but Reaper 2 has made a real big jump in cosmetics, did you check it ?
cheers, Tom
giving linux a shot
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
just found this:
http://ladspavst.linuxaudio.org/?q=vst/list&page=1
http://ladspavst.linuxaudio.org/?q=vst/list&page=1
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
(got dualhead to work btw. It was ATI's display driver incompatibility issue, which I found out by posting in the ubuntu forum and waiting 1 day)
ya.. ladspa vst is kind of promising.. but then, if you think about it, you need to get WINE to work to install the vsts, and the bottom line is, going through an abstraction layer in this context seems suggest some form of performance hit. In other words, isn't it faster to run it in XP?
And it sort of brings this whole experiment back to where it began.. why run windows plugins (compiled for windows) in linux through emulation? I thought linux already had a suite of open source software engineered by geniuses around the world that kills all the common denominator commercial synths?
Well, frankly, the soft synths in linux are less than attractive. Obviously, they're built by people (academic) with too much time on their hands because every other application is a modular one. It's cool if you have all the time in the world to patch away for every single tune. But I think I've passed that phase of life. The fact is, there are very little softsynths on linux that show any sort of design (sonically and visually) but have a high level of (potential) mechanical complexity. Nothing is finished. They all "can be whatever you want. Your imagination is the limit". So, if the end result sucks, it's kinda your fault.
So I've got PD (like max MSP), a couple of modular platforms, and a sample playback drum machine (with no layers), a GIga player, a sound font player, bunch of effects, and a sequencer. Unfortunately, I don't have a giga library that covers the usual workstation rompler palette. Actually, I looked around for commercial ones, and I don't think there's one around, apart from Colossus, which I think is overkill for a "basic" set. I don't have one in soundfont format either. So, the situation leaves me to either: buy a giga library that resembles sampletank / colossus, find a sound font that actually doesn't suck, build my own sound font.. or just unplug linux and use XP which does it all just fine.
Softsynths that stand out are: Coupple of standard 2-3 osc subtractive synths, a juno emu, couple of FM synths, a granular synthesis thingy, couple of spectral type effects... Some things missing that annoy me: no analogue drum machine, no physmod type synths (EP, guitar, brass, etc) which is surprising because it was such an academic field, no amp sim effects, couldn't find an early reflections effect, no convolution verb that I could find. If you round this up, I think it's safe to say that Reaktor is even more robust. (if you don't count building everything by hand in PD or spending 5 years writing something better in C as an option)
So, my verdict is, if there's a usable library that covers the usual workstation spectrum, and there's a decent sequencer with half decent effects, I can get cookin'. I'm not too picky about my equipment I don't think. But without that, I simply don't have enough time to prepare sounds for 10x1minute tunes of completely different styles (salsa to country mixed with raggae to urban hiphop) AND actually have time left over to compose!
ya.. ladspa vst is kind of promising.. but then, if you think about it, you need to get WINE to work to install the vsts, and the bottom line is, going through an abstraction layer in this context seems suggest some form of performance hit. In other words, isn't it faster to run it in XP?
And it sort of brings this whole experiment back to where it began.. why run windows plugins (compiled for windows) in linux through emulation? I thought linux already had a suite of open source software engineered by geniuses around the world that kills all the common denominator commercial synths?
Well, frankly, the soft synths in linux are less than attractive. Obviously, they're built by people (academic) with too much time on their hands because every other application is a modular one. It's cool if you have all the time in the world to patch away for every single tune. But I think I've passed that phase of life. The fact is, there are very little softsynths on linux that show any sort of design (sonically and visually) but have a high level of (potential) mechanical complexity. Nothing is finished. They all "can be whatever you want. Your imagination is the limit". So, if the end result sucks, it's kinda your fault.
So I've got PD (like max MSP), a couple of modular platforms, and a sample playback drum machine (with no layers), a GIga player, a sound font player, bunch of effects, and a sequencer. Unfortunately, I don't have a giga library that covers the usual workstation rompler palette. Actually, I looked around for commercial ones, and I don't think there's one around, apart from Colossus, which I think is overkill for a "basic" set. I don't have one in soundfont format either. So, the situation leaves me to either: buy a giga library that resembles sampletank / colossus, find a sound font that actually doesn't suck, build my own sound font.. or just unplug linux and use XP which does it all just fine.
