|
Here come da Judge...
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:53:58 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:20:37 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:07:49 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:25:51 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: Anyone? Who knows, maybe those damn pythons will work their way up here! john, I've handled and shot one. I was impressed with it's size, but not the price. One neat thing about it is that it will handle a .410 shotgun slug! Easy to handle with no really distinctive kick. If you load it with bird shot it's great against critters. I always wondered why a .410 slug would be more effective than a hot load in .45LC. To start with the powder charge in a .410 would be optimized for a 20" or longer barrel. I would expect a major part of the powder to burn after the slug left the muzzle. I know guys who were serious about performance loaded very fast powders for their "snubbies" to squeeze out maximum velocity. Shotgun powders are pretty slow. But at close range, (like snakes or rats or home intruders) I can't see it would make any difference. I know there are people out there that study loading to a science, but I never was one of them. If the round is easy to come up with at a reasonable cost, that's for me. I know a guy that has a .500 SW. http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/therundown/5.jpg That shell is just plain angry. I've shot it and it's close to being a wrist breaker. And approx $3.00 a shot. He thinks it's cool. I think "what's the point?" === It's a "show gun" and conversation piece, not much more. I suppose if you are into shooting buffalos or grizzly bears at short range it might have some value. Looks like it is used, blow-by on the cylinder. If I was in the Northwest or Alaska I would want to carry one when I was out in the wood. A bear wouldn't feel or be bothered by a 9mm or 38. I just wonder if a Judge loaded with .410 #4 shot aimed at the eyeballs from a short distance wouldn't discourage a bear. Don't know as I'd want to experiment, but I've been wondering about that since someone mentioned grizzly bears. |
Here come da Judge...
On 3/31/14, 9:40 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
I just wonder if a Judge loaded with .410 #4 shot aimed at the eyeballs from a short distance wouldn't discourage a bear. Don't know as I'd want to experiment, but I've been wondering about that since someone mentioned grizzly bears. Oh, give it a try. |
Here come da Judge...
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:02:19 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Sunday, March 30, 2014 6:39:01 AM UTC-7, John H. wrote: Well, I see one must use a 'moon clip' to fire the .45ACP rounds in the S&W. Ever used one of those? Looks like you'd have to slide the rounds in the moon clip, and then slide all the clipped rounds into the cylinder. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765853_-1_757842_757839_757837_ProductDisplayErrorView_N Yes, the 'moon' clips were originated in WWI so the Brits could fire the .45 ACP in their .45 Webley revolvers. And that's OK for the Judge, but I'd just as soon use .410's if I had one. I don't think Taurus makes the moon clips for the Judge, as S&W does for the Governor. However, upon looking, I came across this: http://www.midwayusa.com/product/492...e-package-of-5 I don't know what Taurus says about this. One video says that 'it is not recommended by the weapon manufacturer. But, they seem to work pretty well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTsLl0eOHwI Its all fun and games until somebody blows off their hand. It looks like Midway has stopped carrying them. Out of stock - no backorder. And the reviews indicate they didn't fit the Judge very well anyway. S&W must have designed the Governor with the moon clips in mind from the gitgo. |
Here come da Judge...
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 14:58:35 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote: On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 14:39:50 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:38:01 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: I don't have a speed loader for either revolver, and I can't see how it would be any advantage except in a 'shoot 'em out' situation. Or am I, in my almighty ignorance, missing something here? === If you shoot timed competition in a group it is almost mandatory unless you don't mind keeping everyone else waiting. They will be unhappy however. That makes good sense. I've never been to a competition. How many speed loaders would have to be pre-loaded for a competition? === It depends on the format of the competition of course. For the event that I usually shoot in you'd need five. |
Here come da Judge...
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:53:58 -0400, BAR wrote: Looks like it is used, blow-by on the cylinder. If I was in the Northwest or Alaska I would want to carry one when I was out in the wood. A bear wouldn't feel or be bothered by a 9mm or 38. I suppose that depends on where you hit him. I agree a center of mass shot with a pistol is not going to stop a ****ed grizzly but I doubt much less than a magnum rifle would. Guys I know that fish Alaska say the guides use a shotgun with the first 3 rounds rubber slugs. Then 00 buck shells, and the pistols are minimum 44 mag and 454 Casul. They prefer not to kill the bear, as the paperwork is really bad. They also tell the fisherman, that the fish is always the bears. Even if you have a world record salmon on the line, if the bear wants it the bear owns it. |
Here come da Judge...
