chuckt@theborg.mlb.fl.us (Chuck Teschke) (03/18/91)
OK, For those who were interested in Protracker V1.1 I finally have found someone to put it up on ab20. it should be showing up soon. I agree with janne, Protracker is the best tracker, med just has a bad interface. I will do all my stuff with protracker and then load it into MED to add any midi tracks if i need to. And what all can you do with multitasking with med? can i get 1700cps while composing a song?? Just my opinion though, some people might like med's features... |Chuck Teschke | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | USENET:chuckt@theborg.mlb.fl.us |"If i have 5 megs of RAM, then why does | FIDONET: 374/1 | this program keep accessing the disk?!?" |---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "My employer could care less about my opinions..."
C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Baird McIntosh) (03/19/91)
In Message-ID: <chuckt.1177@theborg.mlb.fl.us>
chuckt@theborg.mlb.fl.us (Chuck Teschke) said:
>OK, For those who were interested in Protracker V1.1 I finally have found
>someone to put it up on ab20. it should be showing up soon.
>
>
>I agree with janne, Protracker is the best tracker, med just has a bad
>interface. I will do all my stuff with protracker and then load it into
>MED to add any midi tracks if i need to. And what all can you do with
>multitasking with med? can i get 1700cps while composing a song??
>
>Just my opinion though, some people might like med's features...
I use multitasking. Is there some reason that a program such as MED should
not multitask? I.e. is there any benefit in using a *tracker program that
doesn't multitask? Believe it or not, bugginess and non-multitasking are
two big "No-No's" to a lot of people.
Without getting into any particular "net-composer's" artistic ability, I
think that the features and ease-of-use of MED more than make up for any
shortcomings in the program's appearance (which I like anyway) and I
just wonder how many people really write music with these programs. Do
we want the most usable program or the best looking one?
In my specific case, I like to run MED and Handshake simultaneously on my
1-meg machine, and I have 100-200K of "breathing space" left over. This
is not directed at you, Chuck, in particular. But I tried out the
StarTrekker program on ab20, and it had several BAD points:
1. It uses a PAL screen on my NTSC Amiga---I can't see the whole screen!
2. It crashed on me... seemed buggy.
3. It didn't have a file requestor---very bad.
4. Poor organization compared to MED, but I'm used to MED.
I'll have to check out Protracker when it reaches ab20.
| Baird McIntosh | c503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu <-or-> c503719@umcvmb.bitnet |
| "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." |
| "Let's go!" LEMMINGS "Oh no!" |s117986@lehtori.tut.fi (Salmij{rvi Janne) (03/19/91)
From article <910319.003141.CST.C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU>, by C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Baird McIntosh): > > Without getting into any particular "net-composer's" artistic ability, I > think that the features and ease-of-use of MED more than make up for any > shortcomings in the program's appearance (which I like anyway) and I > just wonder how many people really write music with these programs. Do > we want the most usable program or the best looking one? Absolutely the most usable (and if it even is the best looking one then great), and this at the moment happens to be PT1.1b. (I write music with PT/NT/ST combination, mainly on PT and NT but sometimes on ST) > > In my specific case, I like to run MED and Handshake simultaneously on my > 1-meg machine, and I have 100-200K of "breathing space" left over. You got 1 megChip or 512kb chip ? on my 1 meg A500 (512kb chip) I even run add21k before running PT/NT. I tend to make songs that eat lotsa mem, and I want to keep several samples in mem to listen which of them sounds best for that song. And when PLST eats 80 kbytes of mem too (although it goes to 'fast' mem), I really want to have lotsa FREE mem... > is not directed at you, Chuck, in particular. But I tried out the > StarTrekker program on ab20, and it had several BAD points: > > 1. It uses a PAL screen on my NTSC Amiga---I can't see the whole screen! That's bad... but why did they make 2 different TVstandards in the first place? (PAL should've been the one and only) ;) > 2. It crashed on me... seemed buggy. Crashes sometimes on me too... > 3. It didn't have a file requestor---very bad. Which version ? (my version has a nice file requester, just like in PixMate) > 4. Poor organization compared to MED, but I'm used to MED. Poor ? I think MED is the poor one, but as you said, I'm used to xT ;) > I'll have to check out Protracker when it reaches ab20. Do that.. It sure is great > > | Baird McIntosh | c503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu <-or-> c503719@umcvmb.bitnet | > | "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." | > | "Let's go!" LEMMINGS "Oh no!" | -- Janne Salmij{rvi s117986@cc.tut.fi
davidc@contact.uucp (David Carlton) (03/20/91)
In article <910319.003141.CST.C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU> C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Baird McIntosh) writes: >In my specific case, I like to run MED and Handshake simultaneously on my >1-meg machine, and I have 100-200K of "breathing space" left over. This >is not directed at you, Chuck, in particular. But I tried out the >StarTrekker program on ab20, and it had several BAD points: > >1. It uses a PAL screen on my NTSC Amiga---I can't see the whole screen! You'll find that all the best trackers are PAL. Most of the better software tends to sprout from Europe anyhow as the N.A. programmers are lazy good-for-nothings... I've noticed a problem with a LOT of software so I made a PAL/NTSC hardware switch and attached it to my Super Agnus. Now I run 100% of the time in PAL and have not had ONE program die on me. EVER. >2. It crashed on me... seemed buggy. I run StarTrekker / ProTracker on my B2000 in PAL under both 1.3/2.0. No problems whatsoever... >3. It didn't have a file requestor---very bad. ProTracker has a very good filerequester, and just about everything else one might need. >4. Poor organization compared to MED, but I'm used to MED. Well, use what's best for you. 8) Myself, I can't use MED 3.0. The features may be numerous, but the graphics are an eyesore. Can no one make a decent tracker in say, Medium resolution? (Note: Still looking for code for ANY PD tracker program! I want to MAKE a better interface, perhaps even 2.0 compatible..) Yours, -- Dave Carlton (davidc@ziebmef.mef.org!white.toronto.edu) "There's more than one way to skin a cat", Lydia thought, as she nailed the little paws to the dissection board... Richard Deming
chuckt@theborg.mlb.fl.us (Chuck Teschke) (03/20/91)
When i get MED i'll let ya know what i think of it. As for startrekker i have never seen the program... BTW, sound/noise/protracker have logged hundreds of hours of -composing- time on my computer from dusk till dawn on many a night. i have lots of originals that myself and a friend have done. i am in a programming group and we will have some demos coming out soon and you will get to hear some of these EXCELLENT modules. only problem is that my friend goes 'sample happy' sometimes and ends up with these 400K+ modules sometimes... |Chuck Teschke | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | USENET:chuckt@theborg.mlb.fl.us |"If i have 5 megs of RAM, then why does | FIDONET: 374/1 | this program keep accessing the disk?!?" |---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "My employer could care less about my opinions..."