__/ [ Larry Qualig ] on Monday 13 March 2006 15:50 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [ Jim Richardson ] on Sunday 12 March 2006 19:30 \__
>> > On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:01:44 +0100,
>> > Roy Culley <rgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> Seems you have got your knickers in a twist Larry boy. Only to be
>> >> expected I suppose but from what I've seen in followups you come
>> >> across as exceedingly immature and naive even to the extent of
>> >> thinking that some forged posts were from me.
>> >> Suffice to say Larry, that when I said you were an arsehole you were
>> >> also plonked. You have shown yourself to be a wintroll and arsehole on
>> >> numerous occasions. Your reply to Peter was just one too many.
>> > he got suckered in by a forger, not a very good forge, but perhaps
>> > sufficient unto the task.
>> That aside, Larry has been changing his tune recently. For a while, I
>> could have balanced conversations with him, but that bias of contempt and
>> prejudice towards Linux. However, I continue to suspect that the forger,
>> as well as Peter, have got his sentiments vexed up.
> By the way Roy... read your original response to my post in the "Low
> Latency Audio." My post did not mention any operating system or
> software. I simply spoke about the issues of audio latency in a generic
> You attributed - "but that bias of contempt and prejudice towards
> Linux.." Now read your own post but substitute "bias of contempt and
> prejudice against Microsoft" and apply it to your response in that
> *-*-* "But why miss the point that latency was too high in previous
> (and current) versions of Windows? While Microsoft boast a 'feature' in
> Vista, I call it a bugfix.... A good start would be to trim the bloat
> off the operating system. Windows is always busy doing *something.*
> ...Fan burnouts are more of a Windows issue, for a reason.... etc,
> What does any of this have to do with low latency audio? What does
> anything in your post have to do with low latency audio? Seems that
> your post was nothing but some back-handed attack against Windows and
> had absolutely nothing to do with audio at all.
> You claim that you're a bright guy and I'm willing to accept your
> claim. I'm not looking for a response/reply to this but put down your
> rose-colored linux glasses for a few moments and look at some of your
> posts (this last one for example). Then ask yourself if these posts are
> fair and intellectually honest or not. You may not like what the answer
You are right on that last point. I got a little carried away, so the
arguments drifted off-topic. This tends to happen when you type almost as
quickly as you think. You never bother to step back and proofread, let
alone do a consistency or a 'reality check'.
The point I was trying to make was that in Windows XP (as in predecessors,
but only worse), many processes struggle for resources becausevarious
operations are programmed and invoked excessively. As an outcome, I often
find it unresponsive, especially in the absence of a decent chunk of RAM and
a strong, recently-purchased PC. Sound latency and interferences are
sometimes a result of this struggle for resources.
Consider yourself lucky if all your desktops and laptops are fairly modern.
I very much enjoy using AmaroK for all my music needs and I also did some
audio editing in the past. Winamp, which I have used since I was 15, seems
to be on par with XMMS, but AmaroK seems more like the equivalent of iTunes
and Media Player. On the contrary, it's open.
PS - I don't wear glasses. I'm actually in excellent shape.
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: most popular O/S, yet not most widespread
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:25pm up 5 days 9:02, 7 users, load average: 0.65, 0.58, 0.60
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms