|
|
No sense in reviving old computers
I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP.
In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler |
No sense in reviving old computers
"philo" schreef in bericht
... I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler So it had an older processor than Pentium 4? -- |\ /| | \/ |@rk \../ \/os |
No sense in reviving old computers
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:53:38 +0100, Linea Recta wrote:
"philo" schreef in bericht ... I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler So it had an older processor than Pentium 4? Intel started SSE2 with the P4 in 2001 but AMD did not support it until the release of the Opteron and Athlon 64 chips in 2003. -- Wildman GNU/Linux user #557453 The cow died so I don't need your bull! |
No sense in reviving old computers
philo wrote:
the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. I have a non-SSE2 running Linux Ffx 51.0.1 $ inxi -C CPU: Single core AMD Geode NX (-UP-) cache: 256 KB flags: (sse) clocked at 1397.667 MHz all cpu flags: $ inxi -Cf CPU: Single core AMD Geode NX (-UP-) cache: 256 KB clocked at 1397.667 MHz CPU Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse syscall mp mmxext 3dnowext 3dnow -- Mike Easter |
No sense in reviving old computers
philo wrote:
I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?i...150720&mode=68 "The lack of SSE2 capable CPUs limits the use of many older x86 based computers - most browsers now require this feature. The only non-SSE2, lightweight FF alternative I found that rendered modern CSS/HTML decently was Dooble." "Firefox can be compiled sans SSE2. Arch Linux i686 compiles without SSE2 and Firefox works fine. Void Linux requires SSE2 in its 32-bit branch. Alpine Linux offers i386 sans SSE2, so it works on old machines. Debian and FreeBSD have some arches without SSE2. Gentoo of course you may tweak as you please via CFLAGS. AMD never shipped any 32-bit chip with SSE2. Any distro requiring SSE2 thereby voids all 32-bit AMD CPUs. Distros should use Yeppp! if you ask me and stop fussing over compile-time flags, let Yeppp! handle things." There may be some options. But probably not options that are "end-user friendly". As a power user, you could probably deal with the details, but someone who just wants to use the computer without fussing, they're not going to be happy with your "bodged solution" :-) Paul |
No sense in reviving old computers
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:34:26 -0600
philo wrote: The machine has now been sent to the recycler Lack of skill on my part |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/15/2017 02:53 PM, Linea Recta wrote:
"philo" schreef in bericht ... I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler So it had an older processor than Pentium 4? It was an AMD Semperon . I happened to have an Athlon as well but neither were satisfactory. AFAIK any P-4 should still be OK |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/15/2017 03:12 PM, Wildman wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:53:38 +0100, Linea Recta wrote: "philo" schreef in bericht ... I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler So it had an older processor than Pentium 4? Intel started SSE2 with the P4 in 2001 but AMD did not support it until the release of the Opteron and Athlon 64 chips in 2003. Thanks for the info. It did not break my heart to recycle a 16 year old comptuer |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/15/2017 09:07 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
philo wrote: the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. I have a non-SSE2 running Linux Ffx 51.0.1 $ inxi -C CPU: Single core AMD Geode NX (-UP-) cache: 256 KB flags: (sse) clocked at 1397.667 MHz all cpu flags: $ inxi -Cf CPU: Single core AMD Geode NX (-UP-) cache: 256 KB clocked at 1397.667 MHz CPU Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse syscall mp mmxext 3dnowext 3dnow I am sure there are versions of Linux that would run fine but I really need to keep the clutter in my workshop down |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/15/2017 10:30 PM, Paul wrote:
philo wrote: I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?i...150720&mode=68 "The lack of SSE2 capable CPUs limits the use of many older x86 based computers - most browsers now require this feature. The only non-SSE2, lightweight FF alternative I found that rendered modern CSS/HTML decently was Dooble." "Firefox can be compiled sans SSE2. Arch Linux i686 compiles without SSE2 and Firefox works fine. Void Linux requires SSE2 in its 32-bit branch. Alpine Linux offers i386 sans SSE2, so it works on old machines. Debian and FreeBSD have some arches without SSE2. Gentoo of course you may tweak as you please via CFLAGS. AMD never shipped any 32-bit chip with SSE2. Any distro requiring SSE2 thereby voids all 32-bit AMD CPUs. Distros should use Yeppp! if you ask me and stop fussing over compile-time flags, let Yeppp! handle things." There may be some options. But probably not options that are "end-user friendly". As a power user, you could probably deal with the details, but someone who just wants to use the computer without fussing, they're not going to be happy with your "bodged solution" :-) Paul Agreed. The machine was painfully slow...it;s now gone I still have another just like it...it has Vista on in and was last used maybe five years ago |
