I will admit that part of the problem is that ID hasn't released a demo, so no one has any way of knowing whether the game will run on their systems or not. And all the news coverage going "Sure, this game runs just fine on an Alienware 3.0 ghz P4 with a Radeon 9800 pro, although it does make my machine feel a little mediocre" (gamespy) really honestly is scaring the fuck out of me.
I'll admit, this is why I downloaded it and I'm glad I did.
I run Windows Server 2003 (which I figured wasn't listed in the system requirements because not a lot of people run it as a desktop). Lo and behold, the Doom 3 installer quits bitching that the OS must be Windows 2000 or Windows XP. Wonderful. Saved me $55 + tax to have downloaded it and found that out rather than to have bought it, found out, then been unable to return it because it was opened.
And more importantly, allowing the term "theft" to apply merely proves that the RIAA/MPAA/etc's tactics of making sure everybody thinks downloading MP3's (or movies, or software) is theft is working.
They're trying to redefine the word to mean something it doesn't.
I know I'm probably in the minority, but I use Windows Server 2003 as my desktop environment (seems to be more stable than Windows XP, and in general the system seems a hair bit more responsive). The thing with DOOM 3 is that it won't install on Windows Server 2003 (even tried with compatibility mode set to Windows 2000 and Windows XP, no dice). Just something for anyone else running WS2003 to keep in mind.
No, I'm sure finding an emulator would be easy, it's just too bad Microsoft opted to drop support from the OS outright. It was almost a given that you could rely on future versions of Windows supporting DOS and pre-Windows '95 apps (e.g. - all 16-bit Windows apps). Now we're faced with the reality that if there's any critical legacy 16-bit apps still in use they either a) must be ported to 32-bit or 64-bit, or, b) must run on top of an emulator that'll likely perform slower than if the OS had simply executed the code directly.
I dunno, I'm looking at Intel's documentation and they have a "Compatibility Mode" section that seems to indicate that it supports 16-bit addressing and code execution, specifically--
1.6.3.4. Compatibility Mode
Compatibility mode, within IA-32e mode, maintains binary compatibility with legacy IA-32 16-bit and 32-bit applications. Legacy 16-bit or 32-bit applications that run in Virtual 8086 mode or use hardware task management are not supported in compatibility mode.
Compatibility mode execution is selected on a code-segment basis. It allows legacy applications to coexist under a 64-bit operating system along with 64-bit applications running in 64-bit mode. An operating system running in IA-32e mode can execute existing 16-bit and 32-bit applications by clearing their code-segment descriptor's CS.L bit to 0.
Now it does mention a caveat about Virtual 8086 mode, but surely there's a way to work around this at the OS level?
16-bit appps will no longer work if you run Windows XP 64 (as I understand it, that means no DOS app compatibility and I think it even kills Windows 3.x compatibility).
I've yet to come up with a legitimate reason for why they'd drop support for that since (IIRC) AMD64 supports running 16-bit code while running in Long mode, but there's one thing to be mindful of.
As for 32-bit apps, you'd be in luck-- they should run without a problem.
Yeah their driver support has been ass lately, and actually it's been pretty bad for at least the last 4 years. I was beginning to wonder if some company would come in with good driver support, but alas it doesn't seem it's meant to be...
And FTR, unless I've missed something, whenever a vendor implements and markets a product with EAX support they have to pay Creative royalties of some sort. What this market needs is something to compete with EAX, not just tow the line for them.
I'm curious how this got modded insightful. The Gameboy Advance, which this seems to be the next logical step for that proven lineage, was widely accepted by retailers at launch. In fact it only took a year or so before Gameboy Advance products had fully displaced Gameboy Color products.
Yes, but the implication about the original author is vastly different. You claimed the author had "caviar dreams and champagne wishes"-- obviously if it was sold off from his estate after his death then that was not the case.
Is it now in the hands of a greedy corporation? Likely yes, but how it got there, which seemed to be the crux of your original reply (that it was greed that resulted in this happening today), is very much in dispute. If anyone really wants to pursue the issue, I'd be more than happy to see some facts presented.
