OT - At last, a Windows Explorer work-around for .jpg folders

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-03-22, Peter Duniho wrote:
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
It is for exactly reasons like this I love Apple iPhoto so much.

Anyone who thinks that Apple iPhoto (or any other particular software
application) is immune to this kind of problem is an idiot.

Apple iPhoto doesn't have that bug though. The thing is Apple iPhoto is
_vastly_ simpler than a combination of Windows Explorer + PhotoShop.
PhotoShop is a complex large piece of software, and so is Windows
Explorer. Apple iPhoto is likely much less complex than Windows
Explorer.


Photoshop doesn't have that problem either. At least not with everyone that
uses it. True Photoshop is a complex beast but it has features that iPhoto
doesn't, lot's of them. I personally think it is over kill for what Jay is
using it for.

There are several reasons that Jay could be having this problem and several
of them have not a thing to do with either Windows or Photoshop. I was an
Apple guy from my first Apple IIe and worked with several Macs until about 7
years ago when both work and the games I wanted to play knocked me out of
the Mac arena. Apple makes a great machine and for certain uses it has no
peer. But don't let anyone fool you it is not perfect and has bugs and
glitches all it own.

At home I'm running an Alienware 3.5 Ghz machine with WinXP and I have
restarted it exactly 4 times (other than after new software loads) in the
last 12 months. So stability is not an issue and it is MANY times faster
than anything Apple makes today and it was a year old last December.

In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

At home I'm running an Alienware 3.5 Ghz machine with WinXP and I have
restarted it exactly 4 times (other than after new software loads) in the
last 12 months. So stability is not an issue and it is MANY times faster
than anything Apple makes today and it was a year old last December.

"many times faster"? are you nuts?

How long does it take this wicked fast machine to process/encode
one hour of video for burning on a DVD? For your claim of "many
times faster", it would have to complete the job in less than 10 minutes.
This I would love to see.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

At home I'm running an Alienware 3.5 Ghz machine with WinXP and I have
restarted it exactly 4 times (other than after new software loads) in the
last 12 months. So stability is not an issue and it is MANY times faster
than anything Apple makes today and it was a year old last December.

"many times faster"? are you nuts?

How long does it take this wicked fast machine to process/encode
one hour of video for burning on a DVD? For your claim of "many
times faster", it would have to complete the job in less than 10 minutes.
This I would love to see.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate


I haven't burned any DVDs but when I get a chance I will. I'm not sure but I
think the dual NVIDIA cards may offload some of the video processing so it
might not be a fair comparison.

In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

At home I'm running an Alienware 3.5 Ghz machine with WinXP and I have
restarted it exactly 4 times (other than after new software loads) in the
last 12 months. So stability is not an issue and it is MANY times faster
than anything Apple makes today and it was a year old last December.

How long does it take this wicked fast machine to process/encode
one hour of video for burning on a DVD? For your claim of "many
times faster", it would have to complete the job in less than 10 minutes.
This I would love to see.

I haven't burned any DVDs but when I get a chance I will. I'm not sure but I
think the dual NVIDIA cards may offload some of the video processing so it
might not be a fair comparison.

Well, AFAIK the video cards don't have anything to do with the
encoding/processing of converting DV into a video DVD.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
Well, AFAIK the video cards don't have anything to do with the
encoding/processing of converting DV into a video DVD.

You could use a little updating (but not much...this is relatively recent).

The latest and greatest video cards include support for "DXVA" (DirectX
Video Acceleration). It provides a way for applications other than 3D
acceleration to take advantage of the immense processing power present on
modern 3D accelerator cards.

The processors on the video cards aren't completely specialized, and it
turns out that they are suitable for handling a variety of computational
tasks, including transcoding video streams (such as is necessary to convert
digital video from one format to another, including when burning a DVD).

Regardless, I find the term "many" to be ambiguous enough to give "Gig"
whatever wiggle room he needs. It is certainly true that his Alienware
computer is at least twice as fast as anything Apple is offering so far
(though as they introduce more Intel-based Macs, that will cease to be
true), and one need not come anywhere close to 10 minutes to burn a 60
minute DVD to prove "many" times faster. I doubt any Apple can do a DVD in
better than real-time (and probably slower) so as long as "many" only means
"three", all he needs is to be able to burn a 60-minute DVD in 20 minutes,
probably not even that quickly (depending on actual Mac performance, of
course).

