Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [magnifiers] Luna infomation

Expand Messages
  • Bas Cancrinus
    Hi Frank, For my work I run ZT9 together with software development tools based on the Eclipse SDK, which are very CPU-demanding. I noticed that some harmless
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 21, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Frank,

      For my work I run ZT9 together with software development tools based on the
      Eclipse SDK, which are very CPU-demanding. I noticed that some "harmless" UI
      changes can stress the CPU while magnification is active. This is quite
      inconvenient under these circumstances. A few examples:

      - Some UI-components keep the user informed about the progress of something.
      For example, the validation of a fileset. During this process the
      UI-component shows every file in the set ("Validating 'currentfile'...").
      When the UI-component jumps quickly from file to file I noticed a
      significant delay while magnification is turned on.

      - Many times we enable high logging verbosity of a program for debugging
      purposes. During runtime we capture the log messages in a window so that we
      can see what's going on in the program. This almost "locks" my workbench...

      @Tom: what slows your machine down?

      Regards,
      Bas

      2006/10/21, Frank Siedlaczek <siedlaczek@...>:
      >
      > tommorgan85 wrote:
      > > I noticed that Luna requires a Video Card where zoomtext doesn't use
      > > hardware accelerators, am i to believe that Luna uses hardware
      > > accelerators and doesn't draw as much resources away from the CPU?
      > > I use a lot of high CPU/RAM applications for audio production and i
      > > would be very interested in getting a screen magnifier that can use
      > > less CPU than zoomtext.
      > Hi!
      >
      > I am doing audio editing and processing stuff with CoolEdit regularly on
      > a AMD Athlon 64 3200+ at 2GHz under winXP and ZT7.11. I have a GForce FX
      > 5200 with 128mb. I am very happy with the system's performance and
      > frankly I don't think it would make any noticable difference if you
      > switched to another magnifier. Sure, highlighting a piece of the wave
      > and dragging the selection boundaries involves repainting the screen
      > again and again, but when you actually do something useful with the
      > selection, you are most cerntainly not using your magnifier very heavily
      > at that very moment. Doing more complicated things than just selecting
      > and deleting a few seconds of audio, such as processing the audio with
      > mix paste or compressor/limiter settings is obviously more CPU
      > intensive, but again, when the software processes the audio you do not
      > do very demanding things with your magnifier, don't you? Well, of course
      > it depends on how you normally work with your computer, but I noticed,
      > whenever I tell CoolEdit to do something, I don't look around on the
      > screen with the magnifier but instead I normally wait until the
      > processing is finished. So, what I want to say is: audio production work
      > does not interfere with magnification, because - at least in my case - I
      > use them consecutively and not simultaneously. For graphics processing
      > this would be very different, especially when having all those fancy
      > preview functions of effects enabled. But for audio... I don't think it
      > worth bothering... But I might be wrong here. Just tell me a bit more
      > about how you use your audio software.
      >
      > But, of course there might be a difference in ZT's and Lunar's
      > performance in the first place. But I doubt that you will be able to
      > find cold and hard facts on the web. You will have to try that on your
      > own system. I highly recommend using an imaging software such as Norton
      > Ghost to backup your system partition (the one that hosts WinXP, not
      > your user data partition) before playing around with those magnification
      > programs. Their setup often messes around with the system and you'll
      > have a hard time getting rid of installed programs such as magnifier
      > demos. There are always leftovers such as files or registry entries.
      > Your system will never be the same again :-) So you really should use
      > the Imaging Software to be able to revert to a previous state.
      >
      > Best regards
      > Frank
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Thomas Morgan
      Hey, i use sotfware synths a lot, where i load a lot of sound files into RAM and also stream them off the hard drive to trigger audio, then enable it again to.
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 21, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey, i use sotfware synths a lot, where i load a lot of sound files into RAM and also stream them off the hard drive to trigger audio, then enable it again to. When i do this i have to disable zoomtext (alt+del) to play/record a software synth/instrument. Otherwise the sound has a lot of clicks n stuff in it. When i work with pure audio i tend not to have much of a problem, that is untill i add real time effects to it. If i just add effects not in real time (as in not while its playing) then audio works fine.

        That is a bit confusing, but the ideal way for me to use a magnifier would be that if i can keep it running the whole time and not have to disable it.

        Cheers,
        Tom

        Bas Cancrinus <bascancr@...> wrote: Hi Frank,

        For my work I run ZT9 together with software development tools based on the
        Eclipse SDK, which are very CPU-demanding. I noticed that some "harmless" UI
        changes can stress the CPU while magnification is active. This is quite
        inconvenient under these circumstances. A few examples:

        - Some UI-components keep the user informed about the progress of something.
        For example, the validation of a fileset. During this process the
        UI-component shows every file in the set ("Validating 'currentfile'...").
        When the UI-component jumps quickly from file to file I noticed a
        significant delay while magnification is turned on.

        - Many times we enable high logging verbosity of a program for debugging
        purposes. During runtime we capture the log messages in a window so that we
        can see what's going on in the program. This almost "locks" my workbench...

        @Tom: what slows your machine down?

