Hello,
Max Neupert a écrit :
Am 10.10.2007 um 12:24 schrieb Jack:
I prefer PD with a small GUI, it's better for CPU and GPU.
Jack
i wonder why people do things in pd like
$ reducing the number of sliders, toggles and bangs to a minimum, or
$ running two instances of pd for the gui, or
Hello,
i wanted to say that an interface in your main patch with a lot of
bang that receive bang every 5 ms, numberbox that receive number
every 5 ms is not good for CPU and GPU (or i'm wrong ?). Concerning
the last release of Max, i think also this not good (antialiasing,
zoom step by
Hallo,
Thomas Grill hat gesagt: // Thomas Grill wrote:
Since i don't like a program to educate me, but i rather like to use a
program to do things that i want, the new Max features will help with that.
The pd-based vibrez gui has also always separated the patcher logic from
the gui, and i'm
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:
May be, but then, Max almost always was in advance of Pd as far as
issues like usability are concerned, and still Pd was popular.
Probably the new Max will make some people change their minds again,
but in general I believe, both Pd and Max can
Frank Barknecht schrieb:
And Max will never beat Pd's price.
I'm quite sure this is wrong, given the time i for one invested in
implementing certain kernel features, fixing bugs and providing workarounds.
greetings, Thomas
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing
On 10/11/07, Thomas Grill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Barknecht schrieb:
And Max will never beat Pd's price.
I'm quite sure this is wrong, given the time i for one invested in
implementing certain kernel features, fixing bugs and providing
workarounds.
On the other hand, two of us beat
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 15:18 +0200, Jack wrote:
Hello,
i wanted to say that an interface in your main patch with a lot of
bang that receive bang every 5 ms, numberbox that receive number
every 5 ms is not good for CPU and GPU (or i'm wrong ?).
afaik, in pd this affects only the cpu, not
hmm, strange, i thought that macosx use the gpu for graphics.
Jack
Le 11 oct. 07 à 19:42, Roman Haefeli a écrit :
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 15:18 +0200, Jack wrote:
Hello,
i wanted to say that an interface in your main patch with a lot of
bang that receive bang every 5 ms, numberbox that
On Oct 11, 2007, at 10:38 AM, Thomas Grill wrote:
Frank Barknecht schrieb:
And Max will never beat Pd's price.
I'm quite sure this is wrong, given the time i for one invested in
implementing certain kernel features, fixing bugs and providing
workarounds.
greetings, Thomas
Max does not
It does somewhat, but not a lot. It could use it a lot more to speed
things up.
.hc
On Oct 11, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Jack wrote:
hmm, strange, i thought that macosx use the gpu for graphics.
Jack
Le 11 oct. 07 à 19:42, Roman Haefeli a écrit :
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 15:18 +0200, Jack
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
I'm a bit torn on this. I actually like the concept, but you're right,
like all good things that make life easy they tend to erode discipline
and structure. The patch messy and sweep it all under the rug
philosophy is probably very
While I agree very much with both Kevin and Frank, quoted below, i
think this debate is healthy, as it would be foolish not to look
for new ideas. That many new ideas will be discarded since they rime
an awful lot with Fisher Price is another matter.
On 10/10/2007, at 3.27, Kevin McCoy
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
I'm a bit torn on this. I actually like the concept, but you're right,
like all good things that make life easy they tend to erode discipline
and structure. The patch messy and sweep it all under the rug
philosophy is probably very
This is the stuff that I think is much more interesting, it's the
stuff that doesn't make for sexy videos, but actually improves your
life:
http://www.cycling74.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/9/28/105551/882
Let me give you just one example of what I'm talking about. In Max
4.x there was
I don't understand people complaining about additional features. you
don't have to use it, if you don't want. but for other people it makes
sense to layout their interface independently from their code.
design is so important for a graphical user interface!
