Why Pentium?

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed writes

They were quite modern.

Nope, nothing like modern OSs like XP.

Not that any real progress has been made in operating
systems over the past few decades, though.

Utterly silly pig ignorant drivel.

You need to know it to optimize I/O, whether it is reading or writing.

Wrong again with write caching. ALL you need to do
is to cache it while the drive is doing something else.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed writes

That depends on many factors.

Like hell it does. Drives NEVER get so fragmented that
video editing sees almost all cluster level access involve
the drive access time.

No, it has not, unfortunately.

Wrong, as always.

And you figures alone proves that that claim is
pure pig ignorant drivel even with just access times.

 

[kony]

Yep.

Then it's not very quiet, end of story.

Even before they begin whining they're not quiet fans.

 

[kony]

CPU fans are not an important source of noise in a closed case. Most
of the noise comes from other case or PSU fans and from the disk
drives.

If the system isn't set up very well, sure.

Maybe even more likely on older generation systems with ball
bearing motor, hard drives, but there is no reason anything
else would need be more audible except possibly a high-end
video card wedged in such that it has to have that small
high RPM to stay cool. Even so, the stock P3 retail
heatsink fan is essentially that- a smaller, thinner, higher
RPM fan than other alternatives available at the time.

 

[kony]

Then your PC is exceptional. In many PCs, a CPU fan failure is
potentially a serious problem precisely because the CPU fan is
inaudible over the other fan(s) and disk drive(s).

Nonsense.

Excepting newer high heat CPUs, all of my CPU 'sink fans
were inaudible and all still work.\

Not hearing the fan is not a problem, quite the opposite- it
means the lower RPM is conducive to long life (all else
being equal, which is it not since it still matters what fan
is chosen and how it's implemented.

In short, don't use crap fans.

 

[kony]

There are very few operations in photoediting programs that require
large amounts of CPU horsepower.

Quite untrue. EVERY operation's processing time depends
largely on it. So sure, any operation will complete,
eventually, but all are slower.

Any slowness perceived by the user
is typically a consequence of limited memory--portions of the image
are being moved to and from a private swap file. Add memory and the
slowness disappears.

You obviously don't do much or very demanding image editing.
It's plain as day what difference a faster CPU makes on
large tasks, and smaller, the % difference still remains.
This is WITH a system having plenty of memory.

 

[kony]

Yes, but with current processors, it has to be very large indeed.

Actually, no.

With even the tiniest image possible, there is a direct
relationship. The only factor that offsets that is the
human user bottleneck, how soon after initiating the
operation would the user then be ready to do the next one.

 

[kony]

All you have to do is look at processor time. If a program is using
less than 100% processor and is not waiting for user input or network
I/O, then it's waiting for disk I/O.

A nice theory, but we have benchmarks to compare these
things and they do show improvements from a faster CPU.
Not as much improvement in some cases as having a HDD
upgrade, but the difference is nevertheless significant.

Not so. You need locality of reference in file cache systems, since
they cannot store more than an extremely small portion of the total
data in the file system.

They never need to store a large portion of the total data
in the file system. They only need that data actively used.
As I'd already written, it makes a very very large
difference in that use.

 

[kony]

It's mostly a function of OS design.
Nonsense.

General-purpose operating
systems tend not to be very snappy.

If you have a lot running at incorrect (per user's needs)
process priority, then it's somewhat true, and mostly false,
because gen-purpose OS can easily be very snappy. Win9x
Lite, Win2k, even WinXP if you whittle away at it for
awhile.

A real-time OS will be extremely
snappy no matter what type of processor is used. Of course, real-time
operating systems have their own problems, which is why they aren't
used for ordinary desktops.

Your PC needs a tuneup.

 

[kony]

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

Yes there's plenty. The fans I had, the fans others had,
the forum reports, those that undervolted their fans, those
that swapped fans to reduce noise.

It seems you're in a minority thinking you know but not
realizing they were neither very loud nor very quiet, merely
tolerable (when new).

 

[kony]

So you are world famous now for being able to pick a truly great fan!??
Impressive! ;---o

Famous?

Anybody can use good fans, and I'd have to wonder why anyone
wouldn't already if they'd had failures.

 

[kony]

You'd be willing to bet a $100-$500 component

Would you be willing to bet far more costly system downtime
for corporations? You have an arbitrary context of what is
important.

on $1 - $20 (de-luxe
model component's reliability? That just doesn't make any sense nor
arguing in that case's favour makes any sense.

I didn't ask you if you understood it?

It would seem you don't understand fans well either if you
think a good quality reliable fan is "de-luxe". It's merely
appropriate for a system intended to run for several years.

On the one hand we have you who cannot make sense out of
buying parts that last long enough, and on the other hand we
have people that have learned and demonstrated it works.

Resolve your misunderstanding towards a fruitful end- fans
don't have to be the first or second, etc, failure point in
a system... at least not the CPU fan, northbridge and video
card are more difficult to employ for an entire system
lifespan... though not impossible, but parts manufacturers
aren't providing the clearance or mounting methods for many
people, parts changes.

