beware of the updates you install

[William Sommerwerck]

Most in this group are knowledgeable computer users. But an occasional
reminder to "Beware!" can't hurt.

Some months back I installed the Microsoft compatibility update that allows
Office 2000 programs to read and write XML files (.docs, .xlsx, etc). (It
works fine, by the way.)

The problem is that the new formats appeared with Office 2007. Windows Update
now thought my Office software was the 2007 version. I started receiving
prompts to install security updates for it.

Common sense told me it wouldn't be a good idea to modify Office 2000 programs
with Office 2007 updates. So when updates were needed, I cleared the
checkboxes for these. Unfortunately...

Yesterday, I accidentally clicked the wrong button, and they were installed.
It was particularly annoying that repeated clicks on the "Halt the Update!"
button had no effect.

The result was that Word 2000 (and the other Office components, I assume) were
buggered. The Preview display was screwed up, and I got error messages when I
tried to print.

Fortunately, reversing the updates' installation and restarting the computer
fixed the problem. I was out only 15 minutes' inconvenience.

Don't assume factory-recommended updates are appropriate. Look before you
leap, and all those other clich�s.


"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right questions."
-- Edwin Land

[N_Cook]

The other cliche , pertinent to electronic repair, if it ain't broke ,
don't poke

[dave]

On 11/07/2013 04:10 AM, N_Cook wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 11:25, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Most in this group are knowledgeable computer users. But an occasional
>> reminder to "Beware!" can't hurt.

>

> The other cliche , pertinent to electronic repair, if it ain't broke ,
> don't poke

I never update, as a rule. This version of Mint is the 3 kernel but over
2 years old. It never updates automatically. knock on wood.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

I update nothing, period.

Lemme tellya a little story that happened to me recently. I had something called zarumba.exe or something like that. It was trying to install someting nasty on my laptop (Vista) and it somehow bypassed UAC. Well maybe not really.

I had been getting hags to update Java for some time but kept telling it no. Every reboot, and I almost never reboot. However this virus or whatever it was seems to exploit a security hole you may have heard of in a certain Java update.

With this baby there it was nagging me every minute for the Java update.

I run bareback. I do not really suf, and I am not going to get a virus here, or from tvrepairtips or repairwold or americanfreepress or the other fora I haunt. I do not game and I do not facebook. I do not open email attachments unless they are pictures, and even then I am careful. Sometimes I am leery of something so I will download it and if a JPG I'll open it in Paintshop Pro, or other things in Irfanview. Media files if I have ANY doubt I will open them in VLC. I use Office 97 Pro so I doubt any macro type virus can get through that.

When I get bit by something I have not had system restore fail to fix it. That's what happened last time.

I take that back, this is Vista, on an XP box a few years ago system restore would not remove "Secret Crush" or something like that, but I think that is a very sophisticated virus which I believe infects the BIOS. I have my reasons for beliving that, because both PCs that got it had those types opf problems. One in the RAM controller. It would run fine with ½ GB RAM or 1½ GB RAM but not 1 GB (which is what it came with) It was ransdomly rebooting and I pulled a stick out and it ran fine. Put in a different ½ GB stick and same shit. switched them out and found out none of the RAM was bad.

Both machines benefitted from a total reset, I mean the kind that gives you the checksum error. You just have to fuckup the BIOS bad enough that it reverts to ROM or whatever, and then you're clear.

The stupid fuck who put that virus on BOTH my PCs no longer has any access. He has his own to fuck up now. After all that, nobody touches my PCs. Where I live now my "server" I guess you would call it is on the network and if anyone wants the media or files off it they can just connect to the network. There are three people here and seven PCs, nobody has to touch mine.

The only thing wrong with the system right now is I got one of those laser printers (recently fixed you may have heard) that I set up to share on the network and that stopped working a few days ago. It prints locally but not from other PCs. Not a big issue.

I am going to continue to run XP on the one box forever. Some say that is going to let me open to fifty million virii and shit but that is bullshit. There aren't going to all the sudden be more virii for XP, in fact more likely the opposite. The new bugs will probably be incompatible with XP.

I would go so far to say that you would probably be safe running 98 again because the virii they write now are too advanced to even load in it. Of course I could be wrong, but my shit runs.

And it runs well. I go up to people's PCs, even newer ones, and I cannot believe how damn slow they are. What's more, you shoud see how fast the old software is on newer PCs.

I'm a spoiled brat now when it comes to PC speed. What's more I am a cheap spoiled brat. I am out of the loop they got most people in, which is ; update the software until the hardware won't work, then update the hardware and find the old software won't work. Then update the software until the new hardware won't work, and on and on and on.

I'd run Win 3.11 if I could get it to get online. Technically I think you can but it's really more trouble than it's worth.

[Nil]

On 07 Nov 2013, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net>
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Some months back I installed the Microsoft compatibility update
> that allows Office 2000 programs to read and write XML files
> (.docs, .xlsx, etc). (It works fine, by the way.)
>
> The problem is that the new formats appeared with Office 2007.
> Windows Update now thought my Office software was the 2007
> version. I started receiving prompts to install security updates
> for it.
>
> Common sense told me it wouldn't be a good idea to modify Office
> 2000 programs with Office 2007 updates. So when updates were
> needed, I cleared the checkboxes for these. Unfortunately...

I think you've let a misconception creep in at this point. The "Office
2007" updates are being presented to you to update the compatibility
pack, not your original Office 2000 installation. If Office 2000 is
still eligible for updates, you would still receive those, too.

> Yesterday, I accidentally clicked the wrong button, and they were
> installed. It was particularly annoying that repeated clicks on
> the "Halt the Update!" button had no effect.

I think this is where things went wrong. It sounds to me like you wound
up with half-installed updates.

This isn't to say that updates can't go wrong, but I've accepting
updates for the compatibility pack for years, and the Office 2003 setup
on all the computers I control still work just fine.

[sctvguy1]

> you leap, and all those other clichés.

>
>
> "We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
> questions." -- Edwin Land

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

[William Sommerwerck]

"sctvguy1" wrote in message news:l5gp4p$9m8$2...@dont-email.me...

> I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs? Canon
and Epson scanners?

Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what some
people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.

[geoff]

sctvguy1 wrote:
>
> I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

I'm sure if OP had let things do themselves without interference he wouldn't
had had the slight 15 minute inconvenience that he he. Hardly a reason to
ditch an OS and all the applications he knows and loves ....

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

"Nil" wrote in message news:XnsA2717DB3...@wheedledeedle.moc...

On 07 Nov 2013, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net>
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Some months back I installed the Microsoft compatibility update
> that allows Office 2000 programs to read and write XML files
> (.docs, .xlsx, etc). (It works fine, by the way.)

> The problem is that the new formats appeared with Office 2007.
> Windows Update now thought my Office software was the 2007
> version. I started receiving prompts to install security updates
> for it.

> Common sense told me it wouldn't be a good idea to modify Office
> 2000 programs with Office 2007 updates. So when updates were
> needed, I cleared the checkboxes for these. Unfortunately...

> I think you've let a misconception creep in at this point. The "Office
> 2007" updates are being presented to you to update the compatibility
> pack, not your original Office 2000 installation. If Office 2000 is
> still eligible for updates, you would still receive those, too.

I'm not sure about that. There were 8 or 9 updates, not just one for the
compatibility pack.

>> Yesterday, I accidentally clicked the wrong button, and they were
>> installed. It was particularly annoying that repeated clicks on
>> the "Halt the Update!" button had no effect.

> I think this is where things went wrong. It sounds to me like you wound
> up with half-installed updates.

I don't think so, because it reached the point where "all updates installed"
was reported.

> This isn't to say that updates can't go wrong, but I've accepting
> updates for the compatibility pack for years, and the Office 2003
> setup on all the computers I control still work just fine.

Should these show up again, I'll look at their names and confirm that they
were just for the compatibility pack.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Nil" wrote in message news:XnsA2717DB3...@wheedledeedle.moc...

> I think you've let a misconception creep in at this point. The "Office
> 2007" updates are being presented to you to update the compatibility
> pack, not your original Office 2000 installation. If Office 2000 is
> still eligible for updates, you would still receive those, too.

