Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Windows vs Mac vs Linux
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Windows vs Mac vs Linux - Page 3

post #31 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnxPrgr3 View Post
A sound driver is an abstraction of the audio hardware
Yes, but not the same way that say, DirectSound is.

Quote:
PulseAudio, however, is trying to clean up a mess that never should have existed, and I would be equally happy if ALSA simply got its act together. It already tries to do most of what PulseAudio does. If we just made its existing features work well and made them user friendly, all we'd lose is... the ability to blast Britney Spears on the neighbor's speakers.
ALSA fundamentally does not try to do what Pulse does (if it did, it would look a lot more like OSSv4, which is in a better state in terms of ability to use). PulseAudio does work in user-space, so it can be sent a sound stream, and the app doesn't have to have any more worries than that. ALSA handles the hardware interfacing in the kernel, but was kind of made to grow beyond that. The guy that came up with ALSA was not in touch with what users may want or need, and did not settle on much of anything for it for a long time (so, changing API, poor documentation, etc.), and that helped cause a mess.

So far, problems exposed by PulseAudio for me have ended up being service problems related to ALSA (specifically, I needed to change service start order to better handle USB devices w/ ALSA), and PulseAudio itself has pretty much, "just worked." While I'm not thrilled about the CPU use for 44.1 playback, it's all been fine in actual use, and allowed me to finally make The Switch from Win2k.
post #32 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by cerbie View Post
ALSA fundamentally does not try to do what Pulse does (if it did, it would look a lot more like OSSv4, which is in a better state in terms of ability to use). PulseAudio does work in user-space, so it can be sent a sound stream, and the app doesn't have to have any more worries than that.
The same can be said for ALSA. What does an application have to worry about with ALSA that PulseAudio protects it from?

Actually, there is one thing I like about PulseAudio -- dynamic configuration changes. Why ALSA chose to load its config via userspace libraries (making the config work effectively per application instance) vs. some centralized place I don't know, but that decision would make this feature fun (though I would stop short of "impossible") to implement in ALSA to say the least

So maybe I should say this instead -- no one write any more audio servers! Give PulseAudio a chance to actually become the way to do audio in Linux! Maybe we won't have to go down this road again with another audio server in six months...

Edit: So I've been experimenting with PulseAudio... apparently I have to upgrade my kernel to keep PulseAudio running longer than a few seconds (or so sayeth the bug tracker). Cute. In insulating me from ALSA, it's exposed me to bugs no one ever knew existed! Also, mplayer + pulse was unusable for me -- both the video and audio stuttered like crazy. This is nowhere near production ready.

I am definitely not the only one having problems with it, either: Given ALSA's state and PulseAudio's state, maybe OSSv4 is the way to go... or maybe the answer is "get a Mac."
post #33 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by user123456 View Post
I know more about windows than you will do in your entire life, and I'm happy if I can find a better solution than this crappy operative-system.
That's rather hilarious given that I've worked at MS on the Windows team in the past. I'd be happy to compare respective knowledge of Windows (within NDA limits of course) any time.

There's really only 2 options: you have no idea what you're doing with a computer or you willingly engage in any number of risky behaviors. Unless you're calling spyware a virus, I haven't seen a single family member or friend (even my grandmother) get a virus since Windows 98. I don't think there's been a huge fast-spreading Windows virus since that era either (maybe pre-SP2 Windows XP, but I honestly don't remember). XP SP2 is an incredibly hardened OS, and Vista is as secure or more secure than Linux or OS X out there in terms of viruses thanks to the addition of UAC.
post #34 of 98
Here's a comparison of Windows and Mac from a developers perspective.

From Win32 to Cocoa: a Windows user's conversion to Mac OS X: Page 1
From Win32 to Cocoa: a Windows user's conversion to Mac OS X—Part II: Page 1
From Win32 to Cocoa: a Windows user's conversion to Mac OS X—Part III: Page 1

Interesting read even if your not a dev. Only 3 of the 4 planned articles are up.


Particularly interesting is their approach to providing underlying functions like CoreAudio. They actually use it in their apps and test that it works as opposed to MS who just creates it and hopes for the best. Scroll down to "Sound design".

http://arstechnica.com/articles/cult...pple-III.ars/3
post #35 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by user123456 View Post
No offense, but you're obviously an idiot since you cannot read
Why is your topic windows vs the rest if you're not actually interested in opinions? Grow up and get a pair so you won't get pissed off by different opinions. I haven't had any viruses for about 4 years now but hey, if you pirate a lot of material you WILL get viruses. Get a mac - don't pirate software - don't do anything but listen to music and you will do just fine.

It sounds to me like your what, 15 years old?

If your topic is just to show us your tough and you really hate MS then just say so instead of ballooning questions around if you're not interested in hearing answers. I mean, you already said you don't wan't linux or windows so what the hell do you want? Go get your mac os x and be happy.
post #36 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arainach View Post
That's rather hilarious given that I've worked at MS on the Windows team in the past. I'd be happy to compare respective knowledge of Windows (within NDA limits of course) any time.

