It would be more interesting to see how Linux fares against Windows NT/2000 rather than Windows 98se. NT and Linux have much more in common than the DOS line does; and NT shares many of the high performance gaming problems that Linux has to address as well (like protected memory, premptive multitiasking, userland libraries and such). Window 98se's job is to get out of the way of games. NT and Linux still have to have running operating systems underneath.
>Not by a long shot. Have you even seen the thing at Apple's site?
Wise up. The G4 Cube introductory price is 1799 while the G4 Tower is 1599. That G4 Tower has a slower processor and no speakers. The "most expensive Mac" is over $3000 -- you could get 2 minimal cubes for that much.
For sure, Radeon will ship in the Cubes within 2 months from now. You can bet that, since the machine is already up for order, there are actually quite a few already in the pipeline that have the Radeon cards inside.
Step back and listen to yourself. The whole notion that Apple pulled the Radeon is ludicrous:
The Radeon JUST CAME OUT -- you can't even buy one yet; they'd at least have ramped up production by now (and have a bunch sitting around) if they were planning on putting them in the Cube. Not to mention that Apple would need at least a bit of time to make sure the drivers work with MacOS 9.
The Cube has NO FANS. The Radeon DOES. The Cube was built to dissapate heat using convection and this requires using COOL components; a 64MB card doesn't qualify -- you may NEVER be able to put a heat monster in the thing without modifying the case.
The Radeon would make an appearance in the most expensive Macs first. Apple always does this with the highest tech.
The Cube has a 2x AGP slot, the graphics are not built onto the motherboard. Looking at the picture, it's not very obvious how difficult it would be to replace the card (I can't see any standard slots...) -- BUT, since it *is* an AGP 2x slot, you CAN do it, even if you have to hack the case a bit.
Their website doesn't offer any insight as to whether you can swap out the card; it doesn't say yea or nay. It definately DOES say you can on the G4 desktops, and that you can swap out the RAM on the Cube, so by ommission it seems that you cannot change the video card in the Cube by design.
This thing just looks cool. I want one. If I have to cut a bit of casing to change the video card, then oh well.:)
I agree that console games are inherently different when compared to computer games. You *do* have more multi-player titles which use multiple controls, and it *is* very nice to play the game on a TV. BUT, if the majority of X-Box titles are simply DirectX ports from the PC (which Microsoft is touting as the number one reason to develop on the X-Box to developers) then they still fall on their face.
To sum it it all up: How nice is Half-Life 2 going to be when you're looking at it on a TV? How fun will it be without a keyboard (the flaw inherent in all PC-to-console ports)? How incredibly fun will it be when the person on the other end has a 1600x1400 monitor and can gib your forhead using the sniper rifle without you ever seeing her? How fun will PC games like Roller Coaster Tycoon be without a mouse? How fun will StarCraft be without the ability to message your opponents (or even worse, on a SPLIT SCREEN)?
Yes, Microsoft has a ton of potential sitting here, and the thing looks damn cool. No, they are not (apparently) doing the right things by saying "just port with DirectX".
'Horizontal Sync out of Range' would have more to do with your defined settings in XF86Config than the drivers themselves. I've used Nvidia's drivers on
+ o Mouse support in DGA 1.0 compatibility mode should now work correctly + for most games that make use of it.
Thank you! Now Quake 3 will finally be as good as it was under XFree86 3.x. I think half of the troublesome posts on news.lokigames.com were due to XFree86's broken in-mouse support.
That pretty much sums it up, and from a Microsoft VP, no less. You can pretend that Microsoft is a benevolent company all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
As any television engineer will tell you though, there's no way of addressing the INDIVIDUAL phosphors on the screen; so no, Apple didn't have "subpixel rendering".
Just because you can't specify which "pixel" is on at what time doesn't mean you can't influence which one is lit up at a given time (how do you think broadcast colour works anyway?). Claiming that Apple (and the C-64, now that I think of it...) didn't use this technology because of this reason is a mere technicality; the definition of a pixel.
Of course, getting Steve Gibson to acknowledge this (especially as he dissed Microsoft as copying Apple, and then implemented his "Free n Clear" with a several-orders-of-magnitude more complicated algorithm to reduce color fringing without batting an eyelid) is a task left to the reader.