Softsynths that stand out are: Coupple of standard 2-3 osc subtractive synths, a juno emu, couple of FM synths, a granular synthesis thingy, couple of spectral type effects... Some things missing that annoy me: no analogue drum machine, no physmod type synths (EP, guitar, brass, etc) which is surprising because it was such an academic field, no amp sim effects, couldn't find an early reflections effect, no convolution verb that I could find. If you round this up, I think it's safe to say that Reaktor is even more robust. (if you don't count building everything by hand in PD or spending 5 years writing something better in C as an option)
So, my verdict is, if there's a usable library that covers the usual workstation spectrum, and there's a decent sequencer with half decent effects, I can get cookin'. I'm not too picky about my equipment I don't think. But without that, I simply don't have enough time to prepare sounds for 10x1minute tunes of completely different styles (salsa to country mixed with raggae to urban hiphop) AND actually have time left over to compose!
WINE isn't an abstraction layer, it's an attempt to get all that behind the scenes crap in windows (what programmers called API's and you tend to see as ton of dll's littering various directories) to be *mostly* supported under Linux's own binaries (which means WINE is the API's not a layer to access them). Anything that's got a decent level of relatively bug-free support under WINE should run at a similar speed to windows. In some cases even faster, and in many cases slower (welcome to the problems with code review in Open Source talent pools).
--
My 2 cents:
I find Gnome extremely lacking in workflow enhancements in the UI (things like being able to perform file operations in an Open/Save file dialog in windows, or OSX's propensity to make difficult functions easy through thoughtful UI placement & layout). KDE Is 'a bit better' and there are windowing managers I find a lot more advanced and comfortable, but as you're finding the application is often coded to the environment and there's a definate move towards 'lowest common denominator' in linux these days in an effort to 'finally claim the desktop'. Problems compiling something in Ubuntu because something is out of step after a package update? Never fear, the developers are too busy oozing over the latest Compiz/Beryl fade effect and their theme which is 'almost exactly like Vista now': http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... eVista.png
Also it quite often seems a step back in terms of workflow. It would be nice if JACK had existed back when the only option for plugins on PC was Cubase3.x/5, but I do find that JACK's great flexibility is somewhat offset but the complexity of getting it all to do what u want. Certainly the Scope metaphors are there, but the conflicting methods that each JACK compliant plugin or app uses mean that your overall workflow still requires figuring out all those different apps, and not in the same way as 'what does this knob do?' but more like "Arg why the &)(##$ isn't it working still after I edited every conf in long painful excrutiating detail!!!". And that leads us to the point that you've already touched on, the paucity of accurate and easily read documentation. Oh and the TIME! Most of what I tried had plenty of presets, and the fact that they were created by a large variety of people with different skill levels was also quite evident.
On the other if you're skilled with the *nix command line then there are other aspects of linux that you'll find nice when it comes to dealing with asset management. Especially if you can handle a basic level of scripting, as many of the libraries used in the audio applications are often available in some earlier or simplified forms accessible to the command line. Mounting up one of your old sample libraries isn't too hard either, but beware the issues in NTFS support.
So on one hand I think open source is great because the people who actually use linux on a regular basis will grow to know their tools well. Better in many cases than you ever could in a closed environment, because you can check out the API's (or equivalent) and codebase to your heart's content. If you have the time and skill you can even extend and/or fix things that bother you. Or just jump in and help clean up that crappy documentation, create better user communities etc. But on the other hand all this pretends that we're living in some utopia where we don't work for money but for some certain geeky ideal where any amount of time can be spent on something as long as the end result is some balance of simplified elegance and mind-numbing obsession over detail. Only that's not balance either...
Don't let my rant make you think I dislike linux. I actually quite like some of the more experimental audio tools in *nix land. They're a nice 'balance' to the sara plain & tall 'applications' that are all being made to order to emulate 'commercial' software. I just wish that the experimental cross bred more with the 'vanilla' to give something that was not only interesting but also functional in a way that allowed you to get down to the real work when you don't have time for the details.
