I didn't mean that it needed the extra bandwidth for fillrate.
Actually fillrate isn't that important on a TV, I meant the shared memory was good for transferring polygons to the GPU. Ah well, I think we're basically saying the same thing.
That is the case, though what you say is accurate, I'm not sure what the marketing behind these things is. BTW: that playstation2 case was for Japanese gamers, in the US, I doubt the profit margin will be so low (mass production results in cheaper components).
BTW: Sega is giving away Dreamcasts, if you sign up for seganet or whatever their ISP is called.
Second of all, most bugs in current games come from differences in user's hardware. If you don't believe me, ask the 300000000 game developers who have said much the same thing in interviews when asked why console games have fewer bugs (and they do).
Thirdly, you still weren't paying attention, the architecture of the thing is just not the same as a PC. The bus is radically different, as is the shared memory system.
That's true, what I meant was a processor specifically for T&L. I actually find the PS2 a rather impressive piece of hardware, I'd love to get my hands on a Dev kit.
While this is basically true, they can't write directly to it like for the X-Box.
Quake3 "uses" Hardware transformations, but barely, you hardly get any performance increase. If you had an API directly for a specific video card, or a 3d library written for a video card, it would be much better than current T&L implementations. Unfortunately this is impossible on the PC.
You don't seem to understand the issues behind gaming, let me lay out why the X Box is not a PC.
1) Bus. The video and system memory are shared directly with the video card, there is no bus to go across, therefore moving data from system memory to the video card will be much faster.
2) OS. Yes, it's a modified version of the Windows 2000 kernel, but it's not the same Kernel, it's incredibly stripped down. I bet it doesn't even include multithreading code. There is almost no OS at all, as far as I know, all the Windows2000 kernel does on the X Box is handle reads and writes, and directX calls.
3) sameness. Every X Box will be the same, since Nvidia's involved, every X Box will have hardware Transformation and lighting, meaning everything can be moved off of the processor to the video card, allowing for advanced physics and AI, among other things. You could say that current Nvidia cards already do that, but it doesn't matter because programmers can't take advantage of it because not everyone has a T&L video card (BTW, PS2 doesn't have hardware T&L). This is a huge advantage, if you've seen Nvidia's tree demo, you know that T&L can be very impressive when you write directly to it.
3) sameness, instead of allowing to write directly to the same hardware, this "sameness" point deals with bugs. If there's only one platform, there are fewer bugs (blah blah blah buggy microsoft shit, blah blah), X Box games will generally have fewer bugs than their PC counterparts.
Those are pretty much the main differences, this is not a PC with no monitor.
1) OK, so the XBox is supposed to compete with the Playstation2, but is coming out almost a year later? Does the Playstation2 coming out take back all of the money that Sega has made from the Dreamcast? Christmas is always the biggest time for console systems, and MS is going to miss an entire season. I can understand consumers waiting a month or two to compere two systems, but waiting a year in order to make a more informed decision? That is crazy.
Actually, The Playstation 2 is losing money with each sale. Profits come from the royalties from games, not from the consoles. Sega still lost money last quarter (though the least money in quite a while), despite the DreamCast's impressive opening here in the US.
Actually, I've heard that X Box is supposed to use the NV-25 chipset for 3d rendering, one generation and a spring update away from current technology.
Yeah, If Gnutella or FreeNet becomes easy to use, the whole idea is shot, but until that time, killing napster, or at least getting them to enforce copyrights, would be a big step towards Lars' goal.
I mean, didn't they get what they wanted? I'm not sure what their beef was, I thought when napster banned the names Metallica gave them, that was all there was to it. Why are they still going after Napster?
One thing I didn't realize, or think about, and I don't think most people realize, or think about comes back to scale. No one cared when we were trading MP3s via FTPs and IRC channels. The difference with Napster was ease of use and availability. I've tried Gnutella, but never freenet, and let me tell you. Joe Jock, college football star who wants some MP3s is not going to have much luck with Gnutella. I think that even if Gnutella lives on (which it will), it won't matter because the volume will be so reduced. Last time I connected with GnuTella, I saw about 11 terrabytes online or so. Well, I usually get on the order of 2 terrabytes on any napster server I'm on, and there are many, many napster servers. And Gnutella trades far more than just mp3s.
