Microsoft has gone totally crazy! Can you believe this?!?!?!

[deleted]

DELETED

[Paul_FX]

The whole argument about linux for music is a mute point. We're stuck in a cycle where nobody develops audio software for linux because nobody uses it for music and nobody uses linux for music because nobody develops for it (Im talking about the major hosts here). This is unlikely to change in the near future, as it involves both significant cost (all those devs will have to rewrite their inhouse libraries to work with linux) and also an issue about interfacing with the linux distro itself.

For example, which distro do you go with. An OTS version? A cutting edge version? Which kernel? What do you do about the audio drivers? Do you use third party ones? Can you guarantee that it will work reliably. etc etc, the list goes on.

Dont get me wrong, linux is great at what it does. But the vast majority of end users dont want to have to learn a new OS, dont need the hastle of setting it up (Ive yet to come across a distro that didnt require a degree in CS to get working properly) and arent really interested in mac vs wintel vs linux. They just want to write music!

But when all new macs use x86 cores then they will need PC compatable software, meaning that it wouldn't cost apple too much to port it from the apple hardware to standard PCs, or is it more complicated?

As usual apple is shunting everything over to the developers and giving us no support at all So it wont cost apple much, but it will cost dev's both time, money and many headaches

Paul

[Dunbar]

Maybe if a version of Linux dedicated purely to audio production is released then developers would know where they stand.

If enthusiasts get the ball rolling with lots of free/share ware apps, enough to get a community going, then commercial developers might take notice.

[Radek]

The whole argument about linux for music is a mute point. We're stuck in a cycle where nobody develops audio software for linux because nobody uses it for music and nobody uses linux for music because nobody develops for it (Im talking about the major hosts here). This

Yes. Linux isn't common here however I would disagree nobody don't use it for music. The Receptor, The Korg's Oasys and some Linux's native aplitcations are good enough (or at worst bearable). So choice is available now albeit might not be comfortable as in win or cheap (Receptor and Oasys).

is unlikely to change in the near future, as it involves both significant cost (all those devs will have to rewrite their inhouse libraries to work with linux) and also an issue about interfacing with the linux distro itself.

For example, which distro do you go with. An OTS version? A cutting edge version? Which kernel? What do you do about the audio drivers? Do you use third party ones? Can you guarantee that it will work reliably. etc etc, the list goes on.

Well... here is very simple solution to this - custom kernel. Yep, nothing is stoping anyone to develop his own Linux's kernel and support only his own hardware. Look at the Oasys, it's a prime example of such design. Steinberg is already selling audiointerfaces bundled with Cubase so... imagine added "live" cd/dvd with very tuned Linux just for Cubase. Freedom of chosing gear had to be sacrificed but look! No windows, far better stability and we still could get benefits of upgrading computers.

And probably such "custom" Linux would be usable to other tasks as well (internet, wordprocessing, whatever else). Anyway hardware today is very cheap - very good audio interface can be bought cheaper than windows retail box!

[Evan]

I am grateful that Windows XP works well... no... it works great for a modern DAW. A modern dedicated DAW, based strictly on Windows + audio software works remarkably well. Nothing else installed, no antivirus, no games, nothing else. Give it some initial finetuning and you're good to go.

Windows XP is old enough so that modern PC hardware, even the most basic one, handles it with ease.

I am much more concerned with the quality of the DAW software itself (bugs/reliability/efficiency) rather than the OS. It really hardly ever crashes, honestly. Windows XP SP2 has been extremely stable for me.

Do you honestly think Windows XP is the main problem which stands in the way of turning modern PC hardware into a great DAW? Really? Can you honestly claim that?

I don't care about Vista's requirements. In fact, I do hope they're high, very demanding. Because the public will rush out and buy updated hardware. Prices will fall and technology will move on faster... and that suits me fine. Besides, we have the demanding gamers to thank for... for the proliferation of ultra powerful 3D accelerators. We have the overclockers to thank for... for the surge of faster memory modules, and coolers, and tweakable motherboards etc etc....

So yeah... bring up the requirements. If Vista recommends 1GB of RAM for that unique "vista experience"... I am all for it! And see how common 1GB memory modules are soon going to become. And see how happy I will be for adding them to my DAW.

[Amberience]

Jorgen is working on a Linux version of EnergyXT. Hasn't said when it will be out, but he said Version 2 is probably when he will introduce it.

We're on version 1.36 now.

It could very well offer a good alternative to Windows, but it's moving along a slow rate - XT will have to be ported, then many VST developers will have to switch their stuff over to Linux. It's in the works though.

[Paul_FX]

then many VST developers will have to switch their stuff over to Linux. It's in the works though.

I doubt this will happen. Maybe the freeware guys will get in on it first, but none of the big players are even gonna consider moving until there is a definate market there. Remember that devs not only have to think about how 'cool' a product is, but also how they will pay the office bills, staff wages etc. They aren't gonna gamble on people moving en masse to a new OS. This is the same reason when people say "Why doesnt it have 500 controls" (see the thread in the DSP forum). Its because the vast majority of users can't handle that level of detail. They dont care, they just want to make music in an easy manor. And much as it would be great if everyone wanted really tweaky in depth plugins, unfortunately thats not the current VST market. And at the end of the day a dev's gotta eat and that means going where the market is (and hopefully moving it towards the higher goal of the 'software literate' user)

Well... here is very simple solution to this - custom kernel. Yep, nothing is stoping anyone to develop his own Linux's kernel and support only his own hardware. Look at the Oasys, it's a prime example of such design. Steinberg is already selling audiointerfaces bundled with Cubase so... imagine added "live" cd/dvd with very tuned Linux just for Cubase. Freedom of chosing gear had to be sacrificed but look! No windows, far better stability and we still could get benefits of upgrading computers.

