Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 23:05:42 -0300 (ADT) From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: freebsd-multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DjVu from ATT Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980629230212.6863M-100000@thelab.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <199806300148.LAA22346@cain.gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> > > quality for their test pics was good (but what do you expect :)
> > > Its fairly slow tho..
> > slow when viewing, or compresing?
> I didn't try compressing, viewing was fairly slow and thrashy (P100 w/ 64Mb of
> RAM, but not much _free_ RAM.. YMMV)
I ran it on a Win95 box, using the Netscape Plug-In, and
considering how much smaller the file is from a similar jpeg (~1/6 in some
cases), I would imagine that the savings in downloading would offset the
decompression, no? And, with more and more ppl using faster computers for
their 'primary system', decompressing becomes less of an issue then
bandwidth.
BTW...by bandwidth, I don't necessarily mean your computer to the
'Net, I mean the 'Net as a whole...if everyone used this, there would be
(by AT&Ts claims of 5 to 10x better compression then Jpeg), that much less
data (image wise) being strewn across the 'Net...
So, you would end up downloading the images faster, and then
spending a little more time decompressing, vs downloadign the slower and
decompressing them fast...
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-multimedia" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980629230212.6863M-100000>