A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IrfanView resizing quirk



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old September 17th 16, 01:07 AM posted to alt.comp.freeware,rec.photo.digital
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default IrfanView resizing quirk

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:10:50 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

all these are urban legends!


No, it isn't.


--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400
  #42  
Old September 17th 16, 01:07 AM posted to alt.comp.freeware,rec.photo.digital
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default IrfanView resizing quirk

"Mayayana"
Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:02:40 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

Not urban legends. Just *very* outdated beliefs.


I didn't post my own personal 'beliefs'. I posted from first hand,
real world knowledge of the subject. I've seen several (as in, likely
more than 100 or so out of the thousands of some odd AMD powered
boxes I've built) dead AMD cpus (k6/k6-2/k7) all died prematurely
because the POS fans failed for whatever reason. AMD wasn't good with
fan design.

The chip would die or the cache would be damaged because it lacked
proper thermal safety shutdown. You didn't need to actually fry the
chip to make it nearly unusable. It only took overheating once to
damage the l1/l2 cache on the chip. Once you did, your box would be
unstable until you turned caching off (if you could) or changed out
the CPU. If you opted for turning the cache off and saving some coins
for another cpu, your boxs performance would take a big hit. You'd
certainly notice the loss in speed and response for everything you
did. You were basically in what I call, limp and run mode from that
point on.

AMD CPUs used to run hot and one really needed
a temp monitor to be on the safe side. But that
was many years ago.... like maybe 10 or more! I just
checked CPUID Hardware Monitor. My 8-core AMD
is currently at 93F. Ever since they came out with
"Cool n' Quiet", to perform micro-shutdowns between
cycles when not busy, their CPUs have run cool.


Your 8core isn't even close to one of the CPUs we've been discussing
in this thread. I don't even know why you brought it up. We were
discussing the older CPUS and associated thermal issues with them.

At the time, AMD needed better fans that wouldn't begin to fail
prematurely. They'd continue losing rpms and stop moving enough air
around the heatsink. The heatsink without the fan wasn't buying you
much time. It might keep you from totally frying the cpu, but it
wasn't able to prevent cpu cache from being irreversibly damaged.

The CPU itself should have had thermal protection circuitry on the
chip, willing to shut it down if it reached a certain temp without
risking cache or any other harm to the CPU. AMD didn't do this at the
time to save costs. Intel did. You're going to pay a little extra for
something that has a little extra.

Even back when AMD CPUs ran hot they were still
a big bargain compared to Intel. Intel was a nasty
monopoly for many years, releasing minor improvements
every 6 months and milking the market as much as
possible before releasing the next minor improvement.


It depends on what you mean by bargain, too. An original pentium
socket 7 processor had proper thermal protection, it would shut down
the moment it exceeded a specific temperature, AND, it didn't depend
on some BIOS setting to be right to do it. The chip itself had self
preservation circuitry in it and would cut out on it's own to save
itself, no assistance required by the mainboard. It would cut out,
prior to damaging it's cache, btw.

Equ AMD on the other hand for the time, didn't have the additional
circuitry and you'd outright fry it and/or damage the l2/l1 cache
(depending on specific CPU). Once you fuxored the cache, your box was
no longer stable until you turned caching off in the BIOS (for a
severe performance hit that you'd notice, for sure) and/or replaced
the CPU.

If it weren't for AMD
the cheapest CPU on the market would probably be
several hundred dollars, and we'd need different ones
for 32-bit vs 64-bit. (That's how Intel was going to
do it before AMD came out with a single CPU that
handles both.)


You're wrong here too. Cyrix actually beat AMD and Intel on cost,
but, you'd pay for that in the long run with the lack of performance.

You're also confused on the 32bit/64bit processor aspects. Intel had
a 64bit only processor, but, it wasn't intended for the typical home
PC. And, it's 64bit code scheme is different than that of the version
AMD developed which supported 32bit and 64bit. Intel at the time had
no intentions of dropping 32bit support. In fact, Intel incoporated
AMD's concept into their own non Itanium processors allow them to do
64bit or 32bit code.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium

Itanium (/a?'te?ni?m/ eye-TAY-nee-?m) is a family of 64-bit Intel
microprocessors that implement the Intel Itanium architecture
(formerly called IA-64). Intel markets the processors for enterprise
servers and high-performance computing systems. The Itanium
architecture originated at Hewlett-Packard (HP), and was later
jointly developed by HP and Intel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
The x86-64 specification is distinct from the Intel Itanium (formerly
IA-64) architecture, which is not compatible on the native
instruction set level with the x86 architecture.

Intel wasn't trying to kill off 32bit at all. It's a completely
different architecture for the Itanium.

Genuine Windows and Genuine Intel. Official
stickers on computers. Lots of official sounding
nonsense to market Intel as the world's "official" maker
of CPUs. As can be seen from people in this thread,
their marketing is still working to blackball AMD.


Genuine Windows is one that isn't a pirated copy (as far as MS knows
anyway). Genuine Intel is an actual Intel cpu, not some sort of knock
off or fake chip. Yes, they do exist.