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 12:19:40 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 14:58:35 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 14:39:50 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:38:01 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: I don't have a speed loader for either revolver, and I can't see how it would be any advantage except in a 'shoot 'em out' situation. Or am I, in my almighty ignorance, missing something here? === If you shoot timed competition in a group it is almost mandatory unless you don't mind keeping everyone else waiting. They will be unhappy however. That makes good sense. I've never been to a competition. How many speed loaders would have to be pre-loaded for a competition? === It depends on the format of the competition of course. For the event that I usually shoot in you'd need five. Wow. That explains why speed loaders would be necessary. Thanks. |
Here come da Judge...
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:24:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 9:47:41 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote: On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 06:14:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Saturday, March 29, 2014 9:45:32 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote: ...by Taurus, that is! I'm thinking global warming may cause an infusion of rattlesnakes into the Northern Virginia/Southern Maryland/Washington DC area, and therefore I may have need of one of these two revolvers: http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=199&category=Revolver&toggle=&bread crumbseries=41 http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_827547_-1_757767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y Anyone own one of these? I like the idea that the S&W will fire the .45 ACP. The Taurus, from what I see, is limited to the .45 Colt, as far as .45 caliber goes. Anyone? Who knows, maybe those damn pythons will work their way up here! I've fired a few rounds from a Judge and it's cool, but I don't see the value. The guy had some .410 shells with three 00 (I think) buckshot in them. At 10 yards they put three nice holes in a 10 inch circle. BTW, does your gmail address work? I don't check it. Private message sent. Got it. |
Here come da Judge...
On 3/31/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 07:53:17 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 3/31/14, 1:26 AM, wrote: You are mentally limiting what others might do by what you might do. Some like the Colt round and pistol for nostalgic reasons, I'd bet. I know I do. ... and you say I am the dinosaur You like obsolete computers and operating systems. There's nothing obsolete about a .45 Colt round; it still does the job, and against modern adversaries. It's not like trying to run complex, contemporary software in a decades old computer with a decade old OS. :) My OS is not obsolete, for all the same reasons. What will W/8 do that I can't? (Apple too for that matter) I don't stay down to speed, as it were, on XP or the computers on which it runs. I suppose I could run XP on my iMac but why would I want to do that? |
Here come da Judge...
On 3/31/14, 2:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:34:48 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 3/31/14, 11:47 AM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 07:53:17 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 3/31/14, 1:26 AM, wrote: You are mentally limiting what others might do by what you might do. Some like the Colt round and pistol for nostalgic reasons, I'd bet. I know I do. ... and you say I am the dinosaur You like obsolete computers and operating systems. There's nothing obsolete about a .45 Colt round; it still does the job, and against modern adversaries. It's not like trying to run complex, contemporary software in a decades old computer with a decade old OS. :) My OS is not obsolete, for all the same reasons. What will W/8 do that I can't? (Apple too for that matter) I don't stay down to speed, as it were, on XP or the computers on which it runs. I suppose I could run XP on my iMac but why would I want to do that? Andy Grove and Bill Gates summed it up. Bill wrote software to sell Grove's new hardware. A perfect storm of planned obsolescence. I am surprised an anti-corporation guy like you falls for it. The only reason you need more speed is because the bloated software needs it. A clean XP machine runs as fast as a W/8 machine. It is just not dragging around an extra gig of software behind it. If you really want a fast machine, load XP on a machine that was shipped with W/8 or even 7. (Like my lap top) Most "slow" computers are just slowed by the spyware and useless crapware people get tricked into loading on it. For the same amount of work you would have to do to move to a new machine, you could just reload your old one. That is trivial if you have a good disk image of it when it was clean. I doubt my MAC OS is as bloated as the typical setup suite on most new Windoze machines, and I also doubt an obsolete Win XP setup with its old CPU's, video card, slow drive and limited RAM are going to keep pace. I'm not aware of any spyware or crapware Apple includes with the OS. That's much more of a Windoze phenom, eh? My iMac has a four core i7 CPU, 24 GB's of RAM, a fast video card and a SSD for its hard drive. I don't think your warp drive XP is going to transcode videos via Handbrake as quickly as either my desktop or laptop on OSx.9+ I'm not sure XP has the drivers necessary to operate the hardware on a contemporary i7 Windoze box. |
Here come da Judge...
