...and as for "usual standard" -- Chis Tolkien is going to be able to match or exceed his father's writing in every technical way.
Some people have a true gift for language, some people are able to master language, and then there are the offspring of respected writers. Whether it be Tolkien or Herbert, the younger generation always manages to trample on the legacy left by their ancestors. Go read some of C. Tolkien's early attempts at extending his father's legacy. You'll quickly see what I mean.
Maybe google.com was down when the barely literate author of the article tried to look up "incidences" to check the spelling. Not only is "incidences" a nonsensical word its apparent root, "incidence" isn't the right word for what the author was trying to convey. The proper word is "incidents"
If the author can't be bothered to spell check his article why does he think we should bother to read it?
Comparing TVs in a store is the absolute worst thing you can do. They're all set to demo mode so the image is horribly over-driven. The brightness is hotter than the sun, the sharpness is way over done, and the colors are so blown out as to be painful to look at. With any compressed source the decompression blocks will always be noticeable. That's why they're demo'd with the source material they use.
Take any of those sets home and calibrate it properly (either professionally or with an AVIA (et. al..) DVD and the picture situation becomes drastically different. Correctly calibrated modern hi-def sets (of any type) can match the picture quality of properly calibrated CRT sets.
EA did standardize. They bought Criterion and Renderware a year or two back. This more to license UE3 is very odd and doesn't say much for EA's attempt to keep Renderware current after they purchased it.
Vista will ship with DX9 and DX10. It has to for backwards compatibility. As I understand it there will be two seperate collections of DLLs, not DX10 handling DX9 internally. I would assume that has to do with the fact that DX10 gets the graphics system back out of kernel space, where it never belonged, but DX9 might still expect certain aspects of having it in the kernel.
You're right. I was intentionally keeping my statements within the bounds of hardware-rendering only. I understand that OpenGL has software fallbacks. DirectX does also. I should've been more clear on my limiting the discussion to hardware-enabaled rendering of features available in newer versions of either API.
You really don't have enough information on this topic to be a relevant member of this discussion. DirectX versions aren't tied to Windows versions. You can upgrade Windows all you want. It will run on a wide range of hardware. You can't upgrade from say DirectX 5 to DirectX 9 and expect the features that DX9 supports to magically work on your DirectX5 level graphics card hardware. The same is true for OpenGL. There's nothing magical about OpenGL that causes it to invent transistors that don't exist when it needs them.
You started this thread with a ridiculous statement that with DX10 being exclusive maybe OpenGL will become dominant. You also implied that Vista required DX10. I responded and refuted both arguments. You then took one of my statements out of context (all versions of DX being exclusive to Windows only) and make the ridiculous statement that no version of DirectX every required people to upgrade hardware. Again, you were wrong and I pointed out your mistakes. As I stated above you have to upgrade hardware to use the newest versions of DirectX. The GPUs on the older boards have no data paths for the new features. Just like you can't run 486 specific code on an 8088. You then attempted to change your stance again and decided that you meant Windows version upgrades, not DirectX or OpenGl, so I must just be an idiot. Rude insults aside, you're the one coming across and less than knowledgeable about all of this, not me.
Try to be a bit more consistent in your arguments, please.
Your board from 1997 doesn't have pixel shaders, vertex shaders, floating point rendering targets, and quite possibly a stencil buffer.
It's great that OpenGL works on that and modern hardware. DirectX from the same timeframe (probably DX3 for 1997) will work just the same. OpenGL 2.0 won't work on your board and support the missings features I listed above, though. OpenGL 2.0 won't necessarily uniformly support those features on modern hardware. The ARB was too slow to keep up with the marketplace.
You call it "requirements forced on manufacturers". A lot of people call it "Microsoft is willing to support the features the hardware manufacturers want in a timely manner" The ARB came up with extensions and then washed their hands of the whole thing, essentially leaving OpenGL support to developers who had to write different code paths and extensions to cover a myriad of different hadware type.
My point is people shouldn't be expecting OpenGL to become dominant now. The ARB screwed the pooch on the possibility quite a while ago.
Dang, lost formatting. Why doesn't Slashdot have post editing? Anyway, the line, "To run OpenGL 1.x along with you *need* given board. If you don't have it the extension won't work." should read:
To run OpenGL 1.x along with a given extension that exposes a feature on a given board you need that board installed. If you don't have it the extension won't work in hardware.
The difference would be that none of them REQUIRED you to update all your hardware in order to run it. DX10 requires it. Vista requires it.
