Frage von Wolfgang Thieler:
Hello friends, knows of a Council?
I just fall to that recorded TV each time exactly at
4,194,223 bytes to store in a *. AVI file is terminated.
My TV board is a Hauppauge WinTV PCI with 848-chip with the
WDM drivers and the program WinTV32/2000 ver 4.7 - Is there any
this board an opportunity to record directly via
Software decoder directly in a *. mpg file to save?
Thanks for clarification!
Wolfgang
Antwort von Heiko Nocon:
Thieler Wolfgang wrote:
> I just fall to that recorded TV exactly when each
> 4,194,223 bytes to store in a *. AVI file is terminated.
Then you should not as a FAT32 file system for your disk.
Antwort von Stefan Koschke:
Thieler Wolfgang wrote:
> Hello friends, knows of a Council?
>
> I just fall to that recorded TV exactly when each
> 4,194,223 bytes to store in a *. AVI file is terminated.
> My TV board is a Hauppauge WinTV PCI with 848-chip with the
> WDM drivers and the program WinTV32/2000 ver 4.7 - Is there any
> This board an opportunity to record directly via
> Software decoder directly in a *. mpg file to save?
>
> Thanks for clarification!
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
Hello Wolfgang,
formatted with NTFS times, there is the file size limitation is not anymore!
Ciao
Stefan
Antwort von Johann-Bernhard Obermeier:
Thieler Wolfgang wrote:
> Hello friends, knows of a Council?
>
> I just fall to that recorded TV exactly when each =
> 4,194,223 bytes to store in a *. AVI file is terminated.
> My TV board is a Hauppauge WinTV PCI with 848-chip with the
> WDM drivers and the program WinTV32/2000 ver 4.7 - Is there any
> This board an opportunity to record directly via
> Software decoder directly in a *. mpg file to save?
>
> Thanks for clarification!
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
-------------------------------------------------- -----------------------=
---------------
Hallo NG,
when the recording at the 4 GB is concluded, it was initially =
times
suggest that you either not Win XP on the Calculator do un =
d
probably synonymous with the file has been formatted NTFS. FAT 32
is usually already in files over 2 GB of Zick. I would
first time check.
Otherwise, "WinTV" already in a position directly as MPEG2 movies - Stream
recorded, provided you have the correct codec it!
M. f. G.
Bernhard
Antwort von Benjamin Grund:
On 31.January 2006, 19:11 wrote Johann Bernhard Meier Upper:
> Otherwise, "WinTV" already in a position directly as MPEG2 movies - Stream
> Recorded, provided you have the correct codec it!
In order to MPEG2 in real time to be included, you need but a
correspondingly quick calculator.
Gruß,
Benjamin
Antwort von Stefan Koschke:
Benjamin reason wrote:
> On 31.January 2006, 19:11 wrote Johann Bernhard Meier Upper:
>
>
>> Otherwise, "WinTV" already in a position directly as MPEG2 movies - Stream
>> recorded, provided you have the correct codec it!
>
>
> In order to MPEG2 in real time to be included, you need but a
> Correspondingly quick calculator.
>
> Regards,
> Benjamin
Hi Benjamin,
not necessarily mean it was already on my "old" AMD 1400mit
an NVidia VIVO graphics card without any restrictions!
Ciao
Stefan
Antwort von Benjamin Grund:
On 31.January 2006, 19:21 Koschke Stefan wrote:
> Not necessarily, it was already on my "old" AMD 1400mit
> An NVidia VIVO graphics card without any restrictions!
Which Resolution?
Ich hab mal here with an Athlon XP 1800versucht in various
Formats in real-time record. Even with the processor was the only
in very low resolutions possible.
Gruß,
Benjamin
Antwort von Johann-Bernhard Obermeier:
Benjamin reason wrote:
> On 31.January 2006, 19:21 Koschke Stefan wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily, it was already on my "old" AMD 1400mit
>> An NVidia VIVO graphics card without any restrictions!
>
> In which resolution?
> I have here and with an Athlon XP 1800versucht in various
> Formats in real-time record. Even with the processor was the only
> In very low resolutions possible.
>
> Regards,
> Benjamin
-------------------------------------------------- -----------------------=
------------------
The Resolution352x 288 is used synonymous for VCDs and always =
still a good picture of the DVDs with the naked eye hardly z =
u
distinguish. With this resolution come synonymous weaker Rechne =
r
and can cope id R in real time.