I just checked.

There are 8 updates labeled "Security Update for Microsoft Office 2007
suites", varying in size from 763KB to 7.7MB. There is 692KB "Security Update
for Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007". Their purpose is described thusly:

"A security vulnerability exists in Microsoft Office 2007 suites that could
allow arbitrary code to run when a maliciously modified file is opened. This
update resolves that vulnerability.

There is a 1.6MB "Update for Microsoft Office 2007 suites". "This update
provides the latest fixes to Microsoft Office 2007 suites." Why would I apply
them to Office 2000?

Nowhere is anything said about the compatibility pack.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
news:qKidnYIY-aahbubP...@giganews.com...

I'm sure if OP had let things do themselves without interference he wouldn't
had had the slight 15 minute inconvenience that he he. Hardly a reason to
ditch an OS and all the applications he knows and loves ....

See the newer posting in which I claim that the installation appeared to have
completed.

[Nil]

On 07 Nov 2013, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net>
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Should these show up again, I'll look at their names and confirm
> that they were just for the compatibility pack.

They won't say that. They aren't well-named, but the updates are for
both the compatibility pack and Office 2007.

[Nil]

On 07 Nov 2013, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net>
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> There is a 1.6MB "Update for Microsoft Office 2007 suites". "This
> update provides the latest fixes to Microsoft Office 2007 suites."
> Why would I apply them to Office 2000?

You won't be. They will update the Compatibility pack components, not
Office 2000 itself.

[sctvguy1]

I run Libre/Open Office which has the same functions as Word, and the
same basic interfaces. Also, imports Word documents and reads them.
Same for the other parts of the Microsoft Office suite.
As for Photoshop, there is GIMP, a clone for Linux that is FREE. It has
the same power as Photoshop.
As for laser/inkjet printers, no real problems. I have run HP and am
presently running Brother laser printers(HL-1440). I also run Canon LiDE
20 and 35 scanners, no problems.
Just pick a linux distro from someplace like distrowatch.com, burn it to
DVD or CD, and run it live, see if it works for you.

[sctvguy1]

The only people who seem to love Windows, are techs who make money
"fixing" problems and re-installing everything when it gets infected.

[William Sommerwerck]

"sctvguy1" wrote in message news:l5h49b$l4n$3...@dont-email.me...

> The only people who seem to love Windows, are techs who make money
> "fixing" problems and re-installing everything when it gets infected.

I can't say that I "love" Windows, but it works.

[Jason]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 22:28:54 +0000 (UTC) "sctvguy1" <sctv...@invalid.net>
wrote in article <l5h475$l4n$2...@dont-email.me>

GIMP's ok - I've used it quite a bit, but I use Photoshop almost every
day and GIMP is by no means a clone.

I have Linux on one machine here and use it for tinkering. If some of the
major Windows apps ran on it I'd happily toss Windoze, but they don't.

Lots of Adobe customers have asked for Linux versions. There actually was
an early version of Photoshop for Unix, but the Adobe developers
concluded that X wasn't an adequate windowing platform and gave up rather
than develop their own. Now that the Adobe products are subscription-
based you'd have to get Adobe to port not only the applications but the
Creative Cloud manager to Linux. They seem not to be interested :-(

[dave]

Canon has very good Linux support. Do you really need Photoshop? GIMP
works fine for me and the price can't be beat. Linux productivity apps
are as good as they get. You just don't get DirectX, which pisses me off.

[dave]

Windows mocks the user incessantly. It is the Trabant of operating systems.

[hank alrich]

sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:01:57 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> > "sctvguy1" wrote in message news:l5gp4p$9m8$2...@dont-email.me...
> >
> >> I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.
> >
> > Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs?
> > Canon and Epson scanners?
> >
> > Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
> > some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.
>
> I run Libre/Open Office which has the same functions as Word, and the
> same basic interfaces. Also, imports Word documents and reads them.
> Same for the other parts of the Microsoft Office suite.
> As for Photoshop, there is GIMP, a clone for Linux that is FREE. It has
> the same power as Photoshop.

That is disupted by several excellent photogs I know, though they say
it's close.

One has said this is fully equivalent:

http://www.pl32.com/

I've been using it buy needs, and skills, are paltry. It is much easier
for a non-geek to manage that is GIMP, which I used for several years
before finding Photoline.

> As for laser/inkjet printers, no real problems. I have run HP and am
> presently running Brother laser printers(HL-1440). I also run Canon LiDE
> 20 and 35 scanners, no problems.
> Just pick a linux distro from someplace like distrowatch.com, burn it to
> DVD or CD, and run it live, see if it works for you.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> "sctvguy1" wrote in message news:l5gp4p$9m8$2...@dont-email.me...
>
>> I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.
>
> Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs? Canon
> and Epson scanners?
>

I've had a Canon scanner for years, have never had a problem.

The reality is, most people (like the type who crosspost off-topic threads
like this to their favorite newsgroups rather than find the right place to
post it) experience Windows and nothing else. Hence everything has to
compare to it.

The one time I used Word was on a Mac Plus 19 years ago, it had a driver
for a plain printer rather than an Imagewriter, so I could use my old dot
matrix printer, using my Radio Shack Model 100 laptop as a serial to
parallel converter. I also bought it cheap at a garage sale.

I haven't a clue what Ventura is, and only know of Photoshop because
people talk about it.

Yes, I'm the odd one, I've never run Windows. I've dabbled in it, someone
else's computer or getting a "new" computer before I erase Windows. It's
really odd, I can't find things, I have no idea how to do specific things.
Sure, the general motions are the same, but people fit Windows because
that's what they know.

Since I've never really used WIndows, I have no comparison. GIMP works
for me, it does what I need. If it's missing something, I have no idea
since I've not used the overloaded Photoshop. There was a whole period,
fifteen years ago, when people would send me Word files that I couldn't
rad, but that's simmered down, they've caught on that files should be in a
more universal standard. Just because "everyone runs Windows" doesnt'
mean I should be seen as riffraff.

> Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what some
> people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.
>

I never bought into it in th first place, barely used MSDOS for that
matter. I have absolutely no argument with WIndows, since I really know
little about it. I do have a big argument with people assuming the whole
world uses Windows, and if we don't, we are the problem.

Michael

[Trevor]

"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org...

> read,

Even then there were Linux programs readily available to read Word docs and
Photoshop images. No idea about Ventura.

>but that's simmered down, they've caught on that files should be in a more
>universal standard. Just because "everyone runs Windows" doesnt' mean I
>should be seen as riffraff.

Just because people don't need to care what you choose to do, doesn't mean
they have any opionion of you one way or the other.

>> Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
>> some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.
>>
> I never bought into it in th first place, barely used MSDOS for that
> matter. I have absolutely no argument with WIndows, since I really know
> little about it. I do have a big argument with people assuming the whole
> world uses Windows, and if we don't, we are the problem.

Nope, not the whole world, but 90% makes for a fair majority. Just as
English is the default language on the internet, many people can and do
choose to stick with what they know instead. And since English is not the
first language of 90% of computer users, a far better case can be made for
some people using another one! Doesn't mean you have to learn it though.
Thankfully or the whole world would do nothing but learn dozens of
languages. Same goes for companies who choose to support only the majority
operating systems, and users who prefer a mainstream "standard".

Trevor.

[Mike McGinn]

On 2013-11-07, Jeff Henig <yom...@yomama.com> wrote:

> "Love"?
>
> Sorry, we don't all sexualize our digits.
>
> Personally, I use what I'm used to using because I want to make music, not
> learn another OS that might or might not work for what I need.
>

I have been using Linux almost exclusively for ten years. I prefer it,
it works well for me. I do a lot of software development and it is well
suited for that. I do have Windows and Linux machines I deal with at
work. Updates are much simpler on Linux than Windows. I like that it is
very gard to get a virus in Linux unless you do something really stupid.

Having said that, I think people should use what they like and what
suits them. I think arguing about operating systems is as pointless as
arguing over religion.

