Still, I think Azor has a point. Gamers largely have spoken (through
their wallets) on the issue, and what they've said is that, "HD is
more than good enough". We've come to the point where video games
visuals are more than satisfactory already, and the added cost of
upgrading to higher-end hardware --be it video-cards, monitors or
whatever-- just isn't worth the price. In fact, with the popularity of >handhelds like the Nintendo Switch and Valve's SteamDeck,
HD-resolutions got a second lease on life; the small screen size of
those devices make the pixel density of 1080p more than sufficient.
So AMD is probably right to bet on lower-powered, less-expensive cards
that only sport 4-8GB RAM. Nvidia might be all the rage in the news
with their 12/16/24/32GB monstrosities (complete with 600W power >requirements... I think my toaster uses less!) but outside of >gamer-super-enthusiasts (and crypto/AI-bros) there's not really much
call for that sort of performance.
I'm sure the developers will be pissed though. For too long they've
been riding on the wave of ever-more powerful machines looming on the
horizon to excuse their sloppy code. Maybe now we'll get some
optimization in.
Fact: [N]vid[ia]-cards are just stupid expensive.Why anyone would want to go to 4k with an RTX xx80 minimum card at these >prices
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
Now, to some degree, this sounds a bit like sour grapes. While you
might argue that AMD's high-end cards are as good (or better) than
Nvidia, unarguably it is Nvidia that controls that market. Azor's proclamation sounds less like a chosen strategy than a "well, we
weren't REALLY competing there anyway, so there!" acknowledgement of
that fact. AMD isn't repositioning by choice; they're where they are
because Nvidia thrashed them in that market (even if Nvidia arguably
has the worse product. You don't hear about AMD cards melting their
power cables every other month).
Still, I think Azor has a point. Gamers largely have spoken (through
their wallets) on the issue, and what they've said is that, "HD is
more than good enough". We've come to the point where video games
visuals are more than satisfactory already, and the added cost of
upgrading to higher-end hardware --be it video-cards, monitors or
whatever-- just isn't worth the price. In fact, with the popularity of handhelds like the Nintendo Switch and Valve's SteamDeck,
HD-resolutions got a second lease on life; the small screen size of
those devices make the pixel density of 1080p more than sufficient.
So AMD is probably right to bet on lower-powered, less-expensive cards
that only sport 4-8GB RAM. Nvidia might be all the rage in the news
with their 12/16/24/32GB monstrosities (complete with 600W power requirements... I think my toaster uses less!) but outside of gamer-super-enthusiasts (and crypto/AI-bros) there's not really much
call for that sort of performance.
I'm sure the developers will be pissed though. For too long they've
been riding on the wave of ever-more powerful machines looming on the
horizon to excuse their sloppy code. Maybe now we'll get some
optimization in.
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine,
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference
between HD and 4K.
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the--
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
Now, to some degree, this sounds a bit like sour grapes. While you
might argue that AMD's high-end cards are as good (or better) than
Nvidia, unarguably it is Nvidia that controls that market. Azor's proclamation sounds less like a chosen strategy than a "well, we
weren't REALLY competing there anyway, so there!" acknowledgement of
that fact. AMD isn't repositioning by choice; they're where they are
because Nvidia thrashed them in that market (even if Nvidia arguably
has the worse product. You don't hear about AMD cards melting their
power cables every other month).
Still, I think Azor has a point. Gamers largely have spoken (through
their wallets) on the issue, and what they've said is that, "HD is
more than good enough". We've come to the point where video games
visuals are more than satisfactory already, and the added cost of
upgrading to higher-end hardware --be it video-cards, monitors or
whatever-- just isn't worth the price. In fact, with the popularity of handhelds like the Nintendo Switch and Valve's SteamDeck,
HD-resolutions got a second lease on life; the small screen size of
those devices make the pixel density of 1080p more than sufficient.
So AMD is probably right to bet on lower-powered, less-expensive cards
that only sport 4-8GB RAM. Nvidia might be all the rage in the news
with their 12/16/24/32GB monstrosities (complete with 600W power requirements... I think my toaster uses less!) but outside of gamer-super-enthusiasts (and crypto/AI-bros) there's not really much
call for that sort of performance.
I'm sure the developers will be pissed though. For too long they've
been riding on the wave of ever-more powerful machines looming on the
horizon to excuse their sloppy code. Maybe now we'll get some
optimization in.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 17:01:19 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
I have old stuff and usually don't upgrade until I need them. For an >example, I finally went to HD in the end of 2014 from my move. My
current computer setups are still 1080 HD, VGA, DVI, 3.5mm analog
speakers, etc. They still work. I'm old school.
Wait... 3.5mm speaker jacks are old-school now? What are the hip
digerati using then? And what's wrong with 3.5mm jacks anyway? Don't
tell me sending stuff to cheapo speakers over Bluetooh is supposed to
be better somehow now.
But, otherwise... you just prove the point. Gamers don't really see
the need anymore for super-high-end hardware. It doesn't help that a surprising amount of people use laptops as their primary device, and a surprising number of those STILL have < 1920x1080 resolutions on their primary display.
[Side note: According to the Steam Hardware Survey, 12.65% of
users surveyed have Nvidia branded laptop GPUs (although not
all laptops use GPUs that self identify as 'laptop' models).
That's almost as many as all AMD GPUs combined.]
AMD knows their audience better than Nvidia. These mega-powerful cards
with 32GB are not what people need... or really want. Nvidia has
better marketing, though, and people gravitate towards Nvidia-equipped computers because of that.
Well, I went BACK to 24" as the 27" was too big at the distance it was.
I'm definitely in the "HD-not-4K" camp. I don't own a single
monitor/TV that's better quality. It's not just cheapness on my side,
either (although that's definitely a part of it 😉. I have issues
seeing much of a difference.
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine,
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference
between HD and 4K.
On 28/05/2025 01:40, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine,
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my
DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference
between HD and 4K.
Very much the same here. Our TV is UHD but that's more because even when
we got it if you wanted even a half decent TV then it was going to be
UHD. I have looked at the OLED ones and although the picture does look
more vibrant and sharper I do think considering what we mainly watch
(well the better half watches) it doesn't seem worth it. I'm not really
sure that ten to twenty years old TV series are going to benefit much.
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine,
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference
between HD and 4K.
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no >difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:02:32 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
Now, to some degree, this sounds a bit like sour grapes. While you
might argue that AMD's high-end cards are as good (or better) than
Nvidia, unarguably it is Nvidia that controls that market. Azor's
proclamation sounds less like a chosen strategy than a "well, we
weren't REALLY competing there anyway, so there!" acknowledgement of
that fact. AMD isn't repositioning by choice; they're where they are
because Nvidia thrashed them in that market (even if Nvidia arguably
has the worse product. You don't hear about AMD cards melting their
power cables every other month).
Still, I think Azor has a point. Gamers largely have spoken (through
their wallets) on the issue, and what they've said is that, "HD is
more than good enough". We've come to the point where video games
visuals are more than satisfactory already, and the added cost of
upgrading to higher-end hardware --be it video-cards, monitors or
whatever-- just isn't worth the price. In fact, with the popularity of
handhelds like the Nintendo Switch and Valve's SteamDeck,
HD-resolutions got a second lease on life; the small screen size of
those devices make the pixel density of 1080p more than sufficient.
So AMD is probably right to bet on lower-powered, less-expensive cards
that only sport 4-8GB RAM. Nvidia might be all the rage in the news
with their 12/16/24/32GB monstrosities (complete with 600W power
requirements... I think my toaster uses less!) but outside of
gamer-super-enthusiasts (and crypto/AI-bros) there's not really much
call for that sort of performance.
I'm sure the developers will be pissed though. For too long they've
been riding on the wave of ever-more powerful machines looming on the
horizon to excuse their sloppy code. Maybe now we'll get some
optimization in.
I'll admit it -- I love 120Hz 4K in my space game. But the 24G
of video memory also helps with running Fooocus, a text-to-image
AI app that uses pyTorch.
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn >spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 28/05/2025 01:40, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine,
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my
DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference
between HD and 4K.
Very much the same here. Our TV is UHD but that's more because even when
we got it if you wanted even a half decent TV then it was going to be
UHD. I have looked at the OLED ones and although the picture does look
more vibrant and sharper I do think considering what we mainly watch
(well the better half watches) it doesn't seem worth it. I'm not really >>sure that ten to twenty years old TV series are going to benefit much.
Made me think of someone with a 4KU 80+" TV watching original run Doctor
Who.
Somehow, I don't think being able to count the imperfections in Jon
Pertwee's skin is going to enhance the experience.
Nor seeing the seams in the Daleks and other scenery/Critters.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:11:17 +0200, H1M3M <wipnoah@gmail.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
unarguably it is Nvidia that controls that market.
Well, the Windows market, anyways. I have been using nvidia cards for
the last 15 years, and i'm switching to AMD. The primary reason should
be that I am fed with Nvidia's bullpoop. The inflated prices (not
counting scalping), less vram for more money... Which sounds a lot like >>enshittification again. "We are market leaders, so gamers will eat
whatever shit we put in their dishes" (Maybe I should not have blocked
Bill wilson, I could use some advice on offensive language right now).
Except, let's face it: in PC gaming, Windows /is/ the market. Linux
users -even including SteamDeck- are a /tiny/ minority of the overall
PC gaming population.
That's not to say AMD isn't a powerhouse in gaming. The PS5 uses an
AMD chipset. The XBox One X uses an AMD chipset. The SteamDeck and its >derivatives are all AMD. (Both versions of Nintendo's Switch uses
Nvidia, though).
But on PC, Nvidia is king. On the Steam Hardware survey, you have to
go down 14 spots before AMD even shows up; Nvidia has a controlling
70% share of that market (AMD is 15%, Intel is 5%, with the remainder
as "other").
If you're gaming on PC, you're most likely either using Nvidia or an
outlier. And that's not likely to change any time soon.
Well, the Windows market, anyways. I have been using nvidia cards for
the last 15 years, and i'm switching to AMD. The primary reason should
be that I am fed with Nvidia's bullpoop. The inflated prices (not
counting scalping), less vram for more money... Which sounds a lot like >enshittification again. "We are market leaders, so gamers will eat
whatever shit we put in their dishes" (Maybe I should not have blocked
Bill wilson, I could use some advice on offensive language right now).
On Wed, 28 May 2025 17:01:19 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
I have old stuff and usually don't upgrade until I need them. For an >>example, I finally went to HD in the end of 2014 from my move. My
current computer setups are still 1080 HD, VGA, DVI, 3.5mm analog
speakers, etc. They still work. I'm old school.