Bernhard
Antwort von Günter_Hackel:
On 31.01.2006 22:00, Johann Bernhard Meier Ober wrote:
> The Resolution352x 288 is synonymous for VCDs and always uses
> Still a good picture of the DVDs with the naked eye can hardly be
> Differentiate.
Hello
I'm already 54 and need a reading, but with your
Eyes, I would never and never replace!
Antwort von Benjamin Grund:
On 31.January 2006, 22:00 wrote Johann Bernhard Meier Upper:
> The Resolution352x 288 is synonymous for VCDs and always uses
> Still a good picture of the DVDs with the naked eye can hardly be
> Differentiate.
That is now not Dein Ernst, oder? Who of a VCD not a DVD
may differ, the times should urgently visit an ophthalmologist.
Gruß,
Benjamin
Antwort von Johann-Bernhard Obermeier:
Benjamin reason wrote:
> On 31.January 2006, 22:00 wrote Johann Bernhard Meier Upper:
>
>> The Resolution352x 288 is synonymous for VCDs and supplies used in the =
mer
>> Still a good picture of the DVDs with the naked eye kau =
m
>> Distinguish.
>
> This is now not Dein Ernst, oder? Who of a VCD not a DVD
> May be different, the times should urgently visit an ophthalmologist.
>
> Regards,
> Benjamin
-------------------------------------------------- -----------------------=
--------
Sure, but only those who are at a distance of 10 cm from the
Screen must be set and then each image individually nachzählt line!
Bernhard
Antwort von Johann-Bernhard Obermeier:
Günter Hackel wrote:
> On 31.01.2006 22:00, Johann Bernhard Meier Ober wrote:
>
>> The Resolution352x 288 is synonymous for VCDs and supplies used in the =
mer
>> Still a good picture of the DVDs with the naked eye kau =
m
>> Distinguish.
>
> Hello
> I'm already 54 and need a reading, but with your eye =
n
> I would like to never and never change!
-------------------------------------------------- -----------------------=
----
Then gehörstdu likely to be those who are at a distance of 10 =
cm in front of the screen and then put each line individually nachzähle image =
n!
Antwort von Günter_Hackel:
On 01.02.2006 04:34, Johann Bernhard Meier Ober wrote:
> Günter Hackel wrote:
>> On 31.01.2006 22:00, Johann Bernhard Meier Ober wrote:
>>
>>> The Resolution352x 288 is synonymous for VCDs and always uses
>>> Still a good picture of the DVDs with the naked eye can hardly be
>>> Distinguish.
>>
>> Hello
>> I'm already 54 and need a reading, but with your eyes
>> I would like to never and never change!
>
> ------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
>
>
> Then gehörstdu likely to be those who are at a distance of 10
> Cm in front of the screen and then put each picture one by one line!
Advance: If you respond, please only in the NG. I want to
Postings NOT receive as email.
And your presumption:
No, I do not sit in front of the screen, I am sitting comfortably in my
Home Theater in front of a screen 2.20 m wide and if you quite as tight
rangeht, one can count no more than small squares but no lines.
The Resolutionist of you mentioned just very low. WERS
necessarily like WERS and find beautiful you are.
gh
Antwort von Günter_Hackel:
On 01.02.2006 04:32, Johann Bernhard Meier Ober wrote:
>> This is now not Dein Ernst, oder? Who of a VCD not a DVD
>> May be different, the times should urgently visit an ophthalmologist.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Benjamin
> ------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
>
> Sure, but only those who are at a distance of 10 cm from the
> Screen must be set and then each image individually nachzählt line!
Nonsense! If you do not note differences or if the thee
Picture is not bad stört: Be glad you save lowest Claims
a lot of money. (yes it is synonymous people give to their Rostlaube a
Ferrari stickers paperboard and then are convinced that the cart
now run faster) But listen to such nonsense to be synonymous
justify the repetition is not synonymous with right.
gh
Antwort von Josef Moellers:
Nocon Heiko wrote:
> Wolfgang Thieler wrote:
>
>
>> I just fall to that recorded TV exactly when each =
>> 4,194,223 bytes to store in a *. AVI file is terminated.
>
>
> Then you should not as a FAT32 file system for your plate used =
en.
>
This has nothing with FAT or NTFS to be done: an AVI file is, strictly speaking,
File a reef-like WAV file and this has basically =
only
32 bits for the size (bytes 4-7), so there is always =
with 4GB
manhole in the layer.
Miscellaneous Programs then just make multiple AVIs from a recording.
