Electro said:
Yeah, to each one its own
About the article... well, i can't really say i'm surprised. I never thought SAP would become popular (accepted?), but the article does rise some valid points about the other issue ("the content of your hard drive no longer being yours but which is now held captive to Microsoft"). The RIAA too has been up to this sorta things for quite a while now.
I said it before, and i say it again. The only reason music industry is SO scared of mp3 and derved media is that the music that's been mass-marketed nowadays... well, sucks. Why would a kid spend $15-20 dollars on a CD with a couple of hits he'll listen for a few weeks, until MTV dictates what has to be sold then? On the long run, most people that REALLY like a band or artist end up buying the cd. MP3s are great in that sense to try out before opening your wallet.
Just my .02...
I have been following this thread for a while and there is alot of talk about user friendly wich I find to be a little bit amusing.
Why would you ever want user friendly????
I want power user friendly!!! with awk, sed, shell scripting ... and so on and so on.
I want standard ansi C and C++ I want raw IP sockets I want ...
If you relly wanted user friendly you wouldnt make your own HIFI you would by it!!!! Get support and maintenence updates and so on and on.
Dont you get the similarities.
By the way There I work we have been using other own propiertery OS and CPUS for over 20 years for real time environments.
There has always been some work to try to swap our own stuff for cheapp standard sparc or intell CPUS running sokme embeded version of NT.
The only way possible to achieve this has been trough an inexpensive array of hosts(cluster)( untill recently when we merged our own OS with linux.
///CF
Why would you ever want user friendly????
I want power user friendly!!! with awk, sed, shell scripting ... and so on and so on.
I want standard ansi C and C++ I want raw IP sockets I want ...
If you relly wanted user friendly you wouldnt make your own HIFI you would by it!!!! Get support and maintenence updates and so on and on.
Dont you get the similarities.
By the way There I work we have been using other own propiertery OS and CPUS for over 20 years for real time environments.
There has always been some work to try to swap our own stuff for cheapp standard sparc or intell CPUS running sokme embeded version of NT.
The only way possible to achieve this has been trough an inexpensive array of hosts(cluster)( untill recently when we merged our own OS with linux.
///CF
Electro said:
Okay, to answer this question at least. The author of the article is mis-placing the blame. It's not MS's fault (being the big baddie with SAP) or RealPlayer's either. They're doing this to simply protect themselves from being sued by the RIAA, and the MPAA. These two groups comprise about as much money and legal clout as MS, so why **** them off, when using your monopoly power (did I say that out loud???), you can simply quietly insert things into the players to make these two other monopolies (There's that word again...) happy. By blaming MS for capitulating, you're actually trying to get them to fight the battle you should be fighting. (With your wallet) Talk to your government officials, let them know what's REALLY going on in the industries, and tell them what you think!!!
P.S. - I run Mandrake on my desktop (An Athlon 500) and SuSE on my server (A SparcClassic) and find that they both have pluses and minuses....
audio_cf said:
Because, well, lets face it, 90% of computer users are ignorant to plain idiots
Most people get puzzled if you even move icons arround. You will never get an OS to be popular unless *anyone* can use it, thats a given. Actually, a Linux enviroment running KDE would feel pretty "usable" for a regular Windows user IMHO, but thats' another issue.You know the joke... 99% of all computer problems are originated somewhere between the keyboard and the chair
Digi said:
peranders said:
This reply started out yesterday, but the board software blew out, fortunetly i dragged the contents out of the edit window onto the desktop before it went blooey*... i could write a book (if i had time -- i'd rather be building speakers and amps & listening to music), but i will just hit a few semi-random high spots. And right up front -- i am a fervent Macevangilist.
*(try that in any other OS)
OS X is at least as stable as Linux -- a well tested version of OpenBSD 4.3 running on well-defined hardware (as opposed to you compile it yourself on whatever hack of a puter you are running), probably not as stable, yet, as some of the Suns, or SGIs -- it is only at version 1.1 after all -- early days.
OS X is a bright light in the future of computing. The solidity of an Open Source BSD 4.x/Mach kernal, the intuitive elegance of an upgraded Mac GUI, a killer graphics subsystem. All the power of a REAL easy to use GUI (Windoz is not friendly at all), with the ability to drop into a terminal window where you can use all those cryptic and powerful UNIX commands.
If not already the largest installed base of UNIX, it soon will be. And the fallout from that, even at this early stage in the game, is starting to ramp up big time. For example, the recent big drop in the price of Maya. And so many UNIX aps getting ported... think of all the really stellar UNIX only aps that now have a mass-market outlet.
