xxx app and simply deleting some random file out of there. If someone else did that, damned if you wouldn't know what happened...again, since windows doesn't really keep up with everything going on too well, that random file could've been shared by numerous other programs and bam...you just broke even more programs and no way to know if you REALLY erased it's existence from your harddrive or not for a 'clean' install. Seriously, they call it Windows for a reason: It's made of glass.

So, again, not being pro-linux, but rather anti-windows, Linux is better in this regard at least. As far as other things I'm not experienced with, I can't say anything, but there IS a site out that lists some major servers and how long they've been up. In the top 10 (last time I checked about 5 months ago), Linux flooded the top 10 for uptime. If I remember, the top microsoft server package was in there at around 15th or 16th place...which doesn't surprise me in the least, based on their desktop performance issues.

Also, while using windows, I notice that it does leak memory. This is particularly noticeable in lengthy sessions without rebooting (by lengthy, I mean just a week) in which programs crash. It seems that the more that programs crash, the more likely crashing becomes, and ultimately, you'll be faced with the oh-so-insuring message that, "Windows has recovered from a serious error. It is advised that you save your work and restart." Sometimes, this is accompanied by the videocard flipping out and windows making you view everything in EGA colors at 640x480 or even 320x240. I also add to that fact that this OS bumped up my computer price 100+ dollars. >:-[

So usually, what I've found in linux is that if programs crash, it's a version less than 1 (usually less than .1!) OR there's a deeper seeded issue (such as a corrupted file trying to load..i.e. a busted up mp3 and the program's error handling just says 'Shut 'er down, Tex.') However, this hasn't caused me to have to reboot at all, much less a short timeframe like, say, a week.

So you can see why I'm so flustered with Microsoft's OS in operation department...then throw in their stranglehold on the hardware market, and always shutting out everyone else (I just read that their XBox's are the only consoles ever made that required propriatary components for any controller made for it...it didn't say if this had to be licensed or not, but I wouldn't doubt it...it was mentioned in the GameInformer issue 171 this month regarding the new 'sequel' of sorts to Guitar Hero).

As for the issue of wine being popular, where else can you run a windows program and have it crash without bringing down your whole system in the end? Hell, the problems you encounter with the emulation aren't unlike the ones you encounter on the real deal (set compatibility modes, etc.).

So basically summing up, I don't think it can be accurately argued that Windows AS AN OS alone (i.e. a common interface between user and his/her computer's programs) is better than Linux. I'm not saying Linux is bulletproof at all, but you have to be REALLY trying to f**k it up to succeed.

This whole thing smells of the old VHS/Betamax struggle, except in that one, the non-propriatary product won over the masses...what was their secret?!

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:07 am

Lunch Money wrote:You don't think that tonnes of Linux advocates use the "anything I can do in Windows, I can do in Linux, and BETTER!" argument? Come on now, James.

Maybe. It's really not fair for me to comment. I work in an informatics lab and spend some of my work life in a supercomputer lab that runs, among other things, a Linux cluster. I've seen Linux do things that I don't know of *any* other system that can do the same, and not just in raw processing power, but mostly, in I/O.

bullshark · Post by **bullshark** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:10 am

hseiken wrote:Well, the biggest area that IS better than windows is the OS security itself (this doesn't involve getting virii and such). In other words, a monkey mashing on a keyboard could break windows...an installation of one program can break another quite easily. I mean, half the time, installers don't check to see if a required sub-program is already up to date before installing an older version, which in turn breaks a program that requires the NEWER version.

Yep, numerous example of that and what was Microsoft answer? Stupid popup balloons asking if you really want to do that without further details. And that's not even talking about the registry where any program can overwrite any key at any time, breaking other stuff in the doing, without even a warning message from the OS. None of those major problems has been answered, or even worked on, in the newest incarnation of Microslut OS, they just put more gimmicks on top without making sure the operating system is doing what an operating system is supposed to be doing in the first place.

Why is such an horrendous operating system so popular? Is it because the competition is so bad?

tvance85 · Post by **tvance85** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:24 am

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2074983,00.asp pc magazine has some harsh words for vista, leaves me wondering if this is the first actual source someone has used in this thread

spirulence · Post by **spirulence** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:40 am

Not that I speak from experience, but I think Vista runs more slowly on the same machine compared to xp. One of my friends switched his semi-beefy dell laptop to vista, and it runs about 15 fps on the desktop. However, this is probably because he runs his pcs very bloated--2 spyware progs, 2 antivirus, mcafee firewall, ram checker, dreamscene always on, etc.

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:57 am

I see holes in your last argument, hseiken, but I think that pointing them out is really just being pedantic on my behalf-- the bottom line is that Linux IS indeed more secure and DOES indeed handle permissions and dependencies better than Windows. It's not foolproof, and Windows isn't a walking disaster (those are the areas where I see holes in your argument) but the bottom line remains that Linux is certainly more robust in those regards.

And coming back full circle, though-- instead of just pointing out Linux's current inadequacies as a desktop OS, I should make it clear that I have no room in my life for Vista, either. I don't like anything about it except that it addresses some of your above security concerns, and stores settings in a more reasonable (and secure) scheme. That's not enough for me to put up with the performance slow-downs, lack of supported hardware, buggy first-generation software, etc. I would take Ubuntu over Vista in a heartbeat.

In a way, I guess I AM speaking with my wallet as you described back on page 8 or so... none of my hard-earned cash will be spent on Vista, at least not for now. If they earn my money, that's another matter-- I'm not going to boycott them just because they're powerful capitalists... if they deliver a product that impresses, is compelling, and allows me to do the things I need to do, they've earned my money, period.

glokraw · Post by **glokraw** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:16 am

hseiken wrote:Also, if you like long winded speeches, you can read exactly WHY Windows is the worst OS on the market yet the most popular...

If the legalities don't interest you much, then move onto the sections that deal with the OS itself and how it's built on a house of cards, the items dealing with security (and not just online, but with the OS itself and it's ability to be destroyed by 'fellow' programs) and simple logic digressions. The actual legality items are left up to hearsay in the longrun, but the items regarding the OS itself are quite telling and backed up by many-a-programmer.

http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

It's not a matter of whether you use linux over windows..the whole point is to move focus AWAY FROM WINDOWS. OSX, BeOS, doesn't matter...just do your part to remove power from this machine...you are NOT nor will you EVER be the focus of their OS. You are just a dollar sign.

Kind of a totalitarian way to look at it, but it's pretty much that simple.

'

...

Paul Russell · Post by **Paul Russell** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:27 am

Please wake me up when M-Audio writes the drivers for Vista 64bit. I'm setting my alarm clock for 2008

joshhunsaker · Post by **joshhunsaker** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:49 am

I hope most people know that 80 percent of windows products will run in linux under WINE (a windows emulator). You can always do that.

Linux is absolutely bombproof. It doesn't need anti-virus software. Everything that modifies the kernel require a user adim password. I've never seen linux crash. Every update of the different linux distros require LESS memory to run than the previous...that's the whole point.

Every new version of windows requires more memory and system resources than the previous version to run properly (if you can call anything microsoft does "proper"). I feel bad for the children of people who work at microsoft. They must live in some distorted micocosm of software stupidity.

joshhunsaker · Post by **joshhunsaker** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:52 am

and if microsoft does do something right...it means that someone is about to be fired from their company

Vista, is just a phase