Can we get back to radios now? I have an old Tek 453 on the getting some
power supply work. Those are tight little units, but I like them. They
are funky. It is amazing how they crammed so much performance in a small
package in 1966. I'll be looking for a 454 when this is done.

For me that is a lot of the charm of working on old stuff. I realized it
as a teen back in the early '70s when the Staten Island Historical
Society let me work on their antique radio collection. It is amazing
what they did with what they had.



--
Mike McGinn KD2CNU
"More kidneys than eyes."

[Joe Bento]

On 11/7/2013 8:39 PM, Mike McGinn wrote:

> Can we get back to radios now? I have an old Tek 453 on the getting some
> power supply work. Those are tight little units, but I like them. They
> are funky. It is amazing how they crammed so much performance in a small
> package in 1966. I'll be looking for a 454 when this is done.
>

Certainly. We'll just go for a couple weeks with essentially zero
messages posted other than the occasional, "Is anyone home?" :-)

Joe, N6DGY

[geoff]

Lidiots are just about worse than iDdicts.

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

If Windows (and to a lesser degree, the Mac OS) didn't exist, there would
likely be a plethora of operating systems, and people would be complaining
"Why can't we have a single standard?".

I do not grovel in front of Windows. I use it because it's what I started with
when I worked at Microsoft, and it has the widest range of available
applications. It also works well.

The basic problem with Windows is that it's designed to be a more or less
universal OS that meets just about anyone's needs. Unfortunately, Microsoft
has never put out the effort to minimize the amount of "fussing" a serious
user has to go through to get the most out of the system.

I strongly recommend the book "Windows 7 Annoyances". It has good chapters on
security and networking that are almost worth the price of the book.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>If Windows (and to a lesser degree, the Mac OS) didn't exist, there would
>likely be a plethora of operating systems, and people would be complaining
>"Why can't we have a single standard?".

And this was what it was like in the seventies and eighties. And, overall
it was a good thing because it encouraged people to make their applications
portable.

I think having a heterogeneous environment is a good thing for a lot of
different reasons, not just because it makes malware propagation more
difficult but also because it forces people to think about the compromises
being made in their implementations.

It also means that people developing more complex systems based around a
computer (like a DAW for instance) have more choices. Often those systems
have requirements which are very different than those of "general purpose"
computing appliances and it is good to have such choices available when they
are needed.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> If Windows (and to a lesser degree, the Mac OS) didn't exist, there would
>> likely be a plethora of operating systems, and people would be complaining
>> "Why can't we have a single standard?".
>
> And this was what it was like in the seventies and eighties. And, overall
> it was a good thing because it encouraged people to make their applications
> portable.
>

Portability is pretty expensive. And given how dissimilar platforms
are, it is of mixed value, IMO.

Very basic functionality is quite different from platform to platform.

> I think having a heterogeneous environment is a good thing for a lot of
> different reasons, not just because it makes malware propagation more
> difficult but also because it forces people to think about the compromises
> being made in their implementations.
>

People don't generally like to think about implementations when they
don't have to.

> It also means that people developing more complex systems based around a
> computer (like a DAW for instance) have more choices.

I don't really think we'd have had DAW programs at all had it not been
for Mac and Windows as platforms. Maybe something lire RADAR, but it
wasn't priced to sell. Maybe something like the Amiga, although
it was pretty limited.

> Often those systems
> have requirements which are very different than those of "general purpose"
> computing appliances and it is good to have such choices available when they
> are needed.

Agreed; although it's not clear that the propagation of such systems
would have been ... satisfactory.

The last thing I read about the Linux standards group for audio/
multimedia , they were still designing the basic atoms of things.


> --scott
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:l5ioqo$km5$1...@panix2.panix.com...

> I think having a heterogeneous environment is a good thing for a lot of
> different reasons, not just because it makes malware propagation more
> difficult but also because it forces people to think about the compromises
> being made in their implementations.

> It also means that people developing more complex systems based around a
> computer (like a DAW for instance) have more choices. Often those systems
> have requirements which are very different than those of "general purpose"
> computing appliances and it is good to have such choices available when they
> are needed.

No argument -- in principle -- but isn't Windows+Mac+Linux sufficiently
heterogeneous?

[Scott Dorsey]

Maybe it is. They're all three running on the exact same computer architecture
most of the time, though. And certainly they are far more heterogeneous than
they were even a decade ago.

[dave]

On 11/07/2013 07:35 PM, Trevor wrote:

>
> Nope, not the whole world, but 90% makes for a fair majority. Just as
> English is the default language on the internet, many people can and do
> choose to stick with what they know instead. And since English is not the
> first language of 90% of computer users, a far better case can be made for
> some people using another one! Doesn't mean you have to learn it though.
> Thankfully or the whole world would do nothing but learn dozens of
> languages. Same goes for companies who choose to support only the majority
> operating systems, and users who prefer a mainstream "standard".
>
> Trevor.
>
>

How do you justify paying $200 for a computer operating system that does
nothing but send you places that ask for money? The Windows world is
like North Las Vegas. It is crass, commercial and everyone has to get
their hands dirty. I have a netbook with XP that I need to talk to my
iPod. Next year I plan to buy a Windows7 refurb from a Windows reseller.
They go for between $50 and a $100 n eBay, less than half what a
builder pays for the OS alone. This is only so I can run the Apple crap
and maybe some LT spice. My main surfing machine and my ham radio
machines are 100% open source and commercial free..

[dave]

I love all the shiny gold switches etc. inside Teks.

[dave]

On 11/07/2013 09:02 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:

> Oh hey, I get that. If Linux was what I knew, I'd probably use that,
> myself.
>
> And the old stuff gets respect from me, for sure. I know that modern cars
> are more evolved, but I miss my first car--a 1967 Mustang fastback. And
> right now I'd really enjoy foolin' with an old tube radio for the fun of
> it.
>
>
> Sometimes I do miss the tinkering...
>

If you can use Windows you already know 98% of Linux.

[dave]

On 11/08/2013 05:40 AM, Les Cargill wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Portability is pretty expensive. And given how dissimilar platforms
> are, it is of mixed value, IMO.
>
> Very basic functionality is quite different from platform to platform.
>

You can have a triple boot Notebook if you want. YouTube looks the same
on WIN and *X.

>>
>
> People don't generally like to think about implementations when they
> don't have to.
>

Unless the implements are very shiny.

>
> I don't really think we'd have had DAW programs at all had it not been
> for Mac and Windows as platforms. Maybe something lire RADAR, but it
> wasn't priced to sell. Maybe something like the Amiga, although
> it was pretty limited.

There were DAWs before Windows and Mac

>

>
> Agreed; although it's not clear that the propagation of such systems
> would have been ... satisfactory.
>
> The last thing I read about the Linux standards group for audio/
> multimedia , they were still designing the basic atoms of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio_workstation#Free_and_open_source_software

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=linux+daw

>
>
>> --scott
>>
>>
>
> --
> Les Cargill
>
dave

[dave]

Mac OSX and Linux are cousins (both derived from from AT&T Unix).
Windows is based on patching and quilting and something called "Quick
and Dirty Operating System".

The fastest computers on earth all run Linux.

[dave]

BTW You can occasionally find a Nagra IV-S for under a hundred bucks
here nowadays.

[Les Cargill]

dave wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 05:40 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Portability is pretty expensive. And given how dissimilar platforms
>> are, it is of mixed value, IMO.
>>
>> Very basic functionality is quite different from platform to platform.
>>
>
> You can have a triple boot Notebook if you want. YouTube looks the same
> on WIN and *X.
>

I prefer VMs

>>>
>>
>> People don't generally like to think about implementations when they
>> don't have to.
>>
> Unless the implements are very shiny.
>

I LIKE SHINY THING! SHINY THING GOOD!

>>
>> I don't really think we'd have had DAW programs at all had it not been
>> for Mac and Windows as platforms. Maybe something lire RADAR, but it
>> wasn't priced to sell. Maybe something like the Amiga, although
>> it was pretty limited.
>
> There were DAWs before Windows and Mac

Sorta. But now, we have the capability of a New England Digital system
for much less trouble.

