What, you want me to post some benchmark scores? What would be the point? If you chose to believe otherwise, you'll just call me a liar. And if you chose to trust that I would not lie to you and that I do actually own and play these games, then you don't need benchmark numbers to believe me.
Unlike 99% of the people posting on this thread, I have real-world experience with SMP boxes and know what I'm talking about. There are virtually no modern games written to take advantage of SMP.. and the very few that are written to be SMP-aware are poorly optimised.
Sure, software in a couple years will undoubtedly take advantage of SMP... but don't expect your current software to run any faster on future chips.
Well, shit... I knew there was a reason that one of my processors was always running at 100%. Damn you Windows!
But, seriously... There really isn't a reason to code applications like Microsoft Word for SMP... but why the hell aren't game companies future-proofing their games?
I mean, take Half-Life 2 for example... If sales of the original HL are any indication, they should assume HL2 will be selling in volume for the next couple of years, at least, and yet the game does not take advantage of SMP.
Too many coders out there don't have any clue what the (#$&*(# they are doing.
As already stated by another reply: just because a game is running multiple threads does not mean those extra threads are doing CPU intensive work.
Somebody mod this guy down, he's talking out of his ass, and does not deserve an "Insightful" mod.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but he really doesn't know what he's talking about. He should try running a dual-cpu box before he makes comments on the state of software and SMP.
I can feel myself becoming stupider, merely for replying to you... but you need educating, sonny-jim (or Jameth, or whatever your name really is).
Neither Doom3 or HL2 are actually written for SMP. They are NOT SMP-aware. They do NOT scale to multiple processors. Trust me on this, I'd know -- I run dual-cpu boxes (and I'm not talking that pseudo-SMP "hyperthreading")
As to Quake III Arena... yes, it is SMP aware. But was it written well? Oh HELL NO. It rarely sees anything above a 25% performance boost from additional processors. Using it as an example is not making you look more intelligent.
Face the facts: all the games you currently own will not run faster on dual-core machines (unless that dual-core box has a Mhz increase over your current setup). And there is no simple "patch" that can fix this glaring failure of the game authors. Re-writing a program to become pervasively multithreaded is in many ways as challenging and time-consuming as writing the program in the first place.
Well, firstly, where in the world do you get the idea that I'm resisting the move to SMP... seeing as how I've already stated that I've been running dual-cpu boxes for years.
Secondly, Dual-Core is a good idea, and I'm happy about it (as I've already stated...)
... HOWEVER, this does not change the validity of my point: all that software that is out there today does not actually make use of SMP boxes. Sure, that will change... in time. But for now, you'll see all these people buying Dual-Core machines and being pissed when none of their brand-new cpu-intensive games actually get a speed boost.
I've been reading some of the replies to my original post, and I'm amazed out how ignorant a lot of people are... one guy actually tried to state that both Doom3 and HL2 are SMP aware.... Just because a game has multiple threads does NOT mean the game is using them for the core game (AI, rendering, etc etc.).
My one and ONLY point is that (outside of the server and high-end video editing arenas) programs do not make effective use of SMP boxes.
I guess, when you get down to it, I'm just thoroughly pissed at all the software and game manufacturers for not coding for SMP. I mean, what the hell were the creators of Doom3 and HL2 thinking!?! They KNEW that dual-core was the wave of the future, and yet these games (and every other game on the market) still only does 99% of the work on one CPU.
Once again, I'm not saying dual-core is bad. I'm saying the exact opposite; dual-core is GOOD. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRIES NEED TO GET OFF THEIR LAZY ASSES AND START WRITING CODE THAT WILL EFFECTIVELY SCALE ON THE NEXT GENERATIONS OF PROCESSORS.
Has anyone stopped to look at modern software while thinking about Dual-Core?
Both Intel and AMD have decided upon dual-core as the future of desktop computing. There will be no more massive Mhz increases... instead the focus is now on parallel computing.... But, seriously, how many CPU intensive applications outside of the server arena take advantage of SMP?