--
Josef Möllers (penguin keeper at FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize
- T. Pratchett
Antwort von Benjamin Grund:
On 01.February 2006, 04:32 wrote Johann Bernhard Meier Upper:
> Sure, but only those who are at a distance of 10 cm from the
> Screen must be set and then each image individually nachzählt line!
Either you urgently need glasses or your Television taugt
nothing.
On my TV (and those are not even very expensive equipment)
I can in any case completely normal viewing distance with a VCD
Ease of a DVD differ.
Gruß,
Benjamin
Antwort von Benjamin Grund:
On 01.February 2006, 04:34 wrote Johann Bernhard Meier Upper:
> Then gehörstdu likely to be those who are at a distance of 10
> Cm in front of the screen and then put each picture one by one line!
Who the difference at normal viewing distance does not see the
either has a massive eye problem or an absolutely schrottigen
Television.
Gruß,
Benjamin
Antwort von Andre Storch:
> Josef Moellers wrote
> This has nothing with FAT or NTFS to be done: an AVI file is, strictly speaking,
> A RIFF-file, similar to WAV file and this has only
> 32 bits for the size (bytes 4-7), so there is always at 4GB
> Layer in the chamber.
In addition, there was times 2 bugs in MS, during a Bug
resulted in at 2GB conclusion was (probably a rather INT UINT
made) and even earlier in einm bug was still rather late (when
exactly, I do not know more).
... but since there are now but what of Ratiopharm .. Extended AVI? or so.
Could not longer AVIs?
Regards
André
Antwort von Markus Knapp:
Andre Stork wrote:
>> Josef Moellers wrote
>> This has nothing with FAT or NTFS to be done: an AVI file is, strictly speaking,
>> A RIFF-file, similar to WAV file and this has only
>> 32 bits for the size (bytes 4-7), so there is always at 4GB
>> Layer in the chamber.
> And in addition, there was times 2 bugs in MS, during a Bug
> Resulted in at 2GB conclusion was (probably a rather INT UINT
> Made) and even earlier in einm bug was still rather late (when
> Exactly, I do not know more).
> .... but since there are now but what of Ratiopharm .. Extended AVI? or so.
> Could not longer AVIs?
I have already AVIs produced with almost 20GB (DV-AVI about 90
Minutes). That was easily playable and synonymous to further encode
suitable. So now (in my case WinXP SP2
NTFS drive with Premiere Pro and TMPGEnc in current versions) no
Problem anymore.
The problem the OP is probably really FAT32 and / or obsolete
Capture Software.
Gruß,
Markus
--
Markus Knapp * * * http://www.markus-knapp.de video film *
"Nothing in life is free, not even death, because the costs
the life. "
Antwort von Andre Storch:
> Markus Knapp wrote
>> Andre Stork wrote:
>> .... but since there are now but what of Ratiopharm .. Extended AVI? or so.
>> Could not longer AVIs?
>
> I have already AVIs produced with almost 20GB (DV-AVI about 90
> Minutes). That was easily playable and synonymous to further encode
> Suitable. So now (in my case WinXP SP2
> NTFS drive with Premiere Pro and TMPGEnc in current versions) no
> Problem anymore.
>
> The problem the OP is probably really FAT32 and / or obsolete
> Capture Software.
In the case of VirtualDub is what 'OpenDML extended files' as
clean solution for AVIs> 2GB.
I guess times that a piece of software over the old VFW interface
AVIs produced, yet the old version writes AVI ...?
Quicktime 6.5 can not come with> 2GB AVIs clear ...
Regards
André
Antwort von Wolfgang Thieler:
"Wolfgang Thieler"
wrote in news post
news: 43df8c88 $ 0 $ 9008 $ 9b622d9e@news.freenet.de ...
> Hello friends, knows of a Council?
>
> I just fall to that recorded TV exactly when each
> 4,194,223 bytes to store in a *. AVI file is terminated.
> My TV board is a Hauppauge WinTV PCI with 848-chip with the
> WDM drivers and the program WinTV32/2000 ver 4.7 - Is there any
> This board an opportunity to record directly via
> Software decoder directly in a *. mpg file to save?
>
> Thanks for clarification!
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
Video Hello Friends, Thank you s.alle to me attentively on FAT32
have done, that was the reason.
