beware of the updates you install

In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is now, it was a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all my multi-track audio work on generic computers for the last decade, I'm not in a hurry to go down the expensive, locked in, hope they might give you what you want/need someday path ever again. Because so many others agree is why those systems no longer sell. Some people might want a brand new Nagra tape machine too, but not enough to make it a commercially viable business plan it seems.

Trevor.

The "throw more CPU power at it and hope it works" philosophy works fine as long as there's plenty of CPU power for what you want to do. But how long is that going to continue?

Dunno, Nagra seems to be doing pretty well right now. They don't sell a lot of analogue machines, but they're not out of the catalogue yet.

--scott

Yeh, I find it amusing too, just like those who get stiffies whenever Apple comes out with an expensive new product. :-)

Dead right. I'm not only amused but annoyed they find it necessary to mess with the desktop interface every time they bring out an update, when all I want is the fastest way to get to the applications (with support for all the new hardware technolgy since the last release). Windows 8 sure aint it IMO :-(

Trevor.

See, I would consider Solaris a lot more advanced, in terms of actually having a solid kernel that has been well-debugged and is stable. Turn off the stupid java gui and all that crap and you have a very solid OS that does not require constant patching.

My complaint with Linux is mostly that the Linux community is constantly changing things, and they often don't change them for the better or the worse, they just change them for the sake of changing them. This seems like misplaced effort on the part of developers, but what bothers me is that now I have to change my stuff unnecessarily.

I would much prefer a system that was actually designed, where someone sat down and made a decision about what the thing was supposed to do and then built it to do that and then removed bugs rather than added features.

But... when systems are built like that, they aren't systems for everything, they are systems for the one thing the designer decided it was supposed to do. And if that's not what you want... that should be fine because there should be plenty of other systems out there to do other things.

It's the lack of those other systems that I am bemoaning.

Every week someone finds some security vulnerability that needs to get patched. Every week someone makes some unneeded change. If there is a problem with a third-party device driver I can't call up DEC support on a three-way call and have the DEC developers working with the third-party guys to fix the problem.

No, you don't just write drivers. If you want an actual hard realtime system you either need to wrest control away from the OS and do everything as one uninterruptable process, or you need an operating system with a scheduler that assigns timeslices to processes based upon how much time those processes need to make deadline. When you make a call to the operating system, say open(), one of the parameters is how long you have to wait for the OS to do the job, and the kernel will prioritize the call appropriately to make sure all those calls return in time.

The alternative is just to throw CPU at the problem and hope everybody can meet deadline. This is called "soft realtime" and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. What is evil is that sometimes it's not always obvious at the time that data is being lost because there is no way for the kernel or the application to flag that it's missing deadlines in many cases.

Sure, but can I run a DAW on it?

Could be, but I'm still holding out for hard-realtime.

Which is a very, very cool idea. I just saw one being used for PA applications not long ago!

They are, which is really BeOS inside, secretly.

--scott

Until the next "dark ages". Technology usually moves forward not backwards.

Exactly, I specifically said "*tape* machine". Where are the new models? Can't justify the development costs would be my guess.

Trevor.

Seems to be increasing true wrt audio, given the continued rate of increase in CPU horsepower and RAM size versus software requirement on it. Even CPU-hungry plugins don't seem to be the problem they used to be.

This applies to everything I've ever done, except for video-rendering which is and probably always will be ever-expanding in the resource demand dept .....

geoff

Fortunately it's mostly easily-fixable for free.

geoff

Chicken-egg thing really. Features need to be added because of commercial really - other products may sport such features (sometimes even good and truely useful ones !) , and 'whatever' OS needs to keep it's user base to survive.

geoff

It is solid.

Can't argue there.

The general ... Leviathan nature of mass market computing means people will adapt the general to the specific, because it costs much less than designing for specific from the git-go.

And frankly, it's not something I'd consider a very real problem at this writing. I can run a DAW in a VM at times ( because the VM is 32 bit ) and nary a glitch.

Well, you're not really a customer, you see...

I am quite familiar with the distinction. I respectfully submit that ... one can build "hard realtime" systems in the manner I have suggested.

There are perfectly good microsecond-resolution ( or better ) free running timers for measuring deadlines. time.h stuff...

I don't know. I don't imagine so until ALSA gets ported to one. Then it would be a lot like a Linux machine.

Yeah, maybe that'll grow into what you want.

With apologies to Edgar Allen Poe...

