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?



>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

I doubt that this is the case despite how it might appear.  At present, I do
not know for sure and am trying to research the topic; but I have some
reservations about Anthony's statement that Windows XP Home Edition is
crippled in the way he suggests as compared to the Pro Edition.  If he is
correct and it is a matter of some internal switch, I would be inclinded to
agree that this is a bit of greed and consumer be damned on the part of
Microsoft whichmay come back to bite it; however, if Amthony is not correct,
then your conclusion is unsupported.

>his 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).


I am well over my head here; but for the sake of clarity with respect to my
comments, and not anyone else's, when I used the term "32-bit architicture"
I really was not referring to it literally with a focus on the 32-bit
element but more figuratively as a general architchture structure that would
impose its own paramentric limits which is widely used in off the shelf
systems.

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

But the architecture of the PowerMacs while different from the other
architecture does establish parametric boundaries of its own just different
from those of a different architecture; am I not correct?  You are not
saying that the 64-bit address register architecture have no theoretical or
practical which would consitute a wall against which one would eventually
run up against, are you?

>From the discussion, I take it that the limits of the 32-bit architechture
that Anthony is speaking of are not the first order preferences that he
desires as a practical limit but are significantly greater even if that
greater limit is not as efficiently achieved.  In otherwords, you can access
more than 4 GB of RAM with the 32-bit architecture, practically speaking,
but not as efficiently or effectively as you can access up to 4 GB of RAM.
Whereas, the 64-bit architecture permits one to more effectively and
effiicently access more than 4GB practically speaking; but at some point one
will again run into a wall where greater access may be achieved but at a
price of efficiency and effectiveness until the theroetical limit is hit.

I raise this not to argue but to obtain some clarification and information
about things I am not all that familiar with  other than global generalized
terms.

>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.

I am not going to engage in any prejudgement of equipment that I have not
seen or experienced.  You may well be right.  I was just noting that in my
experience, I found certain things to be limiting flaws that I saw as
unacceptible for graphic uses.  However, on the matter of sRGB, I am
inclined to agree with Anthony that this is the one-size fits all standard
and not the most optimium standard possible and not one I would be using
either for my Photoshop working space, my monitor, or output device.  For
now, I have geared everything around Adobe RGB 98 which for the present
seems to be the best compromise for my purposes and uses.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Major A
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:27 AM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.