And for all of you that think of Macs or have experience with Macs from the old days -- Apple hasn't been the same since it was taken over by NeXT. More innovation, more focus, better hardware (and generally cheaper than PCs0 and way better software.
Easiest to use Apache -- the built-in "personal" web server in OS X.
The best word processor -- Nisus (only available on the Mac) and it doesn't need the horsepower usually reserved for a full-featured CAD program to just run.
You can also count the best spreadsheet, total domination of the graphic arts, and the best version of Solitaire as something you have to have a Mac for.
I could go on and on, but in the word's of Douglas Adams (RIP) "Even though Mac Users may be only 10% of the market, always remember that we are the TOP 10%!" (and he didn't even get a chance to try out OS X which is a quantum step forward).
Microsoft in general builds third-rate software and usually has to buy up innovators (which usually kills the innovation dead in its tracks)... the XP update thing -- something that has been in the Mac OS for years and just shines in X when you have a broadband connection.
dave
OS X 10.1.4, (Pentium crushing) 450 MHz G4 w 1.25 GB RAM, 22" main monitor, 19" palette monitor.
I have used MACs from G3s to G4s. I had to save a simple document every few seconds or it will freeze. I also don't think MACs are faster. I can do the same stuff on my computer faster than I can do on a MAC. Though I have an AMD processor not a Pentium. Pentiums are slow in comparison to AMD processors. The Northwood Pentium 4 processor might seem fast but Athlon XP 2000+ beat a Northwood Pentium 4 going at 2400 Mhz. Athlons are being very limited on motherboard bandwidth. AMD's upcoming Optron processor might change all the chipset bandwidth limitations.
x86 motherboards can hold 6 or even 8 gigabtyes of memory but Windows limits this.
The reason why OS-X is very stable is that it is design for the G4 and next generation PowerPC chips. x86 based systems has different specs from one to another. The only best way to make a x86 system stable is re-compile the kernel to be optimized for the particular system after installing LINUX. There is a 1% chance that user will do this.
LINUX can start up in a few seconds but the user have to compile a kernel to do this. A fast boot time equals to a big optimized kernel.
The number one reason that I'm using LINUX in a dual boot config with Windows is to not to be different but to learn LINUX. For my future computers systems I will then use LINUX 98% of the time. The other 2% is using and installing Windows on other systems or in VMware.
Now I'm trying to get Xine to read DVDs, learn Apache, setup video capture under LINUX, and try to make LINUX output 6 audio channels from my sound card.
x86 motherboards can hold 6 or even 8 gigabtyes of memory but Windows limits this.
The reason why OS-X is very stable is that it is design for the G4 and next generation PowerPC chips. x86 based systems has different specs from one to another. The only best way to make a x86 system stable is re-compile the kernel to be optimized for the particular system after installing LINUX. There is a 1% chance that user will do this.
LINUX can start up in a few seconds but the user have to compile a kernel to do this. A fast boot time equals to a big optimized kernel.
The number one reason that I'm using LINUX in a dual boot config with Windows is to not to be different but to learn LINUX. For my future computers systems I will then use LINUX 98% of the time. The other 2% is using and installing Windows on other systems or in VMware.
Now I'm trying to get Xine to read DVDs, learn Apache, setup video capture under LINUX, and try to make LINUX output 6 audio channels from my sound card.
Electro said:
My original Mac 128 is holding up a corner of my coffee table. My current G4 hasn't crashed since i installed OS X (ie months now). I reboot for upgrades.
If you had to save every few seconds then your Mac was broken (even Netscape doesn't cause the old OSs to crash that often) -- i've had days like that (but once i serviced the machine it was fine). And if you are running stable aps, even the classic OS can be problem free. I've had stretches of 2, 3 weeks plus doing heavy graphics (only using Sketch, Illustrator, Photoshop) with no crashes.
I'll race you anytime. Pick a task, see who gets finished 1st.
dave
planet10 said:
-Your 450 G4 may be Pentium crushing but it can't hold a candle to an Athlon.
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
-There are alot of links to support this, of course not having equivalant video cards hinders the gaming benchmarks.
-As far as hardware goes an Athlon PC wins, easily. The OS is a different story, I am suckered into having windoze only for the simple fact that Macs don't support most of the applications and games I have. I have an XP and a Mandrake box, both of them are fast as hell. The Mandrake box has never crashed. Oddly my XP box has crashed only a few times, only with poorly coded games, i.e. Ghost Recon. OS X is better than anything M$ has put out to date, Linux can be a mixed bag for the simple fact that it's not as user friendly.