No sense in reviving old computers
philo wrote:
Mike Easter wrote: philo wrote: the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. I have a non-SSE2 running Linux Ffx 51.0.1 I am sure there are versions of Linux that would run fine but I really need to keep the clutter in my workshop down I completely understand. I definitely need to retire/recycle that machine; there is no place I know who would be re-using it. I'm the only person I know who would bother :-) If I would jettison that box, there's a much newer faster one right over yonder that I could be using which is currently out of reach (unless I get out of my chair) :-/ -- Mike Easter |
No sense in reviving old computers
|
No sense in reviving old computers
pjp wrote:
Bonus in keeping one of the old boxes alive is they still use the old IDE drives and I've got a nice little stack of them here still large enough to be usable. They work fine as shared drives for extra backups etc. Note - it's getting harder to find external IDE enclosures for 3.5" drives most now only 2.5" or SATA instead. Speaking of over-the-hill IDE hardware, not only do I have a stack of IDEs from 5, 40, and 80G, I also have removable IDE trays and their docks. Collections of gangs of USB sticks of various sizes take up a lot less room :-) -- Mike Easter |
No sense in reviving old computers
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:40:59 -0400, pjp
wrote: If it'll run XP I'd likely use it for one thing only. I'm in the habit of connecting a pc to both a tv and stereo. If the unit is fast enough to play a XVID video of 720x480 with 192Kbs audio without stuttering while being fed over a network connection I'd find it still usable. Wow, xvid. I used that from about 1998 to 2001. Lots of water has passed under the bridge since then. Thanks for the flashback. -- Char Jackson |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 16/02/2017 3:34 AM, philo wrote:
The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. What browser? IE? Or Firefox? :) -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/16/2017 09:23 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
pjp wrote: Bonus in keeping one of the old boxes alive is they still use the old IDE drives and I've got a nice little stack of them here still large enough to be usable. They work fine as shared drives for extra backups etc. Note - it's getting harder to find external IDE enclosures for 3.5" drives most now only 2.5" or SATA instead. Speaking of over-the-hill IDE hardware, not only do I have a stack of IDEs from 5, 40, and 80G, I also have removable IDE trays and their docks. Collections of gangs of USB sticks of various sizes take up a lot less room :-) Yep same here... little by little I'm getting rid of the clutter though |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/17/2017 05:44 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 16/02/2017 3:34 AM, philo wrote: The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. What browser? IE? Or Firefox? :) IE comes with Win7 so that works but I would not want to use it. I tried installing Chrome, Firefox, Brave Browser and Vivaldi when none of them would install, I pulled the HD , PSU and RAM, then scrapped the machine |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 17/02/2017 9:29 PM, philo wrote:
I tried installing Chrome, Firefox, Brave Browser and Vivaldi when none of them would install, I pulled the HD , PSU and RAM, then scrapped the machine They should be installed fine. Are you using a bad copy of Win 7 ISO? Always trust the official English ISO only, no other languages. And don't trust those custom or tailor-made ISOs built by hobbyists. -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/17/2017 10:19 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 17/02/2017 9:29 PM, philo wrote: I tried installing Chrome, Firefox, Brave Browser and Vivaldi when none of them would install, I pulled the HD , PSU and RAM, then scrapped the machine They should be installed fine. Are you using a bad copy of Win 7 ISO? Always trust the official English ISO only, no other languages. And don't trust those custom or tailor-made ISOs built by hobbyists. You did not read my post, the problem was the CPU's lack of SSE2 |
No sense in reviving old computers
|
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/17/2017 05:44 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 16/02/2017 3:34 AM, philo wrote: The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. What browser? IE? Or Firefox? :) I don't know about IE, but I do have one older Pentium3 computer which isn't being used much except to run SETI@home. Firefox won't update past version 48 (current version is 51) saying it's because of a lack of SSE2. BTW, Apparently Firefox will support XP through version 52, but 49+ require SSE2. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no reason whatsoever for supposing it to be true." [Bertrand Russell] |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/16/2017 02:30 PM, philo wrote:
