Why Pentium?

[kony]

I don't set process priorities on a desktop machine, nor do I
recommend that anyone else do so.

Sure, but the apps themselves can.
Actually it can be a benefit, if for example you wanted to
apply some filters and capture to MPEG4 while using a
system, it'll be good to give that enough priority.

 

[kony]

So do ALL of mine thanks, child.

Then you look even more foolish.

 

[Rod Speed]

I'm quite content to have you think that Rod, and plenty of
people were quite happy to have a quieter fan instead.

Separate issue entirely to your stupid pig ignorant claim that
ALL P3s BOXED FANS DEVELOP BEARING WHINE IN MONTHS.

Perhaps your subjective opinion of "quiet" means anything
less than 30% of the noise a hair dryer produces,

Or perhaps not when I chose to replace the power
supply and hard drives with those that are silent.

but to others if the CPU isn't particularly high heat,
quiet would mean "can I hear it without trying to".

Thats the case with me too thanks.

I happened to pull out another P3 fan yesterday as it just
happened to be within arm's reach and I'd needed a temporary
airflow for testing passive cooling a C3 (simulation of a
PSU intake flow). The fan was far louder than anything I
have running, cooling video cards, overclocked CPUs,
chipsets, etc. Pathetic really, didn't even move half the
air of fans far far quieter. For the record this particular
fan was Nidec-made and rated for 0.13A, and like all the
others it's problems were that it was too thin, too high an
RPM, bearings and hub too small.

Says nothing useful what so ever about your stupid pig ignorant claim
that ALL P3s BOXED FANS DEVELOP BEARING WHINE IN MONTHS.

Disagree all you want but more than anything it shows
just how little you realize how quiet a system can
actually be if you think that era of intel fan was quiet.

Says nothing useful what so ever about your stupid pig ignorant claim
that ALL P3s BOXED FANS DEVELOP BEARING WHINE IN MONTHS.

There's nothing desperate about plugging in a fan and
noticing how loud it is. Same as observed by many many
people for many years. All except a handful including Rod.

Says nothing useful what so ever about your stupid pig ignorant claim
that ALL P3s BOXED FANS DEVELOP BEARING WHINE IN MONTHS.

Oh well, I'm done arguing about it because nothing
you or I write will change the noise level.

Yep, you'll never convince those of us that have P3 boxed fans which dont have
bearing whine that ALL P3s BOXED FANS DEVELOP BEARING WHINE IN MONTHS.

 

[Rod Speed]

For many common tasks it is not the bottleneck. That
doesn't diminish it as a bottleneck for other tasks.

Gaming isn't so uncommon, nor is video capture, editing, on-the-fly
compression for burning DVDs. Remember Win MCE? Plenty of
OEMs sell it, relatively unsophisticated users are now doing things
they never could before because of the CPUs we have today.

Video capture doesnt need the latest cpu,
my 4 channel PVR is fine with a 900MHz cpu.

And while basic video editing, chopping dvr-ms files
up into program segment files would be faster on a
faster system, its quite adequate on that system too.

Most of the time the CPU is nowhere near 100%
utilized but for milliseconds at a time, it helps.

Gets sillier by the minute. Thats completely invisible.

 

[Rod Speed]

Then you look even more foolish.

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

 

[kony]

Video capture doesnt need the latest cpu,
my 4 channel PVR is fine with a 900MHz cpu.

So you're stuck capturing in MPEG2, right?
That's a good way for beginners to get started but hardly a
good result for editing or long term storage.

And while basic video editing, chopping dvr-ms files
up into program segment files would be faster on a
faster system, its quite adequate on that system too.

Well sure, it's a little slower, and on a little slower CPU,
a little slower, and so on... and that's only BASIC,
simplistic editing jobs. You're just arguing for the sake of
it now, and it's sad.

 

[Rod Speed]

So you're stuck capturing in MPEG2, right?

Wrong. I can capture any of TS, full TS, dvr-ms as well.

That's a good way for beginners to get
started but hardly a good result for editing

Depends on what you want to do editing wise. Most
just want to chop a big block of capture into individual
program segments and maybe auto strip the ads.

or long term storage.

Mindlessly silly.

Well sure, it's a little slower, and on a little slower CPU, a little
slower, and so on... and that's only BASIC, simplistic editing jobs.

Its what most do with their PVRs, MCEs.

You're just arguing for the sake of it now, and it's sad.

You're projecting now, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

 

[kony]

Wrong. I can capture any of TS, full TS, dvr-ms as well.