What good does it possibly achieve to be able to recognize the most
reliable brand of fan,

Nobody said you had to recognize "THE most reliable frand of
fan". Where you paying attention while reading? There's
certrainly more than one brand one could use.

when they still using ball bearings

.... because a good ball bearing will last long enough, when
the fan and implementation is good. Any bearing can be made
to fail if the load on it is beyond the spec for the part
and the corresponding lifespan.

and not,
say, a magnet to levitate the cooling part

Why this lofty theory?
You don't know much about fans. Maybe some lofty giant fan
but not small, cost effective and reliable computer fans.
If you are so sure your idea is good, make some fans.
Multi-billion dollar major fan manufacturers have already
done the hard work and have excellant products. Only when
one buys some generic or off-brand, relabled parts do they
start having trouble. In other words, if you leave parts
choices to penny-pinchers, they'll choose a part only a few
cents cheaper even if that part was a most significant
failure point when it didn't need to be.

and using current to rotate
it (magnet is already used in the electric motor, why not also use it
to keep the fan centered in the right space? =) That way *physical*
tearing would be reduced a notch.

Are you a glutton for punishment? You seem to be suggesting
that we should take what works fine and change it.
Good fans dont' need your lofty theories applied, merely
people need to stop using crap fans and pretending they can
just trust someone else to use good quality parts in the
weakest links.

It's the same situation as any (device), the weaker links
need to be made so their lifespan is at least comparable to
the other parts. Fans need to last at least as long as the
rest of the system, but they don't need to be engineered at
some great theoretical benefit and significantly higher cost
such that they would run for 300 years.

Even in that case I bet the fan would eventually be the *weakest* link.

You have no idea, your bet is meaningless words.

If the weakest link is that fragile, I'd make damn sure the system
tolerates the failure. Especially when doing so is practically free!

If you knew how to implement fans properly you wouldn't fee
the fans were the weakest link. As for "that fragile",
learn something plainly:

You have demonstrated that you are not using fans very well.
Others have very good success and long life, they don't
consider them fragile at all. This is YOUR failure to do
something well, not an excuse to condemn fans in general.
If your vanity prevents you from choosing and implementing
fans properly then it is not the fan that is fragile, it is
the methodology.

 

[kony]

What if the heatsink had come off because its clip attached to only
2 plastic hooks on the CPU socket and one of those hooks had
snapped off, aided by the heatsink's tiny contact area with the CPU
package? That's happened when 32-bit AMD computers were
shipped or were merely moved for servicing.

What of it?

Intel had used 2 point clips also in the past and those CPUs
would fry too.

Merely moving a system will not break off a socket lug. If
the socket lug had been stressed previously, it then may be
possible, but so it was on the P3 systems too. You'd have
to be arbitrarily pointing at AMD when they merely changed
the socket later than Intel did. P3 easily fries without a
heatsink.

In summary, it is irrelevant today. We can look back in
time and discount any and practically all company's products
for *some* kind of fault in the same manner, but then
there's nothing left to build a system with, _today_.

 

[Rod Speed]

Then it's not very quiet, end of story.

Irrelevant to the FACT that your stupid pig ignorant
claim at the top is clearly just plain wrong.

Even before they begin whining they're not quiet fans.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE FAN USED ON P3s, you
silly little pathetic excuse for an argumentative bullshit artist.

 

[Rod Speed]

Actually, no.

Fraid so.

With even the tiniest image possible, there is a direct
relationship. The only factor that offsets that is the
human user bottleneck, how soon after initiating the
operation would the user then be ready to do the next one.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

WITH CURRENT PROCESSORS, THE TIME IS SO SMALL
THAT ITS COMPLETELY INVISIBLE TO THE USER WITH
THE SMALLEST IMAGE POSSIBLE, you pathetic excuse
for an argumentative bullshit artist.

 

[Rod Speed]

Quite untrue.
Nope.

EVERY operation's processing time depends largely on it. So
sure, any operation will complete, eventually, but all are slower.

Most complete so fast that its faster than the user can select
that operation, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

You obviously don't do much or very demanding image editing.
It's plain as day what difference a faster CPU makes on
large tasks, and smaller, the % difference still remains.
This is WITH a system having plenty of memory.

Pathetic, really.

 

[Rod Speed]

Yes there's plenty.

Not a shred. You cant even manage to grasp THAT
MORE THAN ONE BOXED FAN WAS USED ON P3s.

The fans I had, the fans others had, the forum reports, those that
undervolted their fans, those that swapped fans to reduce noise.

That aint evidence THAT YOU ARE CAPABLE OF THOUGHT.

It seems you're in a minority thinking you know

Nope, you are, actually.

but not realizing they were neither very loud
nor very quiet, merely tolerable (when new).

Separate matter entirely to your stupid pig ignorant claim that
all P3 boxed fans developed BEARING WHINE within months.

 

[Rod Speed]

Would you be willing to bet far more costly system downtime
for corporations? You have an arbitrary context of what is
important.


