Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Laptop vs Desktop - big difference?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 1, 2004 2:08:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I was hoping some of you could shed some light into this matter. I
have two computers:

A laptop (Toshiba Satellite 1800)-
Processor: Celeron 1.1 GHz
Hard drive: 20GB (and an external drive 40GB)
RAM: 512MB (I added an extra 256)
OS: Windows XP

An older desktop (Powerspec)-
Processor: Celeron 400 MHz
Hard drive: 10GB
RAM: 128MB
OS: Windows 98

On paper the laptop must be a lot better on video editing and
playback. I actually bought a lot of accessories (including additional
memory) for this laptop in order to use it for video capture and
editing. Both systems perform poorly, but the laptop is even worse.
Video playback (just using Windows Meida Player) is extremly choppy
and impossible in the laptop. It's relatively better in the desktop. I
have tried all the necessary XP tweaks with no success. Why is this
happening? Is it because of the HDD speed (4200RPM in the laptop)? Any
suggestions what I can do to improve this? I don't want to buy a new
system, because I have already invested a lot in this laptop.

Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 1, 2004 3:28:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

both systems are too old, IMO, and use the crippled celeron CPU that's
just aweful for video processing. Most of these celeron systems are
coupled to dog-slow video subsystems that simply will never handle video
processing adaquately.

Honestly, I'd toss both straight out the door and buy at least a new
Toshiba with a Pentium processor starting at $699 for their 2.8Ghz
systems (on sale; see www.fatwallet.com/forums/ -> hot deals for lots of
such examples).

For stable, sure, no problems at all processing today, make sure it's at
least a 2.0Ghz P4 processor on either a laptop or desktop. Else, you'll
get problems.

Laptops tend to be less powerful than desktops, but some systems, eg.
eMachines M6810 Athlon 64+ for $1299, can be as powerful. Here, you'll
want a fast Pentium 4 processor (2Ghz or faster) or a fast Pentium M
processor (1.6Ghz or faster) coupled to a fast RAM subsystem (PC2100 or
faster) and a good graphics subsystem (even the most basic integrated
chipsets like the Intels will do fine, but can't hurt to have a killer
fast ATI Mobile Radeon subsystem - anything that'll benchmark over
10,000 3DMARKS2001 will be fine, like the eMachines M6810).

----

Anyways, it doesn't mean you can't do playback properly, but you may
have to reduce the resolution down to 640x480.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 1, 2004 6:12:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Kosta" <peterb@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:408636a4.0409010908.43e8743@posting.google.com...
>
> A laptop (Toshiba Satellite 1800)-
> Processor: Celeron 1.1 GHz
>
> An older desktop (Powerspec)-
> Processor: Celeron 400 MHz
>
> On paper the laptop must be a lot better on video editing and
> playback. I actually bought a lot of accessories (including additional
> memory) for this laptop in order to use it for video capture and
> editing. Both systems perform poorly, but the laptop is even worse.
> Video playback (just using Windows Meida Player) is extremly choppy
> and impossible in the laptop. It's relatively better in the desktop. I
> have tried all the necessary XP tweaks with no success. Why is this
> happening? Is it because of the HDD speed (4200RPM in the laptop)? Any
> suggestions what I can do to improve this? I don't want to buy a new
> system, because I have already invested a lot in this laptop.
>
I have played mpeg-1 with WMP 6.4 on a 200MHz/MMX and PCI video. Your Celeron
can do 352x240 video with any codec. It can do MPEG-2 (DVD) with the right
software.

I suspect you have problems with the chipset, IDE DMA, spyware/bloatware, no
directx support, or USB on the laptop.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 1, 2004 6:51:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <408636a4.0409010908.43e8743@posting.google.com>,
peterb@nycap.rr.com says...
> Subject: Laptop vs Desktop - big difference?
> From: peterb@nycap.rr.com (Kosta)
> Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
>
> I was hoping some of you could shed some light into this matter. I
> have two computers:
>
> A laptop (Toshiba Satellite 1800)-
> Processor: Celeron 1.1 GHz
> Hard drive: 20GB (and an external drive 40GB)
> RAM: 512MB (I added an extra 256)
> OS: Windows XP
>
> An older desktop (Powerspec)-
> Processor: Celeron 400 MHz
> Hard drive: 10GB
> RAM: 128MB
> OS: Windows 98
>
> On paper the laptop must be a lot better on video editing and
> playback. I actually bought a lot of accessories (including additional
> memory) for this laptop in order to use it for video capture and
> editing. Both systems perform poorly, but the laptop is even worse.
> Video playback (just using Windows Meida Player) is extremly choppy
> and impossible in the laptop. It's relatively better in the desktop. I
> have tried all the necessary XP tweaks with no success. Why is this
> happening? Is it because of the HDD speed (4200RPM in the laptop)? Any
> suggestions what I can do to improve this? I don't want to buy a new
> system, because I have already invested a lot in this laptop.
>
> Any suggestions will be appreciated.
>
>