--
My 2 cents:
I find Gnome extremely lacking in workflow enhancements in the UI (things like being able to perform file operations in an Open/Save file dialog in windows, or OSX's propensity to make difficult functions easy through thoughtful UI placement & layout). KDE Is 'a bit better' and there are windowing managers I find a lot more advanced and comfortable, but as you're finding the application is often coded to the environment and there's a definate move towards 'lowest common denominator' in linux these days in an effort to 'finally claim the desktop'. Problems compiling something in Ubuntu because something is out of step after a package update? Never fear, the developers are too busy oozing over the latest Compiz/Beryl fade effect and their theme which is 'almost exactly like Vista now': http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... eVista.png
Also it quite often seems a step back in terms of workflow. It would be nice if JACK had existed back when the only option for plugins on PC was Cubase3.x/5, but I do find that JACK's great flexibility is somewhat offset but the complexity of getting it all to do what u want. Certainly the Scope metaphors are there, but the conflicting methods that each JACK compliant plugin or app uses mean that your overall workflow still requires figuring out all those different apps, and not in the same way as 'what does this knob do?' but more like "Arg why the &)(##$ isn't it working still after I edited every conf in long painful excrutiating detail!!!". And that leads us to the point that you've already touched on, the paucity of accurate and easily read documentation. Oh and the TIME! Most of what I tried had plenty of presets, and the fact that they were created by a large variety of people with different skill levels was also quite evident.
On the other if you're skilled with the *nix command line then there are other aspects of linux that you'll find nice when it comes to dealing with asset management. Especially if you can handle a basic level of scripting, as many of the libraries used in the audio applications are often available in some earlier or simplified forms accessible to the command line. Mounting up one of your old sample libraries isn't too hard either, but beware the issues in NTFS support.
So on one hand I think open source is great because the people who actually use linux on a regular basis will grow to know their tools well. Better in many cases than you ever could in a closed environment, because you can check out the API's (or equivalent) and codebase to your heart's content. If you have the time and skill you can even extend and/or fix things that bother you. Or just jump in and help clean up that crappy documentation, create better user communities etc. But on the other hand all this pretends that we're living in some utopia where we don't work for money but for some certain geeky ideal where any amount of time can be spent on something as long as the end result is some balance of simplified elegance and mind-numbing obsession over detail. Only that's not balance either...
Don't let my rant make you think I dislike linux. I actually quite like some of the more experimental audio tools in *nix land. They're a nice 'balance' to the sara plain & tall 'applications' that are all being made to order to emulate 'commercial' software. I just wish that the experimental cross bred more with the 'vanilla' to give something that was not only interesting but also functional in a way that allowed you to get down to the real work when you don't have time for the details.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
So today I spent some time going through crappy sound font sites trying to put together a basic set of instruments namely a piano, bass, drum, and some sort of percussion, so that at least I can put together a multitrack project in MusE. (sequencer)
I'm not sure how this sound font player works, but since I was loading a fairly large GM library, and perhaps it was loading the entire set per instance, it quickly ran out of memory, at 4 tracks. And I need to do this to get multiple outputs to route into different effects.
Well, forget trying to put together something serious, I'll just see if I can try 4 tracks. So as I started laying down some drums, or at least tried, I realize that 1. I can't get precount clicks. 2. I can only sometimes get clicks on during record. 3. there's no "click during record" option so it always clicks. 4. It clicks fine during playback. 5. I need to open piano roll to access quantize options. 6. There's no swing quanize. 7. I can't resize objects by grabbing the sides, I need to cut it short with a scissor tool
But who cares, at this point I'm happy I'm hearing ANY sound. On to effects. I tried applying a comp on drums. The comps I found that was accessible from MusE (about 4) were quite messed up. One was so-so, but lacked an output gain. (which kind of kills its practical potential) But anyway, I'll just put a gain on it somewhere. After that, I looked for a gate. There were 2 gates, a hard gate, and a normal one. The normal one was broken, since moving any slider caused the gate to close, and there was no way to get it back open except to remove the plugin. Didn't even bother checking out the EQs..
One thing I did realize was that most of the plugins that come up on the effects list are modular parts. Like oscilators and EGs. So I'm guessing it's easy to add to the list, and perhaps there are other more serious people making more serious effects. Or maybe not.
A big problem with MusE is that there is no way to search for documentation because "muse linux vst plugin" or anything audio related with the word "muse" in it returns a bunch of links to muse receptor. But I have a feeling that even if that wasn't the case, there's not much written about muse.
