Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 22:52 UTC
Windows Heck, Microsoft really weren't kidding when they said Windows 7 was the fastest-selling operating system in the world. NetApplications released its figures for January 2010, and it seems that after only three months of availability, Microsoft's latest baby has already hit the 10% market share mark.
Thread beginning with comment 407590
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Why is this a supprise?
by Laurence on Wed 3rd Feb 2010 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why is this a supprise?"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I thought linux DAWs were still in the dark ages compared to what is on mac/windows. What do you use, and how do you find it?


Linux DAWs are terrible compared to Windows/Mac counterparts.

However, I've heard producers make awesome tracks in the most basic of sequencers and I've heard some real sh*t produced on Cubase / Logic.

So while it makes a huge difference getting the right tools - at the end of the day you're either talented or you're not.

Reply Parent Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Well, I am far from talented, but last time I tried things on linux there was some pretty serious setup required, and even after putting in quite a bit of effort, I still had pretty bad latency and quality issues. Same hardware on windows gave much better results, although that was with an old copy of ableton live a friend gave me

Reply Parent Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Well, I am far from talented, but last time I tried things on linux there was some pretty serious setup required, and even after putting in quite a bit of effort, I still had pretty bad latency and quality issues. Same hardware on windows gave much better results, although that was with an old copy of ableton live a friend gave me


Ableton geared towards live performance, so smooth, low latency playback is a bigger priority than with many other DAWs.

In fact, I've found it to out perform some arguably lesser capable suites like FL Studio.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Linux DAWs are terrible compared to Windows/Mac counterparts.


It's not Pro-tools but it won't cost you your first-born either.

So while it makes a huge difference getting the right tools


I think it's more about knowing how to use the tools you have. People created good sounding recordings before we even had DAW's and the first DAW's wasn't exactly stellar either by todays standards. I'm pretty sure Ardour outclass the ProTools Billy Idol used back in 1993 to create cyberpunk yet that album sound good.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


I think it's more about knowing how to use the tools you have. People created good sounding recordings before we even had DAW's and the first DAW's wasn't exactly stellar either by todays standards. I'm pretty sure Ardour outclass the ProTools Billy Idol used back in 1993 to create cyberpunk yet that album sound good.

Which is exactly what I said.
In fact, the way you've quoted my post takes the comment somewhat out of context.


however, to use your specific example, I don't think it's fair to compare old technology to new as the expectations of production is much greater now.

Even with new records that are designed to sound old, if you listen carefully you notice that the mastering is completely different (the kicks have more bass, the hats are sharper, the synths have more body to them. etc)

In fact, seeming as we're already off topic, I'll mention that this is one of my pet grips with modern music.
The expected standard of production is now so high that I sometimes feel it detracts from the creative element of production.
For example, an album like The Cure's 'Pornography' just wouldn't get released by todays standards as the guitars are muddy, effects on vocals are over used so it makes the sound like they're sitting further back in the mix than they are and the bass lacks any definition.
However, I love the album. It's a creative masterpiece.


Anyway, going back to the original tangent: if you're serious about music product, then Linux tools are very immature compared to Windows and OS X counterparts. Sure, you can use Linux, but when creativity is hard enough already, why make life harder using the sub-standard software?

I know this is a very negative comment to make, but it's the sad truth. I use Linux in nearly 100% of my life (even have Android on my phone) but every time I try and produce in Linux I always end up falling back into Windows XP as the software I have on there is just better. My hardware works better (some of my kit doesn't even work in Linux), the interface is better, the sound quality is often (but not always) better and the tools are better.
And it's literally the only reason I keep XP on my laptop otherwise I'd have wiped XP and have a Linux only set up.
I've even debated with coding my own DAW for Linux, but sadly I just don't have the time and it's probably better that existing ones were improved.

So yes, you can product in Linux but it's not worth the hassle if you plan to take producing seriously.

Edited 2010-02-03 19:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26



It's not Pro-tools but it won't cost you your first-born either.


FL Studio costs about as much as a copy of Windows7 and can stll create some professional sounds.

Sure, it's not the best DAW on the market, but it still outclasses every sample-based sequencer I've used on Linux.

So I think you're being a little unfair comparing the upper most top end of studio gear with open source.

Reply Parent Score: 2