TBC
Digi
Digi said:
And that is the key. The hardware may not win the benchmarks, but the quality of the software means you can get more work done, faster. From a GISTICs survey of 1000s of creative companies. PC users got 18 hr billable a week, Mac users got 27 hr. That makes the Mac 50% faster in my books.
With the Mac there is an elegance & synergy that a Windoz PC just can't come close too. And Linux just doesn't have the aps...
dave
The reason why LINUX has a few or doesn't have applications is because the hardware is different from one system to another. If LINUX is only designed for x86 processors, yes LINUX will have more applications. However LINUX is an open source OS, so it can be run on any computer system tiny or large. A Windows user that haven't used DOS should not use LINUX. If LINUX boots up to bash. The Windows user doesn't know where to start. My DOS experience made the switch to LINUX much easier.
I don't own a MAC. I used my school's (college) computers. They have everything screwy. They use an application server to store MS applications that is accessed 100% of the time. Makes Pentium III seem like a 486. The technicians that do the MACs install the software in each MAC computer. This doesn't mean they are smart on doing this but there is less MACs on my school's campus than there is x86 PCs.
x86 processors are CISC and MACs are RISC. There are a wide variety of x86 products so comparing x86 to MACs is a waste of time. The best way is search sites that have tested x86 to MACs on certain software. To me using software in a real-life situation to compared the power of either x86 to MACs is the true best way.
People that bult computers (x86) get products that they want. I buy products that are compatible with my selected motherboard. I was lucky that my motherboard was compatible with the products that I want. However every product works on a x86 based motherboard but the key for a very fast computer is intergration. This doesn't mean that a motherboard have to have a video, a sound, and network on-board. It means find products that go well with the motherboard.
A company that makes clustered computers tested and benchmarked what x86 processor has the highest bandwidth, execution per instruction, and has the lowest price. What the company found out is that Athlon processors has the highest bandwidth, executes more instuctions and is cheaper than Pentium III. The company notice that 16 Althon processors did better than 32 Pentium III precessors. I lost the link to the company but I think I can find them again.
I did not start this post for a long debat of x86 vs. Macs or OS vs. to another OS. I started this post to let people know what Microsoft is doing or going to do to us as a consumers.
I don't own a MAC. I used my school's (college) computers. They have everything screwy. They use an application server to store MS applications that is accessed 100% of the time. Makes Pentium III seem like a 486. The technicians that do the MACs install the software in each MAC computer. This doesn't mean they are smart on doing this but there is less MACs on my school's campus than there is x86 PCs.
I would but I only have an Althon 800 MHz Classic with 512 megabytes SDRAM going at PC100. Also I don't have Photoshop, Illustrator, or Bryce 3D. I do have Premiere and 3D Studio MAX 3.
x86 processors are CISC and MACs are RISC. There are a wide variety of x86 products so comparing x86 to MACs is a waste of time. The best way is search sites that have tested x86 to MACs on certain software. To me using software in a real-life situation to compared the power of either x86 to MACs is the true best way.
People that bult computers (x86) get products that they want. I buy products that are compatible with my selected motherboard. I was lucky that my motherboard was compatible with the products that I want. However every product works on a x86 based motherboard but the key for a very fast computer is intergration. This doesn't mean that a motherboard have to have a video, a sound, and network on-board. It means find products that go well with the motherboard.
A company that makes clustered computers tested and benchmarked what x86 processor has the highest bandwidth, execution per instruction, and has the lowest price. What the company found out is that Athlon processors has the highest bandwidth, executes more instuctions and is cheaper than Pentium III. The company notice that 16 Althon processors did better than 32 Pentium III precessors. I lost the link to the company but I think I can find them again.
I did not start this post for a long debat of x86 vs. Macs or OS vs. to another OS. I started this post to let people know what Microsoft is doing or going to do to us as a consumers.
Jump in the flame fest...
But this is almost on topic since it has something to do with music (and other media).
I have seen a couple of companies spend millions to get zero fault MS systems running. Multiple servers running third party software (like Marathon) in concert with MS, since they know they can't do it. Best results yet are about that 5 mins of unplanned downtime a year.
That level of downtime is simply unacceptable to some applications. For example, a similar amount of money spent on a IBM mainframe running the SAN will have down times in seconds per decade - proven results from use. (They run your nuclear power plants for a reason - my uncle on his power plant has about 3 seconds in the past 20 years).
Why is this sorta related to music? Well, most media companies are going to digital asset management - their programs, audio and vid, are being played out of these systems. They have many many TB of spinning storage and play out up to 100 streams at a time. And in this business, you cannot have a dead network for 5 minutes, a time frame that Microsoft seems to find acceptable. 5 minutes of dead air *costs* millions, both in lost revenue and customer satisfaction.