>>
>
>>
>> Agreed; although it's not clear that the propagation of such systems
>> would have been ... satisfactory.
>>
>> The last thing I read about the Linux standards group for audio/
>> multimedia , they were still designing the basic atoms of things.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio_workstation#Free_and_open_source_software
>

The good news is that REAPER runs in Wine...

>
> https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=linux+daw
>
>>
>>
>>> --scott
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>>
> dave

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
>
>BTW You can occasionally find a Nagra IV-S for under a hundred bucks
>here nowadays.

I'll take all you can get at that price. Prices on those machines are
actually rising... they hit rock bottom a few years ago but they now seem
to be getting snapped up by collectors. I have been getting a lot of repair
work from guys buying the things who don't know what they are buying.

[D. Peter Maus]

On 11/7/13 14:01 , William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "sctvguy1" wrote in message news:l5gp4p$9m8$2...@dont-email.me...
>

>> I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.
>

> Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs?
> Canon and Epson scanners?
>

> Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
> some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.
>
>

I had an uncle killed by blueberry pancakes.

[Adrian C]

On 07/11/2013 16:08, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> I update nothing, period.
>
> Lemme tellya a little story that happened to me recently.

<snip>

Uninstall Java or block it from running inside the browser. Unpatched
it's dangerous and you very probably don't need it for anything critical
anyway.

Any other security measures are not wholy needed, the original point of
the internet was to allow folks to freely share information without
hinderance. You should allow open access to all (guest account, public
user group etc...), and willingly accept presents left. Don't leave
things on your machine to take if these things are valuable to you, and
don't configure your machine in such a way that it would be an
uncontrollable nuisance to others.

Now the $64,000 question is - can you really do the above trustily with
Microsoft software, especially with outdated unpatched items? I think not.

In two words - buffer overrun. In one word. Shite.

--
Adrian C

[hank alrich]

It was the antioxidants.

[Mike McGinn]

and the gold on the circuit boards, the ceramic strips, the laced wiring
harnesess and that "built to lst feel."

[geoff]

\
It used to be necessary to optimise this and that, but now with the extra
cpu power available I don't dick with things, and simply install all
suggested updates. And guess what - zero problems for years now .


geoff

[Les Cargill]

dave wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 07:35 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>>
>> Nope, not the whole world, but 90% makes for a fair majority. Just as
>> English is the default language on the internet, many people can and do
>> choose to stick with what they know instead. And since English is not the
>> first language of 90% of computer users, a far better case can be made
>> for
>> some people using another one! Doesn't mean you have to learn it though.
>> Thankfully or the whole world would do nothing but learn dozens of
>> languages. Same goes for companies who choose to support only the
>> majority
>> operating systems, and users who prefer a mainstream "standard".
>>
>> Trevor.
>>
>>
> How do you justify paying $200 for a computer operating system that does
> nothing but send you places that ask for money? The Windows world is
> like North Las Vegas. It is crass, commercial and everyone has to get
> their hands dirty.

I like commercial myself. Hourses for courses...

I have a netbook with XP that I need to talk to my
> iPod. Next year I plan to buy a Windows7 refurb from a Windows reseller.
> They go for between $50 and a $100 n eBay, less than half what a
> builder pays for the OS alone. This is only so I can run the Apple crap
> and maybe some LT spice. My main surfing machine and my ham radio
> machines are 100% open source and commercial free..

Two things:

https://www.virtualbox.org/

and
http://www.itdirectdeals.com/product.asp?itemid=318&gclid=CKOrsLWw1roCFUlp7AodQxAAcw

Fiddy-nine bux, baybee! Plus you can get the VM of Win7 perfectly
stable, copy it and always have a place to roll back to. If
the refurb is a better solution then awesome.

You don't even need to burn a DVD - just point Virtualbox at the .iso
and go.

--
Les Cargill

[Jason]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:19:21 -0800 "dave" <rick...@earthlink.net> wrote
in article <z8ydncGpdfWEgODP...@earthlink.com>

>

> Mac OSX and Linux are cousins (both derived from from AT&T Unix).
> Windows is based on patching and quilting and something called "Quick
> and Dirty Operating System".
>
> The fastest computers on earth all run Linux.

Mac OSX was derived from Berkeley Unix. Linux was written from the ground
up.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
news:SMedndwGxImL5eDP...@giganews.com...

> It used to be necessary to optimise this and that, but now

> with the extra cpu power available I don't dick with things...

When I talk about optimization, I mean in terms of how you want to use the
computer, and the things necessary to create an appropriate (and safe) working
environment. These vary from user to user.


> ...and simply install all suggested updates. And guess what --
> zero problems for years now.

Well, I had a problem -- and I don't believe it was caused by incomplete
installation of the updates I'd perceived as dangerous.

I could try installing them again, and see what happens, knowing I can almost
certainly reverse the installation. (The worst that could happen is having to
reinstall Office 2000.) But I'm not going to. It isn't worth the trouble.

[Leif Neland]

hank alrich forklarede:

> D. Peter Maus <dpete...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/13 14:01 , William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> "sctvguy1" wrote in message news:l5gp4p$9m8$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>> I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.
>>>
>>> Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs?
>>> Canon and Epson scanners?
>>>
>>> Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
>>> some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I had an uncle killed by blueberry pancakes.
>
> It was the antioxidants.

Or the free radicals.
"Oh James, _do_ be careful"

Leif

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

[Baron]

sctvguy1 Inscribed thus:

> On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:12:09 +1300, geoff wrote:
>
>> sctvguy1 wrote:
>>>

>>> I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Been running Linux since early 92-93.

>> I'm sure if OP had let things do themselves without interference he
>> wouldn't had had the slight 15 minute inconvenience that he he.
>> Hardly a reason to ditch an OS and all the applications he knows and
>> loves ....
>>
>> geoff
>
> The only people who seem to love Windows, are techs who make money
> "fixing" problems and re-installing everything when it gets infected.

Very true !

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

[Baron]

Jeff Henig Inscribed thus:

> Oh hey, I get that. If Linux was what I knew, I'd probably use that,
> myself.

Download and burn a live CD and have a play with it...

> And the old stuff gets respect from me, for sure. I know that modern
> cars are more evolved, but I miss my first car--a 1967 Mustang
> fastback. And right now I'd really enjoy foolin' with an old tube
> radio for the fun of it.
>
>
> Sometimes I do miss the tinkering...
>

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

[Baron]

dave Inscribed thus:

> On 11/07/2013 12:01 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "sctvguy1" wrote in message news:l5gp4p$9m8$2...@dont-email.me...
>>

>>> I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.
>>

>> Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO?
>> LEGOs? Canon and Epson scanners?
>>
>> Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to
>> what some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry
>> pancakes.
>>
>>

> Canon has very good Linux support. Do you really need Photoshop?
> GIMP works fine for me and the price can't be beat. Linux
> productivity apps are as good as they get. You just don't get
> DirectX, which pisses me off.

I agree ! You can still play with your Lego toys. But why DirectX ?

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:

>dave wrote:
>>>
>> How do you justify paying $200 for a computer operating system that does
>> nothing but send you places that ask for money? The Windows world is
>> like North Las Vegas. It is crass, commercial and everyone has to get
>> their hands dirty.
>
>I like commercial myself. Hourses for courses...

I like commercial operating systems too, and that is why I am so upset
that Microsoft and their financing model has driven most other commercial
operating systems out of the market.

There's Solaris. And there are some commercial Linux releases like Red
Hat and SuSE that give you commercial-grade support even if they don't
give you commercial-grade product up-front. And there's _sort of_ VMS
for a little while anyway.

But since the demise of BeOS there are NO realtime operating systems
intended for desktop use. There are some linux versions with
"soft-realtime" extensions and there are a lot of embedded system
RTOSes and there's sort of QNX if you can get them to deign to speak
to a mere customer.

But I really would like to see a purpose-built DAW again, on a platform
designed for the job.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

BOTTOM POST QUESTION.

SOMEONE CLAIMED THEY USED TO WORK FOR MICROSOFT, IS IT TRUE THAT AT THEIR CORPORATE OFFICES THEY DID NOT USE WINDOWS ? (they use(d) Linux) ?

