Danilo, a dual-core CPU has two processors sharing a Die and memory
interface. For all intents and purposes it is a dual-CPU SMP system and
the OS will see the seperate processors and treat it as such. This isn't
just a scheduling hack like Hyperthreading (Which also shows up as 2
CPU's to the
It seems to me, that no one has yet replied to the original question:
"should he change his CPU"
>From my point of view: no.
do you use some unix?
if not you'll not use the 64bits.
Even if you use it, it's not always true that a 64 bits COU is faster
than a 32 one, in some cases it's slower.
Th
On Nov 14, 2005, at 5:43 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I saw one of those 30-inchers at the Apple store in Emeryville.
Gorgeous
screen - bigger than my TV (well, so's the 23-inch). I could see
watching
DVD movies on it rather than the TV set ... Oh, the abundant screen
real
estate is great t
I saw one of those 30-inchers at the Apple store in Emeryville. Gorgeous
screen - bigger than my TV (well, so's the 23-inch). I could see watching
DVD movies on it rather than the TV set ... Oh, the abundant screen real
estate is great to have as well.
Shel
"You meet the nicest people with a Pe
; analog component outputs on my Sony DVD recorder
> jco
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gaurav Aggarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 10:04 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
>
On Nov 13, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Photoshop makes pretty good performance leaps using Dual and Quad
processor G5s running Mac OS X. (From the quick demos I've seen, so
does Apple's upcoming Aperture software.) I don't know how it does
with multiprocessor hardware running
On Nov 13, 2005, at 12:53 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Isnt that an odd aspect ratio? neither the traditional 4x3
or the newer 16x9. Whats the deal on that?
Apple displays are 16:10. I think it's something to do with showing
16:9 video while leaving a bit of screen space top & bottom for menu
ected to the 480P
analog component outputs on my Sony DVD recorder
jco
-Original Message-
From: Gaurav Aggarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 10:04 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
There are two typ
gt; Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 9:31 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
>
>
> Well, given that Uncompressed HD is 1920x1200 and 1080i is 1920x1080,
> they must be doing one of the two (note that they're also interlac
urday, November 12, 2005 9:31 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
Well, given that Uncompressed HD is 1920x1200 and 1080i is 1920x1080,
they must be doing one of the two (note that they're also interlacing
the signal at the same time, since s
ern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
1080i is downconverted from 1920x1200, which is what uncompressed HD is,
one of the big advantages of the 23" panels is they display uncompressed
HD pixel-for-pixel. There's a reason I specified uncompressed HD.
You are correct about the pixel fo
l.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
1080i is downconverted from 1920x1200, which is what uncompressed HD is,
one of the big advantages of the 23" panels is they display uncompressed
HD pixel-for-pixel. There's a reason I specified uncompressed HD.
You are co
]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 8:45 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
Don't forget overscan on TV displays and the fact that video pixels are
rectangular and computer display pixels are square. It screws with the
aspect ratio. Uncompr
dml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
Don't forget overscan on TV displays and the fact that video pixels are
rectangular and computer display pixels are square. It screws with the
aspect ratio. Uncompressed HD video is only 16x9 on a TV due to having
rectangula
one I bought two more as backups and for
home video usage.
jco
-Original Message-
From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 8:42 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
Rob Studdert wrote:
>On 12 Nov 20
AIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 8:33 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
Resolution and aspect ratio are fixed on an LCD, given square pixels,
resolution dictates aspect ratio on an LCD and one can compute the
latter from the former.
