TV online is 20 frames per minute!

1) With the help months ago of some of the people here, I'm able to
watch old tv-shows on-line. I like it.

Last night, I watched an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents on Hulu.

The soudn was fine, but it was a series of still pictures, every 1 to
7 seconds, most often 3 seconds.

1) This is because my DSL connection is too slow, right? I have the
cheaper/slower/cheapest/slowest version of DSL.

2) Or would a better video card or one with more RAM help?

I need to get another card for a new-to-me computer. Now I have
64Meg. Will 256 Meg have any effect on this?

3) Hulu provided a choice of resolutions, is that the word? I
forget the numbers but something like 280p, 380p and 450p. I thought
maybe if I chose the lowest one -- Is that the worst resolution? --
it would need fewer bites per frame and it would have time to send
more frames. Does that make sense? It didn't seem to work, but I
didn't count the seconds between images like I did with 380.

How do I know what number to choose? What does it control?


Thanks a lot for any help.


Background FYI.

This was all at 2 to 4 in the morning, so I would think net traffic
would have been pretty low.

I have an attic antenna and a set-top box, but with all their claims
about how well that would work, even my local stations have periods
where the picture and sound black out. So I lost the last 5 minutes
of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents".

I found it on-line at Hulu, but it ran I said above. Still I got to
see the end.

Then I tried another site but it linked to Hulu to show the tv-show.

Then I went here http://www.yidio.com/show/alfred-hitchcock-hour and
it had 3 different sites for the same episode. That's pretty
impressive.

1) Hulu again.

2) Fancast, which gave the same sort of results as Hulu

3) NBC. In NBC the pictures actually move, but when they stop, so does
the sound. Not sure which is worse. I think the interruptions were
more at the start, became few after the first 10 minutes.

What speed is your connection supposed to be?

You can test it he

http://speedtest.net/

The bandwidth 480p needs is about 1000, or a bit more.
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

It shouldn't be a video card issue.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:11:45 -0700, Ed Light
wrote:

It shouldn't be a video card issue.


Thanks.

I'm still going to get a little better card, but I won't worry how
good.

(I'm working on an answer to your first question!)

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:10:53 -0700, Ed Light
wrote:

What speed is your connection supposed to be?

According to Verizon, Download 768 kbps to 1 Mbps (1000Kbps)

You can test it he

http://speedtest.net/

The bandwidth 480p needs is about 1000, or a bit more.

Baltimore server
Ping 142 ms
DLoad 0.15 Mbps
ULoad 0.13 Mbps

DC server
Ping 104 ms
DLoad 0.16 Mbps
ULoad 0.13 Mbps

This is really terrible, isn't it, compared to 1000 or the 7.86 in the
next paragraph, or what Verizon says I'll get!

http://www.netindex.com/ says Household Download Index

Based on millions of recent test results from Speedtest.net, this
index compares and ranks consumer download speeds around the globe.
The value is the rolling average throughput in Mbps over the past 30
days where the mean distance between the client and the server is less
than 300 miles. 7.86Mbps

http://www.pingtest.net/ says
Server in Philadelphia
Ping 66 ms
Jitter 7 ms
Packet Loss 0%
but MS firewall blocked Java(TM) Platform SE binary and wouldn't let
it do some things
Line Quality B
MOS 4.36
Your grade B

Server in Chicago
Server in Philadelphia
Ping 69 ms
Jitter 6 ms
everything else the same.

This is really terrible, isn't it, compared to 1000 or the 7.86 in the
next paragraph, or what Verizon says I'll get!

Totally.

I'd unplug the power from the modem for 30 seconds and see if it comes
back better. If not, I would get Verizon to fix it.
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

I'm still going to get a little better card, but I won't worry how
good.

(I'm working on an answer to your first question!)

I'm working through a saga with Hulu, 480p, run full-screen at 1440x900
on a 19" widescreen monitor.

All by itself it's decent but not very sharp. Often a bit dark and flat.

Recently Adobe came out with its 10.1 Flash player that enables hardware
acceleration using the video card.

My hope was that now I could use the adjustable enhancements of my card
on Hulu -- namely Sharpening and Dynamic Contrast; also brightness,
contrast, and hopefully, gamma.

My Radeon 4670 will do it in Win 7. In XP I'm having terrible problems,
which wouldn't be so bad except I want it to work on a friend's XP PC
that I will visit to maintain in a bit over a month.

I sent for and will be trying a geforce GT 240. I think the nvidia
drivers will do pretty well compared to the ATI's, which have glitches
in the control panel that are not really excusable. The ATI bum driver
reputation continues.

