PC 4GB RAM limit

[Conor]

Many of them are compelled to use one at work.

Satnav? Can't think of many jobs needing that.

They don't see any need for a PC at home. They don't have e-mail
accounts, and they aren't interested in the Web, and PCs aren't
justifiable for much else.


Only new PCs with new operating systems are sold in most stores.

Who says you have to buy new? I've just gone out and sourced another
couple of P3 Compaq Deskpro systems because there is a demand for them.

 

[Phil Weldon]

Mxsmanic wrote, in a response to a request to post his operating
environment:
"No need. It's a general problem. I've never seen any exceptions. No
machine is fast enough to escape the problems."

Then there is no need to continue the discussion.

Phil Weldon

 

[Mxsmanic]

Do you actually know what a RAMDrive is?

Yes. Are you using ferrite cores for your RAM?

 

[Conor]

Yes. Are you using ferrite cores for your RAM?

Why would I need to?

 

[David Maynard]

Ha! I knew I'd find out someday who was putting subliminal
messages in my TV set!

Hehe. Except it doesn't work anyway.

Apathy set in before I nailed down a speed, 600MHz P3 was
too slow, 1.3GHz Tualatin Celeron handled it with a little
to spare. 1.1GHz Celeron couldn't cut it but I'm fairly
sure it was the poor Sis integrated video that was the
larger (if not only) bottleneck.

I too would suggest it was the SIS because I use ~1.35 gig tualatins (one a
mildly overclocked 1.2 and the other an overclocked 1.1) for a couple of
small HTPCs (two different rooms) and there is moderate room to spare.

I admit I was a bit surprised at just how much power real time encoding
consumes, though. They're enough for what I'm doing but not for a 'full
featured' HTPC.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




It still would not be instantaneous. And yet it should be.

It is on mine.

As I've already explained, 1/60 second is good enough.




Any card that can refill the screen buffer in 16 milliseconds is good
enough.

800x600 24 bit true color at 60 is 86.4 megabytes per second and the video
card memory has to do it times 2, once for the incoming data and second for
output to the RAMDACs. It can't. And even if it could processing full
frames when only a portion has changed would be a terrible waste of
processing power.

The 'argument' is moot because I've done it: Taken the millennium card and
tried it in everything from a P166MMX to an Athlon 3200+ and there is no
difference in the agonizingly slow, almost static, movement.

On the other hand, the P166MMX with a still rather old TNT2 works quite
well and that is it's current mission in life: a virtual fish tank.

The screen saver presumably depending on some sort of hardware
functions in the card, other than simple bitmaps.

That's why they're called '3D'.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




They are all disabled. I have XP configured to look like NT 4.0.

Then, with all due respect, I do not accept your characterization of it's
speed.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




Massively parallel systems have problems of their own.

No kidding. Tell me of anything that doesn't "have problems of their own."

 

[David Maynard]

Phil Weldon writes:




No need. It's a general problem. I've never seen any exceptions. No
machine is fast enough to escape the problems.

You've got one heck of a hard sell when we're all sitting in front of a
machine we can see for ourselves.

 

[David Maynard]

kony writes:




No. My point is that there is a big wide world out there beyond the
geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in computers, in any form.

Then your point is demonstrably invalid because, if it were true, there
were would be little sales outside the business world and even a casual
visit to Best Buy, Circuit City, or any number of consumer stores, proves
otherwise.

That's why geek arguments are so weak. Most people aren't geeks.

That's true. Most people aren't geeks. And I am surrounded by teeming
hoards of computerized non geeks.

I'd use the room for something else.




For what purpose?

And how do you type on such small computers? How do you read the tiny
screens?

That's the difference between 'complainers' and designers. The complainer
stops at imagining things to complain about while the designer continues on
to look for solutions.

Some sell them, some don't. The attraction is fat margins, not volume.

That's a laugh.

IMO, one of the most valuable things to a PC is internet access, which I
consider almost as innovative and useful as the invention of the printing
press because one has, at their fingertips, an almost unlimited source of
information. For example, instead of just arguing 'feelings' or 'deduction'
I can put "consumer PC sales 2004" into Google and find:

http://www.audioholics.com/news/CEAProjectedSalesFiguresFor2004.html

(The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA): U.S. Consumer Electronics
Sales & Forecasts: 1999-2004)

"Manufacturer-to-dealer sales of consumer electronics products will total a
record $101 billion in 2004... "Consumer electronics continue to win over
American consumers by providing the tools to create, educate, entertain and
connect," said Gary Shapiro, CEA president and CEO."

Of that, for some comparisons (2003 numbers):

digital television (DTV) products... some $6.1 billion
plasma television... nearly $1.5 billion
LCD... $0.65 billion
stand-alone DVD players... more than $3 billion
direct-to-home satellite systems... nearly $1.4 billion
personal video recorders (PVRs)... $0.19 billion
MP3 players... $0.56 billion
digital camera sales... some $3.4 billion
wireless telephones... almost $9.2 billion

PC sales ---> $12.5 billion <---
(which, btw, was a 15 percent increase over 2002)


Would seem that just a bit more than "almost no part of it is interested in
computers, in any form."

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard wrote in part:



What is this 2:3 frame conversion for TV? As I have understood it for
years, NTSC television is 30 frames per second, 60 fields (odd lines,then
even lines, interlaced) per second. Since sound, theatrical movie projection
has been 24 frames per second. The very simplest way to convert film at 24
frame per second is to duplicate every fourth frame. That would definitely
show up as a stutter; duplicating every 4th field is slightly better. If
you watch DVDs of older British television productions ("I, Cladius", for
example) you can SEE a similar artifact resulting from the conversion of PAL
to NTSC, going from 25 frames per second to 30 frames per second. Evidently
the DVDs are made from the conversion used for the original NTSC telecasts,
when PAL/NTSC conversion used boxes that cost over $500,000 US at the time.
Thanks to the continuing development of cheaper and more capable digital
components, that kind of artifact is no longer visible. Presently the
time-wise window for the conversion can stretch over multiple frames, with
interpolation providing to-the-eye seamless image flow. Soon to come is a
complete digital path from scene to screen, with digital content becomming
an ever larger component of the scene.

Consequently, I don't understand where 2:3 comes in.

I mixed the actual 3:2 pull down terminology with a 'simpler' explanation
of the move-pause-move-pause description.

The 3:2 pull down is by field, not 'whole frames'. E.g. movie frame 1 is 3
fields, movie frame 2 is 2 fields, movie frame 3 is 3 fields, movie frame 4
is 2 fields, etc. That has the 'effect' of 'adding' the requisite 'extra'
frames but in split frame across two fields for the 'intermediate' ones
when reconstructed on the TV set in the normal 2 fields per TV frame.

I.E. TV frame 1 is movie frame 1. TV frame 2 is half movie frame 1 and half
movie frame 2, interleaved. TV frame 3 is half movie frame 2 and half movie
frame 3, interleaved. TV frame 4 is movie frame 3. TV movie frame 5 is
movie frame 4.

# of fields 3 2 3 2

movie frame | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
fields a b c|a b|a b c|a b
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
TV frame 1 2 3 4 5

In actuality, to reduce chroma subcarrier artifacts, the frame rate of NTSC
is no longer 60Hz, it's 59.94Hz, so there is a minuscule, .1%, 'slow down'
of movies.

Nowadays 24 FPS movies are simply played 'as is' on PAL and so run 4.167%
faster (the 24 frames that made up a movie second are gone in 24 PAL frames
but there's still 1 left to go for the PAL second).

To get back to the part of this 'thread' that will not die: the 'mxsmanic'
argument. What do you suppose is the hardware/software universe in which
'mismanic' operates? I'd really like to know specifically the equipment,
os, and applications 'mxsmanic' uses. I've got to think his views are
shaped by some traumatic experiences, hopefully in the hardware/software
sphere.

I don't think it's a matter of a different hardware/software universe. I
think it's a matter of the 'gripe syndrome'.

I once worked with a draftsman kinda like that. We were developing an
invention, literally (patent filed), and he kept saying "this will never
work." I asked him why he thought so. "Because it's never been done before."

Uh, well, that's pretty much what "invention" means

 

[David Maynard]

He also dismissed the size of the '50s-'90 drives when
considering latency as it applied to databases... given the
low capacity of a 1990 drive, a modern beefy system could
cache the entire DB... at least that helps reads.

Good point.

I think the more generic description of what we're both getting at is that
comparing individual components isn't a good overall measure because, as
technology changes, one can apply them differently and use different
techniques. Like, as one example, including in a modern commodity priced,
dirt cheap disk drive, a megabyte sized cache larger than the entire system
storage capacity of an ancient computer system.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Why would I need to?

Because volatile RAM is erased when you turn the power off, which isn't
much use if you need to write out data that is permanent. That's why
disks exist.

 

[Mxsmanic]

You've got one heck of a hard sell when we're all sitting in front of a
machine we can see for ourselves.

Perhaps you have lower standards. Since all machines force users to
wait, one tends to accept it without noticing it. But there is
virtually nothing that even the fastest PCs do "instantaneously."

 

[Mxsmanic]

Then your point is demonstrably invalid because, if it were true, there
were would be little sales outside the business world and even a casual
visit to Best Buy, Circuit City, or any number of consumer stores, proves
otherwise.

There are still many people without PCs, and many PCs are sold to people
who already own PCs. Additionally, on a worldwide basis, PCs are rare.

That's the difference between 'complainers' and designers. The complainer
stops at imagining things to complain about while the designer continues on
to look for solutions.

I haven't seen anyone looking for solutions to these problems.
Keyboards continue to shrink, as do displays. The machines may be tiny
and portable, but they are not at all ergonomic.

Just as watching a movie in the back of a car on a screen the size of a
paperback book in traffic doesn't match the experience of watching the
movie on a wall-sized screen in the comfort of home, struggling to use a
palm-sized computer with one hand in a subway car does not match the
experience of typing comfortably on a full keyboard in a comfy chair at
home (or in the office).

That's a laugh.

What are the margins on PCs, then?