Any way you wanna slice it, you have either hardware MPEG or
you have insufficient CPU power to get adequate compression
for permanent storage. Sure you can compress it later, but
all the worse to do that if it were MPEG'd already, and a
horrific use of HDD spac if lesser compression.

DVR-ms is not an actual capture format though, it's a MS
proprietary kludge for (get ready for it....) MPEG2. Maybe
DV, but any way you look at it the 900MHz CPU is a problem
is not working within it's limitations like direct transfer
of a pre-existing data stream. Some wouldn't even call that
video capture but that it happened to occur on a vidcap
card, but if you wanna stick to that then so be it.

Depends on what you want to do editing wise. Most
just want to chop a big block of capture into individual
program segments and maybe auto strip the ads.

Well that's certainly up to you, back when 900MHz was the
best affordable technology I cued up jobs and just left a
box doing them if/when they couldn't cut it realtime.

Mindlessly silly.

Not at all, do you routinely waste storage space for no
useful purpose at all? "IF" you're dumping it all out to
DVD immediately I can see wanting MPEG2 but otherwise, it's
just a bad alternative that persisted from a past era when
hardware decompression was too weak in set-top boxes to be
done on the fly.

Its what most do with their PVRs, MCEs.

You presuppose MCE?
No wonder you are thinking only within what MS pushes at
you.

 

[Rod Speed]

Any way you wanna slice it, you have either hardware MPEG or you have
insufficient CPU power to get adequate compression for permanent storage.

Utterly pig ignorant, as always. Anyone with a clue captures digital
TV now, with the compression being done before transmission.

Thats what a transport stream is, stupid.

Sure you can compress it later, but all the worse
to do that if it were MPEG'd already, and a horrific
use of HDD spac if lesser compression.

See above.

DVR-ms is not an actual capture format though, it's a
MS proprietary kludge for (get ready for it....) MPEG2.

Not a ****ing clue, as always.

Maybe DV, but any way you look at it the 900MHz
CPU is a problem is not working within it's limitations
like direct transfer of a pre-existing data stream.

Thats what anyone with a clue does, fool.

Some wouldn't even call that video capture

Only the pig ignorant fools who dont actually
have a clue about what video capture is about.

but that it happened to occur on a vidcap card,

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

but if you wanna stick to that then so be it.

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

Well that's certainly up to you, back when 900MHz was
the best affordable technology I cued up jobs and just
left a box doing them if/when they couldn't cut it realtime.

Pity the world has moved on just a tad since then with digital TV, child.

Not at all, do you routinely waste storage space for no useful
purpose at all? "IF" you're dumping it all out to DVD immediately
I can see wanting MPEG2 but otherwise, it's just a bad alternative
that persisted from a past era when hardware decompression
was too weak in set-top boxes to be done on the fly.

Only a fool captures analog TV anymore, child.

You presuppose MCE?
Nope.

No wonder you are thinking only within what MS pushes at you.

Pity I dont have anything to do with MCE child.

 

[ToolPackinMama]

Why Pentium, indeed? I have been using AMD CPUs for years. I don't
miss Intel at all.

 

[kony]

Utterly pig ignorant, as always. Anyone with a clue captures digital
TV now, with the compression being done before transmission.

Funny, I never limited "capture" to TV.

Thats what a transport stream is, stupid.

So you're not actually arguing for that CPU for "capture"
but rather, one very specific situation and that situation
only.

 

[Rod Speed]

Funny, I never limited "capture" to TV.

Pity there is **** all analog capture anymore by anyone with a clue.

So you're not actually arguing for that CPU for "capture"
but rather, one very specific situation and that situation only.

Yep, you were the one pig ignorant enough to assume that
there is any cpu involvement in modern capture anymore.

ALL you need is enough bandwith for the
transport of what is ALREADY digital.

 

[kony]

Pity there is **** all analog capture anymore by anyone with a clue.

Actually anything that is in analog still without a digital
version (yet) would be. Are you foolish enough to believe
it is somehow better to have someone else turn analog into
moderate quality digital then you capture that digital,
instead of having the original analog and turning it into a
BETTER quality digital copy yourself? It does depend on the
transmission lines/connections/etc, whether noise is
introduced but TV quality digital transmission is not so
great. Hint- they don't have the bandwidth for HQ.

Yep, you were the one pig ignorant enough to assume that
there is any cpu involvement in modern capture anymore.

That's just it foolish one, it's not "modern capture" in
general, it's only one very specific limited scenario you
are doing.

ALL you need is enough bandwith for the
transport of what is ALREADY digital.

yes, it's moderately low bandwidth because they've already
degraded the quality for you. Should we thank them? Maybe,
depends on whether you benefit but then you are still only
considering one limited, specific use so you'll
automatically ignore anything else.

