Many thanks guys. Time to google kernels! On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 11:30 +1000, Loki Davison wrote: > On 8/2/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 11:04 +1000, Loki Davison wrote: > > > On 8/2/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 20:39 -0400, M P Smoak wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 01 August 2006 11:58, Lee Revell wrote: > > > > > > Disagree, using Fluxbox over Gnome is not likely to make a > > difference > > > > > > with a recent kernel. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > > > Lee, do you think that the same can be said about KDE rather than > > Gnome? > > > > > > > > Yes. With a kernel patched for realtime, or a recent unpatched 2.6 > > > > kernel, the choice of desktop/window manager will have no impact on > > > > realtime audio performance (as measured by number of xruns), as long as > > > > JACK is running in realtime mode. > > > > > > > > The belief that stripping down your desktop will improve realtime audio > > > > performance is a holdover from the bad old 2.4/early 2.6 days. > > > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > though if you have limited memory it can still help, right? I.e if the > > > system needs to swap because of a big desktop running? Not that i > > > really know, i run KDE and i've got 2GB ram ;) > > > > > > > I guess if you are very resource constrained it would help. Audio > > performance won't be affected, your desktop just might get slower if you > > run into swap. But I was referring to the general case. > > > > Lee > > > > > > So short answer is really running a decent kernel solves all the other > worries ;) > > Loki -- Jonty Needham <jmn20@xxxxxxxxxx>
