On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Petr Pisar (ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx) said: >> > I suggest that these be just built without NAS support. NAS is basically an >> > older competitor to PulseAudio with fewer features (it focuses on network >> > transparency, which is just one of the things PulseAudio does), it is not >> > compatible with PulseAudio, few to no people use it. >> > >> I agree NAS is very old audio system, but it has history. It works (or >> should work) across operating systems (do not think only about Linux). >> In addition it supports bidirectional sound transmission (from >> microphone). >> >> PulseAudio is interresting project, but it's absolutely unusable on old >> slow hardware. Last time I checked it out on Pentium TSC (no MMX) >> running at 200 MHz, it consumed 20 % of CPU just in idle mode. While >> `playing', it congested CPU, printed some warnings about stream buffer >> overflow and terminated gracefully complaining about no CPU cycles. NAS >> or Esound work on the machine fluently. > > Given that that's not the hardware target we're looking at in Fedora, > perhaps some effort could be spent in determining where the performance > issues lie in PA in an effort to fix the experience for everyone, rather than > maintaining parallel implementations that provide little benefit to the > userbase as a whole? While the XO-1 is a comparitatively relative higher HW spec (433 mhz from memory, so not massive but still double) it might be a worthwhile canditdate as there's quite a few of them around the community for testing, its not overly powerful and sees similar issues as well. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