Wait... 3.5mm speaker jacks are old-school now? What are the hip
digerati using then? And what's wrong with 3.5mm jacks anyway? Don't
tell me sending stuff to cheapo speakers over Bluetooh is supposed to
be better somehow now.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:54:45 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
I still use old onboard and video cards (MSI NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti >(N750TI-2GD5/OC; 2 GB of VRAM)) as my highest end GPU). :P
While compiling the stats from the Steam Hardware Survey for another
post, I noticed there was a line for "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 TI",
which is possibly one of the oldest Nvidia cards on the list.* "Good
for you," I said to myself, "Still rockin' on with such an old card,"
and wondered who they were.
Apparently it's you!
But don't worry, you're not really alone. 0.25% of Steam users
surveyed still use that card. If we go by the current Steam MAU, that
means you're in a crowd of over 30,000 people** ;-)
Besides, one of my machines still has a 770GTX and --while it's not...
one of my more actively used computers-- I still have great
appreciation for it. Maybe it can't run the latest-n-greatest games,
but it's still capable enough that I've no consideration on scrapping
it anytime soon. Whenever I do fire it up*** I almost inevitably end
up playing games on it. The 7xx line of Nvidia cards were workhorses.
* but not THE oldest. I saw an NVIDIA GeForce 730 on the list too.
** Maybe all ants in the nest are stuck on GF750s?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 17:40:24 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, >Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine,
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >>DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference >>between HD and 4K.
My last TV purchase, in 2016, I specifically asked for a 1080p dumb TV
after everything had pretty much gone to 4k, because I *thought* there
would be a price break.
They had what I asked for, but the 4k was cheaper. In the same sizes. All
the smart TVs were also inexplicably cheaper. (*shrug*)
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:49:35 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 17:01:19 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
I have old stuff and usually don't upgrade until I need them. For an >>example, I finally went to HD in the end of 2014 from my move. My
current computer setups are still 1080 HD, VGA, DVI, 3.5mm analog >>speakers, etc. They still work. I'm old school.
Wait... 3.5mm speaker jacks are old-school now? What are the hip
digerati using then? And what's wrong with 3.5mm jacks anyway? Don't
tell me sending stuff to cheapo speakers over Bluetooh is supposed to
be better somehow now.
Optical. HDMI passthrough.
But I still see plenty of 3.5mm.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 10:09:13 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 05:22:56 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no
difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
I do Bluray for the audio. There I can definitely hear a difference. I
found this out when I got Fight Club on Bluray.
But a 4k picture is only noticable to people with 20/10 vision on a
minimum 90" screen from 5-10 feet.
Heh. I saw a 98" UHD TV the other day in a store. THERE I noticed the difference... when standing less than a foot away. The pixels were
big!
But even I wouldn't be using a TV that big unless I was sitting on a
couch. And I'm the weirdo who uses a 47" display as one of my
monitors. Just the thought of dragging a mouse across a screen that
big makes the carpal tunnel flare up! ;-)
(I was surprised at how inexpensive screens that big had become
though; it seems that just a few years ago anything larger than 60"
was in the $5-6000USD range, and now you can get a 98" screen for less
than 2 grand).
My last TV purchase, in 2016, I specifically asked for a 1080p dumb TV
after everything had pretty much gone to 4k, because I*thought* there
would be a price break.
They had what I asked for, but the 4k was cheaper. In the same sizes. All
the smart TVs were also inexplicably cheaper. (*shrug*)
It's like car transmissions; Used to be manual was standard and
automatics cost more. Now auto is standard and you pay more to get a
manual (at least on a sports car.)
On 5/29/2025 8:24 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 10:09:13 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 05:22:56 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no >>>> difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
I do Bluray for the audio. There I can definitely hear a difference. I
found this out when I got Fight Club on Bluray.
But a 4k picture is only noticable to people with 20/10 vision on a
minimum 90" screen from 5-10 feet.
Heh. I saw a 98" UHD TV the other day in a store. THERE I noticed the
difference... when standing less than a foot away. The pixels were
big!
But even I wouldn't be using a TV that big unless I was sitting on a
couch. And I'm the weirdo who uses a 47" display as one of my
monitors. Just the thought of dragging a mouse across a screen that
big makes the carpal tunnel flare up! ;-)
(I was surprised at how inexpensive screens that big had become
though; it seems that just a few years ago anything larger than 60"
was in the $5-6000USD range, and now you can get a 98" screen for less
than 2 grand).
The 2 grand isn't the problem, it's the couple hundred thousand I'd need
for a bigger place where I even had a wall that big around here without
going to a worse neighborhood.
I came late to the driving club and when I took my test I didn't bother
to even learn how to drive a manual just because I thought why have that >extra complication for something I'll never need. I've still had a
couple of people say but what if you have to drive a manual in an
emergence. My response is, have you or anyone you know ever had to do that?
On Wed, 28 May 2025 05:22:56 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no >>difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
I do Bluray for the audio. There I can definitely hear a difference. I
found this out when I got Fight Club on Bluray.
But a 4k picture is only noticable to people with 20/10 vision on a
minimum 90" screen from 5-10 feet.
Maybe if I had a Bradbury telewall I'd consider it.
On 29/05/2025 22:21, Xocyll wrote:
My last TV purchase, in 2016, I specifically asked for a 1080p dumb TV
after everything had pretty much gone to 4k, because I*thought* there
would be a price break.
They had what I asked for, but the 4k was cheaper. In the same sizes. All >>> the smart TVs were also inexplicably cheaper. (*shrug*)
It's like car transmissions; Used to be manual was standard and
automatics cost more. Now auto is standard and you pay more to get a
manual (at least on a sports car.)
The UK has seen a dramatic shift to automatic cars in the last twenty
years from something that was quite niche (and people would wonder why
you'd want an automatic) to now been the majority of car sales.
I came late to the driving club and when I took my test I didn't bother
to even learn how to drive a manual just because I thought why have that >extra complication for something I'll never need. I've still had a
couple of people say but what if you have to drive a manual in an
emergence. My response is, have you or anyone you know ever had to do that?
On 30/05/2025 04:30, Justisaur wrote:
On 5/29/2025 8:24 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 10:09:13 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 05:22:56 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no >>>>> difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
I do Bluray for the audio. There I can definitely hear a difference. I >>>> found this out when I got Fight Club on Bluray.
But a 4k picture is only noticable to people with 20/10 vision on a
minimum 90" screen from 5-10 feet.
Heh. I saw a 98" UHD TV the other day in a store. THERE I noticed the
difference... when standing less than a foot away. The pixels were
big!
But even I wouldn't be using a TV that big unless I was sitting on a
couch. And I'm the weirdo who uses a 47" display as one of my
monitors. Just the thought of dragging a mouse across a screen that
big makes the carpal tunnel flare up! ;-)
(I was surprised at how inexpensive screens that big had become
though; it seems that just a few years ago anything larger than 60"
was in the $5-6000USD range, and now you can get a 98" screen for less
than 2 grand).
The 2 grand isn't the problem, it's the couple hundred thousand I'd need
for a bigger place where I even had a wall that big around here without
going to a worse neighborhood.
It's something I did think about when we got our last one. If we got a
TV that was too big it would have to go above the fireplace which is
probably not good for it and it'd be a poor viewing angle. The other
option would be to remove the sofa and sit on high chairs instead!
I also don't like the idea of a TV dominating the room.
On 29/05/2025 22:21, Xocyll wrote:
My last TV purchase, in 2016, I specifically asked for a 1080p dumb TV
after everything had pretty much gone to 4k, because I*thought* there
would be a price break.
They had what I asked for, but the 4k was cheaper. In the same sizes. All >>> the smart TVs were also inexplicably cheaper. (*shrug*)
It's like car transmissions; Used to be manual was standard and
automatics cost more. Now auto is standard and you pay more to get a
manual (at least on a sports car.)
The UK has seen a dramatic shift to automatic cars in the last twenty
years from something that was quite niche (and people would wonder why
you'd want an automatic) to now been the majority of car sales.
I came late to the driving club and when I took my test I didn't bother
to even learn how to drive a manual just because I thought why have that >extra complication for something I'll never need. I've still had a
couple of people say but what if you have to drive a manual in an
emergence. My response is, have you or anyone you know ever had to do that?
Zag wrote:
Maybe if I had a Bradbury telewall I'd consider it.
The reference escapes me
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:55:40 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
I came late to the driving club and when I took my test I didn't bother
to even learn how to drive a manual just because I thought why have that >>extra complication for something I'll never need. I've still had a
couple of people say but what if you have to drive a manual in an >>emergence. My response is, have you or anyone you know ever had to do that?
If you've never driven an automatic car and then find yourself needing
to, it's a very confusing experience. I'd always driven manual cars
until February of this year when I had a couple of days to wait for a
new car to arrive at the dealers.
I had a courtesy car which was an automatic. It was actually quite
pleasant to drive once moving. The only problem that I had was that
after many years of driving manual cars, my brains' muscle memory kept
taking over and I regularly attempted to put my foot on the clutch
pedal that wasn't there and jammed on the brakes instead. Once moving
the car was a pleasure to drive. Needing to slow down was like trying
to do things left handed if you're naturally right handed.
I would imagine that teaching yourself to drive a manual after many
years of automatics would have its own foibles.
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:49:35 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Wait... 3.5mm speaker jacks are old-school now? What are the hip
digerati using then? And what's wrong with 3.5mm jacks anyway? Don't
tell me sending stuff to cheapo speakers over Bluetooh is supposed to
be better somehow now.
Optical. HDMI passthrough.
But I still see plenty of 3.5mm.
Speaking of which, I use 3.5mm for my 5.1 speakers on my main PC...
which has suddenly decided to become a 2.1 system. The side speakers
just don't make sound anymore. It's not the speakers
[something I proved by plugging them into another
computer. Moving the beast practically threw out my
back and then I made my eardrums bleed because the volume
was maxed... but at least it proved all five speakers
worked ;-)]
so it's either the sound card or something Windows has done. Hopefully
it's the latter; it'd be a cheaper (although more difficult) fix.
But I couldn't help but think, when I noticed the issue, that if only
I'd used the optical SPDIF output I wouldn't be having these problems!
;-)
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn >spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 29/05/2025 22:21, Xocyll wrote:
My last TV purchase, in 2016, I specifically asked for a 1080p dumb TV >>>> after everything had pretty much gone to 4k, because I*thought* there
would be a price break.