I think if Napster goes down, the rest will probably be left alone, though I imagine someone will go after Scour sooner or later... that should be a hell of a legal battle. (Scour is funded by Michael Ovitz)
Yes, life is controversial and full of dilemmas. But if we stop fighting and controlling each other, instead do good, there's a much better chance for us.
Life is controversial and full of dilemmas only for the indecisive. Some people aren't afriad to put their asses on the line and stand up for what they believe in.
Do you actually believe that people don't deserve to be paid for what they produce? If so, I hope you don't live in America, and if you do, I wish you'd leave, because your viewpoint will never fit in with a capitalist country, and America is definitely that, and if you don't like it here, you can just fucking leave.
Edios didn't necessarily give that money to Ion Storm just to fund Daikatana. It was given to Ion Storm as a whole, in order to buy out Ion Storm, Eidos now has a 51% stake in Ion Storm.
Looking Glass had their shot, their problem was that their games didn't appeal to a mass audience, it's sad to see a quality company go down, and it's even sadder to think that in order to succeed, you have to pander to the masses, but it also seems accurate.
BTW: I haven't yet purchased DK, but I probably will, I did enjoy the demo.
Wow, amazingly this doesn't seem completely unreasonable. I think Stallman's plan would really help both the open source, and closed source communities.
Does anyone have an example of where Microsoft abused one of their software patents?
My programming goals include creating a "real" virtual reality, I want to make "The Matrix", I want to write the code behind that graphics/physics engine.
Wow, you're one of the most ridiculous people I've ever run across:
1) Your philosophy seems to be, "it's OK to pay for an artist's work if they don't sell out, otherwise you're being lazy by going to the store and buying a CD"
2) You ridicule someone not for their musical taste exactly, but because an artist they respect and admire has done a fucking AD?
My god man, take that money you saved on that album you burned and buy a fucking clue.
No, the record labels do that. While there is a huge overlap between the record labels and the RIAA, they are not one and the same. I personally don't see any reason for the RIAA to exist.
Ah!
I didn't realize there was that much of a difference! I thought the RIAA was a sort of bizzare "record label council" and was, in fact, all the record labels speaking as one. I'll have to do a touch more research.
Similarly, it annoys me to no end when someone spouts off about how copyright holders have a "right" to earn money from their intellectual product. No one has a right to money. You have to earn it.
I'm not sure what you mean here, you don't think that the action of creation itself could be defined as "earning it"? I heartily disagree there, I think if a musician creates an amazing piece of art, he automatically has a right to do whatever he wants with it, but hey, I'm a hardcore capitalist of the Ayn Rand bent (at least to some extent). I think the blood, sweat, and tears that go into the creation of a great work of art is enough to be called "earning it".
The RIAA, when it pumps money into something, expecting a profit, then.. yeah, I think they have a right to sell whatever they produce, at a profit, if they want to. They don't have the right for you to buy it, but they do have a right for people not to steal it, and thereby infringe upon their profit.
Of course they have a right to profit. They provide the service of allowing artists to record music to CD, packaging the CD, and distributing them to the stores, that automatically gives them a right to some profit.
Whether or not that means they should get to screw over artists or not is a different story. Dude, if you don't like capitalism, move to China or Cuba or something.
The GNU license is based entirely upon copyright law. If it weren't for GNU, Microsoft or any company could take Open Source software, modify it, and sell it without giving away the source code or any documentation or anything. This is based on copyright law.
The record industry's problem with Napster is also based on copyright law, their argument is that Napster is (indirectly) violating their copyright.
It's bad for record companies too, but I think we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I know this site is full of freakish free software advocates, but as a software developer, I'll tell you right now, you don't pay me to make software, I don't fucking make software. The same should go for artists. You don't pay them to make music, then they don't fucking make music, or, if they do, they certainly don't give it to you. The technology behind Napster is a good idea. And if Napster took some steps to eliminate copyright violation, it would be a great service. ESPECIALLY for up-and-coming artists because then, that's the only music that would be on Napster, but as it is, Napster is allowed to aid in the distribution of illegal MP3s, and, they have to take responsiblity.
Though it does seem in the Metallica case they did JUST THAT. I don't know, if artists keep bringing them lists of names and they keep banning the names, that actually might work out, though I think Napster should be a little bit more proactive than that.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't mean that it needed the extra bandwidth for fillrate.
Actually fillrate isn't that important on a TV, I meant the shared memory was good for transferring polygons to the GPU. Ah well, I think we're basically saying the same thing.
