On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote: > ... Ardour > may be efficient, then again, it may also just 'seem' efficient on the big > fat servers it is being developed on. That is fine, design a peice of > software that only works on the fastest system available and its target > audience suddenly diminishes. Perhaps to put it another way, do we want a > situation where bloatware is coming to Linux - it if does not work then buy > a faster system? Have you ever tried it ? Look at the output of <your favourite CPU load monitor> while using Ardour ? I had Ardour running for most of this afternoon, a session with 14 tracks and 33 channels in total (some tracks are 6-ch, as is the output, can Traverso do this ?). CPU load around 7% on my 1.7G laptop. There is bloatware on Linux, but I don't think Ardour is part of that, even if it has many features that I never use. -- FA Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo ! _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