Or is that an urban legend ?

Seriously, I heard TWO people tell me that. Is it true, or WAS it ?

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> dave wrote:
>>>>
>>> How do you justify paying $200 for a computer operating system that does
>>> nothing but send you places that ask for money? The Windows world is
>>> like North Las Vegas. It is crass, commercial and everyone has to get
>>> their hands dirty.
>>
>> I like commercial myself. Hourses for courses...
>
> I like commercial operating systems too, and that is why I am so upset
> that Microsoft and their financing model has driven most other commercial
> operating systems out of the market.
>
> There's Solaris.

I was forced back onto that recently. Quite unpleasant. The Linuces are
much more advanced. They were actually going to Linux as the solution
to that.

> And there are some commercial Linux releases like Red
> Hat and SuSE that give you commercial-grade support even if they don't
> give you commercial-grade product up-front.

Dunno what's not "commercial grade" about it; it's fine. The general
package management problem in Linux still persists.

> And there's _sort of_ VMS
> for a little while anyway.
>

Not a big fan of VMS.

> But since the demise of BeOS there are NO realtime operating systems
> intended for desktop use.

Hm. Well, I don't have much trouble with that. For "realtime", we
just write drivers. It's not a desktop, but it could be. All
you really need is one free hardware timer.

The various Atmel sized processors really kind of make a realtime
desktop moot. There's stuff like the Raspberry PI and cubieBoard
that can do all that as well.

It might be prohibitive, but I think you could build a cubieBoard
linux that interfaces to one/any of the USB2.0 interfaces using ALSA .
It has HDMI, so there's your display solution. Just NFS mount a remote
desktop/server/NAS.

If the USB2.0 interface has MIDI, you have a control surface solution.

> There are some linux versions with
> "soft-realtime" extensions and there are a lot of embedded system
> RTOSes and there's sort of QNX if you can get them to deign to speak
> to a mere customer.
>

Since the demise of WindRiver, it's pretty much all been Linux that I
could tell.

> But I really would like to see a purpose-built DAW again, on a platform
> designed for the job.

There are curious variations on the theme, like standalone VST hosts.

I kinda don't see the point of it. You can
run any of the COTS DAW packages on a stripped-down machine.

And isn't Otari still shipping RADAR?

> --scott
>

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message news:662faa50-9e4b-4bbd...@googlegroups.com...

It simply isn't true. The last time I worked there was in 2011, I believe, and
Microsoft used Windows.

[Michael Black]

Who knows.

But, don't forget that once upon a time, Microsoft was in the Unix
business. In the early eighties they had their own version, Xenix, and it
was a legit version of Unix, done in conjunction with SCO. You could get
it for Radio Shack's 68000 computer, and for 8086 (I think) computers.

I can certainly seem them using fancier computers for development.

Michael

[Side Job Scooter]

I'm so glad I dumped Windows and switched to Linux back in 05.

Scott


On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 03:25:26 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Most in this group are knowledgeable computer users. But an occasional
> reminder to "Beware!" can't hurt.
>
> Some months back I installed the Microsoft compatibility update that
> allows Office 2000 programs to read and write XML files (.docs, .xlsx,
> etc). (It works fine, by the way.)
>
> The problem is that the new formats appeared with Office 2007. Windows
> Update now thought my Office software was the 2007 version. I started
> receiving prompts to install security updates for it.
>
> Common sense told me it wouldn't be a good idea to modify Office 2000
> programs with Office 2007 updates. So when updates were needed, I
> cleared the checkboxes for these. Unfortunately...
>
> Yesterday, I accidentally clicked the wrong button, and they were
> installed. It was particularly annoying that repeated clicks on the
> "Halt the Update!" button had no effect.
>
> The result was that Word 2000 (and the other Office components, I
> assume) were buggered. The Preview display was screwed up, and I got
> error messages when I tried to print.
>
> Fortunately, reversing the updates' installation and restarting the
> computer fixed the problem. I was out only 15 minutes' inconvenience.
>
> Don't assume factory-recommended updates are appropriate. Look before
> you leap, and all those other clichés.
>
>
> "We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
> questions." -- Edwin Land

[William Sommerwerck]

"Side Job Scooter" wrote in message news:9yNfu.165357$9P6.1...@fx22.iad...

> I'm so glad I dumped Windows and switched to Linux back in 05.

My situation has nothing whatever to do with Windows. Or any other operating
system. That should have been clear from what I posted.

[geoff]

Side Job Scooter wrote:
> I'm so glad I dumped Windows and switched to Linux back in 05.
>
> Scott

I find it amusing that some peoples' OSs appear to give them stiffies.

Unless the OS is actually a (real, not just perceived or religous) problem,
the whole point is the APPLICATIONS !

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
news:yMWdnUosR6msd-LP...@giganews.com...

> Unless the OS is actually a (real, not just perceived or religous)
> problem, the whole point is the APPLICATIONS!

Which is why I've stayed with Windows.

[Trevor]

"dave" <rick...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gu6dnbycf7auh-DP...@earthlink.com...

> How do you justify paying $200 for a computer operating system that does
> nothing but send you places that ask for money?

Well I've never paid $200 for Windows, and I use a firewall. *IF* all the
software I choose to use was available for Linux, AND all the drivers were
available for the hardware I choose to use, I'd happily run Linux on my
computers. Been waiting for a couple of decades for that to happen, and not
holding my breathe though.

> The Windows world is like North Las Vegas. It is crass, commercial and

> everyone has to get their hands dirty. I have a netbook with XP that I

> need to talk to my iPod.

The Apple ipod itunes crap is the only problem, Windows works well with
every other MP3 player that I've ever used. But so does Linux for that
matter.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:l5ma0e$cgp$1...@panix2.panix.com...

> I like commercial operating systems too, and that is why I am so upset
> that Microsoft and their financing model has driven most other commercial
> operating systems out of the market.
>
> There's Solaris. And there are some commercial Linux releases like Red
> Hat and SuSE that give you commercial-grade support even if they don't
> give you commercial-grade product up-front. And there's _sort of_ VMS
> for a little while anyway.
>
> But since the demise of BeOS there are NO realtime operating systems
> intended for desktop use. There are some linux versions with
> "soft-realtime" extensions and there are a lot of embedded system
> RTOSes and there's sort of QNX if you can get them to deign to speak
> to a mere customer.
>
> But I really would like to see a purpose-built DAW again, on a platform
> designed for the job.

In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is now, it was
a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all my multi-track audio
work on generic computers for the last decade, I'm not in a hurry to go down
the expensive, locked in, hope they might give you what you want/need
someday path ever again. Because so many others agree is why those systems
no longer sell.
Some people might want a brand new Nagra tape machine too, but not enough to
make it a commercially viable business plan it seems.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <l5pacr$gpb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>
>In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is now, it was
>a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all my multi-track audio
>work on generic computers for the last decade, I'm not in a hurry to go down
>the expensive, locked in, hope they might give you what you want/need
>someday path ever again. Because so many others agree is why those systems
>no longer sell.

The "throw more CPU power at it and hope it works" philosophy works fine
as long as there's plenty of CPU power for what you want to do. But how
long is that going to continue?

>Some people might want a brand new Nagra tape machine too, but not enough to
>make it a commercially viable business plan it seems.

Dunno, Nagra seems to be doing pretty well right now. They don't sell a lot
of analogue machines, but they're not out of the catalogue yet.

[Trevor]

"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:yMWdnUosR6msd-LP...@giganews.com...
>

> I find it amusing that some peoples' OSs appear to give them stiffies.

Yeh, I find it amusing too, just like those who get stiffies whenever Apple
comes out with an expensive new product. :-)

> Unless the OS is actually a (real, not just perceived or religous)
> problem, the whole point is the APPLICATIONS !

Dead right. I'm not only amused but annoyed they find it necessary to mess
with the desktop interface every time they bring out an update, when all I
want is the fastest way to get to the applications (with support for all the
new hardware technolgy since the last release).
Windows 8 sure aint it IMO :-(

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
>> There's Solaris.
>
>I was forced back onto that recently. Quite unpleasant. The Linuces are
>much more advanced. They were actually going to Linux as the solution
>to that.