They had what I asked for, but the 4k was cheaper. In the same sizes. All >>>> the smart TVs were also inexplicably cheaper. (*shrug*)
It's like car transmissions; Used to be manual was standard and
automatics cost more. Now auto is standard and you pay more to get a
manual (at least on a sports car.)
The UK has seen a dramatic shift to automatic cars in the last twenty
years from something that was quite niche (and people would wonder why >>you'd want an automatic) to now been the majority of car sales.
I came late to the driving club and when I took my test I didn't bother
to even learn how to drive a manual just because I thought why have that >>extra complication for something I'll never need. I've still had a
couple of people say but what if you have to drive a manual in an >>emergence. My response is, have you or anyone you know ever had to do that?
It's not really difficult.
On 5/29/2025 2:24 PM, Ant wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:54:45 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
I still use old onboard and video cards (MSI NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti >>>> (N750TI-2GD5/OC; 2 GB of VRAM)) as my highest end GPU). :P
While compiling the stats from the Steam Hardware Survey for another
post, I noticed there was a line for "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 TI",
which is possibly one of the oldest Nvidia cards on the list.* "Good
for you," I said to myself, "Still rockin' on with such an old card,"
and wondered who they were.
Apparently it's you!
But don't worry, you're not really alone. 0.25% of Steam users
surveyed still use that card. If we go by the current Steam MAU, that
means you're in a crowd of over 30,000 people** ;-)
Woohoo! What about GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB of VRAM)? :P
Besides, one of my machines still has a 770GTX and --while it's not...
one of my more actively used computers-- I still have great
appreciation for it. Maybe it can't run the latest-n-greatest games,
but it's still capable enough that I've no consideration on scrapping
it anytime soon. Whenever I do fire it up*** I almost inevitably end
up playing games on it. The 7xx line of Nvidia cards were workhorses.
* but not THE oldest. I saw an NVIDIA GeForce 730 on the list too.
** Maybe all ants in the nest are stuck on GF750s?
Haha. My friend used to run Bitcoin and then stopped so he had all these
750 video cards. So, he gave others and me his used cards. :D
I'd give you my 950, but my daughter's playing Goat Simulator, EDF 5
and a bunch of crappy FNAF games.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 06:36:19 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:
Zag wrote:
Maybe if I had a Bradbury telewall I'd consider it.
The reference escapes me
Fahrenheit 451
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:37:49 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I actually love SPDIF optical. It's a much cleaner connection, and less >hassle, when compared to HDMI passthrough.Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:49:35 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Wait... 3.5mm speaker jacks are old-school now? What are the hip
digerati using then? And what's wrong with 3.5mm jacks anyway? Don't
tell me sending stuff to cheapo speakers over Bluetooh is supposed to >>>> >be better somehow now.
Optical. HDMI passthrough.
But I still see plenty of 3.5mm.
Speaking of which, I use 3.5mm for my 5.1 speakers on my main PC...
which has suddenly decided to become a 2.1 system. The side speakers
just don't make sound anymore. It's not the speakers
[something I proved by plugging them into another
computer. Moving the beast practically threw out my
back and then I made my eardrums bleed because the volume
was maxed... but at least it proved all five speakers
worked ;-)]
so it's either the sound card or something Windows has done. Hopefully
it's the latter; it'd be a cheaper (although more difficult) fix.
But I couldn't help but think, when I noticed the issue, that if only
I'd used the optical SPDIF output I wouldn't be having these problems!
;-)
My old mainboard had SPDIF. My new mainboard just has 3 3.5mm ports that >serve double duties as various ins and outs. If you want to run 5.1, you >double duty the mic port. It doesn't do 7.1 iirc.
I'm considering a cheap Audigy. What's out there other than Creative?
I had a courtesy car which was an automatic. It was actually quite
pleasant to drive once moving. The only problem that I had was that
after many years of driving manual cars, my brains' muscle memory kept
taking over and I regularly attempted to put my foot on the clutch
pedal that wasn't there and jammed on the brakes instead. Once moving
the car was a pleasure to drive. Needing to slow down was like trying
to do things left handed if you're naturally right handed.
Ah, been decades since I read that - 45 years maybe.
I would imagine that teaching yourself to drive a manual after many
years of automatics would have its own foibles.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:37:49 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:49:35 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Wait... 3.5mm speaker jacks are old-school now? What are the hip
digerati using then? And what's wrong with 3.5mm jacks anyway? Don't
tell me sending stuff to cheapo speakers over Bluetooh is supposed to >>> >be better somehow now.
Optical. HDMI passthrough.
But I still see plenty of 3.5mm.
...Speaking of which, I use 3.5mm for my 5.1 speakers on my main PC...
which has suddenly decided to become a 2.1 system. The side speakers
just don't make sound anymore. It's not the speakers
[something I proved by plugging them into another
computer. Moving the beast practically threw out my
back and then I made my eardrums bleed because the volume
was maxed... but at least it proved all five speakers
worked ;-)]
so it's either the sound card or something Windows has done. Hopefully
it's the latter; it'd be a cheaper (although more difficult) fix.
But I couldn't help but think, when I noticed the issue, that if only
I'd used the optical SPDIF output I wouldn't be having these problems!
;-)
I actually love SPDIF optical. It's a much cleaner connection, and less hassle, when compared to HDMI passthrough.
I'm considering a cheap Audigy. What's out there other than Creative?
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine,
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >>DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference >>between HD and 4K.
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
Maybe if I had one of those huge-ass TVs I'd see a difference, but the
39" I have, you see none.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:49:35 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 17:01:19 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
I have old stuff and usually don't upgrade until I need them. For an
example, I finally went to HD in the end of 2014 from my move. My
current computer setups are still 1080 HD, VGA, DVI, 3.5mm analog
speakers, etc. They still work. I'm old school.
Wait... 3.5mm speaker jacks are old-school now? What are the hip
digerati using then? And what's wrong with 3.5mm jacks anyway? Don't
tell me sending stuff to cheapo speakers over Bluetooh is supposed to
be better somehow now.
Optical. HDMI passthrough.
But I still see plenty of 3.5mm.
3.5mm forever!
I prefer manual transmissions. Better gas mileage, better experience. I
just don't like the price of replacing the clutch every ~90k miles.
Automatics reliably go into the 100s of thousands of miles now. My last
car went 160k on its CVT and it didn't bat an eyelash. We sold it for an upgrade, but it was still completely servicable.
On 30/05/2025 18:58, Zaghadka wrote:
I prefer manual transmissions. Better gas mileage, better experience. IWhere I live (and the journeys we do) there's a lot of stopping, slowing
just don't like the price of replacing the clutch every ~90k miles.
down and speeding up and not so much driving at a constant speed.
Automatics reliably go into the 100s of thousands of miles now. My last
car went 160k on its CVT and it didn't bat an eyelash. We sold it for an
upgrade, but it was still completely servicable.
Our old one got to about 50k which is very low mileage for a car that
was almost twenty years old and 20k of them weren't even us. The problem
was there was a strange fault with charging the battery. So you could
drive for about fifteen mins. with no problems and then the battery not >charging light would come on every five seconds or so. It also never
failed to start so it was charging. We spent £350 having it looked at
(our local garage and also the main dealer). Both of them said the same >thing, it's probably the alternator but they weren't sure. The issue was
it's £600 to get it replaced and it was a case of even if it does fix
it, is it going to become a money pit.
On 5/30/2025 1:46 AM, JAB wrote:
On 30/05/2025 04:30, Justisaur wrote:
On 5/29/2025 8:24 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 10:09:13 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 05:22:56 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, >>>>> Xocyll wrote:
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no >>>>>> difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
I do Bluray for the audio. There I can definitely hear a difference. I >>>>> found this out when I got Fight Club on Bluray.
But a 4k picture is only noticable to people with 20/10 vision on a
minimum 90" screen from 5-10 feet.
Heh. I saw a 98" UHD TV the other day in a store. THERE I noticed the
difference... when standing less than a foot away. The pixels were
big!
But even I wouldn't be using a TV that big unless I was sitting on a
couch. And I'm the weirdo who uses a 47" display as one of my
monitors. Just the thought of dragging a mouse across a screen that
big makes the carpal tunnel flare up! ;-)
(I was surprised at how inexpensive screens that big had become
though; it seems that just a few years ago anything larger than 60"
was in the $5-6000USD range, and now you can get a 98" screen for less >>>> than 2 grand).
The 2 grand isn't the problem, it's the couple hundred thousand I'd
need for a bigger place where I even had a wall that big around here
without going to a worse neighborhood.
It's something I did think about when we got our last one. If we got a
TV that was too big it would have to go above the fireplace which is
probably not good for it and it'd be a poor viewing angle. The other
option would be to remove the sofa and sit on high chairs instead!
Not a bad idea, I could probably figure some way to mount a bigger one
in front of the fireplace. Besides living in a hot area (it was 100 f
today) I have severe asthmatic reaction to wood smoke, so I've never
used it, and have wished I could've found a house without one for some time.
There's two large windows next to the fireplace though, might be hard to >watch with the light glaring through during the day, although maybe not
any worse than the glare from them half the day now anyway.
"Let them eat cake."
Doesn't seem to have quite the same connotation.
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
Maybe if I had one of those huge-ass TVs I'd see a difference, but the
39" I have, you see none.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Same, I prefer DVD just bc it is a massive hassle to set up the Bluray decryption stuff on a machine, and I literally couldn't care less about
the quality increase.
Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 21:24 this Thursday (GMT):
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:49:35 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 17:01:19 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
I have old stuff and usually don't upgrade until I need them. For an
example, I finally went to HD in the end of 2014 from my move. My
current computer setups are still 1080 HD, VGA, DVI, 3.5mm analog
speakers, etc. They still work. I'm old school.
Wait... 3.5mm speaker jacks are old-school now? What are the hip
digerati using then? And what's wrong with 3.5mm jacks anyway? Don't
tell me sending stuff to cheapo speakers over Bluetooh is supposed to
be better somehow now.
Optical. HDMI passthrough.
But I still see plenty of 3.5mm.
3.5mm forever!
Yeah! They're so mice and while I use bluetooth on my phone (because i
have to - thanks apple...), I prefer corded headphones. I always
forget to charge them!
I/detest/ bluetooth headphones. The tiny ones are too expensive, too
easy to lose, and too expensive. The big ones have a battery life
seemingly measured in minutes. Just give me a nice pair of corded
earbuds I can wind up and shove in my pocket; they're ready to go
whenever (no need to charge!) and if they break or I lose them, they
cost only a few dollars to replace.
