Now that, my friend... is funny...:)
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
That's the way to deal with the bugs... but no, they have to send 90210 boys and girls down with little rifles to shoot at them one at a time...
Fair enough, I can respect that point of view. I don't really agree with it, but I respect it.
Question: Do you believe that tobacco users should pay more for health insurance due to their choices, or would you require that all policies be priced the same regardless of personal choices?
No right or wrong answer, just asking for your view point.
Did I say they should be banned? If I did, let me know. I know I'll never eat another one and that if most people knew what was in them, they wouldn't either.
So the question becomes, are they selling something that isn't labeled properly?
You are, of course, correct... we are the minority...
That being said, $599 in 2006 isn't the same as $599 in 2013... and by offering a $399 option, the $599 option wouldn't be so bad.
I owned a PS1, I bought the PS2 because it played all my PS1 games. By the time I bought a PS3, I had moved on from PS1 games but still had a ton of PS2 games. Today? No PS2 games left, so I could live without PS1/2, but I do require PS3 support to upgrade.
This is the first time in a very, very long time that I haven't bought the newest console on launch day, going way back to the SNES.
Yes, but the problem with that is if you make crappy food choices, then we all have to pay for your health care.
If you're ok to go die in a ditch because you ate a dozen Krispy Kream donuts every day, then fine, have at it, but if you want to join the health care system, then we all should get some say in what you can and cannot eat.
It does affect the overall cost to all of us, so it isn't just "personal choice".
The fact is, a lot of research shows that saccharin is bad, yet the lobbies that support it spend a lot of money to keep it on the market.
The FDA has what they call "ADI", acceptable daily intake. In other words, you can eat a little bit of poison and that is ok, just don't eat too much because we're paid to not ban it.
Well, I guess it works for tobacco, that should be banned as well, but it remains legal because of lobbies.
The fact is, lots of stuff is bad for us, but because there is enough money in it, it remains on the market.
I have 2 PS3s in my house, we have a huge libary of games for the PS3. I was a buyer day 1 with a 60GB unit that was backwards PS2 hardware compatible.
I would have bought a pair of PS4s on launch day if they had PS3 hardware inside of them, even if they cost $599 each.
Sony, pay attention... Some of us have money to spend, we don't mind... but what we do mind is having a bunch of boxes in front of our TVs. I will have a single console in front of my TV, not 2, not 3, just 1... I won't replace the PS3 with a PS4 because all our software will stop working.
Release a PS4 with PS3 hardware inside, even at a price premium, and I'm a customer. Not before.
So? put the hardware in the box and call it a day?
Oh, that costs money? Fine, charge me $599 and sell me a PS4 that has a PS3 built in, I'll buy one day one.
I have 2 PS3s in my house, I have not ordered a PS4 and I likely won't for a long time, if ever. We have a large libary of PS3 games, both PSN and disc based and have no desire to have 2 consoles at each TV. Give us a single console that does both and we're there.
Money is not the only limiting factor, space and a desire to deal with 2 consoles is for some of us. I bought a PS3 at launch because it was PS2 compatible, the PS4 missed that boat.
Yes, but what we've learned since then is that butter is actually better for you than margarine is...
Butter is a real food, margarine is just a manufactured food.
Frankly, most of the frankenfoods that the food industry makes today are crap, go back to eating real food and get healthy.
The only issue with butter is the amount you eat. Just keep it within a reasonable level and it is fine. Reminds me of when eggs were "evil" about 20 years ago, and egg whites became all the rage.
My wife eats 3 eggs a day, every day, she is 40 years old and recently had her cholesterol checked (for a life insurance policy), her levels were well below average because as a rule, she doesn't eat crap in a box, she eats real food.
Back then games didn't use DirectX, or at least most didn't. A lot of games were still using DOS, even in '97.
The Glide API was what games used back then. Yes, there was PowerVR and S3 Virge, but those were crap cards that didn't really do much.
Of course I'm talking about gaming, which is what this topic is about, if you're refering to 3D rendering or something else, then that wouldn't apply.
As far as visual quality, Voodoo wasn't great, but wasn't really that bad for the day, the fact that it ran games well at a good speed was what mattered.
Riva 128 made an impression, but I recall it was the TNT that got nVidia noticed, if you read up on the history of cards back then, you'll actually see that I'm right. Go take a gander at the Wikipedia pages on Voodoo and nVidia and the like from back then, make sure you compare years equally, you'll see why 3DFX was taking over everything, right up until they bought STB and screwed it all up. That was a stupid move, but they didn't know it at the time.
