First, having MOAR speed doesn't equal to better audio performance (it might help, but if I have IRQ issues it doesn't, for example). KolibriOS is much faster than any Linux out of there, but I am afraid you will never do much music on it (not great audio hardware support and pool of software). Speed =/= audio performance.
I am not sure I understand this point. There is plenty of good amp/effect modelling software for all platforms. Guitarix is my favourite, but it is not that AmpliTube sucks. It is expensive sure, but there are many little free jems in the Win world too. I am not sure why the fact we have a good Open Source amp/effects simulator makes the OS handling audio better? The way the OS handles audio... is related to the OS itself, not Guitarix... Maybe you are thinking about low latency that allows you to play realtime? By the way, what's the problem with people claiming that? There is plenty of people the use Guitar Rig in the same fashion of Guitarix on Win... Why the fact that people on Windows don't have good Open Source software (supposing that's true) makes Windows internally handling audio in a worse way? I don't think I get this, sorry.beck wrote: Recording electrical guitar and the software Guitarix are good examples.
If you talk with a win man about Guitarix, all say without any doubt "that ain't possible!! Tried that many times. Recording distorted guitar is almost impossible without expensive gear".
Why is it that that thought is so common within win recorders? Where we with linux do it without problems.
Then linux DOES handle sound easier and better? Doesn't it?
Yes, I always struggled with Win. So? You could repeat all those statements with Linux or Mac instead of Windows and they would hold true in many cases. I never had a computer I did not need to deeply tune to be able to make music. Not even when it was an OpenBox system. In fact, for similar reasons you listed there, I moved from Ubuntu to Arch. I found Ubuntu to be too bloated and unstable for audio (I needed to reinstall it from scratch every year, just like XP). I decided to live on a OS that makes somewhat easier to tune deeply the system, so I can squeeze the performance I need. Does it make Arch better? Nope. I just think Arch is good for me and my computers and I will never think it is superior to another distro. There isn't a superior distro.beck wrote: Does win have no problems at all with hardware and drivers? Does that alway's work well?
When you want win to record you don't have to watch the specs and capacities, and it alway's immidiatly does what you want?
I always had to struggle a bit to get good audio performance out of Linux. Still, I don't think that other OSes are superior. For one, I always had to struggle with Win and Mac too (good luck uh?). Second, when I get the audio performance I want I think they are perfect. Third, I still enjoy more doing this tuning on Linux as it is the OS I like and makes me much more able and free to experiment. Plus, it runs my favourite software (audio and not). And I like FLOSS.
I am not claiming that Win or Mac are better or easier. They are not. Nor is Linux. Or BSD, or openindiana... Maybe BeOS was it... now it's old. Let's keep an eye on Haiku who knows... But I am not claiming whatsoever that there is a better audio OS or distro, for the matter, and I tried to supply some reason for it.
I once told a friend of mine, that does music on Mac, that I use Linux. He said "Oh cool! If it works for you, more power to you!". A cool guy that doesn't need to convince the world he has the finest and greatest...
Anyway, from me on this subtopic EOF.