|
Defragging simulator. Make sure sound is on: http://defragger.info/
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
Yes! I need every cluster out of that 20 meg hard drive!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
minato posted:Defragging simulator. Make sure sound is on: http://defragger.info/ Omg I remember that. I remember running defrag as a kid and watching it go, even though at the time having the visual stuff up actually made it appreciably slower I didn't care
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
robodex posted:Omg I remember that. I remember running defrag as a kid and watching it go, even though at the time having the visual stuff up actually made it appreciably slower I didn't care It brought out the inner OCD in a lot of people, including me. There's just something viscerally satisfying about it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
On the subject of film vs. video, was there an era were filming on actual film, regardless of the type 8mm, 16mm, etc. was actually sort of affordable? Granted, this covers only a small window, but it seemed even in the 90s to me as a teenager it felt like a very expensive endeavor to get even regular still photos developed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
If you don't care about quality/are a parent it's been about $8 for a roll of film, development, and printing at walmart/walgreens/whatever since probably 1996.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:It brought out the inner OCD in a lot of people, including me. There's just something viscerally satisfying about it. It's probably what made my dad recommend defragging as a solution to every single computer problem ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:On the subject of film vs. video, was there an era were filming on actual film, regardless of the type 8mm, 16mm, etc. was actually sort of affordable? Granted, this covers only a small window, but it seemed even in the 90s to me as a teenager it felt like a very expensive endeavor to get even regular still photos developed. Sure. In the 60s and 70s you could get film for an affordable price (depending on your definition of 'affordable') Not only did you need a camera and film, you also needed a projector, a screen, splicing quipment and a room full of bored and trapped relatives at xmas. I'd say that you had to be middle-class and it was probably equivalent to buying a medium-range DSLR these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:On the subject of film vs. video, was there an era were filming on actual film, regardless of the type 8mm, 16mm, etc. was actually sort of affordable? Granted, this covers only a small window, but it seemed even in the 90s to me as a teenager it felt like a very expensive endeavor to get even regular still photos developed. At Ritz Camera (in the 1990s), it was $9.99 for a 24 exposure roll, $14.99 for a 36 exposure roll. If you had the Ritz Camera club card, you got double prints for that price. AND it was the 4x6 Ritz Big Print, not that ratty3.5x5 print from Eckard's.  That will always be burned into my brain. Five years behind that drat photo counter...
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Guys he was asking about making moving pictures, not photographs
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Guys he was asking about making moving pictures, not photographs Get enough photographs, throw them in front of eyes. Done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
T-man posted:Get enough photographs, throw them in front of eyes. Done. Yeah you're basically buying a second of 35mm film in a 24-shot roll
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
32MB OF ESRAM posted:Yeah you're basically buying a second of 35mm film in a 24-shot roll Two seconds, actually. 35mm movie film has each exposure being 4 sprocket holes long. In a still camera, 35mm film uses 8 sprocket holes per exposure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Movies have never been cheap- that's why the slide projector was invented.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Guys he was asking about making moving pictures, not photographs If it wasn't clear, so was I. Specifically, Super8 home movies. All the clarity of a first generation smartphone will all the convenience of putting on a showing of 'holidays on ice'
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
spog posted:If it wasn't clear, so was I. http://blog.modernmechanix.com/brownie-movie-camera-color-movies-cost-less-than-you-think/ Here's an old ad with prices. Neat blog too...
