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

On 2006-03-23, 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.

I strongly doubt that. If you've not used an Apple machine in 7 years
then you can easily have that misapprehension, but in those 7 years:

- Apple have ditched the (technically awful and unstable) Mac OS 9 and
moved to a modern operating system.
- Apple are now using the same CPUs as your PC.

I also strongly doubt your Alienware is 'MANY times faster' than a new
Core Duo iMac. Overall, your Alienware is probably slower than a 4 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

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

On 2006-03-23, Peter Duniho wrote:
The thing is Apple iPhoto is
_vastly_ simpler than a combination of Windows Explorer + PhotoShop.

That's not really a fair comparison, since you left out Finder on the iPhoto
side. And Finder is every bit as complex a piece of software as Windows
Explorer.

No, it's entirely fair. Finder is merely telling the OS to load iPhoto,
which then goes and displays the pics. From what I understand, on Jay's
system, the Windows Explorer is using a component from Photoshop to
display thumbnails (and possibly other photo metadata) - so the two are
interrelated.

PhotoShop is a complex large piece of software, and so is Windows
Explorer. Apple iPhoto is likely much less complex than Windows
Explorer.

Why compare iPhoto to Windows Explorer? They don't do the same thing.

It is just a general indication of the total level of complexity - I
thought that was pretty clear; perhaps I could have written that better.

But in any case, Jay is using a very complex piece of software to
preview his photographs, and I'm using a less complex piece of software
to preview my photographs. All things being equal, I'm less likely to
have problems because the complexity is less.

I'm not sure where you're coming from - I think you see me as slamming
Windows but I'm not; I love iPhoto because it does nothing more than
allow me to catalog, preview and do some basic enhancement of my
pictures and export them. It doesn't try to be an art package and it
isn't a general purpose file manager. It is designed specificially for
the task which it does and it does it better than a general purpose file
manager does (and code wise it is vastly less complex).

I'm sure there are similar applications for Windows, and perhaps Jay
ought to consider using one because it'll result in a much better (eugh)
'user experience'.

--
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

I also strongly doubt your Alienware is 'MANY times faster' than a new
Core Duo iMac. Overall, your Alienware is probably slower than a 4 CPU
PowerMac.

Correct. The Quad Core is currently the fastest machine available for
any platform.

I'm sure there are similar applications for Windows, and perhaps Jay
ought to consider using one because it'll result in a much better (eugh)
'user experience'.

Anyone using Adobe's fee LIGHTROOM application?

"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.

Here is a new wrinkle...
Windows chokes on file sizes 2 GB and above.
(Apples don't have this problem.)
That may come down to a RAM issue as another poster pointed out.

On 2006-03-24, Peter Duniho wrote:
But in any case, Jay is using a very complex piece of software to
preview his photographs, and I'm using a less complex piece of software
to preview my photographs. All things being equal, I'm less likely to
have problems because the complexity is less.

If you are previewing photos in Finder, the complexity is the same. If you
are not previewing photos in Finder, then you are not doing the same thing
Jay is doing.

But I am *not* previewing photographs in Finder. Otherwise I'd have said
"This is why I love Finder so much" instead of "This is why I love
iPhoto so much".

I am doing the same thing Jay is doing - I'm trying to organize my
photographs, categorize them and do some minor cropping and enhancement.
The comparison is entirely valid. You're saying I shouldn't compare the
experience of trying to drive a screw with a hammer versus a screwdriver
because hammers and screwdrivers are different (even though what I'm
actually trying to express an opinion on is the efficacy of putting the
screw in). To me, using a combination of Explorer + PhotoShop to
categorize and do minor edits to photographs instead of iPhoto (or for a
Windows user, perhaps Picassa or other similar software) is like using a
hammer to drive in screws.

--
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
...
If you are previewing photos in Finder, the complexity is the same. If
you
are not previewing photos in Finder, then you are not doing the same
thing
Jay is doing.

But I am *not* previewing photographs in Finder.

Did you read my post? You know, the part you quoted?

The conclusion to your statement "But I am *not* previewing photographs in
Finder" is that "you are not doing the same thing Jay is doing".

It's quite simple, really.

Pete