All of them required you to update if you wanted to use the features. You can't run a DX9 app on DX3 hardware and get the advantages of DX. The necessary transistors aren't on the DX3 board. There's nothing different on the OpenGL side. To run OpenGL 1.x along with you *need* given board. If you don't have it the extension won't work.
Vista does not require DX10. It runs just fine under DX9. It will ship with both DX9 and DX10. The UI rendering layer is not DX10 specific. I've run Vista on a two year old machine with integrated Intel graphics (pixel shader 2.x, vertex shaders handled by the CPU) and Vista worked 100%, including Aero Glass.
Also, since DirectX 10 is only available for Vista, this may be the prime time for OpenGL to start stealing some market share.
What would be so different about the exclusivity of DX10 on Vista as opposed to the exclusivity of DXs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 on Win 95, 98, NT (DX3 only), 2K, and XP that makes now the proper time for OpenGL to become dominant?
DX wins out in terms of "market share" (as if an API can be measured against something like that) becuase of two things...the dominance of Windows in the marketplace and the fact that DirectX has pretty much wiped the floor with OpenGL when it comes to support for contemporary rendering hardware features. Extensions be damned, the OpenGL ARB moves *way* to slowly to be competitive. Maybe the Khronos group will help with that...Lord knows they can't be any worse.
Will OpenGL have a ratified spec for equivilent DX10 features like geometry shaders by the time DX 10 comes out?
And there's nothing OSS unfriendly about the Windows APIs. The APIs I have access to and documentation for in VisualStudio work equally well regardless of whether or not I create a proprietary or open application.
EA wasn't quite the powerhouse as they are now back at that time.
They were the #1 publisher back then. They're the #1 publisher now. Regardless of the relative sizes of the pool of gamers between the two times EA was, in the industry, the same powerhouse back then.
I'd also argue that Madden was in no way as popular back then as with the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation.
Madden has been hugely popular since the Sega Genesis days. Go look at the historical sales charts going back to '95 or so.
EA said, "No Dreamcast...but look at SSX, Madden, and Tiger Woods over here on the PS2!". The world turned it's collective head and never looked back.
When my Dad bought a new hard drive because his old one was dying, we tried in vain to copy his old system over to the new drive. First we tried imaging it using "dd" on a liveCD, but that didn't work. Then we tried making a new filesystem and using "cp" to just copy the whole thing. That didn't either. We didn't want to spend money on Norton Ghost, just for a one-time thing.. He ended up having to re-install and re-activate XP, re-install all his MS Office software he'd had some trouble with installing in the first place, and finally setting up a whole new system. Just because he wanted to replace his drive!
That, compared to the number of times I've moved my Linux system without a single hitch... I can't believe people put up with this crap. Now instead of keeping things simple, they're moving even further away from a file-based approach?
So file based installing screwed his dad, yet now file based copying is something this person thinks Microsoft should keep?
Oh, and as an aside to the person who wrote that....The program you were looking for was DriveCopy. It's designed to move partitions or entire drives, resizing as necessary. I've upgraded HDs in my desktop for years without ever having to reinstall the OS or the apps.
The biggest contributor to the downfall of the Dreamcast was Electronic Arts. When they announced that they weren't going to support the console, for whatever reasons, public interest in it faded very quickly. Consoles are like operating systems. People care more about the software library available than the underlying hosting environment for those applications.
BTW. There does seem to be a slight hint of bitterness in his comments, which is understandable given
that EVERY one of the next-gen consoles are powered by their rival's GPUs. (ATI)
Wrong.
It seems odd for Nvidia to claim that developing a GPU for the 360 was too expensive when ATI managed to do not only that, but the PS3 and Wii GPUs as well.
Still wrong.
Nvidia dropped the ball big time by not developing a new GPU for at least one of the nextgen consoles...
The PS3 GPU is an nVidia part. It's essentially a 7900 with a different memory interconnect.
Wow, four whole test subjects and one set of focus tests for the entire lifespan of the product? Photoshop has gone through evolutionary changes in UI design and usability for ~twenty years. I'm sure Adobe's body of knowledge with regards to image editing software UI intuitiveness is much deeper and broader than 1 test with four people.
That page smacks of nothing more than, "We ran a few tests one afternoon just so we could provide a talking point against the, 'Have they ever run focus tests on this UI?' questions we keep getting."
Re:Comments from people who actually create Creati
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
No, because to professionals the cost of a seat of Photoshop is negligible and easily amoritized out over a very small number of paying jobs. The only people that Photoshop is cost-prohibitive to is amateurs, which is the audience for Adobe's lower cost, lighter, "Elements" line of products.