As someone who has ran dual-cpu workstations for years, I can personally attest to the fact that 99% of CPU heavy tasks do not make use of SMP.
Think about it... That copy of Doom3 or Half-Life 2 that you just bought, that runs like shit on even top-of-the-line hardware, isn't going to run any better on Dual-Core, because these games are not designed to run multiple threads simultaneously. Neither do most archival programs (WinAce, WinRar, WinZip, SevenZip, etc etc). Nor do many of your encoding tools (though FlaskMPEG and GoGo-No-Coda are noteworthy exceptions).
As a geek, I can attest that the *nix arena isn't much better. Just because the source is open and available does NOT mean that the author(s) ever considered coding CPU intensive tasks for multiple processors. And "porting" tasks from single threaded to multiple threads is NOT a simple task. This is one of the reasons that there are Computer Science degrees -- writing good SMP code isn't something you learn at technical schools (or even half the full Universities out there).
Don't get me wrong... as someone who has ran SMP boxes for the past 10 years, I'm really excited about Dual-Core. But don't expect it to be worth a whole lot for the immediate future... as no one outside the server arena really codes for SMP.
I pay half as much for the exact same speed here in the States, and I don't have a download cap... and the US is supposed to be lagging behind the rest of the world in broadband. You limies are really getting screwed!
I'm sorry, but this looks like yet another special interest group that's full of shit, going after its own personal agenda.
"The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world..."
Call me a pescimist, but I don't tend to put much faith in task forces led by career politicians and business leaders.
I'm not saying that global warming isn't a problem... but from all indications, the Earth has a remarkable ecosphere that heals itself pretty efficiently. Everyone remember the ozone-layer scare from the early 90's? Yeah. The ozone later is still there. In fact, it's in better shape now than it was then... and all things considered, we're not a much more environmentally conscience species than we were 10 years ago. It's just that the Earth can cast Heal as a freagin' 100-level White Mage. Go Figure.
Personally, I'm taking this "report" worth about a grain of salt. Common sense says "global warming, bad!" But is it going to destroy the planet in 10 years? Bah. Go hug a tree.
I don't know, but TimeWarner/RoadRunner, just last night (literally), upped my linespeed. I haven't tested the upstream... but my downstream suddenly shot to over 700 KB/s (~6mbit). My package's cap is supposed to be ~3mbit. If these cable co's want to give me double the speed for the same price.... Well, golly gee, I guess I'm in no position to argue!
I've heard a lot of people diss on TW/RR... but lemme tell you: If you live in Terre Haute, IN, they freagin' rock. DSL can kiss my ***!
So, judging from this article, we're supposed to convert people to linux for the games?!
"Challenge your friends on LLGP, and convert them to Linux!"
What... was the author of this article making some sort of sick joke? Converting people to linux for the games. Right. What mental asylum did you break out of, pal?
Next thing, this guy will be telling us to steal OSX users 'cause linux is easier to use...
Right from the very start the author of this article showed either how ignorant he is, or how biased he is, with this little opener:
"Way back in the mists of time -- Internet-wise, at least -- there was a battle between a tiny startup company with a piece of software for browsing the Web (Netscape) and a giant software company with a reputation for playing hardball (Microsoft)."
I'm not saying I'm pro-microsoft. I'm not saying I'm anti-microsoft, either. What I am saying is this:
That one statement made by the author (Mathew Ingram) is complete bullshit. Anyone who actually remembers the start of the browser wars will know the following:
1. Netscape may have been a little startup at one point, but by the time the browser wars began, it was the biggest Internet application around -- and it held enormous weight behind it.
2. Netscape directly challenged Microsoft. Netscape thought that it could create a platform independant API, based around the Netscape software, that would make operating systems all but obsolete. They may not have been directly challenging windows, but they sure were threatening to make it obsolete. The challenged the Windows (Win16/Win32) API, which always has and (at least for the immediate future) always will be microsoft's bread 'n butter.