"Manufacturer-to-dealer sales of consumer electronics products will total a
record $101 billion in 2004... "Consumer electronics continue to win over
American consumers by providing the tools to create, educate, entertain and
connect," said Gary Shapiro, CEA president and CEO."

Of that, for some comparisons (2003 numbers):

digital television (DTV) products... some $6.1 billion
plasma television... nearly $1.5 billion
LCD... $0.65 billion
stand-alone DVD players... more than $3 billion
direct-to-home satellite systems... nearly $1.4 billion
personal video recorders (PVRs)... $0.19 billion
MP3 players... $0.56 billion
digital camera sales... some $3.4 billion
wireless telephones... almost $9.2 billion

PC sales ---> $12.5 billion <---
(which, btw, was a 15 percent increase over 2002)

But that says nothing about margins, and PCs are expensive items.

Would seem that just a bit more than "almost no part of it is interested in
computers, in any form."

At $2 per inhabitant, we're a very long way from putting a PC in front
of everyone.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




Perhaps you have lower standards.

Lower than asking for the impossible, yes.

Since all machines force users to
wait, one tends to accept it without noticing it. But there is
virtually nothing that even the fastest PCs do "instantaneously."

As I said, nothing works "instantaneously."

 

[Mxsmanic]

As I said, nothing works "instantaneously."

As I've said, 1/60 second is synonymous with instantaneously, and it's
certainly technically possible to do that. It just isn't being done.

 

[Phil Weldon]

'David Maynard' wrote in part:

"I don't think it's a matter of a different hardware/software universe. I
think it's a matter of the 'gripe syndrome'."

The 'effective computing power has been dropping for fifty years' syndrome,
I think iis more that once in a while crossposting links up with another
bubble in the multiverse.

Phil Weldon

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




There are still many people without PCs, and many PCs are sold to people
who already own PCs. Additionally, on a worldwide basis, PCs are rare.

You have a disturbing tendency to make one claim and then make entirely
different ones in what is apparently intended as a rebut and, to make
matters worse, you also argue against claims that were never made. And
since you also have a tendency to snip the original when doing so I get the
distinct impression you are quite aware of it.

No one claimed everyone had a PC and no one claimed all sales are to 'new
owners'. The point of discussion was your claim that, outside of the world
of geeks, "almost no part of it is interested in computers, in any form."
And the magnitude of sales indicates otherwise as you don't have to sell
one to every soul on the planet just to demonstrate an interest by more
than "almost no part"

I haven't seen anyone looking for solutions to these problems.

And complainers never will because no solution will ever be 'enough'. And
since the world is not perfect there is always something to complain about,
which is the 'advantage' complainers have.

Keyboards continue to shrink, as do displays. The machines may be tiny
and portable, but they are not at all ergonomic.

If I needed passenger capacity I might get a mini-van and if I needed the
payload capability I might get a truck. And if I wanted the 'sports car
experience' I'd get a sports car but I don't expect them all to perform the
same way, even though they're all 'motor vehicles', because they just plain
aren't intended to fill the same role nor do the same tasks in the same manner.

A PDA isn't a desktop, nor is it intended to be a desktop.

Just as watching a movie in the back of a car on a screen the size of a
paperback book in traffic doesn't match the experience of watching the
movie on a wall-sized screen in the comfort of home, struggling to use a
palm-sized computer with one hand in a subway car does not match the
experience of typing comfortably on a full keyboard in a comfy chair at
home (or in the office).

If you had a gaggle of screaming kids in the car/van your opinion about the
value of "a screen the size of a paperback book" might change but I've
never heard anyone claim they thought "a screen the size of a paperback
book" in their car would be just like going to the movie theater and I
might say they were delusional if one ever does.

You take things devices were never intended to do and then 'complain' they
don't do it.

And, just for the record, I don't take airline flights to 'see the movie'
either.

What are the margins on PCs, then?

You tell me since you're the one who claimed it's "fat."

I was laughing at the volume claim.

But that says nothing about margins, and PCs are expensive items.

I didn't say a thing about margins and didn't intend to, so your 'rebut' is
arguing against nothing. The point I made was explicitly stated in the next
sentence.

At $2 per inhabitant, we're a very long way from putting a PC in front
of everyone.

And no one said a blessed thing about "everyone" already having a PC.

However, for the sake of logic, simply because I enjoy it, that not
"everyone" has a PC is easily proved by finding just one person who doesn't
and while I didn't rush right out the door and take a poll I am quite
confident even more than one could be found. Which is why you'll not likely
ever hear me make all inclusive, absolute, claims about 'everyone'.

On the other hand, you cannot, as you tried to do, draw that same
conclusion from just 1 year's sales number because it, alone, does not
represent the total number of computers ever sold, regardless of to who,
repeats, upgrades, or anything else. The information is simply not there.

 

[David Maynard]

'David Maynard' wrote in part:

"I don't think it's a matter of a different hardware/software universe. I
think it's a matter of the 'gripe syndrome'."

The 'effective computing power has been dropping for fifty years' syndrome,
I think iis more that once in a while crossposting links up with another
bubble in the multiverse.

Phil Weldon

Well, could be a 'Merlin' thing: living in a reversed timeline