I have that book, very awesome read. I went looking a few months ago and didn't find it, but I was wondering if anyone knew if they made an "Inside Windows XP" or "Inside Windows Server 2003" from the same authors.
Oh, BTW, if you think Windows 2000 is great and detest the idea of upgrading to Windows XP, give Windows Server 2003 a chance as your desktop. It installs without themes, but gives you 90% of the stuff that makes XP worth upgrading to (including the Windows '98 compatibility mentioned earlier in the thread). The only thing it misses (unless you use a hack) is System Restore. But you get Volume Shadow Copy which is pretty damn nice in itself.
It's already been repeatedly extended. Copyrights only used to last something like 14 years (not 14 years from the authors death, but 14 years from the time of creation). Since then it's been extended, then based upon the authors time of death, then extended in reference to that at least twice now.
My impression is the same as yours, that the Supreme Court will not give the Congress a blank check to keep extending copyright, but at the same time, we have no idea which Supreme Court Justices will be around by the time this issue arises again.
Yes, you notice nobodies tracking the disgusting habit of young children to look at images of fully grown adults. There should be some sort of tracking going on to try and nip this gerontophilia outbreak in the bud!
(okay, so it'd probably be funnier if I could have found the paraphilia for "prepubescent attraction to an adult", but gerontophilia will suffice)
How is a mail protocol supposed to know the intention of the sender?
It's not. But existing SMTP doesn't even need to know who the sender is, the sender could claim to be Bill Clinton, and other than checking IP's (which aren't a very reliable means of determining who a person really is), the server wouldn't be able to say "no you're not, quit being a poser".
Just knowing who's sending it would be enough of a start to begin fighting Spam at the server/ISP level. As another person who replied to this thread already said--
I could write a spam program if I had a list of email addresses. Connect to mail server, HELO blalblah.com, RCPT TO, BODY... rinse and repeat. You can tell an SMTP server whatever you want to, and it takes it!
Which is, unfortunately, the total truth in most cases. Security, authentication and validation. SMTP is far too trusting (especially when configured by an inept admin).
The war against spam will be won by a new mail protocol. Filtering is good and all, but it doesn't catch everything no matter how well trained the filter is. SMTP needs to be replaced with something better, and Spam is just the thing to kick people into working on the problem.
including a full disk of Viggo Mortensen clearing his throat in the morning
Only if it was DTS encoded. I'm afraid the full experience of listening to Viggo clear his throat wouldn't be properly conveyed in Dolby Digital. It would also need to take advantage of surround sound properly (e.g. - correctly echoing the noise from the rear surround and surround back channels).
Nowadays, the x86 ISA is just an API...god knows how the core actually executes instructions and in what order, which makes it very hard to optimise code beyond a certain point.
Actually it's still pretty well documented which instructions are executed in which order, even on the Pentium 4. Agner Fog has a very nice document that I tend to reference when writing x86 ASM routines (usually to be linked in with a higher level language because the HLL emits poorly optimized code (or simply is unable to take advantage of certain processor features)). Give it a look--
Expanding on my prior comment a bit; the registrar should be forced to validate the info you enter (e.g. - send a snail mail letter to the address and require that a tag or some such be sent back to verify that it was received). If the issue is one of legality (a website engaging in copyright infringement, piracy or whatever) then there's nothing stopping a lawyer from sending a subpeona to the registrar demanding the contact information.
Agreed-- the only people who need this info are the registrar, and then only if your domain name is expiring and they're trying to determine if you want to renew it or not.
XML parsing isn't that slow, I bet the time it takes to download each message will be the bigger bottleneck until latency and throughput for in-home internet connections is to the point where we need gigabit ethernet to get connected.
The point for XML is that it's a standard way of presenting data. No issues with using commas, tabs, or INI-style presentations (or issues presumably with the differing end of line format between *nix and Windows/DOS).
IOW, I sincerely doubt the overhead is going to kill anyone.
I think you're confused.. there's been an Itanium edition of Windows 2000 now for something like 3 years. There's also an Itanium version of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.
There was no "law" laid down. Intel could have just as easily brought out a desktop version of Itanium-- or better, worked on a dual core version that performed better at 32-bit operations. IA-64 is by no means a bad instruction set, and the processors have tons of room to grow.
