You must see this conversation, they are really at a high intellectual level.
Quote[12:42:33] damn media player stuck my caps..
[12:42:37] wtf
[12:42:48] R2, it breaks my soundcard
[12:42:49] stupid hubsoft
[12:42:59] every time I open it my sound card messes up
[12:43:35] :D
[12:45:46] lol
[12:46:03] windows media player?
[12:46:05] maybe cos you are teh sux0rz
[12:46:21] why do ppl use it?
[12:47:32] nothing wrong with it..
[12:48:04] but there are better alternatives
[12:48:15] <[Cable]X> bastya.. tell me exactly why its soo bad?
[12:48:24] no need for better when theres nothing wrong with the one I use..
[12:48:28] ok, i use commandline video player, i am sick, i know
[12:48:30] <[Cable]X> or is it just because other say soo?
[12:48:40] needs codecs
[12:48:47] and its resource hog
[12:48:58] buy a real computer then..
[12:48:58] also slow and very dumb
[12:49:01] lol
[12:49:03] <[Cable]X> lol
[12:49:09] not slow or dumb here..
[12:49:20] <[Cable]X> so upgrade your commodore 64 to something of todays standard :p
[12:49:25] hehe
[12:49:27] exactly..
[12:49:33] <[Cable]X> lol
[12:49:39] Athlon XP 2500+ with 512M dual ddr
[12:49:41] enuf?
[12:49:47] <[Cable]X> naaa
[12:49:53] apparently not if it's slow for you..
[12:49:59] <[Cable]X> buy a cray :p
[12:50:06] i don't say wmplayer is slow
[12:50:12] slower then others
[12:50:13] XP 2500+ @ 3200+ here with 1GB dual ddr
[12:50:32] i am a minimalist
[12:50:39] <[Cable]X> and why are you in such a hurry?
[12:50:49] i am not in a hurry
[12:50:55] just hate to install codecs
[12:50:59] <[Cable]X> you wanna save up that sec?
[12:51:04] and there are mplayer and vlc
[12:51:14] <[Cable]X> to extend your life an hour or something :p
[12:51:18] <[Cable]X> lol
[12:51:19] also, media player does not support subtitles by default
[12:51:26] whats there to hate the codecs.. I installed mine 6 months ago and no touching them since..
[12:51:34] <[Cable]X> exactly
[12:51:41] <[Cable]X> do it once and thats it
[12:51:42] <[Cable]X> hehe
[12:51:50] <[Cable]X> no fiddeling
[12:51:53] also it has crappy picture
[12:52:17] also, by using mplayer and vlc i support free software
[12:52:19] <[Cable]X> first its slow and now its crappy picture.. what else?
[12:52:27] codecs
[12:52:30] subtitles
[12:52:40] and can not preview avi with it
[12:52:45] oh and sounds terrible
[12:52:45] <[Cable]X> i have all those things working fine for me in mediaplayer :)
[12:53:00] they can be made to work fine
[12:53:19] but why extra job when not needed?
[12:53:48] yes, i used media player the series was good
[12:53:54] pics, subtitles, sounds are all great here..
[12:53:57] <[Cable]X> installing something else is extra job
[12:54:11] yes
[12:54:17] <[Cable]X> your "alternative" player came preinstalled?
[12:54:24] no
[12:54:31] <[Cable]X> soo.. isnt that extra job?
[12:54:35] <[Cable]X> hehe
[12:54:43] but i have to upgrade to latest media player thou
[12:54:44] :D
[12:54:45] 69
[12:54:47] and even gotta reboot
[12:55:18] yoiu'd still need to reboot for all the updates..