They're getting hard to find, though. It used to be you could go into
any corner store and find a wall covered with options. Now its all
wireless stuff with only one or two choices with actual wires.
There's that too. The room's not very big and having something that
large would be like watching 12' tall giants. I wouldn't mind slightly larger than the 40 something inch we have now, but not a 92"
I also don't like the idea of a TV dominating the room.
Well there is that.
I came late to the driving club and when I took my test I didn't botherIt's not really difficult.
to even learn how to drive a manual just because I thought why have that
extra complication for something I'll never need. I've still had a
couple of people say but what if you have to drive a manual in an
emergence. My response is, have you or anyone you know ever had to do that?
Mind you, if it has Lucas Electrics, I believe that mileage figure is
about 5. Less if it's a "classic" built by British Leyland.
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Xocyll wrote:
I also don't like the idea of a TV dominating the room.
Well there is that.
I kinda miss the 'good-old-days' where you had proper TV cabinets and if
you wanted to watch something you had to open the doors first.
On 31/05/2025 04:32, Justisaur wrote:
There's that too. The room's not very big and having something that
large would be like watching 12' tall giants. I wouldn't mind slightly
larger than the 40 something inch we have now, but not a 92"
As the old joke goes, why buy a bigger TV when you can just move closer
to the screen.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 13:09:24 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I actually love SPDIF optical. It's a much cleaner connection, and less >>hassle, when compared to HDMI passthrough.
My old mainboard had SPDIF. My new mainboard just has 3 3.5mm ports that >>serve double duties as various ins and outs. If you want to run 5.1, you >>double duty the mic port. It doesn't do 7.1 iirc.
My motherboard doesn't do 5.1; it's actually a major reason why I got
the discrete sound-card. I don't think it has SPIDF either (although
since I don't have anything else SPIDF, I wouldn't be able to use it
even if the motherboard had the option ;-)
I'm considering a cheap Audigy. What's out there other than Creative?
Honestly, other than the Xonar cards (I think they're an ASUS brand?)
I can't think of any. I think Turtle Beach was the last company that
made discrete cards, but even they're gone now. Nowadays, everyone
just uses Creative Labs or whatever is on their motherboard.
Well, that's not exactly true. There are USB sound solutions, I guess.
I dunno, though; they probably work fine but I like my soundcards to
be... well, cards ;-)
I'm not sure I'd recommend a Creative card, though. I suspect my
current issue is with the card itself, and not some Windows thing. I
had a similar problem with another Soundblaster; it just stopped
outputting from one of its ports (fortunately, my motherboard on that >computer supported 5.1 so it wasn't really an issue). I think there
are some real issues with the quality of the components on Creative's >offerings.
Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote at 09:22 this Wednesday (GMT):
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine,
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >>>DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference >>>between HD and 4K.
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no
difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
Maybe if I had one of those huge-ass TVs I'd see a difference, but the
39" I have, you see none.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Same, I prefer DVD just bc it is a massive hassle to set up the Bluray >decryption stuff on a machine, and I literally couldn't care less about
the quality increase.
Plus, you'll go blind if you sit so close to the screen. Didn't you
mother teach you anything? 😉
Plus, you'll go blind if you sit so close to the screen. Didn't you
mother teach you anything? ;-)
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 08:28:53 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn >>spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
As the old joke goes, why buy a bigger TV when you can just move closer >>>to the screen.
Cause there's a finite limit to how many people can get closer to the >>screen.
Plus, you'll go blind if you sit so close to the screen. Didn't you
mother teach you anything? ;-)
(I'm pretty sure if it were up to my mother, she'd have had me watch
TV from the other room. I wonder where the 'you'd go blind' rumor
start anyway?)
On 01/06/2025 15:13, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Plus, you'll go blind if you sit so close to the screen. Didn't you
mother teach you anything? ?
I thought that was bashing the bishop?
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 08:34:15 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The >>Augury is good, the signs say:
Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote at 09:22 this Wednesday (GMT):
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine, >>>>>I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >>>>>DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference >>>>>between HD and 4K.
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the >>>>>> vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD >>>>>> resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam >>>>>> still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even >>>>>> use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary >>>>>> focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no >>>> difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
Maybe if I had one of those huge-ass TVs I'd see a difference, but the >>>> 39" I have, you see none.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Same, I prefer DVD just bc it is a massive hassle to set up the Bluray >>>decryption stuff on a machine, and I literally couldn't care less about >>>the quality increase.
Ahh I don't bother, I just play both disc types in a combo dvd/blueray >>player that is hooked to the TV.
I dislike the menus in blueray, cause they stay open for several seconds >>after you unpause, blocking the screen, dvd menus vanish instantly.
Any discs I get are immediately ripped to HDD and then shoved in the
closet with the other ten-million DVDs. I have no time for searching
for the disks, fiddling with the player to open its door, putting the
disk in, waiting for it to spin up, being forced to watch the
inevitable logos and "you wouldn't steal a car" bullshit, navigating
menus, watching more trailers and then realizing I didn't want to
actually watch THIS movie but the other one, so I have to repeat the
whole process.
Rip once, double-click movie file, watch. That's the life.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 08:34:15 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The
Augury is good, the signs say:
Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote at 09:22 this Wednesday (GMT):
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>> say:
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine, >>>>>> I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >>>>>> DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference >>>>>> between HD and 4K.
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the >>>>>>> vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD >>>>>>> resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam >>>>>>> still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even >>>>>>> use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary >>>>>>> focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger >>>>>>> market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no >>>>> difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
Maybe if I had one of those huge-ass TVs I'd see a difference, but the >>>>> 39" I have, you see none.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Same, I prefer DVD just bc it is a massive hassle to set up the Bluray >>>> decryption stuff on a machine, and I literally couldn't care less about >>>> the quality increase.
Ahh I don't bother, I just play both disc types in a combo dvd/blueray
player that is hooked to the TV.
I dislike the menus in blueray, cause they stay open for several seconds >>> after you unpause, blocking the screen, dvd menus vanish instantly.
Any discs I get are immediately ripped to HDD and then shoved in the
closet with the other ten-million DVDs. I have no time for searching
for the disks, fiddling with the player to open its door, putting the
disk in, waiting for it to spin up, being forced to watch the
inevitable logos and "you wouldn't steal a car" bullshit, navigating
menus, watching more trailers and then realizing I didn't want to
actually watch THIS movie but the other one, so I have to repeat the
whole process.
Rip once, double-click movie file, watch. That's the life.
Maybe I'll do that eventually, but it's a bit of a hassle, since some of
the movies are on blue-ray and I don't think either computer players
support anything but cd/dvd.
That and it would have to be done on the older and slower machine with
the faster internal dvd players, vs the fast new system with an external
and therefore slow-as-hell dvd player.
Plus I'll need to buy a new 5TB external HD to stick them all on, and
money is kinda tight right now, what with the new meds.
Get released from hospital after 3 months, with a bunchy of new
prescriptions which totaled over $900 for a 1 month supply.
New tech is gonna have to wait - blew that budget on the new monitor I
had to buy since one of mine died, and that was well under $200.
Get released from hospital after 3 months, with a bunchy of new
prescriptions which totaled over $900 for a 1 month supply.
On 6/1/2025 9:29 AM, Xocyll wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading theOuch, and sympathies.
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 08:34:15 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The >>>> Augury is good, the signs say:
Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote at 09:22 this Wednesday (GMT):
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the >>>>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>>> say:
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine, >>>>>>> I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >>>>>>> DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference >>>>>>> between HD and 4K.
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the >>>>>>>> vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD >>>>>>>> resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam >>>>>>>> still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even >>>>>>>> use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary >>>>>>>> focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger >>>>>>>> market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no >>>>>> difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
Maybe if I had one of those huge-ass TVs I'd see a difference, but the >>>>>> 39" I have, you see none.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Same, I prefer DVD just bc it is a massive hassle to set up the Bluray >>>>> decryption stuff on a machine, and I literally couldn't care less about >>>>> the quality increase.
Ahh I don't bother, I just play both disc types in a combo dvd/blueray >>>> player that is hooked to the TV.
I dislike the menus in blueray, cause they stay open for several seconds >>>> after you unpause, blocking the screen, dvd menus vanish instantly.
Any discs I get are immediately ripped to HDD and then shoved in the
closet with the other ten-million DVDs. I have no time for searching
for the disks, fiddling with the player to open its door, putting the
disk in, waiting for it to spin up, being forced to watch the
inevitable logos and "you wouldn't steal a car" bullshit, navigating
menus, watching more trailers and then realizing I didn't want to
actually watch THIS movie but the other one, so I have to repeat the
whole process.
Rip once, double-click movie file, watch. That's the life.
Maybe I'll do that eventually, but it's a bit of a hassle, since some of
the movies are on blue-ray and I don't think either computer players
support anything but cd/dvd.
That and it would have to be done on the older and slower machine with
the faster internal dvd players, vs the fast new system with an external
and therefore slow-as-hell dvd player.
Plus I'll need to buy a new 5TB external HD to stick them all on, and
money is kinda tight right now, what with the new meds.
Get released from hospital after 3 months, with a bunchy of new
prescriptions which totaled over $900 for a 1 month supply.
New tech is gonna have to wait - blew that budget on the new monitor I
had to buy since one of mine died, and that was well under $200.
As for ripping discs, I have been using MakeMKV for years. >https://www.makemkv.com/download/ No player should be needed to rip the >discs and I've found VLC Media Player handles the files just fine. All
this on a Win10 machine that doesn't have the hardware to go to Win11
(which I have no intention to ever willingly "upgrade" to.)
On 01/06/2025 17:29, Xocyll wrote:
Get released from hospital after 3 months, with a bunchy of new
prescriptions which totaled over $900 for a 1 month supply.
Feck me, how much. I'm not saying how much my pre-paid certificate (I
got it after having another couple of prescriptions added for
osteoporosis) costs for a year.
I understand the argument about everyone pays for it indirectly but it's
not as though medication is some sort of optional cost like Netflix.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 6/1/2025 9:29 AM, Xocyll wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading theOuch, and sympathies.
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 08:34:15 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The >>>>> Augury is good, the signs say:
Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote at 09:22 this Wednesday (GMT):
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the >>>>>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>>>> say:
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine, >>>>>>>> I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >>>>>>>> DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference >>>>>>>> between HD and 4K.