On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:01:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 3/31/14, 2:49 PM, wrote: Andy Grove and Bill Gates summed it up. Bill wrote software to sell Grove's new hardware. A perfect storm of planned obsolescence. I am surprised an anti-corporation guy like you falls for it. The only reason you need more speed is because the bloated software needs it. A clean XP machine runs as fast as a W/8 machine. It is just not dragging around an extra gig of software behind it. If you really want a fast machine, load XP on a machine that was shipped with W/8 or even 7. (Like my lap top) Most "slow" computers are just slowed by the spyware and useless crapware people get tricked into loading on it. For the same amount of work you would have to do to move to a new machine, you could just reload your old one. That is trivial if you have a good disk image of it when it was clean. I doubt my MAC OS is as bloated as the typical setup suite on most new Windoze machines, and I also doubt an obsolete Win XP setup with its old CPU's, video card, slow drive and limited RAM are going to keep pace. Keep pace with what? If your use doesn't change significantly, why should your software change? I'm not aware of any spyware or crapware Apple includes with the OS. That's much more of a Windoze phenom, eh? My iMac has a four core i7 CPU, 24 GB's of RAM, a fast video card and a SSD for its hard drive. I don't think your warp drive XP is going to transcode videos via Handbrake as quickly as either my desktop or laptop on OSx.9+ I don't know about Apple but most of this junk comes from web sites you go to, not things you select. I'm not sure XP has the drivers necessary to operate the hardware on a contemporary i7 Windoze box. Why would I buy anything apple? The only "junk" I get from websites, other than the usual cookie, is stuff I select to get. And that usually is...nothing. The software I use for some tasks takes advantage of faster processors, faster GPU's, faster and more memory, and faster hard drives. Do any DVD encoding? |
Here come da Judge...
|
Here come da Judge...
Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Sunday, March 30, 2014 6:39:01 AM UTC-7, John H. wrote: Well, I see one must use a 'moon clip' to fire the .45ACP rounds in the S&W. Ever used one of those? Looks like you'd have to slide the rounds in the moon clip, and then slide all the clipped rounds into the cylinder. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765853_-1_757842_757839_757837_ProductDisplayErrorView_N Yes, the 'moon' clips were originated in WWI so the Brits could fire the .45 ACP in their .45 Webley revolvers. And that's OK for the Judge, but I'd just as soon use .410's if I had one. I don't think Taurus makes the moon clips for the Judge, as S&W does for the Governor. However, upon looking, I came across this: http://www.midwayusa.com/product/492...e-package-of-5 I don't know what Taurus says about this. One video says that 'it is not recommended by the weapon manufacturer. But, they seem to work pretty well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTsLl0eOHwI I wouldn't try it. I have a 1911 to shoot .45 ACP! |
Here come da Judge...
Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:06:17 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:56:51 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Sunday, March 30, 2014 6:39:01 AM UTC-7, John H. wrote: Well, I see one must use a 'moon clip' to fire the .45ACP rounds in the S&W. Ever used one of those? Looks like you'd have to slide the rounds in the moon clip, and then slide all the clipped rounds into the cylinder. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765853_-1_757842_757839_757837_ProductDisplayErrorView_N Yes, the 'moon' clips were originated in WWI so the Brits could fire the .45 ACP in their .45 Webley revolvers. And that's OK for the Judge, but I'd just as soon use .410's if I had one. I don't think Taurus makes the moon clips for the Judge, as S&W does for the Governor. However, upon looking, I came across this: http://www.midwayusa.com/product/492...e-package-of-5 I don't know what Taurus says about this. One video says that 'it is not recommended by the weapon manufacturer. But, they seem to work pretty well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTsLl0eOHwI Moon clips may be old school technology but it is basically a speed loader if they are designed to actually hold the case. You can throw a cylinder full of rounds in with one move. You don't even need to remove the loader like you do with one of these http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/2-HKS586A I don't have a speed loader for either revolver, and I can't see how it would be any advantage except in a 'shoot 'em out' situation. Or am I, in my almighty ignorance, missing something here? I have four revolvers but only three could benefit from a speed loader. I'm not in a hurry to load 5,6 or 8 rounds that much faster. You have to load the speed loader first so that's a waste of time unless it's for a competition or your are a really bad shot and need a quick reload for home defense. |
Here come da Judge...
On 3/31/14, 8:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:55:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote: Do any DVD encoding? I have no problem burning DVDs. (Copying them, stripping off the trailers, remastering to strip the DRM, reformatting the video file or whatever) I am really getting away from DVD tho. I think any media on bits of plastic is obsolete technology. I haven't fooled with music CDs for close to a decade. About the only thing I use them for is storing drivers and some tools for when you are building a machine before it gets smart enough to talk on the network. Yes, well, on a modern computer with a modern OS, DVD encoding takes place...faster. A lot faster. And encoding is a tad more than copying or burning DVDs or stripping out DRM. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/14, 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:53:41 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 3/31/14, 8:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:55:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote: Do any DVD encoding? I have no problem burning DVDs. (Copying them, stripping off the trailers, remastering to strip the DRM, reformatting the video file or whatever) I am really getting away from DVD tho. I think any media on bits of plastic is obsolete technology. I haven't fooled with music CDs for close to a decade. About the only thing I use them for is storing drivers and some tools for when you are building a machine before it gets smart enough to talk on the network. Yes, well, on a modern computer with a modern OS, DVD encoding takes place...faster. A lot faster. And encoding is a tad more than copying or burning DVDs or stripping out DRM. I have made video files (going from AVI or MOV to WMV). This goes pretty fast on a dual core 2.5mz machine or even a regular P4 3.0 It is certainly not $800 worth of new machine to save a minute once a month or so. I would want to see the speed before I bit anyway. You are still talking about speed, not the OS. On the same machine, XP would go faster than W8. If nothing else, you would have more available RAM after the OS loaded The time savings available when encoding with a modern computer and OS is considerable, not just a minute, and the OS certainly is involved. Do you think that programmers do not write code that takes advantage of developments and improvements in the OS, as well as in the hardware? I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either. |
Here come da Judge...
