[5184] L8 uses 30% more CPU than L7

[SubFunk]

it's beta software, ya buncha whiny little school girls.

stfu and test.

oh really?

man don't make yourself to a fool. no offense, but Live was never pretty in terms of CPU use, so it's ok to push a little the button that they nmake an effort to maximise it as much as possible.

and that is all.

ok, back testing

[davepermen]

it's beta software, ya buncha whiny little school girls.

stfu and test.

exactly, BETA. that means we have to whine about everything that doesn't work the way it should. it's called beta testing. stfu is wrong, we have to say it aloud and bugreport it. the forum here is to collect similar bug-experiences to see if certain bugs are very widespread.

[johnnytoobad]

Geez, I just like programming cool sounds and writing beats. What do I know from CPUs and whatnot? All I can say is the last beta I downloaded runs slower than molasses in January.

[Tone Deft]

it's beta software, ya buncha whiny little school girls.

stfu and test.

exactly, BETA. that means we have to whine about everything that doesn't work the way it should. it's called beta testing. stfu is wrong, we have to say it aloud and bugreport it. the forum here is to collect similar bug-experiences to see if certain bugs are very widespread.

this is a bug report?

or this?

http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=110045


it had to be said, don't get your panties in a knot.

[davepermen]

no, but behind the scenes, bug reports do happen. and here, we talk about it. that's the reason for the forum. some get angry and all, this is all fine. never was different on any other forum anywhere in the world wide web.

[glitchrock-buddha]

it's beta software, ya buncha whiny little school girls.

stfu and test.

ROTFLOLWPMP! (Rolling on the floor laughing out loud while peeing my pants!) (that's a new one I just picked up from the urban dictionary)


Stop discussing whether something is or is not a bug, and get back to finding problems which may or may not be bugs so that you can not discuss those too!

[deva]

it's beta software, ya buncha whiny little school girls.

stfu and test.

You sexist fuck! It's the little boys like you who are whiny!!

[fragchamp]

This is discussion not bug reports so what is wrong with this thread? If the release version has the same performance hit I won't be upgrading.

[Tone Deft]

This is discussion not bug reports so what is wrong with this thread? If the release version has the same performance hit I won't be upgrading.

because it's beta software, it's not finished, it's broken, it sucks. doing performance ratings on it is kinda pointless, of course Live 8 beta is going to be worse than Live 7 which is not only out of beta, it was worked on for MONTHS afterwards to make it better. Live 7.14 is better than Live 7.0. on the other hand 7.0 was almost unusable for me, while 7 beta 21 was fine, that was disheartening. I wouldn't buy it as it is, maybe. but that's one of the motivations to beta test it, make my complaints now, make sure MY specific gear works.

it is interesting to see a number like 30% and props to the thought that went into some (that's a joke) of the other posts. I guess if you were to make a standard beta test .als you could run it with each version and report the load. then turn off one feature at a time to isolate an area of Live 8 beta that's bloated.

BUT you make a good point, it's only discussion. so why can't I post to remind people that it's only beta software?


any detailed info on how/where Live 8 us slow? anything that the programmers can narrow down? there isn't one line of code that says "waste_CPU = on"

/rant

[zigzag]

This is discussion not bug reports so what is wrong with this thread? If the release version has the same performance hit I won't be upgrading.

because it's beta software, it's not finished, it's broken, it sucks. doing performance ratings on it is kinda pointless, of course Live 8 beta is going to be worse than Live 7 which is not only out of beta, it was worked on for MONTHS afterwards to make it better. Live 7.14 is better than Live 7.0. on the other hand 7.0 was almost unusable for me, while 7 beta 21 was fine, that was disheartening. I wouldn't buy it as it is, maybe. but that's one of the motivations to beta test it, make my complaints now, make sure MY specific gear works.

it is interesting to see a number like 30% and props to the thought that went into some (that's a joke) of the other posts. I guess if you were to make a standard beta test .als you could run it with each version and report the load. then turn off one feature at a time to isolate an area of Live 8 beta that's bloated.

BUT you make a good point, it's only discussion. so why can't I post to remind people that it's only beta software?


any detailed info on how/where Live 8 us slow? anything that the programmers can narrow down? there isn't one line of code that says "waste_CPU = on"

/rant

you're right Tone, but i can't help to notice that the cpu usage while playing the same live 8 demo has increased on my system by 25-30% between b15 and b18... that's worrying me. i am a programmer and i know the effect of solving a bug without addressing design issues. i've seen it a lot.
What's also disturbing is that we find issues that should have been detected by the "sophisticated" regression testing suite ableton claim they have. simple usage issues. i guess there's a long way to go before final release. or at least i hope so.

[slirak]

because it's beta software, it's not finished, it's broken, it sucks. doing performance ratings on it is kinda pointless, of course Live 8 beta is going to be worse than Live 7

I take it you're not a software developer. I am. By trade. I wrote my first line of code 1981.

Doing performance ratings on beta software is most definitely not pointless, where on earth did you get that idea???

In fact, I'm currently involved in a very large and expensive development project where doing performance ratings is our prime goal!

In that particular project, I wouldn't say that our debug code's CPU overhead is even measurable.

Why do you make the conclusion that a 30% overhead in L8bxx is down to it being beta? It sure may be, even twice the overhead could well be. Fuck, ten times could be as well. But without indepth knowledge of the source code, you cannot possibly tell.

which is not only out of beta, it was worked on for MONTHS afterwards to make it better. Live 7.14 is better than Live 7.0.

Yeah. But not when it when comes to CPU consumption. I've used all versions of L7 on several systems, both Mac and PC. I haven't seen even a 0.5% difference when it comes to CPU consumption between various versions on either platform.

it is interesting to see a number like 30% and props to the thought that went into some

Pure and dead simple math son. Like eight grade math. STFU. Please.

[Tone Deft]

wow.

anyone else want to address señor limpdick?

[bulo]

I take it you're not a software developer. I am. By trade. I wrote my first line of code 1981.

Doing performance ratings on beta software is most definitely not pointless, where on earth did you get that idea???

In fact, I'm currently involved in a very large and expensive development project where doing performance ratings is our prime goal!

In that particular project, I wouldn't say that our debug code's CPU overhead is even measurable.

Why do you make the conclusion that a 30% overhead in L8bxx is down to it being beta? It sure may be, even twice the overhead could well be. Fuck, ten times could be as well. But without indepth knowledge of the source code, you cannot possibly tell.

Thanks, that's what I tried to say.

[Tone Deft]

you're so special.

I'm an EE, 36 years old, like limpdick I've been writing code since computers were made 'personal.' when we do projects first I design the hardware, then I write the software. you know why they call it SOFTware, because it's not hard, it's easy. software guys are a dime a dozen.

put your dick away and go beta test.

stfu with the Armchair Product Manager routine, this is getting retarded.

[glitchrock-buddha]

Love it.