Who is interested: My Calculator 2.2 GHz with XP SP2 and has HomeEd
While HauptFP C: \ with NTFS, the storage of the *. AVI was
but on the FP D: \ with FAT32, which I made an old calculator
did. Meanwhile, I know that FAT32 files to 2 ^ 32
corresponding to approximately 4,294 GB permits. Although this is still about 100 MB more
as my (exactly equal) recorded 4 AVI files, but where
the 100 MB of stuck, I do not know. An experiment on the C: \ (with NTFS)
had a (readable) AVI with 28.6 GB and> 4 hours of recording time.
Detailed information on this topic, synonymous procedures for
Conversion of FAT to NTFS, I found incidentally during www.schieb.de
Wolfgang
Antwort von Heiko Nocon:
Josef Moellers wrote:
> This has nothing with FAT or NTFS to be done: an AVI file is, strictly speaking,
> a RIFF-file, similar to WAV file and this has only
> 32 bits for the size (bytes 4-7), so there is always at 4GB
> layer in the chamber.
Nonsense.
You've obviously never of heard OpenDML AVIs and synonymous
nothing of the fact that such a specification since ten
Years.
A program, which today is still not supported, is easy
in the trash.
Antwort von Stefan Koschke:
Benjamin reason wrote:
> On 31.January 2006, 19:21 Koschke Stefan wrote:
>
>
>> not necessarily, it was already on my "old" AMD 1400mit
>> an NVidia VIVO graphics card without any restrictions!
>
>
> In which resolution?
> I have here and with an Athlon XP 1800versucht in various
> Formats in real-time record. Even with the processor was the only
> In very low resolutions possible.
>
> Regards,
> Benjamin
Hi Benjamin,
all DVD Resolutions, of "high quality" to "long play", each PAL.
And no noticeable CPU usage except for the blades to
Plate and went as the HD-Led synonymous only briefly on.
Ciao
Stefan
Antwort von Stefan Koschke:
Thieler Wolfgang wrote:
> "Wolfgang Thieler" wrote in news post
> News: 43df8c88 $ 0 $ 9008 $ 9b622d9e@news.freenet.de ...
>
>> Hello friends, knows of a Council?
>>
>> I just fall to that recorded TV exactly when each
>> 4,194,223 bytes to store in a *. AVI file is terminated.
>> My TV board is a Hauppauge WinTV PCI with 848-chip with the
>> WDM drivers and the program WinTV32/2000 Vers 4.7 - Is there any
>> this board an opportunity to record directly via
>> Software decoder directly in a *. mpg file to save?
>>
>> Thanks for clarification!
>>
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>
>
> Hello Friends video, thank you s.alle to me attentively on FAT32
> Have done, that was the reason.
> Who is interested: My Calculator 2.2 GHz with XP SP2 and has HomeEd
> While HauptFP C: \ with NTFS, the storage of the *. AVI was
> But on the FP D: \ with FAT32, which I made an old calculator
> Did. Meanwhile, I know that FAT32 files to 2 ^ 32
> Corresponding to approximately 4,294 GB permits. Although this is still about 100 MB more
> My (exactly equal) recorded 4 AVI files, but where
> The 100 MB of stuck, I do not know. An experiment on the C: \ (with NTFS)
> Let a (readable) AVI with 28.6 GB and> 4 hours of recording time.
> Detailed information on this topic, synonymous procedures for
> Conversion of FAT to NTFS, I found incidentally during www.schieb.de
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
Hello Wolfgang,
Your 100 MB are missing s.Deiner false conversion, a n.hat
1024 bytes and MB has a 1024 kB.
But there are always programs (and the manufacturer's specifications so ;-)
expect that a larger value rauskommt.
Ciao
Stefan
Antwort von Benjamin Grund:
On 01.February 2006, 17:57 Koschke Stefan wrote:
> All DVD Resolutions, of "high quality" to "long play", each PAL.
> And no noticeable CPU usage except for the blades to
> Plate and went as the HD-Led synonymous only briefly on.
If the card happens to have a hardware encoder in it?
Full DVD Resolutionbei MPEG2 is with such a lame otherwise Processor
actually not possible.
Gruß,
Benjamin
Antwort von Benjamin Grund:
On 01.February 2006, 17:57 Koschke Stefan wrote:
> All DVD Resolutions, of "high quality" to "long play", each PAL.
> And no noticeable CPU usage except for the blades to
> Plate and went as the HD-Led synonymous only briefly on.
Hab bischen now look into the cards seem to actually
a hardware encoder on it to have. Then is it clear that so synonymous
on computers such as an old Athlon 1400eine recording with high
Resolutionund MPEG2 possible.