I heard this so often I can't share my
The one part of presentation that I was intrigued by is the idea of
separating the interface from the implementation. I think it's
interesting to explore the idea, I just think that having the only
connection be that little fade effect when switching is not really a
strong enough
I prefer PD with a small GUI, it's better for CPU and GPU.
Jack
Le 10 oct. 07 à 16:07, marius schebella a écrit :
I don't understand people complaining about additional features. you
don't have to use it, if you don't want. but for other people it makes
sense to layout their interface
On 10/10/2007, at 16.07, marius schebella wrote:
I don't understand people complaining about additional features. you
don't have to use it, if you don't want.
Minimal or to-the-point-ness of an application can be very desirable.
To illustrate I've for the same reasons used EevilWM not
A programming environment should encourage people to program in a way
that not only works, but also is clearly legible to people who have
never seen that program before. This makes it much easier to reuse
and maintain code, and that leads to much less duplicated effort.
That means
Wow, its rounded/bubbly !!!
I just realized the fancy shaded PD icon has open inlets, and closed
outlets, which as far as I know comes from a rendering bug in tk... Not
by design, or maybe I'm wrong...
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Hmm, looks nice, with lots of nifty features. But I
Am 10.10.2007 um 12:24 schrieb Jack:
I prefer PD with a small GUI, it's better for CPU and GPU.
Jack
i wonder why people do things in pd like
$ reducing the number of sliders, toggles and bangs to a minimum, or
$ running two instances of pd for the gui, or writing their gui
themselves in
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 10:07 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
I don't understand people complaining about additional features. you
don't have to use it, if you don't want. but for other people it makes
sense to layout their interface independently from their code.
design is so important for a
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 18:24 +0200, Jack wrote:
I prefer PD with a small GUI, it's better for CPU and GPU.
since when does pd-gui affect gpu? and what would be bad about using a
most of the time just unused gpu power for a gui?
i noticed, that cpu based guis in many linux audio programms are the
with the level of virtuosity you also want to demand new levels of
requirements. it is not about displaying a visualization of the
programming flow or readability of code, it is only about efficiency and
user interaction.
for other situations than performance or user interface, this feature is
Dear Santa-Claus,
you have regaled to my neighbor a new release of max. You know, I'm a bad
kid and use linux, but in last time I try to be better person. Ok, bad kid
can't have a very stable software is a nature law but could I to have a new
PD. That is my list of new derired features:
-A gui
Since i don't like a program to educate me, but i rather like to use a
program to do things that i want, the new Max features will help with that.
The pd-based vibrez gui has also always separated the patcher logic from
the gui, and i'm already curious to compare the two systems.
To my mind it
these links interesting as well.
An article by Zicarelly:
http://www.cycling74.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/9/28/105551/882
and videos showing the new max:
http://www.cycling74.com/story/2007/10/5/91222/9559
Hans-Christoph Steiner(e)k dio:
Hmm, looks nice, with lots of nifty features. But
Hans, thats the whole point of presentation mode, to separate the
patching logic from the presentation!
you can organize your gui elements in the code in places that make
sense and follow the logical flow of the patch, and then present them
in the UI however you choose.
I am so glad they
The Pd graph-on-parent makes more sense IMHO because it uses existing Pd
mechanisms for encapsulation and encourages patchers to modularize their
programs.
100% agreed, that is why I thought umm... what's so special about this
presentation mode? when I saw that page. To me that should be
I'm a bit torn on this. I actually like the concept, but you're right,
like all good things that make life easy they tend to erode discipline
and structure. The patch messy and sweep it all under the rug
philosophy is probably very appealing to many.
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:27:47 -0400
Kevin
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/10/08/first-max-5-preview-music-patching-the-next-generation/
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
can you elaborate on surprising?
you mean the 'look' trend over the past half decade hasnt been towards
oversized/fisher-price/antialiased?
one peep at the typical web 2.0 or iphone app, or ableton live, or the feature
list of DesireData should lend weight to the 'theres nothing at all
32 matches
Mail list logo
