Re: darktable rebooting computer

That does happen. On Nov 30, 2017 6:43 PM, "Michael" wrote: > it was overheating not the CPU but rather the GPU. The tech told me > that apparently yje heatdink putty had dried out and cracked. > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Michael wrote: > >> It

Re: What is the actual bandwith you could use, continuously, given your ISP's bandwith usage cap?

Yeah. The cost for me to do that is insane. On Nov 30, 2017 5:43 PM, "Eric Oyen" wrote: > I believe I did some recent calculations along those lines. > > btw, a standard video stream (1080p) uses just under 750 KB/s and if left > on 24/7 would exceed that cap about 22 days

Re: darktable rebooting computer

it was overheating not the CPU but rather the GPU. The tech told me that apparently yje heatdink putty had dried out and cracked. On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Michael wrote: > It did as I expected I started glmark2 then immediately started the > stress test and

Re: What is the actual bandwith you could use, continuously, given your ISP's bandwith usage cap?

actually not as bad as you think. I have the 50/5 (which is actually 60/11 Mbits/s) for about $79 a month. that and 7 email addresses, business support available 24/7, etc. It's a few bucks more, but not substantially so. :) -eric from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Get it now

Re: What is the actual bandwith you could use, continuously, given your ISP's bandwith usage cap?

I believe I did some recent calculations along those lines. btw, a standard video stream (1080p) uses just under 750 KB/s and if left on 24/7 would exceed that cap about 22 days into the month. Now, most people don't do that. In fact, the estimated tv viewing per week is about 30 hours or so

Re: What is the actual bandwith you could use, continuously, given your ISP's bandwith usage cap?

Well said regarding wireless. Original Message On Nov 30, 2017, 16:51, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote: > Also consider wireless. If you are on wireless depending on where you there > is a great chance you will not even come close to your max bandwidth. This is > because

Re: What is the actual bandwith you could use, continuously, given your ISP's bandwith usage cap?

Also consider wireless. If you are on wireless depending on where you there is a great chance you will not even come close to your max bandwidth. This is because wireless is a shared medium. You are contending with everyone else that is on your channel. This will most definitely impact your

Re: What is the actual bandwith you could use, continuously, given your ISP's bandwith usage cap?

Very few if anyone uses the Max of their pipe for a prolonged period. If you did it would not be an enjoyable experience. If you were downloading a huge file that consumed all your bandwidth and say wanted to watch youtube while you wait, well good luck with that. In networking there is bandwidth

Re: What is the actual bandwith you could use, continuously, given your ISP's bandwith usage cap?

> >>Yes, my wonderful 30Mbs max is actually only a 385KB link, if I want to use >>it all the time. >> >> Ironically, a 30Mbps connection is 3.75MBps (megabits vs megabytes), so its >> not AS bad as you expect. Cox is pretty "generous" in that regard compared >> to other ISPs such as Comcast

Re: What is the actual bandwith you could use, continuously, given your ISP's bandwith usage cap?

>Yes, my wonderful 30Mbs max is actually only a 385KB link, if I want to use it >all the time. Ironically, a 30Mbps connection is 3.75MBps (megabits vs megabytes), so its not AS bad as you expect. Cox is pretty "generous" in that regard compared to other ISPs such as Comcast (thankfully

What is the actual bandwith you could use, continuously, given your ISP's bandwith usage cap?

Here is the rabbit trail – has anyone else calculated the actual bandwidth you could use (continuously) from your ISP and NOT hit their usage cap? Yeah, that deserves a different topic, and here it is. Ok, under my plan at Cox, I think I get threatened with extra charges when I reach 1TB of

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

snipping "The line is becoming heavily blurred between RAM, disk cache, and disk storage. Over time, the cache and disk speed will become so well-tuned that it will just look like a single huge chunk of static RAM." Intel has REALLY blurred this line with their optane drives. near RAM like

Re: OT: Mac Mini obsolescent? When next release?

well if you are looking to maintain portability you can look at the Intel NUC. but really this relies entirely on what your budget is. Looking at your existing application Digital Performer installs on Windows or OSX, also you can look into the Hackintosh. there are some build guides out there

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

“Not enough” what? Without further details, I think this is really not very informative. It’s very likely that he could double his RAM and see little if any improvement in his video editing experience. I find it hard to grasp how going from 8GB to 16GB would make a significant difference in

RE: OT: Mac Mini obsolescent? When next release?

