- AVS
- patchbox
Archive: patchbox
klumsy
16th July 2004 06:12 UTC
patchbox
just a head up to you guys, just released is a free software package that can stream on the local computer or via a network using any WFV codec as the transport video data from any freeframe compliant application to another (thus allowing many VJ apps to communicate with each other over the net, with the output of one, being the input of another)
and also there is an AVS APE, so you can stream your AVS outputs into VisualJockey, VJamm,resolume or whatever else supports freeframe.
www.patchbox.net
Yathosho
16th July 2004 06:52 UTC
nice, time to reinstall resolume :]
Yathosho
16th July 2004 16:03 UTC
works perfectly, thanks
[Ishan]
18th July 2004 11:44 UTC
ooh, i'll try this :D
samurai4079
18th July 2004 19:12 UTC
I have pentium ii & when I want to try this my machine restart over restart!!!
I can't see you app.
klumsy
19th July 2004 01:57 UTC
not actually my app
hmm, it _MAY_ require latest MFC 7 dlls.. that could be the problem.. plus its probably optomised for p3 or p4 rather than p2..
[Ishan]
19th July 2004 15:46 UTC
PII? shit man.....get yourself a better machine ffs :rolleyes:
Dragon-Dreams
28th July 2004 01:06 UTC
I'm still using a p3 450,
people say that you couldn't find something like this in a cave in Iraq.
[Ishan]
28th July 2004 13:27 UTC
well....:rolleyes: 450 is damn slow for me i guess :p
i'm using a P4 2.8 Ghz right now :D
p.s. i know P4 sucks but atleast somethings better than nothing :p
Warrior of the Light
28th July 2004 16:28 UTC
I guess I'd better not say that I'm still using a Celeron processor here (1.7GHz, but still)... oops! slipped right off my tongue ;)
[Ishan]
29th July 2004 13:53 UTC
hah :rolleyes: i too was using a celeron till some days before i finally got this P4:D
PAK-9
29th July 2004 14:35 UTC
I'm glad this thread hasn't gone wildly off topic or anything
[Ishan]
30th July 2004 14:24 UTC
oops:p yeah sorry i guess i'm the one who started it.
[backtotopic] works really great! [/backtotopic]
hungryskull
1st August 2004 04:10 UTC
[offtopic]
p.s. i know P4 sucks but atleast somethings better than nothing
Why does P4 suck? It's still one of the best processors around[/offtopic]
[Ishan]
1st August 2004 06:49 UTC
[offtopic] i dont really think p4 sucks really , but intel does ;) [/offtopic]
PAK-9
1st August 2004 11:21 UTC
Intel thinks their own (relatively long running) processor sucks? :weird:
[Ishan]
2nd August 2004 15:04 UTC
nah i think intel suck really :rolleyes:
jheriko
3rd August 2004 21:36 UTC
hmm.. p4 is only the best non server processor on the market...
anyway, this sounds really cool.. i'll have to check it out when i get some time :)
klumsy
4th August 2004 08:33 UTC
why does it suck?
unless you understand uops, assembler, SSE, SSE2, cache lines and rows and all that sort of stuff, its probably just some uninformed opinion, rather than an objective judgement.
problems i have with p4 are some pipeline latencies and extra clock cycles certian instructions have..
however if you understand architecture and write software specifically for p4, p4 rocks, also p4 rocks how it rearranges bad/sloppy code to make it faster (thus speeding up the majority of lame-ass windows software out there)..
intel leads the way, amd follows and imitates, also intel aims for real world preformance, while AMD aims for making the commonly benchmarked features faster.
PAK-9
4th August 2004 10:57 UTC
unless you understand uops, assembler, SSE, SSE2, cache lines and rows and all that sort of stuff, its probably just some uninformed opinion, rather than an objective judgement
Seems a little presumptious to imply someone has no understanding of basic processor operation when you dont know them. I think you'll find a lot of people here know more than you'd expect.
I agree with some of your statements about the p4 tho, it is a good processor provided you account for its 'features' at run-time. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by "p4 rocks how it rearranges bad/sloppy code to make it faster" :weird:
klumsy
4th August 2004 12:42 UTC
i wasn't assuming, but rather asking, putting out the details, to find out what was the basis of such an assumption.
as for your question
p4 expands on the p6 core's ability to rearrange code at instruction decode stage to rearrange instructions to run at the fastest possible combo
it gives significant gains to alot of common software - however still when software sloppiness goes into sloppy alogirthms, and slow API's it can't magically make them all streamlined and fast, but it can on a small scale at a time.
Warrior of the Light
4th August 2004 16:33 UTC
[offtopic]
Sorry I joined into this processor stuff, but here's an hint.
[/offtopic]
PAK-9
5th August 2004 06:00 UTC
I was vaguely aware that newer processors had some re-arrangement of intructions capability but I always doubted the end speed increase was significant. I would suspect design time (efficient alogorithms) and compile time (extended instruction set utilisation, quad byte alignment etc...) optimisations make such run time optimisations almost insignificant. Still, I dont know much about it so i could be wrong.
We'll just steer clear of intels less considered choices, like basic processor layout and byte pair reversal :D
Oh yea and that free software thingy look really cool why not. Gotta get me a copy of Bezierbox or whatever... See, I'm not offtopic at all :p