That is the case, though what you say is accurate, I'm not sure what the marketing behind these things is. BTW: that playstation2 case was for Japanese gamers, in the US, I doubt the profit margin will be so low (mass production results in cheaper components).
BTW: Sega is giving away Dreamcasts, if you sign up for seganet or whatever their ISP is called.
First of all, it's fewer not "less"
Second of all, most bugs in current games come from differences in user's hardware. If you don't believe me, ask the 300000000 game developers who have said much the same thing in interviews when asked why console games have fewer bugs (and they do).
Thirdly, you still weren't paying attention, the architecture of the thing is just not the same as a PC. The bus is radically different, as is the shared memory system.
That's true, what I meant was a processor specifically for T&L. I actually find the PS2 a rather impressive piece of hardware, I'd love to get my hands on a Dev kit.
While this is basically true, they can't write directly to it like for the X-Box.
Quake3 "uses" Hardware transformations, but barely, you hardly get any performance increase. If you had an API directly for a specific video card, or a 3d library written for a video card, it would be much better than current T&L implementations. Unfortunately this is impossible on the PC.
You don't seem to understand the issues behind gaming, let me lay out why the X Box is not a PC.
1) Bus. The video and system memory are shared directly with the video card, there is no bus to go across, therefore moving data from system memory to the video card will be much faster.
2) OS. Yes, it's a modified version of the Windows 2000 kernel, but it's not the same Kernel, it's incredibly stripped down. I bet it doesn't even include multithreading code. There is almost no OS at all, as far as I know, all the Windows2000 kernel does on the X Box is handle reads and writes, and directX calls.
3) sameness. Every X Box will be the same, since Nvidia's involved, every X Box will have hardware Transformation and lighting, meaning everything can be moved off of the processor to the video card, allowing for advanced physics and AI, among other things. You could say that current Nvidia cards already do that, but it doesn't matter because programmers can't take advantage of it because not everyone has a T&L video card (BTW, PS2 doesn't have hardware T&L). This is a huge advantage, if you've seen Nvidia's tree demo, you know that T&L can be very impressive when you write directly to it.
3) sameness, instead of allowing to write directly to the same hardware, this "sameness" point deals with bugs. If there's only one platform, there are fewer bugs (blah blah blah buggy microsoft shit, blah blah), X Box games will generally have fewer bugs than their PC counterparts.
Those are pretty much the main differences, this is not a PC with no monitor.
1) OK, so the XBox is supposed to compete with the Playstation2, but is coming out almost a year later? Does the Playstation2 coming out take back all of the money that Sega has made from the Dreamcast? Christmas is always the biggest time for console systems, and MS is going to miss an entire season. I can understand consumers waiting a month or two to compere two systems, but waiting a year in order to make a more informed decision? That is crazy.
Actually, The Playstation 2 is losing money with each sale. Profits come from the royalties from games, not from the consoles. Sega still lost money last quarter (though the least money in quite a while), despite the DreamCast's impressive opening here in the US.
Actually, I've heard that X Box is supposed to use the NV-25 chipset for 3d rendering, one generation and a spring update away from current technology.
Yeah, If Gnutella or FreeNet becomes easy to use, the whole idea is shot, but until that time, killing napster, or at least getting them to enforce copyrights, would be a big step towards Lars' goal.
I mean, didn't they get what they wanted? I'm not sure what their beef was, I thought when napster banned the names Metallica gave them, that was all there was to it. Why are they still going after Napster?
One thing I didn't realize, or think about, and I don't think most people realize, or think about comes back to scale. No one cared when we were trading MP3s via FTPs and IRC channels. The difference with Napster was ease of use and availability. I've tried Gnutella, but never freenet, and let me tell you. Joe Jock, college football star who wants some MP3s is not going to have much luck with Gnutella. I think that even if Gnutella lives on (which it will), it won't matter because the volume will be so reduced. Last time I connected with GnuTella, I saw about 11 terrabytes online or so. Well, I usually get on the order of 2 terrabytes on any napster server I'm on, and there are many, many napster servers. And Gnutella trades far more than just mp3s.
I think if Napster goes down, the rest will probably be left alone, though I imagine someone will go after Scour sooner or later... that should be a hell of a legal battle. (Scour is funded by Michael Ovitz)
Yes, life is controversial and full of dilemmas. But if we stop fighting and controlling each other, instead do good, there's a much better chance for us.
