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: fingolfen who wrote (129927)	3/14/2001 2:28:20 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 186894

fingolfen, 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 think you are still thinking in the old way of doing things, that is when computer resources were scarce and expensive, so a lot of human labor went into optimizing things so that the computers would not choke. The point of the abundance of cheap computer resources is that you can do things using brute force in seconds, rather than spend hours tinkering. The way Word does thinks IS CORRECT and the way you are doing things is not. If you have a high quality image, the point is to use it and print it using the highest quality settings, with the least amount of work on part of the user involved. This way, if you buy a new printer that is an order of magnitude better than your old one, you get to take advantage of it, rather than use a crippled image (+ bear the cost of time involved crippling it in the first place). 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). I tend to go over other people's documents who do the typing. 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... At the time I bought that computer, the fastest chip was Katmai going from 550 to 600, and dual Celerons at 550 ran circles around it in most cases due to the fact that there were 2 of them and they have a fast L2 vs. slow L2 of Katmai. BTW, the top of the line Katmai was probably twice the price of 2 Celerons + BP6 motherboard. Joe