It was but of a normal TV card with BT848 chipset question
and thus would be a real-time recording in MPEG2 format with a so -
Processor lame never be possible, as I said this is not even with
my Athlon XP 1800.
Gruß,
Benjamin
Antwort von Andre Beck:
Stefan Koschke writes:
>
> Your missing 100 MB hang s.Deiner false conversion, a kB
> Has 1024 bytes and MB has a 1024 kB.
No.. The SI prefixes do not change just so, just because a
Some scientists find the match. For the IEC has been 8 years
alternative prefixes (kiB, MiB, etc) that will actually behave
as in computer science sometimes seems to fit. Unfortunately, the
old Mem is extremely sedentary and incomprehensible from the grounds of
with infected vehemently defended him, and partly abstruse Work
Arounds invented (large K [actually stands for Kelvin and
as synonymous only with the k folds, the big M's and m's are synonymous
already], the distinction between MB and MB [a curiosity from the
Heise-press, where there is now apparently some editors bescheid
know]) and is always synonymous polemics against leading manufacturer plate, which
the only ties to cheat.
> But there are always programs (and the manufacturer's specifications so ;-)
> Expect that a larger value rauskommt.
The account may be simply incorrect. A megabyte is now time a
Million bytes, which is synonymous not do otherwise - what do you mean where the
entire telecommunications industry would end if the engineer does not
more transparent of "1 MByte / s" could conclude "Aha, this is a
Byte / s "? Want you about the consequences of such nonsense inform
(eg, the legendary "1.44MB" floppy or all broken software,
the opinion is 1Mbit / s would 1048576Bit / s [particularly widespread in
Video environment]) and
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
consult.
Who incorrectly displays the Windows Explorer.
--
The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"
-> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck ABP-RIPE Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <--
Antwort von Christian Schroeder:
Andre Beck wrote:
> Stefan Koschke writes:
>> Your missing 100 MB hang s.Deiner false conversion, a kB
>> Has 1024 bytes and MB has a 1024 kB.
>
> No.. The SI prefixes do not change just so, just because a
> Some scientists find the match. For the IEC has been 8 years
> Alternative prefixes (kiB, MiB, etc) that will actually behave
> Like it in the computer science sometimes seems to fit. Unfortunately, the
> Old Mem is extremely sedentary and incomprehensible from the grounds of
> With infected vehemently defended him, but partly abstruse Work
> Around invented (large K [actually stands for Kelvin and
> So synonymous only with the k folds, the big M's and m's are synonymous
> Already], the distinction between MB and MB [a curiosity from the
> Heise-press, where there is now apparently some editors bescheid
> Know]) and is always synonymous polemic against the disk manufacturer is leading the
> The only ties to cheat.
>
>> But there are always programs (and the manufacturer's specifications so ;-)
>> Expect that a larger value rauskommt.
>
> The account may be simply incorrect. A megabyte is now time a
> Million bytes, which is synonymous not do otherwise - what do you mean where the
> Entire telecommunications industry would end if the engineer does not
> More transparent of "1 MByte / s" could conclude "Aha, this is a
> Byte / s? "I want you on the consequences of such nonsense inform
> (Eg, the legendary "1.44MB" floppy or all broken software,
> Think is the 1Mbit / s would 1048576Bit / s [particularly widespread in
> Video environment]) and
This is simply factually wrong. It is not that the
Scientists think this because once again what made creative
be. A kilobyte is 1024 bytes. Why? Because the digital computer with
2er Potencies calculated (voltage level to Hi or Low, the more familiar
not) must be all in powers of 2 letters.
And, 2 to 10 is nunmal 1024, obs suits you or not. And if
HDD manufacturers a 60 GB disk sale, then the only
Has 54GB (grad is now roughly estimated), then it is only a
Marketing gag.
And with SI prefixes, the times simply nothing to do ...
--
Gruß Chris
We must Sisyphus happy as people imagine!
Antwort von Helmut Hullen:
Hello, Christian,
Du (Christian.Schroeder) my test s.05.02.06:
>> No. The SI prefixes do not change just so, just because
>> A few computer scientists will find the match. For the IEC has been
>> 8 years alternative prefixes (kiB, MiB, etc) which then really
>> Behave as it is uncommon in computer science fits
>> Appears.
[...]
> This is simply factually wrong. It is not that the
> The scientists think, because once again what made creative
> Should be. A kilobyte is 1024 bytes.
No.. The repetition is not synonymous with right.
The Massvorsatz "kilo" means 1000th
Alternative:
1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
Many greetings!