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the >>>>>>>>> vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD >>>>>>>>> resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam >>>>>>>>> still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even >>>>>>>>> use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary >>>>>>>>> focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger >>>>>>>>> market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no >>>>>>> difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration. >>>>>>>
Maybe if I had one of those huge-ass TVs I'd see a difference, but the >>>>>>> 39" I have, you see none.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of >>>>>>> a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, >>>>>>> Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Same, I prefer DVD just bc it is a massive hassle to set up the Bluray >>>>>> decryption stuff on a machine, and I literally couldn't care less about >>>>>> the quality increase.
Ahh I don't bother, I just play both disc types in a combo dvd/blueray >>>>> player that is hooked to the TV.
I dislike the menus in blueray, cause they stay open for several seconds >>>>> after you unpause, blocking the screen, dvd menus vanish instantly.
Any discs I get are immediately ripped to HDD and then shoved in the
closet with the other ten-million DVDs. I have no time for searching
for the disks, fiddling with the player to open its door, putting the
disk in, waiting for it to spin up, being forced to watch the
inevitable logos and "you wouldn't steal a car" bullshit, navigating
menus, watching more trailers and then realizing I didn't want to
actually watch THIS movie but the other one, so I have to repeat the
whole process.
Rip once, double-click movie file, watch. That's the life.
Maybe I'll do that eventually, but it's a bit of a hassle, since some of >>> the movies are on blue-ray and I don't think either computer players
support anything but cd/dvd.
That and it would have to be done on the older and slower machine with
the faster internal dvd players, vs the fast new system with an external >>> and therefore slow-as-hell dvd player.
Plus I'll need to buy a new 5TB external HD to stick them all on, and
money is kinda tight right now, what with the new meds.
Get released from hospital after 3 months, with a bunchy of new
prescriptions which totaled over $900 for a 1 month supply.
New tech is gonna have to wait - blew that budget on the new monitor I
had to buy since one of mine died, and that was well under $200.
As for ripping discs, I have been using MakeMKV for years.
https://www.makemkv.com/download/ No player should be needed to rip the
discs and I've found VLC Media Player handles the files just fine. All
this on a Win10 machine that doesn't have the hardware to go to Win11
(which I have no intention to ever willingly "upgrade" to.)
Been using VLC for ages. I dislike .mkv as a format - not supported
by various dvd players, like some won't read .avi - every one supports
.mp4 though so that's the format I use for most stuff.
The point of the external HD is I have a 2TB one and it plugs into the
USB jack on the dvd/blue-ray player just dandy.
That USB jack won't take a USB stick over 32GB, but accesses a 2TB HD
just fine, which means I can watch recorded TV shows and ripped stuff on
the 39" TV instead of a 27" monitor and use a more comfortable chair.
Or indeed spin the stand 90 degrees and watch from bed.
On 6/2/2025 4:56 AM, Xocyll wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading theThere are a number of MKV to MP4 converters out there. *shrug* But I
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 6/1/2025 9:29 AM, Xocyll wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signsOuch, and sympathies.
say:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 08:34:15 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> >>>>>> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The >>>>>> Augury is good, the signs say:Any discs I get are immediately ripped to HDD and then shoved in the >>>>> closet with the other ten-million DVDs. I have no time for searching >>>>> for the disks, fiddling with the player to open its door, putting the >>>>> disk in, waiting for it to spin up, being forced to watch the
Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote at 09:22 this Wednesday (GMT):
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the >>>>>>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>>>>> say:Same, I prefer DVD just bc it is a massive hassle to set up the Bluray >>>>>>> decryption stuff on a machine, and I literally couldn't care less about >>>>>>> the quality increase.
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine, >>>>>>>>> I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >>>>>>>>> DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference >>>>>>>>> between HD and 4K.
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even >>>>>>>>>> use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger >>>>>>>>>> market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no >>>>>>>> difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration. >>>>>>>>
Maybe if I had one of those huge-ass TVs I'd see a difference, but the >>>>>>>> 39" I have, you see none.
Ahh I don't bother, I just play both disc types in a combo dvd/blueray >>>>>> player that is hooked to the TV.
I dislike the menus in blueray, cause they stay open for several seconds >>>>>> after you unpause, blocking the screen, dvd menus vanish instantly. >>>>>
inevitable logos and "you wouldn't steal a car" bullshit, navigating >>>>> menus, watching more trailers and then realizing I didn't want to
actually watch THIS movie but the other one, so I have to repeat the >>>>> whole process.
Rip once, double-click movie file, watch. That's the life.
Maybe I'll do that eventually, but it's a bit of a hassle, since some of >>>> the movies are on blue-ray and I don't think either computer players
support anything but cd/dvd.
That and it would have to be done on the older and slower machine with >>>> the faster internal dvd players, vs the fast new system with an external >>>> and therefore slow-as-hell dvd player.
Plus I'll need to buy a new 5TB external HD to stick them all on, and
money is kinda tight right now, what with the new meds.
Get released from hospital after 3 months, with a bunchy of new
prescriptions which totaled over $900 for a 1 month supply.
New tech is gonna have to wait - blew that budget on the new monitor I >>>> had to buy since one of mine died, and that was well under $200.
As for ripping discs, I have been using MakeMKV for years.
https://www.makemkv.com/download/ No player should be needed to rip the >>> discs and I've found VLC Media Player handles the files just fine. All
this on a Win10 machine that doesn't have the hardware to go to Win11
(which I have no intention to ever willingly "upgrade" to.)
Been using VLC for ages. I dislike .mkv as a format - not supported
by various dvd players, like some won't read .avi - every one supports
.mp4 though so that's the format I use for most stuff.
The point of the external HD is I have a 2TB one and it plugs into the
USB jack on the dvd/blue-ray player just dandy.
That USB jack won't take a USB stick over 32GB, but accesses a 2TB HD
just fine, which means I can watch recorded TV shows and ripped stuff on
the 39" TV instead of a 27" monitor and use a more comfortable chair.
Or indeed spin the stand 90 degrees and watch from bed.
do find it strange that your player will read a 2TB HD but not a smaller
USB stick.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 6/2/2025 4:56 AM, Xocyll wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading theThere are a number of MKV to MP4 converters out there. *shrug* But I
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 6/1/2025 9:29 AM, Xocyll wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >>>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>> say:Ouch, and sympathies.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 08:34:15 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> >>>>>>> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The >>>>>>> Augury is good, the signs say:Any discs I get are immediately ripped to HDD and then shoved in the >>>>>> closet with the other ten-million DVDs. I have no time for searching >>>>>> for the disks, fiddling with the player to open its door, putting the >>>>>> disk in, waiting for it to spin up, being forced to watch the
Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote at 09:22 this Wednesday (GMT):
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the >>>>>>>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>>>>>> say:Same, I prefer DVD just bc it is a massive hassle to set up the Bluray >>>>>>>> decryption stuff on a machine, and I literally couldn't care less about
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine,
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even >>>>>>>>>>> use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger >>>>>>>>>>> market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >>>>>>>>>> DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference >>>>>>>>>> between HD and 4K.
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no
difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration. >>>>>>>>>
Maybe if I had one of those huge-ass TVs I'd see a difference, but the
39" I have, you see none.
the quality increase.
Ahh I don't bother, I just play both disc types in a combo dvd/blueray >>>>>>> player that is hooked to the TV.
I dislike the menus in blueray, cause they stay open for several seconds
after you unpause, blocking the screen, dvd menus vanish instantly. >>>>>>
inevitable logos and "you wouldn't steal a car" bullshit, navigating >>>>>> menus, watching more trailers and then realizing I didn't want to
actually watch THIS movie but the other one, so I have to repeat the >>>>>> whole process.
Rip once, double-click movie file, watch. That's the life.
Maybe I'll do that eventually, but it's a bit of a hassle, since some of >>>>> the movies are on blue-ray and I don't think either computer players >>>>> support anything but cd/dvd.
That and it would have to be done on the older and slower machine with >>>>> the faster internal dvd players, vs the fast new system with an external >>>>> and therefore slow-as-hell dvd player.
Plus I'll need to buy a new 5TB external HD to stick them all on, and >>>>> money is kinda tight right now, what with the new meds.
Get released from hospital after 3 months, with a bunchy of new
prescriptions which totaled over $900 for a 1 month supply.
New tech is gonna have to wait - blew that budget on the new monitor I >>>>> had to buy since one of mine died, and that was well under $200.
As for ripping discs, I have been using MakeMKV for years.
https://www.makemkv.com/download/ No player should be needed to rip the >>>> discs and I've found VLC Media Player handles the files just fine. All >>>> this on a Win10 machine that doesn't have the hardware to go to Win11
(which I have no intention to ever willingly "upgrade" to.)
Been using VLC for ages. I dislike .mkv as a format - not supported
by various dvd players, like some won't read .avi - every one supports
.mp4 though so that's the format I use for most stuff.
The point of the external HD is I have a 2TB one and it plugs into the
USB jack on the dvd/blue-ray player just dandy.
That USB jack won't take a USB stick over 32GB, but accesses a 2TB HD
just fine, which means I can watch recorded TV shows and ripped stuff on >>> the 39" TV instead of a 27" monitor and use a more comfortable chair.
Or indeed spin the stand 90 degrees and watch from bed.
do find it strange that your player will read a 2TB HD but not a smaller >>USB stick.
I'm guessing it's some formatting thing - I bought a 1TB USB stick then
found the player could not read it. A quick google showed that it could
only read up to 32GB on a stick.
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 11:51:12 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,<snip>
Xocyll wrote:
I'm guessing it's some formatting thing - I bought a 1TB USB stick then >>found the player could not read it. A quick google showed that it could >>only read up to 32GB on a stick.Larger sticks default to EX-FAT instead of FAT32, when it is possible to >format them as FAT32. They come that way, and Microsoft's format program >won't even give you the option of FAT32 at larger sizes.
Any partition edit program or 3rd party formatter, however, will let you
do this.
I bet it's EX-FAT.
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 11:52:01 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Larger sticks default to EX-FAT instead of FAT32, when it is possible to >>format them as FAT32. They come that way, and Microsoft's format program >>won't even give you the option of FAT32 at larger sizes.
Heheh. I bounced against this one hard when trying to update my
Windows98 computer to add a 300GB hard-drive. I'd remembered about
BIOS and FDISK limitations, but forgot that even on modern machines,
FORMAT wouldn't do more than a 32GB FAT32 drive.
