BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

F*O*A*D

On 4/2/14, 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:48:04 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:22:39 -0400, wrote:

That is why we don't see faster processor speeds advertised anymore.
They just talk about how many "cores" they have.

===

Yes, and now we need more software apps that are capable of using
those cores effectively. Unfortunately XP does not do a good job
supporting multi-cores either. It is currently, and most probably
always, limited to two cores if my memory is correct.

If I get a quad core machine I suppose I will need newer software, I
understand that but I do not need that extra speed for anything I do.
I doubt most people do either but they just want the next new thing
for some reason.
Harry's only excuse is he saves a few seconds ripping DVDs he will
never watch to the humongous file server he bought, just to fill it up
I suppose.

I offered up one example of an app I use, and you build your negative
universe off of that one example? Some science guy you are.

It's not a few seconds, by the way. My desktop computer transcodes DVDs
in about half the time of the Windows computer I used to use. That a
savings of at least 15 minutes on each transcode. Part of it is
software, part of it is hardware, part of it is the Apple OS.

And, in fact, I do watch many of my old favorite movies a couple of
times a year. They only take up a small portion of the space available
on our "humongous" file server. Of course, we don't have to have a half
dozen antique computers flopped around the house, eh?

My wife prefers to run her Mathematica9 projects on my iMac instead of
on her Win 7 i5 machine, which is only about 18 months old. Calcs and
procedures run a hell of a lot faster on the Mac.