John Q. Public isn't an idiot, he's just ignorant. Generally speaking, higher model numbers are better. Unless he's a dedicated gamer, no one should expect him to do intricate research into the intricicies of the ATI product line, just as no one expects you to devote your life to the various models of engines used in Toyota Camrys over the years.
The laptop you buy in two years will already have a better video card. Even if it doesn't, there's no way you could move this card into your new laptop. It's a non-issue.
I have got to know exactly what's in my machine.... You could waste hours trying to get a component working that won't actually work with your setup.
Dude, chill. The drivers for the 9000 and 9200 are exactly the same. The cards are exactly the same, except for AGP8X support. They both work equally well, using open-source or proprietary drivers.
If there was any relevant difference whatsoever between the two cards, I would completely understand someone having an issue with the deal. Since there's not, it's a minor labeling mistake.
How about if I go to the Hyundai dealership, and they have this nice little car that has a 300hp V6! So I buy it, only to find that the engine inside is a dinky little 100hp. I complain, and get the answer, "well the 300hp doesn't fit in there".
That's an idiotic analogy. A much closer one would be them offering a 300hp six-cylinder with two cylinders disabled and instead saving money by giving you a 300hp four-cylinder. The performance is exactly the same. Ideally, yes, they would have been labelled as 9000s. However, they weren't and it would have made no difference to anyone if they were. Get over it.
Imagine an AvP2 style game payed in a departure hall on an airport. Sun shines on your screen, making it all gray, so you barely see anything on the screen, people walk by, somebody asks you some stupid question, you struggle with the touchpad to turn around... This sucks.
Now, imagine it's a few hours later. It's getting dark, and a lot of people are dozing off. You take out your laptop, put on the noise-cancelling headphones, and start playing GTA:VC, Morrowind, or any number of good single-player PC games. If you're really nerdy, you'll hook up to your friend's laptop and (using external mice/trackballs of course) get some UT2003 going. Obviously, there are bad times to play games on a laptop. But there are also a whole lot of good times.
Oops, apparently I'm wrong. 60GB is 55.9GiB, so either you got lucky or the 57.1 figure really is GB (in which case it's probably filesystem overhead - feel free to stick 60GB of raw data on there).
Representing a 1.8GHz Athlon as "2200" is not misleading. Ignorant consumers correctly assume it performs similarly to a 2.2GHz P4. What would be misleading would be to label it as 1.8GHz, in which case consumers would incorrectly assume it performs like a 1.8Ghz P4.
Of course, using Hz as measurement of computing power is insane, and it's stupid that Intel perpetuates it. Ideally, processors would be numbered by their SPEC scores or something. Since that's not the case (and the actual Hz of the processor means nothing), I think AMD's "misleading" scheme makes much more sense than the alternative.
No, it's not. It's a performance rating. On several occasions AMD has made different models with identical performance ratings (the AthlonXP 3200 and the Athlon64 3200+, for example).
If AMD promised a AMD 2200 and gave you an AMD 2000, then it'd be the same thing.
No, it wouldn't. An Athlon 2200 performs better than a 2000. A Radeon 9200 performs identically to a 9000, unless it's using AGP 8X (which the Centrino does not have).
Doom3 will run fine on any Athlon XP, Athlon64, or Pentium 4, with any video card as good as a GeForce4 Ti4200 (i.e. any Radeon >= 8500, and any GeForce 4 or FX except the GF4MX and the FX5200). Basically, any system you buy now would have no problem with it (although you'll probably want a high-end box for 1600x1200 with full AA and AF).
More likely, NVidia bins its chips like all other hardware manufacturers. Cards are manufactured to be the same, and are then stress-tested. Those that make the cut are shipped out at the highest speed, those that don't get underclocked. Sure, you can clock a 5900 back up, but the chances of failure are much higher than with a real 5950 Ultra.
ATI's top of the line is the 9800XT. I think there are some fairly substantial hardware differences between the 9800 and the 9800XT, so there's no way you could make the upgrade.
Ideally, there would be a set of standard formats (Speex, Vorbis, and FLAC would be one such set) supported by all devices and used by all users. Since that's not the case, sometimes we have to encode existing material into new forms. A lossless original allows you to create a Vorbis, WMA, or AAC file of ideal quality (the best that that format can achieve at that bitrate). A lossy original means that your newly transcoded lossy file provides lower quality at a higher bitrate (or significantly lower quality at a lower bitrate) than the ideal. Therefore, lossless originals are better.
That's not even the best solution. He could easily carry around a could 250GB 3.5" disks. However, there's no reason he'd need all of that, and it can't be very good for drive reliability to be jostled around all day (the iPod drive is rarely spun up during use, generally the iPod plays from a RAM buffer).
You're correct. There's no reason why, if I own a cassette, I shouldn't be able to legally aquire the CD for a nominal fee (or download it for free). After all, I've already paid for the music. The only reason you can't do this is that the record companies are a bunch of greedy bastards.