Exactly, though it's rare that a lower court judge will do this, it can (and has) happened. Typically you need to get into higher courts, district courts and obviously the Supreme Court, to get the law tossed out (or scaled back).
As far as CMPXCHG16B is concerned, it's not a nasty game-- Intel sets the standards for x86 instructions, and this just continues that. Was adding CMOVcc to the Pentium Pro a "nasty game"? I suppose CPUID was also "nasty". Why AMD didn't think to include CMPXCHG16B is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll admit, this is why I downloaded it and I'm glad I did.
I run Windows Server 2003 (which I figured wasn't listed in the system requirements because not a lot of people run it as a desktop). Lo and behold, the Doom 3 installer quits bitching that the OS must be Windows 2000 or Windows XP. Wonderful. Saved me $55 + tax to have downloaded it and found that out rather than to have bought it, found out, then been unable to return it because it was opened.
Yay my troll who mods me down is at it again!
Go fuck yourself loser! =) Karma is still, zing, excellent! Nice try tho, props for burning mod points on me!
And more importantly, allowing the term "theft" to apply merely proves that the RIAA/MPAA/etc's tactics of making sure everybody thinks downloading MP3's (or movies, or software) is theft is working.
They're trying to redefine the word to mean something it doesn't.
I know I'm probably in the minority, but I use Windows Server 2003 as my desktop environment (seems to be more stable than Windows XP, and in general the system seems a hair bit more responsive). The thing with DOOM 3 is that it won't install on Windows Server 2003 (even tried with compatibility mode set to Windows 2000 and Windows XP, no dice). Just something for anyone else running WS2003 to keep in mind.
No, I'm sure finding an emulator would be easy, it's just too bad Microsoft opted to drop support from the OS outright. It was almost a given that you could rely on future versions of Windows supporting DOS and pre-Windows '95 apps (e.g. - all 16-bit Windows apps). Now we're faced with the reality that if there's any critical legacy 16-bit apps still in use they either a) must be ported to 32-bit or 64-bit, or, b) must run on top of an emulator that'll likely perform slower than if the OS had simply executed the code directly.
Now it does mention a caveat about Virtual 8086 mode, but surely there's a way to work around this at the OS level?
16-bit appps will no longer work if you run Windows XP 64 (as I understand it, that means no DOS app compatibility and I think it even kills Windows 3.x compatibility).
I've yet to come up with a legitimate reason for why they'd drop support for that since (IIRC) AMD64 supports running 16-bit code while running in Long mode, but there's one thing to be mindful of.
As for 32-bit apps, you'd be in luck-- they should run without a problem.
Yeah their driver support has been ass lately, and actually it's been pretty bad for at least the last 4 years. I was beginning to wonder if some company would come in with good driver support, but alas it doesn't seem it's meant to be...
And FTR, unless I've missed something, whenever a vendor implements and markets a product with EAX support they have to pay Creative royalties of some sort. What this market needs is something to compete with EAX, not just tow the line for them.
I'm curious how this got modded insightful. The Gameboy Advance, which this seems to be the next logical step for that proven lineage, was widely accepted by retailers at launch. In fact it only took a year or so before Gameboy Advance products had fully displaced Gameboy Color products.
Yes, but the implication about the original author is vastly different. You claimed the author had "caviar dreams and champagne wishes"-- obviously if it was sold off from his estate after his death then that was not the case.
Is it now in the hands of a greedy corporation? Likely yes, but how it got there, which seemed to be the crux of your original reply (that it was greed that resulted in this happening today), is very much in dispute. If anyone really wants to pursue the issue, I'd be more than happy to see some facts presented.
I have that book, very awesome read. I went looking a few months ago and didn't find it, but I was wondering if anyone knew if they made an "Inside Windows XP" or "Inside Windows Server 2003" from the same authors.
Oh, BTW, if you think Windows 2000 is great and detest the idea of upgrading to Windows XP, give Windows Server 2003 a chance as your desktop. It installs without themes, but gives you 90% of the stuff that makes XP worth upgrading to (including the Windows '98 compatibility mentioned earlier in the thread). The only thing it misses (unless you use a hack) is System Restore. But you get Volume Shadow Copy which is pretty damn nice in itself.