How much room left for swap file is there on the laptop? Does it have
FAT or NTFS? Has it ever been defraged? Those are 3 of the major
things to look at with XP.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 1, 2004 11:09:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in
news:ch54bq$t98$1@news.service.uci.edu:

> both systems are too old, IMO, and use the crippled celeron CPU
> that's just aweful for video processing. Most of these celeron
> systems are coupled to dog-slow video subsystems that simply will
> never handle video processing adaquately.
>
> Honestly, I'd toss both straight out the door and buy at least a
> new Toshiba with a Pentium processor starting at $699 for their
> 2.8Ghz systems (on sale; see www.fatwallet.com/forums/ -> hot
> deals for lots of such examples).
>
> For stable, sure, no problems at all processing today, make sure
> it's at least a 2.0Ghz P4 processor on either a laptop or desktop.
> Else, you'll get problems.
>
> Laptops tend to be less powerful than desktops, but some systems,
> eg. eMachines M6810 Athlon 64+ for $1299, can be as powerful.
> Here, you'll want a fast Pentium 4 processor (2Ghz or faster) or a
> fast Pentium M processor (1.6Ghz or faster) coupled to a fast RAM
> subsystem (PC2100 or faster) and a good graphics subsystem (even
> the most basic integrated chipsets like the Intels will do fine,
> but can't hurt to have a killer fast ATI Mobile Radeon subsystem -
> anything that'll benchmark over 10,000 3DMARKS2001 will be fine,
> like the eMachines M6810).
>
> ----
>
> Anyways, it doesn't mean you can't do playback properly, but you
> may have to reduce the resolution down to 640x480.

And the two systems aggregate a whole 70 GB of hard-drive space. Way
too little for video - mostly because the largest single drive is
only 40 GB.

I would suggest that the new computer have a drive with at least 80
(marginal) and preferably 120 or 160 GB. With today's prices, this
is practical for most people (of course, the OP's mileage - or
budget - may vary).

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) phone 650.966.8481
Call me letters find me at domain blochg whose dot is com
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 2, 2004 1:27:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 1 Sep 2004 10:08:59 -0700, peterb@nycap.rr.com (Kosta) wrote:

> I
>have two computers:
>
>A laptop (Toshiba Satellite 1800)-
>Processor: Celeron 1.1 GHz
>Hard drive: 20GB (and an external drive 40GB)
>RAM: 512MB (I added an extra 256)
>OS: Windows XP

XP: it provides NTFS. Some even say it has better stability -may be,
but don't take it as a dogma. Now, it's a TURTLE.

>An older desktop (Powerspec)-
>Processor: Celeron 400 MHz
>Hard drive: 10GB
>RAM: 128MB
>OS: Windows 98

Win98, yeah -a LOT faster.

>Is it because of the HDD speed (4200RPM in the laptop)?

Should be more than enough for playback (hard drive requirements are
usually for capturing).
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 2, 2004 1:08:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Kosta" wrote ...
> I was hoping some of you could shed some light into this matter. I
> have two computers:
>
> A laptop (Toshiba Satellite 1800)-
> Processor: Celeron 1.1 GHz
> Hard drive: 20GB (and an external drive 40GB)
> RAM: 512MB (I added an extra 256)
> OS: Windows XP
>
> An older desktop (Powerspec)-
> Processor: Celeron 400 MHz
> Hard drive: 10GB
> RAM: 128MB
> OS: Windows 98
>
> On paper the laptop must be a lot better on video editing and
> playback.

Note that playback likely takes more resources than editing. Did
you want to use the laptop primarily for editing or for playback?

Both machines are kinda slow for good playback performance,
particularly if you are talking about "full-frame" resolution.

You didn't mention how you are capturing video, what software
you are using for editing, and what you are doing with the final
edited programs: playback on the same machine?, exporting
WMV for distribution?, writing back to tape?, writing DVDs?
etc. etc.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 3, 2004 7:13:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10jehcnbalbqr51@corp.supernews.com...
> "Kosta" wrote ...
> > I was hoping some of you could shed some light into this matter. I
> > have two computers:
> >
> > A laptop (Toshiba Satellite 1800)-
> > Processor: Celeron 1.1 GHz
> > Hard drive: 20GB (and an external drive 40GB)
> > RAM: 512MB (I added an extra 256)
> > OS: Windows XP
> >
> > An older desktop (Powerspec)-
> > Processor: Celeron 400 MHz
> > Hard drive: 10GB
> > RAM: 128MB
> > OS: Windows 98
> >
> > On paper the laptop must be a lot better on video editing and
> > playback.
>
> Note that playback likely takes more resources than editing. Did
> you want to use the laptop primarily for editing or for playback?
> \
Actually , playback of a dv stream takes very few resources, if any.
Editing, on the other hand will take much more.. If you think about it..
Windows has playback facilities built into the OS. When editing you are
using memory, processor time in the multitude of threads running in a NLE,
etc etc.Programmer's POV.



