Two questions

In article , Pablo
wrote:

When you move the cursor from, say, 512,512 to 800,800, no CPU cycles are
used to visually depict that movement.

Unless anything is keeping track of where it is. Which is what happens in
GUI software. All the ****ing time.

what you *still* don't get is something *other* than the cpu is keeping
track of it. simple concept.

On 9/17/2015 8:15 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-17 19:52:40 +0000, "PAS" said:

"PeterN" wrote in message
...

I think you should buy a Rolls to make nospam happy.

I had my heart set on a Bentley but he'd claim it's substandard
because it's not a Rolls.

Well a Bentley is a VW after all, while a Rolls is a BMW.

You could always go for a Bugatti Veyron. Oh! wait, that is also a VW.

So it might be best to settle for a Koenigsegg.
http://koenigsegg.com

Wish I still had my Cord.

--
PeterN

On 2015-09-18 18:08:15 +0000, PeterN said:

On 9/17/2015 8:15 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-17 19:52:40 +0000, "PAS" said:

"PeterN" wrote in message
...

I think you should buy a Rolls to make nospam happy.

I had my heart set on a Bentley but he'd claim it's substandard
because it's not a Rolls.

Well a Bentley is a VW after all, while a Rolls is a BMW.

You could always go for a Bugatti Veyron. Oh! wait, that is also a VW.

So it might be best to settle for a Koenigsegg.
http://koenigsegg.com

Wish I still had my Cord.

I wish I had your Cord.
https://db.tt/JhO7oK7O

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 9/17/2015 8:20 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:11:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I installed an SSD in my laptop that is used as a scratch disk. Since
doing so I noticed a significant increase in operational speed.

no surprise there.

Telling nospam that everything need not be on an SSD, will provoke a
reaction that is almost as violent as if you made a disparaging comment
about Apple.

not only is that wrong, but it's exactly what i said.

Oh boy! I have to laugh. Another confusing statement from nospam.

A literal interpretation is that 'exactly what you said [whatever that
was] is wrong'.

I'm sure you didn't quite mean what you have just written. Would you
like to try again?


It could also have been a Freudian slip.


you ought to read the posts before you spew.


--
PeterN
Is a Freudian slip an undergarment worn by Mrs. Freud.

On 9/17/2015 8:28 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:10:04 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I thought Bill's point about buying for the future
makes sense, except that it's often very hard to do.
They keep changing RAM types, CPU sockets,
graphic sockets, etc. No matter how much you plan,
there's a good chance that it won't be worth upgrading
CPU or RAM 3-4 years from now.

The latest generation of Intel CPU & ram is still relatively new, so
it's a little easier in this situation. However long DDR3 was the
standard, it's a reasonable bet that DDR4 will be a standard, and even
when they move on, it will be available for some time. DDR3 prices are
plummeting, but it's still widely available, and the same will happen
with DDR4 when its turn ends.

It's still not such an easy choice for lots of folks, and whether you
have the latest thing probably makes little difference to anyone in
the long run. All that really matters is whether you need the good
stuff, the average stuff, or if you can get by with the low end. In
these parts, I think everyone can benefit from the good stuff.


The good stuff need not be the latest. After researching desktops, I
have narrowed my choice to a Woin7 machine, stuffed with memory, and a
dedicated graphics card, supported by On1, and three years on site
service. That narrows my choice to a Lenovo workstation.


--
PeterN

On 9/17/2015 8:43 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:35:58 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:

It's
amazing the number of devices which don't like being run through a
hub.

almost none.

I think Eric is thinking the same as me - there are devices that have
instructions that tell you not to run them through a hub. Spyder is
one of them, and I'm too lazy to try to remember the others. That
doesn't mean they won't work through a hub, and I've never bothered to
try with any of them. It's likely that some, or even most of them
would work in spite of the warnings. So anyway, with lots of ports,
there's no need to give it any thought.

i've used spyder thru a hub without issue.

the only thing i can think of that might not work with a hub are
devices that sink more than the usual amount of current and are plugged
into a bus-powered hub. the solution there is to use a self-powered
hub.

note that there are ****-quality hubs out there which could cause some
devices to not work, not because the device is plugged into a hub, but
because they're **** quality.

And that last part is likely the reason for the warnings. Some tech
support centers probably got enough calls that ended in the discovery
that the (****ty) hub was at fault, that they decided to try to
lighten the load on their support team by telling buyers not to use
hubs at all. Easy way out, and why not?


Could be. In the past I have tried cheap hubs that worked fine, and more
expensive ones that had to be returned. In general the hubs with O/S
power seem more reliable. But, that is just anecdotal.

--
PeterN

On 2015-09-17 15:13, PAS wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2015-09-17 10:01, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...

Thanks, sounds like good information. Since I am doing pre-purchase
research, I will not be doing the experiments. I am thinking quad core
with about a 3.5 - 3.8 CPU. I know there are faster, but I am not yet
convinced that the additional price is worth the extra cost.

