On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 01:15 -0800, Kevin Cosgrove wrote: > On 20 February 2006 at 4:07, Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 00:49 -0800, Kevin Cosgrove wrote: > > > One person commented that with their 64-X2 > > > machine, that a larger period size, 256 versus 128, seems better. > > > This is generally true for avoiding xruns. > > > > > > I'm wondering, is an even larger period size 1K or 2K going > > > to make a 64-X2 machine usable. > > > > What exactly is the problem that you're having? > > Indecision. I'm wondering if it's worth it to tear my Celeron > system out of my studio and install my 64-X2 system in its place. > I haven't actually used the X2 box for anything but sound file > editing yet. I've been predicting problems based on some of the > postings I've seen about those Athlon 64-X2 CPUs. I can always > put the Celeron system back into music service if the X2 doesn't > work. But, I'd rather avoid that whole ordeal, if the reality is > that it just won't work yet. > > Thanks.... Umm... the solution is trivial, all you have to do is install the clockfix branch of JACK from CVS. Lee