So that array of "cheap" servers is a really a loser compared to the that tired old dino that all the kids think should be tossed.
{Now returning to the normal audio related bickering}
But this is almost on topic since it has something to do with music (and other media).
I have seen a couple of companies spend millions to get zero fault MS systems running. Multiple servers running third party software (like Marathon) in concert with MS, since they know they can't do it. Best results yet are about that 5 mins of unplanned downtime a year.
That level of downtime is simply unacceptable to some applications. For example, a similar amount of money spent on a IBM mainframe running the SAN will have down times in seconds per decade - proven results from use. (They run your nuclear power plants for a reason - my uncle on his power plant has about 3 seconds in the past 20 years).
Why is this sorta related to music? Well, most media companies are going to digital asset management - their programs, audio and vid, are being played out of these systems. They have many many TB of spinning storage and play out up to 100 streams at a time. And in this business, you cannot have a dead network for 5 minutes, a time frame that Microsoft seems to find acceptable. 5 minutes of dead air *costs* millions, both in lost revenue and customer satisfaction.
So that array of "cheap" servers is a really a loser compared to the that tired old dino that all the kids think should be tossed.
{Now returning to the normal audio related bickering}
Computers
Wow, a DIYaudio computer related thread.
First off,
Linux is for little kiddies and people who want to play around with their computers. It is not UNIX, never was, never will be, and as such has several shortcomings (TCP/IP, etc.)
Windows is a piece of junk except for XP. However, XP is no where near being good enough to compare to Unix in the server application area.
I'm all SGI. Real Unix, real 64-bit IRIX, real 64-bit XFS on its native platform. I got my father a Dual Xeon running Windows XP, and it's quite nice, till I try running Discreet products on it and it chokes.
SGI Indigo2 Impact for the small stuff and an Onyx IR running Discreet Inferno and IFX Piranha for the big stuff. Dosen't get much better than that (save for an Onyx 3000)
-- Aaron
Wow, a DIYaudio computer related thread.
First off,
Linux is for little kiddies and people who want to play around with their computers. It is not UNIX, never was, never will be, and as such has several shortcomings (TCP/IP, etc.)
Windows is a piece of junk except for XP. However, XP is no where near being good enough to compare to Unix in the server application area.
I'm all SGI. Real Unix, real 64-bit IRIX, real 64-bit XFS on its native platform. I got my father a Dual Xeon running Windows XP, and it's quite nice, till I try running Discreet products on it and it chokes.
SGI Indigo2 Impact for the small stuff and an Onyx IR running Discreet Inferno and IFX Piranha for the big stuff. Dosen't get much better than that (save for an Onyx 3000)
-- Aaron
Banned
Joined 2002
WEll
Well al i have to say is we will put you in the no one group BECAUSE no one can afford a computer like that and second you cant compare that to linux and windows because it is strictly for graphix not the applications we use..
2nd of all) linux is way better than windows and i bet with in a year or so it will be more pupular that it is now.. EG SERVERS..
EAT It
Well al i have to say is we will put you in the no one group BECAUSE no one can afford a computer like that and second you cant compare that to linux and windows because it is strictly for graphix not the applications we use..
2nd of all
) linux is way better than windows and i bet with in a year or so it will be more pupular that it is now.. EG SERVERS..EAT It
arnach really does have a point. But well the dude that wants to type letters with his PC and let his son play games on it won't go buy an SGI, nor a sparc.
Just wanted to make a note on what planet10 said, I do believe that that darwin (OS X's kernel) was based on NetBSD and not OpenBSD. Not sure, but it seems to me that it was.
Please don't get into (kinda late now) another linux vs windows debate, as it's been said many times before it's like comparing apples to oranges. Please one is meant for the consumer and has millions of dollars poured into it. The other is made by dudes who like to code when they get bored, and it's made for them, not you. So if you find the driver I wrote too hard to install, well I don't care, because I wrote it for me and I installed it, and now MY hardware works. If it's not up to YOUR standards then write your own. Linux itself (the kernel) does some things very well, whlie in other places it needs work and is constantly being worked on, it is nowhere near completion and some major parts are still being rewritten again and again (VM anyone?). If you want to understand why it's "better" then windows then for starters read the book "understanding the linux kernel".
And please don't bash linux just because you don't like GNU, most unices act like the GNU tools, and you find windows easier just because you're used to it, many people that work with unices and gnu/linux find it much more comfortable. I just spent 3 hours trying to install windows on a strange old laptop, took a couple of minutes for me to get linux on with a dual boot after, but that's because I'm not used to windows and find it infinitely harder.