Anytime I've built a new system, I never opted for the fastest
processor, second or third fastest is fast enough. I doubt that there
is any noticeable difference except in benchmark testing. In real world
scenarios, I doubt we would notice and performance difference between
the first, second, and third fastest processors.

If you're talking clock and cores, then there is one real world test
where everything counts: processing video, especially in an efficient
program like Handbrake. It saturates every core and even hyperthread
on intel machines. So a 4 core machine runs full tilt equating about
5.3 cores X nearly 100% processing / core.

I've always used AMD processors. Except for a period of time after the
original AMD Athlon processor was released, Intel has always been the
performance champion. For my use, AMD processors are just fine and are
an excellent value.

Yep. But the advantages of HT on intel cannot be underestimated. A 4
core processor gets over 5.3 cores of performance (in optimal
conditions, of course).

Check me if I'm wrong but isn't this where Intel proecessors have it all
over AMD processors - video editing?

Harumph. Intel have it all over AMD everywhere these days. runs

A lot of video processing is being dumped on the GPU's now via OpenCL,
GL and (in OS X) Metal. This liberates the CPU to manage the processing
and lets the GPU work on what it's best at - video.

In that sense a high end AMD 6 core should match or better an i7 quad
core with hyper threading, generally. CPU matchups are always tricky,
however.

(I haven't been comparing AMD all that much. Since Apple stick solely
to the intel processors my curiosity about AMD has completely waned.
I've had at least 2 AMD motherboards in the past with nothing to
complain about).

I'm betting Apple abandon Intel within the next 5 years (possibly 3) and
that they go all ARM (under the Apple Ax processor line) for OS X. Note
that iOS has high source code commonality with OS X (kernel to just
below the UI)

On 9/17/2015 8:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Bill W
wrote:

note that there are ****-quality hubs out there which could cause some
devices to not work, not because the device is plugged into a hub, but
because they're **** quality.

And that last part is likely the reason for the warnings. Some tech
support centers probably got enough calls that ended in the discovery
that the (****ty) hub was at fault, that they decided to try to
lighten the load on their support team by telling buyers not to use
hubs at all. Easy way out, and why not?

could be.

unfortunately there's no easy way to tell which hubs are garbage.


Sure there is. Just try them. They are not at all expensive.

--
PeterN

On 2015-09-17 15:11, PAS wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2015-09-16 16:23, PeterN wrote:

Thanks, sounds like good information. Since I am doing pre-purchase
research, I will not be doing the experiments. I am thinking quad core
with about a 3.5 - 3.8 CPU. I know there are faster, but I am not yet
convinced that the additional price is worth the extra cost.

Typically it's not. If you're trading RAM for CPU always go for more
RAM and less clock. More cores and less clock is good too.

8 GB is not expensive. 16 GB is affordable. (Generally it is cheaper
to buy a desktop computer with 8 GB and then eventually add 16 GB in
the 3rd and 4th slots for 24 GB total. Then you're talking - and it
leaves you the option to swap the 8 GB bank for 16 in the future)

Good point. One word of caution is to research what motherboard will be
in the computer that is being bought. Some may not have more than two
memory slots. Then there's the issue of enough USB ports in which case
if there isn't, a card will have to be added and there has to be one
open slot for that.

I'm probably out of touch on GP CPU boards but I thought the defacto
standard for desktop was 4 slots. That said I won't be blown over if
I'm wrong on that.

Before I upgarded my home-built desktop, My wife and I were in Costco
and she questioned me as to why won't I just buy one the systems they
had there. I walked over the the best one they had and opened the case
- no room for any real expansion. That's a good enough reason for me
not to buy one. But that's an off-the-shelf system from warehouse
store. One can be ordered from a number of sellers to fit anyone's
needs. I just like to build my own.

Did that for many years. One case had many boards over the years. Gave
the case to one of my tech reps in exchange for a WiFi router.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:12:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 8:28 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:10:04 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I thought Bill's point about buying for the future
makes sense, except that it's often very hard to do.
They keep changing RAM types, CPU sockets,
graphic sockets, etc. No matter how much you plan,
there's a good chance that it won't be worth upgrading
CPU or RAM 3-4 years from now.

The latest generation of Intel CPU & ram is still relatively new, so
it's a little easier in this situation. However long DDR3 was the
standard, it's a reasonable bet that DDR4 will be a standard, and even
when they move on, it will be available for some time. DDR3 prices are
plummeting, but it's still widely available, and the same will happen
with DDR4 when its turn ends.

It's still not such an easy choice for lots of folks, and whether you
have the latest thing probably makes little difference to anyone in
the long run. All that really matters is whether you need the good
stuff, the average stuff, or if you can get by with the low end. In
these parts, I think everyone can benefit from the good stuff.


The good stuff need not be the latest. After researching desktops, I
have narrowed my choice to a Woin7 machine, stuffed with memory, and a
dedicated graphics card, supported by On1, and three years on site
service. That narrows my choice to a Lenovo workstation.

Lenovo was a solid choice in the past, and probably still is, but I
don't keep up with that too much anymore.