I'm not saying MS's tactics were fair, or even legal. I'm not saying the browser market couldn't use some fresh blood and some competition. Whether microsoft played fair or not is beyond my current scope. The fact is that Netscape made a direct move against microsoft, and making Netscape out to be the poor innocent victim is really starting to get old. They made a decision to challenge one of the largest and most powerful companies in the world. They lost. End of story.
Martyrs they are not. Examples of what not to do, they are.
The series has actually been airing in Europe for the past several months. For those Americans that were too impatient to wait, the episodes been available off your favouritetorrentsites for some time now.
So far, 11 of the season's 13 episodes have aired and been made available online in TV, PDTV and HDTV formats.
As well as being in higher resolution/quality than your average TV broadcast, these online copies are commercial-free.
Personally, I recommend downloading them and watching them on your computer, but also tuning your television on to the sci-fi channel and muting the sound, so that Sci-Fi gets paid for these shows and they may be able to continue producing them.
I just read about Kenosis from its homepage. And, I'm forced to ask:
Do we really need yet another bloated python p2p app? I can feel the flamebait and troll mods comming.. but seriously: Python sucks at gui work. It has to use generic wrappeers, like wxPython, that are extremely inefficient. Sure, like Pearl or Java, you can write gui apps using Python... but they always come out slow and over-weight.
Consider the BitTorrent client. Just running the application, without an actual torrent being transfered, consumes 23 MB of memory (on Windows) -- for that cheesy, very simplistic little GUI. When you actually start running a torrent through it, it'll easily chew 40 MB's and gobble considerably more CPU time than a comparable program written in C/C++.
I'm not saying Python isn't a useful language... But it was not designed to run P2P apps.
Just because a programming language can be extended to creating GUI applications does not mean it's a good idea. Python's strengths are elsewhere, and I for one am tired of the BitTorrent community using it to write p2p clients in.
Now go ahead and mod me down for having a modicum of common sense.
In his conclusion Jonathan claims that EXT3 is faster than NTFS...
"NTFS is much slower then EXT3"
I believe he is wrong. Firstly, everyone knows how dogg slow EXT3 is at just about everything.;)... But more importantly I notice that he seems to be doing all the work from a windowed command prompt. Normally you wouldn't see that as a problem... however, I have noticed on several occasions that when text is rapidly scrolling accross the screen, the command prompt hogs the CPU -- to the point of dragging out whatever operation you're doing to several times the necessary length of time.
There is an easy fix for this -- just don't have massive amounts of text scrolling through a windowed command prompt; minimize the window, pipe the text to a file, or even make the command prompt full screen. Any of the above tricks will dramatically speed things up, as the CPU is no longer spending large amounts of its time writing text to the screen.
If anyone out there is feeling adventurous (or insane), go ahead and try to replicate Jonathan's test -- only don't leave the command prompt in windowed mode. Minimize it or redirect the text. I'd bet you my ex-girlfriend's right arm that NTFS is suddenly as fast as, if not faster than, EXT3.
hmmm slashdot seems to have cut out my href. so here is the link to the plugin in plain-text.
http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/_policymanager.html.e n
One thiing that needs pointing out....
on
Firefox - The Platform
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
One thing that needs pointing out: Firefox (and other mozilla based products, as well) does, in fact, have "zones." The only difference is that there is only one zone by default: the insecure/internet zone.
But the mere fact that Firefox has "zones" is a pretty solid indicator that at some future point in time, the Mozilla team intends to make use of "zones" in the base products.
If you wish to enable the zones, all you need is this plugin. The plugin does not provide this zones itself, all it does is provide an interface for the builtin zone capabilities that Firefox and Mozilla have.
Just one little note that the author of this article fails to mention:
The Itanium is a high-end workstation/server chip. ONLY. -- While the AMD64 architecture is AMD's entire product line right now. It's their desktop chip; it's their workstation chip; it's their server chip; hell, it's even their notebook/laptop chip.
