Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello Dana,
Am 2006-02-24 12:49:55, schrieb Dana Olson:
Well, I don't think that it can be labeled as full-featured as
Rosegarden et al, but seq24 does a decent job, although it is not so
I will look into "seq24".
much linear as it is pattern-based. It seems pretty light to me, and
if you're using a light desktop/wm, you probably don't mind missing
some features, I would think... I don't know, I had a lot of issues
with Rosegarden and the way it manages the instruments and how it
never remembered them if I re-open the file again at a later date, but
I think it's a great application just the same. But I'll likely use
seq24 myself, as it seems more like my hardware-based sequencer/synth.
So, to the OP, there's an option to look into if you can deal with
loop/pattern-based sequencers.
It is not only me, because I am designing desktops for countries
where a CPU's with 500 MHz with 128 MB of memory is the maximum.
Even if I run curently 4 Quad-Opteron with each 32 GByte of memory,
99% of my friends will never have such machine.
My smallest machine is currently a Sempron 2200+ which is allready
to expensive for most of my friends. (I have bought it in germany
for 220 € without OS)
If the Geeks and Nerds here think only on there self...
...there will never a real success story about OSS!
It is hypocrisy.
No, people just forget. Once you've been running a 500MHz machine on
broadband for a year you forget what it was like to upgrade your system
on a 100MHz machine with a dial-up connection and a monitor that only
does 800x600 resolution. Rosegarden4 and Ardour will run on those bigger
machines, but you're going to be better off running Fluxbox, Openbox or
fvwm. Using an external MIDI sound source rather than softsynths will
help too. There are lots of ways round the limitations once you have the
software and _some_ hardware to play with.
cheers,
tim hall
/|\
