Hehe, Don't kid yourself. For most users, they won't know enough to notice any difference from 9x. "Hmm.. that start bar is a different color."
Many of us made the NT jump years ago, and it's not a big deal, but if you are one of the teaming masses that has been suffering with Win 9x for years because you're too cheap or too ignorant to buy NT, having an affordably priced version will be nice.
Well, personally, I suffered with Windows 95 for a few years before switching to linux. To some of us, an affordably priced version of NT might be nice. But I have spoken to intellegent people who have been stuck with Win 9x for years. They tell me they can't stand xp, and that it's too bloated with cartoon characters telling you about their new features. They reinstalled Win 98. For serveral reasons, XP is not just an affordably priced version of NT. It takes a rather huge step towards locking users into Microsoft software that NT doesn't.
But anyway, 'affordable'? Am I the only one that finds it incredibly strange that Microsoft wont even release a price estimate for XP yet? Its even more strange that you'd call it affordable. I think the only thing about price I've read is, "It is expected to be priced at around $300."
I wish i could agree with you. I really do. But the truth is that no one knows, and no one really cares.
Do you remember when Windows ME came out? Wow, crowds of people went out to go upgrade. Do you think any of them knew the difference between ME and 98? NOPE. Basically, it exists, so everyone goes to buy it. Even though it is essentially a re-release of 98 with some extra multimedia stuff that I garrantee none of them will ever use, or even know about. They only notice the ME splash screen when they boot up the computer, and that makes it all worth it. Then they go brag to their their other computer illiterate friends, "Yup, I now have Windows ME! Millenium Edition! What do you have? 98?! PFFT!"
Now just think. The GUI is different! XP! There will be a huge rush to the stores when this comes out. The future of computing! Everyone will be so amazed. Many won't even know it looks different, but buy it anyway. Close to none will know the troubles of registering, and re-registering. They'll find out when they get home and open the box. And since then, every new computer you see advertised will be bundled with Windows XP. The simple truth is, it will sell millions of copies no matter what they did to it.
Hmm.. and the X-box. I'd like to say people would be smart enough to say "Hey, if I spent that much money on a geforce 3, I'd have a better computer than that!" But sadly, nope, its been hyped up for years. I was hearing about how great it was going to be before they even thought up what hardware it would run on. There are millions of people waiting for its release.
I'd really love to agree with you. I'd like to tell you that everybody knows Microsoft is a big pushy monopolist, and arent going going to put up with it anymore. But the truth is, as sad is it may be, people actually respect Microsoft.
I'm not sure how this works. What was the $10 for? Did you pay $10 and they sent you a copy of the XP beta cd? Because when you pay like $2.99 for a linux distro, you're just paying for the labor and the cd. If you're going to download an iso, thats free.
First of all, when a software developer decides to write a program from scratch, they decide which license they want to put their software under. There is no pressure either way, they have the right to decide how their software will be used. If they decide to release it under the GPL, that is their choice. Seems obvious, I know, but this means, it is not the GPL that is 'forcing a will upon others.' It is the origional software developer that decides this.
Yes, the GPL does impose restrictions on the use of software. Wait, it doesn't even do that. If you're just using GPL'd software, the GPL doesnt even apply to you. It imposes restrictions on derived software. Now, if someone bases a peice of software on code that you wrote, thats a pretty big deal. Don't you think you should get some say in how your code is used? This probably sounds a little farmiliar. It seems like every license has conditions for that. Please show me one by Microsoft that doesn't. Most will make derived works impossible unless given explicit permission. Maybe the whole concept has escaped you, but this is what licenses are for! One of the few licenses that don't include something like this is the BSD license. Now look what happened. Microsoft bases its tcp/ip stacks off of bsd code. Now the origional bsd authors are left behind receiving nothing from a company thats making billions selling hundreds of thousands of copies of software containing their code. Yes, this was the origional author's choice to license it under the BSD license, but you can see why someone might prefer the GPL.
Now there are times when the GPL doesn't make much sense, such as a library. Take a look at GTK. It is a library made for other people to use and base their programs on. If you want a good library for everyone to use, the GPL isn't very nice. This is why the LGPL was invented, and things like GTK and gstreamer are released under the LGPL. (If someone knows why Microsoft is against the LGPL too, please tell me, I'd like to know.)