(and EX-FAT isn't really a viable option for Windows98; there is a 3rd
party driver, but its not really ready-for-market yet)
The limitation in Microsoft's format program is artificial; the
programmer had to pick /some/ limit and -at the time- 32GB seemed so >impossibly huge that it didn't seem to matter. Microsoft never updated
the program ... probably in part because they wanted to push people to
NTFS (less for control --since unlike FAT, NTFS isn't patented-- but
because FAT is such a primative and fault-intolerant file-system they
wanted people to stop using it ASAP to make Windows look less terrible
:-)
Any partition edit program or 3rd party formatter, however, will let you
do this.
Although it probably won't matter as much with a hard-drive mostly
used for movies and such, cluster-sizes for FAT32 drives past 32GB
becomes problematic too. If your device is -as I believe you
indicated- cable of reading a 2TB HDD, then it probably supports EXFAT
(or possibly other file systems as well). So just format your 1TB
stick with the appropriate file-system (e.g., not FAT32) so you get
full capacity (931gB) and you should be good to go. Even Windows will
manage that ;-)
(I'm pretty sure if it were up to my mother, she'd have had me watchOr been like my parents who bought into the whole "TV makes you stupid"
TV from the other room. I wonder where the 'you'd go blind' rumor
start anyway?)
thing and allowed us 1 hour of TV ... a week.
Star Trek on Saturday afternoon of course.
2pm if I recall correctly, which I likely don't since it was 50+ years
ago.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 10:13:31 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Plus, you'll go blind if you sit so close to the screen. Didn't you
mother teach you anything? ;-)
I was told that by my mother too.
Plus:
If you pick your nose your head will cave in.
If you play with your belly button your bum will fall off.
There's probably more.
Me and my siblings believed all of them too.
Any discs I get are immediately ripped to HDD and then shoved in the
closet with the other ten-million DVDs. I have no time for searching
for the disks, fiddling with the player to open its door, putting the
disk in, waiting for it to spin up, being forced to watch the
inevitable logos and "you wouldn't steal a car" bullshit, navigating
menus, watching more trailers and then realizing I didn't want to
actually watch THIS movie but the other one, so I have to repeat the
whole process.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 14:36:08 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 14:17:22 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Ah, been decades since I read that - 45 years maybe.
I read it in high school. Not quite as long as 45 years ago.. but long
enough ago.
About ten or fifteen for me. I tend to go through a "dystopia" phase
every now and then --every eight to twelve years-- and re-read a lot
of the old classics (as well as new ones); "Fahrenheit 451", "1984",
"Brave New World", "Handmaid's Tale", "Cyberpunk", "Clockwork Orange",
"Saga of the Nine", "Children of Men", "The Man in High Castle"...
Come to think of it, I'm probably due for a dystopian revival. Maybe
after I finish reading all of Alistair Reynolds books.
On 01/06/2025 15:16, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Any discs I get are immediately ripped to HDD and then shoved in the
closet with the other ten-million DVDs. I have no time for searching
for the disks, fiddling with the player to open its door, putting the
disk in, waiting for it to spin up, being forced to watch the
inevitable logos and "you wouldn't steal a car" bullshit, navigating
menus, watching more trailers and then realizing I didn't want to
actually watch THIS movie but the other one, so I have to repeat the
whole process.
It's pretty rare that we buy DVD's as it's only films/TV series that we
want to actually own. If it comes to a choice between watching it on
demand or DVD, the DVD wins out as I just like having the physical media
and the 'ritual' of playing a DVD instead of just pressing a couple of >buttons.
On 01/06/2025 17:23, Xocyll wrote:
(I'm pretty sure if it were up to my mother, she'd have had me watchOr been like my parents who bought into the whole "TV makes you stupid"
TV from the other room. I wonder where the 'you'd go blind' rumor
start anyway?)
thing and allowed us 1 hour of TV ... a week.
Star Trek on Saturday afternoon of course.
2pm if I recall correctly, which I likely don't since it was 50+ years
ago.
I've always found that a weird argument as it really depends on what you >watch. I remember being fascinated watching Life on Earth with David >Attenborough, that's was pretty educational for a ten year old.
The strange thing is there isn't that same stigma about books even
though there are lots of books which are complete trash. You get the
same thing with watching 'too much' TV but being a bookworm is
considered a positive.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 14:17:22 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Ah, been decades since I read that - 45 years maybe.
I read it in high school. Not quite as long as 45 years ago.. but long
enough ago.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 12:18:53 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn >>spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 01/06/2025 15:13, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Plus, you'll go blind if you sit so close to the screen. Didn't you
mother teach you anything? ?
I thought that was bashing the bishop?
No that's supposed to leave you with hairy palms (not the tree.)
We're not talking chess here, are we?
On 6/1/2025 9:29 AM, Xocyll wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading theOuch, and sympathies.
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 08:34:15 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The >>>> Augury is good, the signs say:
Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote at 09:22 this Wednesday (GMT):
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the >>>>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>>> say:
On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such. HD is just fine, >>>>>>> I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my >>>>>>> DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs. Most people can't even see a difference >>>>>>> between HD and 4K.
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the >>>>>>>> vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD >>>>>>>> resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam >>>>>>>> still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even >>>>>>>> use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary >>>>>>>> focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger >>>>>>>> market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no >>>>>> difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
Maybe if I had one of those huge-ass TVs I'd see a difference, but the >>>>>> 39" I have, you see none.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Same, I prefer DVD just bc it is a massive hassle to set up the Bluray >>>>> decryption stuff on a machine, and I literally couldn't care less about >>>>> the quality increase.
Ahh I don't bother, I just play both disc types in a combo dvd/blueray >>>> player that is hooked to the TV.
I dislike the menus in blueray, cause they stay open for several seconds >>>> after you unpause, blocking the screen, dvd menus vanish instantly.
Any discs I get are immediately ripped to HDD and then shoved in the
closet with the other ten-million DVDs. I have no time for searching
for the disks, fiddling with the player to open its door, putting the
disk in, waiting for it to spin up, being forced to watch the
inevitable logos and "you wouldn't steal a car" bullshit, navigating
menus, watching more trailers and then realizing I didn't want to
actually watch THIS movie but the other one, so I have to repeat the
whole process.
Rip once, double-click movie file, watch. That's the life.
Maybe I'll do that eventually, but it's a bit of a hassle, since some of
the movies are on blue-ray and I don't think either computer players
support anything but cd/dvd.
That and it would have to be done on the older and slower machine with
the faster internal dvd players, vs the fast new system with an external
and therefore slow-as-hell dvd player.
Plus I'll need to buy a new 5TB external HD to stick them all on, and
money is kinda tight right now, what with the new meds.
Get released from hospital after 3 months, with a bunchy of new
prescriptions which totaled over $900 for a 1 month supply.
New tech is gonna have to wait - blew that budget on the new monitor I
had to buy since one of mine died, and that was well under $200.
As for ripping discs, I have been using MakeMKV for years. https://www.makemkv.com/download/ No player should be needed to rip the discs and I've found VLC Media Player handles the files just fine. All
this on a Win10 machine that doesn't have the hardware to go to Win11
(which I have no intention to ever willingly "upgrade" to.)
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 11:51:12 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,<snip>
Xocyll wrote:
I'm guessing it's some formatting thing - I bought a 1TB USB stick then >>>found the player could not read it. A quick google showed that it could >>>only read up to 32GB on a stick.Larger sticks default to EX-FAT instead of FAT32, when it is possible to >>format them as FAT32. They come that way, and Microsoft's format program >>won't even give you the option of FAT32 at larger sizes.
Any partition edit program or 3rd party formatter, however, will let you
do this.
I bet it's EX-FAT.
Stuck the stick in the computer usb slot and it is indeed exFAT.
I think I will now refer to them as Ozempic format.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
On 01/06/2025 17:23, Xocyll wrote:
(I'm pretty sure if it were up to my mother, she'd have had me watchOr been like my parents who bought into the whole "TV makes you stupid"
TV from the other room. I wonder where the 'you'd go blind' rumor
start anyway?)
thing and allowed us 1 hour of TV ... a week.
Star Trek on Saturday afternoon of course.
2pm if I recall correctly, which I likely don't since it was 50+ years
ago.
I've always found that a weird argument as it really depends on what you watch. I remember being fascinated watching Life on Earth with David Attenborough, that's was pretty educational for a ten year old.
The strange thing is there isn't that same stigma about books even
though there are lots of books which are complete trash. You get the
same thing with watching 'too much' TV but being a bookworm is
considered a positive.
The strange thing is there isn't that same stigma about books even
though there are lots of books which are complete trash. You get the
same thing with watching 'too much' TV but being a bookworm is
considered a positive.
Books at least require you to be able to read, and stimulate the
imagination.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:23 this Sunday (GMT): >> On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 12:18:53 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn >>>spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 01/06/2025 15:13, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Plus, you'll go blind if you sit so close to the screen. Didn't you
mother teach you anything? ?
I thought that was bashing the bishop?
No that's supposed to leave you with hairy palms (not the tree.)
We're not talking chess here, are we?
Bishop to B9
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn >spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 01/06/2025 17:23, Xocyll wrote:
(I'm pretty sure if it were up to my mother, she'd have had me watchOr been like my parents who bought into the whole "TV makes you stupid"
TV from the other room. I wonder where the 'you'd go blind' rumor
start anyway?)
thing and allowed us 1 hour of TV ... a week.
Star Trek on Saturday afternoon of course.
2pm if I recall correctly, which I likely don't since it was 50+ years
ago.
I've always found that a weird argument as it really depends on what you >>watch. I remember being fascinated watching Life on Earth with David >>Attenborough, that's was pretty educational for a ten year old.
It was the 70s (barely) and TV was a wasteland of stupidity.
The strange thing is there isn't that same stigma about books even
though there are lots of books which are complete trash. You get the
same thing with watching 'too much' TV but being a bookworm is
considered a positive.
Books at least require you to be able to read, and stimulate the
imagination.
Mike S <Mike_S@nowhere.com> wrote at 18:36 this Friday (GMT):
On Fri, 30 May 2025 14:17:22 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Ah, been decades since I read that - 45 years maybe.
I read it in high school. Not quite as long as 45 years ago.. but long
enough ago.
Is the book that old?
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 11:52:01 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Larger sticks default to EX-FAT instead of FAT32, when it is possible to >>>format them as FAT32. They come that way, and Microsoft's format program >>>won't even give you the option of FAT32 at larger sizes.
