32bit system? Hope not.
Discussion
Just been tootling around the register before I head off to a beer or two.
www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/25/hollywood_demands_64-bit_pcs/
Yes folks read it and weep. If you have a 32bit computer (i.e. not AMD64 or EMT64... like say a P4-M laptop) you will in all likleyhood not be able to play HD-DVD (or Blue-Ray) content in Window Media Player 11.
As far as I'm aware neither Core Solo or Core Duo (P4-M's bascially) have the added EMT64 instruction sets in them; AMD's portable chips do however have AMD64 built-in.
Thank you Hollywood.
It beggers belife that Hollywood/MPAA would do something this dense; the vast majority of systems in the world are 32bit and capable of HD playback. I give up. *lowers eye patch* ARGH!
www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/25/hollywood_demands_64-bit_pcs/
Yes folks read it and weep. If you have a 32bit computer (i.e. not AMD64 or EMT64... like say a P4-M laptop) you will in all likleyhood not be able to play HD-DVD (or Blue-Ray) content in Window Media Player 11.
As far as I'm aware neither Core Solo or Core Duo (P4-M's bascially) have the added EMT64 instruction sets in them; AMD's portable chips do however have AMD64 built-in.
Thank you Hollywood.
It beggers belife that Hollywood/MPAA would do something this dense; the vast majority of systems in the world are 32bit and capable of HD playback. I give up. *lowers eye patch* ARGH!
thepassenger said:
Just been tootling around the register before I head off to a beer or two.
www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/25/hollywood_demands_64-bit_pcs/
Yes folks read it and weep. If you have a 32bit computer (i.e. not AMD64 or EMT64... like say a P4-M laptop) you will in all likleyhood not be able to play HD-DVD (or Blue-Ray) content in Window Media Player 11.
As far as I'm aware neither Core Solo or Core Duo (P4-M's bascially) have the added EMT64 instruction sets in them; AMD's portable chips do however have AMD64 built-in.
Thank you Hollywood.
It beggers belife that Hollywood/MPAA would do something this dense; the vast majority of systems in the world are 32bit and capable of HD playback. I give up. *lowers eye patch* ARGH!
www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/25/hollywood_demands_64-bit_pcs/
Yes folks read it and weep. If you have a 32bit computer (i.e. not AMD64 or EMT64... like say a P4-M laptop) you will in all likleyhood not be able to play HD-DVD (or Blue-Ray) content in Window Media Player 11.
As far as I'm aware neither Core Solo or Core Duo (P4-M's bascially) have the added EMT64 instruction sets in them; AMD's portable chips do however have AMD64 built-in.
Thank you Hollywood.
It beggers belife that Hollywood/MPAA would do something this dense; the vast majority of systems in the world are 32bit and capable of HD playback. I give up. *lowers eye patch* ARGH!
Exactly, so to require HD-DVD playback everyone has to upgrade, making money for the computer component manfacturers, now if hollywood invested in those companies in the process, netting themselves a tidy additional profit.
Its business.
aldi said:
Pentium D's are EMT64 IIRC, I'd be surprised if Cores weren't... that said I'm a bit confused about what EMT64 actually is!
hehe. Sorry. EMT64 is Intel's version of the AMD64 instruction set.
The desktop Pentium 4's these days DO have EMT64 built in. However the P4-M i.e. the Mobile chips don't have this built in and neither do Core Solo / Core Duo... as they're just tweaked P4-M's under a different badge
bobthemonkey said:
32bit will need adtional software to play HD(such as powerdvd or something - normally comes wiht new machines anyway)
64 bit hd support is native
the later p4's (the one sold as p4 600/630/extreme etc) are emt64 and are found in some laptops, but p4-m's (centrino) are not emt64
64 bit hd support is native
the later p4's (the one sold as p4 600/630/extreme etc) are emt64 and are found in some laptops, but p4-m's (centrino) are not emt64
The possible issue I see is that if MPAA are happy for 64bit Windows to nativley play HD... I can't see they'd be happy to allow a legitimate (PowerDVD, etc) 32bit program to exist. Of course that's just me applying the most evilest schemes I can dream up to the MPAA though
And you are correct as far as the desktop P4 series goes; they've had the 64bit extensions embeded for I belive 1 or 2 complete generations now. The issue is that laptop sales are outstripping desktops... which means a lot of people picking up the mobile Intel chips are going to be in for a 'nice' surprise; 64bit extended mobile chips don't ship from Intel until next year. AMD however is complete 64bit from the Semperon up to the latest and greatest, including the Turino mobile processor range.
It's a shame that given the option I'd go Intel for laptops every time. :S
whatever said:
Microsoft has admitted, but third-party software developers may support next-generation optical disc playback on such machines - if Hollywood lets them.