        Regards,
        Bas

        2006/10/21, Frank Siedlaczek :
        >
        > tommorgan85 wrote:
        > > I noticed that Luna requires a Video Card where zoomtext doesn't use
        > > hardware accelerators, am i to believe that Luna uses hardware
        > > accelerators and doesn't draw as much resources away from the CPU?
        > > I use a lot of high CPU/RAM applications for audio production and i
        > > would be very interested in getting a screen magnifier that can use
        > > less CPU than zoomtext.
        > Hi!
        >
        > I am doing audio editing and processing stuff with CoolEdit regularly on
        > a AMD Athlon 64 3200+ at 2GHz under winXP and ZT7.11. I have a GForce FX
        > 5200 with 128mb. I am very happy with the system's performance and
        > frankly I don't think it would make any noticable difference if you
        > switched to another magnifier. Sure, highlighting a piece of the wave
        > and dragging the selection boundaries involves repainting the screen
        > again and again, but when you actually do something useful with the
        > selection, you are most cerntainly not using your magnifier very heavily
        > at that very moment. Doing more complicated things than just selecting
        > and deleting a few seconds of audio, such as processing the audio with
        > mix paste or compressor/limiter settings is obviously more CPU
        > intensive, but again, when the software processes the audio you do not
        > do very demanding things with your magnifier, don't you? Well, of course
        > it depends on how you normally work with your computer, but I noticed,
        > whenever I tell CoolEdit to do something, I don't look around on the
        > screen with the magnifier but instead I normally wait until the
        > processing is finished. So, what I want to say is: audio production work
        > does not interfere with magnification, because - at least in my case - I
        > use them consecutively and not simultaneously. For graphics processing
        > this would be very different, especially when having all those fancy
        > preview functions of effects enabled. But for audio... I don't think it
        > worth bothering... But I might be wrong here. Just tell me a bit more
        > about how you use your audio software.
        >
        > But, of course there might be a difference in ZT's and Lunar's
        > performance in the first place. But I doubt that you will be able to
        > find cold and hard facts on the web. You will have to try that on your
        > own system. I highly recommend using an imaging software such as Norton
        > Ghost to backup your system partition (the one that hosts WinXP, not
        > your user data partition) before playing around with those magnification
        > programs. Their setup often messes around with the system and you'll
        > have a hard time getting rid of installed programs such as magnifier
        > demos. There are always leftovers such as files or registry entries.
        > Your system will never be the same again :-) So you really should use
        > the Imaging Software to be able to revert to a previous state.
        >
        > Best regards
        > Frank
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        The Screen Magnifiers Homepage
        http://www.magnifiers.org
        Make It Visible!




        Yahoo! Groups Links






        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • BruceHP@aol.com
        In a message dated 10/21/2006 2:02:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ... Ghost to backup your system partition (the one that hosts WinXP, not your user data
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 22, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 10/21/2006 2:02:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
          siedlaczek@... writes:

          >I highly recommend using an imaging software such as Norton
          Ghost to backup your system partition (the one that hosts WinXP, not
          your user data partition) before playing around with those magnification
          programs. Their setup often messes around with the system and you'll
          have a hard time getting rid of installed programs such as magnifier
          demos. There are always leftovers such as files or registry entries.
          Your system will never be the same again :-) So you really should use
          >the Imaging Software to be able to revert to a previous state.



          Is there some reason why you don't use the built-in XP System Restore to do
          this? Thanks!

          --================
          Keep Shooting!
          BruceHP@...
          =================


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Frank Siedlaczek
          ... Hi Bruce! Sure there is :-) Firstly, I don t trust XP very much when it comes to backup&restore and secondly I don t need to have XP running to restore the
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 23, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            BruceHP@... wrote:
            > > the Imaging Software to be able to revert to a previous state.
            >
            > Is there some reason why you don't use the built-in XP System Restore to do
            > this? Thanks!
            >
            Hi Bruce!
            Sure there is :-)
            Firstly, I don't trust XP very much when it comes to backup&restore and
            secondly I don't need to have XP running to restore the complete partition.

            Greetz
            Frank


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • BruceHP@aol.com
            In a message dated 10/23/2006 3:53:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, siedlaczek@gmx.de writes: Sure there is :-) Firstly, I don t trust XP very much when it
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 23, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 10/23/2006 3:53:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
              siedlaczek@... writes:

              Sure there is :-)
              Firstly, I don't trust XP very much when it comes to backup&restore and
              secondly I don't need to have XP running to restore the complete partition.




              Thanks, I've never had a problem with System Restore.

              --================
              Keep Shooting!
              BruceHP@...
              =================


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Frank Siedlaczek
              ... Good to hear. I have been using Norton Ghost for a long time now and it s also a bit of what you got used to use. But if System Resotre point work well,
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 23, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                BruceHP@... wrote:
                > Thanks, I've never had a problem with System Restore
                >
                Good to hear. I have been using Norton Ghost for a long time now and
                it's also a bit of what you got used to use. But if System Resotre point
                work well, it's probably an option for me too. :-) Although I suppose
                Software vendor would like to find ways to get around these restore
                points to make sure that there are some leftovers which cannot be
                deleted. Honni soit qui mal y pense ;-)

                Greetz
                Frank
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.