[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The Great Pulseaudio Mixer Debate: a modest (productive) proposal

On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 18:43 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sun, 26.04.09 11:15, Callum Lerwick (seg haxxed com) wrote:
> > > Today we have MMX and SSE and similar CPU extensions. The very reason
> > > we have them is to do signal processing with them. Such as
> > > implementing mixing, volume adjustments, equalizers, and other filters
> > > in them -- in high digital quality. Ironically even Creative sees that
> > > and nowadays a lot of logic is actually in their Windows drivers, not
> > > so much in their sound cards.
> > 
> > And once again you go on and on about "modern" and "these days", and are
> > completely dismissive of "Right now" and "Yesterday".
> Wow. So you are running your stuff on a CPU without SSE? I am impressed!

Well, I do have an Athlon 1.4gz machine. Thunderbird core, so no SSE. It
just so happens it's the "secondary" Windows XP box that's at the center
of this controversy.

It has a Radeon 9800SE in it, and I use it to play World of Warcraft.

> > No one but you cares. End users want what they use now and have owned
> > for years, to work and continue to work.
> Uh, didn't we recently switch to i586 as minimal architecture of
> Fedora?

Once again you are misdirecting the conversation. CPU's *are* an upgrade
treadmill. Cutting off CPUs (i386/i486) that are something like *15* or
more years old at this point isn't completely unreasonable. We are in
fact highly conservative in that we didn't just go i686+ five years ago,
like some wanted...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]