Which do you think is the more appropriate operating system for a software based keyboard workstation - Windows XP? or Linux?

I use the Lionstracs Mediastation for live performances and though it is currently based on the Linux O.S., some developers have begun porting the Mediastation to the Windows XP O.S. I wanted to get info and opinions from other people on Synth Zone since I may soon be faced with the option to choose which I use on my keyboard.

I know Windows XP is probably the most common of the two because of the multitude of programs designed to operate on it. Some Synth Zone members use the Wersi OAS, which is a good example of such a system. Perhaps they can give some insight to the pro's and con's of using Windows for this application.

Many of our members who are using the notebook - software synth/arranger approach- may also have feedback to offer. I did not include the Mac O.S. since this is a proprietary system that will probably not be an option for me.

Other instruments like the Muse Research "Receptor" is based on Linux or the Open Labs "Neko" or "Miko" is based on Window XP Home edition.

I am especially interested in issues like stability, user interface, flexibilty, etc.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Richard Shiflet

This is a real can of worms.

I don't think there is a definitive answer. All you can do is consider the various factors that create a particular configuration of hardware and software and make a judgement as to whether this meets you needs.

PC's in general are less reliable than Apple Macs. The PC is an open environment and anyone can in theory create software and hardware which is PC compatible. This ia fabulous in one way; almost anything conceivable is probably out there. The bad news is that it is practically impossible to predict the exact build of any particular PC upon which hardware / software will run. The composite system may be unstable due to conficts between installed hardware and software that are potentially unique to that PC! We can look accusingly at Microsoft and suggest that their software is responsible but giving them sole responsibility is a bit unfair. Loading Linux onto a PC platform might improve reliability from a software viewpoint (fewer drivers which are usually more generic will generally be more reliable) but if you have specific hardware requirements you might not find drivers.

The Mac (per Intel) has always been more reliable because it is not a free-for-all; the available hardware configurations are all tightly controlled by Apple and the Operating system and drivers rigoursly tested - you can do this if there are only a small number of options available. This tight control and consequent reliability comes at a cost; Apples cost more that PCs and the breadth of applications is smaller, but it is not coincidence that many "Professional" audio applications are written for the Mac; again the limited breadth of hardware option means that drivers can be optimised and tested to give a high degree of confidence that the platform will not crash at an embarrasing moment.

It is possible to create a totally reliable Intel / Windows configuration by using Apple Techniques - build you own hardware, write your own drivers, test them to destruction and don't load anything else onto the PC. This is unfortunately beyond the scope of most people!

I'm not sure this helps your cause but I hope it explains why it's a tough decision!

Mac/Linux/Windows are all OS's capable of hosting a music workstation application. Bigger issues, I believe, is the hardware used to drive the app, configuration of individual apps and the connectivity between applications. Look at some of the sizes of samples now available or the combinations of different plug-ins that people want to use for sounds, groves, processing etc all in real time. Is a system with 2 dual-core CPUs with 64GB of RAM an unrealistic requirement. Financially, for most, yes. But technically it may not be so far of the mark. Another related issue is how "clean" do you keep the system. Do you use it to experiment with every piece of software and utility that comes along? Hardware Specs and Software configuration are bigger issues than what OS. When you look at devices such as Liontracks or Open Labs you are looking at devices that are optimized for the task at hand. The expectation would be better performance than similarly configured PCs. However, if they are true open systems, you can probably mess them up too as much as a PC if you are not disciplined in your approach to software configuration.

All that being said, my personal preference for a laptop of Windows vs Linux would without question be Windows because music software offerings are scant on Linux as compared to Windows. As example, what are the notation software options for Linux? Pick up the current magazine of your choice and see how many software vendors list Linux as a compatible option.

In the professional music production world, most work is done on Macs. However, when needing raw horse power for things like large sound libraries I have seen several setups where banks of PC's are employed as a cheaper option to be used as slaves for computing power of instruments.

[This message has been edited by RobertG (edited 08-29-2006).]

Thanks MacAllcock and RobertG, I appreciate the replies from both of you and I agree that this can be a very complex issue.

A few facts that I probably should have explained initially may help narrow this topic and make it manageable.

