<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[ChipMusic.org - Milkytracker VS Fastracker 2]]></title>
		<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/topic/1028/milkytracker-vs-fastracker-2/</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Milkytracker VS Fastracker 2.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:33:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>PunBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Milkytracker VS Fastracker 2]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/16397/#p16397</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>Shiru says:</i></b><p>FT2 is not so easy to run on the modern PCs, and DosBox is simply slow. So, if you don&#039;t have old enough PC with MS-DOS or Windows 9x, you have to choose from modern trackers. If you&#039;ve liked FT2, your options are Sk@le or Milky. In my opinion, Milky is more suitable for chip music, because it has sample drawing tool, so you can create all your samples from scratch, instead of ripping from other&#039;s modules or generating them in external software.</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:33:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/16397/#p16397</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Milkytracker VS Fastracker 2]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/16272/#p16272</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>akira^8GB says:</i></b><p>I prefer Milky because of it being cross platform. I can run it in my Mac or PC indistinctly (and my Mac G3 makes a great tracking machine <img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/big_smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="big_smile" />).</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:27:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/16272/#p16272</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Milkytracker VS Fastracker 2]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/16256/#p16256</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>PlainFlavored says:</i></b><p>Apparently FT2 and Milky handle vibrato way differently. Other than that it merely comes down to what you&#039;re comfortable with/learned first.</p><p>Also, FT2 has nibbles <img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="smile" /></p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:04:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/16256/#p16256</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Milkytracker VS Fastracker 2]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/16218/#p16218</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>tacticalbread says:</i></b><p>MilkyTracker is cross-platform, and FastTracker2 is DOS (although I suppose it could be run in DOSBox which is cross-platform too). Personally I think Milky would be easier to use (I&#039;ve never used FT2).</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:40:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/16218/#p16218</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Milkytracker VS Fastracker 2]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/16217/#p16217</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>Lazerbeat says:</i></b><p>A conversation in IRC about the merits of Milkytracker and FT2 prompted me to wonder if anyone has any preference for one over the other and if so why? I am learning Milky and rather enjoying it. Just curious if there were any specific reasons to choose one over the other?</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:38:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/16217/#p16217</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