So maybe Rosegarden+Ardour combination is inevitable. Dunno, this is all going down hill people. Way down hill. I like linux because it's so fast, and it would be so awesome if this was actually useful. I sincerely wish that. But so far almost every aspect of it after the install sucks so bad that the concept of a linux audio studio is ridiculous. (unless it's jam packed with the few commercial VSTi's that can be wrapped to work in linux) I mean, I'm lurking in soundfont sites. That's what middle schoolers do. It's like downloading tracker files to rip samples.
My question is, then WHY would anyone use linux for audio work? (if anyone really does) Is it because of the "open source" ideal? I just don't get it. GarageBand can beat my current setup in terms of productivity and quality, with an interface that actually works, all under 1 program and not 20 standalones that can't be total-recalled.
I'm not sure how this sound font player works, but since I was loading a fairly large GM library, and perhaps it was loading the entire set per instance, it quickly ran out of memory, at 4 tracks. And I need to do this to get multiple outputs to route into different effects.
Well, forget trying to put together something serious, I'll just see if I can try 4 tracks. So as I started laying down some drums, or at least tried, I realize that 1. I can't get precount clicks. 2. I can only sometimes get clicks on during record. 3. there's no "click during record" option so it always clicks. 4. It clicks fine during playback. 5. I need to open piano roll to access quantize options. 6. There's no swing quanize. 7. I can't resize objects by grabbing the sides, I need to cut it short with a scissor tool
But who cares, at this point I'm happy I'm hearing ANY sound. On to effects. I tried applying a comp on drums. The comps I found that was accessible from MusE (about 4) were quite messed up. One was so-so, but lacked an output gain. (which kind of kills its practical potential) But anyway, I'll just put a gain on it somewhere. After that, I looked for a gate. There were 2 gates, a hard gate, and a normal one. The normal one was broken, since moving any slider caused the gate to close, and there was no way to get it back open except to remove the plugin. Didn't even bother checking out the EQs..
One thing I did realize was that most of the plugins that come up on the effects list are modular parts. Like oscilators and EGs. So I'm guessing it's easy to add to the list, and perhaps there are other more serious people making more serious effects. Or maybe not.
A big problem with MusE is that there is no way to search for documentation because "muse linux vst plugin" or anything audio related with the word "muse" in it returns a bunch of links to muse receptor. But I have a feeling that even if that wasn't the case, there's not much written about muse.
So maybe Rosegarden+Ardour combination is inevitable. Dunno, this is all going down hill people. Way down hill. I like linux because it's so fast, and it would be so awesome if this was actually useful. I sincerely wish that. But so far almost every aspect of it after the install sucks so bad that the concept of a linux audio studio is ridiculous. (unless it's jam packed with the few commercial VSTi's that can be wrapped to work in linux) I mean, I'm lurking in soundfont sites. That's what middle schoolers do. It's like downloading tracker files to rip samples.
My question is, then WHY would anyone use linux for audio work? (if anyone really does) Is it because of the "open source" ideal? I just don't get it. GarageBand can beat my current setup in terms of productivity and quality, with an interface that actually works, all under 1 program and not 20 standalones that can't be total-recalled.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
I think I just saved people a lot of time and frustration. I really thought things would work this time around, in contrast to my failure to even install 10 years ago.
If you're not going to do audio work, everything else is pretty awesome. If you have an older computer, (the one you'll leave behind when you buy a new computer to run Vista) install Ubuntu or Kubuntu and use it as your jukebox + e-mail + word processor computer. And you can install compiz/beryl to make the interface look cooler than Vista.
If you're not going to do audio work, everything else is pretty awesome. If you have an older computer, (the one you'll leave behind when you buy a new computer to run Vista) install Ubuntu or Kubuntu and use it as your jukebox + e-mail + word processor computer. And you can install compiz/beryl to make the interface look cooler than Vista.
The 'mainstream' Linux audio apps seemed more like they were built around studios that do Jazz/Blues/"Classic rock"/Funk style recording. At the other end of things you have college students wiring PD into Processing (processing.org) and all manner of other funky 'experimental' biz. It's funny that the audio world there is still so bipolar too, because for video & 3d work the linux world is better & better every year. In fact aside from 3d apps (Blender is no competition to XSI/Maya, though technically Maya runs on linux I think) everything else I'd need is on linux for compositing, editing and final encoding. Web dev is fairly sorted on linux as well from all angles, and for 2d graphics the only thing still lacking is advanced color manipulation (CMYK/process color) and color management. There's a decent mod to make Gimp work like photoshop, and Inkscape isn't really an illustrator replacement but rather an interesting vector app in its own right (and it outputs svg native).
