Tornados 2 Weeks Before Christmas?

Into the Night wrote:Ships are safer at sea when a big storm comes. That's why they set sail to get away from it.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Ships are safer at sea when a big storm comes. That's why they set sail to get away from it.

This is one of those sayings that isn't going away despite technological advancement.

No ships sail anymore. Boats, yes, but ships no. Nonetheless, it's what we say they do. No one dials a phone number anymore. Nonetheless, it's what we say we do. Nobody tapes conversations anymore or gets audio or video on tape. Nonetheless, it's what we say we do. Nobody writes a report; nobody writes, period. Nonetheless, it's what we say we do.

Soon, when all computer memory is SSD, we'll still be referring to data on "the disk."

Words are great.

.

James___ wrote:p.s., I bought my p.c. because it's SSD with a graphics card with a couple MB

James___ wrote: It really does make a difference with using some programs which includes rendering as with programs like Blender.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Ships are safer at sea when a big storm comes. That's why they set sail to get away from it.

This is one of those sayings that isn't going away despite technological advancement.

IBdaMann wrote:
No ships sail anymore. Boats, yes, but ships no. Nonetheless, it's what we say they do. No one dials a phone number anymore. Nonetheless, it's what we say we do. Nobody tapes conversations anymore or gets audio or video on tape. Nonetheless, it's what we say we do. Nobody writes a report; nobody writes, period. Nonetheless, it's what we say we do.

Soon, when all computer memory is SSD, we'll still be referring to data on "the disk."

Words are great.

.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Ships are safer at sea when a big storm comes. That's why they set sail to get away from it.

This is one of those sayings that isn't going away despite technological advancement.

No ships sail anymore. Boats, yes, but ships no. Nonetheless, it's what we say they do. No one dials a phone number anymore. Nonetheless, it's what we say we do. Nobody tapes conversations anymore or gets audio or video on tape. Nonetheless, it's what we say we do. Nobody writes a report; nobody writes, period. Nonetheless, it's what we say we do.

Soon, when all computer memory is SSD, we'll still be referring to data on "the disk."

Words are great.

.

So my p.c. doesn't have a hard drive, really? Maybe I like SSD because it's easier to work with programs like SketchUp? Ever try to do 3D rendering without SSD? Next you'll be saying a graphics card without a couple GB of memory doesn't matter. I've heard about people like you.

p.s., I bought my p.c. because it's SSD with a graphics card with a couple MB
(I might actually have 2 Gigabyte) of memory. It really does make a difference with using some programs which includes rendering as with programs like Blender.
HDs require a disk rotating and being read. SSDs don't have this problem. Rotating a disk creates lag.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:p.s., I bought my p.c. because it's SSD with a graphics card with a couple MB

If you were able to purchase your computer with SSD then any graphics card that came with it would have, at a minimum, 2GB of memory.

James___ wrote: It really does make a difference with using some programs which includes rendering as with programs like Blender.

Today, yes. In the not too distant future, graphics cards will all but disappear entirely. Those functions will be built into microprocessors and thus will be much faster more powerful, mostly because calls won't have to leave the processor and the processor has full access to all system memory, i.e. it is not limited to a mere 2GB or other such fixed quantity of memory.

This development is already happening. Intel's 11th generation i7, for example, already processes 4K natively and has 96 EUs (execution units) that work in parallel at really high clock speeds to perform shading, textures and all the visual effects that developers use in games and graphics-intensive applications.

Over time, microprocessors will catch up to graphics cards in capabilities, and that will spell the end for graphics cards because microprocessors will deliver all the capability to laptops and cell phones without all the added bulk and power drain of a full-sized PC.

.

duncan61 wrote:
Love Gordon lightfoot.The wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.I am going to go out the back and play it on my I pad right now.A freak storm in Portsmouth harbour in the 1700s did more damage to the British navy than any other nation ever had.If that happened now guess what would be blamed?

duncan61 wrote:
Love Gordon lightfoot.The wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.I am going to go out the back and play it on my I pad right now.A freak storm in Portsmouth harbour in the 1700s did more damage to the British navy than any other nation ever had.If that happened now guess what would be blamed?