Probably only as difficult as getting Microsoft to admit they didn't invent the technology 100% themselves. Using the colour elements in the screen to do antialiasing is an old-hat trick.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Re:Sorry, but I don't see that this is very useful
on
Berlin 0.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Then explain to me *why* Visual Studio and Microsoft Access describe widget placement in terms of pixels.
Since LCD monitors were not exactly prevalent at the time of the Apple II, and since MS Cleartype depends strictly upon the existence of a tri-bar distribution of colors that is found only in LCD's...
Except for the small fact that you don't need to use a modern LCD panel to use this technology. I used to program quite heavily for my old Apple//c, and on the color output (plain old NTSC) this was made use of in several applications. Televisions *do* use 3-color "pixels", and at least DeluxeDraw used this technique to draw "straight" lines on a page. Also, the rendering engine that Sierra came out with (the name escapes me...) would use this technology to draw vector graphics on the screen.
Well, Wing Commander at least brought back a whole bunch of good memories. They also were the first movie fx team to utilize the Matrix 360-freeze-fram effect. I haven't seen Battlefield Earth, but then again, I haven't spoken to anyone who would reccomend it either.:)
Considering Apple's history of pricing machines, they'll only make quad and dual-processor boxen out of the fastest CPUs they have. They'll charge an arm and a leg for these machines (the cost of a dual-processor machine will be much more than the SP version + CPU cost). I really want to get a G4 with MacOS X, but I don't want the iMac and I don't want to pay $2000 for the unit. I want a $1000 G4 machine running at 500+ Mhz -- I already have a monitor.
Remeber the AOL vs. IM debacle? When AOL refused to allow IM to work with AIM, Microsoft wanted a standards agency to govern some sort of instant message standard. Well, well, well, now we have a real, open RFC standard defining Kerberos, but do they want it?
This is typical Microsoft. They have some of the most excellent coders, and excellent people in other fields working there, but they also have some of the most selfish policies in the industry.
The best honeypot isn't a honeypot at all. Take an old machine; install Linux on it and throw all the ports open. If someone is targeting your network, it'll be the first machine that comes to mind. Do all your news, irc, and everything from that box.
I noticed the same problems, but then I asked myself, "How often do I go into the preferences anyway?". Hardly ever. The rendering engine is very fast, and frankly, that's all that's really important as far as speed is concerned. I hope that it is faster in the final release, but it is still just fine as is.
Glibc 2.0 was supposed to be a stable release; most everything added afterwards is either to fix bugs or to become more standards-compliant. RedHat isn't to blame anyway:
"Linux" has been doing this for a good five years now; X11 and MacOS have been doing this since the 80s. It's just XFree86 that's coming up to speed now.
And it's no wonder: PC video cards haven't played well with eachother (and still don't -- try some multi-vendor combinations sometime).
The folks at Microsoft thought it would be cool to move the GDI into the kernel for faster graphics under NT. Now that NT crashes, the blame falls on "unstable video drivers" instead of the system architecture.
No thanks. Our Pentium 166 can saturate the T1s already.
Here, allow me to give you a bit of a litmus test. Something is a driver when it tells the operating system how to access the hardware. Code Morphing technology is at a lower level than this, and the operating system is blind to it completely. Drivers are operating system specific, and this is instruction set specific.
Pointless semantics and hairsplitting. It is software. End of story.
Creative and NVidia took the initiative to do something that only a company in a vastly superior position to Transmeta's can afford to do. NVidia designs what are considered by some, including myself, to be the best graphics controller card chips on the market right now; and Creative -- well, we all know what the SoundBlasters have done for the universe as a whole.
I can understand that (it's the best explanation so far), but that doesn't make it right.:)
Slashdot Mirror
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>Not by a long shot. Have you even seen the thing at Apple's site?
Wise up. The G4 Cube introductory price is 1799 while the G4 Tower is 1599. That G4 Tower has a slower processor and no speakers. The "most expensive Mac" is over $3000 -- you could get 2 minimal cubes for that much.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Yes, but that isn't what I was addressing. The orginal poster was talking about the physical card in the machine.
The Cube is the most expensive Mac.
Not by a long shot. Have you even seen the thing at Apple's site? And since when does the iMac DV have a replacable video card? (I have one. Do you?)
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Step back and listen to yourself. The whole notion that Apple pulled the Radeon is ludicrous:
- The Radeon JUST CAME OUT -- you can't even buy one yet; they'd at least have ramped up production by now (and have a bunch sitting around) if they were planning on putting them in the Cube. Not to mention that Apple would need at least a bit of time to make sure the drivers work with MacOS 9.
