This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Sounds interesting! BTW, tho the 9 series nVidia chipset will be way too new, so you will definitely have graphics problems right from the install/setup phase. You will need to install the latest drivers from nVidia - you can find a pretty good guide to this in the wiki.
if you mean when running under Windows this is what you see, then I would suggest that the progressive points 1-4 are more likely closer to the mark...
In any case, it is possible to multithread graphics decoding so that load is shared, but requires a lot more coding sophistication - typically dividing up the screen into 2 or 4 pieces, and dispatching the load to each of the cores. I suspect that xinelib does not do this, which is a shame, but I'm sure it will be addressed in future releases, especially given the drive to multiple cores/CPUs and the graphics driver issues...
OK, I'm probably not the best person to explain this as there are a few points that I have not been certain of myself in this area. However, some comments:
1) I have assumed (although not certain) that the per process CPU usage shown in top actually adds up to 100% x # of cores. So for a dual box, this would be 200%. The top manual page entry is a little ambiguous on this point, however I have often noticed that my sum CPU usage for the top few processes displayed in top is far more than 100%. The top manual page seems to me to imply that this is the reason why.
2) If you have a process that the bulk of the work is done by a single thread, and it is maxing out the core it happens to be on, and your box is a dual core machine, then I would expect top to show 100%, being all computing resources available for that core, and thus effective 50% of the overall machine's resources.
3) In your case, that would seem to suggest that that it is consuming 100% of one core from 4, being a quarter of the total 400% CPU available to you.... in other words 25% of the total available to the machine.....
4) The above point is highly suggestive, but not definitive - could just be a coincidence, but it is important to note that Windows definitely does not calculate CPU like this. 100% means 100%. If a CPU bound process is sucking up all CPU resources for a single thread on a single core of four, then Windows would report that as 25%. It would also look like the waveform is unnaturally "clipped" around that 25% mark rather than the more normal "spikey" look.
5) Note that Windows always has significant advantages in decompressing various video codecs as they can hand off a lot of these to the video card rather than sucking up CPU. In many cases, Linux has to do the heavy lifting directly on the CPU because of the stranglehold that M$ has on hardware manufacturers, limiting how much of the hardware we buy from them is exposed for our use!
Here is a really stupid question. Linux MCE does NOT support multi core processing - am I right?
The Wiki hardware section on motherboards is useful as a "yes it works"/"no it doesn't".
It is not useful at all from the point of view of figuring out if a new motherboard or variant of an existing one will work, or how much of it will work.
I'd propose that the motherboard section takes each motherboard and breaks it down into the chipsets on it, then there are just pointers to info about that chipset.
- Sound: ALC889A -> (points to separate page about this chip)
working on this motherboard? Y/N
Or maybe this just means a separate set of hardware entries for chipsets?
I know the process I go through to select a motherboard is quite involved. I am happy to start the ball rolling and document the process and the chipsets.
PS is there a way to invoke some sort of script to automatically get motherboard info from other web sites and past it into the Wiki. Not that there is such a script, am just after ideas on *how* this could be done
Wrong again. This system is a smart home platform. Media only comprises 20% of the entire system. With that said, We can only do what we can do from within the context of the legal system. If someone outside the USA wants to implement enhanced BD functionality, then they can. Nothing stopping them. But those of us in the US can neither develop nor legally use such implements.
I can only hope that a large influential company or group takes this up and gets the fair use laws changed to force companies to allow people to copy their own stuff. Unlikely I know, but as media centers become more and more popular, more and more people are going to demand the ability to put the movies and such they pay for on their media center.
Everyone knows protection doesn't stop piracy, yet these companies continue to use DRM to prevent honest people for accessing what they pay for. The music industry has gone this way, we just need movies and cable companies to follow suit. I know, preaching to the choir.