PTB3: Linux or Windows?

1
Hi everyone,
Thanks for providing such excellent feedback in this forum. It has
been a great resource. Now here's my question:

After coding and running a few experiments in OSX PTB I've inherited a
pair of reasonably modern desktop Dell Pentium4/Nvidia systems, which
i'm going to use for running subjects. The boxes are filled with
annoyance-ware, and I basically need to reinstall a new OS from scratch.

So my question to you is: what flavor of Linux or Windows would you
recommend installing for running PTB3?

I guess the flippant version would be, 'Is the lack of "official
support" on linux worse than mario's "disdain" for windows?'
:)

Factors I'm interested in include: ease of cross-platform operation with
OSX, stability, timing performance, anything else you think is relevant.

I appreciate any feedback,
-Adam
2
Thanks for the input. It sounds like there won't be much startup cost
(in terms of cash, anyway) for trying linux, and the firewire video
capabilities may come in handy down the line. Sound seems to be the
main stumbling block from my viewpoint...

So if I'm going to try this, is there any particular distribution
you've had success with? Any other useful particulars?

Thanks,
-Adam



--- In psychtoolbox@yahoogroups.com, "Mario Kleiner"
<mario.kleiner@...> wrote:
>
> As much as i hate to say this: If you don't have special needs, but a
> need for high compatibility, go for the windows version. There's just
> many areas that are not yet implemented on Linux-PTB because i don't
> have the time. The Screen command, WaitSecs, GetSecs, mouse and
> keyboard queries are there. But sound output is completely missing,
> Quicktime movie playback in Screen is not implemented, and functions
> for driving other i/o devices like joysticks, serial/parallel port/usb
> and such are also not implemented.
>
> The strong areas are:
>
> - Live video capture and feedback with FireWire cameras and very low
> latency (I need this).
>
> - Very good timing behaviour, at least in the areas i tested it, even
> on very old hardware.
>
> - Runs on Octave, no need for Matlab (I want this).
>
> - Can run from a CD without need to install an operating system at all
> (turn any pc into a experimental setup by inserting a cd) (Don't ask
> why i need this).
>
> - The potential to become the best version at some point because the
> underlying OS is in my experience technically the most superior one,
> most pain-free to develop, highest flexibility, lowest number of bugs,
> best documentation, lots of free software available to quickly extend
> it -- if i only had the time...
>
> So i'd say if you don't need any of this, go for Windoze, check back
> in maybe 1 year.
>
> -mario
>
>
> --- In psychtoolbox@yahoogroups.com, "november647" <adn@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> > Thanks for providing such excellent feedback in this forum. It has
> > been a great resource. Now here's my question:
> >
> > After coding and running a few experiments in OSX PTB I've inherited a
> > pair of reasonably modern desktop Dell Pentium4/Nvidia systems, which
> > i'm going to use for running subjects. The boxes are filled with
> > annoyance-ware, and I basically need to reinstall a new OS from
scratch.
> >
> > So my question to you is: what flavor of Linux or Windows would you
> > recommend installing for running PTB3?
> >
> > I guess the flippant version would be, 'Is the lack of "official
> > support" on linux worse than mario's "disdain" for windows?'
> > :)
> >
> > Factors I'm interested in include: ease of cross-platform
operation with
> > OSX, stability, timing performance, anything else you think is
> relevant.
> >
> > I appreciate any feedback,
> > -Adam
> >
>
3
For what it's worth, I installed Octave and Psychtoolbox on a
Kubuntu-based machine. None of the binary functions (i.e., the *.oct
files) will run, because Kubuntu has libhdf5 version 1.6.4, and those
files were built with version 1.6.5. I assume there may be other such
conflicts, even if I were to update libhdf5. Does anyone know whether
there is a way to compile so the binaries are a little more flexible
about the libraries they link to?

David

On 2/1/07, november647 <adn@...> wrote:
> Thanks for the input. It sounds like there won't be much startup cost
> (in terms of cash, anyway) for trying linux, and the firewire video
> capabilities may come in handy down the line. Sound seems to be the
> main stumbling block from my viewpoint...
>
> So if I'm going to try this, is there any particular distribution
> you've had success with? Any other useful particulars?
4
Hi David,

As far as I know Psychtoolbox doesn't link against libhdf (whatever that
is). It must be an Octave problem. Try this for a quick fix :
sudo ln -s /usr/lib/libhdf5-1.6.4.so.0 /usr/lib/libhdf5-1.6.5.so.0
sudo /sbin/ldconfig

That might just fix it. If it doesn't, try to update libhdf, and get
another Octave package or compile from source.

Regards,

Simon Barthelmé

David Fencsik a écrit :
>
> For what it's worth, I installed Octave and Psychtoolbox on a
> Kubuntu-based machine. None of the binary functions (i.e., the *.oct
> files) will run, because Kubuntu has libhdf5 version 1.6.4, and those
> files were built with version 1.6.5. I assume there may be other such
> conflicts, even if I were to update libhdf5. Does anyone know whether
> there is a way to compile so the binaries are a little more flexible
> about the libraries they link to?
>
> David
>
> On 2/1/07, november647 <adn@... <mailto:adn%40stanford.edu>>
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the input. It sounds like there won't be much startup cost
> > (in terms of cash, anyway) for trying linux, and the firewire video
> > capabilities may come in handy down the line. Sound seems to be the
> > main stumbling block from my viewpoint...
> >
> > So if I'm going to try this, is there any particular distribution
> > you've had success with? Any other useful particulars?
>
>