- The Cube has NO FANS. The Radeon DOES. The Cube was built to dissapate heat using convection and this requires using COOL components; a 64MB card doesn't qualify -- you may NEVER be able to put a heat monster in the thing without modifying the case.
- The Radeon would make an appearance in the most expensive Macs first. Apple always does this with the highest tech.
I think this whole story is ridiculous.The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Their website doesn't offer any insight as to whether you can swap out the card; it doesn't say yea or nay. It definately DOES say you can on the G4 desktops, and that you can swap out the RAM on the Cube, so by ommission it seems that you cannot change the video card in the Cube by design.
This thing just looks cool. I want one. If I have to cut a bit of casing to change the video card, then oh well. :)
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
To sum it it all up: How nice is Half-Life 2 going to be when you're looking at it on a TV? How fun will it be without a keyboard (the flaw inherent in all PC-to-console ports)? How incredibly fun will it be when the person on the other end has a 1600x1400 monitor and can gib your forhead using the sniper rifle without you ever seeing her? How fun will PC games like Roller Coaster Tycoon be without a mouse? How fun will StarCraft be without the ability to message your opponents (or even worse, on a SPLIT SCREEN)?
Yes, Microsoft has a ton of potential sitting here, and the thing looks damn cool. No, they are not (apparently) doing the right things by saying "just port with DirectX".
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
- TNT
- TNT2
- GeForce DDR
without any problems at all.The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
+ for most games that make use of it.
Thank you! Now Quake 3 will finally be as good as it was under XFree86 3.x. I think half of the troublesome posts on news.lokigames.com were due to XFree86's broken in-mouse support.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
That pretty much sums it up, and from a Microsoft VP, no less. You can pretend that Microsoft is a benevolent company all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Just because you can't specify which "pixel" is on at what time doesn't mean you can't influence which one is lit up at a given time (how do you think broadcast colour works anyway?). Claiming that Apple (and the C-64, now that I think of it...) didn't use this technology because of this reason is a mere technicality; the definition of a pixel.
Of course, getting Steve Gibson to acknowledge this (especially as he dissed Microsoft as copying Apple, and then implemented his "Free n Clear" with a several-orders-of-magnitude more complicated algorithm to reduce color fringing without batting an eyelid) is a task left to the reader.
Probably only as difficult as getting Microsoft to admit they didn't invent the technology 100% themselves. Using the colour elements in the screen to do antialiasing is an old-hat trick.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Except for the small fact that you don't need to use a modern LCD panel to use this technology. I used to program quite heavily for my old Apple //c, and on the color output (plain old NTSC) this was made use of in several applications. Televisions *do* use 3-color "pixels", and at least DeluxeDraw used this technique to draw "straight" lines on a page. Also, the rendering engine that Sierra came out with (the name escapes me...) would use this technology to draw vector graphics on the screen.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Are you listening, Apple?
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Remeber the AOL vs. IM debacle? When AOL refused to allow IM to work with AIM, Microsoft wanted a standards agency to govern some sort of instant message standard. Well, well, well, now we have a real, open RFC standard defining Kerberos, but do they want it?
This is typical Microsoft. They have some of the most excellent coders, and excellent people in other fields working there, but they also have some of the most selfish policies in the industry.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
It works great :)
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/arswards99- 2.html#vidcard
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Sorry, but take a look at this:
http://www.fsf.org/software/libc/libc.html
Glibc 2.0 was supposed to be a stable release; most everything added afterwards is either to fix bugs or to become more standards-compliant. RedHat isn't to blame anyway:
And, it uses 2.1 anyway (welcome to the wonderful world of SHARED LIBRARIES)The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
And it's no wonder: PC video cards haven't played well with eachother (and still don't -- try some multi-vendor combinations sometime).
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Now, why oh why would that be a bad idea?
The folks at Microsoft thought it would be cool to move the GDI into the kernel for faster graphics under NT. Now that NT crashes, the blame falls on "unstable video drivers" instead of the system architecture.
No thanks. Our Pentium 166 can saturate the T1s already.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Pointless semantics and hairsplitting. It is software. End of story.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
I can understand that (it's the best explanation so far), but that doesn't make it right. :)
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.