Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HP Movie Writer on Laptop w/ Pentium M?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 26, 2004 5:56:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, comp.sys.laptops, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I have a R40 IBM ThinkPad and don't need (or want--and can't afford--a
new PC). I use the ThinkPad for everything except frying eggs.

My family's comprised of older people, and I would very much like to
transfer videotaped family "pictures" to DVD. My R40 has a 20GB hard
drive with 10.4 free space. I could clear up more if necessary.

An IBM rep told me last night I would need a MAC to do video editing,
or at least a computer with at least a 128-bit video card. (Mine has
16.)

Is this a lost cause? Should I return the Movie Maker? I know laptops
aren't good for video editing, but as for impossible dreams, I once
installed--very successfully--a CD burner on a Pentium 1. So sometimes
dreams can come true...
Any responses, posted or emailed, very welcome. Thanks.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 26, 2004 9:42:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Your IBM rep is, well, an idiot.

A laptop can edit video just fine. Video does not use very much memory on
your video card, so 16MB is fine. It would NEVER use all the memory of a
128MB card.

What is important is processor speed and memory. A Pentium M should be OK,
if a little slow, in rendering video. I don't know how much memory you
have, but if it is less than 512MB, I would consider an upgrade.

Personally, I don't know anything about the HP Movie Writer, so I can't
directly comment there.

Give it a try!

Tom
<mutefan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104058581.645798.229900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I have a R40 IBM ThinkPad and don't need (or want--and can't afford--a
> new PC). I use the ThinkPad for everything except frying eggs.
>
> My family's comprised of older people, and I would very much like to
> transfer videotaped family "pictures" to DVD. My R40 has a 20GB hard
> drive with 10.4 free space. I could clear up more if necessary.
>
> An IBM rep told me last night I would need a MAC to do video editing,
> or at least a computer with at least a 128-bit video card. (Mine has
> 16.)
>
> Is this a lost cause? Should I return the Movie Maker? I know laptops
> aren't good for video editing, but as for impossible dreams, I once
> installed--very successfully--a CD burner on a Pentium 1. So sometimes
> dreams can come true...
> Any responses, posted or emailed, very welcome. Thanks.
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 26, 2004 2:24:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Before u embark on this little adventure... <psshhh> older people like
to hold onto kodak prints. U give them an snazzy iPOD for xmas, they
don't know what to do with it.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 27, 2004 6:26:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, comp.sys.laptops, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Barry Watzman wrote:
> Sheesh.
>
> The rep is totally wrong about needing a MAC. But he's probably
right
> that you can't do it on your current machine.

Yeah, I could not beLIEVE that this person still had a job with IBM.
Maybe too much rum in the holiday eggnog.

[SNIP]

> However, while this is VERY CPU intensive, the task is not, within
> reason, memory intensive or video card intensive. If you have 256 or

> more megabytes of memory, you can do it, and more memory won't help a

> great deal. And the video card is totally irrelevant, ANY AGP video
> card will work just fine.

Again, thanks. The 128-bit part of the spiel sounded over-the-top.

> A notebook -- especially an older one or a low-end one -- isn't a
good
> platform for this, but it WILL (or should, anyway) work. But what
you
> really want is a good high-end CPU with a large hard drive. More
than
> anything else, a fast CPU and a really big hard drive (and I'm
talking
> hundreds of gigabytes, not tens of gigabytes) are the most important
> elements. Memory and video are much less significant. And with the
> right software, a PC can do it about as well as a MAC, although the
> Apple software package is very good in terms of ease-of-use and
reliability.

At the risk of sounding cheap (because I'd buy a used PC *only* to
accomplish this task), can you tell me the slowest CPU that will
operate with the *minimum* (but, as you say, huge) hard drive capacity?
The reason I ask is because the product I posted about said you needed
only a Pentium 3. I perhaps was under the misconception that a Pentium
M was the equivalent of a 3.

Possibly I should ask what is the oldest MAC you can think of that
would be adequate to do the job.

Again, thanks much for the response.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 27, 2004 6:36:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, comp.sys.laptops, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Wow, you're too smart for me to understand half of what you're saying.
But thank you very much for the URL.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 27, 2004 6:52:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, comp.sys.laptops, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

If you have the time, could you tell me if this supercheap computer I
found at Walmart would be appropriate (I never heard of "Balance"
computers)? It was advertised on Yahoo and comes without a monitor;
and although I can install more memory, I do not understand the
acronyms associated with this particular system. (I ask because it has
a 40 GB hard drive and a Celeron/Prescott (???) CPU. I didn't know
they made Celeron Prescotts.)

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=3...
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 27, 2004 10:55:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Sheesh.

The rep is totally wrong about needing a MAC. But he's probably right
that you can't do it on your current machine.

