Ron Steinke wrote: > On 14 Sep, 2005, at 10:50, keith_w wrote: > > James Asherman wrote: > >> On Sep 14, 2005, at 11:39 AM, keith_w wrote: >> >>> Okay, thanks. >>> To me, that sounds like something is certainly inadequate ~ not up to >>> the task given it. >>> What might that be? >>> >>> keith > > >> Could be: connection speed, disc access speed. or even disc >> fragmentation , >> but it's just as likely that the problem is the other end, a slow >> server, or the encoding itself. >> I sometimes see this with SOME videos at the iTunes music store, and >> in QuickTime >> it is really easy to see the buffering running ahead of the playback >> and how it gets bad when they get close to one another. > > > In other words, you can't really fix it, so find a way to live with it... > > Thanks for the explanation! > > > Not totally correct interpretation. (Capital letters inserted below for > emphasis, not volume.) > > What is happening is that information is being downloaded to your > machine at a speed SLOWER than your machine can display it on screen. If > you try to display it WHILE it is downloading, you will be trying to > display an incomplete file and will not be able to display the part that > has NOT YET COMPLETED the download process. > > If you wait until the entire file has completed the download process and > THEN open it for display, you should be able to see the file in its > entirety without stuttering or pauses. > > This is a case of the machine not being able to keep up with the speed > of a human brain. We all want it RIGHT NOW, don't we? Until computers > can act as fast as the human brain, and maybe even be self-cognizant, we > have to accept the slowness of data transfer and display from location > to location. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. I usually have no problems at all wiih the speed of my CPU, and find I'm always waiting for the rest of them (whoever they might be) to catch up with me! Thanks, keith