Hi,
torbenh@email-addr-hidden skrev:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:18:06PM +0000, Bob Ham wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:05 +0000, Bob Ham wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:03 -0800, Michael Ost wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can anyone suggest ways to compare audio/midi performance between Linux
>>>> and Windows that ... make Linux compare favorably?
>>>>
>>>> I work for a company that sells a Linux based piece of hardware that
>>>> plays windows VSTs.
>>>>
>>> The word "FUD" comes to mind. No idea why.
>>>
>> Further to that, something constructive: perhaps you could try telling
>> your customers why *you* chose linux, rather than trying to find reasons
>> to tell them *they* should.
>>
>
> the customers dont notice. they still use windows or no computers at
> all.
>
> it looks rather like a question from the management.
>
Whatever the reasons, it's a valid and interesting question. In truth
Linux is often touted (not the least with respect to audio) as a better
performer than Windows.
Though I can't say that I have personally experienced this. It is hard
work getting a Linux system "tuned", I have actually never succeeded
without some drawback that have forced me back to generic configurations.
Not that I complain, my current (k)ubuntu kernel performs "good
enough"tm, but I am certain it would be no problem getting equal
performance under Windows. My choice of using Linux has more to do with
the freedom of opensourceness (it's a word!..now atleast).
Steve's idea with a vst timing plugin sounds very interesting. One using
LADSPA would be equally interesting for comparing Linux to Linux. Are
there other performance measurements that would be nice? xruns under
load I suppose.
Having a test suite for system performance would be great!
I would not rule out that Linux is found to perform worse under some
circumstances. But that is ok. Adaptability is one of the strong points
of open source, once we know the problems we can start fixing them.
Regards,
Robert
Received on Wed Jan 31 12:15:03 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 12:15:03 EET