On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote: > I could agree less although I understand the point. The issue is that if > you want to make sound then the user interface has to be efficient for > several reasons, to start with so that CPU cycles are available for what > you actually want to do - make sound, and that it is responsive even under > heavy RT audio usage. If the interface is sluggish then you cannot > accomplish what you want to do. As such, efficiency is of interest. Ardour > may be efficient, then again, it may also just 'seem' efficient on the big > fat servers it is being developed on. Sorry Nick, but this is: 1) FUD. I've never had "efficiency" problems of that sort with Ardour. I had no problems with it on a Celeron 333 or on a PIII 866. The only limit I ever hit was that my cheap EIDE drive couldn't keep up when I had about 24 tracks with lots of takes and edits in each track. 2) Not the issue under discussion. We were talking about efficiency in the sense of user interface design, not system resources. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
