A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No sense in reviving old computers



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old Today, 12:44 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,285
Default Video resolutions (Was: No sense in reviving old computers)

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:54:48 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2017-02-18 19:54, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[...]
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.

[...]

Nope, it's your brain. People see what they pay attention to. If the

[]
No, it's not.


Actually, I think Wolf is onto something there.

I'm perfectly aware of all the psychological arguments
concerning optical matters, and most of them have some validity;
however, I can see no way in which putting more pixels in a display than
the eye can resolve can truly make any difference.

I'll turn it back on you: _knowing_ that the display is HD (or at least
720) might make you _think_ it looks better (-:.


It doesn't work that way because you don't know in advance whether it's
going to be HD or SD. You can't make that determination until you see
it. It's not enough to assume that an HD display will be receiving an HD
signal, or that it won't be receiving a signal that's been upsampled to
HD. Only your eyes/brain can answer that, if you're even looking for it.

For artifacts like banding and macro blocking, when I point them out
during a movie, for example, invariable the person or people around me
give one of the following responses:
"Oh, I never noticed that before. What causes it?"
"I've seen that but didn't know what it was. What did you call it?"
"Yeah, that annoys the heck out of me, too!"

In each of those scenarios, they can see those artifacts just fine. The
only difference is whether they needed a bit of prompting first.

In much the same way
that wifi manufacturers succeed in selling ever-faster wifi, despite the
fact that in most cases the external link is the (main!) limiting
factor.


That's not really germane to the current discussion, but I'm happy to
give my take. IMHO, LAN speeds are a completely separate topic from WAN
speeds, and one should almost never artificially constrain oneself to a
LAN that's as slow as the WAN. There are a lot of LAN activities that
have nothing to do with the WAN.

--

Char Jackson
Ads
  #62  
Old Today, 03:51 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,927
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On 02/19/2017 12:27 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
O

I think there are two issues with new Windows and Mac systems for many
users. The actual complexity of the system, and the complexity of the
UI in accessing the system. I've been helping 3 seniors who are totally
confused with the W10 interface, yet all 3 have used XP systems. Only 1
of the 3 is actually going through what looks to be a very good
beginner's book on using Windows 10.

On a side note, I'm working slowing on some small help documents for
folks in that position, which benefits me in learning W10, as well as a
particular page layout program.

My interest in Linux came from an effort to find some way to a) prolong
the life of the hardware when nothing was wrong with it, and b) find a
simpler UI/system that was easier to learn for people who were
definitely not computer literate.

That led me to Linux Mint with the Cinnamon desktop. Which, when I've
shown it to people, there's been an overall positive response. We even
set up a system at work for people to see, and when the customer has
been thinking about a different computer, the response has also been
generally positive.

Elementary Linux looks simple, but I've not had the time to play with it.





I started out back in the old punch card days and got so fed up with
computers that by 1982 I vowed never to touch one again.
Ironically that was the year IBM came out with the PC and the whole
world started using computers.

Somewhere around 1999 my (now) wife told me to "get with it" and gave me
her old P-1 and before too long I had Win95 figured out and liked it but
wanted a bigger challenge.

I found Linux to be the best computer learning experience I ever had.

I really was clueless and did not even know what a partition was, but
after six months really had learned a lot.


Also had to start collecting older computers to see what I had missed so
started over with 8088's 286's and 386's

learned DOS and Win3x /after/ learning win95 and win98





Etc. the psychology of choice is "poorly
understood", as they say, but the research shows quite clearly that most
of the time choice is just another illusion. "Marketing" is all about
creating that illusion to the seller's advantage.

Have a good day,




  #63  
Old Today, 05:35 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 234
Default Video resolutions (Was: No sense in reviving old computers)

On 02/19/2017 03:54 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[snip]

I'll turn it back on you: _knowing_ that the display is HD (or at least
720) might make you _think_ it looks better (-:. In much the same way
that wifi manufacturers succeed in selling ever-faster wifi, despite the
fact that in most cases the external link is the (main!) limiting factor.


The external link ISN'T the limiting factor when you're transferring a
DVD-size file between computers.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of
the few." -- Marie Henri Beyle (Stendhal)
  #64  
Old Today, 06:09 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Wildman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 369
Default Video resolutions (Was: No sense in reviving old computers)

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:54:48 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2017-02-18 19:54, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[...]
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.

[...]

Nope, it's your brain. People see what they pay attention to. If the

[]
No, it's not. I'm perfectly aware of all the psychological arguments
concerning optical matters, and most of them have some validity;
however, I can see no way in which putting more pixels in a display than
the eye can resolve can truly make any difference.

I'll turn it back on you: _knowing_ that the display is HD (or at least
720) might make you _think_ it looks better (-:. In much the same way
that wifi manufacturers succeed in selling ever-faster wifi, despite the
fact that in most cases the external link is the (main!) limiting
factor.


I believe you are correct. Your eyes can play "tricks" but only
if you are unaware of what you are looking at. Most people that
are watching a movie are looking at the movie and not counting
pixels or looking for artifacts.

This discussion reminds me when I owned a consumer electronics
repair shop/store. You know, TV's, VCR's, etc. I had a guy that
specialized in car audio and did excellent custom installations.
That attracted a lot of audiophiles who would get into arguments
with each other about which power amp sounded better. One would
say, "The Alpine amp sounds better. It has .ooo5% distortion."
Another would say, "No the Pioneer sounds better. It has .0004%
distortion. I can really hear the difference." I would just
quietly laugh. Their ignorance helped pay my bills. In reality
distortion has to reach close to 3% before the average human ear
can detect it. Plus the human ear is not linear. It adds a
little distortion itself so we never hear anything that is
100% distortion free.

The same sort of thing is true for our eyes. If you go back to
the old method of determining video resolution that was called
"lines of resolution", you would see there is a point where
any improvement is useless. Your eyes won't see it.

--
Wildman GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!
  #65  
Old Today, 10:59 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ant[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 250
Default No sense in reviving old computers

philo wrote:
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
news 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!


Which model? :P
--
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.
  #66  
Old Today, 11:03 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ant[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 250
Default No sense in reviving old computers

Since we're talking about old school computers. Here are mine:
http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/toys.html ...
--
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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.