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Love Gordon lightfoot.The wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.I am going to go out the back and play it on my I pad right now.A freak storm in Portsmouth harbour in the 1700s did more damage to the British navy than any other nation ever had.If that happened now guess what would be blamed?

Great song, and an educational documentary as well.

Before you listen to the song, check out these links:

The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big lake they called 'gitche gumee'

With a load of iron ore twenty-six thousand tons more
Than the Edmund Fitzgerald weighed empty

The ship was the pride of the American side
Coming back from some mill in Wisconsin

As the big freighters go, it was bigger than most
With a crew and good captain well seasoned

The searches all say they'd have made Whitefish Bay
If they'd put fifteen more miles behind her

In a musty old hall in Detroit they prayed,
In the maritime sailors' cathedral

Into the Night wrote:However, there are cases where developers want a graphics card that can serve multiple screens in Xinerama format (like one big desktop across multiple monitors). New graphics cards can deliver 6 or even 8 such channels already.

Into the Night wrote:However, there are cases where developers want a graphics card that can serve multiple screens in Xinerama format (like one big desktop across multiple monitors). New graphics cards can deliver 6 or even 8 such channels already.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:p.s., I bought my p.c. because it's SSD with a graphics card with a couple MB

If you were able to purchase your computer with SSD then any graphics card that came with it would have, at a minimum, 2GB of memory.

James___ wrote: It really does make a difference with using some programs which includes rendering as with programs like Blender.

Today, yes. In the not too distant future, graphics cards will all but disappear entirely. Those functions will be built into microprocessors and thus will be much faster more powerful, mostly because calls won't have to leave the processor and the processor has full access to all system memory, i.e. it is not limited to a mere 2GB or other such fixed quantity of memory.

This development is already happening. Intel's 11th generation i7, for example, already processes 4K natively and has 96 EUs (execution units) that work in parallel at really high clock speeds to perform shading, textures and all the visual effects that developers use in games and graphics-intensive applications.

Over time, microprocessors will catch up to graphics cards in capabilities, and that will spell the end for graphics cards because microprocessors will deliver all the capability to laptops and cell phones without all the added bulk and power drain of a full-sized PC.

.

HarveyH55 wrote:Doubtful.

HarveyH55 wrote: High resolution graphics will always be a separate specialty market.

HarveyH55 wrote:Most people won't need it,

HarveyH55 wrote: Graphics cards have their own processor(s)/memory that handle a lot of CPU intensive work,

HarveyH55 wrote: leaving the main computer free for other tasks.

HarveyH55 wrote: The more crap you pack into a CPU, the greater the power usage.

HarveyH55 wrote:For battery operated devices, you'll need larger batteries, or settle for short run time.

HarveyH55 wrote: Packing higher resolution on a small screen doesn't really make a huge difference.

HarveyH55 wrote:It's still only going to display at the resolution of the pixel count available on the display.

HarveyH55 wrote:Most portable devices are basically used as terminals.

duncan61 wrote:
And the bells ring 29 times for the men of the Edmundson Fitzgerald

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:However, there are cases where developers want a graphics card that can serve multiple screens in Xinerama format (like one big desktop across multiple monitors). New graphics cards can deliver 6 or even 8 such channels already.

I hear you. Totally true ... today.

Future motherboards will come with multiple video ports fed by the main processor, something similar to this:

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:p.s., I bought my p.c. because it's SSD with a graphics card with a couple MB

If you were able to purchase your computer with SSD then any graphics card that came with it would have, at a minimum, 2GB of memory.

James___ wrote: It really does make a difference with using some programs which includes rendering as with programs like Blender.

Today, yes. In the not too distant future, graphics cards will all but disappear entirely. Those functions will be built into microprocessors and thus will be much faster more powerful, mostly because calls won't have to leave the processor and the processor has full access to all system memory, i.e. it is not limited to a mere 2GB or other such fixed quantity of memory.

This development is already happening. Intel's 11th generation i7, for example, already processes 4K natively and has 96 EUs (execution units) that work in parallel at really high clock speeds to perform shading, textures and all the visual effects that developers use in games and graphics-intensive applications.