We'll see.

At any rate, in Win 7, with the 4670, I can make Hulu look almost like a
DVD!

FYI, the geforce GT 240 is the minimum (current) nvidia card for highest
quality video in players that can actually use it. Tentatively, I'd say
get that one. But haven't tested it yet. It's also a power-sipper. I'm
getting the ASUS with the big fan -- reviews say it's really quiet. Got
one for $40 with rebate and free shipping!

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:46:51 -0700, Ed Light
wrote:


This is really terrible, isn't it, compared to 1000 or the 7.86 in the
next paragraph, or what Verizon says I'll get!

Totally.

I'd unplug the power from the modem for 30 seconds and see if it comes
back better. If not, I would get Verizon to fix it.

Thanks.

I'll try the power and then retest.

Also, the phone wiring in the house wasn't working right, starting as
many as 10 years ago, maybe because of some wires I had I added years
before that, but maybe not, so I opened up the interface box (the
NID?) on the front of the house and ran a 50 or 100 foot roll of cheap
modular phone wire up to the second floor window, through the spare
bedroom and directly to one arm of a Y connector which is plugged into
the DSL modem. (Whatever of the house wiring that still works is
plugged into the other arm of the Y.)

Do you think this could be lowering my speed? It's about 28 feet to
the NID from the modem, so that leaves about 22 or more likely 72 feet
in a 4 to 6" coil somewhere behind the desk.

I could shorten the wire by 70 feet, or I could at least uncoil the
coil and snake the wire back and forth over the bed in the room it
passes through. ??

Plus this is cheap thin low-quality wire even for inside wire, where
it was meant to be used , and it's been out in the weather for 4 or 6
years or more. (although it only gets an hour or two of direct
sunlight a little after dawn.) And it blows in the breeze and gets a
little scrunched in the aluminum window frame where in the "winter" I
almost close the sliding window.


(Fixing the house is too difficult now. After about 6 months of using
this wire or wire like it, I tried the house again and it worked fine
for a year, then I don't think I touched anything but something went
wrong again, and i went back to using a wire and have stuck with that.
I spent a couple hours each time, so I don't want to try to fix it
until I catch up on other things. I bought a cordless phone to make
up for jacks that don't work. )

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:59:44 -0700, Ed Light
wrote:



I'm still going to get a little better card, but I won't worry how
good.

(I'm working on an answer to your first question!)

I'm working through a saga with Hulu, 480p, run full-screen at 1440x900
on a 19" widescreen monitor.

All by itself it's decent but not very sharp. Often a bit dark and flat.

Recently Adobe came out with its 10.1 Flash player that enables hardware
acceleration using the video card.

I notice that they've sent me two version of Adobe in the last week or
so -- and I was up to date to begin with. I was hoping the first one
would fix a "script won't stop running" problem I have with a few
pages, including www.dictionary.com in Firefox3, but it didn't. I got
the second version a day or two ago, but I haven't had nerve enough to
risk freezing Firefox.

My hope was that now I could use the adjustable enhancements of my card
on Hulu -- namely Sharpening and Dynamic Contrast; also brightness,
contrast, and hopefully, gamma.

I have a Radeon 7000, since last Deember. I assume even though the
number is higher, that it's older than your 4670. Even so it has all
those adjustments you talk about and I was/am afraid to touch them.
:~|

In XP I haven't even started the program in months, although when I go
back to win98, it starts automatically (but I ignore it) I am not
literally color-blind but I have no artistic sense or sense of color
and I'm not even that good at black and white!

My Radeon 4670 will do it in Win 7. In XP I'm having terrible problems,
which wouldn't be so bad except I want it to work on a friend's XP PC
that I will visit to maintain in a bit over a month.

Oh, yeah.

I sent for and will be trying a geforce GT 240. I think the nvidia
drivers will do pretty well compared to the ATI's, which have glitches
in the control panel that are not really excusable. The ATI bum driver
reputation continues.

We'll see.

At any rate, in Win 7, with the 4670, I can make Hulu look almost like a
DVD!

That's great.

FYI, the geforce GT 240 is the minimum (current) nvidia card for highest
quality video in players that can actually use it. Tentatively, I'd say
get that one. But haven't tested it yet. It's also a power-sipper. I'm
getting the ASUS with the big fan -- reviews say it's really quiet. Got
one for $40 with rebate and free shipping!

I'll try to read this group, even after I get my new computer running.

I don't know about wiring, but maybe you could set up outside at the
interface box with a short wire and see if it works right.
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.