It's already been repeatedly extended. Copyrights only used to last something like 14 years (not 14 years from the authors death, but 14 years from the time of creation). Since then it's been extended, then based upon the authors time of death, then extended in reference to that at least twice now.
My impression is the same as yours, that the Supreme Court will not give the Congress a blank check to keep extending copyright, but at the same time, we have no idea which Supreme Court Justices will be around by the time this issue arises again.
Yes, you notice nobodies tracking the disgusting habit of young children to look at images of fully grown adults. There should be some sort of tracking going on to try and nip this gerontophilia outbreak in the bud!
(okay, so it'd probably be funnier if I could have found the paraphilia for "prepubescent attraction to an adult", but gerontophilia will suffice)
Gee, I don't know, they might not let us into your exclusive country club since we don't have those queer looking plaid shorts.
Now hopefully the Homeland Security department doesn't shut down Slashdot as a grievous danger to national security...
It's not. But existing SMTP doesn't even need to know who the sender is, the sender could claim to be Bill Clinton, and other than checking IP's (which aren't a very reliable means of determining who a person really is), the server wouldn't be able to say "no you're not, quit being a poser".
Just knowing who's sending it would be enough of a start to begin fighting Spam at the server/ISP level. As another person who replied to this thread already said--
Which is, unfortunately, the total truth in most cases. Security, authentication and validation. SMTP is far too trusting (especially when configured by an inept admin).The war against spam will be won by a new mail protocol. Filtering is good and all, but it doesn't catch everything no matter how well trained the filter is. SMTP needs to be replaced with something better, and Spam is just the thing to kick people into working on the problem.
Only if it was DTS encoded. I'm afraid the full experience of listening to Viggo clear his throat wouldn't be properly conveyed in Dolby Digital. It would also need to take advantage of surround sound properly (e.g. - correctly echoing the noise from the rear surround and surround back channels).
Actually it's still pretty well documented which instructions are executed in which order, even on the Pentium 4. Agner Fog has a very nice document that I tend to reference when writing x86 ASM routines (usually to be linked in with a higher level language because the HLL emits poorly optimized code (or simply is unable to take advantage of certain processor features)). Give it a look--
http://www.agner.org/assem/
Expanding on my prior comment a bit; the registrar should be forced to validate the info you enter (e.g. - send a snail mail letter to the address and require that a tag or some such be sent back to verify that it was received). If the issue is one of legality (a website engaging in copyright infringement, piracy or whatever) then there's nothing stopping a lawyer from sending a subpeona to the registrar demanding the contact information.
Agreed-- the only people who need this info are the registrar, and then only if your domain name is expiring and they're trying to determine if you want to renew it or not.
XML parsing isn't that slow, I bet the time it takes to download each message will be the bigger bottleneck until latency and throughput for in-home internet connections is to the point where we need gigabit ethernet to get connected.
The point for XML is that it's a standard way of presenting data. No issues with using commas, tabs, or INI-style presentations (or issues presumably with the differing end of line format between *nix and Windows/DOS).
IOW, I sincerely doubt the overhead is going to kill anyone.
I think you're confused.. there's been an Itanium edition of Windows 2000 now for something like 3 years. There's also an Itanium version of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.
There was no "law" laid down. Intel could have just as easily brought out a desktop version of Itanium-- or better, worked on a dual core version that performed better at 32-bit operations. IA-64 is by no means a bad instruction set, and the processors have tons of room to grow.
Exactly, though it's rare that a lower court judge will do this, it can (and has) happened. Typically you need to get into higher courts, district courts and obviously the Supreme Court, to get the law tossed out (or scaled back).
Ahh, I see, IA-32e isn't what I thought it was. :P
As far as CMPXCHG16B is concerned, it's not a nasty game-- Intel sets the standards for x86 instructions, and this just continues that. Was adding CMOVcc to the Pentium Pro a "nasty game"? I suppose CPUID was also "nasty". Why AMD didn't think to include CMPXCHG16B is beyond me.