Over time, microprocessors will catch up to graphics cards in capabilities, and that will spell the end for graphics cards because microprocessors will deliver all the capability to laptops and cell phones without all the added bulk and power drain of a full-sized PC.

.

Doubtful. High resolution graphics will always be a separate specialty market. Most people won't need it, or the higher cost. Graphics cards have their own processor(s)/memory that handle a lot of CPU intensive work, leaving the main computer free for other tasks. The more crap you pack into a CPU, the greater the power usage. For battery operated devices, you'll need larger batteries, or settle for short run time. Packing higher resolution on a small screen doesn't really make a huge difference. It's still only going to display at the resolution of the pixel count available on the display.

Most portable devices are basically used as terminals. Request and display, what's already been rendered on a more powerful computer.

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:p.s., I bought my p.c. because it's SSD with a graphics card with a couple MB

If you were able to purchase your computer with SSD then any graphics card that came with it would have, at a minimum, 2GB of memory.

James___ wrote: It really does make a difference with using some programs which includes rendering as with programs like Blender.

Today, yes. In the not too distant future, graphics cards will all but disappear entirely. Those functions will be built into microprocessors and thus will be much faster more powerful, mostly because calls won't have to leave the processor and the processor has full access to all system memory, i.e. it is not limited to a mere 2GB or other such fixed quantity of memory.

This development is already happening. Intel's 11th generation i7, for example, already processes 4K natively and has 96 EUs (execution units) that work in parallel at really high clock speeds to perform shading, textures and all the visual effects that developers use in games and graphics-intensive applications.

Over time, microprocessors will catch up to graphics cards in capabilities, and that will spell the end for graphics cards because microprocessors will deliver all the capability to laptops and cell phones without all the added bulk and power drain of a full-sized PC.

.

Doubtful. High resolution graphics will always be a separate specialty market. Most people won't need it, or the higher cost. Graphics cards have their own processor(s)/memory that handle a lot of CPU intensive work, leaving the main computer free for other tasks. The more crap you pack into a CPU, the greater the power usage. For battery operated devices, you'll need larger batteries, or settle for short run time. Packing higher resolution on a small screen doesn't really make a huge difference. It's still only going to display at the resolution of the pixel count available on the display.

Most portable devices are basically used as terminals. Request and display, what's already been rendered on a more powerful computer.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Doubtful.

It's a certainty, unless technology ceases to develop.

HarveyH55 wrote: High resolution graphics will always be a separate specialty market.

Nope. High-resolution graphics will always be in huge demand, there just isn't any reason they need to remain external to the microprocessor. The bulk and the power drain are negatives ... and unnecessary.

They will go away. It's already underway.

HarveyH55 wrote:Most people won't need it,

This isn't really the issue. Normal technological development will simply push the functions performed by today's graphics cards onto the processor, at which point graphics development will simply be included in the microprocessor engineering instead of engineering of some unnecessary additional piece of hardware. Motherboards will eventually drop the graphics card slot.

I'm not saying that graphics are somehow going away. They are simply moving to different hardware ... to become more and more efficient, draw less and less power, and to become ever faster. Imagine graphics cards becoming smaller and smaller over time ... and just naturally coexisting with the main processor ... and ultimately being integrated with the chip. It's going to happen and is already underway.

HarveyH55 wrote: Graphics cards have their own processor(s)/memory that handle a lot of CPU intensive work,

... and each new generation of microprocessor is more powerful than the previous. As I have already mentioned, the big processor companies are already building new, separate graphics hardware into those new, more powerful chips, and it's just a matter of time before that new graphics hardware being added is more than powerful enough to handle many high-resolution monitors that are playing grpahics-intensive games/applications. Also, each generation of motherboard is capable of packing on greater amounts of system memory, and it is both so much more efficient and powerful to just let a processor directly utilize the 20GB of system memory it needs for whatever graphics-intensive application it might be processing than to falter with a separate graphics card whose much smaller fixed amount of "dedicated" memory isn't sufficient in the first place and is further hindered by being a separate device that requires overhead.

HarveyH55 wrote: leaving the main computer free for other tasks.