The GIMP shouldn't be compared to Photoshop, because it's not in the same marketspace. It should be compared to Photoshop Elements and PaintShopPro.
A F1 engine is going to be stripped down after a race anyway so why bother making it reliable enough to last more then one race?
Because the FIA rules mandate that for the racing seasons 2005 and beyond engines must be used for a minimum of two (2) race weekends before they can be rebuilt, that's why.
A company can have a mis-step and recover. Yes, there have been bad Mario and Link games (Zelda on the CD-I anyone?). Sega, though, is like a stumbling drunk, with each misplaced footfall resulting in yet another Not-Really-A-Sonic-Game.
It's a Next Generation.com editorial that should be titled, "Why did Sega screw Sonic Over?". That's the only mascot mentioned in the article.
Nintendo's entire lineup of 1st party games is built on mascots. It's not "Where have the mascots gone?" It's, "Why do certain companies lose their fanbase by screwing with their mascots in horrible ways?" Nintendo gets it. Sega would rather crap out things like every Sonic game since 1992 and hope people buy them on name recognition alone.
This 767 story should remind us that the Google guys are no better than Ken Lay, the Tyco guy, or Marth Stewart.
Please cite any sources you have that proves the "Google guys" had their accounting team record losses in the main corporation as profits for shell corporations, spent millions of dollars of company money on parties and/or shower curtains, or were involved in any sort of insider trading.
Not worried? Still believe the "no evil" hype.
By your logic and bad grammar if I'm not worried then I must follow your command and still believe the "no evil" hype. Well, duh. If I wasn't worried I probably believed that to begin with. Thank you, Mr. Obvious.
Is a "fungible moreal" some sort of Chinese delicacy?
Slashdot Mirror
Now honestly, show of hands: who has their console (not PC!) connected to a display device capable of 1080p?
Me. I have an *87 series Samsung 50" DLP and enjoy it very much.
Some people have a true gift for language, some people are able to master language, and then there are the offspring of respected writers. Whether it be Tolkien or Herbert, the younger generation always manages to trample on the legacy left by their ancestors. Go read some of C. Tolkien's early attempts at extending his father's legacy. You'll quickly see what I mean.
If the author can't be bothered to spell check his article why does he think we should bother to read it?
Take any of those sets home and calibrate it properly (either professionally or with an AVIA (et. al..) DVD and the picture situation becomes drastically different. Correctly calibrated modern hi-def sets (of any type) can match the picture quality of properly calibrated CRT sets.
EA did standardize. They bought Criterion and Renderware a year or two back. This more to license UE3 is very odd and doesn't say much for EA's attempt to keep Renderware current after they purchased it.
It's the best part of Americana and it's just within your reach, INDIANA BEACH!
Corones? I'm not sure threating to take away Apple's crappy water-beer is a really strong tactic.
Vista will ship with DX9 and DX10. It has to for backwards compatibility. As I understand it there will be two seperate collections of DLLs, not DX10 handling DX9 internally. I would assume that has to do with the fact that DX10 gets the graphics system back out of kernel space, where it never belonged, but DX9 might still expect certain aspects of having it in the kernel.
You're right. I was intentionally keeping my statements within the bounds of hardware-rendering only. I understand that OpenGL has software fallbacks. DirectX does also. I should've been more clear on my limiting the discussion to hardware-enabaled rendering of features available in newer versions of either API.
You started this thread with a ridiculous statement that with DX10 being exclusive maybe OpenGL will become dominant. You also implied that Vista required DX10. I responded and refuted both arguments. You then took one of my statements out of context (all versions of DX being exclusive to Windows only) and make the ridiculous statement that no version of DirectX every required people to upgrade hardware. Again, you were wrong and I pointed out your mistakes. As I stated above you have to upgrade hardware to use the newest versions of DirectX. The GPUs on the older boards have no data paths for the new features. Just like you can't run 486 specific code on an 8088. You then attempted to change your stance again and decided that you meant Windows version upgrades, not DirectX or OpenGl, so I must just be an idiot. Rude insults aside, you're the one coming across and less than knowledgeable about all of this, not me.
Try to be a bit more consistent in your arguments, please.
It's great that OpenGL works on that and modern hardware. DirectX from the same timeframe (probably DX3 for 1997) will work just the same. OpenGL 2.0 won't work on your board and support the missings features I listed above, though. OpenGL 2.0 won't necessarily uniformly support those features on modern hardware. The ARB was too slow to keep up with the marketplace.
You call it "requirements forced on manufacturers". A lot of people call it "Microsoft is willing to support the features the hardware manufacturers want in a timely manner" The ARB came up with extensions and then washed their hands of the whole thing, essentially leaving OpenGL support to developers who had to write different code paths and extensions to cover a myriad of different hadware type.
