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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 Just *very* outdated beliefs.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 | |
|
|
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 |