|
dvd rip speed with smartripper
|
|
|
malum
Senior Member
|
28. November 2002 @ 23:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
I get the exact same rip speed in 2K as I do in XP, with no messing about.
The 'Duplo' (whatever that is) effect can be removed with a single button click.
Win 2k is a fine and dandy OS, but you need to know what you are doing much more than in XP, which is fine if you do but not so fine if you don't.
Win98 is awful and ME is even worse.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
29. November 2002 @ 17:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
XP is a touchier operating system than 2000. Microsoft have, once again, jacked about with its running, and resultantly made it an inferior operating system - hell, they only included USB2 support at the last minute! What kind of a motley operation is that...
I define the "Duplo" look as the HUGE rounded buttons for windows, with all those twee rendered windows and start menus etc etc... I am possibly the world's biggest fan of eye candy but Windows XP in "colourful" mode just sickens me to the stomach.
Even XP in "Classic" mode disgusts me. All the icons are... Tacky. Even the original Start logo has the new yucky XP version.... Oh, and one of the most apparent annoying features: the drop-shadow on the start menus (and other menus) makes the menus almost "pop" into appearance after you open them on anything less than a 1ghz machine, and even then it doesn't look as nice as a faster-loading menu WITHOUT d/s.
I readily acknowledge that 2000 doesn't have, say, quite as wide a driver base for hardware - but what else are drivers for? It's not difficult to make your hardware work with 2000, whereas with XP it's more often than not a pain. Ask any Audigy 1 owner who uses XP for their own horror story. Case in point.
Urgh, I could go on... and on... and ariston... But I won't, because I'm bored and want to play UT2.
[23:47] <+cjdawg> can I use DeCSS for web design then?
|
|
malum
Senior Member
|
30. November 2002 @ 04:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Without wishing to get into a my OS is better than yours type banter.
You can turn off all the menu shadows/sliding etc
Each to his own and each has it's strenghts and weaknesses.
|
Junior Member
|
30. November 2002 @ 11:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Indeed... I have enough of this with my mates.
I'll leave it here, but I just feel that if an OS has these features included which slow down the interface anyway... Why include them?
Ok, my 2 cents (and 40 bucks ;) worth. I'm sticking with Windows 2000 =D
.... Or mebbe I might just install Mandrake and run Wine ;)
[23:47] <+cjdawg> can I use DeCSS for web design then?
|
|
VCDjunkie
Moderator
|
1. December 2002 @ 10:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
XP has its finer points, mainly when it comes to supporting the desktop in a LAN with many workstations.. you can do many things remotely thanks to Remote Assistance and Remote Desktop, rather than visiting the user at his/her desk, you just log into their system and fix the problem remotely.
Windows 2000 requires 3rd party software to accomplish this. As for the Kernel, Windows 2000 with SP3 and XP with SP1 are so similar its sickening.. basically, take away the remote assistance and eye candy, and you have a slightly more advanced version of Windows 2000.
I personally like XP, and have never had problems encoding or decoding video in XP, and all the newest games have support for XP and in some cases run better in XP, like UT2003, which I will be playing shortly.
My 2 cents ;-)
|
Junior Member
|
1. December 2002 @ 13:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
... You say ut2k3 runs better on your XP machine... What a) hardware do you have and b) what fps do you get in 1024x768 with everything set to highest?
Just curious...
... Windows 2000 has an optional component that you can install to remotely administrate workstations from afar. It's made by Microsoft, and all you have to do is install it... Basically the Remote Admin is just Netmeeting's Remote Desktop Sharing with a different interface... =/
[23:47] <+cjdawg> can I use DeCSS for web design then?
|
|
VCDjunkie
Moderator
|
1. December 2002 @ 19:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
machine=
Pentium 3 650 @ 866
640mb pc133 SDRAM
80gb hdd
ATI Radeon 8500 running at 2x (mobo doesn't fully support 4x)
FPS @ 1024x768 all highest
avg FPS= 34
peak FPS= 50
And where do you find this optional component might I ask? Sounds like it might be interesting.
