Hi folks !
Using pd on my very slow WIN95 machine I have a few questions which I ask you to answer...
- Is it possible to use an initialization file, and does it make any
sense ?
(ThatŽs just because I have to use thousands of flags and this is hard work, especially when trying new configurations)
- Why is it not possible any longer to use a working directory
different from '/directory/pd/bin' in release 0.23 (although it was in the earlier releases) ?
(ThatŽs just because I canŽt understand why there is a BINary directory if I have to put all my trash into it by default)
- Is it possible to save arrays as soundfiles to disk (something
equivalent to the READ16 message) ?
(ThatŽs just because I donŽt want to convert saved arrays to soundfiles myself all the time, although I got some very beautiful and unexpected sounds :: in NOISETRACKER-format ??:?)
- Is it possible to use more than one (stereo) IN-/OUTput, and if
so, how ?
(ThatŽs just because I have 6 or so audio-out-devices and 2 audio-in-devices on my soundcard)
- Is it possible to switch off the MIDI-devices like the audio-devs
?
(ThatŽs because I use Mark DanksŽ GEM on a PC without a soundcard, and I feel scared every timeall those horrible error messages appear on the screen)
- Do self-made abstractions eat up all the ressources ?
(ThatŽs just because my Pentium wouldnŽt do some patches, and so did IEMŽs SGI!)
- Is it clever to use a Pentium100 ?
(ThatŽs just because I donŽt think so)
Thanks in advance, and so on...
love
Johannes-feeling-sorry-for-his-English M
-----Original Message----- From: Johannes Michael Zmölnig [mailto:madman@sbox.tu-graz.ac.at] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 1:10 AM To: pd-list@iem.mhsg.ac.at Subject: 7 questions on pd
Hi folks !
Using pd on my very slow WIN95 machine I have a few questions which I ask you to answer...
- Is it possible to use an initialization file, and does
it make any sense ?
Yes, it makes sense. IŽm currently implementing that for the Linux version. There will also path handling for pd abstractions. If it will be implemented in other versions depends on Miller.
- Why is it not possible any longer to use a working directory
different from '/directory/pd/bin' in release 0.23 (although it was in the earlier releases) ?
It is possible. What, exactely is the problem ? (Error messages)
- Do self-made abstractions eat up all the ressources ?
(ThatŽs just because my Pentium wouldnŽt do some patches, and so did IEMŽs SGI!)
Yes, it is possible to program a patch to eat all resources. But generally it is a bad idea to do so.
- Is it clever to use a Pentium100 ?
You should be able to judge by yourself after having pd installed. Additionally it is Operating System dependent.
Guenter
Guenter Geiger wrote:
- Is it possible to use an initialization file, and does
it make any sense ?
Yes, it makes sense. IŽm currently implementing that for the Linux version. There will also path handling for pd abstractions. If it will be implemented in other versions depends on Miller.
Cheers Miller, will there ever be an initialization file for WinNT/95 ?>
- Why is it not possible any longer to use a working directory
different from '/directory/pd/bin' in release 0.23 (although it was in the earlier releases) ?
It is possible. What, exactely is the problem ? (Error messages)
Something like "canŽt find CW3215.dll", and I suppose that all other program libraries wonŽt be found too (but because pd stops after this first error, maybe weŽll never know).So I guess, pd really does not realize where it is located itself and only works with the working-directory that is supported by Win95.
- Do self-made abstractions eat up all the ressources ?
(ThatŽs just because my Pentium wouldnŽt do some patches, and so did IEMŽs SGI!)
Yes, it is possible to program a patch to eat all resources. But generally it is a bad idea to do so.
Maybe I chose the wrong word : would *abstraction* fit better ? Since I did not want to eat up all the sources but IŽm sad to report that it happened.So my question, all in all, should have been like :
- Is it clever to use many abstractions (to keep the "program" more
understandable) or would they use too many of the ressources (in the extreme case !)
(ThatŽs just because I would like my little patch to run...)(ThatŽs just because IŽm still very sorry about my English)
Johannes
-----Original Message----- From: Johannes Michael Zmölnig [mailto:madman@sbox.tu-graz.ac.at] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 10:08 AM To: Guenter Geiger; pd-list Subject: Re: 7 questions on pd
Something like "canŽt find CW3215.dll", and I suppose that all other program libraries wonŽt be found too (but because pd stops after this first error, maybe weŽll never know).So I guess, pd really does not realize where it is located itself and only works with the working-directory that is supported by Win95.
Locating libraries is not a problem of pd, but a problem of the operating system. To let Windows know where it has to look for dllŽs, just set the PATH variable correctly (Somewhere in autoexec I guess). Something like:
SET PATH=C:\MUSIC\PD\BIN
(assuming CW3215.dll is in the PD\BIN directory)
- Is it clever to use many abstractions (to keep the "program" more
understandable) or would they use too many of the ressources (in the extreme case !)
I never tried to use abstractions to the extreme. If this is a problem for pd depends what the extreme case means. My guess is that it should be possible to manage 100 abstractions without a problem, but honestly I have never tried more than ten.
Guenter
Guenter Geiger wrote:
Something like "canŽt find CW3215.dll", and I suppose that all other
program libraries wonŽt be found too (but because pd stops after this first error, maybe > weŽll never know).So I guess, pd really does not realize where it is located itself and only works with the working-directory that is supported by Win95.
Locating libraries is not a problem of pd, but a problem of the operating system. To let Windows know where it has to look for dllŽs, just set the PATH variable correctly (Somewhere in autoexec I guess)
Something like: SET PATH=C:\MUSIC\PD\BIN
That sounds great, IŽll have to try it...
- Is it clever to use many abstractions (to keep the "program" more
understandable) or would they use too many of the ressources (in the extreme case !)
I never tried to use abstractions to the extreme. If this is a problem for pd depends what the extreme case means. My guess is that it should be possible to manage 100 abstractions without a problem, but honestly I have never tried more than ten.
Since 24 is not much more than 10, the problem has to be otherwhere; maybe the "fiddle" plug-in uses too much of the CPU capacity or 10 arrays of the enormous size of 220500 samples each are just too much. (by the way, do flags work on Irix ?)
Anyway, thanks for your helping me.
Johannes
(never mind my English)
-
Guenter Geiger -
Johannes Michael Zmölnig