Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?




> >since it came with Windows XP Home Edition, which is
> >deliberately crippled to prevent it from supporting the full hardware
> >addressing capability for memory, the most I could have added would have
> >been another 512 MB.

You're joking? I think M$ are trying to make big money to such an
extent that they are seriously harming their long-term future. Not
that I object to that, of course...

> >I could easily use 8 GB if that were possible (but
> >it's not, not with current 32-bit processor architecture).
>
> I am not sure I understand you.  I could easily use 100 TB (whether I
> actually need it or not) if that were possible but it is not.  The outer
> limitation is obviously hardware related and defined to a large degree by
> the 32-bit architecture.  But 32-bit architechture is obviously the current

The problem is that the x86 architecture can only use 32-bit
addresses, therefore it cannot address more than 4GB at a time. One
can introduce measures like memory pages to achieve as much as 64GB,
which is the harware limit dictated by the number of address lines on
x86 CPUs. Linux can do that, not sure about other.

This has nothing to do with the "number of bits in the architecture",
the 32-bit 68040 allowed 64-bit addresses, for example (only 40 bits
in hardware, but the extensibility was there).

PowerMacs have had 64-bit address registers from the beginning, so no
practical limits there.

> I have tried and actually done the "bending over a desk with a 130-pound CRT
> in your hand to position it on the desk" but it is not something that one
> does frequently - at least I don't.  It has been my experience that I do not
> have to align the monitor up as exactly to be able to see and read it as is
> the case with a lighter LCD monitor which I found I was always having to
> align it precisely so as to be able to read it easily even with text
> materials.  That is not to say that if  they come down in price and go up in
> color quality for the price, I would not put up with the aggrevation of
> having to continuously realign a LCD display in the future - but not now.

I'm looking at an Eizo L465 right now, I can confirm it's just
fantastic. Although it's "only" 16" and TN+film (thus its view angles
aren't as good as IPS ones), it gives me a much better image than ANY
CRT I have seen so far. If you need a good monitor for photo imaging,
try one of the high-end Eizos -- L685EX or so.

I was surprised myself when I got this monitor how precise colour
reproduction can be on a TFT, and it's not that much dependant on view
angle. I always use it in sRGB mode, which seems to be exactly what it
says.

  Andras

===========================================================================
Major Andras
    e-mail: andras@users.sourceforge.net
    www:    http://andras.webhop.org/
===========================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.