Whoever submitted this article seems to think that every AMD64 sold is going to be going into the high-end server market. Either that, or he thinks that home users are buying Itaniums. Funny... I don't seem to recall ever seeing a laptop with an Itanium in it.
A more honest comparison would be the 800 series Opterons vs. Itaniums, the 200 series Opterons vs. Xeons, and Athlon64's vs. Pentium 4's.
I can tell from page 2 that the authors are biased towards this AMD solution for some reason.
These guys actually try and claim that a $149 add-on card cannot provide 5.1 (6-channel) sound. Seriously, look at their comparison chart. It's so wacked you'd think it was Microsoft's work.
I mean, seriously, for less than $30 you can get a SB Live! 5.1 that will provide a lot of what's being listed on their page 2 chart. And certainly by the time you've reached their $149 price-point you're able to get yourself a nice SB Audigy2 that can do everything they want but hardware AC3 encoding.
And I have to be honest -- is the hardware AC3 encoding really going to be much of an issue for most people? I don't see audio enthusiasts being geared for onboard audio (no matter what it is capable of), and the value segment rarely goes for some fancy surround sound.
Basically, I'm saying this article is bullocks from the second page on. I know it's easier to critisize than to write a good article... but still, these guys seem to be entirely too biased towards this product to make their 'review' worth my time. Personally, I think it's worth a grain of salt.
Now go ahead and mod me down for being a crotchety old man.
"...the site tracks releases for all major computer platforms (Windows, Mac OSX, Linux)..."
Wow, how much of a geek do you have to be to include Linux as a "major computing platform" and leave out MS-DOS when the subject of said platform is gaming.
I don't have any hard numbers to back this up... but I wouldn't be at all suprised if the number of MS-DOS games out-strips every other platform around.
"Will we be seeing controls on browsers that can view gmail next?"
Gmail already does this. Try using opera to view your Gmail account. And no, Google is not doing this because Opera doesn't work with the site... If you use Opera and switch its user-agent line to IE or Nutscrape, Opera will be able to access your Gmail account just fine.
I'm not saying that Google doesn't have reasons for doing this.. maybe they do. But at this point in time they're actively stopping perfectly good "alternative" browsers from getting to your Gmail.
Would this be tolerated if it weren't Google? Would Microsoft get away with this?.... Just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you want me to post some benchmark scores? What would be the point? If you chose to believe otherwise, you'll just call me a liar. And if you chose to trust that I would not lie to you and that I do actually own and play these games, then you don't need benchmark numbers to believe me.
Unlike 99% of the people posting on this thread, I have real-world experience with SMP boxes and know what I'm talking about. There are virtually no modern games written to take advantage of SMP.. and the very few that are written to be SMP-aware are poorly optimised.
Sure, software in a couple years will undoubtedly take advantage of SMP... but don't expect your current software to run any faster on future chips.
Sucks, doesn't it?
Well, shit... I knew there was a reason that one of my processors was always running at 100%. Damn you Windows!
But, seriously... There really isn't a reason to code applications like Microsoft Word for SMP... but why the hell aren't game companies future-proofing their games?
I mean, take Half-Life 2 for example... If sales of the original HL are any indication, they should assume HL2 will be selling in volume for the next couple of years, at least, and yet the game does not take advantage of SMP.
Too many coders out there don't have any clue what the (#$&*(# they are doing.
As already stated by another reply: just because a game is running multiple threads does not mean those extra threads are doing CPU intensive work.
Somebody mod this guy down, he's talking out of his ass, and does not deserve an "Insightful" mod.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but he really doesn't know what he's talking about. He should try running a dual-cpu box before he makes comments on the state of software and SMP.
I can feel myself becoming stupider, merely for replying to you... but you need educating, sonny-jim (or Jameth, or whatever your name really is).