Now lets be clear. It is not the GPL that is 'forcing a will upon others.' It is the origional software author. Now that we know that, it is very important to actually look at this will that it forces. It says if you want to base your work on theirs, you must distribute your code under the GPL too. Thats really pretty reasonable. Try basing work off of Microsoft's code. But seriously, why do you care?! Are you planning on selling software based on other people's work? When you are a software developer, it is a clear choice. Write your own software, or base it on someone elses GPL code and be forced to distribute it under the GPL. It is a very clear and open choice. No one is forcing anything. And it is a choice commercial licenses don't even offer. I dont see any sanity in this huge argument over it being 'viral'.
Next time, will you be more clear, and please refrain from saying stupid lines like "The GPL forces a will upon others." Please point out what 'others', what 'will' it 'forces', and how that is bad.
Heh, yeah, I guess you're right. 'Startpage' is much better term. But mozilla's options call it a 'home page'.. hmm. They have a 'home' button that takes you to your 'home page' too.
It also shows MS CEO Steve Ballmer's attitude even before today's ruling: "Is there any limit to what you think you can put into the operating system at all?" "...as a matter of law, no, I don't think so..."
Is he serious? Most people I know or see think Microsoft can do what they want. It seems to make perfect logical sense. They own the operating system, and they are the only ones that can legally distribute it, they can bundle whatever they want with it. He is trying to keep up these people's thoughts, and say its right, and there is no law against it.
But seriously, there IS a limit. There IS a law against it. That is why they're in court! He knows it too.
How crazy.. slashdot is my homepage, I do that so I remember to check the latest articles every time I open my browser. Well just now, slashdot wouldn't come up, I'm not sure why. So to test my internet connection, I decided to go to some other random site. For the first time ever, I just typed in something like MicrosoftSucks.com, and got that sucks.com site. I browsed through it a bit. Then I decided since my internet IS working, minus well go back to slashdot. And I see this article?! Thats crazy.
Have you guys seen Fabio's stereo system? He was on one episode of Tom Green. Its HUGE. Tom was sitting next to one of these speakers that had to be like 6 feet tall, and kept asking him how much it costs. He kept saying he wouldnt say. Tom was like "did you spend over 100 thousand?!" And then he admits that one of those speakers costs over a million dollars. wow.
I dont understand, if GPL'd code isn't owned by the public, who is it owned by? It is software thats free for everyone to use and contribute to. Apache can also use GPL'd software for their development and compiling of apache. Now its a very different case if they want to take segments of code, or modify linux and redistribute it under a different license. It make perfect sense to protect against this, and it still leaves it in the public's domain.
Would you like microsoft to modify government funded projects and redistribute their own version thats only compatible with their version, and get credit for it, and make money from it, and leave the government funded version obsolete? GPL'd code IS available for the public to use, contribute to, and learn from, and it makes sure it stays that way!
Do you mean nautilus 0.9? If so, man, you really need to upgrade. If you're impressed by that, you'll love 1.0.3. Its the only version I've liked so far, and I really like it.
He mentions how Microsoft is spending a lot of money trying to fight opensource ideas. This is funny, because I just read the Halloween documents for the first time yesterday, and I would like to point out a peice of it from section one. I think it is a perfect indication of what Microsoft is doing, from the words of Microsoft themselves.
Open Source Process
Commercial software development processes are hallmarked by organization around economic goals. However, since money is often not the (primary) motivation behind Open Source Software, understanding the nature of the threat posed requires a deep understanding of the process and motivation of Open Source development teams.
In other words, to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.
{ This is a very important insight, one I wish Microsoft had missed. The real battle isn't NT vs. Linux, or Microsoft vs. Red Hat/Caldera/S.u.S.E. -- it's closed-source development versus open-source. The cathedral versus the bazaar.
This applies in reverse as well, which is why bashing Microsoft qua Microsoft misses the point -- they're a symptom, not the disease itself. I wish more Linux hackers understood this.
On a practical level, this insight means we can expect Microsoft's propaganda machine to be directed against the process and culture of open source, rather than specific competitors. Brace for it... }
Don't you love how people love to blame everyone but each other? Like the school shootings.. How many weeks did we have to sit through hearing, "Who's to blame?!" Guns? The media? Films? Music? Video games?
Not once did I hear the blame placed on the students that did it.
Don't blame me if you don't like this post. It's the computer's fault!
Drugs are an emotionally charged subject because they kill people. It's as simple as that. Guns are also an emotionally charged subject because they kill people.