See, I would consider Solaris a lot more advanced, in terms of actually having
a solid kernel that has been well-debugged and is stable. Turn off the stupid
java gui and all that crap and you have a very solid OS that does not require
constant patching.

My complaint with Linux is mostly that the Linux community is constantly
changing things, and they often don't change them for the better or the
worse, they just change them for the sake of changing them. This seems like
misplaced effort on the part of developers, but what bothers me is that now
I have to change my stuff unnecessarily.

I would much prefer a system that was actually designed, where someone sat
down and made a decision about what the thing was supposed to do and then
built it to do that and then removed bugs rather than added features.

But... when systems are built like that, they aren't systems for everything,
they are systems for the one thing the designer decided it was supposed to
do. And if that's not what you want... that should be fine because there
should be plenty of other systems out there to do other things.

It's the lack of those other systems that I am bemoaning.

>> And there are some commercial Linux releases like Red
>> Hat and SuSE that give you commercial-grade support even if they don't
>> give you commercial-grade product up-front.
>
>Dunno what's not "commercial grade" about it; it's fine. The general
>package management problem in Linux still persists.

Every week someone finds some security vulnerability that needs to get
patched. Every week someone makes some unneeded change. If there is a
problem with a third-party device driver I can't call up DEC support
on a three-way call and have the DEC developers working with the third-party
guys to fix the problem.

>> But since the demise of BeOS there are NO realtime operating systems
>> intended for desktop use.
>
>Hm. Well, I don't have much trouble with that. For "realtime", we
>just write drivers. It's not a desktop, but it could be. All
>you really need is one free hardware timer.

No, you don't just write drivers. If you want an actual hard realtime
system you either need to wrest control away from the OS and do everything
as one uninterruptable process, or you need an operating system with a
scheduler that assigns timeslices to processes based upon how much time
those processes need to make deadline. When you make a call to the operating
system, say open(), one of the parameters is how long you have to wait for
the OS to do the job, and the kernel will prioritize the call appropriately
to make sure all those calls return in time.

The alternative is just to throw CPU at the problem and hope everybody can
meet deadline. This is called "soft realtime" and sometimes it works and
sometimes it doesn't. What is evil is that sometimes it's not always obvious
at the time that data is being lost because there is no way for the kernel
or the application to flag that it's missing deadlines in many cases.

>The various Atmel sized processors really kind of make a realtime
>desktop moot. There's stuff like the Raspberry PI and cubieBoard
>that can do all that as well.

Sure, but can I run a DAW on it?

>It might be prohibitive, but I think you could build a cubieBoard
>linux that interfaces to one/any of the USB2.0 interfaces using ALSA .
>It has HDMI, so there's your display solution. Just NFS mount a remote
>desktop/server/NAS.
>
>If the USB2.0 interface has MIDI, you have a control surface solution.

Could be, but I'm still holding out for hard-realtime.

>> But I really would like to see a purpose-built DAW again, on a platform
>> designed for the job.
>
>There are curious variations on the theme, like standalone VST hosts.

Which is a very, very cool idea. I just saw one being used for PA
applications not long ago!

>I kinda don't see the point of it. You can
>run any of the COTS DAW packages on a stripped-down machine.
>
>And isn't Otari still shipping RADAR?

They are, which is really BeOS inside, secretly.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:l5pb3b$lep$1...@panix2.panix.com...

>>In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is now, it
>>was
>>a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all my multi-track
>>audio
>>work on generic computers for the last decade, I'm not in a hurry to go
>>down
>>the expensive, locked in, hope they might give you what you want/need
>>someday path ever again. Because so many others agree is why those systems
>>no longer sell.
>
> The "throw more CPU power at it and hope it works" philosophy works fine
> as long as there's plenty of CPU power for what you want to do. But how
> long is that going to continue?

Until the next "dark ages". Technology usually moves forward not backwards.

>>Some people might want a brand new Nagra tape machine too, but not enough
>>to
>>make it a commercially viable business plan it seems.
>
> Dunno, Nagra seems to be doing pretty well right now. They don't sell a
> lot
> of analogue machines

Exactly, I specifically said "*tape* machine". Where are the new models?
Can't justify the development costs would be my guess.

Trevor.

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <l5pacr$gpb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is
>> now, it was a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all
>> my multi-track audio work on generic computers for the last decade,
>> I'm not in a hurry to go down the expensive, locked in, hope they
>> might give you what you want/need someday path ever again. Because
>> so many others agree is why those systems no longer sell.
>
> The "throw more CPU power at it and hope it works" philosophy works
> fine
> as long as there's plenty of CPU power for what you want to do. But
> how long is that going to continue?

Seems to be increasing true wrt audio, given the continued rate of increase
in CPU horsepower and RAM size versus software requirement on it. Even
CPU-hungry plugins don't seem to be the problem they used to be.

This applies to everything I've ever done, except for video-rendering which
is and probably always will be ever-expanding in the resource demand dept
.....


geoff

[geoff]

Fortunately it's mostly easily-fixable for free.

www.classicshell.net .

geoff

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I would much prefer a system that was actually designed, where
> someone sat down and made a decision about what the thing was
> supposed to do and then built it to do that and then removed bugs
> rather than added features.

Chicken-egg thing really. Features need to be added because of commercial
really - other products may sport such features (sometimes even good and
truely useful ones !) , and 'whatever' OS needs to keep it's user base to
survive.

geoff

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There's Solaris.
>>
>> I was forced back onto that recently. Quite unpleasant. The Linuces are
>> much more advanced. They were actually going to Linux as the solution
>> to that.
>
> See, I would consider Solaris a lot more advanced, in terms of actually having
> a solid kernel that has been well-debugged and is stable. Turn off the stupid
> java gui and all that crap and you have a very solid OS that does not require
> constant patching.
>

It is solid.

> My complaint with Linux is mostly that the Linux community is constantly
> changing things, and they often don't change them for the better or the
> worse, they just change them for the sake of changing them. This seems like
> misplaced effort on the part of developers, but what bothers me is that now
> I have to change my stuff unnecessarily.
>

Can't argue there.

> I would much prefer a system that was actually designed, where someone sat
> down and made a decision about what the thing was supposed to do and then
> built it to do that and then removed bugs rather than added features.
>
> But... when systems are built like that, they aren't systems for everything,
> they are systems for the one thing the designer decided it was supposed to
> do. And if that's not what you want... that should be fine because there
> should be plenty of other systems out there to do other things.
>
> It's the lack of those other systems that I am bemoaning.
>

The general ... Leviathan nature of mass market computing means people
will adapt the general to the specific, because it costs much less than
designing for specific from the git-go.

And frankly, it's not something I'd consider a very real problem at
this writing. I can run a DAW in a VM at times ( because the VM is 32
bit ) and nary a glitch.

>>> And there are some commercial Linux releases like Red
>>> Hat and SuSE that give you commercial-grade support even if they don't
>>> give you commercial-grade product up-front.
>>
>> Dunno what's not "commercial grade" about it; it's fine. The general
>> package management problem in Linux still persists.
>
> Every week someone finds some security vulnerability that needs to get
> patched. Every week someone makes some unneeded change. If there is a
> problem with a third-party device driver I can't call up DEC support
> on a three-way call and have the DEC developers working with the third-party
> guys to fix the problem.
>

Well, you're not really a customer, you see...

>>> But since the demise of BeOS there are NO realtime operating systems
>>> intended for desktop use.
>>
>> Hm. Well, I don't have much trouble with that. For "realtime", we
>> just write drivers. It's not a desktop, but it could be. All
>> you really need is one free hardware timer.
>
> No, you don't just write drivers. If you want an actual hard realtime
> system you either need to wrest control away from the OS and do everything
> as one uninterruptable process, or you need an operating system with a
> scheduler that assigns timeslices to processes based upon how much time
> those processes need to make deadline. When you make a call to the operating
> system, say open(), one of the parameters is how long you have to wait for
> the OS to do the job, and the kernel will prioritize the call appropriately
> to make sure all those calls return in time.
>

I am quite familiar with the distinction. I respectfully submit that
... one can build "hard realtime" systems in the manner I have
suggested.