The graphics card will be the limiting factor. The optimal configuration is a main processor that has direct access to all resources as needed whenever needed, and doesn't have to outsource anything outside the processor to process it.

HarveyH55 wrote: The more crap you pack into a CPU, the greater the power usage.

Yes, but the overall power reduction is huge when eliminating the vast power drain of a graphics card and instead converting that to a very minor increase consumed by the additions to the main processor. It's night and day.

Of course, a chip with graphics capability fits into the thinnest, lightest laptops. Only the biggest, bulkiest laptops with little hope for battery life will support, at most, a small graphics card.

HarveyH55 wrote:For battery operated devices, you'll need larger batteries, or settle for short run time.

That's not turning out to be the case. Like I said, my laptop can process 4K video and it is very thin and has great battery life. Things will only get better, not worse.

Remember that once upon a time people said the exact same thing about sound cards, even as 16-bit sound was becoming standard in all microprocessors.

HarveyH55 wrote: Packing higher resolution on a small screen doesn't really make a huge difference.

People such as myself want the graphics power for rendering graphic images quickly and I'm glad my chip can do it.

HarveyH55 wrote:It's still only going to display at the resolution of the pixel count available on the display.

I get it. Focus on the processing power. Regardless of the display resolution, the computer must render all the images that it must display. That's what you want to work well.

HarveyH55 wrote:Most portable devices are basically used as terminals.

The idea is for all portable devices to be fully graphics capable. It appears that's the inevitable technological forecast. Powerful graphics functionality will become standard on chips and will become standard in portable devices.

It's already underway. I do think graphics cards will be around for a while. They will be going away, however.

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
And the bells ring 29 times for the men of the Edmundson Fitzgerald

... who were never recovered because Gicha'goomah never gives up her dead.

The whole story is eerie. Nothing happened to the Arthur Anderson that was trailing the Edmund Fitzgerald and that noticed the Edmund Fitzgerald's lights just weren't there anymore.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Doubtful.

It's a certainty, unless technology ceases to develop.

HarveyH55 wrote: High resolution graphics will always be a separate specialty market.

Nope. High-resolution graphics will always be in huge demand, there just isn't any reason they need to remain external to the microprocessor. The bulk and the power drain are negatives ... and unnecessary.

They will go away. It's already underway.

HarveyH55 wrote:Most people won't need it,

This isn't really the issue. Normal technological development will simply push the functions performed by today's graphics cards onto the processor, at which point graphics development will simply be included in the microprocessor engineering instead of engineering of some unnecessary additional piece of hardware. Motherboards will eventually drop the graphics card slot.

I'm not saying that graphics are somehow going away. They are simply moving to different hardware ... to become more and more efficient, draw less and less power, and to become ever faster. Imagine graphics cards becoming smaller and smaller over time ... and just naturally coexisting with the main processor ... and ultimately being integrated with the chip. It's going to happen and is already underway.

HarveyH55 wrote: Graphics cards have their own processor(s)/memory that handle a lot of CPU intensive work,

... and each new generation of microprocessor is more powerful than the previous. As I have already mentioned, the big processor companies are already building new, separate graphics hardware into those new, more powerful chips, and it's just a matter of time before that new graphics hardware being added is more than powerful enough to handle many high-resolution monitors that are playing grpahics-intensive games/applications. Also, each generation of motherboard is capable of packing on greater amounts of system memory, and it is both so much more efficient and powerful to just let a processor directly utilize the 20GB of system memory it needs for whatever graphics-intensive application it might be processing than to falter with a separate graphics card whose much smaller fixed amount of "dedicated" memory isn't sufficient in the first place and is further hindered by being a separate device that requires overhead.

HarveyH55 wrote: leaving the main computer free for other tasks.

The graphics card will be the limiting factor. The optimal configuration is a main processor that has direct access to all resources as needed whenever needed, and doesn't have to outsource anything outside the processor to process it.

HarveyH55 wrote: The more crap you pack into a CPU, the greater the power usage.

Yes, but the overall power reduction is huge when eliminating the vast power drain of a graphics card and instead converting that to a very minor increase consumed by the additions to the main processor. It's night and day.