4K is far from a hype machine, it is badly needed. I just started playing CoD: Ghosts last night and find that 2x MSAA is required to keep it looking decent, 4x MSAA is nicer but the FPS is too low for my taste.
1080P sucks, but you're right, if you are running 1080P and are happy with medium details, then any 3 year old card is just fine.
If you're running a 27" or 30" display at either 1440P or 1600P, then these newer cards do help if you like to max out the display settings.
On a single AMD 7970HD card, running on a single 30" 1600P panel, CoD: Ghosts gets very laggy running at 4x MSAA. Works ok at 2X MSAA, but there is clearly a need for more GPU power there.
Or better yet, a 4K panel with 2x MSAA on. A 290X with good cooling will be required for that.
Some people are happy with cloth seats, some of us like leather, and then some of us like air conditioned leather seats.:)
Yea, but none of them really mattered to anyone who knew what they were doing.
Back in those days, you had 3DFX and then you had everyone else.
Once ATI and nVidia came out with better cards, they ran away with it, the others were just pretenders. The TNT and TNT2 were nice cards, the GeForce 256 finally shut the door on everyone else (other than ATI of course), and that was a long time ago...
Dell tried a few years ago to offer desktops with Linux pre-installed instead of Windows. It didn't work. Customers were confused and upset that their Windows programs didn't work, and that it wasn't as easy to use as Windows is.
The truth is, Linux really doesn't offer the average desktop computer user anything over Windows. Ok, so Dell doesn't have to pay Microsoft $40 for the OEM copy of Windows, big deal. That isn't the make or break reason for a customer to change OS on their machine.
The truth is, Windows has been "good enough" for a very long time, Windows XP was finally the OS that killed any chance of something else stepping up to the plate.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that, my friend... is funny... :)
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
That's the way to deal with the bugs... but no, they have to send 90210 boys and girls down with little rifles to shoot at them one at a time...
When humans no longer consider violence an acceptable way to resolve problems, we will all be better off.
The trick of course is that everyone has to be on-board for that to happen.
Question: Do you believe that tobacco users should pay more for health insurance due to their choices, or would you require that all policies be priced the same regardless of personal choices?
No right or wrong answer, just asking for your view point.
So the question becomes, are they selling something that isn't labeled properly?
That being said, $599 in 2006 isn't the same as $599 in 2013... and by offering a $399 option, the $599 option wouldn't be so bad.
I owned a PS1, I bought the PS2 because it played all my PS1 games. By the time I bought a PS3, I had moved on from PS1 games but still had a ton of PS2 games. Today? No PS2 games left, so I could live without PS1/2, but I do require PS3 support to upgrade.
This is the first time in a very, very long time that I haven't bought the newest console on launch day, going way back to the SNES.
Pure socialism doesn't work.
Happiness is somewhere in the middle.
If you're ok to go die in a ditch because you ate a dozen Krispy Kream donuts every day, then fine, have at it, but if you want to join the health care system, then we all should get some say in what you can and cannot eat.
It does affect the overall cost to all of us, so it isn't just "personal choice".
Plain Cheerios with a cut up banana in them are wonderful for breakfast.
Honey Nut Cheerios are just a bowl of sugar.
The average American eats over 50lbs of sugar a year. It is the primary reason why we're so fat.
Do you think most people even know that?
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ThisWeek/ucm117882.htm
http://enhs.umn.edu/current/saccharin/fda.html
The fact is, a lot of research shows that saccharin is bad, yet the lobbies that support it spend a lot of money to keep it on the market.
The FDA has what they call "ADI", acceptable daily intake. In other words, you can eat a little bit of poison and that is ok, just don't eat too much because we're paid to not ban it.
Well, I guess it works for tobacco, that should be banned as well, but it remains legal because of lobbies.
The fact is, lots of stuff is bad for us, but because there is enough money in it, it remains on the market.
Seagate just released a 2TB 9.5mm drive based on Samsung technology, it will be expensive for awhile, but it will come down in price.
Our main PS3 has a 1TB HDD in it and our second machine has a 320GB drive in it, both are plenty for what we use them for.
I suspect that if we ever replace those drives, we'll do with SSDs, those drives are SLOW! :)
A 500GB SSD is about $300 now, while expensive, it isn't out of the range of reasonable given that we use our consoles every day.
But what I don't want is a bunch of consoles in front of my TVs, I like a clean look.
Why Sony isn't offering a $599 version with a built in PS3 is beyond me, I'd buy 2 of them.