Heheh. I bounced against this one hard when trying to update my
Windows98 computer to add a 300GB hard-drive. I'd remembered about
BIOS and FDISK limitations, but forgot that even on modern machines,
FORMAT wouldn't do more than a 32GB FAT32 drive.
(and EX-FAT isn't really a viable option for Windows98; there is a 3rd >>party driver, but its not really ready-for-market yet)
The limitation in Microsoft's format program is artificial; the
programmer had to pick /some/ limit and -at the time- 32GB seemed so >>impossibly huge that it didn't seem to matter. Microsoft never updated
the program ... probably in part because they wanted to push people to
NTFS (less for control --since unlike FAT, NTFS isn't patented-- but >>because FAT is such a primative and fault-intolerant file-system they >>wanted people to stop using it ASAP to make Windows look less terrible
:-)
Making MS Windows users change file systems to make windows look less
bad, is a bit like forcing Yugo drivers to change the brand of tires
they use to make the car less horrible.
Any partition edit program or 3rd party formatter, however, will let you >>>do this.
Although it probably won't matter as much with a hard-drive mostly
used for movies and such, cluster-sizes for FAT32 drives past 32GB
becomes problematic too. If your device is -as I believe you
indicated- cable of reading a 2TB HDD, then it probably supports EXFAT
(or possibly other file systems as well). So just format your 1TB
stick with the appropriate file-system (e.g., not FAT32) so you get
full capacity (931gB) and you should be good to go. Even Windows will >>manage that ;-)
The device is a DVD/Blueray player.
The 1TB stick is exFAT and it cannot see it.
The 2TB external USB jack HDD is formatted NTFS.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:38:39 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure I'd recommend a Creative card, though. I suspect my
current issue is with the card itself, and not some Windows thing. I
had a similar problem with another Soundblaster; it just stopped
outputting from one of its ports (fortunately, my motherboard on that >>computer supported 5.1 so it wasn't really an issue). I think there
are some real issues with the quality of the components on Creative's >>offerings.
Update:
Fortunately, it turns out to be 'just some Windows thing', in that it
was software that caused the problem and not a hardware failure. It
turns out there are /at least/ three places you have to enable 5.1
speakers to get it to work in a game:
1) in the Soundblaster driver software app
2) in the Windows "sound settings" applet
3) in the game itself.
I'd configured the latter two, but had forgotten the first even
existed, and for some reason it had toggled itself to 2.1 mode for
some reason.
Computers. Go figure.
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 12:13:12 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:50:10 -0000 (UTC), in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, >>candycanearter07 wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:23 this Sunday (GMT):
We're not talking chess here, are we?
Bishop to B9
King-side Bishop to 69.
<looks at cards> "Do you have any threes?"
On 04/06/2025 11:09, Xocyll wrote:
The strange thing is there isn't that same stigma about books even
though there are lots of books which are complete trash. You get the
same thing with watching 'too much' TV but being a bookworm is
considered a positive.
Books at least require you to be able to read, and stimulate the
imagination.
Have you ever read a Barbara Cartland novel?
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 06:09:22 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn >>spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:Apparently, you've never heard of "head canon." It's impossible *not* to >stimulate some imaginations.
On 01/06/2025 17:23, Xocyll wrote:
(I'm pretty sure if it were up to my mother, she'd have had me watch >>>>> TV from the other room. I wonder where the 'you'd go blind' rumorOr been like my parents who bought into the whole "TV makes you stupid" >>>> thing and allowed us 1 hour of TV ... a week.
start anyway?)
Star Trek on Saturday afternoon of course.
2pm if I recall correctly, which I likely don't since it was 50+ years >>>> ago.
I've always found that a weird argument as it really depends on what you >>>watch. I remember being fascinated watching Life on Earth with David >>>Attenborough, that's was pretty educational for a ten year old.
It was the 70s (barely) and TV was a wasteland of stupidity.
The strange thing is there isn't that same stigma about books even
though there are lots of books which are complete trash. You get the
same thing with watching 'too much' TV but being a bookworm is
considered a positive.
Books at least require you to be able to read, and stimulate the >>imagination.
As for ripping discs, I have been using MakeMKV for years.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
As for ripping discs, I have been using MakeMKV for years.
Just last night I remembered why I dislike .mkv format
I tried fast forwarding though one (on the HDD, via the dvd player) and
it could only go up to 3x speed (3 arrows), vs the 6 arrows an mp4 will
go at, and it seems like a logarithmic progression in the speeds.
So to get an hour plus to a specific spot in the movie if it's and mp4
takes 2-3 mins maybe but mkv takes 20 or more.
No Thanks!
It's the main criticism of many people when their favorite book/series
is turned into movie(s)/TV series, that the cast does not look like they >imagined them to look when they read the book(s).
Apparently, you've never heard of "head canon." It's impossible*not* toFar from it, that's exactly the point.
stimulate some imaginations.
It's the main criticism of many people when their favorite book/series
is turned into movie(s)/TV series, that the cast does not look like they imagined them to look when they read the book(s).
When the movie or TV is the original, you don't run into that, you are presented with a fait accompli of the casting director/script writer/producer/directors idea of what they should look like.
Some people might want to mentally re-cast the show to suit their own preferences, but most just accept what they're given (unless an
actor/actress is terrible at acting and practically forces them to
imagine someone competent in the role.)
On 04/06/2025 21:12, Xocyll wrote:
Apparently, you've never heard of "head canon." It's impossible*not* toFar from it, that's exactly the point.
stimulate some imaginations.
It's the main criticism of many people when their favorite book/series
is turned into movie(s)/TV series, that the cast does not look like they
imagined them to look when they read the book(s).
When the movie or TV is the original, you don't run into that, you are
presented with a fait accompli of the casting director/script
writer/producer/directors idea of what they should look like.
Some people might want to mentally re-cast the show to suit their own
preferences, but most just accept what they're given (unless an
actor/actress is terrible at acting and practically forces them to
imagine someone competent in the role.)
I think there's also the problem when they the sort of stick to the book
but not really. Where it does work for me is at one end Good Omens, very
much to the book, and at the other end Bladerunner which just uses the >themes.
The other problem I have is if I've watched the film/TV series then when
I read the book the characters voices get into my reading.
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:12:27 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
It's the main criticism of many people when their favorite book/series
is turned into movie(s)/TV series, that the cast does not look like they >>imagined them to look when they read the book(s).
My most jarring experience of this was years ago when I finally got
around to reading Salem's Lot. Just after I'd finished it the mini TV
series of the book (starring David Soul) came on to TV in the UK.
David Soul? I could not think of anyone so far removed from the
character that I had built up in my mind whilst reading the novel.
Yuck!
On 6/4/2025 1:21 PM, Xocyll wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading theAs I said, there are multiple mkv->mp4 converters out there.
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
As for ripping discs, I have been using MakeMKV for years.
Just last night I remembered why I dislike .mkv format
I tried fast forwarding though one (on the HDD, via the dvd player) and
it could only go up to 3x speed (3 arrows), vs the 6 arrows an mp4 will
go at, and it seems like a logarithmic progression in the speeds.
So to get an hour plus to a specific spot in the movie if it's and mp4
takes 2-3 mins maybe but mkv takes 20 or more.
No Thanks!
The other problem I have is if I've watched the film/TV series then whenYeah I've had that too.
I read the book the characters voices get into my reading.
All about which you encountered first I guess.
The strange thing is there isn't that same stigma about books even
though there are lots of books which are complete trash. You get the
same thing with watching 'too much' TV but being a bookworm is
considered a positive.
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 04/06/2025 21:12, Xocyll wrote:
Apparently, you've never heard of "head canon." It's impossible*not* to >>>> stimulate some imaginations.Far from it, that's exactly the point.
It's the main criticism of many people when their favorite book/series
is turned into movie(s)/TV series, that the cast does not look like they >>> imagined them to look when they read the book(s).
When the movie or TV is the original, you don't run into that, you are
presented with a fait accompli of the casting director/script
writer/producer/directors idea of what they should look like.
Some people might want to mentally re-cast the show to suit their own
preferences, but most just accept what they're given (unless an
actor/actress is terrible at acting and practically forces them to
imagine someone competent in the role.)
I think there's also the problem when they the sort of stick to the book
but not really. Where it does work for me is at one end Good Omens, very
much to the book, and at the other end Bladerunner which just uses the
themes.
Yeah all too much of "Hollywood" (and I use that term to refer to the
entire world-wide movie and TV industry) feel the need to option a best selling book, and then fuck with it, removing scenes and making up their
own.
The other problem I have is if I've watched the film/TV series then when
I read the book the characters voices get into my reading.
Yeah I've had that too.
All about which you encountered first I guess.
It's like when you hear a good cover version of a song before you hear
the original artist's version, and the original just sounds wrong.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 6/4/2025 1:21 PM, Xocyll wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading theAs I said, there are multiple mkv->mp4 converters out there.
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
As for ripping discs, I have been using MakeMKV for years.
Just last night I remembered why I dislike .mkv format
I tried fast forwarding though one (on the HDD, via the dvd player) and
it could only go up to 3x speed (3 arrows), vs the 6 arrows an mp4 will
go at, and it seems like a logarithmic progression in the speeds.
So to get an hour plus to a specific spot in the movie if it's and mp4
takes 2-3 mins maybe but mkv takes 20 or more.
No Thanks!
Oh I know, I have one. I just can't see where I would want to
deliberately rip to .mkv format only to then have to convert it
afterwards when I could just rip to .mp4 in the first place.
Why generate more work for myself to no gain?
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:12:27 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
It's the main criticism of many people when their favorite book/series
is turned into movie(s)/TV series, that the cast does not look like they >>imagined them to look when they read the book(s).
My most jarring experience of this was years ago when I finally got
around to reading Salem's Lot. Just after I'd finished it the mini TV
series of the book (starring David Soul) came on to TV in the UK.
David Soul? I could not think of anyone so far removed from the
character that I had built up in my mind whilst reading the novel.
Yuck!
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 08:02:30 +0100, Mr Rob
<noemailformethx@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:12:27 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
It's the main criticism of many people when their favorite book/series
is turned into movie(s)/TV series, that the cast does not look like they >>>imagined them to look when they read the book(s).
My most jarring experience of this was years ago when I finally got
around to reading Salem's Lot. Just after I'd finished it the mini TV >>series of the book (starring David Soul) came on to TV in the UK.
David Soul? I could not think of anyone so far removed from the
character that I had built up in my mind whilst reading the novel.
Yuck!
