Is it currently possible to code an application (which is multithreaded) to use the second cpu on a dual-processor system to be running some of the other threads?

i.e. The main process thread running on one processor and the user-input and sound threads running on the other processor?


The Windows threading API will allow you to specify which CPUs each thread may run on, so yes, you could force each thread to run on one CPU only.
Thing is, user-input should not be a thread, it should be event-driven. And user-input will most probably affect other threads, so you'd get synchronizing issues when trying to multithread it. And does it really require that much processing that you'd need a separate CPU?
My interactive programs generally peek the messagequeue once per frame-update. This way it is single-threaded, and not wasting any resources, and sync is implicit.
Posted on 2004-05-20 06:57:15 by Scali
Oh yes I would. Much faster response, particularly when jumping around through thumbnails, when the entire video is in memory. If I do two minute videos and run everything out of RAM, editing is a pleasure. If I do a half-hour video and I'm constantly going to disk, uggh!


...Take it from me, I code multimedia applications daily.
...As I already said, you just need a 'window' of main memory.

...Neither this, nor the activity of jumping around through thumbnails makes any sense.
...
Posted on 2004-05-20 07:00:03 by Scali
[
Nonsense. Take it from me, I code multimedia applications daily.
You on the other hand, seem to have no clue. As I already said, you just need a 'window' of main memory.

Well, it seems that both your software development activities and multimedia development activities run quite contrary to mine. So be happy with your 32-bit machine and limited memory. I'm very happy for you. However, as you don't look over my shoulder at home, it's a bit rude for you to claim I "don't have a clue." The fact that I'm not willing to work with the restrictions you're happy with doesn't mean there isn't a need for more memory in video editing.

...


Your example is complete nonsense. If you have enough memory for a single file, you will start nagging that it takes so long to switch between files.

So, the fact that I once I overcome a barrier I may very well find another barrier at some point or another suggests that it's not worth breaking down the current barrier? Yes, I agree, this is completely nonsense :-).


Neither this, nor the activity of jumping around through thumbnails makes any sense.
You're just desperately trying to find something, and lacking the knowledge and experience to come up with something good, apparently.

Lacking experience? As I said, when working with two to five minute clips, things I can keep in memory on my 32-bit processor, things go great. When working on 30-minute projects, work is *orders of magnitude* slower. I guess I just lack the experience to know how to use those tools to make working on large projects faster? Or maybe I lack the experience to accept slow development times? Hmm...

...
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Posted on 2004-05-20 13:40:09 by rhyde
it's a bit rude for you to claim I "don't have a clue."


I just draw my conclusions from the information presented to me.

The fact that I'm not willing to work with the restrictions you're happy with doesn't mean there isn't a need for more memory in video editing.


There's a difference between having more memory and requiring 64 bit addressing.

So, the fact that I once I overcome a barrier I may very well find another barrier at some point or another suggests that it's not worth breaking down the current barrier?


...

guess I just lack the experience to know how to use those tools to make working on large projects faster?


Either that, or you are using tools written by people who don't know how to write them properly.

So I guess I shouldn't question your brilliance any longer, even though history, if nothing else, suggests that you are completely wrong.


History meaning 8->16 and 16->32 bit moves? That was already covered. ...

I believe it was Bill Gates himself who suggested no one would never need any more than 640K.


...
First of all, the 640k limit was introduced by the hardware, not by MS-DOS. So there is no reason for Bill Gates to defend the limit, since he was not the one to set it.
Secondly, do you really believe that the man who created the largest and most successful software empire in the world got where he is now by having such a lack of vision?
There is no record of him ever saying this. No interview or anything, from which this quote can be taken directly.
Either he never said it at all, or he didn't say it like this (pulled out of context, or mutated from the original form into this statement).
Posted on 2004-05-20 13:49:12 by Scali
I think I have a recording of the interview where Bill Gates said that - it is hard for anyone to predict the future. Bill is just a man like the rest of us and no where near as graceful or visionary as you make him out to be.
Posted on 2004-05-20 16:09:15 by bitRAKE
...

These sources say that such a recording does not exist:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15180
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,1484,00.html

And there are many others, use google. Try finding the source, and you get nothing.

no where near as graceful or visionary as you make him out to be.


I just stated facts....
I don't "make him out to be" anything.
You don't know my opinion on him, since I never gave it.
Posted on 2004-05-20 16:32:11 by Scali
...

... And yes I do have some interviews with Bill Gates, but I am not certain of their exact content. I think the comment is well within the realms of reality.
Posted on 2004-05-20 16:50:39 by bitRAKE
...
Bill Gates is one of the founders of Microsoft, and long-time CEO. So yes, the creation and success of Microsoft are very much Bill Gates' work.
These are facts. You don't have to 'infer' anything from this. They are not my opinion.
...
Posted on 2004-05-20 16:58:50 by Scali
Facts are that you're being rude and steady working on your (next) ban, scali.
Posted on 2004-05-20 16:59:24 by Hiroshimator
...
Posted on 2004-05-20 17:00:59 by Scali
To make it clear, I never said that Bill Gates was a visionary. ...
Posted on 2004-05-20 17:05:36 by Scali
another_old_member, those same people that make great decision also make great mistakes. ...
Posted on 2004-05-20 17:07:14 by bitRAKE
I never said that Bill Gates never made mistakes. But until you can prove that he actually made the 640k-comment (and in what context), I see it as pure slander from your side. Because as far as I know, he never said it. So you cannot pin that one on him.

...
Posted on 2004-05-20 17:12:40 by Scali
another_old_member, I don't need to prove anything because we are just speculating - there is nothing to prove. ...
Posted on 2004-05-20 17:17:26 by bitRAKE
...
Posted on 2004-05-20 17:25:58 by Scali
Have you published a formal protocol that you'd like people to use when communicating with you? ...
Posted on 2004-05-20 17:47:12 by bitRAKE
Just common sense and decency. There are a number of wellknown discussion rules. Learn them, and try not to break them. ...

...
Posted on 2004-05-20 17:49:30 by Scali
...
Posted on 2004-05-20 18:01:09 by bitRAKE
Exactly what is that supposed to mean? ...
And I am NOT your friend.
Posted on 2004-05-20 18:08:18 by Scali
you decided to argue the point saying that I could do my job without it.


I didn't say you could do your job without it. I said that you could replace your browser with another browser and get the same information. And I also said that perhaps there were other ways than browsers to get that same information, to illustrate that it was the information you worked with, not the browser itself. The browser just acted like a medium, like a television set. It didn't PRODUCE the information, it merely transported it. And that was all I said. I never tried to 'explain your job to you', I merely tried to explain how you handled information, and how this was not being generated by your browser, so therefore it was not dependent on that particular browser.
...
Posted on 2004-05-20 18:19:05 by Scali