Well, I probably got some people upset by what I said, and oh well.
Just wanted to make a note on what planet10 said, I do believe that that darwin (OS X's kernel) was based on NetBSD and not OpenBSD. Not sure, but it seems to me that it was.
Please don't get into (kinda late now) another linux vs windows debate, as it's been said many times before it's like comparing apples to oranges. Please one is meant for the consumer and has millions of dollars poured into it. The other is made by dudes who like to code when they get bored, and it's made for them, not you. So if you find the driver I wrote too hard to install, well I don't care, because I wrote it for me and I installed it, and now MY hardware works. If it's not up to YOUR standards then write your own. Linux itself (the kernel) does some things very well, whlie in other places it needs work and is constantly being worked on, it is nowhere near completion and some major parts are still being rewritten again and again (VM anyone?). If you want to understand why it's "better" then windows then for starters read the book "understanding the linux kernel".
And please don't bash linux just because you don't like GNU, most unices act like the GNU tools, and you find windows easier just because you're used to it, many people that work with unices and gnu/linux find it much more comfortable. I just spent 3 hours trying to install windows on a strange old laptop, took a couple of minutes for me to get linux on with a dual boot after, but that's because I'm not used to windows and find it infinitely harder.
Well, I probably got some people upset by what I said, and oh well.
Banned
Joined 2002
huh?
> there all good it all comes down to money anyway i bet if linux > was free and posted more there would be more people using
> it..
huh? Linux is free..
I was a Windows kid until I was about 10, I used to program in QBASIC and I'd add routines to slow the program down and r/w meanginless crap to the hard drive to simulate Windows.. I find that very amusing in hindsight.
I used Linux from 10-13 or 14 when I got a hankering for Sun workstations and tried Windows NT 4.0 AS for a while. 4.0 AS and Solaris felt "right" to me and I decided I'd check back with Windows in a couple of years.
15-now got my Indigo2 and recently my Onyx, and was initally bowled over by the learning curve. There's no way any non-technical user can figure out how to make an IRIX machine do everything he wants, unless its to run one gfx app. However, I found, for example, that LYX, a free wysi(wyw) interface for TEX is pretty much awesome and does things I need (nested outlines for class) that Microsoft Word can't do.
But now, Windows XP and Mac OS-X is out. Windows XP is really quite good, I don't think I'd ever say it, but it really is. It dosen't crash readily, it's fast, etc., but only on the desktop. I've tried it as a server, and well, for one, Windows is not well suited to remote administration, which is Unix's forte. OS X looks to be a real winner on the desktop, and for the first time, I can recommened a Macintosh..
Currently, the clear choice in my mind for server applications in Sun microsystems products. I have used a E450 and also looked at the lower end Netra produts. They're reliable and they work, and Solaris is quite good.
Microsoft is getting there though.. I'm going to see in a year if my college dorm has 20-amp plugs, if it does, the Onyx is going
> there all good it all comes down to money anyway i bet if linux > was free and posted more there would be more people using
> it..
huh? Linux is free..
I was a Windows kid until I was about 10, I used to program in QBASIC and I'd add routines to slow the program down and r/w meanginless crap to the hard drive to simulate Windows.. I find that very amusing in hindsight.
I used Linux from 10-13 or 14 when I got a hankering for Sun workstations and tried Windows NT 4.0 AS for a while. 4.0 AS and Solaris felt "right" to me and I decided I'd check back with Windows in a couple of years.
15-now got my Indigo2 and recently my Onyx, and was initally bowled over by the learning curve. There's no way any non-technical user can figure out how to make an IRIX machine do everything he wants, unless its to run one gfx app. However, I found, for example, that LYX, a free wysi(wyw) interface for TEX is pretty much awesome and does things I need (nested outlines for class) that Microsoft Word can't do.
But now, Windows XP and Mac OS-X is out. Windows XP is really quite good, I don't think I'd ever say it, but it really is. It dosen't crash readily, it's fast, etc., but only on the desktop. I've tried it as a server, and well, for one, Windows is not well suited to remote administration, which is Unix's forte. OS X looks to be a real winner on the desktop, and for the first time, I can recommened a Macintosh..
Currently, the clear choice in my mind for server applications in Sun microsystems products. I have used a E450 and also looked at the lower end Netra produts. They're reliable and they work, and Solaris is quite good.
Microsoft is getting there though.. I'm going to see in a year if my college dorm has 20-amp plugs, if it does, the Onyx is going
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.