"I'll show you just how deep the rabbit hole really goes.." -Morpheus
|
Junior Member
|
4. December 2002 @ 12:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's pretty damn good for that machine - hell you got your p3 oced to shit, my 450 would only go to 501mhz on a 112mhz fsb LOL... UT's CPU dependency is showing though: I get 80-90fps max in 1024x768 and about 65fps average on the big open maps. XP2200+ 4XAGP GF4 4400 Ti (well... it's running at Ti 4600 speed =D ;)
[23:47] <+cjdawg> can I use DeCSS for web design then?
|
|
MrFat
Inactive
|
6. December 2002 @ 18:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
SmartRipper's alright(if you like watching grass grow),but i would use DVD Decryter. I can rip DVD's in minutes! Yes minutes!
Question:"Why do Kamikaze pilots,where helmets?"
|
|
G-4CE
Member
|
16. December 2002 @ 09:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
*WRONG FORUM*
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. December 2002 @ 12:55
|
|
VCDjunkie
Moderator
|
16. December 2002 @ 13:04 |
Link to this message
|
chrisw, my 64mb DDR Radeon 8500 is slightly better than a GeForce 3 Ti500, so it really helps push up those FPS.. I can't wait to build my new machine this year.. here goes the specs of my new box, ETA is 6-8 months from now:
P4 3.0 Ghz
1 Gb ddr II DRAM
8x AGP bus (don't know which Mobo yet)
GeForce 5/Fx DirectX 9 Video Card
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=geforcefx
120 GB 10k rpm hard drive ATA 166 (if its available at the time, if not then ATA 133) or possibly just SCSI..
SB Audigy II Platinum
Logitech 680 5.1 surround speakers
I hope I can afford everything here, but if not I will settle for the processor, video card, & RAM
;-)
"I'll show you just how deep the rabbit hole really goes.." -Morpheus
|
Junior Member
|
16. December 2002 @ 16:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Go with a Via mobo. They iz class =D
oo00ooo... Hyperthreading. :D
I'd be careful about running an Audigy II on XP... Several (well, all) of my friends who have them are having REAL problems - one person's PC just crashes at random times at bootup. They're fiddly buggers to get right in terms of IRQs...
I'd be tempted to replace GF5/fX with Radeon 9700 Pro. IT's more expensive - at the moment - but it's a GF4 beater, and with all the manufacturing problems nVidia have been having, the Radeon might just stay on top for some time yet.
[23:47] <+cjdawg> can I use DeCSS for web design then?
|
|
VCDjunkie
Moderator
|
16. December 2002 @ 18:51 |
Link to this message
|
The Geforce 5/Fx has not been released yet.. when it is released, the Radeon 9700 will look like a toy in comparison.
By the time I get my new Mobo/Proc/Video/Sound card I hope they will have worked out the issues with Audigy II and IRQ's, this will not be for another 8 months or so, hopefully by then the technology will have time to grow up.
Besides the fact that the Radeon uses DDR and Geforce Fx uses DDR2, there are many more improvements that the Geforce Fx has over the Radeon, one of which is 128 bit color..
Here are the hardware specs of the Radeon 9700:
? 0.15-micron GPU
? 110+ million transistors
? 8 pixel rendering pipelines, 1 texture unit per pipeline, can do 16 textures per pass
? 4 programmable vect4 vertex shader pipelines
? 256-bit DDR memory bus
? up to 256MB of memory on board, clocked at over 300MHz (resulting in a minimum of 19.2GB/s of memory bandwidth)
? AGP 8X Support
? Full DX9 Pixel and Vertex Shader Support
? Single Full Speed 165MHz integrated TMDS transmitter
Impressed? You should be.. however, the Geforce Fx has a lot more firepower, here are the specs:
0.13-micron GPU
125 million transistors
8 pixel rendering pipelines, 1 texture unit per pipeline, can do 16 textures per pass
1 massively parallel vertex rendering engine
4 x 32-bit "DDR2" memory controllers running at ~500MHz DDR
Up to 48GB/s of memory bandwidth using compression
AGP 8X support
Full DX9 Pixel & Vertex Shader support
Now, if you were paying close attention to the specs, the Radeon provides 19.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, but the Geforce Fx provides 48 GB/s.. not to mention that the processor has more transistors at .13 micron than a Xeon processor!