[snip] It did not break my heart to recycle a 16 year old comptuer I do have a 18-year-old DVR (ReplayTV 2020) that was special (since it was my first). However, it became useless in mid-November 2016 when the cable system went to all digital. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no reason whatsoever for supposing it to be true." [Bertrand Russell] |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/16/2017 09:23 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
[snip] Speaking of over-the-hill IDE hardware, not only do I have a stack of IDEs from 5, 40, and 80G, I also have removable IDE trays and their docks. Collections of gangs of USB sticks of various sizes take up a lot less room :-) I have one (Pentium2 class Celeron) where the motherboard is marked "y2k compliant". That sounds like it SHOULDN'T mean it's old. For a "hard drive" is has an adapter to use a SD card. That card has Windows ME installed. I don't use this system much, just occasionally when I want to see how my website looks in a very old browser (like the IE5.5 that comes with it). Strangely IE5.5 is better than IE6 in some ways. The oldest I have that still works is original Pentium. Too slow for anything modern, but I have used it for FREESCO (a program that makes a PC act as a router) to provide a dialup connection that uses my network (I actually tested IE2 once last year, it was essentially unusable since it doesn't send the Host: header needed by modern shared hosting). I know someone who uses such a machine with Win 2000 to play "Spider Solitaire". -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no reason whatsoever for supposing it to be true." [Bertrand Russell] |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/17/2017 07:29 AM, philo wrote:
[snip] IE comes with Win7 so that works but I would not want to use it. I just installed Win 7 on a PC. It came with IE8. Did you upgrade? However Firefox 48 should work (later versions require SSE2) and is much better. [snip] -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no reason whatsoever for supposing it to be true." [Bertrand Russell] |
No sense in reviving old computers
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:18:24 -0400, pjp
wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:40:59 -0400, pjp wrote: If it'll run XP I'd likely use it for one thing only. I'm in the habit of connecting a pc to both a tv and stereo. If the unit is fast enough to play a XVID video of 720x480 with 192Kbs audio without stuttering while being fed over a network connection I'd find it still usable. Wow, xvid. I used that from about 1998 to 2001. Lots of water has passed under the bridge since then. Thanks for the flashback. I decided that res was all I required given it's same as DVD and I am 67 :) I wanted to insure that regardless of time passed I'd be able to play them on whatever's available at that time. Also filesize verses quality is fine for me. At the risk of sounding snobbish, I consider DVD (and analog TVs) to be unwatchable. 720p is my bare minimum. With DVD, I cringe every time a low-light scene or a shot of the sky comes along and the banding and blocking raise their ugly heads. It might not be so bad with an old analog TV because of their soft, blurry, picture, but I don't remember clearly since I recycled all of those about 15 years ago. You're not the only one who feels like you do, though. I have an elderly friend who still uses a VHS VCR (!!) to timeshift her soaps, and another friend who still has an analog TV (small) in her kitchen. She does more listening than watching, I suspect. -- Char Jackson |
No sense in reviving old computers
In message , Char Jackson
writes: [] At the risk of sounding snobbish, I consider DVD (and analog TVs) to be You do, but in a forgivable way (-: unwatchable. 720p is my bare minimum. With DVD, I cringe every time a low-light scene or a shot of the sky comes along and the banding and blocking raise their ugly heads. It might not be so bad with an old analog TV because of their soft, blurry, picture, but I don't remember clearly since I recycled all of those about 15 years ago. What _angle_ do your TVs subtend at your eye pupil? I think where 5 degrees or less, SD TV is fine, and HD or more contributes little that is discernible. You're not the only one who feels like you do, though. I have an elderly friend who still uses a VHS VCR (!!) to timeshift her soaps, and another friend who still has an analog TV (small) in her kitchen. She does more listening than watching, I suspect. (Again, especially if it's a small one, the subtended angle is probably relevant. Small sets look sharp.) Last time I was in a PC store (I think this year), they were still selling some digital photo frames with sub-VGA resolution. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells |
No sense in reviving old computers
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:30:20 -0600, philo wrote:
On 02/15/2017 03:12 PM, Wildman wrote: On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:53:38 +0100, Linea Recta wrote: "philo" schreef in bericht ... I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler So it had an older processor than Pentium 4? Intel started SSE2 with the P4 in 2001 but AMD did not support it until the release of the Opteron and Athlon 64 chips in 2003. Thanks for the info. It did not break my heart to recycle a 16 year old comptuer As long as it was not an IBM PS/2! |
No sense in reviving old computers
sctvguy1 wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:30:20 -0600, philo wrote: On 02/15/2017 03:12 PM, Wildman wrote: On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:53:38 +0100, Linea Recta wrote: "philo" schreef in bericht ... I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler So it had an older processor than Pentium 4? Intel started SSE2 with the P4 in 2001 but AMD did not support it until the release of the Opteron and Athlon 64 chips in 2003. Thanks for the info. It did not break my heart to recycle a 16 year old comptuer As long as it was not an IBM PS/2! Why? I had my own PS/2 model 30 286 10 Mhz and a borrowed P70 386 portable back then. I hated Microchannel Architecture (MCA) in the 386. 286 was OK without its MCA, but dang slow. -- Quote of the Week: "Applied mathematics will always need pure mathematics, just as anteaters will always need ants." --Paul Halmos Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly. /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit- ( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/17/2017 01:20 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 02/17/2017 07:29 AM, philo wrote: [snip] IE comes with Win7 so that works but I would not want to use it. I just installed Win 7 on a PC. It came with IE8. Did you upgrade? However Firefox 48 should work (later versions require SSE2) and is much better. [snip] Yes , I know I could have used an older version of FF but the machine was just too slow...I did not bother to upgrade IE . Though I still plan to keep as many older machines going as possible, I now know where to draw the line |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/17/2017 12:54 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 02/17/2017 05:44 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: On 16/02/2017 3:34 AM, philo wrote: The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. What browser? IE? Or Firefox? :) I don't know about IE, but I do have one older Pentium3 computer which isn't being used much except to run SETI@home. Firefox won't update past version 48 (current version is 51) saying it's because of a lack of SSE2. BTW, Apparently Firefox will support XP through version 52, but 49+ require SSE2. Yep. I still have an XP machine that works fine...I know that nothing can be upgraded. |
No sense in reviving old computers
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:35:15 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: [] At the risk of sounding snobbish, I consider DVD (and analog TVs) to be You do, but in a forgivable way (-: unwatchable. 720p is my bare minimum. With DVD, I cringe every time a low-light scene or a shot of the sky comes along and the banding and blocking raise their ugly heads. It might not be so bad with an old analog TV because of their soft, blurry, picture, but I don't remember clearly since I recycled all of those about 15 years ago. What _angle_ do your TVs subtend at your eye pupil? I think where 5 degrees or less, SD TV is fine, and HD or more contributes little that is discernible. That's an interesting observation, but I couldn't disagree more. For me, and I've heard the same from others around me, viewing angle (as long as it's reasonable) makes almost no difference at all to PQ. Under any conditions that I can imagine, if you're not seeing a very significant difference between SD and HD, then something is wrong. It could be poor source material, poor connection method (coax, svideo), very poor quality TV, improper TV placement, poor eyesight, etc. Viewing angle does make a big difference, however, to viewing _comfort_. Have you noticed, on the various home improvement TV shows, that they frequently mount the TV above the fireplace? That's awful for at least two reasons. The first is that if you use the fireplace, you risk contaminating the TV with soot, but for me the bigger issue is that the TV is mounted higher than their heads when they're in a seated position, so in order to watch TV they have to look upward. That means their eyelids are raised unnaturally high, and coupled with the natural tendency to blink less often that comes with looking in a single direction, eye dryness and strain come very quickly. For max eye comfort, the viewing angle should be slightly downward. Sorry, we were talking about PQ, not eye comfort. I digressed. You're not the only one who feels like you do, though. I have an elderly friend who still uses a VHS VCR (!!) to timeshift her soaps, and another