First, video is huge, you need to allow about 40 gigabytes of disk space
to edit a 2 hour VHS tape. The raw AVI file is 13 gigs per hour, and
the encoded MPEG is 5 gigs per DVD (it may take 2 DVDs to hold a 2-hour
VHS tape).

Also, the CPU requirement is staggering. I used to do video editing on
a 1.6 GHz Northwood family P4, and MPEG encoding from raw video can take
more than 10 hours on such a CPU (the software being used is a Huge
factor here).

However, while this is VERY CPU intensive, the task is not, within
reason, memory intensive or video card intensive. If you have 256 or
more megabytes of memory, you can do it, and more memory won't help a
great deal. And the video card is totally irrelevant, ANY AGP video
card will work just fine.

A notebook -- especially an older one or a low-end one -- isn't a good
platform for this, but it WILL (or should, anyway) work. But what you
really want is a good high-end CPU with a large hard drive. More than
anything else, a fast CPU and a really big hard drive (and I'm talking
hundreds of gigabytes, not tens of gigabytes) are the most important
elements. Memory and video are much less significant. And with the
right software, a PC can do it about as well as a MAC, although the
Apple software package is very good in terms of ease-of-use and reliability.


mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:

> I have a R40 IBM ThinkPad and don't need (or want--and can't afford--a
> new PC). I use the ThinkPad for everything except frying eggs.
>
> My family's comprised of older people, and I would very much like to
> transfer videotaped family "pictures" to DVD. My R40 has a 20GB hard
> drive with 10.4 free space. I could clear up more if necessary.
>
> An IBM rep told me last night I would need a MAC to do video editing,
> or at least a computer with at least a 128-bit video card. (Mine has
> 16.)
>
> Is this a lost cause? Should I return the Movie Maker? I know laptops
> aren't good for video editing, but as for impossible dreams, I once
> installed--very successfully--a CD burner on a Pentium 1. So sometimes
> dreams can come true...
> Any responses, posted or emailed, very welcome. Thanks.
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 27, 2004 12:04:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On 27 Dec 2004 03:26:04 -0800, mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:

>Barry Watzman wrote:
>> Sheesh.
>>
>> The rep is totally wrong about needing a MAC. But he's probably
>right
>> that you can't do it on your current machine.
>
>Yeah, I could not beLIEVE that this person still had a job with IBM.
>Maybe too much rum in the holiday eggnog.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> However, while this is VERY CPU intensive, the task is not, within
>> reason, memory intensive or video card intensive. If you have 256 or
>
>> more megabytes of memory, you can do it, and more memory won't help a
>
>> great deal. And the video card is totally irrelevant, ANY AGP video
>> card will work just fine.
>
>Again, thanks. The 128-bit part of the spiel sounded over-the-top.
>
>> A notebook -- especially an older one or a low-end one -- isn't a
>good
>> platform for this, but it WILL (or should, anyway) work. But what
>you
>> really want is a good high-end CPU with a large hard drive. More
>than
>> anything else, a fast CPU and a really big hard drive (and I'm
>talking
>> hundreds of gigabytes, not tens of gigabytes) are the most important
>> elements. Memory and video are much less significant. And with the
>> right software, a PC can do it about as well as a MAC, although the
>> Apple software package is very good in terms of ease-of-use and
>reliability.
>
>At the risk of sounding cheap (because I'd buy a used PC *only* to
>accomplish this task), can you tell me the slowest CPU that will
>operate with the *minimum* (but, as you say, huge) hard drive capacity?
>The reason I ask is because the product I posted about said you needed
>only a Pentium 3. I perhaps was under the misconception that a Pentium
>M was the equivalent of a 3.

You're right, the M is a P3.
There's no correlation between CPU speed and drive size; as long as
the motherboard/BIOS will handle the drive, the CPU will work with it.
Although, with only 10 gigs or so free, it'll be tight. An external
HD, if you can get one to work, will be a big help here.
As for the video card, the rep is smoking he wrong stuff on the job.
Video editing doesn't take very much in the way of video at all; a 16
Meg card will work fine, if that's what you have.
Good luck!
>
>Possibly I should ask what is the oldest MAC you can think of that
>would be adequate to do the job.
>
>Again, thanks much for the response.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 27, 2004 12:15:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On 27 Dec 2004 03:52:05 -0800, mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:

>If you have the time, could you tell me if this supercheap computer I
>found at Walmart would be appropriate (I never heard of "Balance"
>computers)? It was advertised on Yahoo and comes without a monitor;
>and although I can install more memory, I do not understand the
>acronyms associated with this particular system. (I ask because it has
>a 40 GB hard drive and a Celeron/Prescott (???) CPU. I didn't know
>they made Celeron Prescotts.)
>
>http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=3...