Of course, a chip with graphics capability fits into the thinnest, lightest laptops. Only the biggest, bulkiest laptops with little hope for battery life will support, at most, a small graphics card.

HarveyH55 wrote:For battery operated devices, you'll need larger batteries, or settle for short run time.

That's not turning out to be the case. Like I said, my laptop can process 4K video and it is very thin and has great battery life. Things will only get better, not worse.

Remember that once upon a time people said the exact same thing about sound cards, even as 16-bit sound was becoming standard in all microprocessors.

HarveyH55 wrote: Packing higher resolution on a small screen doesn't really make a huge difference.

People such as myself want the graphics power for rendering graphic images quickly and I'm glad my chip can do it.

HarveyH55 wrote:It's still only going to display at the resolution of the pixel count available on the display.

I get it. Focus on the processing power. Regardless of the display resolution, the computer must render all the images that it must display. That's what you want to work well.

HarveyH55 wrote:Most portable devices are basically used as terminals.

The idea is for all portable devices to be fully graphics capable. It appears that's the inevitable technological forecast. Powerful graphics functionality will become standard on chips and will become standard in portable devices.

It's already underway. I do think graphics cards will be around for a while. They will be going away, however.

duncan61 wrote:
And the bells ring 29 times for the men of the Edmundson Fitzgerald

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Doubtful.

It's a certainty, unless technology ceases to develop.

HarveyH55 wrote: High resolution graphics will always be a separate specialty market.

Nope. High-resolution graphics will always be in huge demand, there just isn't any reason they need to remain external to the microprocessor. The bulk and the power drain are negatives ... and unnecessary.

They will go away. It's already underway.

HarveyH55 wrote:Most people won't need it,

This isn't really the issue. Normal technological development will simply push the functions performed by today's graphics cards onto the processor, at which point graphics development will simply be included in the microprocessor engineering instead of engineering of some unnecessary additional piece of hardware. Motherboards will eventually drop the graphics card slot.

I'm not saying that graphics are somehow going away. They are simply moving to different hardware ... to become more and more efficient, draw less and less power, and to become ever faster. Imagine graphics cards becoming smaller and smaller over time ... and just naturally coexisting with the main processor ... and ultimately being integrated with the chip. It's going to happen and is already underway.

HarveyH55 wrote: Graphics cards have their own processor(s)/memory that handle a lot of CPU intensive work,

... and each new generation of microprocessor is more powerful than the previous. As I have already mentioned, the big processor companies are already building new, separate graphics hardware into those new, more powerful chips, and it's just a matter of time before that new graphics hardware being added is more than powerful enough to handle many high-resolution monitors that are playing grpahics-intensive games/applications. Also, each generation of motherboard is capable of packing on greater amounts of system memory, and it is both so much more efficient and powerful to just let a processor directly utilize the 20GB of system memory it needs for whatever graphics-intensive application it might be processing than to falter with a separate graphics card whose much smaller fixed amount of "dedicated" memory isn't sufficient in the first place and is further hindered by being a separate device that requires overhead.

HarveyH55 wrote: leaving the main computer free for other tasks.

The graphics card will be the limiting factor. The optimal configuration is a main processor that has direct access to all resources as needed whenever needed, and doesn't have to outsource anything outside the processor to process it.

HarveyH55 wrote: The more crap you pack into a CPU, the greater the power usage.

Yes, but the overall power reduction is huge when eliminating the vast power drain of a graphics card and instead converting that to a very minor increase consumed by the additions to the main processor. It's night and day.

Of course, a chip with graphics capability fits into the thinnest, lightest laptops. Only the biggest, bulkiest laptops with little hope for battery life will support, at most, a small graphics card.

HarveyH55 wrote:For battery operated devices, you'll need larger batteries, or settle for short run time.

That's not turning out to be the case. Like I said, my laptop can process 4K video and it is very thin and has great battery life. Things will only get better, not worse.

Remember that once upon a time people said the exact same thing about sound cards, even as 16-bit sound was becoming standard in all microprocessors.

HarveyH55 wrote: Packing higher resolution on a small screen doesn't really make a huge difference.

People such as myself want the graphics power for rendering graphic images quickly and I'm glad my chip can do it.