friend who still has an analog TV (small) in her kitchen. She does more listening than watching, I suspect. (Again, especially if it's a small one, the subtended angle is probably relevant. Small sets look sharp.) I'll agree if we qualify that last statement. Small SD sets tend to look sharper than bigger SD sets, all else being equal, but I was comparing SD to HD and I can't think of a way to make SD come out looking good in that comparison, regardless of screen size. Just in case we're secretly comparing TV standards, I'd mention that my local standard, NTSC, has about 483 visible scan lines while PAL has about 576 visible scan lines, so you have the advantage there. I don't know if that's clouding the conversation. -- Char Jackson |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 18/02/2017 1:20 AM, philo wrote:
You did not read my post, the problem was the CPU's lack of SSE2 What CPU is it? In the old days when there was no SSE2, we still could use browsers. -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
No sense in reviving old computers
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 10:16:48 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:35:15 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: [] At the risk of sounding snobbish, I consider DVD (and analog TVs) to be You do, but in a forgivable way (-: unwatchable. 720p is my bare minimum. With DVD, I cringe every time a low-light scene or a shot of the sky comes along and the banding and blocking raise their ugly heads. It might not be so bad with an old analog TV because of their soft, blurry, picture, but I don't remember clearly since I recycled all of those about 15 years ago. What _angle_ do your TVs subtend at your eye pupil? I think where 5 degrees or less, SD TV is fine, and HD or more contributes little that is discernible. That's an interesting observation, but I couldn't disagree more. For me, and I've heard the same from others around me, viewing angle (as long as it's reasonable) makes almost no difference at all to PQ. Under any conditions that I can imagine, if you're not seeing a very significant difference between SD and HD, then something is wrong. I can only speak of my own experience. I find the difference to be slight. It could be poor source material, poor connection method (coax, svideo), very poor quality TV, improper TV placement, poor eyesight, etc. None of those is the case here. Viewing angle does make a big difference, however, to viewing _comfort_. Have you noticed, on the various home improvement TV shows, that they frequently mount the TV above the fireplace? That's awful for at least two reasons. The first is that if you use the fireplace, you risk contaminating the TV with soot, but for me the bigger issue is that the TV is mounted higher than their heads when they're in a seated position, so in order to watch TV they have to look upward. That means their eyelids are raised unnaturally high, and coupled with the natural tendency to blink less often that comes with looking in a single direction, eye dryness and strain come very quickly. For max eye comfort, the viewing angle should be slightly downward. But I agree with you completely on that. |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/18/2017 10:19 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 18/02/2017 1:20 AM, philo wrote: You did not read my post, the problem was the CPU's lack of SSE2 What CPU is it? In the old days when there was no SSE2, we still could use browsers. Correct, but any of the current browsers require SSE2 I would have needed an older version of the browser. I tried an AMD Athlon and Sempron and the machine was just too slow. Any P-4 should still be good |
No sense in reviving old computers
philo wrote:
On 02/18/2017 10:19 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: On 18/02/2017 1:20 AM, philo wrote: You did not read my post, the problem was the CPU's lack of SSE2 What CPU is it? In the old days when there was no SSE2, we still could use browsers. Correct, but any of the current browsers require SSE2 I would have needed an older version of the browser. I tried an AMD Athlon and Sempron and the machine was just too slow. Any P-4 should still be good With the P4, it was the ones with HyperThreading which felt a bit more sprightly. Even though from a percentage performance point of view, it might only be 5% to 10% faster with HT turned on. For example, my AthlonXP was a "3200" using AMD terminology, but it was slightly beat by my P4 2.8 with HT enabled. With a lot of these modern OSes, having two cores is an advantage. Even crappy HT (virtual) ones help. Paul |
No sense in reviving old computers
In message , Char Jackson
