Thanks so much again to Maxxarcade for sending me these components. The system is really able to play HD video.
Incoming search terms for the article:
- ATOM SLACKWARE
- testing a new pc on its hardware capabilities and performance
- slackware performence
- performance hardware slackware
- linux ati rage 128 pro video quality
- linux apache performance on atom processor
- how to make slackware look nice
- bluetailvappy
- audio resource hog ubuntu 2010
- ubuntu pc performance tests
February 10th, 2010 at 6:39 am
Kind of looks like Windows DOS when your installing the O. S
February 10th, 2010 at 7:04 am
Yes, this is Linux (Slackware Linux)
February 10th, 2010 at 7:37 am
Hey Chad, what O. S did you install? Is it something like linux?
February 10th, 2010 at 8:14 am
That’s what i meant when I said I have to wait for it to buffer, my connections just a tad to slow. I’ll be getting faster broadband soon anyway.
February 10th, 2010 at 8:46 am
You can pick up a cheap external HD which is good for backup. Usually 1TB goes for $100 or less on sale. Just make sure you have at least USB 2. 0 which you probably do now since you just got a new mobo. They also work great with firewire or esata if they have it.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Yea but it could be your internet connection too. HD videos are large. Pause it and let it load a while until the red bar gets a ways. Then try to play it. If that makes it smooth, its your internet. HD files are huge and youll probably need decent broadband to instantly view.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Yea, but an atom processor probably isnt that much better than a P3 when you compare processing power and FSB.
With my Core2Duo 2ghz processor, firefox uses 50% cpu with a HD video and a few other tabs open. I have a dedicated 256MB card.
So i can see what atoms cant play HD.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:29 am
thanks
February 10th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Pour some sugar on me by def lepord is the name of that song
February 10th, 2010 at 11:03 am
wats the name of the song playing on the radio?
February 10th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Since reading all of the comments on the HD viewing problems, I tried watching several YouTube HD videos, and they viewed fine with no problems until the last one. When panning left to right it was jerky, and I thought that is what they are talking about. I happened to notice my 2nd HD clattering away, and it shouldn’t have been. I rebooted the PC, and then the 2nd HD was quiet. The same Youtube HD video then showed just fine. I have no idea why that happens on occasion.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Oh you brave people and your Linixes.
I’ve tried Linux, several times, and several different versions. I like the KDE version the best over Knome. (or however it’s spelled. ) I do get a kick out of the “Bash” prompt. Just makes me wanna “Bash” it with a hammer. lol
I guess I just never learned how to use it. And while it’s a royal pain, I keep using Winblows.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Righty736: the Atom N270 chip will play YouTube HD in Windows XP, but it comes out very choppy. The faster N280 processor with the GN40 chipset has 720P HD video decoding built into the hardware.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Very nice computer system. Radio sounds great too!
February 10th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Yes and no. I have a netbook and it will do HD video on youtube (provided nothing else is running) under windows but with Linux – I am running ubuntu – it will barely do regular quality videos. But I think that boils down to insufficient drivers.
February 10th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
I can sit here and download the actual HD MP4 files from youtube all day and play them full screen on my computer without any slowdown. But even watching them in a window on youtube is painfully slow and jerky.
I think Flash itself is just a resource hog. At least that is what. Even full screen standard definition flash is painfully jerky.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
look’s nice!
February 10th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Hi vwestlife. I monitored the CPU watching an HD vidoeo on youtube, and you are right. The video displayed on the Dell 24″monitor just fine with no probelms, but the CPU ran 85 to 97% showing it. I guess I am just barely under the gun for showing youtube HD , it is a CPU hog. I have several HD clips on the HD with better picture quality shown through media player, and the CPU ran only 43%
February 10th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Yeah I guess it depends what you need it to do. With Slackware I would always use the source code to install programs (configure, make, and make install). Although Ubuntu at least the version I tried seemed a lot more unstable when using Flash on Firefox than slackware.
The biggest problem with ubuntu is that I couldn’t find a version of Mplayer which would work with it and it did not seem to allow me to set up NFS.
February 10th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Very cool! HD video seems to play wonderful on it! What does it have for a video card?
Yep, I am definately not comfortable around source-based Linux distributions like Slackware. I have yet to successfully compile and install a program from a Tarball.
February 10th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Also, even though an Atom only has the power of a higher-clocked Pentium III or a lower-clocked Pentium 4 (IIRC), I know what you mean about HD video needing high system requirements. With HD, I get about 1 FPS on my 1. 4 GHz AMD K7 system with an ATI Rage 128 Pro AGP video card, and about 10 FPS on my dad’s 1. 6 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with an Intel 965 Express (I think it is) chipset/video card.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
When I tried Ubuntu at least the version I used, it really tried to disguise the command line. I began using computers in around 1984 with DOS and really prefer the abiliity to use the command line rather than having to do everything graphically.
Especially on the newer hardware though Slackware is pretty easy to install as it seems to do a better job of automatically detecting the ethernet interface or card, sound card, etc.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Source-based Linux distributions like Slackware do require a good amount of knowledge, time, and sometimes tweaking to install programs and other components and have them working correctly. Package-based distributions like Ubuntu, MEPIS, and Fedora install out-of-the-box usually easily, with most, if not all, of the utilities needed for a home/workstation computer. (Including access to a command prompt. Ubuntu doesn’t provide that, though.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Yes especially on the older hardware Linux installation can sometimes be complicated. . . I can remember having to set up the type of ethernet card, etc. And having to configure and “make” the programs you’re going to install It’s been so rewarding though to learn how to do a lot with it, like being able to connect a terminal to the serial port and log in, or writing scripts to automatically record audio, etc.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Installing Linux doesn’t look any easier than when I first tried it around 2001. I know beginner-friendly versions are available, but those are usually very watered-down in their capabilities — some not even offering a command prompt.
HD on YouTube is a big CPU hog. It won’t play smoothly on the brand new Intel Atom “netbooks” that you see in all the stores. Even regular HQ playback struggles on a Pentium III. Flash Player is not efficient at all with YouTube’s H. 264 video codec.