Ermm, DVD format? Windows Activation? I wownt be resigning my 32-bit system's to the bin just yet
Edited by polus on Monday 28th August 02:03
bez_uk said:
Core duo is 32bit... core 2 duo is 64bit. But core duo will outperform most older 64bit single cores on anything but a native 64 platform...
PC World Advert said:
it lets you do more than one thing at a time
Errrr.....<polus throws random object at tv> Edited by polus on Tuesday 29th August 22:02
polus said:
PC World Advert said:
it lets you do more than one thing at a time
Errrr.....<polus throws random object at tv>That advert wound me up a treat, even more than the annoying teenager spud dancing down the road about his breakfast!
I'm not sure if saying something that stupid about dual core systems is either shows how p
ss poor their sales staff knowledge is about their products or how dumb they think their average customer is. "It means the battery life is better", "it does more faster" both of those are glib little phrases they could have used instead and still be acurate, "it lets you do more than one thing at a time" just boils my p
ss.... I love that phrase.RAM is what lets you do more than one thing at a time anyway... I'd say they were wrong.
I was able to check email AND listen to music on my single core pentium 2. The only difference dual core really seems to make on an OS like XP is that dvd encoding goes faster! Everything else is barely different.
I was able to check email AND listen to music on my single core pentium 2. The only difference dual core really seems to make on an OS like XP is that dvd encoding goes faster! Everything else is barely different.
bez_uk said:
RAM is what lets you do more than one thing at a time anyway... I'd say they were wrong.
I was able to check email AND listen to music on my single core pentium 2. The only difference dual core really seems to make on an OS like XP is that dvd encoding goes faster! Everything else is barely different.
I was able to check email AND listen to music on my single core pentium 2. The only difference dual core really seems to make on an OS like XP is that dvd encoding goes faster! Everything else is barely different.
RAM has some bearing as does CPU horse power, however the OS is the definer of if a computer can multitask and how well it pulls it off IMHO. Slap MS-DOS 6 on even the latest machine and try to get two things running at once without fancy memory games and TSR's.
Dual core, is akin to having two processors, so only software that is SMP aware will show much improvment, so DVD encoders, 3D rendering packages, some high end movie editing software and such will perform exceptionally well however most other software (including games and I'd say 90% of office apps) won't get any dramatic speed boost; other than those derived from improvements to the individual core's design.
Don't quote me but on XP I belive the OS can do some load balancing on SMP machines so if CPU0 is bogged down it can throw work at CPU1, I probably got that wrong though.
So, a dual core chip has 2 CPU cores, and 2 instruction can start and complete at the same time. The PC can do 2 things at once. A single core chip surely cannot do that? It may be able to do lots of clever things through pipelining etc, but instructions will always complete sequentially.
So, are PC World technically correct?
So, are PC World technically correct?
thepassenger said:
Don't quote me but on XP I belive the OS can do some load balancing on SMP machines so if CPU0 is bogged down it can throw work at CPU1, I probably got that wrong though.
XP Kernel enhancements are described here - www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/XP_kernel.mspx.
It'd probably be too much work to move processes around though, so I doubt it'll do it.
D
_deejay_ said:
So, a dual core chip has 2 CPU cores, and 2 instruction can start and complete at the same time. The PC can do 2 things at once. A single core chip surely cannot do that? It may be able to do lots of clever things through pipelining etc, but instructions will always complete sequentially.
So, are PC World technically correct?
So, are PC World technically correct?
Yes and no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
Basically in the simplest form yes, 2 cores will enable two seperate processes to run at exactly the sametime; however processor architechture, operating system capabilities and even the compiler settings and code used to create the applications will all have a bearing on if the second core/processor is even used (btw. The XP Kernel thingie gave me a 404) and how effeciently it is used should the application be aware of the second processor.
So yes they are 'technically correct' but ultimatley wrong as any threaded multitasking OS (XP, win2k, Linux, etc) will be able to "do two things at once" or give the apperance of it to the human running the system and any further systems/programs waiting for data elsewhere. Keep in mind as well that the PC World advert the full quote is "It will enable YOU to do two things at once"... which to my mind definetly puts it in to the 'wrong' category as even a 486 running Win95 and Word 6 will spend most of it's time waiting for the human to do something.
mcflurry said:
thepassenger said:
Slap MS-DOS 6 on even the latest machine and try to get two things running at once without fancy memory games and TSR's.
But then an Amiga from around the same time could multitask, despite having only a 14mhz Motorola processor
AMIGA! AMIGA! *spit* Atari ST is the way and the light. You know it just makes sense
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff