I use a Nvidia video card with a DVI to HDMI adapter to my TV and it works without problems. The video card does not do audio (it's a Nvidia and I don't know if any do, ATI on the other hand does), but it has an SPDIF-in that I connected to the SPDIF-out of the sound card. The video card just mixes the digital audio signal with the video signal and off it goes. I remember I had some troubles initially with the drivers and the sound card not switching to digital out, but it pretty much just works now.
You should check if your video card has a SPDIF-in connector. Or there might be solder points for one since the majority of manufacturers follow the reference design with the PCB. You probably did, but even if this info does not help you it might help someone else.
Technically, the original Xbox was sold for 4 years and the Gamecube for 6. That means that the Xbox sold on average 6 million units per year compared to Gamecube's 3.67.
Also, I believe that Gamecube was considered a failure because it lost marketshare for Nintendo compared to the N64. Also it sold less than the N64 while having a larger market. Microsoft started from zero and took second place, and established itself as a competitive player on a market filled with failed attempts. For them, the Xbox was a success because it represented the initial foray onto the market, and the investment payed off. The success of the 360 (though it is, again, second place behind Nintendo this time) would not have been possible without the original Xbox.
Nintendo was beaten at its own game not by one, but two competitors, one of them fresh off the block, so of course it was less happy with that generation's result. That's why it started the next generation with a completely new approach, and as we can see it proved to be the right decision for them, even if a lot of their long time fans were displeased.
I'm from the EU, and those stickers also had the typical consumption beside the rating. I've bought my last fridge 5 years ago, it was A++ (and indeed there were very few that weren't at least A) and had something like 280kWh/year if I recall correctly, which I might not . All the stickers had this number, so it was just as easy to compare using that, besides the rating. A fridge can have 1 or 2 compressors (though I believe that those with 2 are called something different), and A+ meant a bigger consumption for those with 2 compressors, as the rating only applies within one class, obviously.
Who gets to decide what is an unfair amount of negative publicity? You? FYI, GW had heaps more negative press than Obama and I bet you didn't kvetch then. John Terry was sacked as the England national soccer team captain because he cheated on his wife with a teammate's former girlfriend. Tiger just had to drop out of sight and wait for the bruises to heal. Apparently his wife is even more handier with a golf club than he is. Michael was accused of pedophilia and died a free man. Polanski was arrested now for having sex with a minor over thirty years ago. Who forgave Britney? Her career is still in the toilet.
Also I just realized that both Obama and Tiger are not really African-American. Well, Obama may qualify, since he was born there;)
The first part of my reply was addressing features that you claimed incorrectly that Windows 7 doesn't have. And if you meant bundled apps, you should have said so. Somehow i don't think you argument would sound as condemning if you phrased it correctly.
The OSX dock is not equivalent with the Windows 7 taskbar. Sorry, pet peeve. The dock is an application launcher. Expose is an application switcher. The windows taskbar is an application switcher and launcher, combined.
Indexed search does not mean realtime search. You can not fault me if you do not use the right words. Also, realtime search was available from Microsoft for Windows XP since 2005 at least.
You can't claim that running as a limited user was "practically impossible", because it has been practically done. At most, you can claim it has been virtually unused outside tightly managed business environments.
For Virtual Desktops - again you said multiple desktops, which means something else entirely. And you haven't refuted me, because I never said that they were available.
Also neither me or anyone else said that Windows 2000 had those available at release. But, by the time OS X got them, Windows had them also.
Your examples are not valid because the argument that one system is better than another, when we're discussing at the level of Windows 2000 and Mac OS X onwards, is, from the beginning, stupid. It all comes down to strengths and weaknesses, personal preference or fitness for a particular purpose. There are no absolutes here. You practically chose to defend an untenable position, so of course your arguments were biased, because you have not arrived at the conclusion following the arguments, instead chose the arguments to fit your preconceived ideas.
As for you final question, what about those? Windows has had great stability since the NT days. It has always been easy to use. Proof that 90% of users manage just fine. Appearance has nothing to do with it being better, although i admit that windows 7 is certainly easy on the eyes, same as OS X. And let's not start again with the old chestnut about viruses, or we could be here until tomorrow.
Windows has Powershell, the unix filesystem structure is not the be all end all as you seem to think, the web browser is not part of the operating system and AFAIK almost all browsers run on Windows, Safari included. Support for reading and writing PDF is available with tens of free alternatives, and OS X still doesn't have XPS support, if you want to be a dick about it.
Maybe Windows has just added the ability to shuffle taskbar icons, but Mac OS X still doesn't have a taskbar. Indexed search was available since 1996, and was part of Windows 2000. IPV6 support is still not useful, unfortunately. Running as a limited user was available even in NT, it just wasn't the default.
Large icons - now you're really scrambling. They are useful on high DPI screens, and were introduced in Vista exactly because those type of screens were going to become more popular.
Multiple desktops are available. I think you mean Virtual Desktops. Also, the Windows bootloader has always supported booting other operating systems, although Microsoft has chosen to make this very complicated.
You keep harping on obscure features that are not included in the OS, and choose to ignore that they are available as a free download, in many cases directly from Microsoft. Also, wordpad opens.doc files, with warnings, and allows you to edit them, but you must save in a different format.
"Worse than windows 2000" is simply an inflammatory opinion, but regarding evidence to the contrary, you certainly haven't provided anything useful. Your examples were both chosen with bias and irrelevant. If you want a counter example, how about Active Directory support in Mac OS? how about enterprise features in general?
If your most recent example is from 1992, as in only a short while before it will be allowed to drink, I'll say that Microsoft has really mended its ways. Don't tell me to google a more recent case. Please, show me an example where Firefox or Mozilla wasn't allowed to run on windows. Or a Windows Phone sync interface modified to block third party apps. Or WMP deliberately breaking syncing to a third party media player. Or say, Office for Mac installing IE for Mac behind your back to boost IE's market share (I know there's no current IE for Mac, but you know to what I'm referring to).
Again, do you really think that peripherals manufacturers really cared so much about the Mac that they didn't release their wares until they could service both Mac and PC at the same time? Again, do you know just how insignificant Apple was at the time? Do you think they would ignore 95% percent of the market just waiting to service the last 5%?
What has happened was that people did not replace computers yearly then, as they don't do now, so it took a while until there were enough USB equipped PCs to make that market attractive. Coincidentally or not, that was about the same time that Apple decided to jump on that bandwagon and put USB onto the iMacs. You realize that iMacs could not have possibly accounted for more than, let's be generous, 0.5% of computers after one year of sales, and less than 5% of USB quipped PCs because PCs had two years head start. It's logic, really, not rocket science.
Yeah, except it's Microsoft that has had its best year ever and has also been more profitable than Apple (35.02% compared to 21.56%) this last quarter. But hey, TUAW said it and they must be right, 'cause it sounds so good!
I'm sorry, do people still buy this bullshit story? How could Apple kickstart USB adoption when it never had more than 5% of the PC market? Do you even have a concept about how insignificant they are?
To connect to wifi on Windows you do the exact thing you do on Mac OS X. Click on the taskbar icon, pick network, password, connect. Exactly the same. So I get you know nothing about what you are talking, and the last Windows you used was, let me guess, XP in 2001 or thereabouts? As to Photoshop working better on OS X, pull the other one, it's got bells on it. And where else, pray tell, does Final Cut run?
Also, I think your UI lesson is wrong. In OS X, it's The UI knows best, not the user. Some people may feel comforted by that thought. Some don't.
And you used Slackware and complain about it being too much work for the general public? Talk about choosing the wrong tool for the job, then. What was wrong with Mandriva, SuSE or Ubuntu, if you wanted ease of use?
If you would have read the article, you would have seen that in fact VirtualBox supports branching snapshots, which are pretty much the same thing as linked clones.
These bans disable functionality not related to live and corrupt data on the console. That what this is about. I think it's you who should do the digging.
That wasn't a modded console. It was a modded controller or a third party one that has Rapid Fire built in. I have one of those for the original Xbox. The guy is probably still not banned, since AFAIK Microsoft can't scan for those. As for those other cheats, I'm sorry but I believe you just imagined them. I spent a lot of time in the Xbox Scene forums and I haven't heard any mention of a cheat. Modded consoles must run the exact same binaries as the rest of them. The original Xbox had indeed the possibility of running modded games. The 360 can't run anything but verbatim copies of originals and it doesn't allow cheating online.
I found only cheats that are available for the retail version. Is there a hacked version that can be run online on the Xbox 360 that I can't find? If not my argument still stands: a modded Xbox doesn't run modified code on Live, because all code is signed, so it has no "unfair advantage", since it can't enable any cheats that an unmodded console can't.
Except that there are no cheats for online games, since modded consoles can only run backups, which must be signed, so any modification to the game would make it not run. So do hold on a bit to those applauds, at least until you can find a better argument.
This has not been the first time that Microsoft has banned users that broke the TOS. What's different now is the disabling of other functionality besides access to Live. That's the part that most people are objecting to.
Muscle memory seems just a load of hogwash to me, if the result is me having to ballet the cursor all over the screen just to access an application's menu. Say i have more apps open, none maximized. I want to access the menu of another app than the one I'm working on - i have to click that app's window to make it get focus and only then I have its menu all the way on top of the screen to work with. Not to mention now I have a selected window down there somewhere and a menu all the way up top: my eyes going up and down are going to make me dizzy.
What i give you is that, indeed, this allows apps with small windows to have expansive menus. But that is the only immediate advantage. Having to ''aim'' is a bullshit excuse, in my opinion. Believe me, it's really not that hard to click a button on the screen if you do not have a problem like arthritis or Parkinson's.
BTW, the bottom left pixel activates the start menu on my 7 computer. I don't know which version didn't, but this one certainly does.
Also, if Fitt's law is so important and people can't click, why the window buttons do not deserve that treatment on Mac OS X? In windows I can shoot to the top right corner and close a window. The minimize and restore buttons also have infinite height.
Hiding the dock is not a solution. It's annoying to have it pop up every time you touch the bottom of the screen. Of course, this could be just me; I've never been able to stomach the autohide on Windows either.
I've written about it before, and I believe I'm not the only one with this opinion: apple's desktop paradigm comes from a small screen era, and it didn't evolve significantly, and it doesn't scale. The latest Imac has a 2560x1440 screen.
The dock is indeed not a simple launcher, but the taskbar is also an application switcher. The dock does that very poorly. That's why something like Expose was necessary, but, while very useful if you must visually identify a window, it's much slower than the taskbar if you know what you're looking for.
Anyway, if someone who says that the taskbar has copied the dock didn't use both. Visually, it may appear so if you're just looking at screenshots of the other operating system. In use they're totally different.
Computer power is not infinite. There are limits and we will be hitting them sooner or later. Also, our computer simulations are merely crude representantions of the real thing. For example, there isn't enough computing power in the whole world right now to model a single sheet of paper. When you get down to subatomic levels, the complexity becomes enormous. I believe that the "simulation within a simulation" concept, while intriguing, doesn't really hold when examined closer.
Well, in my last three (european) cars, those two switched places every time. FYI, I liked it better when the indicator switch was on the right (now it's on the left again). You could drive the car with just the right hand, operating gears, indicators and wheel at the same time.
To accept without proof that there is no god is the same as to have faith that there is no god.
Strawman argument and faulty logic, oh my. What else is new, you moral crusader you.
Atheism does not mean to accept without proof that there is no god. That's a strawman. And even if faith is belief that is not based on proof, it does not automatically follow that if it's not based on proof it's faith. If all dogs are mammals, that doesn't mean that all mammals are dogs.
Also, faith and religion are not the same thing for the same reason as the dog example, even if you seem to use the words interchangeably.
Atheism cannot be a religion. It has no god, no church, no followers (because there's no one to follow) and no tax exemption.
It has no founding myth, no rituals, no holidays, no prayers and no hope.
No matter how you try and twist the words, atheism is not and cannot be a religion.
Well, I'm not using NoScript and slashdot has been broken for me for about a month, I think. It's broken in Firefox, IE, Chrome and even on Opera Mobile. Both at home and at work. Something's fishy. Slashdot looks like something in internal beta. Even in this window the "Reply to this" button graphic is messed up.
I'm not. The S&M episodes have been getting worse since Season 2. The studio is just pumping "product" on a very tight schedule and damn the torpedoes. This is not a medium that would induce quality.
Also the fact that Lucas Arts chose another studio to produce the games, instead of making them themselves, show that this is not a "return to roots" for them, only another management initiative to get more money from old IP.
Those pulsing waves may not be from the analog connection. I had a Philips 17 incher connected via DVI and i still saw flickering waves in the dark grays. I think it may be an artifact of temporal dithering, since the panel is 18 bit and not 24. The product page specifies 16.7M colors, but I doubt that because the response time is so low and the vertical viewing angles are narrower than the horizontal, meaning it's a TN panel.
That's for another issue, overscan. Flat panel scaling, specifically using "Nvidia scaling" or "Nvidia scaling with fixed aspect ratio" doesn't work for quite some time (more than a year?). It doesn't work in XP, Vista and Windows 7.
There is a temporary fix (as in working only one time, until running a video or a 3d app) for it, but that fix also doesn't work for me.
Slashdot Mirror
XP was launched in October 2001. You've gotten shortchanged on your decade, methinks.
I use a Nvidia video card with a DVI to HDMI adapter to my TV and it works without problems. The video card does not do audio (it's a Nvidia and I don't know if any do, ATI on the other hand does), but it has an SPDIF-in that I connected to the SPDIF-out of the sound card. The video card just mixes the digital audio signal with the video signal and off it goes. I remember I had some troubles initially with the drivers and the sound card not switching to digital out, but it pretty much just works now.
You should check if your video card has a SPDIF-in connector. Or there might be solder points for one since the majority of manufacturers follow the reference design with the PCB. You probably did, but even if this info does not help you it might help someone else.
Technically, the original Xbox was sold for 4 years and the Gamecube for 6. That means that the Xbox sold on average 6 million units per year compared to Gamecube's 3.67.
Also, I believe that Gamecube was considered a failure because it lost marketshare for Nintendo compared to the N64. Also it sold less than the N64 while having a larger market. Microsoft started from zero and took second place, and established itself as a competitive player on a market filled with failed attempts. For them, the Xbox was a success because it represented the initial foray onto the market, and the investment payed off. The success of the 360 (though it is, again, second place behind Nintendo this time) would not have been possible without the original Xbox.
Nintendo was beaten at its own game not by one, but two competitors, one of them fresh off the block, so of course it was less happy with that generation's result. That's why it started the next generation with a completely new approach, and as we can see it proved to be the right decision for them, even if a lot of their long time fans were displeased.
I'm from the EU, and those stickers also had the typical consumption beside the rating. I've bought my last fridge 5 years ago, it was A++ (and indeed there were very few that weren't at least A) and had something like 280kWh/year if I recall correctly, which I might not . All the stickers had this number, so it was just as easy to compare using that, besides the rating. A fridge can have 1 or 2 compressors (though I believe that those with 2 are called something different), and A+ meant a bigger consumption for those with 2 compressors, as the rating only applies within one class, obviously.
Persecuted much?
;)
Who gets to decide what is an unfair amount of negative publicity? You? FYI, GW had heaps more negative press than Obama and I bet you didn't kvetch then. John Terry was sacked as the England national soccer team captain because he cheated on his wife with a teammate's former girlfriend. Tiger just had to drop out of sight and wait for the bruises to heal. Apparently his wife is even more handier with a golf club than he is. Michael was accused of pedophilia and died a free man. Polanski was arrested now for having sex with a minor over thirty years ago. Who forgave Britney? Her career is still in the toilet.
Also I just realized that both Obama and Tiger are not really African-American. Well, Obama may qualify, since he was born there
The first part of my reply was addressing features that you claimed incorrectly that Windows 7 doesn't have. And if you meant bundled apps, you should have said so. Somehow i don't think you argument would sound as condemning if you phrased it correctly.
The OSX dock is not equivalent with the Windows 7 taskbar. Sorry, pet peeve. The dock is an application launcher. Expose is an application switcher. The windows taskbar is an application switcher and launcher, combined.
Indexed search does not mean realtime search. You can not fault me if you do not use the right words. Also, realtime search was available from Microsoft for Windows XP since 2005 at least.
You can't claim that running as a limited user was "practically impossible", because it has been practically done. At most, you can claim it has been virtually unused outside tightly managed business environments.
For Virtual Desktops - again you said multiple desktops, which means something else entirely. And you haven't refuted me, because I never said that they were available.
Also neither me or anyone else said that Windows 2000 had those available at release. But, by the time OS X got them, Windows had them also.
Your examples are not valid because the argument that one system is better than another, when we're discussing at the level of Windows 2000 and Mac OS X onwards, is, from the beginning, stupid. It all comes down to strengths and weaknesses, personal preference or fitness for a particular purpose. There are no absolutes here. You practically chose to defend an untenable position, so of course your arguments were biased, because you have not arrived at the conclusion following the arguments, instead chose the arguments to fit your preconceived ideas.
As for you final question, what about those? Windows has had great stability since the NT days. It has always been easy to use. Proof that 90% of users manage just fine. Appearance has nothing to do with it being better, although i admit that windows 7 is certainly easy on the eyes, same as OS X. And let's not start again with the old chestnut about viruses, or we could be here until tomorrow.
Windows has Powershell, the unix filesystem structure is not the be all end all as you seem to think, the web browser is not part of the operating system and AFAIK almost all browsers run on Windows, Safari included. Support for reading and writing PDF is available with tens of free alternatives, and OS X still doesn't have XPS support, if you want to be a dick about it.
.doc files, with warnings, and allows you to edit them, but you must save in a different format.
Maybe Windows has just added the ability to shuffle taskbar icons, but Mac OS X still doesn't have a taskbar. Indexed search was available since 1996, and was part of Windows 2000. IPV6 support is still not useful, unfortunately. Running as a limited user was available even in NT, it just wasn't the default.
Large icons - now you're really scrambling. They are useful on high DPI screens, and were introduced in Vista exactly because those type of screens were going to become more popular.
Multiple desktops are available. I think you mean Virtual Desktops. Also, the Windows bootloader has always supported booting other operating systems, although Microsoft has chosen to make this very complicated.
You keep harping on obscure features that are not included in the OS, and choose to ignore that they are available as a free download, in many cases directly from Microsoft. Also, wordpad opens
"Worse than windows 2000" is simply an inflammatory opinion, but regarding evidence to the contrary, you certainly haven't provided anything useful. Your examples were both chosen with bias and irrelevant. If you want a counter example, how about Active Directory support in Mac OS? how about enterprise features in general?
If your most recent example is from 1992, as in only a short while before it will be allowed to drink, I'll say that Microsoft has really mended its ways. Don't tell me to google a more recent case. Please, show me an example where Firefox or Mozilla wasn't allowed to run on windows. Or a Windows Phone sync interface modified to block third party apps. Or WMP deliberately breaking syncing to a third party media player. Or say, Office for Mac installing IE for Mac behind your back to boost IE's market share (I know there's no current IE for Mac, but you know to what I'm referring to).
Again, do you really think that peripherals manufacturers really cared so much about the Mac that they didn't release their wares until they could service both Mac and PC at the same time? Again, do you know just how insignificant Apple was at the time? Do you think they would ignore 95% percent of the market just waiting to service the last 5%?
What has happened was that people did not replace computers yearly then, as they don't do now, so it took a while until there were enough USB equipped PCs to make that market attractive. Coincidentally or not, that was about the same time that Apple decided to jump on that bandwagon and put USB onto the iMacs. You realize that iMacs could not have possibly accounted for more than, let's be generous, 0.5% of computers after one year of sales, and less than 5% of USB quipped PCs because PCs had two years head start. It's logic, really, not rocket science.
Yeah, except it's Microsoft that has had its best year ever and has also been more profitable than Apple (35.02% compared to 21.56%) this last quarter. But hey, TUAW said it and they must be right, 'cause it sounds so good!
I'm sorry, do people still buy this bullshit story? How could Apple kickstart USB adoption when it never had more than 5% of the PC market? Do you even have a concept about how insignificant they are?
To connect to wifi on Windows you do the exact thing you do on Mac OS X. Click on the taskbar icon, pick network, password, connect. Exactly the same. So I get you know nothing about what you are talking, and the last Windows you used was, let me guess, XP in 2001 or thereabouts? As to Photoshop working better on OS X, pull the other one, it's got bells on it. And where else, pray tell, does Final Cut run?
Also, I think your UI lesson is wrong. In OS X, it's The UI knows best, not the user. Some people may feel comforted by that thought. Some don't.
And you used Slackware and complain about it being too much work for the general public? Talk about choosing the wrong tool for the job, then. What was wrong with Mandriva, SuSE or Ubuntu, if you wanted ease of use?
If you would have read the article, you would have seen that in fact VirtualBox supports branching snapshots, which are pretty much the same thing as linked clones.
These bans disable functionality not related to live and corrupt data on the console. That what this is about. I think it's you who should do the digging.
That wasn't a modded console. It was a modded controller or a third party one that has Rapid Fire built in. I have one of those for the original Xbox. The guy is probably still not banned, since AFAIK Microsoft can't scan for those. As for those other cheats, I'm sorry but I believe you just imagined them. I spent a lot of time in the Xbox Scene forums and I haven't heard any mention of a cheat. Modded consoles must run the exact same binaries as the rest of them. The original Xbox had indeed the possibility of running modded games. The 360 can't run anything but verbatim copies of originals and it doesn't allow cheating online.
I found only cheats that are available for the retail version. Is there a hacked version that can be run online on the Xbox 360 that I can't find? If not my argument still stands: a modded Xbox doesn't run modified code on Live, because all code is signed, so it has no "unfair advantage", since it can't enable any cheats that an unmodded console can't.
Except that there are no cheats for online games, since modded consoles can only run backups, which must be signed, so any modification to the game would make it not run. So do hold on a bit to those applauds, at least until you can find a better argument.
This has not been the first time that Microsoft has banned users that broke the TOS. What's different now is the disabling of other functionality besides access to Live. That's the part that most people are objecting to.
Muscle memory seems just a load of hogwash to me, if the result is me having to ballet the cursor all over the screen just to access an application's menu. Say i have more apps open, none maximized. I want to access the menu of another app than the one I'm working on - i have to click that app's window to make it get focus and only then I have its menu all the way on top of the screen to work with. Not to mention now I have a selected window down there somewhere and a menu all the way up top: my eyes going up and down are going to make me dizzy.
What i give you is that, indeed, this allows apps with small windows to have expansive menus. But that is the only immediate advantage. Having to ''aim'' is a bullshit excuse, in my opinion. Believe me, it's really not that hard to click a button on the screen if you do not have a problem like arthritis or Parkinson's.
BTW, the bottom left pixel activates the start menu on my 7 computer. I don't know which version didn't, but this one certainly does.
Also, if Fitt's law is so important and people can't click, why the window buttons do not deserve that treatment on Mac OS X? In windows I can shoot to the top right corner and close a window. The minimize and restore buttons also have infinite height.
Hiding the dock is not a solution. It's annoying to have it pop up every time you touch the bottom of the screen. Of course, this could be just me; I've never been able to stomach the autohide on Windows either.
I've written about it before, and I believe I'm not the only one with this opinion: apple's desktop paradigm comes from a small screen era, and it didn't evolve significantly, and it doesn't scale. The latest Imac has a 2560x1440 screen.
The dock is indeed not a simple launcher, but the taskbar is also an application switcher. The dock does that very poorly. That's why something like Expose was necessary, but, while very useful if you must visually identify a window, it's much slower than the taskbar if you know what you're looking for.
Anyway, if someone who says that the taskbar has copied the dock didn't use both. Visually, it may appear so if you're just looking at screenshots of the other operating system. In use they're totally different.
Computer power is not infinite. There are limits and we will be hitting them sooner or later. Also, our computer simulations are merely crude representantions of the real thing. For example, there isn't enough computing power in the whole world right now to model a single sheet of paper. When you get down to subatomic levels, the complexity becomes enormous. I believe that the "simulation within a simulation" concept, while intriguing, doesn't really hold when examined closer.
Well, in my last three (european) cars, those two switched places every time. FYI, I liked it better when the indicator switch was on the right (now it's on the left again). You could drive the car with just the right hand, operating gears, indicators and wheel at the same time.
To accept without proof that there is no god is the same as to have faith that there is no god.
Strawman argument and faulty logic, oh my. What else is new, you moral crusader you.
Atheism does not mean to accept without proof that there is no god. That's a strawman. And even if faith is belief that is not based on proof, it does not automatically follow that if it's not based on proof it's faith. If all dogs are mammals, that doesn't mean that all mammals are dogs.
Also, faith and religion are not the same thing for the same reason as the dog example, even if you seem to use the words interchangeably.
Atheism cannot be a religion. It has no god, no church, no followers (because there's no one to follow) and no tax exemption.
It has no founding myth, no rituals, no holidays, no prayers and no hope.
No matter how you try and twist the words, atheism is not and cannot be a religion.
Well, I'm not using NoScript and slashdot has been broken for me for about a month, I think. It's broken in Firefox, IE, Chrome and even on Opera Mobile. Both at home and at work. Something's fishy. Slashdot looks like something in internal beta. Even in this window the "Reply to this" button graphic is messed up.
I'm not. The S&M episodes have been getting worse since Season 2. The studio is just pumping "product" on a very tight schedule and damn the torpedoes. This is not a medium that would induce quality.
Also the fact that Lucas Arts chose another studio to produce the games, instead of making them themselves, show that this is not a "return to roots" for them, only another management initiative to get more money from old IP.
Those pulsing waves may not be from the analog connection. I had a Philips 17 incher connected via DVI and i still saw flickering waves in the dark grays. I think it may be an artifact of temporal dithering, since the panel is 18 bit and not 24. The product page specifies 16.7M colors, but I doubt that because the response time is so low and the vertical viewing angles are narrower than the horizontal, meaning it's a TN panel.
That's for another issue, overscan. Flat panel scaling, specifically using "Nvidia scaling" or "Nvidia scaling with fixed aspect ratio" doesn't work for quite some time (more than a year?). It doesn't work in XP, Vista and Windows 7.
There is a temporary fix (as in working only one time, until running a video or a 3d app) for it, but that fix also doesn't work for me.