Neither Doom3 or HL2 are actually written for SMP. They are NOT SMP-aware. They do NOT scale to multiple processors. Trust me on this, I'd know -- I run dual-cpu boxes (and I'm not talking that pseudo-SMP "hyperthreading")
As to Quake III Arena... yes, it is SMP aware. But was it written well? Oh HELL NO. It rarely sees anything above a 25% performance boost from additional processors. Using it as an example is not making you look more intelligent.
Face the facts: all the games you currently own will not run faster on dual-core machines (unless that dual-core box has a Mhz increase over your current setup). And there is no simple "patch" that can fix this glaring failure of the game authors. Re-writing a program to become pervasively multithreaded is in many ways as challenging and time-consuming as writing the program in the first place.
Well, firstly, where in the world do you get the idea that I'm resisting the move to SMP... seeing as how I've already stated that I've been running dual-cpu boxes for years.
... Just because a game has multiple threads does NOT mean the game is using them for the core game (AI, rendering, etc etc.).
Secondly, Dual-Core is a good idea, and I'm happy about it (as I've already stated...)
... HOWEVER, this does not change the validity of my point: all that software that is out there today does not actually make use of SMP boxes. Sure, that will change... in time. But for now, you'll see all these people buying Dual-Core machines and being pissed when none of their brand-new cpu-intensive games actually get a speed boost.
I've been reading some of the replies to my original post, and I'm amazed out how ignorant a lot of people are... one guy actually tried to state that both Doom3 and HL2 are SMP aware.
My one and ONLY point is that (outside of the server and high-end video editing arenas) programs do not make effective use of SMP boxes.
I guess, when you get down to it, I'm just thoroughly pissed at all the software and game manufacturers for not coding for SMP. I mean, what the hell were the creators of Doom3 and HL2 thinking!?! They KNEW that dual-core was the wave of the future, and yet these games (and every other game on the market) still only does 99% of the work on one CPU.
Once again, I'm not saying dual-core is bad. I'm saying the exact opposite; dual-core is GOOD. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRIES NEED TO GET OFF THEIR LAZY ASSES AND START WRITING CODE THAT WILL EFFECTIVELY SCALE ON THE NEXT GENERATIONS OF PROCESSORS.
/*end of rant*/
Has anyone stopped to look at modern software while thinking about Dual-Core?
Both Intel and AMD have decided upon dual-core as the future of desktop computing. There will be no more massive Mhz increases... instead the focus is now on parallel computing.... But, seriously, how many CPU intensive applications outside of the server arena take advantage of SMP?
As someone who has ran dual-cpu workstations for years, I can personally attest to the fact that 99% of CPU heavy tasks do not make use of SMP.
Think about it... That copy of Doom3 or Half-Life 2 that you just bought, that runs like shit on even top-of-the-line hardware, isn't going to run any better on Dual-Core, because these games are not designed to run multiple threads simultaneously. Neither do most archival programs (WinAce, WinRar, WinZip, SevenZip, etc etc). Nor do many of your encoding tools (though FlaskMPEG and GoGo-No-Coda are noteworthy exceptions).
As a geek, I can attest that the *nix arena isn't much better. Just because the source is open and available does NOT mean that the author(s) ever considered coding CPU intensive tasks for multiple processors. And "porting" tasks from single threaded to multiple threads is NOT a simple task. This is one of the reasons that there are Computer Science degrees -- writing good SMP code isn't something you learn at technical schools (or even half the full Universities out there).
Don't get me wrong... as someone who has ran SMP boxes for the past 10 years, I'm really excited about Dual-Core. But don't expect it to be worth a whole lot for the immediate future... as no one outside the server arena really codes for SMP.
I pay half as much for the exact same speed here in the States, and I don't have a download cap... and the US is supposed to be lagging behind the rest of the world in broadband. You limies are really getting screwed!