Helmut
Antwort von Alexander Noe':
Andre Stork wrote:
>> Josef Moellers wrote
>> This has nothing with FAT or NTFS to be done: an AVI file is, strictly speaking,
>> a RIFF-file, similar to WAV file and this has only
>> 32 bits for the size (bytes 4-7), so there is always at 4GB
>> layer in the chamber.
>
>
> And in addition, there was times 2 bugs in MS, during a Bug
> Resulted in at 2GB conclusion was (probably a rather INT UINT
> Taken)
That was not a bug.
> And in still older einm bug was still rather late (when
> Exactly, I do not know more).
1GB, and that was synonymous not a bug ...
>
> ... but since there are now but what of Ratiopharm .. Extended AVI? or so.
> Could not longer AVIs?
Yes, for almost 10 years
MfG
Alexander
Antwort von Andre Storch:
> Alexander Noe wrote
>> Andre Stork wrote:
>
>> And in addition, there was times 2 bugs in MS, during a Bug
>> Resulted in at 2GB Final was (probably a rather INT UINT
>> Taken)
>
> That was not a bug.
>
>> And in still older einm bug was still rather late (when
>> Exactly, I do not know more).
>
> 1GB, and that was synonymous not a bug ...
Aha, so that calmed me:)
I can only remember that it was in the
Context is always of 'faulty implementation'
or 'development errors from Microsoft' to
Speech was.
Regards
André
Antwort von Josef Moellers:
Andre Stork wrote:
>> Alexander Noe wrote
>>
>>> Andre Stork wrote:
>>
>>> And in addition, there was times 2 bugs in MS, during a Bug
>>> resulted in at 2GB Final was (probably an INT instead of UIN =
T
>>> taken)
>>
>> That was not a bug.
>>
>>
>>> and in still older einm bug was still rather late (when
>>> exactly, I do not know more).
>>
>> 1GB, and that was synonymous not a bug ...
>
>
>
> Aha, so that calmed me:)
> I can only remember that it was in the
> Always connection of 'faulty implementation'
> Or 'development errors from Microsoft' to
> Speech was.
"It's not a bug, it's a feature"
"On 1.1.2006, all known bugs have our products
System features has been declared. The Prices of the new products were =
Features as a result. "
--
Josef Möllers (penguin keeper at FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize
- T. Pratchett
Antwort von Hansgeorg Falterer:
Helmut Hulle wrote:
>
>> This is simply factually wrong. It is not that the
>> The scientists think, because once again what made creative
>> should be. A kilobyte is 1024 bytes.
>
>
> No.. The repetition is not synonymous with right.
> The Massvorsatz "kilo" means 1000th
>
> Alternative
>
> 1 Mbyte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
>
Through repetition you get off the fact that when
Bytes two calculation methods ", which has its origin in the
"Definition" of kilobytes have a metric (1 KB = 1000 bytes) and
one I'll call "practical" (1 KB = 1024 bytes). There is no
invade in the name of "1 KB memory" of a
1000 bytes of disk space must be held because of the binary
Logic and thus the necessary technique addressing only one
Potency of the base 2 is possible. The first possible number more than 1000
1024 The flat is to be introduced is 1 KB. For many, this
different basic reason according to which a benefit
or other basis. If you have an old contract with
certain Webhoster had known the "conversion" of the contract
warranted 1 GB to 1 GB (the former is calculated on the basis of 1024
the latter to 1000), because let's fix vanish almost 75 MB!
Such "basic problems" earlier, there was synonymous with other units:
Inch, foot, etc. was not inches, feet, etc. is still
The miles used quite differently:
English 1.5 km
Land about 1.6 km miles
nautical approximately 1.8 kilometers
So when you talk of 1 MB you have yet to know what
Basis we are talking, otherwise you will ev Übers shortchanged, a
"Religious war", who is syntactically right, since not much help.
Viele Gruesse Hansgeorg
Antwort von Helmut Hullen:
Hello, Hans Georg,
Du (fold) my test s.06.02.06:
>> Alternative:
>>
>> 1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
> It is by repetition to get away is not the fact that it
> Bytes at two "calculation methods", which originate in
> The "definition" of kilobytes have a metric (1 KB = 1000
> Bytes) and one I'll call "practical" (1 KB = 1024 bytes).
The "practical" is nowhere legally (or through official
subordinate bodies) are defined.
It only exists (yet) in the minds of some scientists and
Electrician.
1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
Many greetings!
