On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
> ... Ardour
> may be efficient, then again, it may also just 'seem' efficient on the big
> fat servers it is being developed on. That is fine, design a peice of
> software that only works on the fastest system available and its target
> audience suddenly diminishes. Perhaps to put it another way, do we want a
> situation where bloatware is coming to Linux - it if does not work then buy
> a faster system?
Have you ever tried it ? Look at the output of <your favourite CPU load
monitor> while using Ardour ?
I had Ardour running for most of this afternoon, a session with 14 tracks
and 33 channels in total (some tracks are 6-ch, as is the output, can
Traverso do this ?). CPU load around 7% on my 1.7G laptop.
There is bloatware on Linux, but I don't think Ardour is part of that,
even if it has many features that I never use.
-- FA Follie! Follie! Delirio vano č questo ! _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-userReceived on Fri Jun 15 00:15:03 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 15 2007 - 00:15:03 EEST