undefined | Better HN

0 pointszxcvcxz9y ago0 comments

>the NT kernel is much more sophisticated and powerful than Linux

Source?

It's not sophisticated enough or powerful enough to be the most used kernel on super computers (and in the world). Windows pretty much only dominates the desktop market. Servers, super computers, mainframes, etc, mostly use Linux.

A few years ago there was even a bug in Windows that caused degradation in network performance during multimedia playback that was directly connected with mechanisms employed by the Multimedia Class Scheduler Service (MMCSS), this is used on a lot of audio setups. If they can't even get audio setups right how can people consider anything Windows releases "sophisticated"?

It's made to do anything you throw at it I guess, it's definitely complicated, but powerful and sophisticated aren't words I would use to describe NT.

0 comments

recursive9y ago

If you're arguing in favor of linux, you probably shouldn't use any arguments that deal with getting audio setups right.

bitwize9y ago

Indeed.

I would go so far as to say that a large part of why audio is such a CF under Linux is -- wait for it -- lack of real asynchronous I/O.

Audio is asynchronous by nature, and to do that right under Linux you need a "sound server" with all the additional overhead, jank, and shuffling of data between kernel and at least two different user spaces that implies. Audio under Linux was best with OSS, which was synchronous in nature and not suitable for professional applications. JACK mitigated that somewhat, but for an OS to do audio right you need a kernel-level async audio API like Core Audio or whatever Windows is doing these days.

makomk9y ago

Windows has a sound server too, you know. I believe Core Audio on Mac does too. A large part of why audio is such a CF under Linux is that PulseAudio is incredibly badly written and poorly maintained. My favourite was the half-finished micro-optimization that broke some of the resamplers because the author got bored and never modified them to handle the change, which somehow made it all the way into a release. I dread to think what they'd do with powerful tools like asynchronous I/O.

cbd19849y ago

Audio on Linux works fine in my experience.

tacos9y ago

Hey everyone, we found him!

1 more reply

orbifold9y ago

Well for various definitions of fine I guess.

1 more reply

zxcvcxzOP9y ago

Works very well for me too. Don't know why you got downvoted. It's like it's 1994 in here...

xodjoshd9y ago

But this is exactly what made me switch, windows was preventing me from accessing my sound card directly in order to record a remote interview.

I use Linux regularly to record and edit audio, it's free , it works, and I dont have to worry my OS is active reducing the functionality of my equipment.

Sanddancer9y ago

They got audio setups right. The reason the network degradation happened is that video and audio playback were given realtime priority so background processes couldn't cause pops, stutters, etc. At the time Vista was released, most home users didn't have a gigabit network, so the performance degradation would only happen on a small number of users, and most would rather prefer good audio and video performance to a slowdown in network performance in a small percentage of users. With today's massively multicore systems, it's even less of an issue, while linux still has a problem with latency on applications like pro audio.

makomk9y ago

The reason the network degradation happened is that Microsoft couldn't figure out how to stop heavy network activity causing audio glitches on some systems even after giving audio realtime priority, so they hacked around it by adding a fixed 10,000 packets-per-second cap on network activity regardless of system speed or CPU usage (less if you had multiple network adapters). See https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/markrussinovich/2007/08/... This was just as much of an issue on multicore systems because the cap was unaffected by the system speed and chosen based on a slow single-core machine.

pbarnes_19y ago

I don't know why you're getting downvoted since the parent is basically stating random opinions about "power" and "sophistication" without anything to actually back it up.

11 param functions don't say "power" to me. They say "poorly thought out API design". Much can be said for most Windows APIs in general.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointszxcvcxz9y ago0 comments

>the NT kernel is much more sophisticated and powerful than Linux

Source?

It's made to do anything you throw at it I guess, it's definitely complicated, but powerful and sophisticated aren't words I would use to describe NT.

0 comments

recursive9y ago

If you're arguing in favor of linux, you probably shouldn't use any arguments that deal with getting audio setups right.

bitwize9y ago

Indeed.

I would go so far as to say that a large part of why audio is such a CF under Linux is -- wait for it -- lack of real asynchronous I/O.

makomk9y ago

cbd19849y ago

Audio on Linux works fine in my experience.

tacos9y ago

Hey everyone, we found him!

1 more reply

orbifold9y ago

Well for various definitions of fine I guess.

1 more reply

zxcvcxzOP9y ago

Works very well for me too. Don't know why you got downvoted. It's like it's 1994 in here...

xodjoshd9y ago

But this is exactly what made me switch, windows was preventing me from accessing my sound card directly in order to record a remote interview.

I use Linux regularly to record and edit audio, it's free , it works, and I dont have to worry my OS is active reducing the functionality of my equipment.

Sanddancer9y ago

makomk9y ago

pbarnes_19y ago

I don't know why you're getting downvoted since the parent is basically stating random opinions about "power" and "sophistication" without anything to actually back it up.

11 param functions don't say "power" to me. They say "poorly thought out API design". Much can be said for most Windows APIs in general.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse