The reason that Max Payne has framerate issues on the PS2 and not so bad on XBox is NOT because the XBox is better or more powerful, it's the totally different architectures of the 2 machines.
Max Payne was developed for the PC, then _ported_ to the XBox and the PS2. The XBox for all intensive purposes (hardwarewise) has the same architecture as a PC, thus directly porting PC Games to it is a no brainer and the result will be a game that will run very well on an XBox since it was originally _designed for that hardware_.
The PS2 on the other hand has a TOTALLY different architecture meaning that simple ports of PC games result in less than stellar results. If a port for Max Payne had been _redesigned_ from the ground up for the PS2, it would perform at _least_ as well as it does on the XBox. Obviously that didn't happen, likely because it would have been one hell of a lot more expensive than doing a simple _make it run_ port.
I rented an XBox a couple of months ago, just to see it in action and I didn't want to wait for the (who knows when to be released) PC version of Halo.
Yes, awesome game for sure. But I finished it in about 7 hours. Not exactly the 'Killer-App' to drive XBox sales. Halo will only really be viable for extended replay when multiplayer is avaliable on the PC.
True if the PS2's architecture was comparable to a pc, but it's not, it's a totally different beast. It doesn't need as much raw graphics memory.
In a nutshell, PC's need huge amounts of memory to cache data since the pipes between components are tiny whereas the PS2 has _huge_ pipes so it can stream data constantly rather than caching data. This is also the core reason why the learning curve for developing on the PS2 is very big, totally different design philosophies. Developers have to forget all the tricks used in the past to surmount the inherant limitations of the PC's architecture and learn a whole new bag of tricks.
Anyone else find it slightly pathetic and annoying that all these April 1st 'jokes' are courtesy of none other than CmdrTaco himself and no others of the/. ed crowd?
Personally, I think that speaks volumes. Mr. Taco: We don't care, actually it's getting really annoying now after the umpteenth 'newsworthy story' being posted today. Could you maybe next time try to get us just ONCE. One good joke on april fools is just fine, if not expected/anticipated. BUT a whole day of totally un-funny crap just pisses us of.
Wow, blatant sarcasm modded as informative. Funny yes, informative just doesn't fit though.
I'm really starting to think that only those whom have some sort of education - and that can at least understand sarcasm - should be allowed to mod, no wait, even post for that matter!
All in objection, kill my karma as you would anyways!
Conceeded, you do have a point about the amount of data transferred for a plain text vs graphical multiplayer system but, this still doesn't change the fact that me and millions others really don't give a shit how fast a MUD transmits data at all because we aren't going to play anyways, period.
What, are we going to turn this into an argument akin to the Command Shell camp vs. the GUI Shell camp? Come on, they're different beasts. If you like text games, that's great. But there are tonnes of us out here that WANT graphics and don't give 2 shits about text based games, especially in this day and age.
Besides, whether it's text based or graphical really has NOTHING to do with a games multiplayer capabilities at all.
There is no XP platform for this yet, because the clustering you're talking about is for servers. XP is not a server. The "XP solution" will be Windows 2002/Windows.NET (depending on what you feel like calling it), which will be the win2k server counterpart to winxp's win2k pro.
OK, Fine, replace 'Whistler' with 'XP Server'. Not released for production yet of course, but it still exists and behaves as I described.
Right, but the type of clustering you're talking about won't consist of hundreds of nodes like a beowulf computational cluster. You're referring to a load-balancing cluster. Linux can do this [sourceforge.net] too (btw, KIXO is still under development, the sourceforge page just doesn't look like it. And there are other solutions under linux besides KIXO, but KIXO is being developed with a major goal of working out of the box as a HA clustering solution). This kind of clustering generally involves a small number of nodes.
Why do you assume I am talking about only load balancing clustering? Because I'm not. MS's available technology is capable of doing both depending on configuration.
No, MS is just getting into computational clustering, which is different than the load-balancing clustering that has been around in NT4 since 1997 (named "wolfpack"). You appear to be talking about load-balancing, rather than computational, so your argument is a red herring.
Again, I wasn't talking load-balancing so this is not a red herring. Two points here for clarification: 1) MS is just getting into computational clustering so don't expect reliability. 2) As for load-balancing: totally separate issue but still: Sure it's been around since NT4, but useable? Stable? Flexible? Configurable? Sorry dude but MS is just getting to these points.
Sorry you like to assume to much ass...u...me...tx!
We researched MS Clustering very extensively. We're already an MS shop and even still it was cost prohibitive.
Notes from experience:
1) Clustering with Windows requires one of the following OS setups: Win2K Server WITH MS Application Center, OR Win2k Advanced Server. (Similarly with the XP platform)
2) OS Licenses therefor will run between $1000-2000 _per-machine_!
3) If you need Application center, which you likely will, you're talking (If I remember correctly) about another $1g per.
4) Of course MS is just getting into this so don't expect it to be easy, well documented or stable.
Finishing Notes:
Obviously, Linux would be mucho cheaper
Easiest, and still cheaper than MS would be the Plug-n-Play Mac solution!
Ever heard of "The punishment shall fit the crime?"
Sure, it would be fine if the US refused to export CD's to the US, but placing totally unrelated trade embargos on them? Come on now, give me a break. This is a blatant abuse of power, period.
Um, I think that's the point that the original poster was trying to make that you obviously missed, the US is doing this because it CAN, not because it SHOULD.
I.E.: Massive abuse of power at the expense of another country that the States doesn't give 2 shits about.
Re:Unfortunately, an end to wars
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
This is a troll why?
Too aggressive for your sensibility?
Just where do you think you'd be today if it weren't for past violent uprisings?
I love how all these/.ers with wee little brains mod things like this just because they don't get it. Gee, you were actually made to think about the reality of our history, violence, and how we got to where we are.
BTW: If you still don't get it, the original post wasn't suggesting that we all go out and be violent, it was just pointing out that oppressed peoples in the future may have _NO_ way of surmounting said oppression because the few pushing buttons will likely easily be able to squash those opposed.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason that Max Payne has framerate issues on the PS2 and not so bad on XBox is NOT because the XBox is better or more powerful, it's the totally different architectures of the 2 machines.
Max Payne was developed for the PC, then _ported_ to the XBox and the PS2. The XBox for all intensive purposes (hardwarewise) has the same architecture as a PC, thus directly porting PC Games to it is a no brainer and the result will be a game that will run very well on an XBox since it was originally _designed for that hardware_.
The PS2 on the other hand has a TOTALLY different architecture meaning that simple ports of PC games result in less than stellar results. If a port for Max Payne had been _redesigned_ from the ground up for the PS2, it would perform at _least_ as well as it does on the XBox. Obviously that didn't happen, likely because it would have been one hell of a lot more expensive than doing a simple _make it run_ port.
I rented an XBox a couple of months ago, just to see it in action and I didn't want to wait for the (who knows when to be released) PC version of Halo.
Yes, awesome game for sure. But I finished it in about 7 hours. Not exactly the 'Killer-App' to drive XBox sales. Halo will only really be viable for extended replay when multiplayer is avaliable on the PC.
One trick donkey maybe?
Sony planning on competing with Squaresoft?
Square is like the butter on their bread, there's no competition involved, it's mutually beneficial.
True if the PS2's architecture was comparable to a pc, but it's not, it's a totally different beast. It doesn't need as much raw graphics memory.
In a nutshell, PC's need huge amounts of memory to cache data since the pipes between components are tiny whereas the PS2 has _huge_ pipes so it can stream data constantly rather than caching data. This is also the core reason why the learning curve for developing on the PS2 is very big, totally different design philosophies. Developers have to forget all the tricks used in the past to surmount the inherant limitations of the PC's architecture and learn a whole new bag of tricks.
Hopefully though that would be just "back 14", which would be substantially quicker than hitting the back button 14 times.
Anyone else find it slightly pathetic and annoying that all these April 1st 'jokes' are courtesy of none other than CmdrTaco himself and no others of the /. ed crowd?
Personally, I think that speaks volumes.
Mr. Taco: We don't care, actually it's getting really annoying now after the umpteenth 'newsworthy story' being posted today. Could you maybe next time try to get us just ONCE. One good joke on april fools is just fine, if not expected/anticipated. BUT a whole day of totally un-funny crap just pisses us of.
tx.
See what I mean?
Thank you for totally proving my point.
Hmm, maybe when I first posted the original post had been modded "informative".
And just maybe by the time you got here it had changed to "insightful".
And just maybe it's currently sitting at "Funny".
Gee, funny how that happens ehh?
BTW: This has been a _sarcastic_ comment for those whom can't figure that out.
Wow, blatant sarcasm modded as informative.
Funny yes, informative just doesn't fit though.
I'm really starting to think that only those whom have some sort of education - and that can at least understand sarcasm - should be allowed to mod, no wait, even post for that matter!
All in objection, kill my karma as you would anyways!
Flaimbait?
It's called sarcasm you fucking 12 year old little dickshit.
Alrighty then, nuke my karma as you will since I know there's no way you could possibly take a well deserved criticism standing up.
Conceeded, you do have a point about the amount of data transferred for a plain text vs graphical multiplayer system but, this still doesn't change the fact that me and millions others really don't give a shit how fast a MUD transmits data at all because we aren't going to play anyways, period.
Modded as a troll for suggesting someone rtfm? /. crowd ehh?
Wow.
Gotta love the intelligence of the
What, are we going to turn this into an argument akin to the Command Shell camp vs. the GUI Shell camp?
Come on, they're different beasts. If you like text games, that's great. But there are tonnes of us out here that WANT graphics and don't give 2 shits about text based games, especially in this day and age.
Besides, whether it's text based or graphical really has NOTHING to do with a games multiplayer capabilities at all.
Well then, guess you'd better rtfm!
OK, Fine, replace 'Whistler' with 'XP Server'. Not released for production yet of course, but it still exists and behaves as I described.
Why do you assume I am talking about only load balancing clustering? Because I'm not. MS's available technology is capable of doing both depending on configuration.
Again, I wasn't talking load-balancing so this is not a red herring. Two points here for clarification: 1) MS is just getting into computational clustering so don't expect reliability. 2) As for load-balancing: totally separate issue but still: Sure it's been around since NT4, but useable? Stable? Flexible? Configurable? Sorry dude but MS is just getting to these points.
Sorry you like to assume to much
ass...u...me...tx!
We researched MS Clustering very extensively. We're already an MS shop and even still it was cost prohibitive.
Notes from experience:
1) Clustering with Windows requires one of the following OS setups: Win2K Server WITH MS Application Center, OR Win2k Advanced Server. (Similarly with the XP platform)
2) OS Licenses therefor will run between $1000-2000 _per-machine_!
3) If you need Application center, which you likely will, you're talking (If I remember correctly) about another $1g per.
4) Of course MS is just getting into this so don't expect it to be easy, well documented or stable.
Finishing Notes:
Obviously, Linux would be mucho cheaper
Easiest, and still cheaper than MS would be the Plug-n-Play Mac solution!
Doh...
Supposed to read:
[ass]-umption[/ass]
And just who said we're only talking about *nix here?
Who's the moron?
I believe you made an -umption
Is what you're asking for not just hibernation?
Fully available on Win2k/XP etc, works just a treat.
No idea of anything comparable elsewhere, i.e.: for linux but the concept is neither new or unheard of.
Um, you should probably know that an 'embassy' and the land it sits on, regardless of whos embassy in which country, BELONGS TO THE EMBASSY'S COUNTRY.
[ala Red on that 70's show]
Dumbass.
And during the same time span crappy american style beer (Um, Bud? Miller? Old Milwaukee?) have been gaining steam big time here.
At least we still don't need to dring a whole case of 24 to get a little buzz on...
Ever heard of "The punishment shall fit the crime?"
Sure, it would be fine if the US refused to export CD's to the US, but placing totally unrelated trade embargos on them? Come on now, give me a break. This is a blatant abuse of power, period.
Um, I think that's the point that the original poster was trying to make that you obviously missed, the US is doing this because it CAN, not because it SHOULD.
I.E.: Massive abuse of power at the expense of another country that the States doesn't give 2 shits about.
This is a troll why?
/.ers with wee little brains mod things like this just because they don't get it.
Too aggressive for your sensibility?
Just where do you think you'd be today if it weren't for past violent uprisings?
I love how all these
Gee, you were actually made to think about the reality of our history, violence, and how we got to where we are.
BTW: If you still don't get it, the original post wasn't suggesting that we all go out and be violent, it was just pointing out that oppressed peoples in the future may have _NO_ way of surmounting said oppression because the few pushing buttons will likely easily be able to squash those opposed.
I assumed he wasn't talking to you or me without being led by the hand thanks.