on 16:44 Thu 03 Mar, Lamar Owen (lowen at pari.edu) wrote: > On Thursday, March 03, 2011 04:24:14 pm Dr. Ed Morbius wrote: > > I think I addressed that reality. > > Part of it, yes. > > > For some needs, you need to be on > > bare metal, though whether this is accomplished via multi-booting or > > multiple systems (if you're doing professional music editing, presumably > > you can justify a dedicated system to that task). > > It's not the computer portion of a separate dedicated system that > would be expensive; it's the audio interfaces, patching, and control > surfaces. Much much much easier to dual-boot in a workflow-friendly > fashion. It would be decidedly nice to have virtualization running > well enough to handle all the needs; but it requires twice the > capacity machine to do it. I thought a bit about that when posting earlier. I still disagree WRT dual-booting. And no, virtualization doesn't need twice the hardware by a long shot (aggregated load averaging, shared componentry, and a host of other savings). Audio's pretty easy, as you could select between sources and output (or input) accordingly. Ditto inputs (keyboard, mouse, etc.). Storage might be virtualized/aggregated somehow. For video, you want high-performance. I'm thinking an integrated KVM might work, or something like it. If done in hardware with digital inputs it should be pretty good. How you'd split / select displays would be a design question. -- Dr. Ed Morbius, Chief Scientist / | Robot Wrangler / Staff Psychologist | When you seek unlimited power Krell Power Systems Unlimited | Go to Krell!