1) The Mac OS is not an option. My dilema is only between using the Linux or Windows XP operating systems.

I am using a Lionstracs Mediastation X-88 Pro http://www.lionstracs.com/site/index.php . Linux is already configured and running on the mediastation. It is a very fast and reliable system for playing vst's and streaming large giga files (2 gigs and more) from the harddrive. The graphical user interface works well and is scheduled for an update with new features added in September. The only drawback to Linux seems to be that not all of the programs written for windows have complete linux compatability.

2) The second fact is that this is for a very specific hardware application. It is not going to be used on various PC clones using all manner of unknown devices but a carefully designed system that includes 12 custom daugther boards and an integrated control surface. So the factor of varying hardware and drivers conflicting should be minimized.

With these facts in mind could win xp give the same reliabilty and speed that I am currently accustomed to?

I know that compatability with "all" windows programs would be enhanced with win xp as they would be operating in their native os.

Which system will allow for the most intuative user interface?

Which gives the most flexibilty for future developement?

The Wersi OAS uses win xp, What are the pro's and con's being faced by wersi users?

These are the types of issues I would like to explore.

Thanks

Richard

Despite the fact that I've never actually used Linux (and could therefore be talking garbage here), it looks like it might do the trick for you here, assuming you can get drivers for your hardware.

Given that your hardware looks very custom then it may be you (or someone you can easily contact) writing the drivers; I suspect writing custom Linux drivers may well be easier than writing custom Windows drivers.

Whatever, best of luck!

Hi !
I m glad to announce you that after one year on hard working on virtuals arrangers for windows, I finnaly completed the Lionstracs developper team.
Since I m a Windows developper, and know very good this world, and musicals applications on PC, I started a new project using the MediaStation under Windows XP. I already developped the driver, and currently playing with vst , giga studio, and even begining of the arranger part.
Of course The work is not finished, but you can see the power of the Mediastation !!
Just install an new OS, and you will have completely annother keyboard!!!
I installed NI FM7, played an FM EP, layered with an internal ROM String sounds, and it's WAAAW !!!

I have an precise idea of the arranger of the dream, and I m now creating it...!
This version of the MediaStation will be probably different from the Linux one.

Your suggestions are very welcome for creating the arranger of the year 3000

Ps : After years of using many arranger keyboards, and after years of frustration, with not corrected bugs, low hardware performances, not care of the users..., I finnaly decide to start a new page in the arragner world, and I hope this will help all musician to find inspiration

stay in touch

DAN.2000 I'm very impressed with your work. Writing drivers is very hard work.
I want to find if it is really better working system of MS on LINUX or in WINDOWS.
I thing for me is more stable working system on LINUX. But I miss a lot of things that are working in WINDOWS.

LINUX is young but is good and real. But lot of us knows with WINDOWS better than with LINUX or other O.S.

Oh no - use of the word "better" without qualification.

I deliberately avoided comparatives; the "best" solution depends on the context.

For what I do at home, XP is the only choice. I have no valid reason to explore other possibilities. But that doesn't make it "better", just the best choice for me.

Hi All
1. The more software you put on a computer (No mater what OS) the more chance of it falling over.

2. There will always be more software for Windows as it has about 80% of the world market, so software produces know they can make money.

3. Studios that use computers for music use them only for music.

4. The Mediastaion software has been optimised for Linux and Linux optimised for the Mediastation software.

5. The Wersi OAS software has been optimised for Windows and Windows has been optimised for OAS, which is why a lot of other Windows programs (Non Music) will not work correctly.
Wersi have achieved this by disabling any Windows service or function that is not required for music production.
Hope this helps.

Bill

I believe Linux should be a "better" solution because it can be "bred" to answer specific needs. Windows is a much more universal platform.

Their goal might be similar but the course taken is different.

Windows was developed to be the "all in one solution, everybody can fit in". Thus it contains many many things that are irrelevant to music. I suspect you would have to "thin" it out very aggresively to overcome potential disasters from unwanted portions. I suspect Wersi did just that.

Linux might be a more suitable candidate, because in my mind it is far more modular and "low-level" and might provide a more stripped down and fat free platform as a base.