Well first of all, I need to know what 'drugs' you are talking about. I don't think you were talking about tabacco, a drug that kills over 400,000 people every year. You were talking about drugs like marijuana, and lsd. Drugs that arent addictive, and that are impossible to overdose on. The ones that kill 0 people every year. Or maybe you were talking about drugs like heroin and extacy, where a large majority of the deaths are entirely from impurities, disease, and improper uncontrolled use. A direct result of being distributed unrestricted, and with no quality control, because of its illegality. The truth is, drugs are an emotionally charged issue because of scare tactics like PSAs and DARE, who admittedly exaggerate the effects of drugs to prevent people from trying them.
Quite simply by ensuring that sentances are tough enough to make people think twice. People like Rockerfeller tried, but various liberals have been attempting to thwart such valiant efforts, making the penalties disproportional to the crime.
I can assure you beyond a doubt that not a single person will quit, or be prevented from using drugs because of tougher penalties. And as for the penalties being disproportional to the crime, I couldn't agree more! Most any pentalty is disproportional to responsibly using drugs in ones own home, on their own time, purely because they want to.
Singapore doesn't have hardly any drug use after all. So much for those that say harsh punishments don't work.
Have fun in Singapore. I would rather live in a free country. A country where responsible consenting adults can make their own decisions regaurding their own bodies.
I want to be free to raise my children without having to have them exposed to drugs. Simple as that.
If you truely don't want your child to be exposed to drugs, you dont want them on the black market. Illegal drugs are often much more easier to obtain than alchohol or cigarettes. There is no shortage of drugs, they are everywhere, and when they are distributed, they are distributed with no restrictions. Your child could easily find and buy drugs from friends at school. If they were legal, they wouldnt be available on the black market. They would be distributed from legitamate sellers who would not sell to children. Not to mention, making something illegal and forbidden only entices your child more to try it.
As I grew up hearing so much against drugs and how bad they are, I really thought they were just something that existed, but only came into play in about 2% of people's lives. Wow, I was wrong. Once you get into the drug scene, people are more open about them to you, and you realize, they are EVERYWHERE. Its often very well hidden from everyone else. You're fooling yourself if you think the WoD is working, and the only reason most people dont do drugs is because they arent available.
But really, you're the one who is short-sighted. You see that if you make it legal, you support using them, and you want to make them readily available to everyone. Now THAT is short-sighted. It is really quite the opposite, as all the other posters have shown you. But just that is hardly even the issue. Should drugs be distributed with no regulations on quality or buying age? Should recreational drug users, and people with real drug addictions be incarcerated for long periods of time with other drug addicts? Should drugs provide gangs and violent criminals with a large source of income? You would have thought the country would have learned its lesson with alchohol.
What if it was YOUR kid that decided to use marijuana responsibly in her own home, and a police officer catches her with it?! She would be thrown on the ground, put in hand cuffs and taken away. Would prison time and fines really help? What was she doing wrong to begin with? Who committed the crime?
I do hear that there are a lot of 'faulty drivers', which makes it really hard to make a program that'll work on every card. But I really don't know anything about that, the api is what I really hated. I could go on forever about it. I was really devoted to getting it working for about a week. I tried to understand and remember everything I needed to get it initialized. I thought it was odd, I had to do every little thing myself, like setting up their matrix variable to an identity matrix. You'd think they'd do it by default, or at least have a function for it. But I had a few pages of code, just to initialize it, but I wasn't drawing anything. I looked in the api about actually drawing polygons, and when I saw all the shit I had to go through just to draw a polygon, I said screw it. So I went back to OpenGL, which I got working right away. OpenGL is so much more advanced, and has support for many more functions, like curves, and extentions like 3d textures. The api is so nice to work with too. DirectX is still trying to catch up, drastically changing things with each new version. You should see DX8, its like someone replaced the leading 'gl' in every function with 'd3d'. But OpenGL will always have something DX will never have, portability.
I made a little game in SDL. It wasn't much and I eventually didnt finish it. I think its rather good, their API is GREAT.. and it has cool simple APIs for sound and multithreading and everything, its great. But as I understand it, when you run it in windows, it actually uses DirectX.. so I can't tell you its better than DirectX. It uses DirectDraw, it can do lots of cool things like storing pictures in the video memory and doing fast blits, with transparency, and performs well with good video cards, just remember to use hardware surfaces:). But theres no way you can do everything you can do with DirectDraw. I dont think its really possible when you're doing such multi-platform coding like that.. the API is very broad and general. Its also not much of a 3d API, its like DirectDraw, its best for 2d blitting of pictures and such, if your game is going to be like that, go for it!