I didn't ask you if you understood it?

It would seem you don't understand fans well either if you
think a good quality reliable fan is "de-luxe". It's merely
appropriate for a system intended to run for several years.

On the one hand we have you who cannot make sense out of
buying parts that last long enough, and on the other hand we
have people that have learned and demonstrated it works.

Resolve your misunderstanding towards a fruitful end- fans
don't have to be the first or second, etc, failure point in
a system... at least not the CPU fan, northbridge and video
card are more difficult to employ for an entire system
lifespan... though not impossible, but parts manufacturers
aren't providing the clearance or mounting methods for many
people, parts changes.



Nobody said you had to recognize "THE most reliable frand of
fan". Where you paying attention while reading? There's
certrainly more than one brand one could use.


... because a good ball bearing will last long enough, when
the fan and implementation is good. Any bearing can be made
to fail if the load on it is beyond the spec for the part
and the corresponding lifespan.


Why this lofty theory?
You don't know much about fans. Maybe some lofty giant fan
but not small, cost effective and reliable computer fans.
If you are so sure your idea is good, make some fans.
Multi-billion dollar major fan manufacturers have already
done the hard work and have excellant products. Only when
one buys some generic or off-brand, relabled parts do they
start having trouble. In other words, if you leave parts
choices to penny-pinchers, they'll choose a part only a few
cents cheaper even if that part was a most significant
failure point when it didn't need to be.



Are you a glutton for punishment? You seem to be suggesting
that we should take what works fine and change it.
Good fans dont' need your lofty theories applied, merely
people need to stop using crap fans and pretending they can
just trust someone else to use good quality parts in the
weakest links.

It's the same situation as any (device), the weaker links
need to be made so their lifespan is at least comparable to
the other parts. Fans need to last at least as long as the
rest of the system, but they don't need to be engineered at
some great theoretical benefit and significantly higher cost
such that they would run for 300 years.



You have no idea, your bet is meaningless words.



If you knew how to implement fans properly you wouldn't fee
the fans were the weakest link. As for "that fragile",
learn something plainly:

You have demonstrated that you are not using fans very well.
Others have very good success and long life, they don't
consider them fragile at all. This is YOUR failure to do
something well, not an excuse to condemn fans in general.
If your vanity prevents you from choosing and implementing
fans properly then it is not the fan that is fragile, it is
the methodology.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

No surprise that you got the bums rush.

 

[The little lost angel]

That is not true. I routinely handle images larger than A3 (A3 at 300
dpi is 17 megapixels or 3543 x 4960 pixels), and I see no delays. A
typical filter requires a few seconds. Unsharp mask is around 1.2
seconds, motion blur is around 2 seconds.

I deal with even larger images on a regular basis (about five times
the size of A3), and I still don't see any big delays for anything.
This is with a 3.0 GHz Pentium and 2 GB of memory.

Most likely system difference, I only have a 2.2Ghz A64 compared to
your 3Ghz and these things are quite likely sheer clockspeed
dependent. What are your timings for a radial blur, spin, best
quality? Is yours a HT chip?

You should also try seeing what happens when previewing artistic
filters like plastic wrap. It takes about 15~16 seconds just to
generate the preview for me.

Personally I've avoided taking on projects dealing with bigger sizes
simply because after one experience (saved file was some 200MB IIRC),
I decided I don't want to have to wait half an hour to apply a filter.

You're still hitting the disk; Photoshop always hits the disk because
it's not really optimized for modern memory systems. However, if you
go to 2 GB, you'll see a clear improvement. The reason is that the
rest of the system is using a lot of memory, so even with 1.5 GB, you
don't necessarily get lots of memory for Photoshop. Also, Photoshop
has its own memory parameters that you can change to get it to use
more memory (it won't use all memory available, no matter what you
do).

I have to disagree with your assumption I'm hitting the disk. PS is
only using 196MB because I used a single layer for this test so memory
is not a concern, the raw image size is only about 50MB. I still have
1GB of physical memory left. More importantly, I monitored the disk
activity on PS using taskinfo and it did not do any significant I/O
operations during the time the filters are applied or previewed.

If you've already fiddled wit Photoshop memory parameters and you are
getting Windows messages about things not responding, you've set the
Photoshop parameters way too high. You cannot get PS to use all
available memory, no matter what you do. That's largely a PS defect.

Windows is reporting that because PS is using as much processing power
as it can and not responding to external inputs during that time. It
has nothing to do with memory in this case. Purely CPU bound.

 

[VWWall]

Hello,

I am in the market for a good computer, with a dual-core CPU. I keep
reading that Athlon is better than Pentium, Athlon is faster than Pentium,
and Athlon is lower priced than Pentium. But if that is the case, why do
most businesses have Pentium based PCs and not Athlon based PCs? Surely most
businesses research the pros and cons of a product before they make their
purchases. Thank you for clarifying this for me.

T.I.

This says it all: BTBS

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/07/05/28OPcurve_1.html?source=NLC-CURVE2006-07-06

http://tinyurl.com/luevp (if the above wraps)