HarveyH55 wrote:It's still only going to display at the resolution of the pixel count available on the display.

I get it. Focus on the processing power. Regardless of the display resolution, the computer must render all the images that it must display. That's what you want to work well.

HarveyH55 wrote:Most portable devices are basically used as terminals.

The idea is for all portable devices to be fully graphics capable. It appears that's the inevitable technological forecast. Powerful graphics functionality will become standard on chips and will become standard in portable devices.

It's already underway. I do think graphics cards will be around for a while. They will be going away, however.

Single board computers have been around for a while. Not many even have expansion ports to add cards anymore. Mostly, because they want you to buy whole new computer, the more expensive models, rather than upgrading/repairing yourself. There have been dedicated chips for a long time that handle graphics functions. There are several other chips on the motherboard, that assist the CPU with other functions. These co-processors do a lot more than computations. It's not always having to offload tasks, it's better to have the functions and features handled separately. Timing is everything for some applications. A super-fast processor isn't always useful, if it's need for many tasks. Your storage devices, display, speakers, camera, keyboard, all work best at different clock speeds. Most are very slow, compared to the CPU. The CPU handles math really well, peripherals are a little different story.

There are limits to how much, and how tightly you pack components on a piece of silicon. The more you have going on at the same time, the more thermal management becomes critical. You still need to keep it cool, or it destroys itself. There is always people wanting to push the limits, develop something faster, more powerful, smaller. Not always practical, often fail. But, it's a challenge, and new products still get made. Not all make it to market, or do well. I work with microcontrollers, which are similar to what you are getting at. Mostly, the ones I use, are way overkill for the projects I do. But, for around $2.00, it save me a whole lot of separate parts, and build time.

Most portable devices these days, basically are just web interfaces. Access the internet. Most of the processor intensive work is done by the remote computers. You send input over the internet, you receive the results and display it on the screen. It's really cheap and simple, no need to over complicate, over power these devices. Just faster, more reliable communication links. Those that create content, is still a niche, not the general market, and will pay a lot more for better tools. I do 3d graphics, and it's pretty slow going on my computers, since I'm cheap, and don't do a lot of it. Got back into it some, when I bought a 3d printer. Not so much the rendering anymore, but I do need to do a shaded preview. Much quicker than full color and textured, but far from real-time. 3d printing is disappointing, takes hours, and parts are weak, barely, if ever useful. Takes a lot of tweaking to get right. But, it still works well enough to print models, which I can make a silicone mold from, and cast in metal. I don't doubt that people can print useful parts, but it takes many hours, and failed parts, to get everything tuned in. Each part is different. Each spool of filament is different enough, to need adjustments. Even when you bought the same filament before, same brand, same type, same vendor... I don't have that much free time, or patience to invest.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:p.s., I bought my p.c. because it's SSD with a graphics card with a couple MB

If you were able to purchase your computer with SSD then any graphics card that came with it would have, at a minimum, 2GB of memory.

James___ wrote: It really does make a difference with using some programs which includes rendering as with programs like Blender.

Today, yes. In the not too distant future, graphics cards will all but disappear entirely. Those functions will be built into microprocessors and thus will be much faster more powerful, mostly because calls won't have to leave the processor and the processor has full access to all system memory, i.e. it is not limited to a mere 2GB or other such fixed quantity of memory.

This development is already happening. Intel's 11th generation i7, for example, already processes 4K natively and has 96 EUs (execution units) that work in parallel at really high clock speeds to perform shading, textures and all the visual effects that developers use in games and graphics-intensive applications.

Over time, microprocessors will catch up to graphics cards in capabilities, and that will spell the end for graphics cards because microprocessors will deliver all the capability to laptops and cell phones without all the added bulk and power drain of a full-sized PC.

.

Indeed. AMD is producing similar stuff.

The graphics output connector will simply a bracket that connects to pins coming out of the processor directly.

However, there are cases where developers want a graphics card that can serve multiple screens in Xinerama format (like one big desktop across multiple monitors). New graphics cards can deliver 6 or even 8 such channels already.

Of course, most users don't want a wall of monitors in front of them. But developers often do, and it's a cinch to construct those multimonitor display signs you see in hotels, casinos, cruise ships, or even McDonald's.

