|
|
Posted by Ken Moiarty on 03/06/06 20:09
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:440c41fa.43082140@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 23:10:34 -0800, "Ken Moiarty" <kmoiarty35@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>>>Hauppauge WinTV-PVR-500.
>
>>> That model has one tuner for recording and one for viewing. I do not
>>> see how it can record three separate TV programs at one time.
>
>>Who ever claimed it can record three programs at one time!? It has two
>>tuners.
>
> I thought the OP said it had three tuners per card.
>
>>Both tuners can be engaged so as to record two programs at one time.
>
> Cool! I need to look at this offering closer.
>
> I assume that the software allows you to split the TV signal so you
> can watch a program you are not recording, or watch a program you have
> previously recorded - like with a conventional DVDR. You would not
> need a tuner for that because the TV would tune it.
>
Exactly!
>>If you're happy with the 2.6 Celeron powered system, that's fine. But
>>your
>>dreaming if you think the CPU itself is just as powerful as a 2.6 Pentium
>>CPU.
>
> I never said that.
>
Okay, my apologies.
>>I can't comment on your son's 3.4 P4. Your subjective impression of
>>its performance compared to your own system may be flawed or it may be
>>right,
>
> It is right - we conducted the tests properly.
>
>>However, when all other factors are
>>equal, you can't get around the fact that a Celeron does painfully less
>>processing per clock cycle than does an uncompromised Pentium.
>
> The test we relied on to benchmark this was DVD Shrink converting an
> on-disk ISO to DVD format with about 50% compression. It took
> essentially the same time.
>
> Maybe that's because the process is calculation-intensive and
> disk-intensive.
>
Having grown up in a period when the only machines my male peers and I
almost universally shared a strong common interest in (besides those very
un-machine-like, yet even more fascinating, females, that is) were
automobiles, it's easy sometimes to forget that a system's computing power
is not as intuitive a concept as say, engine horsepower. To mix analogies:
If we were to swap horsepower ratings for automobiles with the symbolic
ratings we use for system computing power instead (like CPU type and clock
speed in MHz), we would hear people say things like: "I just don't get it.
That 300 Ghz V-10 Pentium truck I just spent all my savings on to buy can
pull a full load up a hill so effortlessly you'd think it was on flat
pavement. But when towing an empty trailer of only a fraction of the
weight, it performs like a lazy mule; hill or no hill." <G>
Ken
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|