writes: On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:35:15 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: [] At the risk of sounding snobbish, I consider DVD (and analog TVs) to be You do, but in a forgivable way (-: unwatchable. 720p is my bare minimum. With DVD, I cringe every time a low-light scene or a shot of the sky comes along and the banding and blocking raise their ugly heads. It might not be so bad with an old analog TV because of their soft, blurry, picture, but I don't remember clearly since I recycled all of those about 15 years ago. What _angle_ do your TVs subtend at your eye pupil? I think where 5 degrees or less, SD TV is fine, and HD or more contributes little that is discernible. That's an interesting observation, but I couldn't disagree more. For me, and I've heard the same from others around me, viewing angle (as long as it's reasonable) makes almost no difference at all to PQ. Under any By PQ, I'm guessing you mean perceived quality. It seems obvious to me that there must be some angle below which the density of rods and cones in the eye becomes the limiting factor. It may be a lot less than 5 degrees; I don't have the data - hang on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optica...lar_resolution says "The best visual acuity of the human eye at its optical centre (the fovea) is less than 1 arc minute per line pair, reducing rapidly away from the fovea." So taking that as if the acuity actually remains that high over sufficient degrees from the fovea, 400-600 lines means 6 to 10 degrees. (There are 60 arc minutes in a degree.) There may be a factor of two (possibly either way) involved here, since I don't know what "line pair" means in the above. But it looks like there is a figure _somewhere_ around say 4 to 20 degrees, below which putting more pixels in the display won't make the eye see any difference. conditions that I can imagine, if you're not seeing a very significant difference between SD and HD, then something is wrong. It could be poor source material, poor connection method (coax, svideo), very poor quality TV, improper TV placement, poor eyesight, etc. Viewing angle does make a big difference, however, to viewing _comfort_. Have you noticed, on the various home improvement TV shows, that they frequently mount the TV above the fireplace? That's awful for at least two reasons. The first is that if you use the fireplace, you risk contaminating the TV with soot, but for me the bigger issue is that the TV is mounted higher than their heads when they're in a seated position, so in order to watch TV they have to look upward. That means their eyelids are raised unnaturally high, and coupled with the natural tendency to blink less often that comes with looking in a single direction, eye dryness and strain come very quickly. For max eye comfort, the viewing angle should be slightly downward. Sorry, we were talking about PQ, not eye comfort. I digressed. To join in your digression: in most rooms (in UK anyway), the fireplace is in the middle of the longer walls in the room, which to me means another reason that over the fireplace is a poor choice: it means that it's harder for more than only one or two people to be face on to the screen, the rest seeing it at an angle - more so than if it's placed in a corner, or even in the middle of one of the shorter walls. (The screen in most cinemas ["movie theaters"] I've been in is on one of the shorter walls of the auditorium, not at the side. Similarly in history, the stage in most theatres.) You're not the only one who feels like you do, though. I have an elderly friend who still uses a VHS VCR (!!) to timeshift her soaps, and another friend who still has an analog TV (small) in her kitchen. She does more listening than watching, I suspect. (Again, especially if it's a small one, the subtended angle is probably relevant. Small sets look sharp.) I'll agree if we qualify that last statement. Small SD sets tend to look sharper than bigger SD sets, all else being equal, but I was comparing SD to HD and I can't think of a way to make SD come out looking good in that comparison, regardless of screen size. Small sets tend to look sharper, whether SD, HD, or whatever; a small SD set looks sharper than a big SD set, a small HD set (e. g. modern smartphone) looks sharper than a big HD set. Just in case we're secretly comparing TV standards, I'd mention that my local standard, NTSC, has about 483 visible scan lines while PAL has about 576 visible scan lines, so you have the advantage there. I don't know if that's clouding the conversation. True, and I hadn't thought about it. I guess compared to the 720 you said was your bare minimum, 483 would be significantly further than 576. I'm mostly viewing at what I estimate to be _about_ 5 degrees, roughly estimated by dividing down from 90 - I don't have a protractor to hand. And that's width; height will be less. But I admit, I tend to concentrate on the content of the material. I really only notice any limitation in the resolution when there's small text on screen - and then it's because I'm too far away, not because it's not displayed OK: I find myself moving towards the set if I really want to read small print - and doing so usually means I can, so it's not the SD that's limiting it. (Having said that, I suspect some TV advertisers are pushing the limits with some of their small print, assuming the viewers have HD equipment! But those ad.s are for things I'm not interested in. There might be some grounds for a legal challenge though if they ever try to make such text binding!