|
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/2014 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:07:33 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/1/14, 8:59 AM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:24:15 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either. Yet you continue to. I would suggest that until you actually benchmark a few movies, you are talking out your ass. The reality is i do not do enough video editing for it to even be a factor and if the minute or two it takes me dropped to 5 seconds, it would not change my opinion. I do know I can encode a typical MP3 cut in about 15 seconds and that is fast enough for me. Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number of other apps that run faster on modern gear. Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups, and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are not important to you. Perhaps you should downgrade to an 8088 system and save electricity. There you go. You started out with a very rational response, then you just got stupid on me. XP is far from obsolete, there is not really that much functional difference from it to W/8. My hardware is still pretty fast, Moore's law is rapidly hitting the speed of light wall. These days it is not getting any faster, you are just widening the data path. That was the same pattern as we had in the mainframe business. You end up running the speed of your DASD. These days that is RAM if you really want to go fast. I am still running with a very low paging rate most of the time. If my applications run in my lane, I am not getting much faster. You are right, I might be able to shave a minute or two off of a few very intensive computer tasks but I am not really in any hurry. If I crank up something that will take a while, I have other things right here I can do. I can just get a cup of coffee, take Ed for a walk, take a boat ride. If I need to get more work done on the computer, I have 5 more right here, all sharing most of the same files. I live a lot less stressful life than you I guess. Gregg, I would think by now that you would realize that if Harry wears size 36x32 pants, then *everyone* should wear size 36x32 size pants. There are far more systems out there running Windows XP than what meets the eye from a computer user's standpoint. Debit card machines, gas pumps, cash registers, etc. have been using Windows XP for years and continue to do so. Technology marches on though. Wafer fabrication and line widths for CPUs are now at the sub-micron level. Many believe technology is quickly reaching the practical limit of line widths and power densities. In some applications artificially created diamond heat sinks are required. (Diamond has the unique property of being an electrical insulator but an excellent heat conductor. The company I had built some systems for the creation of polycrystalline diamond films, generated by disassociating carbon from gases like methane or butane with a plasma in vacuum). A future technology that is emerging is the replacement of traditional PC boards with copper conductors with those that transmit data using tiny optical emitters and detectors. The big advantage is that signal paths can cross without affecting each other. I am currently doing some consulting work with a company involved in this. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/14, 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:07:33 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/1/14, 8:59 AM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:24:15 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either. Yet you continue to. I would suggest that until you actually benchmark a few movies, you are talking out your ass. The reality is i do not do enough video editing for it to even be a factor and if the minute or two it takes me dropped to 5 seconds, it would not change my opinion. I do know I can encode a typical MP3 cut in about 15 seconds and that is fast enough for me. Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number of other apps that run faster on modern gear. Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups, and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are not important to you. Perhaps you should downgrade to an 8088 system and save electricity. There you go. You started out with a very rational response, then you just got stupid on me. XP is far from obsolete, there is not really that much functional difference from it to W/8. My hardware is still pretty fast, Moore's law is rapidly hitting the speed of light wall. These days it is not getting any faster, you are just widening the data path. That was the same pattern as we had in the mainframe business. You end up running the speed of your DASD. These days that is RAM if you really want to go fast. I am still running with a very low paging rate most of the time. If my applications run in my lane, I am not getting much faster. You are right, I might be able to shave a minute or two off of a few very intensive computer tasks but I am not really in any hurry. If I crank up something that will take a while, I have other things right here I can do. I can just get a cup of coffee, take Ed for a walk, take a boat ride. If I need to get more work done on the computer, I have 5 more right here, all sharing most of the same files. I live a lot less stressful life than you I guess. Once again, I am blissfully ignorant of the "functional differences" between XP and Windoze 8. I don't run either of those operating systems. I do know, however, that I can transcode a DVD onto any of several formats I use in about *half* the time on my iMac as it used to take when I was running a Windoze box. That's about 15 minutes for a Hollywood movie on DVD onto a digital format on my server that I can wifi around the house or elsewhere onto big screen TVs or iPhones or kindles or whatevers. And there are other apps that run a hell of a lot faster than I recall them running on Windoze. You run six XP computers in your household? That's something else I wouldn't do. I run one desktop and on occasion one laptop. My server, which uses a flavor of Linux and proprietary apps, doesn't require "intervention." My wife has her Windoze 7 desktop, and she leaves her laptop at her downtown office until she needs to take it on the road. Running or fussing with six computers at home seems a bit over the edge, eh? We only really run two, one hers and one his. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/14, 11:18 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/1/2014 10:09 AM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:07:33 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/1/14, 8:59 AM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:24:15 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either. Yet you continue to. I would suggest that until you actually benchmark a few movies, you are talking out your ass. The reality is i do not do enough video editing for it to even be a factor and if the minute or two it takes me dropped to 5 seconds, it would not change my opinion. I do know I can encode a typical MP3 cut in about 15 seconds and that is fast enough for me. Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number of other apps that run faster on modern gear. Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups, and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are not important to you. Perhaps you should downgrade to an 8088 system and save electricity. There you go. You started out with a very rational response, then you just got stupid on me. XP is far from obsolete, there is not really that much functional difference from it to W/8. My hardware is still pretty fast, Moore's law is rapidly hitting the speed of light wall. These days it is not getting any faster, you are just widening the data path. That was the same pattern as we had in the mainframe business. You end up running the speed of your DASD. These days that is RAM if you really want to go fast. I am still running with a very low paging rate most of the time. If my applications run in my lane, I am not getting much faster. You are right, I might be able to shave a minute or two off of a few very intensive computer tasks but I am not really in any hurry. If I crank up something that will take a while, I have other things right here I can do. I can just get a cup of coffee, take Ed for a walk, take a boat ride. If I need to get more work done on the computer, I have 5 more right here, all sharing most of the same files. I live a lot less stressful life than you I guess. Gregg, I would think by now that you would realize that if Harry wears size 36x32 pants, then *everyone* should wear size 36x32 size pants. Nonsense. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/2014 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:18:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/1/2014 10:09 AM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:07:33 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/1/14, 8:59 AM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:24:15 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either. Yet you continue to. I would suggest that until you actually benchmark a few movies, you are talking out your ass. The reality is i do not do enough video editing for it to even be a factor and if the minute or two it takes me dropped to 5 seconds, it would not change my opinion. I do know I can encode a typical MP3 cut in about 15 seconds and that is fast enough for me. Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number of other apps that run faster on modern gear. Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups, and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are not important to you. Perhaps you should downgrade to an 8088 system and save electricity. There you go. You started out with a very rational response, then you just got stupid on me. My hardware is still pretty fast, Moore's law is rapidly hitting the speed of light wall. Gregg, I would think by now that you would realize that if Harry wears size 36x32 pants, then *everyone* should wear size 36x32 size pants. There are far more systems out there running Windows XP than what meets the eye from a computer user's standpoint. Debit card machines, gas pumps, cash registers, etc. have been using Windows XP for years and continue to do so. Technology marches on though. Wafer fabrication and line widths for CPUs are now at the sub-micron level. Many believe technology is quickly reaching the practical limit of line widths and power densities. In some applications artificially created diamond heat sinks are required. (Diamond has the unique property of being an electrical insulator but an excellent heat conductor. The company I had built some systems for the creation of polycrystalline diamond films, generated by disassociating carbon from gases like methane or butane with a plasma in vacuum). A future technology that is emerging is the replacement of traditional PC boards with copper conductors with those that transmit data using tiny optical emitters and detectors. The big advantage is that signal paths can cross without affecting each other. I am currently doing some consulting work with a company involved in this. You are still hitting the wall. Regular chips are about tapped out. We are rapidly approaching the point that we will be super cooling processors to get quantum effects. There is only so much you can do to shorten the data path. They are just making them wider. (multiple processors, wider buses) Ummm ... I don't claim to be a semiconductor manufacturing expert nor have a lot of experience in wafer fab but there are companies investing a lot of research money into the optical replacement of copper tracing of single, double and multi-level boards. The focus ( no pun intended) is on reducing size and complexity. Not sure what gains in overall processing speeds are achieved although claims are made that it will. These are tiny, pin head sized laser diodes. The cool thing is that the light paths can intersect others with no interference or "shorts". |
Here come da Judge...
|
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/14, 12:07 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number of other apps that run faster on modern gear. Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups, and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are not important to you. I don't do "video transcoding" and never will. OTOH I'm a gamer. Macintosh just doesn't cut it. Windows does. There's no question that Windows is *the* PC gaming platform of choice. Have you tried any of the action games via Steam? It seems like an interesting concept. I think I have two or three games on my iMac, a pinball game, Borderlands2 (a fairly recent vintage shoot'em'up) and one other whose name I cannot recall. I used to like MS Golf, Doom, and a couple of others when I had a PC. |
Here come da Judge...