There has only ever been one actor that can be put convincingly in any
role, but maybe they couldn't afford Don Knotts. :)
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:21:58 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote: >>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the >>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
Just last night I remembered why I dislike .mkv format
I tried fast forwarding though one (on the HDD, via the dvd player) and
it could only go up to 3x speed (3 arrows), vs the 6 arrows an mp4 will
go at, and it seems like a logarithmic progression in the speeds.
So to get an hour plus to a specific spot in the movie if it's and mp4 >>takes 2-3 mins maybe but mkv takes 20 or more.
To be fair, that's probably a limitation of the DVD's software and not
the format itself. You can scan through MKV as fast as any other
format (VLC let's me FFWD up to 64x in normal increments, then jumps
to 72x, 77,5x and beyond in weird little jumps. Possibly a limitation
of the network bandwidth?)
On 6/5/2025 4:50 AM, Xocyll wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the pornThe problem here is EGO. The entire industry is full of people who are >convinced that they can "improve" any pre-existing story. And most of
spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 04/06/2025 21:12, Xocyll wrote:
Apparently, you've never heard of "head canon." It's impossible*not* to >>>>> stimulate some imaginations.Far from it, that's exactly the point.
It's the main criticism of many people when their favorite book/series >>>> is turned into movie(s)/TV series, that the cast does not look like they >>>> imagined them to look when they read the book(s).
When the movie or TV is the original, you don't run into that, you are >>>> presented with a fait accompli of the casting director/script
writer/producer/directors idea of what they should look like.
Some people might want to mentally re-cast the show to suit their own
preferences, but most just accept what they're given (unless an
actor/actress is terrible at acting and practically forces them to
imagine someone competent in the role.)
I think there's also the problem when they the sort of stick to the book >>> but not really. Where it does work for me is at one end Good Omens, very >>> much to the book, and at the other end Bladerunner which just uses the
themes.
Yeah all too much of "Hollywood" (and I use that term to refer to the
entire world-wide movie and TV industry) feel the need to option a best
selling book, and then fuck with it, removing scenes and making up their
own.
them can't write a decent original story to save their lives.
Bob Dylan has been quoted as saying that he didn't know he was writing aThe other problem I have is if I've watched the film/TV series then when >>> I read the book the characters voices get into my reading.
Yeah I've had that too.
All about which you encountered first I guess.
It's like when you hear a good cover version of a song before you hear
the original artist's version, and the original just sounds wrong.
Jimi Hendrix song when he wrote 'All Along the Watchtower'. ;)
On 6/5/2025 4:55 AM, Xocyll wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading theAh, I missed that you are able to rip directly to mp4. Apologies.
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 6/4/2025 1:21 PM, Xocyll wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading theAs I said, there are multiple mkv->mp4 converters out there.
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
As for ripping discs, I have been using MakeMKV for years.
Just last night I remembered why I dislike .mkv format
I tried fast forwarding though one (on the HDD, via the dvd player) and >>>> it could only go up to 3x speed (3 arrows), vs the 6 arrows an mp4 will >>>> go at, and it seems like a logarithmic progression in the speeds.
So to get an hour plus to a specific spot in the movie if it's and mp4 >>>> takes 2-3 mins maybe but mkv takes 20 or more.
No Thanks!
Oh I know, I have one. I just can't see where I would want to
deliberately rip to .mkv format only to then have to convert it
afterwards when I could just rip to .mp4 in the first place.
Why generate more work for myself to no gain?
On 05/06/2025 12:50, Xocyll wrote:
The other problem I have is if I've watched the film/TV series then when >>> I read the book the characters voices get into my reading.Yeah I've had that too.
All about which you encountered first I guess.
I read Good Omens when it first came out many years ago then I watched
the TV series (surprisingly good I must say unlike that abomination
which is Dirk Gentley) then I decided to reread it again.
Now it's Michael Sheen and David Tennant. Saying that I do now like
reading in the 'accent' of Death in Disc World novels as it fits with my >version of him/she/them.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:21:58 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote: >>>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the >>>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>say:
Just last night I remembered why I dislike .mkv format
I tried fast forwarding though one (on the HDD, via the dvd player) and >>>it could only go up to 3x speed (3 arrows), vs the 6 arrows an mp4 will >>>go at, and it seems like a logarithmic progression in the speeds.
So to get an hour plus to a specific spot in the movie if it's and mp4 >>>takes 2-3 mins maybe but mkv takes 20 or more.
To be fair, that's probably a limitation of the DVD's software and not
the format itself. You can scan through MKV as fast as any other
format (VLC let's me FFWD up to 64x in normal increments, then jumps
to 72x, 77,5x and beyond in weird little jumps. Possibly a limitation
of the network bandwidth?)
Except it's not network, it's a usb connection directly to the dvd
player (not a dvd drive connected to a computer, a regular
connects-to-the-TV player,) and it can fast forward at much higher
speeds for other formats, it's only mkv that's slow as hell - from the
exact same source.
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 13:26:38 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signsThere are lots of possibilities here. Old player with bad software. Media >encoding. etc. But what's least likely, imo, is the container: mkv. I
say:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:21:58 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the >>>>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>say:
Just last night I remembered why I dislike .mkv format
I tried fast forwarding though one (on the HDD, via the dvd player) and >>>>it could only go up to 3x speed (3 arrows), vs the 6 arrows an mp4 will >>>>go at, and it seems like a logarithmic progression in the speeds.
So to get an hour plus to a specific spot in the movie if it's and mp4 >>>>takes 2-3 mins maybe but mkv takes 20 or more.
To be fair, that's probably a limitation of the DVD's software and not >>>the format itself. You can scan through MKV as fast as any other
format (VLC let's me FFWD up to 64x in normal increments, then jumps
to 72x, 77,5x and beyond in weird little jumps. Possibly a limitation
of the network bandwidth?)
Except it's not network, it's a usb connection directly to the dvd
player (not a dvd drive connected to a computer, a regular >>connects-to-the-TV player,) and it can fast forward at much higher
speeds for other formats, it's only mkv that's slow as hell - from the >>exact same source.
think you may be badmouthing the messenger instead of the culprit.
In a typical mp4, H.264 (AVC) and mp3 (or rarely AAC) are "what's
inside." mkv and mp4 are just the containers. It *should* be trivial for
any player to extract the data streams from any container. Encodes are a >whole other story, though. That's where things break down.
First off, strictly speaking, the container is an unlikely but possible >problem. mp4 was widely adopted in the early 2000s, but not mkv. It's
like VHS versus Beta. An older DVD player might have a poorly written or >outdated mkv unpack library. But my LG TV (2016), for instance, unpacks
mkv as well as mp4, and it's streaming over wifi from a media server. No >difference. The software on that TV is pretty shit, so I'd be surprised
if it was the package format itself.
But one thing about mkv is the packagers that created them tend to prefer
the bleeding edge in encoders. So it's possibly the encode formats. For >instance: H.265 video (HEVC, the default on phones now) or AAC audio.
HEVC is from 2013.
All sorts of things have had trouble processing HEVC, including Windows,
and if you convert such an mkv to mp4, it would likely have transcoded to
AVC (H.264). My best guess is that you went from HEVC (bleeding edge) to
AVC when the file converted, and that your player sucks at HEVC.
There are some quality improvements with HEVC that matter to >video/audiophiles. So they use it, but I still had to download HEVC >extensions for Windows 11. It's still not standard (or it's an encumbered >IP). Everything comes with AVC decoders, otoh.
My Samsung phone lists H.264 as "more compatible," but if you choose it
as the default, it grays out all sorts of options and warns me that I'm >taking crappy video.
I can't tell the freaking difference, personally.
HEVC has, for instance, HDR-10 options. DVD players do not deal in HDR, >afaik. It's the mostly likely culprit, imo.
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 13:17:17 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 12:13:12 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>"Go fish"
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:50:10 -0000 (UTC), in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, >>>candycanearter07 wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:23 this Sunday (GMT):
We're not talking chess here, are we?
Bishop to B9
King-side Bishop to 69.
<looks at cards> "Do you have any threes?"
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 6/5/2025 4:55 AM, Xocyll wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading theAh, I missed that you are able to rip directly to mp4. Apologies.
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 6/4/2025 1:21 PM, Xocyll wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading theAs I said, there are multiple mkv->mp4 converters out there.
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>> say:
<snip>
As for ripping discs, I have been using MakeMKV for years.
Just last night I remembered why I dislike .mkv format
I tried fast forwarding though one (on the HDD, via the dvd player) and >>>>> it could only go up to 3x speed (3 arrows), vs the 6 arrows an mp4 will >>>>> go at, and it seems like a logarithmic progression in the speeds.
So to get an hour plus to a specific spot in the movie if it's and mp4 >>>>> takes 2-3 mins maybe but mkv takes 20 or more.
No Thanks!
Oh I know, I have one. I just can't see where I would want to
deliberately rip to .mkv format only to then have to convert it
afterwards when I could just rip to .mp4 in the first place.
Why generate more work for myself to no gain?
Most disc software will rip to multiple formats.
Xocyll
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote at 17:24 this Wednesday (GMT):
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 10:49:45 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:38:39 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson >>><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:These days, it's almost always a software problem, simply due to the
I'm not sure I'd recommend a Creative card, though. I suspect my >>>>current issue is with the card itself, and not some Windows thing. I >>>>had a similar problem with another Soundblaster; it just stopped >>>>outputting from one of its ports (fortunately, my motherboard on that >>>>computer supported 5.1 so it wasn't really an issue). I think there
are some real issues with the quality of the components on Creative's >>>>offerings.
Update:
Fortunately, it turns out to be 'just some Windows thing', in that it
was software that caused the problem and not a hardware failure. It
turns out there are /at least/ three places you have to enable 5.1 >>>speakers to get it to work in a game:
1) in the Soundblaster driver software app
2) in the Windows "sound settings" applet
3) in the game itself.
I'd configured the latter two, but had forgotten the first even
existed, and for some reason it had toggled itself to 2.1 mode for
some reason.
Computers. Go figure.
odds. There are just so goddamn many bugs. QC is a lost art, as is clean
code.
I'm surprised when I diagnose a hardware error in this era. It happens,
but I always exhaust all software options before I start running hardware
diagnostics, and rarely get to the point where I have to run it.*
"Software advancements have done wonders to offset how much Hardware has >improved"
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>[snip]
looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The
Augury is good, the signs say:
"Software advancements have done wonders to offset how much Hardware has >>improved"
That is sadly, oh so true.
Xocyll
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 40:55:41 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,207 |