I have to say (and believe me im not an m$ fan), but i actually find now that my windows machine is absolutely solid. I dont get crashes. I just dont. In fact my linux box goes down more than my XPsp2.... And look at it from the dev's p.o.v, they can spend loads of time hacking a linux kernel and taking the resultant cost onboard (or passing it on to customers), or then can write another windows/mac compatible plugin and move on to the next one...
A good example was the first version of Final Scratch. originally this was on linux. Result : Not many people use it. They move to PC, result : lots and lots of users....

I think it gets missed by KVr sometimes, but remember we are the geeks. We are the kinda people who hang out on a music board discussion pros and cons of more ram, video cards, processors, host vs host etc tec. The vast majority of users are not like this. They find that windows already offers them too many options and they would be petrified by an Os as complicated as linux...

Peace
Paul

[ATS]

do you honestly belive that microsoft would release an operating system aimed at the home market to replace XP that would require 4 gb of ram in 2006 I mean really think about it a minute. If you do think that you really outta get your head examined.

[tetraplan]

then many VST developers will have to switch their stuff over to Linux. It's in the works though.

I doubt this will happen. Maybe the freeware guys will get in on it first, but none of the big players are even gonna consider moving until there is a definate market there. Remember that devs not only have to think about how 'cool' a product is, but also how they will pay the office bills, staff wages etc.

Maybe they don't know there's a market yet. In which case, maybe we have to tell them.
After all, it's not as if othercommercialsoftwareisn't availablefor Linux.

The vast majority of users are not like this. They find that windows already offers them too many options and they would be petrified by an Os as complicated as linux...

Linux really isn't complicated.
It's just different.
So, think, um, different.

Groet, Erik

[Paul_FX]

Linux really isn't complicated.
It's just different.
So, think, um, different.

Thats exactly my point. Users dont want to think differently!

Paul

[Amberience]

Well then they're f**king idiots aren't they.

[Paul_FX]

Well then they're fkucing idiots aren't they.

Paul

[ericj23]

the customer is always right - even when he's not

[dover666]

windows is exploitive. But until I can run synthedit or there is a pd to vst COMPILER I can't really fully switch over, then there's Open Modplug Tracker - Get it Here -
http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/sIF7QxKpZa ... eneric.zip

[Radek]

then many VST developers will have to switch their stuff over to Linux. It's in the works though.

I doubt this will happen. Maybe the freeware guys will get in on it first, but none of the big players are even gonna consider moving until there is a definate market there. Remember that devs not only have to think about how 'cool' a product is, but also how they will pay the office bills, staff wages etc. They aren't gonna gamble on people moving en masse to a new OS. This is the same reason when people say "Why doesnt it have 500 controls" (see the thread in the DSP forum). Its because the vast majority of users can't handle that level of detail. They dont care, they just want to make music in an easy manor. And much as it would be great if everyone wanted really tweaky in depth plugins, unfortunately thats not the current VST market. And at the end of the day a dev's gotta eat and that means going where the market is (and hopefully moving it towards the higher goal of the 'software literate' user)

Well... here is very simple solution to this - custom kernel. Yep, nothing is stoping anyone to develop his own Linux's kernel and support only his own hardware. Look at the Oasys, it's a prime example of such design. Steinberg is already selling audiointerfaces bundled with Cubase so... imagine added "live" cd/dvd with very tuned Linux just for Cubase. Freedom of chosing gear had to be sacrificed but look! No windows, far better stability and we still could get benefits of upgrading computers.

I have to say (and believe me im not an m$ fan), but i actually find now that my windows machine is absolutely solid. I dont get crashes. I just dont. In fact my linux

Yes of course if you limit the software what you are using to the very minimum. Otherwise winXP will corrupt sometime and stability eventually might vanish too. Look at all those different revision of drivers (for video cards, audio interfaces, AGP gart, even for mouse...) and aplications. There will be alway a possibility of conflict of some kind and therefore a crash.

box goes down more than my XPsp2....

Well... I had Linux to crash at occasions. However its kernel far more robust and usually it's just matter reloading offending aplication (usually the X server and kill -9 just works where win's taskmanager not always...). Most kernel level crashes were due to bugs in its modules and here the wxp isn't invulnerable (bugged driver will froze system too).

Andlook at it from the dev's p.o.v, they can spend loads of time hacking a linux kernel and taking the resultant cost onboard (or passing it on to customers), or then can write another windows/mac compatible plugin and move on to the next one...

But why assume it's so costly? Most work was done already (the realtime patch among others) and it's fairly easy to customize Linux's kernel even by nonprogrammer (there is dedicated programs to configure and recompile kernel automatically). Look at the big host like the Cubase or Sonar. They got very complicated now and probably their sources are like being in a jungle to work with. I doubt "hacking" Linux to theirs purposes would be significant expense. But this depends on situation and type of product of course (for Oasys this allowed to save lot of time as stated here).

A good example was the first version of Final Scratch. originally this was on linux. Result : Not many people use it. They move to PC, result : lots and lots of users....

Yes. There no doubt as platform windows gives far more potential customers. But it isn't coming for "free" and eventually sticking just to one platform will show its ugly head.

I think it gets missed by KVr sometimes, but remember we are the geeks. We are the kinda people who hang out on a music board discussion pros and cons of more ram, video cards, processors, host vs host etc tec. The vast majority of users are not like this. They find that windows already offers them too many options and they would be petrified by an Os as complicated as linux...

I have friend who is quite new to windows. She has problems with it very similar when I was showing her Linux. Windows isn't that easy, it's only easy after all those years sitting in it.

Do you remember DOS? That was easy, not! Yet nontechnical people had been using it so...