On 3/31/2014 9:53 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/31/14, 8:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:55:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote: Do any DVD encoding? I have no problem burning DVDs. (Copying them, stripping off the trailers, remastering to strip the DRM, reformatting the video file or whatever) I am really getting away from DVD tho. I think any media on bits of plastic is obsolete technology. I haven't fooled with music CDs for close to a decade. About the only thing I use them for is storing drivers and some tools for when you are building a machine before it gets smart enough to talk on the network. Yes, well, on a modern computer with a modern OS, DVD encoding takes place...faster. A lot faster. And encoding is a tad more than copying or burning DVDs or stripping out DRM. Sounds like you might be a bootlegging expert. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/2014 12:07 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number of other apps that run faster on modern gear. Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups, and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are not important to you. I don't do "video transcoding" and never will. OTOH I'm a gamer. Macintosh just doesn't cut it. Windows does. I've done video transcoding on both a Vista computer and a Win 7 (both 64 bit) computer. Yeah, depending on the video it can take 20 or 30 minutes to complete but how often do I do it? Not very. I've never tried it on my iMac but it wouldn't perform like Harry's. He tricks his computers out with max RAM and the "best" of everything. Mere mortals like me that use computers for common, everyday stuff don't do that. As for Mac versus PCs ... I like 'em both. The iMac gets very little use though. For my purposes and judgement it is of excellent quality, fast enough but I really have to ask myself if it's 2 or 3 times better than the Win 7 HP laptop or Vista HP laptop that I use in terms of price. I don't think so. It still reminds me of an overgrown, pricy version of my wife's iPhone. I also don't wear size 36x32 pants. |
Here come da Judge...
|
Here come da Judge...
|
Here come da Judge...
|
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/2014 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:00:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/1/2014 11:38 AM, wrote: You are still hitting the wall. Regular chips are about tapped out. We are rapidly approaching the point that we will be super cooling processors to get quantum effects. There is only so much you can do to shorten the data path. They are just making them wider. (multiple processors, wider buses) Ummm ... I don't claim to be a semiconductor manufacturing expert nor have a lot of experience in wafer fab but there are companies investing a lot of research money into the optical replacement of copper tracing of single, double and multi-level boards. The focus ( no pun intended) is on reducing size and complexity. Not sure what gains in overall processing speeds are achieved although claims are made that it will. These are tiny, pin head sized laser diodes. The cool thing is that the light paths can intersect others with no interference or "shorts". I have read about it in the trade rags. It still seems to have the intent of making shorter and marginality faster data paths. When you are splitting hairs on the speed of light vs electrons on copper, in a chunk of real estate the size of your thumbnail, there is not much more speed to be had. Now when they get this quantum computing thing going, they are off to the races again. I doubt you will have that on your desk anytime soon. The available bandwidth of an optical system is orders of magnitude greater than that of copper conductors. Hence, more data can be moved faster simultaneously. |
Here come da Judge...
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 12:45:48 PM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... There's no question that Windows is *the* PC gaming platform of choice. Have you tried any of the action games via Steam? It seems like an interesting concept. Yes, Steam is practically a prerequite for on-line gaming. Didn't know Borderlands 2 had a Mac version. Many games don't. Anyway, I can't imagine buying a Mac unless it met some professional need. Otherwise it's an overpriced, short-life machine. A Mac's niche in the working world used to be in graphics and video. That edge is practically non-existent these days. The place I work is an engineering and software company. *All* of the work gets done on PCs running Windows. The President is a Mac guy, so he and 3-4 others have Macs on their desks for email, spreadsheets, and letters. They bought Macs for the conference rooms. They are fiddly and hard to use. Nearly everyone rolls their eyes and hates them. |
Here come da Judge...
|
Here come da Judge...
|
Here come da Judge...