I'm currently messing with OpenGL.. I like it, and using glut, it can work on just as many platforms. The only drawback is that cards will need opengl acceleration to run anything decent, and the API is a bit more difficult, but still very easy. I dont want to tell you the horrors of Direct3d before DX8.
hah.. if you feel like ignoring the countless number of things that dont make any sense, especially the description of the algorithm.. then download it! lzip is a picture of a stuffed monkey and lunzip is a text file.
uhh, what? how does DX8 "power" 95% of cards NVidia sells?
I assume you're talking about programs using the video card.. I don't know about you, but 100% of the programs I run, windows and linux, all run OpenGL.
As I understand it, the FSAA on the Geforce 2's really sucked. As if they weren't designed with AA in mind at all. They use a method called super sampling, where the image is rendered at a higher resolution, and then downscaled. Its a pretty bad method, I have to turn it off on my GF2 GTS because I can't stand the drop in framerate. The Voodoo 5 and the GF3 are a lot better at antialiasing than the GF2's.
Slashdot Mirror
Hehe, Don't kid yourself. For most users, they won't know enough to notice any difference from 9x. "Hmm.. that start bar is a different color."
Many of us made the NT jump years ago, and it's not a big deal, but if you are one of the teaming masses that has been suffering with Win 9x for years because you're too cheap or too ignorant to buy NT, having an affordably priced version will be nice.
Well, personally, I suffered with Windows 95 for a few years before switching to linux. To some of us, an affordably priced version of NT might be nice. But I have spoken to intellegent people who have been stuck with Win 9x for years. They tell me they can't stand xp, and that it's too bloated with cartoon characters telling you about their new features. They reinstalled Win 98. For serveral reasons, XP is not just an affordably priced version of NT. It takes a rather huge step towards locking users into Microsoft software that NT doesn't.
But anyway, 'affordable'? Am I the only one that finds it incredibly strange that Microsoft wont even release a price estimate for XP yet? Its even more strange that you'd call it affordable. I think the only thing about price I've read is, "It is expected to be priced at around $300."
Do you remember when Windows ME came out? Wow, crowds of people went out to go upgrade. Do you think any of them knew the difference between ME and 98? NOPE. Basically, it exists, so everyone goes to buy it. Even though it is essentially a re-release of 98 with some extra multimedia stuff that I garrantee none of them will ever use, or even know about. They only notice the ME splash screen when they boot up the computer, and that makes it all worth it. Then they go brag to their their other computer illiterate friends, "Yup, I now have Windows ME! Millenium Edition! What do you have? 98?! PFFT!"
Now just think. The GUI is different! XP! There will be a huge rush to the stores when this comes out. The future of computing! Everyone will be so amazed. Many won't even know it looks different, but buy it anyway. Close to none will know the troubles of registering, and re-registering. They'll find out when they get home and open the box. And since then, every new computer you see advertised will be bundled with Windows XP. The simple truth is, it will sell millions of copies no matter what they did to it.
Hmm.. and the X-box. I'd like to say people would be smart enough to say "Hey, if I spent that much money on a geforce 3, I'd have a better computer than that!" But sadly, nope, its been hyped up for years. I was hearing about how great it was going to be before they even thought up what hardware it would run on. There are millions of people waiting for its release.
I'd really love to agree with you. I'd like to tell you that everybody knows Microsoft is a big pushy monopolist, and arent going going to put up with it anymore. But the truth is, as sad is it may be, people actually respect Microsoft.
Yeah, and I just love sifting through warez sites and pr0n popups to get my OS working.
I'm not sure how this works. What was the $10 for? Did you pay $10 and they sent you a copy of the XP beta cd? Because when you pay like $2.99 for a linux distro, you're just paying for the labor and the cd. If you're going to download an iso, thats free.
First of all, when a software developer decides to write a program from scratch, they decide which license they want to put their software under. There is no pressure either way, they have the right to decide how their software will be used. If they decide to release it under the GPL, that is their choice. Seems obvious, I know, but this means, it is not the GPL that is 'forcing a will upon others.' It is the origional software developer that decides this.