[12:55:19] <[Cable]X> :)
[12:55:22] -i
[12:55:27] I am terribly sorry to finis this high-level conversation but gotta go to school.
you were unlucky that sedules and wombat, or me weren't around 2 back you up.
a car like mpc/vlc, or the sports car called mplayer will always beat the truck which is called wmp.
btw: mplayer for linux/bsd uses windows codecs while the windows version uses specialy made codecs.
for every1 who is wondering "a windows version of mplayer?", you can find it hidden on the ftp servers from mplayer.
plop
lol @ that convo, vlc about a year ago for me here and since then no more ANNOYING codecs,
btw, bastya thats a
small pc to be running the whole of stanfords folding project, but for everything else it will suffice=== LOL @ the dude with gigs of "QDR" (quadruple duple ram!!) ffs, ppl who have BIG comps have midlife crisis or micropenis syndrome or more cash than brains,,(pls all regular ppl with high end comps dont bite!!)
tc
-//v
nah , you can't a have a fast enough computer.
on a 1800 mhz dc++ still takes 6min+ to compile.
QuoteOriginally posted by [NL]Pur
nah , you can't a have a fast enough computer.
on a 1800 mhz dc++ still takes 6min+ to compile.
2mins
doesnt always rely on cpu, dont forget mem
QuoteOriginally posted by Meka][Meka
QuoteOriginally posted by [NL]Pur
nah , you can't a have a fast enough computer.
on a 1800 mhz dc++ still takes 6min+ to compile.
2mins
doesnt always rely on cpu, dont forget mem
right on the spot.
my p4 1600@2138 with 512MB RIMM does 50% more rc5-72 key's per sec then the p4 2400 with 512MB DDR 400 from my neighbours.
also count that i have a top of the line mainboard and they a cheap 1.
plop
QuoteOriginally posted by [NL]Pur
nah , you can't a have a fast enough computer.
on a 1800 mhz dc++ still takes 6min+ to compile.
ahhhh, but i bet thats a crappy AMD affair ;)
im using 2.4 p4 northwood n 512 branded ddr and it wouldnt take 6+ mins to compile "HARDWARE" lol
-//v
QuoteOriginally posted by plop
QuoteOriginally posted by Meka][Meka
QuoteOriginally posted by [NL]Pur
nah , you can't a have a fast enough computer.
on a 1800 mhz dc++ still takes 6min+ to compile.
2mins
doesnt always rely on cpu, dont forget mem
right on the spot.
my p4 1600@2138 with 512MB RIMM does 50% more rc5-72 key's per sec then the p4 2400 with 512MB DDR 400 from my neighbours.
also count that i have a top of the line mainboard and they a cheap 1.
plop
but how is it possible for a smaller chip and "less"ish ram to do more cycles than the other? are you syre you didnt check this while running photoshop or some other resource intensive app? if not what were the
test conditions? interesting stuff ;P
i think / know memory is a factor too,
my amd has 256 mb.
but i think above 512 mb mem peformance increase comes to a halt, and then you must have it from your cpu or hdd speed.
And i think 2 minutes is still long time for 1 compile job ;)
i want instant results :p
mem is 1 of the biggest factors.
but in total the computer is just as fast as the slowest part.
here is a small example, not 100% truth but it gives an idea of how it works.
the lower the efficiency number the better.
[I]P4 2400 - FSB 100 - DDR 400[/I]
2400 = 24 x 100 (cpu multiplier)
400 = 4 x 100 (agp multiplier)
efficiency = 1 : 6
[I]P4 2100 - FSB 100 - DDR 400[/I]
2100 = 21 x 100
400 = 4 x 100
efficiency = 1 : 5
[I]P4 2100 - FSB 100 - RIMM 800[/I]
2100 = 21 x 100
400 = 2 x (4 x 100) = 8 x 100
efficiency = 1 : 2.6
[I]P4 1600@2138 - FSB 133 - DDR 400 (overclocked)[/I]
2138 = 16 x 133
400 = 3 x 133
efficiency = 1 : 5
[I]P4 1600@2138 - FSB 133 - RIMM 800 (overclocked)[/I]
2138 = 21 x 133
800 = 2 x (3 x 133) = 6 x 133
efficiency = 1 : 3.5the last is from my workstation.
RIMM gives a ratio of 1:3.5 compaired with 1:5 for DDR 400.
when the clocks align the cpu can write 2 mem, else it waits.
the slower the mem the more the cpu has 2 wait.
this becomes worse when virtual mem has 2 be used, simply because that goes in MB/s compaired with GB/s for real mem.
plop
ty 4 that
-//v