"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
Whoa, Sport! All you say is oh-so-true.....BUT THE DAMNED COMPUTER
ISN'T A CRAY! If you're jamming up the motherboard with ALL THAT
VIDEO DATA, it's slower than hell while that's going on.....

Mmmm, I can run a video clip on my rather slow computer (450MHz). The clip
is 352 x 288 pixels and runs at 25 frames/second. That is almost comparable
to normal TV.
And we've run some DirectX experiments here which gave full TV resolution at
over 100 frames/sec on a 700 MHz AMD.

Now, if you plug in a bus TV card with DirectX access to the video
memory that DOESN'T hog the computer resources with all this video BS,
it uses no computer resouces you can detect.

Oh I agree. I have run two framegrabbers simultaneously in one computer and
four wouldn't have been a problem too.

If you think an external USB TV plugged into the NOTEBOOKS they're
talking about is gonna work great.....you must come from another
planet! Hell, notebooks are ALREADY bogged down. They're running
WinXP!

I think the average notebook today is much faster than my computer here :-)

Meindert





On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:06:18 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
USB resources in your computer are not fast enough to provide good
full motion video to your PC and its monitor. That requires direct
memory access from the bus to the video card's memory, so the video
card must be plugged into one of your bus ports.

I disagree with you Larry. Provided the video is sufficiently compressed,
enough bandwidth on the USB bus can be allocated for streaming video in
TV
quality.

Even USB 2.0 is too slow,

No. USB 2.0 is 480Mbit/s while the FireWire bus, which is suitable for
top-notch studio quality is "only" 400Mbit/s

Regards,
Meindert



Larry W4CSC

NNNN