I've never heard of the Balance brand either, but that doesn't mean
much; anyone with an empty garage can build computers.
The CPU delivered in the system is a Celeron; the mobo will also take
a P4/Prescott CPU, if you wish to install one.
The 128 Meg RAM is too little for movie making; at least 512M is
called for, a Gig is better. (Actually, the 128M is kind of limited
for doing anything with WinXP) You'll want to install more RAM; it's
cheap, really, for the bang it gives.
You'd also need a CD burner; the included 5.25" (aren't they all?) CD
ROM drive is a read-only device.
The video card isn't even mentiuoned, so it may be an on-board system
using shared memory; an AGP slot isn't mentioned, either, so you may
want to add a PCI video card.
There's no monitor included.
For a low-end system, it's not bad at all. There's enough
expandability that it can be made into a capable video editing system,
but you'll need to add hard drive space and RAM, as well as a monitor,
at a minimum.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 27, 2004 1:12:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

<mutefan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104058581.645798.229900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I have a R40 IBM ThinkPad and don't need (or want--and can't afford--a
> new PC). I use the ThinkPad for everything except frying eggs.
>
> My family's comprised of older people, and I would very much like to
> transfer videotaped family "pictures" to DVD. My R40 has a 20GB hard
> drive with 10.4 free space. I could clear up more if necessary.
>
> An IBM rep told me last night I would need a MAC to do video editing,
> or at least a computer with at least a 128-bit video card. (Mine has
> 16.)
>
> Is this a lost cause? Should I return the Movie Maker? I know laptops
> aren't good for video editing, but as for impossible dreams, I once
> installed--very successfully--a CD burner on a Pentium 1. So sometimes
> dreams can come true...
> Any responses, posted or emailed, very welcome. Thanks.
>
A current low-end Dell with a DVD burner can handle what you're asking.
Your current PC isn't up to the task in cpu cycles per unit time, hard disk
capacity, memory to hard disk and vice versa speed.

You'll also need an interface for the VCR's RCA cables or S-video cable to
your PC. Some use a TV type video card like an ATI AIW, some use an
external unit via USB 2.0 or Firewire.

You'll need software to transcode the VCR video to AVI, converter software
to make the AVI to DVD compatible mpeg2, software to translate mpeg2 to DVD
format and menu, software to burn this to DVD. And there's ins and outs to
the last procedure as well. Then there's + and - physical media playing
problems to concern the person viewing the final product. I would use
keyword "dvd" to locate the appropriate newsgroups for all of this. Too
in-depth for this newsgroup. Digital photo newsgroup is inappropriate as
digital photos, while related, have no where near the cpu usage, interface
problems, conversion problems that are associated with raw video and its
conversion process to DVD format. www.dvdrhelp.com
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 28, 2004 1:37:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

The lowest CPU that I'd consider [for any significant video editing] is
probably a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with a 533 MHz front-side bus.


mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> At the risk of sounding cheap (because I'd buy a used PC *only* to
> accomplish this task), can you tell me the slowest CPU that will
> operate with the *minimum* (but, as you say, huge) hard drive capacity?
> The reason I ask is because the product I posted about said you needed
> only a Pentium 3. I perhaps was under the misconception that a Pentium
> M was the equivalent of a 3.
>
> Possibly I should ask what is the oldest MAC you can think of that
> would be adequate to do the job.
>
> Again, thanks much for the response.
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 28, 2004 6:23:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, comp.sys.laptops, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Barry Watzman wrote:
> You don't need "tons" of memory for video editing. 128 isn't enough,

> really, for XP to run well, but you can do video editing in 256 MB
quite
> nicely. There's nothing wrong with 512 megs, it's not essential, it
> will increase the speed slightly (not enought that you'd likely
notice).
>
> DDR333 = 333MHz (speed) DDR (dual data rate memory -- transfers data
on
> both edges of the clock instead of just on one edge). The clock
> freqency being 333 MHz (333,000,000 clock cyles per second).

Hello again. If you all don't mind my asking, is this "DDR" acronym
with clock cycles something new in memory advertisements? I'm a
computer school drop-out. As recently as last year, I do not recall
seeing the old reliable HD manufacturers' sites using this prefix, with
clock cycles, in advertisements.

