Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="knutinh" data-source="post: 63721" data-attributes="member: 14776">Microsoft is actually recommending a p4 3.2 for 1080p content in wmv-hd. I guess that is more or less the same codec called VC-1 in HD-DVD/BR systems.De-interlacing of 1080i content requires good algorithms and good hardware. Video maniacs are actually buying hardware for thousands of dollars for this single purpose.Well... I have more than 10GB <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> And some operations are really slow. Now, I havent tested to see if operations are slower with a slower CPU, but I am guessing so.Yes, I am in the emdedded business at work. However, I am &quot;allergic&quot; to wait times. Just building the music database takes 10s of minutes on my computer. If the price for fast menu navigation is more expensive hardware, Ill take it. I am shure that if MP was developed with a 100 full-time developers, then they could use a lot of time optimising and such. However, chances are that MP would not be that great a product after the PR departement, management and who knows had their word. Look at Windows XP =)No arguement, just different opinions (and that is a good thing). Today I think that Intel Core Duo is the CPU that makes the most sense for MP. Second is Athlon x2 at a low speed/power point. The use of MP range from light-weight music juke-box to hardcore HD-video player with ffdshow processing and audio room correction. It is only natural that those two applications will need very different hardware.regardsknut</blockquote>

[QUOTE="knutinh, post: 63721, member: 14776"] Microsoft is actually recommending a p4 3.2 for 1080p content in wmv-hd. I guess that is more or less the same codec called VC-1 in HD-DVD/BR systems. De-interlacing of 1080i content requires good algorithms and good hardware. Video maniacs are actually buying hardware for thousands of dollars for this single purpose. Well... I have more than 10GB :-) And some operations are really slow. Now, I havent tested to see if operations are slower with a slower CPU, but I am guessing so. Yes, I am in the emdedded business at work. However, I am "allergic" to wait times. Just building the music database takes 10s of minutes on my computer. If the price for fast menu navigation is more expensive hardware, Ill take it. I am shure that if MP was developed with a 100 full-time developers, then they could use a lot of time optimising and such. However, chances are that MP would not be that great a product after the PR departement, management and who knows had their word. Look at Windows XP =) No arguement, just different opinions (and that is a good thing). Today I think that Intel Core Duo is the CPU that makes the most sense for MP. Second is Athlon x2 at a low speed/power point. The use of MP range from light-weight music juke-box to hardcore HD-video player with ffdshow processing and audio room correction. It is only natural that those two applications will need very different hardware. regards knut [/QUOTE]

Verification