Res: What is "low spec" for you?

[Pietro Bergamo]

D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
>"I've just learned not to encourage people with low spec hardware,
>because it's usually frustrating for everyone involved."

and -Cory \m/ wrote:
>As I see it people need to be realistic about the task they are trying
>to undertake and realize that apps themselves often require alot of
>horsepower.



Well, I don't think you should encourage people with low spec hardware, nor giving up being realistic about the their tasks. But exactly what do you mean when you say the "minimum system requirement" is, say, 2Ghz with 1MB? It is the minimum for what, since the apps do run with a lot less than that? 
So I don't see this kind of answer as satisfactory, since we do not know, for example, what Mr. Morales had in mind about what to do with his machines when he asked what the "minimum machine" would be. 
Of course, with a "low spec" you won't be able to open as many channels or as many plugins, but if you don't have the money for a hardware upgrade, I think you can still install Ubuntu Studio "being realistic" about what you will be able to do. And I think you will still be able to do a lot more with Ardour and ladspa, on the same machine, than you would with Cubase.
There's a lot to be realistic about, and one thing how much money one can invest on hardware upgrades. And I think the point is, if someone who works (even if only as a hobby) with multimedia on a "low spec" and intends to give up Windows, it seems to me that Ubuntu Studio is an option, no matter what machine one has.

Pietro




      Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o único sem limite de espaço para armazenamento!
http://br.mail.yahoo.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-studio-users/attachments/20071214/31f07633/attachment.htm