Not everyone has a great internet connection, I get that, but for those of us that do, we generally prefer the download version.
Thanks to FIOS and a 150meg down connection, it would take me 47 minutes to download 50GB.
I have a huge steam game collection and frankly the time to download games is a non-issue.
I'd probably feel otherwise if I was stuck on DSL however, so I get that.
I have 2 PS3s in my house, we have a huge libary of games for the PS3. I was a buyer day 1 with a 60GB unit that was backwards PS2 hardware compatible.
I would have bought a pair of PS4s on launch day if they had PS3 hardware inside of them, even if they cost $599 each.
Sony, pay attention... Some of us have money to spend, we don't mind... but what we do mind is having a bunch of boxes in front of our TVs. I will have a single console in front of my TV, not 2, not 3, just 1... I won't replace the PS3 with a PS4 because all our software will stop working.
Release a PS4 with PS3 hardware inside, even at a price premium, and I'm a customer. Not before.
Oh, that costs money? Fine, charge me $599 and sell me a PS4 that has a PS3 built in, I'll buy one day one.
I have 2 PS3s in my house, I have not ordered a PS4 and I likely won't for a long time, if ever. We have a large libary of PS3 games, both PSN and disc based and have no desire to have 2 consoles at each TV. Give us a single console that does both and we're there.
Money is not the only limiting factor, space and a desire to deal with 2 consoles is for some of us. I bought a PS3 at launch because it was PS2 compatible, the PS4 missed that boat.
Try this list of what is in McNuggets:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/chicken-nugget-ingredients_n_4153520.html
If you honestly read that and still order McNuggets, then your brain isn't working right. They are garbage and shouldn't be sold as "food".
Butter is a real food, margarine is just a manufactured food.
Frankly, most of the frankenfoods that the food industry makes today are crap, go back to eating real food and get healthy.
The only issue with butter is the amount you eat. Just keep it within a reasonable level and it is fine. Reminds me of when eggs were "evil" about 20 years ago, and egg whites became all the rage.
My wife eats 3 eggs a day, every day, she is 40 years old and recently had her cholesterol checked (for a life insurance policy), her levels were well below average because as a rule, she doesn't eat crap in a box, she eats real food.
If the FDA worked off science, then Nutri-sweet and Sweet'n Low would have been banned years ago, both are toxic.
Where have you been for 100 years?
The Glide API was what games used back then. Yes, there was PowerVR and S3 Virge, but those were crap cards that didn't really do much.
Of course I'm talking about gaming, which is what this topic is about, if you're refering to 3D rendering or something else, then that wouldn't apply.
As far as visual quality, Voodoo wasn't great, but wasn't really that bad for the day, the fact that it ran games well at a good speed was what mattered.
Riva 128 made an impression, but I recall it was the TNT that got nVidia noticed, if you read up on the history of cards back then, you'll actually see that I'm right. Go take a gander at the Wikipedia pages on Voodoo and nVidia and the like from back then, make sure you compare years equally, you'll see why 3DFX was taking over everything, right up until they bought STB and screwed it all up. That was a stupid move, but they didn't know it at the time.
4K is far from a hype machine, it is badly needed. I just started playing CoD: Ghosts last night and find that 2x MSAA is required to keep it looking decent, 4x MSAA is nicer but the FPS is too low for my taste.
If you're running a 27" or 30" display at either 1440P or 1600P, then these newer cards do help if you like to max out the display settings.
On a single AMD 7970HD card, running on a single 30" 1600P panel, CoD: Ghosts gets very laggy running at 4x MSAA. Works ok at 2X MSAA, but there is clearly a need for more GPU power there.
Or better yet, a 4K panel with 2x MSAA on. A 290X with good cooling will be required for that.
Some people are happy with cloth seats, some of us like leather, and then some of us like air conditioned leather seats. :)
Back in those days, you had 3DFX and then you had everyone else.
Once ATI and nVidia came out with better cards, they ran away with it, the others were just pretenders. The TNT and TNT2 were nice cards, the GeForce 256 finally shut the door on everyone else (other than ATI of course), and that was a long time ago...
Yep, the first 30" panels came out in 2005, Apple and Dell, and were insanely expensive at the time. :)
The truth is, Linux really doesn't offer the average desktop computer user anything over Windows. Ok, so Dell doesn't have to pay Microsoft $40 for the OEM copy of Windows, big deal. That isn't the make or break reason for a customer to change OS on their machine.
The truth is, Windows has been "good enough" for a very long time, Windows XP was finally the OS that killed any chance of something else stepping up to the plate.