Yes, the GPL does impose restrictions on the use of software. Wait, it doesn't even do that. If you're just using GPL'd software, the GPL doesnt even apply to you. It imposes restrictions on derived software. Now, if someone bases a peice of software on code that you wrote, thats a pretty big deal. Don't you think you should get some say in how your code is used? This probably sounds a little farmiliar. It seems like every license has conditions for that. Please show me one by Microsoft that doesn't. Most will make derived works impossible unless given explicit permission. Maybe the whole concept has escaped you, but this is what licenses are for! One of the few licenses that don't include something like this is the BSD license. Now look what happened. Microsoft bases its tcp/ip stacks off of bsd code. Now the origional bsd authors are left behind receiving nothing from a company thats making billions selling hundreds of thousands of copies of software containing their code. Yes, this was the origional author's choice to license it under the BSD license, but you can see why someone might prefer the GPL.
Now there are times when the GPL doesn't make much sense, such as a library. Take a look at GTK. It is a library made for other people to use and base their programs on. If you want a good library for everyone to use, the GPL isn't very nice. This is why the LGPL was invented, and things like GTK and gstreamer are released under the LGPL. (If someone knows why Microsoft is against the LGPL too, please tell me, I'd like to know.)
Now lets be clear. It is not the GPL that is 'forcing a will upon others.' It is the origional software author. Now that we know that, it is very important to actually look at this will that it forces. It says if you want to base your work on theirs, you must distribute your code under the GPL too. Thats really pretty reasonable. Try basing work off of Microsoft's code. But seriously, why do you care?! Are you planning on selling software based on other people's work? When you are a software developer, it is a clear choice. Write your own software, or base it on someone elses GPL code and be forced to distribute it under the GPL. It is a very clear and open choice. No one is forcing anything. And it is a choice commercial licenses don't even offer. I dont see any sanity in this huge argument over it being 'viral'.
Next time, will you be more clear, and please refrain from saying stupid lines like "The GPL forces a will upon others." Please point out what 'others', what 'will' it 'forces', and how that is bad.
Thank you.
A boss without humor is like a job that sucks.
I think your quote is another good addition to the fortune database.
Heh, yeah, I guess you're right. 'Startpage' is much better term. But mozilla's options call it a 'home page'.. hmm. They have a 'home' button that takes you to your 'home page' too.
Is he serious? Most people I know or see think Microsoft can do what they want. It seems to make perfect logical sense. They own the operating system, and they are the only ones that can legally distribute it, they can bundle whatever they want with it. He is trying to keep up these people's thoughts, and say its right, and there is no law against it.
But seriously, there IS a limit. There IS a law against it. That is why they're in court! He knows it too.
I ask that you please remove the post promptly or I will be forced to take legal action.
Thank you.
How crazy.. slashdot is my homepage, I do that so I remember to check the latest articles every time I open my browser. Well just now, slashdot wouldn't come up, I'm not sure why. So to test my internet connection, I decided to go to some other random site. For the first time ever, I just typed in something like MicrosoftSucks.com, and got that sucks.com site. I browsed through it a bit. Then I decided since my internet IS working, minus well go back to slashdot. And I see this article?! Thats crazy.
Moderation Totals:Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Funny=1, Total=4.
Have you guys seen Fabio's stereo system? He was on one episode of Tom Green. Its HUGE. Tom was sitting next to one of these speakers that had to be like 6 feet tall, and kept asking him how much it costs. He kept saying he wouldnt say. Tom was like "did you spend over 100 thousand?!" And then he admits that one of those speakers costs over a million dollars. wow.
Would you like microsoft to modify government funded projects and redistribute their own version thats only compatible with their version, and get credit for it, and make money from it, and leave the government funded version obsolete? GPL'd code IS available for the public to use, contribute to, and learn from, and it makes sure it stays that way!
Do you mean nautilus 0.9? If so, man, you really need to upgrade. If you're impressed by that, you'll love 1.0.3. Its the only version I've liked so far, and I really like it.
Not once did I hear the blame placed on the students that did it.
Don't blame me if you don't like this post. It's the computer's fault!