I'm not saying that global warming isn't a problem... but from all indications, the Earth has a remarkable ecosphere that heals itself pretty efficiently. Everyone remember the ozone-layer scare from the early 90's? Yeah. The ozone later is still there. In fact, it's in better shape now than it was then... and all things considered, we're not a much more environmentally conscience species than we were 10 years ago. It's just that the Earth can cast Heal as a freagin' 100-level White Mage. Go Figure.
Personally, I'm taking this "report" worth about a grain of salt. Common sense says "global warming, bad!" But is it going to destroy the planet in 10 years? Bah. Go hug a tree.
I don't know, but TimeWarner/RoadRunner, just last night (literally), upped my linespeed. I haven't tested the upstream... but my downstream suddenly shot to over 700 KB/s (~6mbit). My package's cap is supposed to be ~3mbit. If these cable co's want to give me double the speed for the same price.... Well, golly gee, I guess I'm in no position to argue!
I've heard a lot of people diss on TW/RR... but lemme tell you: If you live in Terre Haute, IN, they freagin' rock. DSL can kiss my ***!
Next thing, this guy will be telling us to steal OSX users 'cause linux is easier to use...
I'm not saying I'm pro-microsoft. I'm not saying I'm anti-microsoft, either. What I am saying is this:
That one statement made by the author (Mathew Ingram) is complete bullshit. Anyone who actually remembers the start of the browser wars will know the following:
1. Netscape may have been a little startup at one point, but by the time the browser wars began, it was the biggest Internet application around -- and it held enormous weight behind it.
2. Netscape directly challenged Microsoft. Netscape thought that it could create a platform independant API, based around the Netscape software, that would make operating systems all but obsolete. They may not have been directly challenging windows, but they sure were threatening to make it obsolete. The challenged the Windows (Win16/Win32) API, which always has and (at least for the immediate future) always will be microsoft's bread 'n butter.
I'm not saying MS's tactics were fair, or even legal. I'm not saying the browser market couldn't use some fresh blood and some competition. Whether microsoft played fair or not is beyond my current scope. The fact is that Netscape made a direct move against microsoft, and making Netscape out to be the poor innocent victim is really starting to get old. They made a decision to challenge one of the largest and most powerful companies in the world. They lost. End of story.
Martyrs they are not. Examples of what not to do, they are.
/*end of rant*/
The series has actually been airing in Europe for the past several months. For those Americans that were too impatient to wait, the episodes been available off your favourite torrent sites for some time now.
So far, 11 of the season's 13 episodes have aired and been made available online in TV, PDTV and HDTV formats.
As well as being in higher resolution/quality than your average TV broadcast, these online copies are commercial-free.
Personally, I recommend downloading them and watching them on your computer, but also tuning your television on to the sci-fi channel and muting the sound, so that Sci-Fi gets paid for these shows and they may be able to continue producing them.
I just read about Kenosis from its homepage. And, I'm forced to ask:
Do we really need yet another bloated python p2p app? I can feel the flamebait and troll mods comming.. but seriously: Python sucks at gui work. It has to use generic wrappeers, like wxPython, that are extremely inefficient. Sure, like Pearl or Java, you can write gui apps using Python... but they always come out slow and over-weight.
Consider the BitTorrent client. Just running the application, without an actual torrent being transfered, consumes 23 MB of memory (on Windows) -- for that cheesy, very simplistic little GUI. When you actually start running a torrent through it, it'll easily chew 40 MB's and gobble considerably more CPU time than a comparable program written in C/C++.
I'm not saying Python isn't a useful language... But it was not designed to run P2P apps.
Just because a programming language can be extended to creating GUI applications does not mean it's a good idea. Python's strengths are elsewhere, and I for one am tired of the BitTorrent community using it to write p2p clients in.
Now go ahead and mod me down for having a modicum of common sense.
If by "talking" you mean verbally abusing and threatening Windows with a loaded gun.... then: YES, YES I DO TALK TO MY PC.
I believe he is wrong. Firstly, everyone knows how dogg slow EXT3 is at just about everything.