> Both machines are kinda slow for good playback performance,
> particularly if you are talking about "full-frame" resolution.
>

I have played DV back fine on a 500 Mhz Pentium. 533? And I have a 1Ghz VAIO
that has no problems at all.



> You didn't mention how you are capturing video, what software
> you are using for editing, and what you are doing with the final
> edited programs: playback on the same machine?, exporting
> WMV for distribution?, writing back to tape?, writing DVDs?
> etc. etc.
>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 3, 2004 7:13:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nappy" wrote ...
> Actually , playback of a dv stream takes very few resources, if any.
> Editing, on the other hand will take much more..

Real-time requirements (playback) vs. non-real-time (editing.)
Playing back DV requires full decoding via the codec in real time.
Neither editing nor rendering require real-time decoding or encoding.

> When editing you are using memory, processor time in the multitude
> of threads running in a NLE, etc etc.Programmer's POV.

Would that they were actually multi-threaded. Then it would have
taken advantage of my dual-CPU machines. :-( Note further that
the OP has not actually revealed what software he is using.

> I have played DV back fine on a 500 Mhz Pentium. 533?
> And I have a 1Ghz VAIO that has no problems at all.

Yes, so have I. The machines that the OP is discussing may be
horribly fragmented and have lots of useless processes (and
maybe even malware) running in the background. Impossible
to tell with so little data.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 3, 2004 7:20:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10jfqusbrklmn5e@corp.supernews.com...
> "nappy" wrote ...
> > Actually , playback of a dv stream takes very few resources, if any.
> > Editing, on the other hand will take much more..
>
> Real-time requirements (playback) vs. non-real-time (editing.)
> Playing back DV requires full decoding via the codec in real time.
> Neither editing nor rendering require real-time decoding or encoding.

If you are talking about DV there is no real time encoding. It is a data
stream sent out the firewire port. If you are talking about decoding the
stream to the screen... as far as 'resources', which was the point of your
post, it requires far fewer than an NLE running. Almost none.. to play a
stream.

However, when you are editing, there is always realtime encoding/decoding
processing going on. not to mention window, UI, timeline updating, audio
mixing , streaming data from multiple files from multiple drives, and on and
on..

My only point was that the NLE will actually be the resource hog. Not
playback.


>
> > When editing you are using memory, processor time in the multitude
> > of threads running in a NLE, etc etc.Programmer's POV.
>
> Would that they were actually multi-threaded. Then it would have
> taken advantage of my dual-CPU machines. :-( Note further that
> the OP has not actually revealed what software he is using.

most of the latest apps are multi threaded.Win32 is a threaded OS So there
is always at least one thread running. And it is more common to use a
threaded architecture than not anymore. Processor affinity is a different
issue. In a multithreaded environment dual processor use is not a given.
Whether or not specific processes are multithreaded, like rendering, is
somewhat of a different issue.



>
> > I have played DV back fine on a 500 Mhz Pentium. 533?
> > And I have a 1Ghz VAIO that has no problems at all.
>
> Yes, so have I. The machines that the OP is discussing may be
> horribly fragmented and have lots of useless processes (and
> maybe even malware) running in the background. Impossible
> to tell with so little data.

I agree.. both of those machines should play dv back from a clean non-system
drive just fine.


>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
September 7, 2004 4:56:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message news:<10jehcnbalbqr51@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Kosta" wrote ...
> > I was hoping some of you could shed some light into this matter. I
> > have two computers:
> >
> > A laptop (Toshiba Satellite 1800)-
> > Processor: Celeron 1.1 GHz
> > Hard drive: 20GB (and an external drive 40GB)
> > RAM: 512MB (I added an extra 256)
> > OS: Windows XP
> >
> > An older desktop (Powerspec)-
> > Processor: Celeron 400 MHz
> > Hard drive: 10GB
> > RAM: 128MB
> > OS: Windows 98
> >
> > On paper the laptop must be a lot better on video editing and
> > playback.
>
> Note that playback likely takes more resources than editing. Did
> you want to use the laptop primarily for editing or for playback?
>
> Both machines are kinda slow for good playback performance,
> particularly if you are talking about "full-frame" resolution.
>
> You didn't mention how you are capturing video, what software
> you are using for editing, and what you are doing with the final
> edited programs: playback on the same machine?, exporting
> WMV for distribution?, writing back to tape?, writing DVDs?
> etc. etc.

I am digitizing the video using DVC 150 (Dazzle) from a HI8 camcorder
or VHS. Then I edit it in Moviestar and write it to a DVD. The whole
process works fine except for the MPEG playback in Moviestar. It's
very hard to edit anything because playback is very choppy and takes
forever. This is not limited to Moviestar only. WMP also acts the same
way in the laptop.
!