Helmut
Antwort von Christian Schroeder:
Helmut Hulle wrote:
> Hello, Hans Georg,
>
> You (butterflies) s.06.02.06 my test:
>
>>> Alternative:
>>>
>>> 1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
>
>> It is by repetition to get away is not the fact that it
>> Bytes at two "calculation methods", which originate in
>> The "definition" of kilobytes have a metric (1 KB = 1000
>> Bytes) and one I'll call "practical" (1 KB = 1024 bytes).
>
> The "practical" is nowhere legally (or through official
> Subordinate bodies) are defined.
>
> It only exists (yet) in the minds of some scientists and
> Electrician.
>
> 1 Mbyte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
Again, the amount shall not have any theoretical
Units (which otherwise do like their services), which is
Stallions out desk, but the real, by the
Hardware-related.
--
Gruß Chris
We must Sisyphus happy as people imagine!
Antwort von Helmut Hullen:
Hello, Christian,
Du (Christian.Schroeder) my test s.06.02.06:
>> The "practical" is nowhere legally (or through official
>> Subordinate bodies) are defined.
>>
>> It only exists (yet) in the minds of some scientists and
>> Electricians.
>>
>> 1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
> Once again: The amount shall not have any theoretical
> Units (otherwise their services may do so), which is
> Desk stallions have invented, but the real, the
> By the hardware-related.
Simply nonsense. People Dich mal slightly with commercial law. And
Competition.
Many greetings!
Helmut
Antwort von Josef Moellers:
Helmut Hulle wrote:
> Hi, Christian,
>
> Du (Christian.Schroeder) my test s.06.02.06:
>
>
>>> The "practical" is nowhere legally (or through official
>>> delegated bodies) are defined.
>>>
>>> It only exists (yet) in the minds of some scientists and
>>> Electrician.
>>>
>>> 1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
>
>
>> Once again, the amount shall not have any theoretical
>> Units (otherwise their services may do so), which is
>> Desk stallions have invented, but the real, the
>> by the hardware-related.
>
>
> Simply nonsense. People Dich mal slightly with commercial law. Un =
d
> Competition.
And you with the normative force of facticity:
1. If there really is so against the trade and competition would be
Dealers would not 512MB memory module with more sale (may) =
.
Quite the contrary, he would with pleasure, a 537 MB memory module
sell!
2. We had already, 3.5 "floppy disks, there are (and no
8.89 cm disks), as well as 15 "-, 17 -, and other monitors.
So now you calmed times. As long as one knows what the other
says, is the "standardization" has no preference. And if I 'ne 60 IEC-GB-P latte
buy, I know now that they are only 55.9-GB Informatiker h =
at.
--
Josef Möllers (penguin keeper at FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize
- T. Pratchett
Antwort von Günter_Hackel:
On 06.02.2006 08:41, Helmut Hulle wrote:
>
> No.. The repetition is not synonymous with right.
> The Massvorsatz "kilo" means 1000th
>
> Alternative
>
> 1 Mbyte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
>
Sigh, wan will probably finally rumsprechen that there are differences
between bits and bytes there?
kbit (kilobit)
1 kbit (abbreviated kb) corresponds to 1024 bits.
Since a byte contains 8 bits is: 1 Kbit = 128 bytes.
KB (kilobytes).
1 kByte (abbreviated KB) equals 1024 bytes.
Since a byte contains 8 bits is: 1 kbyte = 8192 bits.
or synonymous:
Bit
0 or 1
Byte (b)
8 (= 23) bit
KiloByte (kilo bytes, kilobytes, KB, K, k)
IEC: KibiByte (KiB)
1,024 (= 210) bytes
8,192 (= 213) bit
MB (mega byte, MB, MB, M)
IEC: MeBiByte (MiB)
1,024 (= 210) KiloByte
1,048,576 (= 220) bytes
8,388,608 (= 223) bit
GigaByte (Giga Byte, GB, GB, G)
IEC: GiBiByte (GiB)
1,024 (= 210) MegaByte
1,048,576 (= 220) KiloByte
1,073,741,824 (= 230) bytes
8,589,934,592 (= 233) bit
TeraByte (Tera Byte, TB, TB, T)
IEC: TeBiByte (TiB)
1,024 (= 210) GigaByte
1,048,576 (= 220) MegaByte
1,073,741,824 (= 230) KiloByte
1,099,511,627,776 (= 240) bytes
8,796,093,022,208 (= 243) bit
Petabyte (Peta byte PByte, PB, P)
IEC: PeBiByte (PiB)
1,024 (= 210) TeraByte
1,048,576 (= 220) GigaByte
1,073,741,824 (= 230) MegaByte
1,099,511,627,776 (= 240) KiloByte
1,125,899,906,842,624 (= 250) bytes
9,007,199,254,740,992 (= 253) bit
Exabyte (Exa byte EByte, EB, E)
IEC: ExBiByte (EIB)
1,024 (= 210) Petabyte
1,048,576 (= 220) TeraByte
1,073,741,824 (= 230) GigaByte
1,099,511,627,776 (= 240) MegaByte
1,125,899,906,842,624 (= 250) KiloByte
1,152,921,504,606,846,976 (= 260) bytes
9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (= 263) bit
Antwort von Helmut Hullen:
Hi, Joseph,
Du (josef.moellers) my test s.07.02.06:
>> Simply nonsense. People Dich mal slightly with commercial law.