There is an easy fix for this -- just don't have massive amounts of text scrolling through a windowed command prompt; minimize the window, pipe the text to a file, or even make the command prompt full screen. Any of the above tricks will dramatically speed things up, as the CPU is no longer spending large amounts of its time writing text to the screen.
If anyone out there is feeling adventurous (or insane), go ahead and try to replicate Jonathan's test -- only don't leave the command prompt in windowed mode. Minimize it or redirect the text. I'd bet you my ex-girlfriend's right arm that NTFS is suddenly as fast as, if not faster than, EXT3.
hmmm slashdot seems to have cut out my href. so here is the link to the plugin in plain-text. http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/_policymanager.html.e n
One thing that needs pointing out: Firefox (and other mozilla based products, as well) does, in fact, have "zones." The only difference is that there is only one zone by default: the insecure/internet zone.
But the mere fact that Firefox has "zones" is a pretty solid indicator that at some future point in time, the Mozilla team intends to make use of "zones" in the base products.
If you wish to enable the zones, all you need is this plugin. The plugin does not provide this zones itself, all it does is provide an interface for the builtin zone capabilities that Firefox and Mozilla have.
It's been posted on /. for less than 20 minutes and it's already /.'d. So much for Japanese immunity to the /. effect.
The Itanium is a high-end workstation/server chip. ONLY. -- While the AMD64 architecture is AMD's entire product line right now. It's their desktop chip; it's their workstation chip; it's their server chip; hell, it's even their notebook/laptop chip.
Whoever submitted this article seems to think that every AMD64 sold is going to be going into the high-end server market. Either that, or he thinks that home users are buying Itaniums. Funny... I don't seem to recall ever seeing a laptop with an Itanium in it.
A more honest comparison would be the 800 series Opterons vs. Itaniums, the 200 series Opterons vs. Xeons, and Athlon64's vs. Pentium 4's.
...and who said he doesn't have a sense of humour!
The link to Andrew Sullivan's site isn't right. It should be www.andrewsullivan.com
I can tell from page 2 that the authors are biased towards this AMD solution for some reason.
These guys actually try and claim that a $149 add-on card cannot provide 5.1 (6-channel) sound. Seriously, look at their comparison chart. It's so wacked you'd think it was Microsoft's work.
I mean, seriously, for less than $30 you can get a SB Live! 5.1 that will provide a lot of what's being listed on their page 2 chart. And certainly by the time you've reached their $149 price-point you're able to get yourself a nice SB Audigy2 that can do everything they want but hardware AC3 encoding.
And I have to be honest -- is the hardware AC3 encoding really going to be much of an issue for most people? I don't see audio enthusiasts being geared for onboard audio (no matter what it is capable of), and the value segment rarely goes for some fancy surround sound.
Basically, I'm saying this article is bullocks from the second page on. I know it's easier to critisize than to write a good article... but still, these guys seem to be entirely too biased towards this product to make their 'review' worth my time. Personally, I think it's worth a grain of salt.
Now go ahead and mod me down for being a crotchety old man.
Wow, how much of a geek do you have to be to include Linux as a "major computing platform" and leave out MS-DOS when the subject of said platform is gaming.
I don't have any hard numbers to back this up... but I wouldn't be at all suprised if the number of MS-DOS games out-strips every other platform around.
Gmail already does this. Try using opera to view your Gmail account. And no, Google is not doing this because Opera doesn't work with the site... If you use Opera and switch its user-agent line to IE or Nutscrape, Opera will be able to access your Gmail account just fine.
I'm not saying that Google doesn't have reasons for doing this.. maybe they do. But at this point in time they're actively stopping perfectly good "alternative" browsers from getting to your Gmail.
Would this be tolerated if it weren't Google? Would Microsoft get away with this?
Maybe now I'll stop shitting my pants every time I play DOOM 3.
John Carmack should have thought to include toilet paper with the game.