Well first of all, I need to know what 'drugs' you are talking about. I don't think you were talking about tabacco, a drug that kills over 400,000 people every year. You were talking about drugs like marijuana, and lsd. Drugs that arent addictive, and that are impossible to overdose on. The ones that kill 0 people every year. Or maybe you were talking about drugs like heroin and extacy, where a large majority of the deaths are entirely from impurities, disease, and improper uncontrolled use. A direct result of being distributed unrestricted, and with no quality control, because of its illegality. The truth is, drugs are an emotionally charged issue because of scare tactics like PSAs and DARE, who admittedly exaggerate the effects of drugs to prevent people from trying them.
Quite simply by ensuring that sentances are tough enough to make people think twice. People like Rockerfeller tried, but various liberals have been attempting to thwart such valiant efforts, making the penalties disproportional to the crime.
I can assure you beyond a doubt that not a single person will quit, or be prevented from using drugs because of tougher penalties. And as for the penalties being disproportional to the crime, I couldn't agree more! Most any pentalty is disproportional to responsibly using drugs in ones own home, on their own time, purely because they want to.
Singapore doesn't have hardly any drug use after all. So much for those that say harsh punishments don't work.
Have fun in Singapore. I would rather live in a free country. A country where responsible consenting adults can make their own decisions regaurding their own bodies.
I want to be free to raise my children without having to have them exposed to drugs. Simple as that.
If you truely don't want your child to be exposed to drugs, you dont want them on the black market. Illegal drugs are often much more easier to obtain than alchohol or cigarettes. There is no shortage of drugs, they are everywhere, and when they are distributed, they are distributed with no restrictions. Your child could easily find and buy drugs from friends at school. If they were legal, they wouldnt be available on the black market. They would be distributed from legitamate sellers who would not sell to children. Not to mention, making something illegal and forbidden only entices your child more to try it.
But really, you're the one who is short-sighted. You see that if you make it legal, you support using them, and you want to make them readily available to everyone. Now THAT is short-sighted. It is really quite the opposite, as all the other posters have shown you. But just that is hardly even the issue. Should drugs be distributed with no regulations on quality or buying age? Should recreational drug users, and people with real drug addictions be incarcerated for long periods of time with other drug addicts? Should drugs provide gangs and violent criminals with a large source of income? You would have thought the country would have learned its lesson with alchohol.
What if it was YOUR kid that decided to use marijuana responsibly in her own home, and a police officer catches her with it?! She would be thrown on the ground, put in hand cuffs and taken away. Would prison time and fines really help? What was she doing wrong to begin with? Who committed the crime?
I do hear that there are a lot of 'faulty drivers', which makes it really hard to make a program that'll work on every card. But I really don't know anything about that, the api is what I really hated. I could go on forever about it. I was really devoted to getting it working for about a week. I tried to understand and remember everything I needed to get it initialized. I thought it was odd, I had to do every little thing myself, like setting up their matrix variable to an identity matrix. You'd think they'd do it by default, or at least have a function for it. But I had a few pages of code, just to initialize it, but I wasn't drawing anything. I looked in the api about actually drawing polygons, and when I saw all the shit I had to go through just to draw a polygon, I said screw it. So I went back to OpenGL, which I got working right away. OpenGL is so much more advanced, and has support for many more functions, like curves, and extentions like 3d textures. The api is so nice to work with too. DirectX is still trying to catch up, drastically changing things with each new version. You should see DX8, its like someone replaced the leading 'gl' in every function with 'd3d'. But OpenGL will always have something DX will never have, portability.
I'm currently messing with OpenGL.. I like it, and using glut, it can work on just as many platforms. The only drawback is that cards will need opengl acceleration to run anything decent, and the API is a bit more difficult, but still very easy. I dont want to tell you the horrors of Direct3d before DX8.
hah.. if you feel like ignoring the countless number of things that dont make any sense, especially the description of the algorithm.. then download it! lzip is a picture of a stuffed monkey and lunzip is a text file.
I assume you're talking about programs using the video card.. I don't know about you, but 100% of the programs I run, windows and linux, all run OpenGL.
As I understand it, the FSAA on the Geforce 2's really sucked. As if they weren't designed with AA in mind at all. They use a method called super sampling, where the image is rendered at a higher resolution, and then downscaled. Its a pretty bad method, I have to turn it off on my GF2 GTS because I can't stand the drop in framerate. The Voodoo 5 and the GF3 are a lot better at antialiasing than the GF2's.
"That's because, you're an idiot." -Elaine Benis
hehe, and to help train for that MCSE, get the MCSE Trainer
Oddly enough though, on Linuxgruven it talks about how the market has been so bad for technology companies, but not them!