> The alternative is just to throw CPU at the problem and hope everybody can
> meet deadline. This is called "soft realtime" and sometimes it works and
> sometimes it doesn't. What is evil is that sometimes it's not always obvious
> at the time that data is being lost because there is no way for the kernel
> or the application to flag that it's missing deadlines in many cases.
>

There are perfectly good microsecond-resolution ( or better )
free running timers for measuring deadlines. time.h stuff...

>> The various Atmel sized processors really kind of make a realtime
>> desktop moot. There's stuff like the Raspberry PI and cubieBoard
>> that can do all that as well.
>
> Sure, but can I run a DAW on it?
>

I don't know. I don't imagine so until ALSA gets ported
to one. Then it would be a lot like a Linux machine.

>> It might be prohibitive, but I think you could build a cubieBoard
>> linux that interfaces to one/any of the USB2.0 interfaces using ALSA .
>> It has HDMI, so there's your display solution. Just NFS mount a remote
>> desktop/server/NAS.
>>
>> If the USB2.0 interface has MIDI, you have a control surface solution.
>
> Could be, but I'm still holding out for hard-realtime.
>
>>> But I really would like to see a purpose-built DAW again, on a platform
>>> designed for the job.
>>
>> There are curious variations on the theme, like standalone VST hosts.
>
> Which is a very, very cool idea. I just saw one being used for PA
> applications not long ago!
>

Yeah, maybe that'll grow into what you want.

>> I kinda don't see the point of it. You can
>> run any of the COTS DAW packages on a stripped-down machine.
>>
>> And isn't Otari still shipping RADAR?
>
> They are, which is really BeOS inside, secretly.
> --scott
>
>

--

Les Cargill

[Jay Hennigan]

On 11/7/13 2:30 PM, sctvguy1 wrote:

> The only people who seem to love Windows, are techs who make money
> "fixing" problems and re-installing everything when it gets infected.

With apologies to Edgar Allen Poe...

Once upon a Tuesday dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Installing the same version of Windows once more.
While I cursed the constant crashing, I made a fist and started bashing,
Started bashing the computer case and CD-ROM drive door.
"Piece of crap," I muttered, bashing the CD-ROM drive door,
"I will take this crap no more!"

Distinctly I do remember, when I bought my PC in December,
The marketing man said this software would crash no more.
Eagerly I wished to borrow a tool to inflict pain and sorrow
So that one day, perhaps tomorrow, I could go to my computer store
For the chance to make the salesman sell this crap no more.
Only this and nothing more.

So after wasting countless hours, I unplugged the beige mini-tower.
My day was looking very tragic like the old poetry of gothic lore,
But suddenly there came a tapping, rhymthic like the beats of rapping.
Actually, it sounded like flippers flapping, flapping at my apartment door.
"That is very odd," I muttered, "the time is nearly half past four,
Who is knocking on my door?"

The door was opened but it only revealed a penguin standing quite lonely,
Standing with a bag of CD-ROMs on the stoop before my apartment door.
I thought at first it was a delusion, for I was wrought with great confusion
Over the presence of a flightless Antarctic bird at my apartment door.
So I stood there, looking quite the fool, with my jaw down to the floor.
Then the bird said, "Pay no more!"

I thought to call the SPCA ... perhaps it escaped the zoo today.
But instead I brought the talking Aptenodytes forsteri inside my door.
He looked around, he looked at me ... and then he waddled to my PC.
I followed fast and I did see him place his disc in my drive door.
His program booted and began to install software I'd never seen before,
Then the bird said, "Pay No More!"

He brought me LINUX to install, said it rarely crashed at all.
Then he showed me some books while the software installed some more.
The interface, it looked like UNIX ... but 'twas much cheaper than QNX.
In fact, the code was open, so the source of bugs was hidden no more
It made wonder about the penguin's disc, behind my CD drive door ...
And why the bird said, "Pay No More."

So I tried this new installation, at first with fear and trepidation,
But soon I found it more stable than the OS I used before.
The files were in different places, and I put Linux through its paces
And very rarely made odd faces ... it didn't crash like Windows did before.
For this fat penguin made me see a way to use my computer as never before.
Then the bird said, "Pay No More!"

So once upon a morning sunny, I installed Linux for no money,
With the CD-ROM brought by a penguin to my apartment door.
After cursing the old installation, I reduced my overall frustration
And with a bit of determination I removed the software I used before.
Now I read Linux books and Web sites to use my free operating system more.
Quoth the penguin, "Pay No More."

[William Sommerwerck]

I've been using Windows since 3.0. That version tended to crash for no obvious
reason. I've not had that problem with any later version.

Around 2004, "something" went wrong with my Windows 2000 installation. It
would boot, but its behavior was screwy. (This might have been due to a
malware attack, but I don't know for sure.) I was obliged to reinstall it, and
had no problems for the next eight years.

When people say that Windows is crash-prone, and/or often requires
reinstallation, I have to wonder what's going on. I've worked many jobs at
Microsoft, and have never seen this. I can only assume it's due to some sort
of user error, or badly written drivers.

[sctvguy1]

Were you working there when Bill Gates was using OS/2 on his own desktop?

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, November 11, 2013 6:29:05 PM UTC-5, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 11/7/13 2:30 PM, sctvguy1 wrote:
>
> With apologies to Edgar Allen Poe...

YAWN.............

[Trevor]

"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message

news:gZWdnTu8m-mm-B3P...@giganews.com...

Yes, not from MS of course, even the Win 8.1 update is pathetic, and Classic
shell is just a patch for a problem that should never have existed IMO. Give
touchscreen users the option by all means, but no need to remove what
already works for everybody else.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Jay Hennigan" <j...@west.net> wrote in message
news:ZOSdnTBXTvDf9RzP...@netlojix.com...

And use all your Windows software no more :-(
Linux is great if you are happy with the available software, or all you want
to do is surf the net. However I'm amazed that people who can successfully
install and run Linux can't keep a Windows box running.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"sctvguy1" wrote in message news:l5s281$d2p$3...@dont-email.me...

I was there during the period of OS/2's brief popularity.

Was OS/2 particularly crash prone, or are you referring to the fact that it
needed the Presentation Manager for a graphic interface?

[William Sommerwerck]

PS: You didn't respond to my blueberry pancakes jokes. I was hurt.

[John Williamson]

I took it as more of a suggestion that the owner and creator of
Microsoft didn't want to use a Microsft OS on his own machine.

Of course, it could just have been research to find out just how bad
OS/2 was....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <l5sidu$dan$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>
>And use all your Windows software no more :-(
>Linux is great if you are happy with the available software, or all you want
>to do is surf the net. However I'm amazed that people who can successfully
>install and run Linux can't keep a Windows box running.

They are philosophically very different to run and debug problems on. With
Linux, you can readily look inside and see what is going on, and so step by
step diagnosis is possible (and in fact is essential). On the other hand,
with Windows systems you can't really see what is going on inside the box
at all and if you attempt conventional step by step diagnosis you will only
get frustrated and angry. Windows diagnosis is basically done with a matrix
of problems and solutions... and the good news is that there are enough
Windows systems that a google search on a given problem will usually find you
a solution. That doesn't mean the person with the solution has any more idea
what is going on inside the box than you do, though.

[Leif Neland]

Scott Dorsey tastede følgende:

> In article <l5sidu$dan$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>>

> ... Windows diagnosis is basically done with a matrix

> of problems and solutions... and the good news is that there are enough
> Windows systems that a google search on a given problem will usually find you
> a solution.

Or often umpteen people with the same problem and no solution :-(

Leif

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

[dave]

On 11/08/2013 10:56 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
>>
>> BTW You can occasionally find a Nagra IV-S for under a hundred bucks
>> here nowadays.
>
> I'll take all you can get at that price. Prices on those machines are
> actually rising... they hit rock bottom a few years ago but they now seem
> to be getting snapped up by collectors. I have been getting a lot of repair
> work from guys buying the things who don't know what they are buying.
> --scott
>

I'll check. We had a pile of them at the last place I worked. We
replaced them with Fostex time code digital recorders and ProTools type
DAWs on laptops.