 

[Rod Speed]

Actually anything that is in analog still without a digital version (yet) would be.

Pity there is **** all of that anymore.

Are you foolish enough to believe it is somehow better to have
someone else turn analog into moderate quality digital then you
capture that digital, instead of having the original analog and
turning it into a BETTER quality digital copy yourself?
Nope.

It does depend on the transmission lines/connections/etc, whether
noise is introduced but TV quality digital transmission is not so great.

Hell of a lot better than analog TV, child.

Hint- they don't have the bandwidth for HQ.

Hell of a lot better than analog TV, child.

That's just it foolish one, it's not "modern capture" in general,
it's only one very specific limited scenario you are doing.

Pity its how the absolute vast bulk of modern capture is done now, child.

yes, it's moderately low bandwidth because
they've already degraded the quality for you.

STILL a hell of a lot better than analog TV, child.

Should we thank them?

I do, its a hell of a lot better than analog TV and VCR tapes in spades.

Maybe, depends on whether you benefit but then you are still only considering
one limited, specific use so you'll automatically ignore anything else.

Pity its how the absolute vast bulk of modern capture is done now, child.

 

[kony]

Pity there is **** all of that anymore.

So you'd throw good analog equipment into the trash in favor
of using lower quality digital? Whatever makes you happy
Rod, I'm sure manufacturers LOVE you.

Hell of a lot better than analog TV, child.

I didn't realize you were such a TV whore Rod.
Arguably it's significantly better coming over a cable line,
but again we weren't taking about your limited purpose,
specific scenarios... at least I wasn't and you never
limited your argument to this one narrow genre instead of
the broad topic.

I do, its a hell of a lot better than analog TV and VCR tapes in spades.

You must now realize you've lost the argument to be throwing
in VCR tapes.

 

[Rod Speed]

So you'd throw good analog equipment into the trash

Yep, anyone with a clue has binned their VCRs now.

in favor of using lower quality digital?

Its HIGHER quality digital, fool.

Whatever makes you happy Rod, I'm sure manufacturers LOVE you.

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

I didn't realize you were such a TV whore Rod.

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

Arguably it's significantly better coming over a cable line,

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

but again we weren't taking about your limited purpose, specific scenarios...

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

at least I wasn't and you never limited your argument
to this one narrow genre instead of the broad topic.

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

You must now realize you've lost the argument to be throwing in VCR tapes.

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

 

[WindsorFox]

Yep, anyone with a clue has binned their VCRs now.

Nope, still have two VCRs and no digital tv. I don't see the need or
really much of a difference. I also still have lots of records and a
turntable and when I can afford it I'll be switching out my current amps
for some tube powered mono-blocks.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Yep.

still have two VCRs and no digital tv.

All that proves is that you dont have a clue.

I don't see the need

All that proves is that you dont have a clue.

or really much of a difference.

All that proves is that you dont have a clue.

I also still have lots of records and a turntable

All that proves is that you dont have a clue.

and when I can afford it I'll be switching out my current amps for some tube powered
mono-blocks.

All that proves is that you dont have a clue.

 

[Jure Sah]

kony pravi:

ALL P3s BOXED FANS DEVELOP BEARING WHINE IN MONTHS.

Buy the cooler fans that have double bearings.

Those purr smoothly even after years of use.


--
Primary function: Coprocessor
Secondary function: Cluster commander

http://www.thought-beacon.net

Pay once per lifetime webhosting:
http://farcomm-it.com/?ref=jsah

We are the paragon of humanity. You may worship us. From afar.

01010010 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100100 01100101 01101110 01110100
01000010 01000001 01010011 01001001 01000011

 

[Jure Sah]

kony pravi:

Arguable, P4 needed software optimizations to even keep up
most of the time. Benchmarks belie this by always testing
newest versions of app even when most people don't run
newest versions, it'd cost several thousand addt'l per year
to do that.

Seriously, do you think the Pentium optimizations are better than the
AMD ones?

AMD's 64bit optimizations aren't used very well yet either. But all it
takes is to download properly compiled software (Linux) and you do.

And AMDs are practically faster than Intels. I know the numbers look
neater on Intel processors, but AMDs very simply make a computer more
responsive. I'm guessing it's something to do with overall design.

--
Primary function: Coprocessor
Secondary function: Cluster commander

http://www.thought-beacon.net

Pay once per lifetime webhosting:
http://farcomm-it.com/?ref=jsah

We are the paragon of humanity. You may worship us. From afar.

01010010 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100100 01100101 01101110 01110100
01000010 01000001 01010011 01001001 01000011