Slashdot Mirror
John Q. Public isn't an idiot, he's just ignorant. Generally speaking, higher model numbers are better. Unless he's a dedicated gamer, no one should expect him to do intricate research into the intricicies of the ATI product line, just as no one expects you to devote your life to the various models of engines used in Toyota Camrys over the years.
The laptop you buy in two years will already have a better video card. Even if it doesn't, there's no way you could move this card into your new laptop. It's a non-issue.
Dude, chill. The drivers for the 9000 and 9200 are exactly the same. The cards are exactly the same, except for AGP8X support. They both work equally well, using open-source or proprietary drivers.
If there was any relevant difference whatsoever between the two cards, I would completely understand someone having an issue with the deal. Since there's not, it's a minor labeling mistake.
That's an idiotic analogy. A much closer one would be them offering a 300hp six-cylinder with two cylinders disabled and instead saving money by giving you a 300hp four-cylinder. The performance is exactly the same. Ideally, yes, they would have been labelled as 9000s. However, they weren't and it would have made no difference to anyone if they were. Get over it.
Now, imagine it's a few hours later. It's getting dark, and a lot of people are dozing off. You take out your laptop, put on the noise-cancelling headphones, and start playing GTA:VC, Morrowind, or any number of good single-player PC games. If you're really nerdy, you'll hook up to your friend's laptop and (using external mice/trackballs of course) get some UT2003 going. Obviously, there are bad times to play games on a laptop. But there are also a whole lot of good times.
Oops, apparently I'm wrong. 60GB is 55.9GiB, so either you got lucky or the 57.1 figure really is GB (in which case it's probably filesystem overhead - feel free to stick 60GB of raw data on there).
It is a 60GB player, which is equivilent to 57.1GiB. Unless it was specifically advertised in GiB, I don't see what your problem is.
Of course, using Hz as measurement of computing power is insane, and it's stupid that Intel perpetuates it. Ideally, processors would be numbered by their SPEC scores or something. Since that's not the case (and the actual Hz of the processor means nothing), I think AMD's "misleading" scheme makes much more sense than the alternative.
No, it's not. It's a performance rating. On several occasions AMD has made different models with identical performance ratings (the AthlonXP 3200 and the Athlon64 3200+, for example).
If AMD promised a AMD 2200 and gave you an AMD 2000, then it'd be the same thing.
No, it wouldn't. An Athlon 2200 performs better than a 2000. A Radeon 9200 performs identically to a 9000, unless it's using AGP 8X (which the Centrino does not have).
A Centrino-based laptop does not support AGP 8X. Therefore, they are functionally identical.
Doom 3 will run fine on a $150 gfx card.
If "no slashdotter has yet" to justify it, then all slashdotters must have already justified it.
"Vaporware" is a term for a product that doesn't seem to actually exist. Doom 3 rather obviously exists.
Doom3 will play just fine with a 1.5Ghz Athlon and a Geforce Ti4200. A box with those specs will set you back all of $300-$400.
Well, Doom3 is capped at 60fps, so have fun.
Your current system will still play Doom 3 fine (as well as HL2 and just about anything else). No need to upgrade.
Doom3 will run fine on any Athlon XP, Athlon64, or Pentium 4, with any video card as good as a GeForce4 Ti4200 (i.e. any Radeon >= 8500, and any GeForce 4 or FX except the GF4MX and the FX5200). Basically, any system you buy now would have no problem with it (although you'll probably want a high-end box for 1600x1200 with full AA and AF).
Legally, I don't know. Morally, you paid for the music, so it's your right to enjoy in any form you please.
More likely, NVidia bins its chips like all other hardware manufacturers. Cards are manufactured to be the same, and are then stress-tested. Those that make the cut are shipped out at the highest speed, those that don't get underclocked. Sure, you can clock a 5900 back up, but the chances of failure are much higher than with a real 5950 Ultra.
ATI's top of the line is the 9800XT. I think there are some fairly substantial hardware differences between the 9800 and the 9800XT, so there's no way you could make the upgrade.
Ideally, there would be a set of standard formats (Speex, Vorbis, and FLAC would be one such set) supported by all devices and used by all users. Since that's not the case, sometimes we have to encode existing material into new forms. A lossless original allows you to create a Vorbis, WMA, or AAC file of ideal quality (the best that that format can achieve at that bitrate). A lossy original means that your newly transcoded lossy file provides lower quality at a higher bitrate (or significantly lower quality at a lower bitrate) than the ideal. Therefore, lossless originals are better.
You mean conservatives don't protest?
That's not even the best solution. He could easily carry around a could 250GB 3.5" disks. However, there's no reason he'd need all of that, and it can't be very good for drive reliability to be jostled around all day (the iPod drive is rarely spun up during use, generally the iPod plays from a RAM buffer).
Cinemas generally don't have security camera in them (at least, genberally not that I've seen). So, he couldn't pull that particular trick.
You're correct. There's no reason why, if I own a cassette, I shouldn't be able to legally aquire the CD for a nominal fee (or download it for free). After all, I've already paid for the music. The only reason you can't do this is that the record companies are a bunch of greedy bastards.