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
$383.55 in 2014 dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:It's probably what made my dad recommend defragging as a solution to every single computer problem ever. That and early on you basically had to obsessively defrag your computer all the drat time. Anybody that was computer literate spent a lot of time telling people to defrag their poo poo and it was extremely common for the conversation to go "when was the last time you ran defrag? Oh you don't know what that is? *describes defrag* Run that, let it do its thing, and call me back if it's still slow." You'd get called back basically never.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Back in highschool in the late 90's there was a tiny resurgence of Super 8 as an artsy cheap recording medium, but I suspect that's because cameras were 20 bucks on Ebay and anyone who had film was in firesale mode trying to get rid of it. It was still moderately expensive to develop and get a projector, though. And you still had no sound. A VHS camcorder could be had for $150 used much of the time, though it lacked the indie nostalgia factor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Anybody that was computer literate spent a lot of time telling people to defrag their poo poo and it was extremely common for the conversation to go "when was the last time you ran defrag? Oh you don't know what that is? *describes defrag* Run that, let it do its thing, and call me back if it's still slow." You'd get called back basically never. It's a good way to get people to gently caress off for a while, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Also, you can get people to actually reboot their computer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
I got into PCs during the win95/98 crossover period, and besides being told to defrag a lot, I should apparently also partition my drive(s) because of the pagefile. I don't know when that started to become obsolete, but I kept that up until like, Vista. It wasn't until I got big enough drives to give up that practice. It was somehow soothing to have C:->F: drive being all neat and tidy. Win98 SE was a great loving OS though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
mng posted:Win98 SE was a great loving OS though. I ran 98 SE dual-booted with Linux until 2005. I only wanted Windows for games, and 98 SE was all we had in the house, so I used it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
mng posted:I got into PCs during the win95/98 crossover period, and besides being told to defrag a lot, I should apparently also partition my drive(s) because of the pagefile. I don't know when that started to become obsolete, but I kept that up until like, Vista. It wasn't until I got big enough drives to give up that practice. It was somehow soothing to have C:->F: drive being all neat and tidy. The principle is still sound, it’s just not worth bothering for most people. It’ll go truly obsolete whenever HDDs do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Kind of already is with SSDs though, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Kind of already is with SSDs though, yeah? For most people, yeah, probably, but it'll be a while before they phase out of mainstream laptops/desktops, and if you need a shitload of storage, HDDs are still the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Also, the cells in SSDs slowly lose data over time, while platter drives from the '80s still have perfectly intact Andy Warhol images on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Also, the cells in SSDs slowly lose data over time, while platter drives from the '80s still have perfectly intact Andy Warhol images on them. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Proof even Andy Warhol struggled with the piece of poo poo mouse that came with the Amiga. The thing gunked up in record time, was awkward to hold, and the buttons would wear out. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
The stock mouse was by far the worst thing about the Amiga. Completely useless piece of junk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Are we talking about useless pointing devices now? HP 9845C with light pen 
Proust Malone has a new favorite as of 06:23 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Also, the cells in SSDs slowly lose data over time, while platter drives from the '80s still have perfectly intact Andy Warhol images on them. Your HDD will slowly lose data over time, too. Probably not comparable to SSDs, but it does happen. Also, I was under the impression that Warhols stuff was found on old floppy disks. Those things are like tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The principle is still sound, it’s just not worth bothering for most people. Most Linux distros still create (or recommend) a dedicated swap partition. I originally built my PC with 4GB and a 2GB swap partition. Since then, I've upgraded to 16GB RAM and an SSD system disk, but I'm still using the original partitioning and OS install (imaged from HDD to SSD). So I have a 2GB swap partition on my SSD, that I'm fairly sure has never been used at all. I guess I'm just too lazy to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
Gromit posted:I was under the impression that Warhols stuff was found on old floppy disks. Those things are like tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:So I have a 2GB swap partition on my SSD, that I'm fairly sure has never been used at all. I guess I'm just too lazy to fix it. I'm not sure if this is true for Linux, but that'd be about right for Windows with an SSD. You don't need a big page file, but performance suffers if you don't have one at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
WebDog posted:I suppose the build quality was better back then? I know by 1998 it was pot luck to take a disc to school and have it be readable by the time you got home. Oh hell yes. 3.5" floppies were really reliable when they first came out - you could easily pull a box of them out of a cupboard, blow the layer of dust off them and expect them to read without problem* Then, almost overnight, the quality plummeted and you were lucky if you could use them twice before they failed *apart fro the fact that the file was invariably in a file format that wasn't supported by any software you owned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:I'm not sure if this is true for Linux, but that'd be about right for Windows with an SSD. You don't need a big page file, but performance suffers if you don't have one at all. I've set the vm.swappiness kernel parameter to 0, so it'll swap only if absolutely necessary to avoid out-of-memory errors, so there really should be no performance degradation if it wasn't there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
spog posted:Oh hell yes. 3.5" floppies were really reliable when they first came out - you could easily pull a box of them out of a cupboard, blow the layer of dust off them and expect them to read without problem* I always assumed it was the actual drives that became lovely, not the diskettes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
In later years at least I think a lot of it had to do with retailers selling new old stock, as I can't imagine there were many/any floppy disk manufacturing lines still in production past the early 2000s. Like I said several pages ago -Geoj posted:I used to work for FujiFilm, who used 3.5" floppies for backup data, and any time the software driving the printer was updated or reloaded we had to make a fresh set of backups. From about 2007 until I left in 2012 it wasn't uncommon to have a failure rate in the high 60% pulling from a "new" box of floppies. There was a definite dropoff after 2005 in the "quality" of floppies being sold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
Geoj posted:I wonder how much of it was "manufacturing QC went down the drain" rather than "everything being sold today is new old stock that has been collecting dust in a warehouse for 10+ years." I used to work for FujiFilm, who used 3.5" floppies for backup data, and any time the software driving the printer was updated or reloaded we had to make a fresh set of backups. From about 2007 until I left in 2012 it wasn't uncommon to have a failure rate in the high 60% pulling from a "new" box of floppies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:50
|
|