Once upon a Tuesday dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, Installing the same version of Windows once more. While I cursed the constant crashing, I made a fist and started bashing, Started bashing the computer case and CD-ROM drive door. "Piece of crap," I muttered, bashing the CD-ROM drive door, "I will take this crap no more!"

Distinctly I do remember, when I bought my PC in December, The marketing man said this software would crash no more. Eagerly I wished to borrow a tool to inflict pain and sorrow So that one day, perhaps tomorrow, I could go to my computer store For the chance to make the salesman sell this crap no more. Only this and nothing more.

So after wasting countless hours, I unplugged the beige mini-tower. My day was looking very tragic like the old poetry of gothic lore, But suddenly there came a tapping, rhymthic like the beats of rapping. Actually, it sounded like flippers flapping, flapping at my apartment door. "That is very odd," I muttered, "the time is nearly half past four, Who is knocking on my door?"

The door was opened but it only revealed a penguin standing quite lonely, Standing with a bag of CD-ROMs on the stoop before my apartment door. I thought at first it was a delusion, for I was wrought with great confusion Over the presence of a flightless Antarctic bird at my apartment door. So I stood there, looking quite the fool, with my jaw down to the floor. Then the bird said, "Pay no more!"

I thought to call the SPCA ... perhaps it escaped the zoo today. But instead I brought the talking Aptenodytes forsteri inside my door. He looked around, he looked at me ... and then he waddled to my PC. I followed fast and I did see him place his disc in my drive door. His program booted and began to install software I'd never seen before, Then the bird said, "Pay No More!"

He brought me LINUX to install, said it rarely crashed at all. Then he showed me some books while the software installed some more. The interface, it looked like UNIX ... but 'twas much cheaper than QNX. In fact, the code was open, so the source of bugs was hidden no more It made wonder about the penguin's disc, behind my CD drive door ... And why the bird said, "Pay No More."

So I tried this new installation, at first with fear and trepidation, But soon I found it more stable than the OS I used before. The files were in different places, and I put Linux through its paces And very rarely made odd faces ... it didn't crash like Windows did before. For this fat penguin made me see a way to use my computer as never before. Then the bird said, "Pay No More!"

So once upon a morning sunny, I installed Linux for no money, With the CD-ROM brought by a penguin to my apartment door. After cursing the old installation, I reduced my overall frustration And with a bit of determination I removed the software I used before. Now I read Linux books and Web sites to use my free operating system more. Quoth the penguin, "Pay No More."

I've been using Windows since 3.0. That version tended to crash for no obvious reason. I've not had that problem with any later version.

Around 2004, "something" went wrong with my Windows 2000 installation. It would boot, but its behavior was screwy. (This might have been due to a malware attack, but I don't know for sure.) I was obliged to reinstall it, and had no problems for the next eight years.

When people say that Windows is crash-prone, and/or often requires reinstallation, I have to wonder what's going on. I've worked many jobs at Microsoft, and have never seen this. I can only assume it's due to some sort of user error, or badly written drivers.

Were you working there when Bill Gates was using OS/2 on his own desktop?

YAWN.............

Yes, not from MS of course, even the Win 8.1 update is pathetic, and Classic shell is just a patch for a problem that should never have existed IMO. Give touchscreen users the option by all means, but no need to remove what already works for everybody else.

Trevor.

And use all your Windows software no more :-( Linux is great if you are happy with the available software, or all you want to do is surf the net. However I'm amazed that people who can successfully install and run Linux can't keep a Windows box running.

Trevor.

I was there during the period of OS/2's brief popularity.

Was OS/2 particularly crash prone, or are you referring to the fact that it needed the Presentation Manager for a graphic interface?

PS: You didn't respond to my blueberry pancakes jokes. I was hurt.

I took it as more of a suggestion that the owner and creator of Microsoft didn't want to use a Microsft OS on his own machine.

Of course, it could just have been research to find out just how bad OS/2 was....

They are philosophically very different to run and debug problems on. With Linux, you can readily look inside and see what is going on, and so step by step diagnosis is possible (and in fact is essential). On the other hand, with Windows systems you can't really see what is going on inside the box at all and if you attempt conventional step by step diagnosis you will only get frustrated and angry. Windows diagnosis is basically done with a matrix of problems and solutions... and the good news is that there are enough Windows systems that a google search on a given problem will usually find you a solution. That doesn't mean the person with the solution has any more idea what is going on inside the box than you do, though.

--scott