>> And Competition.
> And you with the normative force of facticity:
> 1 If there really is so against the trade and competition
> Would not a dealer with 512MB memory module to selling more
> (May).
When the customer gets something more: no problem.
Many greetings!
Helmut
Antwort von Alexander Noe':
Andre Stork wrote:
>>> and in still older einm bug was still rather late (when
>>> exactly, I do not know more).
>>
>> 1GB, and that was synonymous not a bug ...
>
>
>
> Aha, so that calmed me:)
> I can only remember that it was in the
> Always connection of 'faulty implementation'
> Or 'development errors from Microsoft' to
> Speech was.
The MCI said simply that AVI files are not larger than 1 GB
should. The behavior was documented, and, as I see it,
intended. From a bug, I would not talk.
MFG
Alexander
Antwort von Andre Beck:
Hansgeorg Falter writes:
> Helmut Hulle wrote:
>
>>
>>> This is simply factually wrong. It is not that the
>>> The scientists think, because once again what made creative
>>> should be. A kilobyte is 1024 bytes.
>> No. The repetition is not synonymous with right.
>> The Massvorsatz "kilo" means 1000th
>> Alternative:
>> 1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
>>
>
> It is by repetition to get away is not the fact that it
> Bytes at two "calculation methods", which has its origin in the
> "Definition" of kilobytes have a metric (1 KB = 1000 bytes)
> And one I'll call "practical" (1 KB = 1024 bytes).
There can be only one definition of a kilo that is loud and the SI Factor
1000 ". Nothing else. I doubt not that it is practical,
under certain circumstances (first and foremost at addressing of 2 ^ n memory
cherzellen over n address lines) to another multiplier system
use, it is quite clear to me - I am a scientist himself and was
synonymous earlier elk. Only one can not simply an imported name
Kilo as abusive redirect and thus cause endless mess,
because misunderstandings are inevitable. Moreover, it is not
obvious, for * all * memory quantities 2 ^ n-system to use, because
Sense that as I said only in RAM or the like, on address lines
target memory. Even a hard drive has no reason to
their space in 2 ^ n to designate, even if you have a 2 ^ n-sector
size basis sets. This is pure convention.
> It will not invade, the designation "1 KB memory" of a
> 1000 bytes of disk space must be held because of the binary
> Logic and addressing the necessary technology so only a
> Potency of the base 2 is possible.
But that is precisely what any ideas of this information in a somewhat complicated
Invoices must be qualified to apply. As I said (actually, I had
in my article already * everything * needed said, including the
Forecast that would come vehement contradictions;) is the most beautiful
Example of the "1.44MB" floppy. And like you a telecom -
experts will explain that your opinion of the ISDN B channel even
not 64kBit / s has only 62.5 times, I want to see synonymous. The problem
but each will be immediately apparent, the times for a moment on data rates
reflect.
> The first possible number about
> 1000 is just 1024 The is a 1 KB has established.
Has established itself only in very few people who are intensely
with computer science have been socialized. That is exactly the problem when
now with the rest of the world communicate, where Kilo doubt
1000 means always synonymous has and will continue to mean. It is
but obviously that is a mistake of the scientist was kilo (and
later, Mega, Giga, etc) factors for abuse, even the increasingly
nothing with the SI-factors have to do the same instead of an alternative
System of multipliers to be specified. This error was
resolved and the alternative system has existed for years, it has only
damn synonymous used. When I 1MiB / s writing "is quite
obvious that this is not easy with 10 ^ n-based multipliers
is compatible and any factors that you and her can push.
--
The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"
-> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck ABP-RIPE Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <--