And yet turn to audio....
And yet turn to audio....
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
gimp IS slow on xp i agree shroomz, but considering the price difference (which in theory is infinitinve 
) one shouldnt complain 
i hate how gimp handles cropping though. but there might be plugs fixing that.
Only reason i am installing is because of experimentation. i am DEFINATLY not going to buy any soundcard specifically for linux use, so my sb audigy must do. if i find out it is usable, i will probably use it via some digital/optical connection from sb to scope, allthough i dont see it happening anytime soon.
ive been thinking about linux since http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb04/a ... rimage.htm btw.
) one shouldnt complain i hate how gimp handles cropping though. but there might be plugs fixing that.
Only reason i am installing is because of experimentation. i am DEFINATLY not going to buy any soundcard specifically for linux use, so my sb audigy must do. if i find out it is usable, i will probably use it via some digital/optical connection from sb to scope, allthough i dont see it happening anytime soon.
ive been thinking about linux since http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb04/a ... rimage.htm btw.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
just letting you all know that my linux drive's been officially unplugged.
Maybe in a 5 more years I'll try it again. See if the software pool's improved by that time. To not get bad software (with the most academically advanced algorithms), I'm happy to put up with a crappy platform (XP) that does its job.
Here's why linux fails:
1. Linux will be the most awesome OS because it's developed by idealists who are far more advanced than commercial coders working under the clock. We code because we love it.
2. Don't complain about any thing that's broken because it's free. We have, like, reports to write and xbox360 games to play yo. Gotta live a life, yaknow what I'm sayin?
3. If you find a bug, you can fix it. That's what open source is all about. Don't know c++ or c? Then why are you using linux? haha...
4. Don't like it? Just use windows or OSX.
So I went from step 1 to 4 in just a week. The hole in the logic is this. Linux depends on users to develop basic aspects of the operating system. For audio, it expects all audio developers to abide by standards that aren't enforced. The result is, people are forced to fix things. And not DO things. It's been 16 years, and still the most basic things (for audio) are messed up. What will it be like in 20 years? Will we have an operational audio platform by then? How about 40 years? Well, the average of an emperor penguin is about 40 years so... I'll keep my fingers crossed.
I dunno, I know I sound very sour. I guess my expectations were too high. I thought academia could pull it off. A sort of ideal where the smart guy can out do the money monger businessman. It's depressing, and I don't like to have to submit to the notion, but I guess so far, it hasn't happened yet.
On a side note, if scope cards got linux drivers, I'll immediately build a dedicated scope machine with linux. It's great for things like that. unmanned machines that do single tasks. It's the whole VST / sequencer part that's messed up.
Maybe in a 5 more years I'll try it again. See if the software pool's improved by that time. To not get bad software (with the most academically advanced algorithms), I'm happy to put up with a crappy platform (XP) that does its job.
Here's why linux fails:
1. Linux will be the most awesome OS because it's developed by idealists who are far more advanced than commercial coders working under the clock. We code because we love it.
2. Don't complain about any thing that's broken because it's free. We have, like, reports to write and xbox360 games to play yo. Gotta live a life, yaknow what I'm sayin?
3. If you find a bug, you can fix it. That's what open source is all about. Don't know c++ or c? Then why are you using linux? haha...
4. Don't like it? Just use windows or OSX.
So I went from step 1 to 4 in just a week. The hole in the logic is this. Linux depends on users to develop basic aspects of the operating system. For audio, it expects all audio developers to abide by standards that aren't enforced. The result is, people are forced to fix things. And not DO things. It's been 16 years, and still the most basic things (for audio) are messed up. What will it be like in 20 years? Will we have an operational audio platform by then? How about 40 years? Well, the average of an emperor penguin is about 40 years so... I'll keep my fingers crossed.
I dunno, I know I sound very sour. I guess my expectations were too high. I thought academia could pull it off. A sort of ideal where the smart guy can out do the money monger businessman. It's depressing, and I don't like to have to submit to the notion, but I guess so far, it hasn't happened yet.
On a side note, if scope cards got linux drivers, I'll immediately build a dedicated scope machine with linux. It's great for things like that. unmanned machines that do single tasks. It's the whole VST / sequencer part that's messed up.