My point is people shouldn't be expecting OpenGL to become dominant now. The ARB screwed the pooch on the possibility quite a while ago.
To run OpenGL 1.x along with a given extension that exposes a feature on a given board you need that board installed. If you don't have it the extension won't work in hardware.
All of them required you to update if you wanted to use the features. You can't run a DX9 app on DX3 hardware and get the advantages of DX. The necessary transistors aren't on the DX3 board. There's nothing different on the OpenGL side. To run OpenGL 1.x along with you *need* given board. If you don't have it the extension won't work.
Vista does not require DX10. It runs just fine under DX9. It will ship with both DX9 and DX10. The UI rendering layer is not DX10 specific. I've run Vista on a two year old machine with integrated Intel graphics (pixel shader 2.x, vertex shaders handled by the CPU) and Vista worked 100%, including Aero Glass.
What would be so different about the exclusivity of DX10 on Vista as opposed to the exclusivity of DXs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 on Win 95, 98, NT (DX3 only), 2K, and XP that makes now the proper time for OpenGL to become dominant?
DX wins out in terms of "market share" (as if an API can be measured against something like that) becuase of two things...the dominance of Windows in the marketplace and the fact that DirectX has pretty much wiped the floor with OpenGL when it comes to support for contemporary rendering hardware features. Extensions be damned, the OpenGL ARB moves *way* to slowly to be competitive. Maybe the Khronos group will help with that...Lord knows they can't be any worse.
Will OpenGL have a ratified spec for equivilent DX10 features like geometry shaders by the time DX 10 comes out?
And there's nothing OSS unfriendly about the Windows APIs. The APIs I have access to and documentation for in VisualStudio work equally well regardless of whether or not I create a proprietary or open application.
They were the #1 publisher back then. They're the #1 publisher now. Regardless of the relative sizes of the pool of gamers between the two times EA was, in the industry, the same powerhouse back then.
I'd also argue that Madden was in no way as popular back then as with the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation.
Madden has been hugely popular since the Sega Genesis days. Go look at the historical sales charts going back to '95 or so.
EA said, "No Dreamcast...but look at SSX, Madden, and Tiger Woods over here on the PS2!". The world turned it's collective head and never looked back.
So file based installing screwed his dad, yet now file based copying is something this person thinks Microsoft should keep?
Oh, and as an aside to the person who wrote that....The program you were looking for was DriveCopy. It's designed to move partitions or entire drives, resizing as necessary. I've upgraded HDs in my desktop for years without ever having to reinstall the OS or the apps.
No Madden no sale.
Wrong.
It seems odd for Nvidia to claim that developing a GPU for the 360 was too expensive when ATI managed to do not only that, but the PS3 and Wii GPUs as well.
Still wrong.
Nvidia dropped the ball big time by not developing a new GPU for at least one of the nextgen consoles...
The PS3 GPU is an nVidia part. It's essentially a 7900 with a different memory interconnect.
That page smacks of nothing more than, "We ran a few tests one afternoon just so we could provide a talking point against the, 'Have they ever run focus tests on this UI?' questions we keep getting."
The GIMP shouldn't be compared to Photoshop, because it's not in the same marketspace. It should be compared to Photoshop Elements and PaintShopPro.
Because the FIA rules mandate that for the racing seasons 2005 and beyond engines must be used for a minimum of two (2) race weekends before they can be rebuilt, that's why.
A company can have a mis-step and recover. Yes, there have been bad Mario and Link games (Zelda on the CD-I anyone?). Sega, though, is like a stumbling drunk, with each misplaced footfall resulting in yet another Not-Really-A-Sonic-Game.
Nintendo's entire lineup of 1st party games is built on mascots. It's not "Where have the mascots gone?" It's, "Why do certain companies lose their fanbase by screwing with their mascots in horrible ways?" Nintendo gets it. Sega would rather crap out things like every Sonic game since 1992 and hope people buy them on name recognition alone.
Please cite any sources you have that proves the "Google guys" had their accounting team record losses in the main corporation as profits for shell corporations, spent millions of dollars of company money on parties and/or shower curtains, or were involved in any sort of insider trading.
Not worried? Still believe the "no evil" hype.
By your logic and bad grammar if I'm not worried then I must follow your command and still believe the "no evil" hype. Well, duh. If I wasn't worried I probably believed that to begin with. Thank you, Mr. Obvious.
Is a "fungible moreal" some sort of Chinese delicacy?