The Geforce Fx is a whole new GPU, which is a large jump above the rest.. and is as big a jump in technology as the original Geforce 256 was to the TNT2 Ultra!
Here is a review of the Geforce Fx:
http://www.a1-electronics.co.uk/Graphics_Cards/GeForceFX/GeForceFX_review.shtml
happy reading!
"I'll show you just how deep the rabbit hole really goes.." -Morpheus
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
17. December 2002 @ 00:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
And then, it takes four months from ATI to bring in a new card that makes nVidia's card to look like a toy. And four months for nVidia to make ATI's new card to look like a toy. And...
You just reminded me again why I gave up playing games _totally_ back in 1998 :-) (last game I've played was Settlers 3 or something like that)
|
|
VCDjunkie
Moderator
|
17. December 2002 @ 03:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
So very true.. I may just stick with ATI just because I know and trust them, but NVidia has lead the game for so very long, its tempting to cross over..
I know a person who swears by AMD Athlon, yet bought a P4 recently just because they are blowing the Athlons away.. brand loyalty only goes so far..
;-)
"I'll show you just how deep the rabbit hole really goes.." -Morpheus
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
17. December 2002 @ 03:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm still kicking very well with my good olde P3/500 (no overclocking, thank you) with antique Matrox Marvel G200-TV and 384MB. Only thing what I'm tempted to upgrade at the moment is the mobo + CPU to get the CVDs encoded in less than 25 hours, but otherwise no need to upgrade :-)
Oh, obviously I have the other gizmos in place -- Pioneer A05 + decent amount of HDD space + three DVD-ROMs, but that just proves the point that you should adjust your hardware to your needs, not by the gaming standards :-)
----
And to all of you who are wondering about the ripping speeds, I've forgot to mention this earlier:
Virtually all DVD-ROM/-R/-RW/+R/+RW drives built since 1st of January, 2002, have a built-in limitation in ripping speeds -- never mentioned in any news articles in any of the world's news sites, but requested by MPAA from DVD Forum. This is the fact and it can't be tweaked to get over it -- ripping DVD-Video discs with new drives goes at max 2x, there are no ways currently to get it faster with old drives.
My good olde Pioneer 115 still rips at 8.5x, but my Pioneer A05 rips at 2.0x ;-)
|
Junior Member
|
18. December 2002 @ 15:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
... So how have I managed to get my brand new (1 month) Pioneer slot drive (DVD-106) ripping at like, 8-10x with most DVDs I pop in (however the bastard Harry Potter DVD likes to crawl along at a leisurely 4x)...
Explain that ;)
(perhaps it could be region-free modded firmware ;) ;)
[23:47] <+cjdawg> can I use DeCSS for web design then?
|
|
basta
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. December 2002 @ 09:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
here's a nice 1: I deleted the IDE-controller, close down, start up, and...... DVD rips at 6-7 speed. So far so good. BUT: this works for about 5 times and my speed drops to 2. When I look at the IDE-controller it states PIO! I delete again, close down, start up .... again high speed for only 5 times. I red somewhere that this means XP sees an internal error and automatically switches to PIO.
Any suggestions how to prevent XP from chaninging the DMA-status by itself?
|
|
Saetia
Newbie
|
29. December 2002 @ 11:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
i tend to run around 4-6x with my 16x HP ROM
fast enough that i don't complain ;)
|
|
VCDjunkie
Moderator
|
30. December 2002 @ 06:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
hell yeah its fast enough! DVD Ripping has never been the slowest part of the encoding process anyhow.
you should check your BIOS setting for IDE controllers, perhaps it needs to be set to DMA so that windows xp does not change to PIO.
"I'll show you just how deep the rabbit hole really goes.." -Morpheus
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Sefy
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
1. January 2003 @ 14:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you want to have high speed rips, it will require you to have two VERY important components installed in your Operating System!
1. Make SURE you have using the LATEST IDE drivers for your mainboard!
2. Make SURE you have WinASPI v4.60 Build 1021 installed!
Notice I specificly say which version, do NOT use any later version
Best Regards,
Sefy Levy,
Certified Computer Technician.
|