Bit of a corollary here in reference to some of the web/3d/video aspects I mentioned. In all respects you have one or more commercial companies involved in or primarily responsible for the codebase. In some cases it's an in-house application that gets 'opened up' to the general community (quite frequent in 3d & video), in other cases it's a collection of open source libraries that gets wrapped into a codebase and cleaned up by one (or more) companies that make use of said codebase (hello ibm/sun/etc). I think in most cases you can trace the success of the project back to the fact that there was funding available for quality project management and coding, and the vendors putting the funding in generally had an idea of where the project should go.
Focusing back on the audio world, draw your own conclusions as to why open source audio hasn't fared as well. I know that Ardour was supported by Google's "Summer of Code" and there were press releases of at least 1 audio studio playing a major role in its development (iirc). Yet when I've tried it, it really seemed like an audio-focused application that would have been a lot more competitive 4-5 yrs ago.
Focusing back on the audio world, draw your own conclusions as to why open source audio hasn't fared as well. I know that Ardour was supported by Google's "Summer of Code" and there were press releases of at least 1 audio studio playing a major role in its development (iirc). Yet when I've tried it, it really seemed like an audio-focused application that would have been a lot more competitive 4-5 yrs ago.
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
You are being unfair by failing to mention that PC technology is not stagnant and that PC board manufacturers are failing to share their specifications with the open source community. I have actually run Ubuntu from a CD on my 5 years old laptop without a hitch, with audio, graphics, ethernet detected from the start.kensuguro wrote: The result is, people are forced to fix things. And not DO things. It's been 16 years, and still the most basic things (for audio) are messed up. What will it be like in 20 years? Will we have an operational audio platform by then? How about 40 years? Well, the average of an emperor penguin is about 40 years so... I'll keep my fingers crossed.
well, I actually am long enough in this business to be able to tell you that PC technology is indeed stagnant for a much longer period than 5 years...
just because things have smaller structures or are bigger in numbers doesn't mean they represent a fundamental 'progress'.
If you compare what 'technology' allows you to do 'as a user' on a current system to a vintage one with barely 1% of the computational resources, there can't be any other verdict but 'crap'.
the original MacOS was introduced by Apple 25 years ago as a conceptual alternative to any ix-ish operating system from the user's point of view, and they pretty much succeeded with that part of the strategy.
Those aspects have been adressed by Apple's own marketing in the famous 'Macintosh Intro' spot by Riddley Scott.
Only the fact that satisfied customers bought significantly less machines because it just wasn't necessary to switch systems once per year made Apple change their policy.
Probably even a Steven Jobs was a bit concerned about his future revenues during retirement...
noone questions that an ix-ish OS cannot do this or that techie job as a server or an embedded piece of code.
but it never was intended to be a user OS
Apple is at least able to fake user friendlyness, but after all they sell us nothing but a resource hog to do the same job as before with only a slight improvement - considering the amount of resources spent
cheers, Tom
just because things have smaller structures or are bigger in numbers doesn't mean they represent a fundamental 'progress'.
If you compare what 'technology' allows you to do 'as a user' on a current system to a vintage one with barely 1% of the computational resources, there can't be any other verdict but 'crap'.
the original MacOS was introduced by Apple 25 years ago as a conceptual alternative to any ix-ish operating system from the user's point of view, and they pretty much succeeded with that part of the strategy.
Those aspects have been adressed by Apple's own marketing in the famous 'Macintosh Intro' spot by Riddley Scott.
Only the fact that satisfied customers bought significantly less machines because it just wasn't necessary to switch systems once per year made Apple change their policy.
Probably even a Steven Jobs was a bit concerned about his future revenues during retirement...
noone questions that an ix-ish OS cannot do this or that techie job as a server or an embedded piece of code.
but it never was intended to be a user OS
Apple is at least able to fake user friendlyness, but after all they sell us nothing but a resource hog to do the same job as before with only a slight improvement - considering the amount of resources spent
cheers, Tom
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
If SATA interface, Hyperthreading technology, Dual/Quad Core technology, 64 Bit Processors, faster bus speeds are not fundamental changes then yes, the technology is stagnant.astroman wrote:well, I actually am long enough in this business to be able to tell you that PC technology is indeed stagnant for a much longer period than 5 years...
just because things have smaller structures or are bigger in numbers doesn't mean they represent a fundamental 'progress'.