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Last week, face cream. This week, the search for life on Mars. Never let it be said /Horizon/ doesn't probe the frontiers of sciemce. - David Butcher, Radio Times 28 July-3 August 2012. |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/17/2017 03:38 PM, sctvguy1 wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:30:20 -0600, philo wrote: On 02/15/2017 03:12 PM, Wildman wrote: On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:53:38 +0100, Linea Recta wrote: "philo" schreef in bericht ... I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler So it had an older processor than Pentium 4? Intel started SSE2 with the P4 in 2001 but AMD did not support it until the release of the Opteron and Athlon 64 chips in 2003. Thanks for the info. It did not break my heart to recycle a 16 year old comptuer As long as it was not an IBM PS/2! I have both a PS/2 and a PS/1 in my collection |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/18/2017 04:49 AM, Ant wrote:
sctvguy1 wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:30:20 -0600, philo wrote: On 02/15/2017 03:12 PM, Wildman wrote: On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:53:38 +0100, Linea Recta wrote: "philo" schreef in bericht ... I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler So it had an older processor than Pentium 4? Intel started SSE2 with the P4 in 2001 but AMD did not support it until the release of the Opteron and Athlon 64 chips in 2003. Thanks for the info. It did not break my heart to recycle a 16 year old comptuer As long as it was not an IBM PS/2! Why? I had my own PS/2 model 30 286 10 Mhz and a borrowed P70 386 portable back then. I hated Microchannel Architecture (MCA) in the 386. 286 was OK without its MCA, but dang slow. My PS/2 runs win95 extremely well! |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 2/15/17 12:34 PM, philo wrote:
I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7 I replaced the drive and installed Win7 The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to lack of H/W support. The machine has now been sent to the recycler Hi, philo, This thread has been an interesting read, from my perspective. I not only learn quite a bit, but I also learn tidbits about those who take the time to post. This thread is one of those where I learn about the posters. And please, no one should take what I write from this point as any kind of personal attack on any individual. Just observations about their computing environment. Not a single person mentioned anything about older computers being equipped with a modem. LOL And that is still a needed piece of hardware in many areas. There are places where that's their only option. Even satellite companies can't see their location. That just leaves dial-up. And even that can be rather strange. The big name local phone company tells a friend they cannot offer dial up service to him. (I'm not sure he understood what they were telling him, though.) Yet, he's been connecting via AOL dial-up service for years. After cleaning up his old XP system, and turning off automatic updates which was slowing the system to a super crawl, it's a snappy little system. Most importantly, he knows how to use it. His sister just gave him a Windows 10 laptop. And the Windows 10 UI has him baffled. Plus, he obviously cannot connect to the internet. So, for the moment, he has to drive 15 miles to the library to use it on the internet. We have not investigate the external dial up modem possibility. If one exists, and you can't connect to it wirelessly, it would limit the portability of a laptop. He's also on a fixed income, and it's unlikely the cost of satellite service, if available, would be an option. Older systems can be donated to social agencies as well, where they can be redone and given to families and seniors that in today's world need to have computers. If you don't want to deal with XP being unsupported, there's always Linux, of which I get more and more questions about using. But that's for another thread. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.11.6 Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit) Thunderbird 45.7.1 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
No sense in reviving old computers
On 02/18/2017 05:22 PM, Paul wrote:
Any P-4 should still be good With the P4, it was the ones with HyperThreading which felt a bit more sprightly. Even though from a percentage performance point of view, it might only be 5% to 10% faster with HT turned on. For example, my AthlonXP was a "3200" using AMD terminology, but it was slightly beat by my P4 2.8 with HT enabled. With a lot of these modern OSes, having two cores is an advantage. Even crappy HT (virtual) ones help. Paul On my shelf I have a number of machines repaired and ready to go to anyone who needs a machine. Even though they are older machines I don't know if I even have any single core cpu's left |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 - 2006 PCbanter
Comments are property of their posters