Minute point, and off-topic as far as the original subject of this post
is concerned. The reason I ask is because if I buy a low-end P4
machine and have to add memory, do I have to make sure to purchase
memory with the exact same clock cycles? (Laugh if it's fubar, but I
gotta know!) Is a 128, 256, 512 DIMM no longer a generic module? Now
you have to match up the RAM with clock cycles? (Remember to laugh if
it's fubar.)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 28, 2004 12:43:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On 28 Dec 2004 03:23:08 -0800, mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:

>Barry Watzman wrote:
>> You don't need "tons" of memory for video editing. 128 isn't enough,
>
>> really, for XP to run well, but you can do video editing in 256 MB
>quite
>> nicely. There's nothing wrong with 512 megs, it's not essential, it
>> will increase the speed slightly (not enought that you'd likely
>notice).
>>
>> DDR333 = 333MHz (speed) DDR (dual data rate memory -- transfers data
>on
>> both edges of the clock instead of just on one edge). The clock
>> freqency being 333 MHz (333,000,000 clock cyles per second).
>
>Hello again. If you all don't mind my asking, is this "DDR" acronym
>with clock cycles something new in memory advertisements? I'm a
>computer school drop-out. As recently as last year, I do not recall
>seeing the old reliable HD manufacturers' sites using this prefix, with
>clock cycles, in advertisements.
>
>Minute point, and off-topic as far as the original subject of this post
>is concerned. The reason I ask is because if I buy a low-end P4
>machine and have to add memory, do I have to make sure to purchase
>memory with the exact same clock cycles? (Laugh if it's fubar, but I
>gotta know!) Is a 128, 256, 512 DIMM no longer a generic module? Now
>you have to match up the RAM with clock cycles? (Remember to laugh if
>it's fubar.)

No, you don't need to match exactly, EXCEPT:
If you use slower RAM, you lose performance.
If you use faster RAM, in most cases, the RAM won't perform to its
potential.
What IS important is to make sure the type and speed of RAM you use is
within the capabilities of the motherboard/BIOS/chipset. If it's not,
it usually simply won't work (or even fit).
To determine what RAM is right for your system, you can go to
www.crucial.com; they have a system to help you determine what's best
for your system.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 29, 2004 3:39:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

DDR is not advertising. Up through SDRAM, memory transferred data once
per clock cycle. Transferring twice per clock cycle was actually one of
the innovations in memory design that was made by Rambus back in 1990,
and was first put into production in RDRAM, but then was "adopted" by
the memory industry for DDR. [I use "adopted" charitably; Rambus
patented it, and there is a now 5-year long string of court cases over
whether or not Rambus does or does not own that technology, and whether
every firm that makes SDRAM and DDR memory owes them royalties for the
"adoption" of their memory innovations (of which this is only one)].

When you buy memory, you do have to match the memory type to the
required by the motherboard. There are two parameters, "type" and
"speed". The type has to match (and there are lots of "types", about a
dozen or more). Memory comes in various "speed grades" (within a
"type"). Usually you can use the slower ones, but it will slow down the
system. However, using a faster type than the motherboard will support
won't cause it to run faster, because the basic rule is that everything
runs at the speed of the slowest installed or configured component. So
you kind of need to know "the whole picture".

Also, while it was originally called "DDR333", the nomenclature is being
changed, away from the clock speed in Megaherts ("333" in this case) to
the total data transfer rate in Megabytes per second. So the "new" name
for what used to be called DDR333 is PC2700 (2,700 megabytes per second
can be transferred between this memory and the motherboard). Speed in
common use range from PC1600 to PC4200.

All of this so far just deals with speed. There is also the question of
size, and today you can commonly buy memory modules from 128 Megabytes
to at least one gigabyte.

When you put all of this together, there are hundreds if not thousands
of different "kinds" of memory modules.


mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:

> Barry Watzman wrote:
>
>>You don't need "tons" of memory for video editing. 128 isn't enough,
>
>
>>really, for XP to run well, but you can do video editing in 256 MB
>
> quite
>
>>nicely. There's nothing wrong with 512 megs, it's not essential, it
>>will increase the speed slightly (not enought that you'd likely
>
> notice).
>
>>DDR333 = 333MHz (speed) DDR (dual data rate memory -- transfers data
>
> on
>
>>both edges of the clock instead of just on one edge). The clock
>>freqency being 333 MHz (333,000,000 clock cyles per second).
>
>
> Hello again. If you all don't mind my asking, is this "DDR" acronym
> with clock cycles something new in memory advertisements? I'm a
> computer school drop-out. As recently as last year, I do not recall
> seeing the old reliable HD manufacturers' sites using this prefix, with
> clock cycles, in advertisements.
>
> Minute point, and off-topic as far as the original subject of this post
> is concerned. The reason I ask is because if I buy a low-end P4
> machine and have to add memory, do I have to make sure to purchase
> memory with the exact same clock cycles? (Laugh if it's fubar, but I
> gotta know!) Is a 128, 256, 512 DIMM no longer a generic module? Now
> you have to match up the RAM with clock cycles? (Remember to laugh if
> it's fubar.)
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 29, 2004 6:45:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, comp.sys.laptops, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Excellent, informative post. Thank you for more than I learned in
"Comp Sci 101" before I dropped out in the tenth week...
!