It has NOTHING to do with licensing Intel as the official maker of
CPUs and everything to try and ensure you have an actual Intel
processor in your computer as well as have a legitimate software
license for the copy of Windows that has been loaded onto the
computer. This is because some people are shady and will sell you
machine that has one or both of those problems. AMD also had stickers
you could affix to the machine. Bragging rights and, as I stated
above, to encourage licensed/actual products to be in the machine.

Ironically, the stickers were not impossible to get; so one could use
a knock off processor and affix a Genuine Intel or AMD sticker on it.
As the processor is infact a knockoff in this scenario, you could
probably confirm it with CPUID or something similar. It's bound to
report something wrong/doesn't match up for what it's supposed to be.

It's entirely related to counterfeit goods that some system builders
knowingly use. IE: sam joe loads a bootleg copy of windows with the
FCKGW key. Sam joe charged you for that copy of Windows, but, the
copy isn't his to sell you. You have a counterfeit version of Windows
and are entitled to no support and no updates of any kind. It's
bootleg. Sam joe buys a knockoff fake Intel chip from a supplier in
china. You paid for an Intel CPU. You didn't get one from sam joe.
Intel will not stand behind the fake chip, because, it's not actually
one of theirs. So, you forfeit the warranty offered by Intel which
likely exceeds that of sam joe if you do have a problem with the CPU.

Now, you've got a box that has an unknown CPU with a pirated copy of
Windows on it. You the client didn't know this, you paid good money
for a computer that's not entirely legitimate. Entitling you to no
warranty or support whatsoever for free other than what sam joe will
offer you.

I'm not writing from the POV of an end user who's built a few
machines for friends and family. I'm writing from the POV of an
actual 'professional', who's assembled thousands of them in the last
twenty years. Not including the ones that I've succesfully
troubleshot and repaired.

Btw,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physic...ress_Extension

In computing, Physical Address Extension (PAE), sometimes referred to
as Page Address Extension,[1] is a memory management feature for the
IA-32 architecture. PAE was first introduced in the Pentium Pro. It
defines a page table hierarchy of three levels, with table entries of
64 bits each instead of 32, allowing these CPUs to access a physical
address space larger than 4 gigabytes (232 bytes).

I haven't bought Intel since the late 90s. I doubt
I ever will again.


After reading your post where you stated that a 32bit processor
cannot access ram beyond 4gigabytes, I've determined that you know
just more than enough about computers to be a danger to yourself and
others. You might even be the local fix it guy for your neighborhood
(only because they don't know any better and are easily impressed),
but, I wouldn't let you touch a childs laptop.

I have an AMD athlon XP 2000+ sitting beside me. If I try to rockout
to some music I have stored on it via another computer on the network
and ask it to do something like, burn a data CD-R and/or dvd for me,
it can't continue serving the file while it's burning, reliably. It's
too taxing on the CPU. In fact, more often than not, I wind up with a
coaster and Winamp stuck in a repeat last packet it got loop until
the AMD box burning app gives up, or the burning is completed.

If I try to encode a dvd into a 2pass xvid and an audio cd rip into
lame scene spec mp3s, the AMD system bogs down to an absolute crawl.
You can barely use the desktop. Accessing any files on shares it's
hosting becomes a royal pita then too. I can't even select a single
mp3 on that box from this one and play it all the way through without
it freezing up, pausing, and looping the last piece it got. The AMD
doesn't handle multiple threads that are cpu heavy well at all.

It has 4gigs of DDR3 memory and plenty of HD space, so that's not an
issue. It's not a driver issue of any sort either and the hardware is
all okay. It's the CPU itself. The Semperon box beside it behaves the
same way.

OTH, I have an ancient by todays standards dual CPU p3/800 mhz
machine running in SMP mode and a couple of p3/p4 single core/single
cpu boxes as well. Most of them are not as fast clock wise as the AMD
and will not process jobs as fast as the AMD can if the AMD is
working on a single task. However! I can load all kinds of threads up
on the Intel machines and they'll chug along. No change in speed, no
nearly unusable desktop. Oh, and they continue to provide files to
the network as requested without pausing or other unwanted
interruptions in transfer while I'm running multiple apps with them.

People assume games make or break a computers 'horsepower' rating.
Well, that's not exactly true. When your using the systems CPU only,
thats when you can objectively test it's horsepower and torque. AMD
lacks in both once you place a good load on it.

If you have access to the processors I mentioned, feel free to re-
read this post and do as I described with them. See for yourself how
poorly the AMDs performance is with those chips I specifically
mentioned when it's doing real work. For running one app, the AMD
will run circles around most of the older p3 Intels. For heavy
lifting though, as described above, These old Intels romper stomp it.


--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Resizing with IrfanView Dudley Hanks[_6_] Digital Photography 4 March 21st 11 01:56 AM
Curious RAW quirk? celcius Digital SLR Cameras 25 October 17th 09 11:54 PM
D200 quirk #2 Don Wiss Digital SLR Cameras 24 June 26th 06 01:21 AM
D200 quirk Don Wiss Digital SLR Cameras 7 June 22nd 06 05:27 PM
mamiya c330 film quirk lib Medium Format Photography Equipment 4 February 10th 04 08:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.