There's really only 2 options: you have no idea what you're doing with a computer or you willingly engage in any number of risky behaviors. Unless you're calling spyware a virus, I haven't seen a single family member or friend (even my grandmother) get a virus since Windows 98. I don't think there's been a huge fast-spreading Windows virus since that era either (maybe pre-SP2 Windows XP, but I honestly don't remember). XP SP2 is an incredibly hardened OS, and Vista is as secure or more secure than Linux or OS X out there in terms of viruses thanks to the addition of UAC.
while i wouldn't say uac helps make vista more secure... both xpsp2 and vista are solid oses. i intern at symantec doing testing and you have to do some pretty stupid things to get viruses. so yeah i'd agree with you
post #37 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by maarek99 View Post
Windows is best. Go with it and just learn to use it.
Thats certainly up for discussion.
post #38 of 98
Quote:
My topic is about sound, which has the best sound
If configured properly, all OS are capable of delivering very good sound.


Quote:
I've gotten like 5-10, also crashes and bluescrens. Viruses also reproduce etc.
If that's the case, then I guess you don't know Windows as well as you think you do...
post #39 of 98
Any modern OS can deliver bit perfect (this is indeed the best an OS can do) sound out. There are different kinds of players for all three major OSses, it's really up to preference. I really liked Winamp with its library on windows, but now that I've been using Gentoo Linux Amarok has proved to be very good, if not better. And it's free.

My ALSA is very plainly configurated. Pure, nonmixed signal from one application at time. I'm pretty sure it's bitperfect. I don't watch youtube videos that often and if I happen to see, only thing I have to do is to stop the flow of music. Can be very painful at least, though. Usually I let the album run to its end and then I watch those all-important videos. Once I checked dmix if it was any good, but the quality is frankly kmixer-level. That PulseAudio might have some answers to me, but it can be a bitch to configure. I live happily with this combination. Not everything needs flashy sound alarms and clickety clackety cow bells and whatnot. There's just music and my albums. :cheers:
post #40 of 98
I use ubuntu and amarok for just playback. Highly recommendable, because it is a great OS and it is free. They even send you a CD to install it: Get Ubuntu - Download, request a CD, or buy on CD/DVD | Ubuntu

However, if you are really into sound, you have ubuntustudio: Home | Ubuntu Studio
post #41 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by user123456 View Post
No offense, but you're obviously an idiot since you cannot read:



I know more about windows than you will do in your entire life, and I'm happy if I can find a better solution than this crappy operative-system.

You maybe use windows very little and therefore you feel it's great even though you've not seen all the negatives.

Sorry to the mods, I get mad when people who know nothing of what they are talking about make a judgement on people they don't know.
Both you and the person you quoted are being silly. The person you quoted for making the blanket statement 'windows is best', you for saying you know the OS so well.

First off, the length of time you've used it has no bearing on your proficiency with it. A good buddy of mine has been using Windows as long as I have. His PC (which I fix every year or two, usually in exchange for some good whisky ) is a quagmire of spyware, adware and viruses. The difference is that computers interest me as a hobby, whereas he's only an end-user.

Second, there really is no perfect OS. Windows definitely has more than its share of issues, but so do OSX and every flavor of Linux.

At the end of the day, if you're experiencing bsods and getting viruses in Windows, you're doing something wrong and are nowhere near the expert you think you are.
post #42 of 98
Back on topic, in my (limited) experience, I've certainly found Windows the best in terms of usability for audio. Should note, I've never used MacOS, but compared to Linux on the same it's been all one way traffic:

1) First and foremost is the software support:
a) Gapless playback is an absolute must, and for whatever reason the people who are working on gstreamer don't seem to get this.

b) While I don't mind getting to grips with a few programs in depth to do specialised tasks, generally work or technical related, for simple audio playback this isn't the case and there isn't an, as yet, usable simple player for Linux that I've found. I absolutely can't stand the "media library" type programs, which seem more focused on people whose collections are single songs rather than albums, have little access to tags other than Artist/Track, and have things like,eg, "Ratings" systems. (I know if I like a track, I don't have to remind myself.) In general, the most developed Linux programs seem to be of this kind, not withstanding mpd, which I've not even once managed to configure...

c) all widely used professional software is Windows based (and Mac?), and that won't change anytime in the near future.

2) Straight out-of-box hardware support, no operating system can touch Windows at the moment, although Ubuntu (I have most recent experience with this distribution, but have tried Red Hat and Mandrake in the past) has made huge inroads recently, especially with Hardy. Case in point, new motherboard had onboard Realtek chip, and it took me a complete recompile of the audio core in Linux for it to work. For the vast majority of potential users, this is simply unacceptable and certainly was frustrating.

All, of course, do have room for improvement!
post #43 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurck View Post
...At the end of the day, if you're experiencing bsods and getting viruses in Windows, you're doing something wrong and are nowhere near the expert you think you are.
Excellent post.
post #44 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by progo View Post
<snip> Any modern OS can deliver bit perfect (this is indeed the best an OS can do) sound out. </snip>

<snip> My ALSA is very plainly configurated. Pure, nonmixed signal from one application at time. I'm pretty sure it's bitperfect.I live happily with this combination. </snip>

<snip> Not everything needs flashy sound alarms and clickety clackety cow bells and whatnot. There's just music and my albums. :cheers:</snip>
Well said and to the point.

I think that's what this post was all about. Pick your poison and go w/it. A linux box can do very nicely if you choose your distro and hardware wisely. As I'm sure a Mac or Windows box could do.
post #45 of 98
Yawn.. Sure, any of them can work but it would be a lot more interesting to hear from individuals who know about each platform without resorting to name calling.

Anyone can have a preference but when the reasoning is.. "oh, because I said so.." It starts descending into nonsense. This thread was doing pretty well until the weak one liner replies.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Windows vs Mac vs Linux