Now, can his PC burn a DVD in 20 minutes? Don't know. But especially if
it's using DXVA for the video transcoding, and he has a fast DVD burner,
it's not entirely out of the question. Even at 30 minutes, he'd still be
able to support "many" (assuming he goes with an odd definition like "two"
).

So, how fast can the fastest Mac burn a DVD anyway?

Pete

Alienware machines are know for speed at gaming.
That does not necessarily translate into speed for other processes.

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Well, AFAIK the video cards don't have anything to do with the
encoding/processing of converting DV into a video DVD.

You could use a little updating (but not much...this is relatively recent).

more specifically, the video card in my G5 doesn't get involved in
the processing. Thus any attempt to wiggle out of the claim of
"many times faster" is invalid.


Regardless, I find the term "many" to be ambiguous enough to give "Gig"
whatever wiggle room he needs. It is certainly true that his Alienware
computer is at least twice as fast as anything Apple is offering so far

twice many

And I'd like to see proof of your assertion


(though as they introduce more Intel-based Macs, that will cease to be
true), and one need not come anywhere close to 10 minutes to burn a 60
minute DVD to prove "many" times faster. I doubt any Apple can do a DVD in
better than real-time

well, you yourself need some updating.

My not-top-of-the-line G5 will process AND burn a 60 minute DVD in about 40
minutes. I haven't tried to make this faster by fiddling with various settings.
This is fast enough for me. :-)

[incorrect conclusions based on faulty-data deleted]

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
more specifically, the video card in my G5 doesn't get involved in
the processing. Thus any attempt to wiggle out of the claim of
"many times faster" is invalid.

No one was talking about YOUR computer using the video card. The potential
"error" suggested was that HIS computer might use the video card. At least,
that was my understanding. You don't have dual video cards, do you?

Regardless, I find the term "many" to be ambiguous enough to give "Gig"
whatever wiggle room he needs. It is certainly true that his
Alienware
computer is at least twice as fast as anything Apple is offering so far

twice many

As I said, his definition of "many" may not be the same as yours. That's
the problem with vague words like "many". They can mean a variety of
things, and two people may go to the grave arguing about the "correct"
meaning (even though there are numerous, or even infinite correct meanings).

And I'd like to see proof of your assertion

You'd have to look up benchmarks at the various review sites. I make the
statement based on general knowledge of the PowerPC versus AMD/Intel CPU
performance ("Gig" didn't mention which CPU brand he actually has, but
assuming it's supposed to be really fast, it's probably an AMD part, for
their superior floating point performance).

[...]
My not-top-of-the-line G5 will process AND burn a 60 minute DVD in about
40
minutes.

If you say so. You must at least be using a dual-proc box. Even so, your
experience doesn't match what I've read about the G5's (or any other Mac for
that matter).

Pete

On 2006-03-24, Peter Duniho wrote:
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
Well, AFAIK the video cards don't have anything to do with the
encoding/processing of converting DV into a video DVD.

You could use a little updating (but not much...this is relatively recent).

The latest and greatest video cards include support for "DXVA" (DirectX
Video Acceleration). It provides a way for applications other than 3D
acceleration to take advantage of the immense processing power present on
modern 3D accelerator cards.

But his year old nVidia card won't be doing that. Also, don't forget
Apple don't make the proprietary hardware they used to - modern Macs use
nVidia graphics cards too.

Regardless, I find the term "many" to be ambiguous enough to give "Gig"
whatever wiggle room he needs. It is certainly true that his Alienware
computer is at least twice as fast as anything Apple is offering so far

I strongly doubt it's even 50% faster than a Core Duo iMac (which is now
on sale) and I strongly expect that for paralellizable tasks, it is
significantly slower than a quad CPU PowerMac.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
But his year old nVidia card won't be doing that. Also, don't forget
Apple don't make the proprietary hardware they used to - modern Macs use
nVidia graphics cards too.

Last I checked, Apple did not have DXVA, nor anything like it.

In any case, my point is simply that video cards DO have lots "to do with
the encoding/processing of converting DV into a video DVD". Even if "Gig"'s
computer doesn't support it (and you don't know that it doesn't), the fact
remains that DXVA is a reality today.