Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Just got a new comptuer
#21
Without specifics:

Brand and model of memory cards you've attempted to use

Brand and model of the memory card reader

Version of OS

Specific program you might be using to transfer the files

and maybe more,

all I can say is the 1.5 G restriction doesn't seem correct.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#22
JohnWho Wrote:
Armadillo Wrote:Nothing wrong with Aero, if you have a good graphics card. Most of the bad stuff you read about Vista is FUD.

I agree.

No, no, no, Aero is POS.
I had a software that didn't work at all, bad responsiveness with intensively graphic events, it couldn't even play a divX properly etc.
All these issues were solvced by disabling Aero.
It was on a recent computer, 1Gb of ram, dual core, 64 bit etc...

A good graphic card helps, but Aero is useless and is a waste of resources nonetheless.

I strongly recomand Aurora to disable it when she is working with PS or something.

well, as you all like YouTube's: Vista 32bit aero slow scrolling is much slower and laggy vs Vista 32bit basic color scheme
Reply
#23
Q,
Are you using w98 by any chance?
Reply
#24
Fredledingue Wrote:Q,
Are you using w98 by any chance?

Fred, do you still have that link to Win 98, that you once showed over on IAP?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.” - Friedrich von Hayek -
Reply
#25
Fredledingue Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:
Armadillo Wrote:Nothing wrong with Aero, if you have a good graphics card. Most of the bad stuff you read about Vista is FUD.

I agree.

No, no, no, Aero is POS.
I had a software that didn't work at all, bad responsiveness with intensively graphic events, it couldn't even play a divX properly etc.
All these issues were solvced by disabling Aero.
It was on a recent computer, 1Gb of ram, dual core, 64 bit etc...

A good graphic card helps, but Aero is useless and is a waste of resources nonetheless.

If your system really is relatively new, then it sounds like you have a bad video card driver.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#26
JohnL,
w98 forum on msfn

I'm still using w98 on a daily basis.
I feel very safe. The problem is that new softwares are likely to be incompatible, and many new hardwares too (drivers).
Also dual core and 64 bit doesn't exist for w98.

But that's not an issue for me so far. Question of years. As long as my MoBo and graphic card are ok, I'll run it till the end with w98. I'd choose w98 over any OS without this driver and software compatibility issue.

JohnW,

I dunno. It was on a laptop, when it was bought it was top of the shelf.
Anyway, no cosmetic gadget should require anything. Even a 5 years old graphic card should be ok.
There is a real program flaw with the Aero, it's just not visible on the intergalatical spacecrafts we see today in stores.
10 Gb, 16 Gb, 32 Gb of ram... only very inneficent softwares would use such quantity of ram.
Except when working on raw video, maybe.
Reply
#27
Thanks Fred. I used Win98 OSR2 for years, until about five years ago.

My guess is that I will eventually try out Vista, but am in no real hurry. And too, I am still going to start switching to Linux for every day usage, and Windows for programs that don't appear on Linux. Games are one of them.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.” - Friedrich von Hayek -
Reply
#28
Fredledingue Wrote:JohnW,

I dunno. It was on a laptop, when it was bought it was top of the shelf.
A brand new system could, and often does, require newer drivers, and not just for the GPU.

Quote:Anyway, no cosmetic gadget should require anything. Even a 5 years old graphic card should be ok.

"Should" - perhaps. But in the real world it often does not. Blame this on the video card manufacturers who are often slow to respond to the problems in their drivers.

Quote:There is a real program flaw with the Aero, it's just not visible on the intergalatical spacecrafts we see today in stores.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that.

Quote:10 Gb, 16 Gb, 32 Gb of ram... only very inneficent softwares would use such quantity of ram.
Except when working on raw video, maybe.

Uh, your statement displays lack of knowledge. Higher end graphics processing programs (not just video editing) not only does use, but may require, those levels of RAM. It is not inefficient software at all - just extremely capable.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#29
JohnW,
The higher in capacity s your hardware the less you wil see programatic flaws (in Aero or anything else)

Say, there is a bug that requires x amounts useless operations to be performed ever x seconds, you will notice it on a 1Ghz processor, not with a dual 3.6 Ghz.

Same thing with ram. Good softwares should ne require such quantity of ram. Only use them if available. And cope with the lack of it.
To require processor power and ram is only laziness from the coders.
Reply
#30
Sorry, Fred, but regarding these high end graphics programs,

you obviously have a lot to learn.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#31
Most of these high end graphic programs existed already when ram and processor power was only a fraction of what they are today and do, basicaly the same thing.

Why did it change?
Reply
#32
Fredledingue Wrote:Most of these high end graphic programs existed already when ram and processor power was only a fraction of what they are today and do, basicaly the same thing.

Why did it change?

it has to do with upgrades. for instance, a photo shop 1.0 would be far more simpler than the current photo shop, which is version 6.9 I think.

some programs start out simple with almost no extra features in order to make sure that the computer at the time is able to run it and cope well. and even though they were very simple at the time, they were considered "high end".

And then as computers change to become more complex, so do those high-end programs. so you could say they're evolving to not only meet the needs of the PC, but the user too.
Quote: “A society that puts equality… ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom…a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” --Milton Friedman
relax. it's only the internet!
Reply
#33
shouldn't this be moved to the new computer section?
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#34
That's pretty much it, AM.

These newer versions keep more in RAM and the images they manipulate are larger, so they need the additional RAM. This makes the re-draws, for example, much faster. Multiple layers, multiple "un-dos", and multiple images being worked on at the same time all can now be handled in RAM rather than keeping parts in a "work file" on the HD.

I suspect AM can describe the speed difference she gets while working on a large image file. Some is due to the better hardware, but some is also due to the extra RAM that the program uses.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#35
scpg02 Wrote:shouldn't this be moved to the new computer section?

Good idea, dear.

I think I've done it.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#36
JohnWho Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:shouldn't this be moved to the new computer section?

Good idea, dear.

I think I've done it.

OOOoooo it's been a while since you called me dear.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#37
Um, how about "Bambi"!

Doe!

Wink1
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#38
:lol:
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#39
Ok, a TIFF image is 10, maybe 20 Mb. A PS or Corel project about 2 or 3x that. If you reach 100 Mb with a non compressed file or project it's already huge and you are still at 1/10th of a Giga.

With movies, it's another story, since there are 25 such image for every second but you never rely on movie films stored in memory, it's being processed on the fly. It can help to have a few frames in the memory, but anyway the processor has to create them fast enough.

What I mean is that you forget what these amounts involved means.
Ram is for short term data manipulation. Anyway you have to write the result on the HD every x seconds. Just for recovery purpose, it has to be written on the HD.

More features are just plug ins. Virtual Dub plug ins are also more features, yet when you open VD, it take almost no ram at all. Avisynth scripts make less than 1kb. etc.

Then all of a sudden you have softwares as large as an operating system, that require an additional Gb of ram for each new feature. Otherwise they won't even open. Yay!

Big memory space should be a confortable room for the software, not a requirement.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)