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 12 Nov 2005 at 19:31, Adam Maas wrote:
Even then, those are not really high-end CRT's, midrange really
([EMAIL PROTECTED]). And those will not match the performance of the best
20" and 23" LCD's on the market today, which don't cost all that much,
you can get a Dell
: Saturday, November 12, 2005 8:33 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
Resolution and aspect ratio are fixed on an LCD, given square pixels,
resolution dictates aspect ratio on an LCD and one can compute the
latter from the former. Widescreen monitors
2005 7:33 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
No, that's typical for a 20" widescreen LCD. Most monitors are 16x10
rather than 16x9.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Isnt that an odd aspect ratio? neither the traditional 4x3
or the
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
It is ahead of the software curve right now, Bill. You would be paying for
performance you can not yet use. Wait another year, software will catch
up, and prices will go down. Th
On 12 Nov 2005 at 19:31, Adam Maas wrote:
> Even then, those are not really high-end CRT's, midrange really
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). And those will not match the performance of the best
> 20" and 23" LCD's on the market today, which don't cost all that much,
> you can get a Dell 20" 16x10 format
2005 7:33 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
No, that's typical for a 20" widescreen LCD. Most monitors are 16x10
rather than 16x9.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>Isnt that an odd aspect ratio? neither the traditional 4x3
>or th
: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:32 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
Even then, those are not really high-end CRT's, midrange really
([EMAIL PROTECTED]). And those will not match the performance of the
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:43 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
I run my 20-inch Apple Cinema Display (trendy flat panel:-) at 1680 x
1050. It's superb for image editing and is beautifully in synch with my
p
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 6:05 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
See my last post, you can get NEW Crts, even really
high end ones for dirt cheap on ebay at the moment
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 6:18 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was
nt: Saturday, November 12, 2005 6:05 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
> Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
>
>
>> I run
Isnt that an odd aspect ratio? neither the traditional 4x3
or the newer 16x9. Whats the deal on that?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:43 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full
An Apple 20 cCinema Display is $799 US list. Equal quality CRTs are generally
more expensive now.
G
I'd quibble with that. 64bit is beyond the software curve, dual-core
isn't, and you'll definitely see performance advantages from a dual-core
system over a single-core single-CPU system.
-Adam
graywolf wrote:
It is ahead of the software curve right now, Bill. You would be paying
for perfor
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
I run my 20-inch Apple Cinema Display (trendy flat panel:-) at 1680 x
1050. It's superb for image editing and is beautifully in synch with
my printer.
t;==> "Expert Proof"
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
Photoshop makes pretty good performance leaps using Dual and Quad
processor G
It is ahead of the software curve right now, Bill. You would be paying
for performance you can not yet use. Wait another year, software will
catch up, and prices will go down. Then send me the Athlon 3200+ (grin).
I am using an Athlon 900 (although that is clock speed and not
advertising speed)
>
> I think the Windows OS may be the bottleneck. I suspect that
> I need a 64bit
> OS to take advantage of 64 bit computers. I don't know if XP
> does this or if
> something else is required.
> I'm not so computer literate as I would like to be.
>
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/def
quot;
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
I run my 20-inch Apple Cinema Display (trendy flat panel:-) at 1680 x
1050. It's superb for image editing and is beautifully in synch with
my printer.
How much do those things cost compared to a CRT that will give an
equivalent quality screen?
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
I run my 20-inch Apple Cinema Display (trendy flat panel:-) at 1680 x 1050.
It's superb for image editing and is beautifully in synch with my printer.
How much do th
On Nov 12, 2005, at 1:05 PM, William Robb wrote:
Photoshop makes pretty good performance leaps using Dual and Quad
processor G5s running Mac OS X. (From the quick demos I've seen,
so does Apple's upcoming Aperture software.) I don't know how it
does with multiprocessor hardware running o
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
FWIW, One thing I did just upgrade regarding image editing and
PCing in general is my monitor. I switched to a 19" super trinitron
CRT running at 1200x1600 and the differenc
: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
FWIW, One thing I did just upgrade regarding image editing and
PCing in general is my monitor. I switched to a 19" super trinitron
CRT running at 1200x1600 and the difference is huge compared to
my old monitor. I would never go back to 960x1280 and tha
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
FWIW, One thing I did just upgrade regarding image editing and
PCing in general is my monitor. I switched to a 19" super trinitron
CRT running at 1200x1600 and th
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
Photoshop makes pretty good performance leaps using Dual and Quad
processor G5s running Mac OS X. (From the quick demos I've seen, so does
Apple's upcoming A
On Nov 12, 2005, at 12:27 PM, William Robb wrote:
I've been considering one more upgrade for a machine which would be
used primarily for image editing (I may be a while before I get
back into the darkroom), and am considering one of the AMD 64 bit
dual core processors.
Is this going to net
endy "flat panel" LCD displays at this point.
jco
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 3:27 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
- Original Message -
From: "
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis"
Subject: Re: Full Frame
I think even those days are coming to an end. I used to upgrade our home
PCs every 18 months to two years (staggered, so the older machine could be
as much as four years old by the time it got replaced), but there's
44 matches
Mail list logo
