Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (129924)	3/14/2001 12:59:52 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

A lot of graphics can be reused, by just taking the original high quality image and just using it in Word, and let Word do all the work. Actually, since I'm editing the images in photoshop to begin with (i.e. improving image quality... adding or removing elements), it's very simple to resize or re-resolve the image. I've found Word tends to keep the entire image in the file (i.e. if the image file is 1 Meg, it stays 1 Meg, even if you're only displaying the image in the document as a roughly 50-100K .jpg). To me that seems to be especially wasteful of both file and RAM space, and is probably one of the biggest factors contributing to the slowness of your software experience. I used to put together large, very image intensive presentations and reports, and Word was terrible in resizing images because it didn't resize them. The original images were 600x800, but rather than shrinking the image or actually resampling it, it kept everything and simply emulated it at the lower resolution. It is during the editing or formatting of the document, cutting and pasting complex elements when you get the houglass. How much time (total) are you spending doing that versus typing? What percentage of your time is spent on those activities versus typing (i.e. what real time savings would you achieve with a 1GHz P3 vs. a 1.5GHz P4 vs. your current set up bearing in mind the discussion about how Word handles (or mis-handles) images above). Anyway, my point is not that this system is terribly slow, just the fact that it is precisely in Word, (when I liberally use it's features) that I notice that the CPU is sweating here and there, sort of a contradiction to the new mantra that's coming from Intel, which says that it is not important for a CPU to perform well on current business apps... I don't think that's what Intel is saying at all, and I think there's a couple of other problems here. One, I'm not sure you're using Word efficiently. It does some things well, and some things poorly... and it looks like you're getting bogged down in the things Word does poorly. You're also running a ~66MHz bus. You don't have a lot of memory bandwidth. I honestly don't think you're getting much more punch out of your dual system than a P3 700 with a 100MHz FSB, much less a P3 1GHz, K7 1.2GHz, or P4 1.3-5GHz... I honestly think you'd see much faster response from any of these processors, and I honestly don't think you could tell the machines apart from a blind test during a typical work session...

To: Joe NYC who wrote (129924)	3/14/2001 1:15:01 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Jozef, RE: Anyway, my point is not that this system is terribly slow, just the fact that it is precisely in Word, (when I liberally use it's features) that I notice that the CPU is sweating here and there, sort of a contradiction to the new mantra that's coming from Intel, which says that it is not important for a CPU to perform well on current business apps. Please note that the vast majority of computer users have absolutely no clue how to liberally use the features on Word.