I’m not very happy with Micro$oft’s product, especially 10 (have you actually tried to install 10? I have. Goodness, talk about a step back into pre-history! It refused to install because there was a CHANCE that it wouldn’t boot – even though I had just proven that it WOULD boot in that

Re: OT: Mac Mini obsolescent? When next release?

I’d be tempted to get an all-in-one Windows machine (most seem to have touch-screens now) or a small iMac. AIO Windows machines are well under $1k. Stick to the KISS principle here. :-) -David Schwartz > On Nov 30, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Victor Odhner wrote: > > Spun off from

OT: Mac Mini obsolescent? When next release?

Spun off from the Genius discussion: The Apple CEO reportedly says Mini is still part of their product line, but he won’t say anything about the next release. I was another Mini shopper, for supportability and video resolution reasons. Our church music team needs to update a 2009 Mini. I want

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

I would say that you should use at least the i7 with 16gb RAM. My buddy does video editing with an i7 and 8gb and it's not enough.   Regards, Jason From: David Schwartz Sent: Nov 30, 2017 11:17 AM To: Main PLUG discussion list

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

Generally speaking, the more RAM the better. Also, video editing is going to benefit from more RAM and SSD no matter what. But if you had to make a choice between more RAM and an SSD, go with the SSD because the transfer rates to/from disk will make a far bigger difference in overall

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

speaking of ISP's and their support of net neutrality, here is an article from Arstechnica. It seems that Comcast deleted their "net Neutrality pledge" as soon as the repeal of the rules went into effect.

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

I know this. however, it would still be cheaper than someone else having to put in all new stuff (which they would have to do if they wished to compete). -eric from the central offices of the Technomage guild, Equipment solutions Dept. On Nov 30, 2017, at 1:44 AM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

yeah, Ram and disk have a huge impact, and the presence of a GPU doesn't even need to be massive, just present will assist in encoding. I was looking at the late 2013 and the 2014 models I am a fan of those. sad the ram is on board though. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. <

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

When it comes to video editing the more RAM the better. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Mark Phillips wrote: > > Thanks for all the great input - especially the refurbished Mac stores! > > A more technical question - am I correct is assuming she

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

Thanks for all the great input - especially the refurbished Mac stores! A more technical question - am I correct is assuming she needs 16 GB of RAM and a quad core i7 processor to edit 60 minutes of video footage? Or, is this over kill? Thanks! Mark On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Stephen

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

The 15-inch MBP's have Radeon 555 or 560 graphics with either 2 or 4GB. and the iMac Pro comes with Radeon Vega Pro based graphics and all the horsepower (and then some) the Mac Pro came with. My guess they will use that as the basis for either replacing the Mac Pro or setting its place. On Thu,

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

The new mac pro isn’t really pro any more. If she needs a gpu, they are phasing them out right now. So video editing and rendering is all processor based now. Citation : my work just bought me a macbook pro three days ago and it has no gpu and no pro had a gpu as an available option. > On

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

Getting a machine with a Spinning Disk is an easy upgrade to SSD for less than the apple price difference. On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:49 PM, David Schwartz wrote: > I’ve been using Macs regularly since I got a 27” iMac back in 2006. > > I’ve had a few Mac Minis, and

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

It is not that simple nor as cheap as you think. Service provider network gear is not cheap. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Eric Oyen wrote: > by the way, it seems that no one has mentioned that there is a lot of > unlit fiber laying in the ground going unutilized.

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

This line right here is the key from that article. "Net neutrality is intended to prevent companies that provide internet service from offering preferential treatment to certain content over their lines. The

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

by the way, it seems that no one has mentioned that there is a lot of unlit fiber laying in the ground going unutilized. considering that each fiber can carry anywhere up to 50 gbits/sec, shouldn't those be tasked to handle extra traffic? sure, I know there would have to be some extra equipment

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

That makes no sense there is tiny bit it either is or is not. They are treated as utilities now and it is still failing because like I have said it is a deeply flawed solution. The authors notion that startups will not be able to compete b/c they cannot afford fast lanes shows a lack of