[dave]

For me it is more economic than anything else. (I guess I'm a bad
American because money doesn't give me a stiffie.) I build my own
machines and I do not appreciate MSFT charging me over $200 for a crappy
OS that only has one workspace. Windows is slow and not inspiring.

The Mac fanbois are the worst. I will agree about them.

[dave]

If your IOS device detects you trying to read the files with a 3rd party
app it will brick your device. You have to refill it. Major Pain!

Most games are written in Linux then ported to Windows. DirectX graphics
are then required. If Windows didn't have the proprietary graphics
library it would have died 10 years ago.

[dave]

On 11/10/2013 05:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <l5pacr$gpb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>>
>> In the days when computing power was far more limited than it is now, it was
>> a neccessity. But since I've had no problems doing all my multi-track audio
>> work on generic computers for the last decade, I'm not in a hurry to go down
>> the expensive, locked in, hope they might give you what you want/need
>> someday path ever again. Because so many others agree is why those systems
>> no longer sell.
>
> The "throw more CPU power at it and hope it works" philosophy works fine
> as long as there's plenty of CPU power for what you want to do. But how
> long is that going to continue?
>

What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away.

[dave]

Nagra makes a digital recorder the same size as the old magnetic machines.

[sctvguy1]

I'm saying that Gates used OS/2 for his own WindowsNT, which was not as
stable as the original. I still use OS/2, and have never had any but
minor problems. I also run the new version, called eComStation.

[dave]

You are way more likely to need to fork over some moola to get the
answer with Win. The Linux ecosystem is not about generating profits; it
makes computing fun again. I'm about to install a 64 bit Mint customized
for Ham Radio on my friends old gaming machine. He is actually the one
who pays retail for Windows.,

[dave]

Creator of Microsoft? Gates helped write CPM, a little bit of BASIC.
Quick and Dirty Operating System was bought pretty much turnkey. Since
then it's been Bill and Steve as Mr and Mrs Pacman, gobbling up other
people's ideas.

[dave]

On 11/11/2013 10:40 PM, Trevor wrote:

>
> And use all your Windows software no more :-(
> Linux is great if you are happy with the available software, or all you want
> to do is surf the net. However I'm amazed that people who can successfully
> install and run Linux can't keep a Windows box running.
>
> Trevor.
>

Nobody said that, did they? It is easier to keep a Linux box running,
however. Ask anybody loving Android in their pocket or their PS3s in the
video game room.

[Michael Black]

No, Swiftwater Bill had nothing to do with CPM.

Gary Kildall wrote CPM, over at Digital Research.

Bill and Microsoft were only about BASIC for some years, so common that
for a while just about any computer you could buy had a Microsoft BASIC
for it, many with it in ROM. Perhaps towards the end of that period they
had some other languages to offer.

When the IBM PC came along, they apparently went to Microsoft thinking
they put out CPM (I seem to recall one reason for this error was because
Microsoft did have a CP/M card for the Apple II, their first foray into
hardware), and so Microsoft sent them to Digital Research. Some foul up
(the stories vary) sent them back to Microsoft, to ask them if they could
make an operating system. That's when they bought QDOS from Seattle
Microsystems, and turned it into PCDOS.

Of course, QDOS is said to be similar to CPM.

Michael

[Scott Dorsey]

dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
>On 11/12/2013 05:59 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> They are philosophically very different to run and debug problems on. With
>> Linux, you can readily look inside and see what is going on, and so step by
>> step diagnosis is possible (and in fact is essential). On the other hand,
>> with Windows systems you can't really see what is going on inside the box
>> at all and if you attempt conventional step by step diagnosis you will only
>> get frustrated and angry. Windows diagnosis is basically done with a matrix
>> of problems and solutions... and the good news is that there are enough
>> Windows systems that a google search on a given problem will usually find you
>> a solution. That doesn't mean the person with the solution has any more idea
>> what is going on inside the box than you do, though.
>

>You are way more likely to need to fork over some moola to get the
>answer with Win. The Linux ecosystem is not about generating profits; it
>makes computing fun again. I'm about to install a 64 bit Mint customized
>for Ham Radio on my friends old gaming machine. He is actually the one
>who pays retail for Windows.,

Not really, that's the frustrating part from my standpoint. You _can't get_
direct systems programming support from Microsoft, no matter how much money
you spend.

I _like_ having a commercial operating system where I can call up on the phone
and talk to some guy who has the source code in front of him and can track down
exactly what is going on, and I don't mind paying for that service.

But Microsoft will charge you for support and have you talking to some guy
on the phone who doesn't know any more than you do about what is going on
inside the box... it takes many, many layers of escalation to talk to anyone
who has seen the source.

I would MUCH RATHER be able to pay money and talk to an expert than deal with
the catch-as-catch-can support that most Linux distributions have. But
Microsoft gives me the worst of both worlds.

Apple is not so bad... it's difficult to get in touch with people who really
know what is going on, but it's not impossible. It does cost money, but
that's what money is for, to pay people to do things you can't or don't want
to do.

[Scott Dorsey]

dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
>
>Creator of Microsoft? Gates helped write CPM, a little bit of BASIC.

No. Gates had nothing do with with CP/M, which was a a Digital Research
product. He was famous for producing what today we would call "layered
products" including a variety of standard BASIC interpreters for various
operating systems (including CP/M and RT-11, the system that CP/M was crudely
modelled after), as well as BASIC-in-ROM for a lot of systems.

>Quick and Dirty Operating System was bought pretty much turnkey. Since
>then it's been Bill and Steve as Mr and Mrs Pacman, gobbling up other
>people's ideas.

Yes, Gates purchased SBC-DOS from Seattle Business Computing and resold it
as MS-DOS. That's how free markets work.

[D. Peter Maus]

Nicely done.

[William Sommerwerck]

dave, this is not meant to be personal or adversarial.

I have many years' experience with computers, and used to be a programmer. I
have never had any particular problems (other than a general "failure" of W2K,
for unknown reasons) with Windows. It runs, it works, and I'm willing to put
out the effort to make sure it's properly configured. (There are books on the
subject.)

Please give me some /good/ reasons why I should dump Windows and Windows
software, and switch to Linux -- other than "Linux good, Windows bad".

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:l5tc79$sgl$1...@panix2.panix.com...

> In article <l5sidu$dan$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
> wrote:
>>And use all your Windows software no more :-(
>>Linux is great if you are happy with the available software, or all you
>>want
>>to do is surf the net. However I'm amazed that people who can successfully
>>install and run Linux can't keep a Windows box running.
>
> They are philosophically very different to run and debug problems on.
> With
> Linux, you can readily look inside and see what is going on, and so step
> by
> step diagnosis is possible (and in fact is essential). On the other hand,
> with Windows systems you can't really see what is going on inside the box
> at all

Sure you can, just open the box. Windows or Linux makes no difference :-)

>and if you attempt conventional step by step diagnosis you will only
> get frustrated and angry. Windows diagnosis is basically done with a
> matrix
> of problems and solutions

Which are readily found in many instances by checking the logs.

>... and the good news is that there are enough
> Windows systems that a google search on a given problem will usually find
> you
> a solution.

Exactly.

>That doesn't mean the person with the solution has any more idea
> what is going on inside the box than you do, though.

Nor that they really care as long as a solution is available.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Leif Neland" <le...@neland.dk> wrote in message
news:mn.63967ddb8e...@neland.dk...

> Scott Dorsey tastede følgende:
>> In article <l5sidu$dan$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
>> wrote:
>> ... Windows diagnosis is basically done with a matrix
>> of problems and solutions... and the good news is that there are enough
>> Windows systems that a google search on a given problem will usually find
>> you
>> a solution.
>
> Or often umpteen people with the same problem and no solution :-(

Or just as often umpteen solutions to no real problem :-)

Trevor.