[rescue] Perverse Question
Joshua D. Boyd
jdboyd at celestrion.celestrion.net
Tue Jun 10 17:05:55 CDT 2003
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 11:46:38PM +0200, Frank Van Damme wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 June 2003 20:49, Joshua D. Boyd wrote:
> > Oh for crying out loud. There have been assembly optimized MP3 decoders
> > for a lot longer than there have been MMX chips. An old one free for
> > non-commercial use that comes to mind is amp (which was once used as the
> > decoding engine for winamp, and also was used for numerous command line
> > programs).
> > There have also been realtime mp3 decoders for lots of older, low clock
> > rate Motorola platforms, like the Amiga, the Next machines, and probably
> > Mac OS.
> Perfectly possible. I don't know crap about assembly (or even programming :)
> ), the only thing I said was that x86 cpu's like the pentium mmx and better
> have instructions made specifically for multimedia.
No, you said:
On Tuesday 10 June 2003 15:01, Joshua D. Boyd wrote:
>> Also, many MP3 programs use hand optimized intel assembly (or they
>> used to back when I was doing Mp3s on a 486). It might be that such
>> a thing is needed to make the sparcs work well. Finally, it might be
>> that Intel has an instruction that helps that sparcs don't.
> They do, but not an 486 :-)
> Think mmx...
which to any reasonable person means that you are denying my claims
about optimization for 486 level machines.
> btw, I find winamp pretty cpu-hungry...
For many years now, Winamp used the reference decoder from that German
institute, and I expect that they still do. It is straight C to my
recall. I suppose they could have switched decoders again since I last
heard. It was now many years ago that WinAmp could actually be called
More information about the rescue