Life is controversial and full of dilemmas only for the indecisive. Some people aren't afriad to put their asses on the line and stand up for what they believe in.
Do you actually believe that people don't deserve to be paid for what they produce? If so, I hope you don't live in America, and if you do, I wish you'd leave, because your viewpoint will never fit in with a capitalist country, and America is definitely that, and if you don't like it here, you can just fucking leave.
Edios didn't necessarily give that money to Ion Storm just to fund Daikatana. It was given to Ion Storm as a whole, in order to buy out Ion Storm, Eidos now has a 51% stake in Ion Storm.
Looking Glass had their shot, their problem was that their games didn't appeal to a mass audience, it's sad to see a quality company go down, and it's even sadder to think that in order to succeed, you have to pander to the masses, but it also seems accurate.
BTW: I haven't yet purchased DK, but I probably will, I did enjoy the demo.
Wow, amazingly this doesn't seem completely unreasonable. I think Stallman's plan would really help both the open source, and closed source communities.
Does anyone have an example of where Microsoft abused one of their software patents?
Damn, that's pretty interesting, but I'm not sure if LINUX was ever part of that....
My programming goals include creating a "real" virtual reality, I want to make "The Matrix", I want to write the code behind that graphics/physics engine.
Clear enough?
Did someone turn the "stupidiy hose" on today or something?
What the hell is this? People aren't allowed to sell their creations just because it's not tangible?
How ridiculous can you people get? Well, at least your post isn't moderated way up.
Wow, you're one of the most ridiculous people I've ever run across:
1) Your philosophy seems to be, "it's OK to pay for an artist's work if they don't sell out, otherwise you're being lazy by going to the store and buying a CD"
2) You ridicule someone not for their musical taste exactly, but because an artist they respect and admire has done a fucking AD?
My god man, take that money you saved on that album you burned and buy a fucking clue.
Ah!
I didn't realize there was that much of a difference! I thought the RIAA was a sort of bizzare "record label council" and was, in fact, all the record labels speaking as one. I'll have to do a touch more research.
The main thrust of my post still stands, however.
I'm not sure what you mean here, you don't think that the action of creation itself could be defined as "earning it"? I heartily disagree there, I think if a musician creates an amazing piece of art, he automatically has a right to do whatever he wants with it, but hey, I'm a hardcore capitalist of the Ayn Rand bent (at least to some extent). I think the blood, sweat, and tears that go into the creation of a great work of art is enough to be called "earning it".
The RIAA, when it pumps money into something, expecting a profit, then.. yeah, I think they have a right to sell whatever they produce, at a profit, if they want to. They don't have the right for you to buy it, but they do have a right for people not to steal it, and thereby infringe upon their profit.
Of course they have a right to profit. They provide the service of allowing artists to record music to CD, packaging the CD, and distributing them to the stores, that automatically gives them a right to some profit.
Whether or not that means they should get to screw over artists or not is a different story. Dude, if you don't like capitalism, move to China or Cuba or something.
Don't you see?
The GNU license is based entirely upon copyright law. If it weren't for GNU, Microsoft or any company could take Open Source software, modify it, and sell it without giving away the source code or any documentation or anything. This is based on copyright law.
The record industry's problem with Napster is also based on copyright law, their argument is that Napster is (indirectly) violating their copyright.
Yeah, great idea, as soon as Napster starts paying the artists, I'll get behind it 100%.
Great post, this makes way more sense to me now.
Guys, Napster is BAD for artists. It is!
It's bad for record companies too, but I think we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I know this site is full of freakish free software advocates, but as a software developer, I'll tell you right now, you don't pay me to make software, I don't fucking make software. The same should go for artists. You don't pay them to make music, then they don't fucking make music, or, if they do, they certainly don't give it to you. The technology behind Napster is a good idea. And if Napster took some steps to eliminate copyright violation, it would be a great service. ESPECIALLY for up-and-coming artists because then, that's the only music that would be on Napster, but as it is, Napster is allowed to aid in the distribution of illegal MP3s, and, they have to take responsiblity.
Though it does seem in the Metallica case they did JUST THAT. I don't know, if artists keep bringing them lists of names and they keep banning the names, that actually might work out, though I think Napster should be a little bit more proactive than that.
Ah well, Have a nice Day!
I don't understand how the Dialectizer would have been violating copyrights.
Can anyone explain this to me? What was the reasoning behind suing them in the first place?