Posted by Ken Moiarty on 03/06/06 07:10

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:440b2105.181207843@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 14:19:31 -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. Both tuners can be engaged so as to record two programs at one
time.

>>I wouldn't buy a Celeron CPU if I was paid to. Well, maybe _only if_ I
>>was
>>paid to. <g> Celeron is just a de-tuned Pentium. In other words, it is
>>Pentium which is handicapped by an downsized onboard cache. We have
>>Celerons on our computers at work. While admittedly there may be other
>>factors involved, I do get tired of waiting for the lightest of programs
>>to
>>load on those machines.
>
> I can tell you that my 2.6 Celeron D can run most applications just as
> fast as my son's 3.2 P4. I am talking about DVD Shrink which is a CPU
> hog.
>

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 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, as there can be more to the overall performance of a particular
system than its CPU capacity alone. A "faster" CPU can effectively be
rendered "slower" in terms of overall system performance due to hardware
bottlenecks elsewhere in the system. 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.

Ken

[Back to original message]