James___ wrote:As with holes in the ozone layer, over Antarctica they happen during the southern hemisphere's summer.

James___ wrote:When a hole over the Arctic happens, it is during the southern hemisphere's summer.

James___ wrote:The difference is that Antarctica is exposed to direct solar radiation because the Van Allen radiation belts aren't shielding it and with the Arctic, it's much less exposed.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:As with holes in the ozone layer, over Antarctica they happen during the southern hemisphere's summer.

Nope. Over its winter, not summer.

James___ wrote:When a hole over the Arctic happens, it is during the southern hemisphere's summer.

Yes.

James___ wrote:The difference is that Antarctica is exposed to direct solar radiation because the Van Allen radiation belts aren't shielding it and with the Arctic, it's much less exposed.

Is that because the polarization of the magnetosphere accelerates the momentum of the sun's radiation along its radial eigenvector? This is really easy stuff. It isn't like it's rocket science brain surgery astrophysics! How do you not know this?

Someday my project will work out and will draw attention to my not having a life in Norway because of real Americans.

.

James___ wrote:With holes in the ozone layer, it is literally PhD level research.

James___ wrote:A person can say eigen vector but that could also explain how light going into a prism has different colors.

James___ wrote:This is because refraction in the prism itself allows for different vectors.

James___ wrote:p.s., some people do not like hybrids. This is because people dislike change.

ellisael wrote:
wow this has been an extremely enlightening discussion- looking forward to more as a new entree

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:p.s., I bought my p.c. because it's SSD with a graphics card with a couple MB

If you were able to purchase your computer with SSD then any graphics card that came with it would have, at a minimum, 2GB of memory.

James___ wrote: It really does make a difference with using some programs which includes rendering as with programs like Blender.

Today, yes. In the not too distant future, graphics cards will all but disappear entirely. Those functions will be built into microprocessors and thus will be much faster more powerful, mostly because calls won't have to leave the processor and the processor has full access to all system memory, i.e. it is not limited to a mere 2GB or other such fixed quantity of memory.

This development is already happening. Intel's 11th generation i7, for example, already processes 4K natively and has 96 EUs (execution units) that work in parallel at really high clock speeds to perform shading, textures and all the visual effects that developers use in games and graphics-intensive applications.

Over time, microprocessors will catch up to graphics cards in capabilities, and that will spell the end for graphics cards because microprocessors will deliver all the capability to laptops and cell phones without all the added bulk and power drain of a full-sized PC.

.

Indeed. AMD is producing similar stuff.

The graphics output connector will simply a bracket that connects to pins coming out of the processor directly.

However, there are cases where developers want a graphics card that can serve multiple screens in Xinerama format (like one big desktop across multiple monitors). New graphics cards can deliver 6 or even 8 such channels already.

Of course, most users don't want a wall of monitors in front of them. But developers often do, and it's a cinch to construct those multimonitor display signs you see in hotels, casinos, cruise ships, or even McDonald's.

After market graphic cards will always be an improvement. Built in graphics will mostly be for streaming YouTube and stuff like that. When people see demonstrations of drawing on a tablet, that is a 2 dimensional model. That requires much less memory and allows for a slower process than anything done in 3D.

James___ wrote:
As with holes in the ozone layer, over Antarctica they happen during the southern hemisphere's summer. When a hole over the Arctic happens, it is during the southern hemisphere's summer.

James___ wrote:
The difference is that Antarctica is exposed to direct solar radiation because the Van Allen radiation belts aren't shielding it and with the Arctic, it's much less exposed. Please be mindful that we're talking about a layer of the atmosphere that starts at about 12 km/7.5 miles up.

James___ wrote:
With holes in the ozone layer, it is literally PhD level research. A person can say eigen vector but that could also explain how light going into a prism has different colors. This is because refraction in the prism itself allows for different vectors. Then based on the length of the vector there are different colors/wavelengths of light. ie., a prism is one form of an eigen vector.

p.s., some people do not like hybrids. This is because people dislike change. It is like saying матьполе = motherboard which it does ≠. That also represents change of a different nature.