> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-audio-user-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-audio-user-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Atte > Andre Jensen > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 11:48 AM > To: linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] how much ram? > > > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:01:50 -0700 > "Mark Knecht" <mknecht@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 256MB will be pleanty for audio recording, but if you're going to do > > any soft synth work with things like sound fonts, you'll want and > > probably use the 512MB. > > You mean assuming I use large soundfonts, right? I'm pretty sure I > couldn't fill up 256MB with samples. That would be my whole sample > library... Well, that might change of course... Hmmm. Right now i would > say that if large soundfonts are my only problem, I'm going for the > smaller machine. Really, if the only cost difference is the cost of the RAM, I'd suggest going for the larger one. It isn't so much that you are adding 256MB and you're going to use it. The issue is more that you will use up most of your 256MB running the OS, XFree86 and the audio applications for recording and the soft synths. After they are all loaded, then you'll load the sound fonts and find that you've gone beyond 256MB (which is what I used to have) and need more memory. You won't need it all, but you will likely need more. > > Aren't there any software outthere that works like GigaSampler, that is > a softsampler that can play directly from HD? Nope. There is one project, the 'Linux Sampler' but there is basically no visible work taking place TTBOMK. There are also patent issues surrounding playing samples from hard drives... > > BTW: I also asked this in my local LUG and one of the posters was > shocked, and said that he had never sat behind a machine with more than > 256 MB RAM. Is the "don't go with less than 512MB, or you'll be sooo > sorry"-speach only for windows users or is there some truth in it for us > linux users also? It is completely true for Linux audio application machines IMO. I actually think that when you compare Linux apples to Windows apples the memory usage isn't really that different. The problem I have with Windows is that there is no simple way to strip things down and get the stuff you want out of the system. In Linux, I find that if I load KDE and all the services that Windows runs, Linux uses similar amounts of memory. What I also find true about Linux is I can strip everything out and run a very minimalistic environment and use half the memory, which is a big advantage. I'm sure I'll get flamed for even suggesting that Windows and Linux are not that different in this regard, but it's my experience and opinion. Cheers, Mark