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/1/2014 11:38 AM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:18:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/1/2014 10:09 AM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:07:33 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/1/14, 8:59 AM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:24:15 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either. Yet you continue to. I would suggest that until you actually benchmark a few movies, you are talking out your ass. The reality is i do not do enough video editing for it to even be a factor and if the minute or two it takes me dropped to 5 seconds, it would not change my opinion. I do know I can encode a typical MP3 cut in about 15 seconds and that is fast enough for me. Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number of other apps that run faster on modern gear. Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups, and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are not important to you. Perhaps you should downgrade to an 8088 system and save electricity. There you go. You started out with a very rational response, then you just got stupid on me. My hardware is still pretty fast, Moore's law is rapidly hitting the speed of light wall. Gregg, I would think by now that you would realize that if Harry wears size 36x32 pants, then *everyone* should wear size 36x32 size pants. There are far more systems out there running Windows XP than what meets the eye from a computer user's standpoint. Debit card machines, gas pumps, cash registers, etc. have been using Windows XP for years and continue to do so. Technology marches on though. Wafer fabrication and line widths for CPUs are now at the sub-micron level. Many believe technology is quickly reaching the practical limit of line widths and power densities. In some applications artificially created diamond heat sinks are required. (Diamond has the unique property of being an electrical insulator but an excellent heat conductor. The company I had built some systems for the creation of polycrystalline diamond films, generated by disassociating carbon from gases like methane or butane with a plasma in vacuum). A future technology that is emerging is the replacement of traditional PC boards with copper conductors with those that transmit data using tiny optical emitters and detectors. The big advantage is that signal paths can cross without affecting each other. I am currently doing some consulting work with a company involved in this. You are still hitting the wall. Regular chips are about tapped out. We are rapidly approaching the point that we will be super cooling processors to get quantum effects. There is only so much you can do to shorten the data path. They are just making them wider. (multiple processors, wider buses) Ummm ... I don't claim to be a semiconductor manufacturing expert nor have a lot of experience in wafer fab but there are companies investing a lot of research money into the optical replacement of copper tracing of single, double and multi-level boards. The focus ( no pun intended) is on reducing size and complexity. Not sure what gains in overall processing speeds are achieved although claims are made that it will. These are tiny, pin head sized laser diodes. The cool thing is that the light paths can intersect others with no interference or "shorts". 11years ago when I retired, we were reaching the limits of Moore's law. We are using larger wafers for manufacturing efficiency, but the geometry is pretty close to the limits. Lower voltage, so no arcing, but dendrites start growing at the lower geometry size. So limit of how many transistors per square mil of silicon, unless you start vertical stacking. The optical processor would be an improvement in speed, as the RC time constants are avoided or minimized in the signals. |
Here come da Judge...
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/1/14, 1:23 AM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:53:41 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 3/31/14, 8:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:55:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote: Do any DVD encoding? I have no problem burning DVDs. (Copying them, stripping off the trailers, remastering to strip the DRM, reformatting the video file or whatever) I am really getting away from DVD tho. I think any media on bits of plastic is obsolete technology. I haven't fooled with music CDs for close to a decade. About the only thing I use them for is storing drivers and some tools for when you are building a machine before it gets smart enough to talk on the network. Yes, well, on a modern computer with a modern OS, DVD encoding takes place...faster. A lot faster. And encoding is a tad more than copying or burning DVDs or stripping out DRM. I have made video files (going from AVI or MOV to WMV). This goes pretty fast on a dual core 2.5mz machine or even a regular P4 3.0 It is certainly not $800 worth of new machine to save a minute once a month or so. I would want to see the speed before I bit anyway. You are still talking about speed, not the OS. On the same machine, XP would go faster than W8. If nothing else, you would have more available RAM after the OS loaded The time savings available when encoding with a modern computer and OS is considerable, not just a minute, and the OS certainly is involved. Do you think that programmers do not write code that takes advantage of developments and improvements in the OS, as well as in the hardware? I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either. Modern programmers actually suck a lot. They use crappy modern versions of "C" that are nowhere as efficient ias the original "C". There is so much bloat in the software, and as the OS gets even more bloated to make some small visual change, the code will bloat even more. when WordPerfect brought out it's first Windows version, it was 27 MByte and slow as hell. They cleaned it up a little and got it down to approx 23 mbyte. This is when disk space cost a $100+ a megabyte. Now with cheap disk space! cheap PC's there is no incentive to write efficient code. Prime example was Opera browser, did everything the major browsers did, but way faster, and way less code. You now need a quad core, multi-gigahertz processor to do what was done with half the memory, and half the processor speed. Code bloat. I use an iPad for most things. Power close to an early mainframe. Does less than 1/2 the stuff it should be able to. Because Apple crippled it. So you would buy a $2000+ desktop. And lots of software. And why are breaking the copyright laws ripping movies? An "author" ignoring copyrights? |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/14, 12:23 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/1/2014 12:07 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number of other apps that run faster on modern gear. Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups, and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are not important to you. I don't do "video transcoding" and never will. OTOH I'm a gamer. Macintosh just doesn't cut it. Windows does. I've done video transcoding on both a Vista computer and a Win 7 (both 64 bit) computer. Yeah, depending on the video it can take 20 or 30 minutes to complete but how often do I do it? Not very. I've never tried it on my iMac but it wouldn't perform like Harry's. He tricks his computers out with max RAM and the "best" of everything. Mere mortals like me that use computers for common, everyday stuff don't do that. RAM is cheap, and maxing it out can make a difference if you have to manage really big files or if you want to run a number of tasks/software packages simultaneously. I'm a big fan of movies from the beginning of the "talkie" era on through about 1970, including many so-called historical "avant-garde" films from Europe and Central and South America, such as, for example, Bergman, Jean-Luc Goddard, del Toro, and about a dozen others. Not all their films are readily available these days on DVD or VCR, so I've been making copies of them when I can for decades. Many decades. :) There's pretty good transcoding software available for Apple and of course for other operating system software. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/2014 1:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:43:16 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:38:15 -0400, wrote: You are still hitting the wall. Regular chips are about tapped out. We are rapidly approaching the point that we will be super cooling processors to get quantum effects. There is only so much you can do to shorten the data path. They are just making them wider. (multiple processors, wider buses) === There's talk of stacking vertical substrates also. However the big future opportunities are in developing better software that can take advantage of massively parallel processors like IBM's Watson. Those machines are very esoteric and expensive with today's hardware but it's only a matter of time before they can stamp them out like jelly beans. Present software systems have to be highly customized to take advantage of that kind of power and more generic solutions are needed. If quantum computers ever become a reality, and they probably will, they will all will be massively parallel. The possibility of simulating human thought at blindingly fast speeds is somewhere out there on the horizon for better or worse, along with instant and accurate language translation, monitoring millions of security cameras simultaneously, accurate long range weather forecasting, and a whole bunch of stuff that hasn't even been thought of yet. Computer applications are already designing new computer hardware and have been for some time. What we need now are applications that design and produce new software. That was happening to mainframes before I left IBM. We were replacing giant water cooled systems that would barely fit on a tennis court with 3 or 4 racks. One was the prossessing array, a rack full of processors and fiber controllers. Fiber ran to another rack or 2 with a **** load of RAIDed 3.5" drives (4g each in the mid 90s). I assume they are 4T each now. Hook all of that to the internet and you become Google. Everything fails "soft" and you can hot swap in the new part. It certainly became clear the hardware business was a dead end job but I figured that out in the 80s. Maybe but until we evolve to the point where we are born with USB ports behind our ears there's going to be a need for a HMI. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/14, 12:45 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... There's no question that Windows is *the* PC gaming platform of choice. Have you tried any of the action games via Steam? It seems like an interesting concept. Yes, Steam is practically a prerequite for on-line gaming. Didn't know Borderlands 2 had a Mac version. Many games don't. Anyway, I can't imagine buying a Mac unless it met some professional need. Otherwise it's an overpriced, short-life machine. I like to update my desktop computer about every three to four years. That sort of cycle brings me the advantages of newer technology. Fortunately, there is a decent market for used Mac gear. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/14, 1:01 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:13:46 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/1/14, 12:07 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number of other apps that run faster on modern gear. Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups, and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are not important to you. I don't do "video transcoding" and never will. OTOH I'm a gamer. Macintosh just doesn't cut it. Windows does. There's no question that Windows is *the* PC gaming platform of choice. Have you tried any of the action games via Steam? It seems like an interesting concept. I think I have two or three games on my iMac, a pinball game, Borderlands2 (a fairly recent vintage shoot'em'up) and one other whose name I cannot recall. I used to like MS Golf, Doom, and a couple of others when I had a PC. What no Leisure Suit Larry? Why buy a copy of LSL when so many of his brothers are active in rec.boats? |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/14, 1:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 11:45:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... There's no question that Windows is *the* PC gaming platform of choice. Have you tried any of the action games via Steam? It seems like an interesting concept. Yes, Steam is practically a prerequite for on-line gaming. Didn't know Borderlands 2 had a Mac version. Many games don't. Anyway, I can't imagine buying a Mac unless it met some professional need. Otherwise it's an overpriced, short-life machine. Apple is great for arty people who don't really want a computer. That's just plain silly. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/14, 2:02 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... A Mac's niche in the working world used to be in graphics and video. That edge is practically non-existent these days. The place I work is an engineering and software company. *All* of the work gets done on PCs running Windows. The President is a Mac guy, so he and 3-4 others have Macs on their desks for email, spreadsheets, and letters. They bought Macs for the conference rooms. They are fiddly and hard to use. Nearly everyone rolls their eyes and hates them. I worked a project at one place where the clients were using Macs. Had to convert many files so they could read them. 1995. They eventually ****canned the Macs over a lot of protests. People get attached to their favorite "toys". Right, because nothing much has changed in personal computers in the last 20 years... Sheesh. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com